Tag: Bible

“Beyond the Summerland (The Binding of the Blade Series, Book 1)” by L.B. Graham

~ Bob Hayton ~ 1 Comment

Faerie tales and adventure stories have long held our imagination. Tales of far off lands with exotic beauty, of hair-raising dangers and evil warlords, of bravery and skill in the face of overwhelming odds — such tales awaken our spiritual thirst for meaning and fulfillment in life. We’ve been blessed with fantasy authors steeped in a Christian worldview, great men such as J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis have bequeathed a rich heritage of inspiring tales that Christians can embrace. Others have continued that legacy and in “The Binding of the Blade” series, L.B. Graham had picked up the mantle of Tolkien and Lewis.

Beyond the Summerland, the first book in “The Binding of the Blade” series, contains all that’s best in fantasy fiction. Written by a Christian trained in a reformed worldview (who’s even contributed articles to IVP’s Dictionary of Biblical Imagery), it doesn’t have the baser elements that modern fantasy fiction often includes. But more than a clean work of fantasy, Beyond the Summerland is a well-crafted, tale that’s sure to keep you riveted until its very unexpected ending.

The world of Kirthanin is a beautiful place with a scarred and ugly past. A fallen angelic figure has brought war and desecration to the land, but all that seems so far away now. But the peace of Kirthanin may prove to be an illusion.

Graham takes us on a journey through the length of the land with an assortment of interesting and many sided characters. Prophetic visions and hints of danger combine to add suspense and wonder to the tale. And the beauty and courage on display is almost palpable.

His tale is no copy cat, and the world he creates is believable and unique. The tale seems like it will go on forever, which it almost does. And by the end of the book, you are begging for more. Fortunately, there are four additional titles in the series, and if they are all as exciting and fast-paced as this book, I will certainly be picking them up.

More than a good story, a Christian view of the world pervades the tale. The characters struggle with making wise and right choices, a creator God is worshiped and the world is seen as his gift to men. The vision for the future is of a restored holy mountain and communion with the Creator in newly reborn world. The story lines intersect with our Christian faith in several key places. This adds to the value of the book and makes it an inspiring read that can help orient one’s mind and heart appreciate the wonder of the Greatest Fairy Tale of all, that we are a part of. Jesus Christ and His restoration of our fallen world, is certainly the greatest fantasy tale of all. Graham’s work helps us taste a tiny bit of the wonder of it all.

The book is written with young adults in mind, but I found it suitable for all adults and youth alike. I highly recommend this book and am looking forward to continuing this series. P & R Publishing is offering a free e-book of Beyond the Summerland for a limited time at their website’s home page. I encourage you to get a taste via the e-book and then get yourself a copy of this great title.

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

This book was provided by Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing for review. The reviewer was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.

Why T4G Should Not Fall Apart Over John Piper’s Connection with Rick Warren

~ Bob Hayton ~ 25 Comments

Background

As I’ve noted previously, John Piper is going to have Rick Warren speak at the Desiring God National Conference this year. And many conservative Bible-believing Christians are very concerned about this. They feel that Rick Warren preaches a watered-down Gospel and that Piper has sold-out on the Gospel by endorsing Warren in this way.

I’ve had blogging friends of mine express deep concern over this decision of my former pastor. I’m aware of at least one pastor who has publicly “separated” from Piper and removed all of his books from their church bookstore in response to this matter. Some fundamentalist bloggers are noting this as yet another example of a lack of discernment on Piper’s part and are encouraging pastors and fundamentalist leaders to not recommend Piper’s works to their congregations.

Now, some are even openly speculating about next week’s Together For the Gospel Conference, and wondering what kind of an impact this will have on the conference. Lou Martuneac a fundamentalist blogger can be quoted on this point:

The revelation of John Piper’s invitation of Rick Warren to his Desiring God (DG) conference could not have been welcome news for Together for the Gospel (T4G)1 organizers and its key note speakers on the eve of their event. The Piper/Warren issue is sure to be the buzz of the conference. I do not expect anything on the Rick Warren invitation from the platform speakers unless it comes from Piper, which he may feel compelled to address in an attempt to quell the buzz.

The true irony of this year’s T4G is the theme, which is, “The (Unadjusted) Gospel.” Rick Warren is among the high priests of a watered down, non-saving message….

I half-suspect Piper may take the platform at the outset to address the Warren invite. Why? For the purpose of getting it on the table, hashed out and hopefully quelled so that it is not a major lingering distraction during the conference. Nevertheless, there will undoubtedly be a huge buzz on the floor of T4G and in small groups settings throughout the conference….

What will be the reaction of the T4G men: MacArthur, Dever, Sproul, et. al.? I suspect some private attempts to admonish Piper have already taken place. All indications are he (Piper) will reject any admonishment from his brothers. Will there be some public negative reaction from the other T4G men? Will, for the sake of T4G/TGC fellowships, all be forgotten. At T4G will all embrace one another as if nothing is amiss?

Meanwhile, influential bloggers Tim Challies and Justin Taylor have tried to model reserve and charity in this whole debate. Taylor had to shut down comments on his blog due to how bitter and caustic many were. Challies has disagreed with Piper’s decision but also made the following points.

But before I continue, let me offer one more word. John Piper inviting Rick Warren to speak at the conference is not that big of a deal. It matters, to be sure, but not enough to get too riled up. It’s important that we put it in its proper context. Piper did not invite Robert Schuller or the Dalai Lama, someone who outright denies the Gospel. Warren professes faith in Christ and professes an evangelical understanding of that faith. Furthermore, this conference is Piper’s gig and he is free to invite whomever he wants (or whomever he is permitted within whatever structure there is inside of Desiring God). His house, his rules….

…let’s heed Piper’s warning not to fall into an error of secondary separation. There is no need for us to separate from Piper over such a decision. We have plenty of latitude to disagree with him; let’s do so with respect for him and for his long and faithful history of ministry to the church. The sky is not falling, the world will go on.

Doug Wilson has also explained how he thinks about all of this. He has a “wait and see” approach and thinks, we don’t need to “blow into a paper bag” over this. Phil Johnson, while strongly disagreeing with the decision is also concerned over how negative the reactions are to this. He thinks we should not approach this as a cause to separate from Piper in an all-or-nothing sort of way. Johnson was interviewed Tues. and Wed. on Iron Sharpens Iron radio, and the mp3s are available for free download from sharpens.org. [UPDATE: Phil just posted his official response to this on his blog. He has some good things to say which I largely agree with.]

Isn’t this a Big Deal?

Why is it that these leaders and many other less influential theology bloggers (like me) think such an action by Piper is not a big deal? Isn’t supporting someone like Warren a contradiction of the Gospel?

Here are some of the reasons given for thinking this is a big deal:

  • Warren pleases people and adapts his message to suit the audience he’s at. He doesn’t strongly teach or write about repentance – this constitutes a watered-down Gospel.
  • Warren has had Obama come to his church, and has accepted the likes of Robert Schuler. He has given wishy-washy answers on public interviews to questions related to the Gospel.
  • Scripture calls for us to mark and avoid, and separate from those who do not uphold the Gospel. See the following summary of this idea of separation by David Cloud, fundamentalist leader:

We believe that the Bible requires separation from all forms of heresy and ecclesiastical apostasy (Rom. 16:17; 2 Cor. 6:14-18; 1 Thess. 3:6; 1 Tim. 6:3-5; 2 Tim. 3:5; Titus 3:10-11; 2 John 10-11; Rev. 18:4). We are commanded to try them, mark them, rebuke them, have no fellowship with them, withdraw ourselves, receive them not, have no company with them, reject them, and separate ourselves from them. The Bible teaches that the course of the church age is characterized by increasing apostasy (2 Timothy 3:1 – 4:6).

When put this way, such a reaction by Piper makes him a disobedient brother who should be separated from. This is the way most who practice secondary separation would think. It’s not that we separate because he chooses not to separate from people we would (as Piper phrased “secondary separation” in his video defense of this decision). Rather, they think Piper’s refusal to separate is disobedience, and 2 Thess. 3:6, 13-15 would urge us to separate from disobedient brothers.

But what about the Gospel?

I contend that the Gospel is a big enough matter to unify around. In fact the separation texts mentioned above particularly apply to a wholesale rejection of the Gospel. It is true “enemies of the cross of Christ” who preach “another gospel” who are to be so rejected. The withdrawal from brothers in Christ, happens primarily in a context of a local church with church discipline. Even then the erring ones are to be “admonished as brothers” not treated like outsiders.

Warren’s pragmatic approach to ministry may be foolhardy. His answers to Gospel-questions given on the spur of the moment in the context of media interviews, may not be as good as we would like. His books are aimed to less well-read readers, those that abound in today’s world. He connects with them, and appeals to a wide range of people. He aims to win them to Christ after he’s disarmed their defensive reaction to Christianity, but from our perspective he may be going too far in a 1 Cor. 9 be “all things to all” policy. His message may not be as theologically precise as we prefer. But he does not deny the Gospel. He affirms it. He preaches it, and he aims to live it out.

Meanwhile, John Piper is very clear about the Gospel and his books promote a Gospel-centered philosophy and world-view. The fellow speakers at T4G (Mark Dever, C.J. Mahaney, Albert Mohler, J. Ligon Duncan, R.C. Sproul, John MacArthur and Thabiti Anyabwile) have many traits which could divide them. Varying positions on the charismatic gifts, the nature of baptism, eschatology, church government, music, and even who they “hang out with” (to use Piper’s expression). Some are very suspicious and careful with Mark Driscoll’s ministry style, others have befriended him. Some have chosen not to sign the Manhattan Declaration for important reasons, others see it as a means to encourage the defense of family values in today’s world and have signed it.

All of these differences matter, and these men don’t see eye-to-eye on a host of other concerns. But the speakers at T4G see the Gospel as being so important, that since they all joyfully affirm a rich, robust, Biblical Gospel message, they can allow this union to define them. Rather than being defined by what they are against, or more minor theological differences, they define themselves as being Gospel-driven.

When we separate over every little thing. When we allow personality differences, or just plain differences of opinion spur us on to cast judgment on fellow believers, we have crossed a Biblical line ourselves. More than that, we allow ourselves to be defined by these lesser things, and in so doing minimize the importance of the Gospel.

In closing, let me ask you to ponder the ramifications of the following texts to the current debate:

Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand…. Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God. (Rom. 14:4, 10)

May the God of endurance and encouragement grant you to live in such harmony with one another, in accord with Christ Jesus, that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore welcome one another as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God. (Rom. 15:5-7)

I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit””just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call”” one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. But grace was given to each one of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift. (Eph. 4:1-7)

And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love. (Eph. 4:11-16)

Notice the stress on love, humility and gentleness, and the assumption that those differing with us are not enemies but brothers. They shouldn’t be judged, but may need teaching. We should strive for a sincere and edifying unity. This is the measure of the fullness of Christ. May this be our aim and may we all learn some important lessons as we think Biblically about this controversy and aim to react in a Christ-like and gracious way.

The Christological Shape of the Old Testament

~ Bob Hayton ~ 9 Comments

I just finished part one of John H. Sailhamer’s The Meaning of the Pentateuch: Revelation, Composition and Interpretation (IVP, 2009). I have been riveted by what I’ve read so far, and just have to share this much with you all.

First a little background. Sailhamer aims to bring back an emphasis on authorial intent to the study of the Old Testament. He holds to a Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, but argues for a later prophetic retrofit or, in modern lingo, a Pentateuch 2.0. I’ll let Sailhamer explain:

For the most part, the new edition replicates the original Mosaic Pentateuch, but it has a wider screen. Rather than reading the Pentateuch from the viewpoint of the beginning of Israel’s history, as no doubt was intended in the original Pentateuch, the new edition looks at the Pentateuch from the perspective of the end of Israel’s history and God’s continuing work with Israel and the nations. (pg. 204)

Along with a prophetic retouch of the Pentateuch, Sailhamer argues that the entire Tanak (Hebrew Bible or the Christian Old Testament) was shaped by perhaps a single author. It was presented to us in a particular order for a reason. You are likely aware of Jesus’ approval of this basic shape of the OT. He referred to the OT as “the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms” (Luke 24:44). He also spoke of the blood of the martyrs from Abel to Zechariah (Luke 11:51), which likely points to the Tanak ending with Chronicles even in Jesus’ day.

So to Sailhamer, the very shape– the order of the books, and their current literary shape– of the OT is important. We aren’t primarily concerned with the history it witnesses to, but rather our job is to listen to the inspired writings themselves and try to discern what the authors intended to communicate through their completed books. The shape matters. And when you look closely at that shape, a Christological or messianic focus comes into view. The following chart may help:

The three parts of the OT again, are the Torah or Law, which we call the Pentateuch (Genesis – Deuteronomy); the Nevi’im or Prophets (Joshua, Judges, 1 Samuel-2 Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel & the minor prophets); and the Ketuvim or Writings (Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, and 1-2 Chronicles). Imagine these three parts of the OT stitched together at the intersections of the book of Deuteronomy & Joshua, and Malachi & Psalms. These are the two seams that hold the Tanak together. [Tanak comes from the first letters of the words: Torah, Nevi’im, and Ketuvim.]

Each of these seams is very similar. Deut. 34 declares that the expected “prophet like me (Moses)” never appeared. This implies that this section of Deuteronomy was written quite late. Sailhamer writes, “The fact that the prophet “never came” is intended to spur the reader on to further trust in the hope of his coming. In other words, this last bit of commentary on Deuteronomy 18 in Deuteronomy 34 guides us in understanding Moses’ words not as a reference to the coming office of the prophet, but as a historically unfulfilled prophecy of the coming of an individual future prophet.” (pg. 18).

Meanwhile, Malachi ends with an expectation of a coming messenger preparing the way for the coming of the LORD. A prophet like Elijah will arise at a future time. This expectation of a coming future prophet is then followed by a call to meditate on the Law as a means to find prosperity and success. Josh. 1:8 and Ps. 1:2 both link success with meditating on the Law.

This all fits together when we realize the Tanak was crafted specifically to draw emphasis to these parallels. Sailhammer explains further:

Both Joshua 1 and Psalm 1 speak of “meditating on the law of God” as the means of becoming wise and prosperous. The two canonical links (Josh 1:8; Ps 1:3) appear to be read as cross-citations, each citing the other…. The verbal identity of these two texts suggests an intentional strategy…. In these two canonical seams the law becomes an object of meditation and the primary source of wisdom.

These two seams, or “redactional glue,” Joshua 1:8 and Psalm 1:2, contrast the role of law as wisdom in the present and as prophecy in the future. In doing so they raise a further question: “How does one live in the present while waiting for God’s new work in the future? These seams refocus the reader’s attention from the present to the future arrival of a great prophet like Moses (Deut 34:10), whose way is prepared by another great prophet, Elijah (Mal 4:5 [3:23 MT]).

A final theme is embedded in these canonical seams. It is the role of Scripture in the lives of those who are called to wait for God’s future work. By meditating “day and night” on Scripture (Josh 1:8; Ps 1:3), one finds wisdom and prosperity. Prophecy is a thing of the past. It has ceased and has been replaced, for the moment at least, by Scripture. The Scriptures, as God’s prophetic Word, have been given for those who wait for the return of prophecy…. (217-218)

An additional element of the shape of the Tanak also adds to this messianic focus. The last book, Chronicles, ends with Cyrus’ edict to return to Jerusalem, but it cuts off the edict mid-sentence (compare 2 Chron. 36:22-23 with Ezra 1:1-5). This is an intentional strategy, to emphasize that the fulfillment of Jeremiah’s 70 years is to be seen in Daniel’s 70 weeks which are yet future. The return was not the end of Israel’s prophetic future. Again, I’ll allow Sailhamer to explain further:

In the version of the Tanak that ends with Chronicles, the next biblical events are to be the coming of the Messiah (Dan 9:25), the death of the Messiah (Dan 9:26) and the destruction of the temple (Dan 9:26b). These events, all taken from Daniel 9, are projected on to the screen of the future by 2 Chronicles 36 at the close of the Tanak…. the ending of the OT is fixed by its reference to Daniel 9, the last great prophetic word recorded in the Tanak….

The countdown begins with “the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem” (Dan 9:25). It is that decree of Cyrus that brings the OT to its proper conclusion. At the same time, that conclusion also signals an important new beginning. It is the beginning of the countdown to the coming of the biblical Messiah….

By marking the effective end of the Tanak with Daniel 9, the framers of the OT canon were making a statement that the next great event in Israel’s history was the advent of the Messiah (Dan 9:25). There was little left to do but wait for that event. All else, biblically as well as historically, was put on hold.

…OT textual strategies, both compositional and canonical, appear poised to move directly and intentionally into the theological world of the NT. Such textual strategies suggest that the NT is a true descendant of the OT. It also suggests that some of the framers of the OT Tanak had ties to early “pre-Christian” believers like those in the early parts of the Gospels and included men and women of the likes of John the Baptist, Simeon, Zacharias and Anna (Lk 1-2). The historical faith that lies behind the shape of the OT canon anticipates the faith of the early Christian communities. (214-215)

In its very shape, the Tanak points to Christ. The prophetic retrofit of the Pentateuch, and the composition and shaping of the Tanak was crafted so as to highlight a future-oriented hope in the coming Prophet-Messiah. As such, the OT hints at the need for additional prophecy and revelation to complete it’s story. Jesus the Messiah prophesied in Daniel 9 and elsewhere, did come. And His coming fulfills the message embodied in the content as well as the shape of the Hebrew Scriptures.

More could be said on all of this, but you’ll have to get the book!

10 Points to Consider Before You Contemplate Divorce

~ Bob Hayton ~ 3 Comments

It boggles my mind that so many Christians today are convinced that divorce is a viable option for them. They agree that the Bible generally frowns on divorce, and that it isn’t best. But in their situation…. If we just knew how rough they had it, we’d understand!

To those in that place, let me offer some advice. Here are 10 points I pray you’d consider carefully before you ever contemplate divorce. [And I’m referring to divorce without any Biblical warrant such as adultery or abandonment.]

1) If you claim that Jesus is your Lord, ask yourself this: “Does my Lord and Master agree with me on this decision? Does Jesus really want me to divorce my spouse?”

2) If you think He does agree with you, then look a little more closely at the following Bible passage:

And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”… And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery. (Matt. 19:3-6, 9)

Jesus, our Lord, makes it very clear that divorce for just any old reason is not permissible.

3) You might say, “that is just your interpretation of this passage.” To that, I would reply with a question. “How then, can you know anything about God, salvation, eternal life or anything?” If you can’t take God at His Word here, and you prefer to twist it to allow an exception for yourself, who’s to stop you from twisting any other passage? And who’s to say we’re not wrong about everything when it comes to Christianity?

4) Now let me try a different approach. Consider Jesus and His bride, the church. All believers are part of His church — we are His bride. Aren’t you glad Jesus hasn’t left you? Can you even contemplate the possibility that Jesus would leave you?

5) If we are thankful that Jesus loves us, and that He doesn’t leave us when the relationship doesn’t offer enough return on His investment, shouldn’t that influence how we treat our spouse? After all, Jesus’ forgiveness of our sin is the basis for our obligation to forgive others (Eph. 4:32). And even more soberly, if we don’t forgive others, we can not expect Jesus to forgive us (Matt. 6:14-15).

6) If you’re tracking with me even a little bit, I hope the following passage will perhaps connect with you more powerfully.

Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word…

Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband. (Eph. 5:24-26, 31-33)

No I’m not preaching at you here. No one lives up to the ideal presented in this teaching. Instead, look at the picture. Christ loves his church, and men ought to love their wives the same way. The church respects & submits to Christ, and wives ought so to respect their husbands. What will your divorce say about Christ and the church? How does what you’re about to do fit with this picture? As Christians we are to be “like Christ”. Divorce is entirely unlike Christ.

7) Here’s another angle, does a promise matter anymore? If you take back your promise to your spouse, do you think it’d be fine if Christ took back some of his promises to you? Isn’t this just a “lie” plain and simple? There may not be a more serious and damaging lie than the lie of divorce.

8) Another, and perhaps even more serious consideration focuses on the nature of sin. Sin is deceptive. It often feels right, but it isn’t. Sin can even give a temporary pleasure, but it won’t satisfy. The blatant sinner is one who convinces himself that there is very little sin in his actions. If you honestly think this divorce you are considering is not a terrible sin, you need to heed the warnings in the next 2 points.

9) Sin must be punished. Adultery (which is Jesus’ words for unwarranted divorce) is sin of the first degree. Adulterers don’t inherit the kingdom of God, unless they are washed and sanctified (1 Cor. 6:9-11). And people who claim to be washed and sanctified cannot lightly commit adultery, without risking serious injury to their soul.

10) You say, but this is all just so hard! You don’t know how hard this whole trial of a marriage has been. I do know. It’s not easy. Neither is fighting the sin of pornography, or any number of other sins which our sinful society so strongly encourages. It’s not easy to choose the narrow way that leads to life, and we aren’t promised a life full of roses with no thorns. The words of the author of Hebrews seem especially appropriate here.

…let us lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us…

Consider [Jesus] who endured from sinners such hostility against himself, so that you may not grow weary or fainthearted. In your struggle against sin you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood…

For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant, but later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it. Therefore, lift your drooping hands and strengthen your weak knees, and make straight paths for your feet, so that what is lame may not be put out of joint but rather be healed. Strive… for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.

See to it that no one fails to obtain the grace of God; that no “root of bitterness” springs up and casues trouble, and by it many become defiled; that no one is sexually immoral or unholy like Esau, who sold his birthright for a single meal. For you know that afterward, when he was rejected, for he found no chance to repent, though he sought it with tears. (Heb. 12:1b, 3-4, 11-17)

I want what’s best for you, really. I don’t want you to miss out on “the peaceful fruit of righteousness”, and the joy of seeing the Lord, because you didn’t like God’s painful discipline and couldn’t fight for “the holiness without which no one will see the Lord”. I fear you are ready to sell your birthright “for a single meal” and miss out on so much. And like Esau, you may find yourself crossing a line to the point of no return — a place where, when you come to your senses and even seek for a chance to repent, you won’t be able to. That is what I fear the most.

Friend, I hope these points will help you. And for those like me who know people considering divorce, may you find this article helpful. May God be pleased to intervene and gloriously change hearts and heal relationships.

Phil Johnson on Standing Firm

~ Bob Hayton ~ 4 Comments

…And let me add this: if you do abandon Arminianism and become a Calvinist; if you leave one eschatalogical position and take up another one; if you undergo any major doctrinal shift””don’t suddenly act like that one point of doctrine is more important than all others. Don’t blog or talk about it constantly to the exclusion of everything else. Spend some time settling into your new convictions before you pretend to have expertise you frankly haven’t had time to develop.

I think the tendency of fresh Calvinists to become cocky and obsessive about the fine points of predestination is one of the things that makes Calvinism most odious to non-Calvinists. Don’t do that. It’s not a sign of maturity, and you’re not truly steadfast in the faith unless you are truly mature…. (from Phil Johnson’s recent post: “Stand Firm“)

This fits right in with my recent doctrinal disagreements post and Jason’s “words of warning“. I think everyone who has had a major shift in theology, is always open to the pendulum swing and a general unstable perspective on all things. This tendency is something to be aware of and to guard against.

Does this mean we should all have a stable eschatology or all points figured out on every doctrinal position? Does it mean we should pontificate and criticize others not exactly like us? No. We shouldn’t be tossed by the wind, but neither should we root ourselves in something that isn’t connected to solid ground.

For those who are still developing in their pursuit of a stable and correct theology. Don’t rush things. Take your time. Be slow to talk and aim for wisdom. Take Phil’s advice. Study your Bible first, books second, and blogs last.

I’m sure I’ve been guilty of not heeding this advice in the past. But by God’s grace, I’ve become settled on many things. And I’m not afraid to say when I’m not! May God continue to shape and mold us all.

Seriously, check out Phil’s article, it will be worth the read, and let me know what you think.