Tag: Theology

Confessionism: Abusing 1 John 1:9

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

I want to encourage my readers to take some time and read Jim Elliff’s recent blog post on a practice he calls “confessionism”. As a former independent fundamental Baptist, I still tend toward a legalism of sorts that stresses performance and action to a fault. And while I never reached the level of zeal and devotion Jim describes in his post, I can certainly relate to a confusion over how the requirement to confess relates with the Gospel’s free gift of salvation.

“Confessionism” takes 1 John 1:9: “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” and turns it into a general maxim for Christian living. It goes like this: confession of every known sin is required for us to experience a relationship with God and to have growth in our sanctification. This can lead one into an endless cycle of continual introspection and a zeal to remember and confess each and every known sin. What’s missing is a realization of God’s grace. Jim discusses this in depth, and explains how the context of 1 John 1:9 actually stresses the complete forgiveness we have in Christ. It is a must-read post. Go, check it out.

“A Reformation Reader” edited by Denis Janz

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

Author: Denis R. Janz, editor
Publisher: Fortress Press (Augsburg)
Format: softcover
Publication Date: 2008
Pages: 453
ISBN: 9780800663100
Stars: 3 of 5

The Christianity that shapes our world today, was profoundly influenced by the Reformation — Roman Catholicism as much as evangelical Protestantism. For conservative evangelicals who prize the notion of sola Scriptura (Scripture alone), the Reformation represents a great restoration of the importance of Scripture and a revival of the true and saving doctrine of justification by faith on the basis of the merits of Christ alone, and by God’s free grace.

Any study of the Reformation does well to focus on the many documents and books written in that era. Some of the truly great Christian writings hail from that era. Luther’s commentary on Galations, and Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion deserve the attention of Christians of our own era as much as they shaped those in the midst of the Reformation. But there are scores of additional writings by other lesser known figures of that time, which do much to open our understanding of what actually was happening in that time, now nearly 500 years ago.

A Reformation Reader, edited by Denis Janz, brings these lesser known documents, and figures, to light. Zwingli’s Swiss Reformation work and writings; the Anabaptist movement and their writings — most notably the the Schleitheim Confession; and the English reformers Cranmer and Cromwell all are illuminated through Janz’s inclusion of key documents and insights into their role in the Reformation era. The context of the Reformation is made more vivid and clear by his inclusion of pre-Reformation Catholic authors and sentiments, and a discussion of the counter Reformation and the Catholic Council of Trent.

Janz introduces each section with a brief introduction to that segment of the Reformation. The pre-Reformation, Luther, Calvin, Swiss Reformation, Anabaptist movement, English Reformation and the counter Reformation movements are all represented. Janz brings up various scholarly disputes in how to interpret the Reformation. He does a good job staying neutral and explaining what the questions are. He presents documents that are able to challenge both viewpoints, and he encourages a study of the texts themselves.

This book includes a wide array of material. It certainly would serve well as a text book for covering the history of that era. The role of women in society in that day is explored alongside the other more typical theological disputes. Janz includes the writings of female characters throughout the book to serve that goal.

The book is more than a textbook, however. It provides a fascinating amount of material for the average Christian lay reader to explore. I enjoyed the historical perspective and the inclusion of many of the original writings of the key players in the Reformation. Most readers today don’t acquaint themselves with historical writings of that era, and so the selections from Calvin’s Institutes and Luther’s writings, for instance, allows for a first encounter with some of the key leaders in the Church’s history. It is hoped that this book will spur on its readers to desire a deeper reading of the classic writings of the Christian faith. I know it has done that for me.

I will point out just a few of the many interesting selections I enjoyed here. They are selections from Thomas a Kempis’ The Imitation of Christ, Erasmus’ The Abbot and the Learned Lady, some of the actual indulgences of the era of Luther, Luther’s 95 Theses, Luther’s Preface to the New Testament, Zwingli’s Of Freedom of Choice in the Selection of Food, Zwingli’s 67 Theses, the Anabaptist Schleitheim Confession, an autobiographical account of Calvin’s life, letters and judgment concerning Servetus, and Thomas Cranmer’s Preface to the Great Bible.

I highly recommend this book, and the study of this important time in Christian history.

Disclaimer: This book was provided by the publisher for review. I was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.

This book is available for purchase at the following sites: Amazon.com or direct from Fortress Press.

“The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism” by G.K. Beale

~ Bob Hayton

Author: G.K. Beale
Publisher: Crossway
Format: Softcover
Publication Date: 2008
Pages: 304
ISBN: 9781433502033
Stars: 4 of 5

In recent years, Evangelicalism has seen a number of challenges to the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture. Chief among these have been new insights into the cultural and historical background of the Old Testament provided by newly found ancient Near Eastern sources (ANE for short). A recent turmoil was raised by a professor at Westminster Theological Seminary named Peter Enns who published a controversial book Inspiration and Incarnation. Eventually he was deemed to have violated the Westminster Confession of Faith in his views and was removed from his teaching post at Westminster.

In scholarly journals, G.K. Beale responded to Enns’ book and open questioning of the popular understanding of biblical inerrancy. Enns and Beale responded back and forth to each other in a series of journal articles, which in a slightly emended form make up the first four chapters of this book. I’m glad that G.K. Beale chose to put the discussion in a book for a wider Evangelical audience, as he has done us all a great favor. His book, The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism: Responding to New Challenges to Biblical Authority addresses this issue head on and offers a confessionally faithful model of approaching ANE parallels to Scripture.

I must admit that when I began this book, I was skeptical of Beale’s position and open to what Enns had to say. By the end of the book, I realized that Enns had indeed erred, and that Beale represented a careful scholarly approach worthy of consideration. Still, the objection could be raised that Beale is making a mountain out of a molehill and is just interested in muddying Enns’ image, even as he threatens the scholarly Evangelical community with the same if they dare tip the sacred inerrancy cow. Such is not the case however. Let me allow Beale to explain his rationale for the book:

… most of the problems that [Enns] poses are not that hard to solve, though he gives the impression that they are difficult to square with a traditional view of inerrancy. Indeed, this is partly why I felt a burden to write the review (of Enns’ book) that I did. Instead of helping people in the church gain confidence in their Bibles, Enns’s book will likely shake that confidence””I think unnecessarily so. (pg. 66-67)

After laying out the issues, Beale jumps right in to the back and forth between Peter Enns and himself. He splits the discussion into two topics: recent OT studies’ developments and the study of the Old Testament in the New. For each he gives his rejoinders to Enns and Enns’ responses. While at times the back and forth leaves the typical reader dazed and confused (at times one feels like he’s looking over the various scholars’ shoulders or that the discussion is moving on too quickly to follow), key issues and main points are driven home through these first four chapters. Differing approaches to ANE myths and their implications for Genesis, and second Temple Judaistic hermeneutical principles and their bearing on our understanding of the New Testament are fleshed out.

After the various approaches are displayed through the back and forth of chapters 1-4, the book moves on to the unity of Isaiah as a case study. Will we trust the Bible’s witness to itself when it comes to Isaiah’s unity, or move with the scholarly winds and deny that which Jesus and the apostles appeared to assume? While Beale is a NT scholar, he handles the Isaiah question capably, referring to recent scholarly evangelical assessments on this point.

Beale then provides a fascinating discussion of Gen. 1 and a biblical cosmology model in the form of the universe as God’s temple. In this section, Beale really shines as he develops a compelling case for the tabernacle, Temple and indeed Eden and the universe as a whole as all being models of God’s true cosmic temple. This applies to the book in general because to understand Gen. 1-2 as a temple cosmology allows one to assimilate insights from ANE studies without defaulting to teaching that the early chapters of Genesis are intended to be taken as a myth.

Two appendices are also provided. One is a rather detailed discussion of postmodernism, epistemology and the like. The second is an exposition of the “Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.”

This book is not for the average reader. Beale develops a case and brings you into the world of Biblical scholarship today. He explains how one can maintain a high view of Scripture and assimilate insights from scholarship successfully. He also warns of the dangers of forsaking inerrancy. I learned a ton in reading this book, but the part I enjoyed the most was when Beale left polemics aside and focused on a positive development of his cosmic temple idea concerning Gen. 1-2. Beale has written an entire book on that subject (The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God), and I’m interested in picking it up soon.

I recommend this book, but have to admit it was put together in a piecemeal fashion. Still it has great value and needs to be read by anyone interested in OT scholarship.

Disclaimer: this book was provided by the publisher for review. The reviewer was under no obligation to provide a positive review.

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

“Commonly Misunderstood Bible Verses” by Ron Rhodes

~ Bob Hayton

CommonlymisunderstoodAuthor: Ron Rhodes
Publisher: Harvest House
Format: Softcover
Publication Date: 2008
Pages: 299
ISBN: 9780736921756
Stars: 3 of 5

The Bible covers a lot of ground in 66 books. Written over a period of 1600 years, in a variety of genres by multiple human authors, its readers have often puzzled over its meaning in any number of places within its pages. Ron Rhodes is here to help, with his book Commonly Misunderstood Bible Verses: Clear Explanations for the Difficult Passages.

Commonly Misunderstood Bible Verses is a mini-commentary covering the entire Bible. It tries to focus on just the sorts of questions the average church-goer would have. The questions are even pulled from Rhodes’ own ministry experience as a traveling speaker. Rhodes does an excellent job of providing succinct and simple answer to most of them.

This book can’t cover every issue or every question, but the following list provides a sampling of the sorts of points that are covered in this nice little volume.

  • Are the 6 days of Creation 24 hour days?
  • What was the mark of Cain?
  • Who is the “angel of the Lord” ?
  • How can capital punishment be justified in light of God’s command to not murder?
  • Should Christians worship on Saturday (the Sabbath) or Sunday?
  • What does it mean when the Bible says God “repents” ?
  • Is Proverbs 22:6 a promise or a principle regarding raising our children?
  • What is the new covenant?
  • What is the abomination that causes desolation?
  • Is it wrong to take oaths?
  • Did Jesus really die on Friday?
  • Is baptism necessary for salvation?
  • Are Christians required to evangelize going house-to-house (or door-to-door)?
  • Does God have blood?
  • Should I be seeking the gift of tongues?
  • What is “baptism for the dead” ?
  • Are Christians permitted to drink wine?
  • Does the Bible condone slavery?
  • In Tit. 2:13, is Jesus called “God” ?
  • Can a Christian skip church?
  • Is James really teaching a person is justified by works?
  • How are the elect chosen by God?
  • Why are Dan and Ephraim excluded from the list of tribes in Rev. 7?
  • If Jesus is the beginning of God’s creation, is He then a created being?
  • What is Armageddon?

Not everyone puzzles over each question, nor are they equally important. But this is just a smattering of the kinds of issues addressed in Rhodes’ book. The book is arranged by Scripture reference, so it can be a handy companion to your personal Bible study. If you are in a passage and have a question or can’t understand a verse, try out this book. If your verse isn’t listed in the book, check the topical index, in case the question is still answered by the book.

Rhodes’ approach seems to be from a conservative, dispensational, creationist position. He will address alternate views often, and tries to be fair to other interpretive viewpoints, but the book is clearly biased by his own theological perspective. Then again, which book written by a human author isn’t? Sometimes his answers are given as his personal perspective, as in his treatment of the tongues’ question. He lists his reasons for believing tongues have ceased. Other times, as with the question of the “baptism for the dead” , he is content to give a few positions and not really come down on any one view. With other questions, he presents another view and then details problems with that view. Occasionally, he just gives his own perspective and doesn’t discuss an alternate view. On a few points, he is very careful in laying out a systematic case for his view, as in his discussion of the differing positions on election (he prefers the Calvinistic position).

Some of Rhodes’ questions would only come from a conservative evangelical or even a fundamentalist perspective. That makes the book perhaps more useful to these readers. He explains how Prov. 22:6 isn’t a guarantee that one’s children will automatically turn out right if we just do the right thing as parents. He shows how “house to house” was a description of teaching being done from home-group to home-group, not a prescribed method for evangelizing. He discusses that the Bible permits moderate drinking, but holds that wine in Bible times was weaker than it is today.

Sometimes I found myself upset with the simplicity of the answers. Other times I was impressed. For someone who is aware of all the above points of controversy, the book may not be as useful. But for many Christians, it will be a great tool for help in understanding Scripture more. So I’m happy to recommend the book.

Disclaimer: this book was provided by the publisher for review. The reviewer was under no obligation to provide a positive review.

This book is available for purchase at the following sites: Amazon.com or direct from Harvest House.

Mining the Archives: Why Pray the “Sinner’s Prayer”?

~ Bob Hayton ~ 7 Comments

From time to time, I’ll be mining the archives around here. I’m digging up Bob’s best posts from the past. I’m hoping these reruns will still serve my readers.

Today’s post was originally published December 10, 2005.

I wrote the following as a comment to a post by Jason Janz over at Sharper Iron. The post provided excerpts from an hour and a half long interview of Mark Dever that Jason conducted. I commented on the brief excerpt below. What follows that quote is my original comments (posted back before their site crashed and lost many of their old posts). Note: I’ve updated the link to point to the current page which contains the interview. The excerpts are no longer included in that post.

Jason Janz: And if they did, then you would or wouldn’t lead them in a prayer per se?

Mark Dever: What do you mean if they “did it?”

Jason Janz: If they said “I believe.”

Mark Dever: Well, wonderful. Let’s watch. We’ll see….

I listened to much of this interview a few weeks back. Mark Dever is very interesting to listen to! This interchange, though, stuck out the most to me. Dever’s “What do you mean if they ‘did it’?” is simply amazing. He seems to come from a tradition that is not inundated with the “1,2,3 pray after me” menatlity, like most of fundamentalism is.

I see a big question raised by Jason’s question, “And if they did, then you would or wouldn’t lead them in a prayer per se?”: what would the prayer do? If they said “I believe” or if they, presumably, responded favorably to an “invitation” (a modern notion, with its roots in Charles Finney, a rank arminian, openly heretical on the doctrine of the atonement), or were convicted by a sermon and were directed to trust in Jesus and then had faith, what would praying for salvation or praying to be saved do? If all who genuinely believe are saved, as John 3:16, Acts 16:31, and etc. teach, then why does anybody need to pray for salvation?

Is there any example of any evangelist or of Christ himself ever directing someone to ask for salvation or to pray anything like a “sinner’s prayer”? The “sinner’s prayer” so often cited was a story Jesus told, and certainly someone praying the kind of prayer the publican prayed manifested genuine faith. That is why I believe that sometimes people will naturally pray some kind of prayer, as an expression of faith. Much like someone might stand and say “I believe”. But what happened first, the prayer or the belief?

Rom. 10:14 would clearly say the belief. It is important to see that Rom. 10:14 comes right on the heels of vs. 13 and provides much to help us in interpreting vs. 13. It seems to force us to see “saved” as referring to ultimate salvation. For all who believingly pray on the Lord/worship the Lord (trace the phrase “call on the Lord” in the Old Testament or New Testament and see how it is used of worship often, and often describes those who are saints. 1 Cor. 1:2–the saints are those who continually are calling on the Lord.) will be ultimately saved at the resurrection/judgment. I think it is clear that “saved” in Romans 10 refers to glorification. And I believe this is substantiated by vs. 14 saying how can they call if they have not believed (first)? Vs. 10 gives the correct order in time concerning justification, while the order given in vs. 9 is paralleling the quote of Moses discussed in vs. 5-8. I believe vs. 11 is more correctly translated by the ESV’s “put to shame” rather than the KJV’s “ashamed” (the KJV has something similar for the translation of the same greek word in 1 Pet. 2:6). Vs. 11 really is not paralleling the english idea of shame in the sense of “everyone who believes will not be ashamed of the gospel, but will eventually confess Christ before men”. But rather is saying “everyone who believes in the cornerstone will not be destroyed by the coming flood of judgment, they will not be put to shame by the judgment coming”.

Think about it. When someone is praying the “sinner’s prayer” they may have already believed, but really are still unsure that mere simple faith in Christ will be enough to save them, so they add the prayer in hopes that this will really work. So then, are we really making our converts two-fold more the child of hell by giving them assurance based on a prayer (a work that they did)? If they have believed, they should be encouraged that belief alone is all that is needed since we have such a wonderful Savior. They may want to pray a prayer of thanks for God’s already having saved them, as they are already united to Jesus Christ by faith. They should further be encouraged to live for Jesus, and warned that their faith will be proven genuine by their fruits. Then they should be baptized and added to the fellowship of believers, their local church.

For more on “the sinner’s prayer”, see my later post: “The Sinner’s Prayer Problem“.