I've been itching for this video to come out since June! What do you get when Mike Abendroth locks Phil Johnson, James White, and Carl Trueman in a room? You get what the Elephant Room fantasizes about being. Buckle up for some refreshing, frank, and no holds barred insights on what is really going on out there in the bizarre world of modern evangelicalism . . .
My old rugby league coach used to call an act of inexplicable stupidity on the sporting field a "brain explosion". I think he would have to ratchet that phrase up several notches to describe the recent "rant" by Ed Young Jr. against Calvinism. This may well be dumber than anything I have ever heard Jesse Duplantis say. "Not possible" I hear you say? Your skepticism is entirely understandable but wrong nonetheless . . .
Calvinism is clearly in the firing line right now. But why would any Arminian need an enemy when you have someone as unqualified and incompetent as Ed Young fighting for your cause?
In all fairness to "Pastor Ed", when your schedule is packed with providing fashion tips for pastors, producing bad rap music for sensitive seekers, scouring the world for superficial novelties to amuse undiscerning church goers, and polishing your private jet; it is entirely understandable why he cannot find the time to make an appointment with a Bible. And having such "creative flair" would certainly seem to eliminate the need for such an old book.
But it is hard to hide your stupidity when you get something wrong on so many levels. This is full of so many errors, straw men, delusions of grandeur, and false accusations I just don't know where to begin. Reformed theology is about digging wells in Africa? Phariseticalism? Calvinists have built in election detectors? Calvinism is sexy and cool? Has RC Sproul been getting around in skinny jeans? Well at least Ed can speak with a great deal of authority about "deformed ecclesiology" as he is certainly an expert in that field. I do have James White's phone number - why don't you give him a call Ed so you can straighten him out on all that Hebrew and Greek stuff you know so much about?
Nonetheless there is one question that does intrigue me concerning this whole Ed Young brain explosion on steroids. As the Calvinist debate takes front and center stage in the Southern Baptist Convention and since Ed Young Jr. is a part of that convention - will he be disciplined by the SBC for using the pulpit for lying and slandering? Just wondering . . .
PS In a desperate attempt to defend the ridiculous claims he made, Ed Young Jr. has just submitted what he calls "Exhibit A"
The fallout has continued unabated since James MacDonald's Elephant Room II (the sequel) conference back in January. Not only have churches left the Harvest Bible Chapel "denomination" but there are now even churches being booted out as MacDonald's behavior moves from the unrepentant to the bizarre. It is encouraging to know that there are godly men willing to act upon their biblical duty to be gatekeepers of their flock amidst all the confusion and chaos generated by the supposed acceptance of TD Jakes as a legitimate Christian minister! What follows is a preview of a new television project that Mike Abendroth (of No Compromise Radio) will soon be launching. As is evident from this video it seems like Abendroth is rolling out the heavy artillery!
I can't wait to watch the full installment. Stay tuned for its release this fall!
This jaw dropping interview took place after the Elephant Room conference where James MacDonald interviews three African American pastors. And the reason for people who criticize TD Jakes is because of his heretical teaching? No!!! It would appear that Jakes' skin color gives him diplomatic immunity from theological scrutiny . . .
It is beyond me why James MacDonald would post this video. Amidst the true points made here there is a lot to be disturbed about. If James MacDonald really wants to help the African American community then a good place to start would be to stop affirming those who plunder this very community with their outrageously heretical prosperity teaching. How about sitting down and discussing the gospel they preach rather than the color of their skin. Is it just possible that the content of TD Jakes' teaching could have anything to do with those Christian leaders who are critical of him? It would seem that another elephant just entered the room.
I cannot think of a better combination than the combined apologetic superpowers of Dr. Voddie Baucham and Dr. James White to discuss this issue. This discussion is gold - please check it out!
In the previous post we saw the transcript of the hotly debated and much anticipated discussion that took place between James MacDonald, Mark Driscoll, and TD Jakes during the recent Elephant Room 2 conference. On initial impressions, the conversation raised four major questions. Firstly, why were there no questions concerning Jakes' long history of overtly peddling his prosperity Word Faith gospel? Todd Friel nailed the issue in this video:
Secondly, I am amazed that in a discussion on the Trinity there was no question asked concerning the eternality of Christ. That was a big red flag to even a lightweight theologian like myself. Jakes has a history of being very slippery and evasive when doctrinally questioned on his modalism and an interview like this requires carefully defined and phrased questions. Which raises my third question - why didn't they invite an expert on this issue like James White to question Jakes? This leads to the fourth question - was James MacDonalds promotional spiel "get your ringside seats" an invitation to view some genuine theological combat or to entertain with something as carefully prearranged and orchestrated as WWF wrestling?
Indeed James White suggested (via Twitter) that he could have cleared up the Trinitarian issue in 15 seconds:
Indeed Dr. White received so many questions about the Elephant Room discussion that he discussed it on his radio program. This is worth viewing for the educational value of being properly schooled in a doctrinal matter that is of first importance and has eternal consequences. The only sad part of this video is that it leaves me wishing that James White had been invited to the Elephant in the Room conference. At least he knows how to recognize one!
For all my Aussie friends, particularly in Brisbane, you do not want to miss this outstanding event featuring heavyweight Christian apologist Dr. James White. It will be hosted by pastor Craig Ireland at Hope Christian Church which, I am thrilled to say, is one of Brisbane's solid biblical churches pastored by my precious brother Craig Ireland (I plan to talk about the Craig's journey and church plant in a later post - just waiting for Craig to answer my calls). Be sure to confirm your place at this debate between Oneness Pentecostal Roger Perkins and the combative Dr. White over the essential Christian doctrine of the Trinity.
Todd Friel and Tony Verkinnes on Wretched Radio have a running joke about the popular "Christian" singing trio "Philips, Craig, and Dean" which goes something like this:
Todd: Hey I went to the big Christian music convention last weekend and you'll never guess who I met there!
Tony: Who???
Todd: Philips, Craig and Dean!
Tony: Really?
Todd: Well obviously, not all of them at the same time.
Be warned, this is a joke that will fall completely flat unless you know some inside theological information about Philips, Craig, and Dean. They hail from a Oneness Pentecostal church, a denomination that holds to the anti-Trinitarian doctrine of Modalism.
The heresy of modalism/sabellianism goes back to the second century AD and was a reason for the Athanasian Creed which godly men from that time formulated to refute all doctrine that was anti-Trinitarian. I won’t delve into an in-depth study on the Trinity right now but I recommend Paul Washer’s book “The One True God” for an excellent and simple study on the subject. The Athanasian creed is very long but it if you need to summarize it in three points regarding the Trinity as taught in Scripture they are these:
1.There is one God.
2.This one God exists in three persons.
3.These three Persons are each fully God.
Modalism however does not teach one God in three Persons. It teaches one god in three manifestations. So the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit become different roles that God uses at different times – just like water, ice, and steam is h2o appearing in different forms (maybe the joke is getting a bit funnier now). The modalist has major problems with issues like Jesus praying to the Father or Jesus’ baptism where the Father spoke and the Holy Spirit descended. For the modalist Jesus is not eternal, but how the Father appeared for 33 years. For the modalist Jesus cannot be a mediator between sinners and the Father. For the modalist Jesus cannot suffer the Father’s wrath on the cross. I could say more but I think you can see modalism is a big problem – it is idolatry.
Modalism is alive and well today and has other major proponents who tend to try and fly under the theological radar, none more so than popular “evangelical” preacher TD Jakes. This, in turn, highlights the need for those of us who inhabit church pews each Sunday, and then head back out into our mission fields, to be informed about subtle heresies like modalism. the doctrine of the Trinity is one of the cornerstone doctrines of the historic Christian faith as witnessed by the many creeds and confessions through the centuries. People have given their lives defending it and you don't want to have the wool pulled over your eyes. So be sure to come out and learn some vital truth . . . and enjoy the fireworks!
The Christian Gospel isn't the only thing that Rob Bell perverts. He also does a bang up job of sounding authoritative in his handling of history.
Rob Bell disappeared off the radar of this blog for a long time and I was of the hopeful opinion that Bell's theology was in the cargo hold of the "emergent ship" when it sank. But alas, Bell managed to grab an enormous amount of publicity through his latest book "Love Wins" where he becomes a lot less vague about some of his heretical views including universalism. On the positive side of the ledger, Bell is doing a lot more strutting around without his sheep suit these days and it appears that he may have shot himself in both feet in the process. Even Zondervan (a greek word meaning "anything that'll make a buck") publishers ditched Bell because of his latest book (I don't know if it was principle or pragmatism)!
And to his legion of defenders out there in cyberspace, Bell's confession that "I am not a universalist" is not exactly a watertight legal defense. The proof is in the pudding and Bell has been writing and preaching a whole lot of pudding for more than half a decade now. And all that hate mail is a great way to champion your "love wins" motto!
A big part of Bell's MO in gaining believability in the false gospel he proclaims, is the way he sounds so credible in the way he reinvents history (always at the expense of historic orthodox Christianity). A very popular post that was done on this blog at the end of 2009 gave a compare and contrast between the Gospel according to John Piper and the gospel according to Rob Bell. I recently had an interesting video from James White drawn to my attention that I thought would be very worthwhile posting on my blog today. If there's one thing I know about Dr. James White it is that he has a brain the size of a planet. If there's one thing I don't know about Dr. James White it is how that giant brain fits inside his regular sized head. Whatever the reason, the guy has an excellent working knowledge of church history and the following critique is an excellent rebuttal to Bell's "gospel presentation" and perversion of history that appeared in that post. This is well worth the look for all of us who heard the alarm bells (pardon the pun) but didn't know enough history to put our finger on what the exact problem was with how Bell recounts church history:
Surprise 1 - John Piper invited Rick Warren to be a keynote speaker at his 2010 Desiring God conference.
Surprise 2 - Piper gives an explanation that is even more confusing.
Surprise 3 - Many of us know that Warren is clever, pragmatic, and not a theological dunce. It was, therefore, widely expected that Warren would deliver a solid sermon loaded with reformed theology to woo his new audience. That he delivered his usual moralistic man centered diatribe on how to fix our lives took me completely by surprise.
Surprise 4 - Burk Parsons and John Piper, in response to Warren's dreadful sermon, had nothing critical to say about it.
Surprise 5 - Virtually nobody with any profile in the evangelical world had anything to say about Warren's sermon (with the exception of a handful of people like James White, Todd Friel, and Mike Abendroth).
The lack of fallout from this has actually done a lot of damage. Warren has gained a credibility in certain circles that he should never have received. The Purpose Driven movement has driven a lot of good pastors out of their pulpits and turned many discerning church goers into outcasts. Many of us have taken refuge in fellowships with good reformed preaching from people like Dr John Piper. This is why we are horrified at the thought of Warren and his purpose driven propaganda gaining any traction whatsoever among churches that guard the Gospel and good doctrine. This series is a project I have taken upon myself because, though there are people far more qualified, there has been a lack of response and analysis. My desire is to show that the inherent problems in man centered preaching are obvious and easily detectable, that dissecting a sermon like this is beneficial for our practice of discernment in our local church context, and that their is a huge need for biblically sound hostility to all other gospels than the one found in Scripture.
The following commentary corresponds to the following video from 30:53 to 36:00
It is difficult to sift through the barrage of things we need to do. In this section of video Warren launches with his "five levels of learning". Rick - chapter and verse please! Perhaps he is right and these ideas may be helpful but I have no idea where he gets them from. And yet at the same time, we are learning that asking Warren for biblical support usually creates more problems than it solves when we see his hermeneutical practices and the bogus translations he uses. Hearing all this reminds me of my old days in a seeker friendly church where I was continually overwhelmed with the number of things I needed to do that I wasn't doing. I believe it makes most of us dizzy and discouraged.
Warren seems to think that almost every aspect of Christian development, whether it be conversion, discipleship, or sanctification, can have a lengthy "how to" manual written for it - he also thinks that he is just the man to write it. The importance of the regenerative transforming work by the Holy Spirit in taking someone dead in sin and bringing him to life with a new heart and earnest desires to obey God, is easily noticed by it's continual absence from Warren's preaching.
Rather than dismantle this diatribe, which has been done enough already in earlier posts, I will just respond to two points that Warren makes in this section of video.
1. Warren's commitment to church history and good theology. Warren gleefully responds to his critics in these areas by pointing out that they have a "small bio" of a figure from church history on the back of their church bulletin! But wait, there's more - they even have a "theological word of the week" also on the back of their bulletin at Saddleback. How dare anyone ever question Rick Warren's commitment to church history and good theology. This is so laughable it would make a good comedy routine - if it wasn't so insulting to those in the audience who labor week in week out in the biblical text and great commentaries. The fact of the matter is that Warren's track record on these issues stands in very stark contrast to his own portrayal of himself. Is it possible that he just can't see this???
2. Warren's explanation of the cross. In John Piper's video explaining why he invited Warren he actually tells us that he asked Warren about Penal Substitutionary Atonement. You only need to watch this video from 0:19 to 0:43 :
Warren flexes his theological muscles when Piper calls him saying that it is "absolutely essential that we get Penal Substitutionary Atonement right in the Gospel". This is a staggering comment in the light of the fact that I have heard Warren attempt to explain the Gospel on numerous occasions and have never once heard him even mention anything about this wonderful doctrine.
As is evident in Warren's sermon at Desiring God, rather than delve into the doctrine of the atonement, Warren prefers to lean on his own platitudes and cliches to describe the greatest event in history. How much does Jesus love us? Warren says the answer lies in the Savior's arm span as he hung upon the cross - that "He would rather die than live without us". These are the ingredients of a lame romantic song, not the doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement. In one hour of preaching this is the closest Pastor Warren gets to what should be the epicenter of his preaching. This just makes me so angry that Rick Warren can get away with this double speak.
The following commentary corresponds to the following video from 21:45 to 23:30
Here we see a small sampling of a lot that lies ahead. Rick Warren admonishes his audience that the one necessary quality they need to be learners, and hence disciples, and hence leaders (you know, that vast biblical doctrine of "leadership") is humility. Within the space of less than two minutes Warren makes both a clarion call to humility and a brazen statement about how he is so much smarter than his enemies. Arrogant and jerk are strong words but I can't think of anything stronger so they will have to suffice for now. I just cannot believe that Rick Warren can continually act like an arrogant jerk in these large forums and not get taken to task.
Most likely, the enemies Warren is referring to are those who have been critical of his theology and practice. Not only did Warren give an apt demonstration of his staggering humility by pronouncing himself "smarter than" his "enemies", he also dumped on his many discerning critics saying that they are people "who only learn from themselves" - lacking the clear Yoda like qualities Warren has gained through his advanced learning abilities. Unbelievable - is he that delusional that he cannot hear what he is saying? Four of Warren's strongest critics who immediately spring to mind are Michael Horton, John Macarthur, Tim Challies, and James White. So is Rick Warren saying that these guys are dumber than he is? Is he saying that they are unlearned and only read their own work? Is he saying that he is way more humble than they are? Michael Horton, John Macarthur, Tim Challies, and James White are four giant intellects who grace the evangelical landscape with outstanding biblical exposition, depth of knowledge, and razor sharp apologetics. These are not the kind of guys to shoot from the hip and when they level criticism at Warren it is not unfounded nor ungrounded. Some of that has been on display as this series has progressed revealing that they are very aware of Rick Warren's "theological content".
But does Rick Warren really learn from his critics? The three most common and serious charges leveled against him would be: 1. His failure to preach the Gospel. 2. The fact that he continually twists Scripture and is overtly willing to use poor Bible translations in instances where they lend credence to his own ideas. 3. His regular failure to distinguish between believers and unbelievers when applying covenants and promises found in Scripture.
These are very serious grievances. The chorus of criticism did reach the point where Pastor Warren felt it necessary to write a book that would respond to the critics and set the record straight. He hired an apologetics attack dog by the name of Richard Abanes to harass websites and blogs that were critical of Warren as well as write the book "Rick Warren And The Purpose That Drives Him". So Rick Warren devoted a whole book to respond to the many criticisms leveled at him. And what did he have to say in response to those "big three" grievances mentioned above? Nothing - absolutely nothing! While Warren devotes plenty of energy in downplaying his friendship with Robert Schuller and his connections with the emergent church, he dances around the strongest objections raised against his ministry - in a book devoted to responding to these critics! Rick - this is not a great advertisement for how much you learn from your critics.
Tim Challies had this to say about "Rick Warren And The Purpose That Drives Him":
The single most common concern raised about Warren (at least in my experience) is his use (or misuse) of Scripture. This comes in two forms. First, Warren often quotes verses out of context or in ways that are advantageous to the point he is trying to make. He will often quote only a half of a verse if the second half does not support what he wants to say. Second, he uses poor translations and translations that say what he wants the Bible to say, rather than what God intended for it to say. There are times when this may be an honest mistake, but there are other times when it is clear that Warren has deliberately twisted a verse or taken it from its context to make it work for his purposes. Despite these two areas being of prime importance to those who are concerned with Warren's ministry, Abanes gives this no attention whatsoever. None. Not a sentence.
Another common criticism is Warren's prayer in the seventh chapter of The Purpose Driven Life. He leads the reader to pray, "Jesus I believe in you and I receive you" and then welcomes to the family of God anyone who prayed that little prayer sincerely. Yet this was before the person was provided any significant information about sin or repentance. It would be easy to assume that the person was praying to receive purpose more than to receive Christ. This is a very common criticism, yet one Abanes does not address.(online source)
All that from the man who sets new standards in humility. The pastor who is so much smarter than his critics because he learns so much from them - the very same critics who "only learn from themselves". Think about it, America's Pastor is pretty impressive. He was able to lecture us about humility, trash his opponents, and dazzle us with his smartitude all in the space of two minutes of video.
No, I have not forgotten to discuss Rick Warren's sermon at this years Desiring God conference. I have two or three more posts to finish discussing the Danish journey my family has been on that culminated in us planting a church - Kristuskirken. Blogger stats actually revealed a good number of Danish readers much to my surprise. Considering the rumors and innuendo that swirl around my name I thought it time to recount most of the saga thus far. Not primarily to defend myself, but to lay out the truth on everything - some of which I have been keeping private. So my life in Denmark series should wrap up next week.
As an appetizer for the upcoming Rick Warren discussion I want to draw your attention to an interview James White did recently where he gave his critique of Warren's sermon. The interview was conducted my Pastor Mike Abendroth on his excellent new program No Compromise Radio. Good Christian media can be hard to come by when the discerning ear ventures away from the sermon archives of good ministry websites. Wretched Radio and White Horse Inn are two shining lights at the forefront of good theology, good discernment, and good satire. You can now add No Compromise Radio to that list for a program that is both provocative an theologically sound, and has great guests like Al Mohler, Michael Horton, Rick Holland, Joel Beeke, and James White.
James White had this to say regarding the interview:
I was forced at gunpoint to join Mike Abendroth (one of the nefarious and widely feared Abendroth Brothers Gang) on his No Compromise Radio Program today. What was worse, he forced me to listen to Rick Warren's presentation at the DG Conference. Very painful. 350 pithy platitudes strung together on citations of the Message and the Living Bible interspersed with psychology and repeated references to how uber cool Saddleback is. But, I listened, because I was forced to! And then Mike made me go on the air and give a report! It was a traumatic experience, but I got through it. Someday I will return the favor and force Mike to race me up South Mountain.
It is about time that some prominent Christian voices took Rick Warren to task and I'm relieved that James White stood up and spoke with honesty and clarity about the lame moralism that America's pastor continually dishes out from the pulpit and the public square! I was not able to embed this audio on my blog but you can listen to it here. Hang in there until the second half of the interview where Warren's sermon gets discussed.
I must say from the outset that I am incapable of discussing this subject and doing it justice. It goes so far beyond my sinful flesh and tiny brain. I cling to the hope that God will be glorified in my human weakness.
To be right with God we need pardon for our sin. As impossible as that is we also need something else. We need righteousness to enter into eternal life and God’s presence. Take a look at Proverbs 17:15. Just stop and meditate on this for a moment.
He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the LORD (Proverbs 17:15).
This verse reveals the heart of the problem. If God pardons a sinner He becomes an abomination. This is why the Gospel is not about us telling God we’re sorry and being forgiven. God is bound by His law to punish sin. Do you see this problem? There was only one way and that is why He is the only way!
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6).
And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12)
Now the only way that God can forgive sinful men is if God who made the law and God who demands satisfaction, if He Himself comes down, and pays the penalty. This is why God became a man, Jesus Christ, and fulfilled the whole law. So that He could be condemned as a just man, in order that the wicked could be justified. Here is where we find God’s love.
For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. (2 Corinthians 5:21)
John Macarthur comments on this verse:
As Christ was not a sinner, but was treated as if He were, so believers who have not yet been made righteous are treated as if they were righteous.
Here we see what we call imputation. Jesus takes our punishment and credits us with His righteousness. The great exchange in order that we may inherit eternal life. This righteousness is a legal statement, not an injection of righteousness as the Catholics teach. Your righteousness is a credit to your account – something that you can never take credit for. You don’t become a better man. You become a bad man saved by a good God. Macarthur continues:
Christ bore their sins so that they could bear His righteousness. God treated Him as if He committed believers’ sins, and treats believers as if they did only the righteous deeds of the sinless Son of God.
This doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement is under continual attack today. There are those who prefer to downplay penal substitutionary atonement to emphasize 1. Christ defeating the forces of darkness or; 2. Christ identifying with us and our suffering by going to the cross.
These ideas are the most popular in Denmark right now. How often do you hear Jesus referred to as an example to follow. While there is an element of truth to these ideas:
1. Hebrews tells us (Heb 2:17) that Jesus is a compassionate intercessor having tasted of the human experience. 2. Jesus did come to destroy the works of the devil (I John 3:8).
But these ideas fall so far short of what the good news really is. The major reason Jesus came, to bring salvation, was because He is not like anybody and nobody can really be like Him. No one could keep the law, and no one could suffer God’s wrath. There are some ways in which I try to follow Jesus’ example but I am a hundred times more greatful that He fulfilled the law that I had broken and suffered the punishment that I deserve. There is the real good news.
There are also those within the emergent movement who totally deny Penal Substitutionary Atonement altogether. Steve Chalke calls Penal Substitutionary Atonement a form of cosmic child abuse:
... a form of cosmic child abuse - a vengeful Father, punishing his Son for an offence he has not even committed. (The Lost Message Of Jesus p182)
And Brian McLaren had these shocking words to say . . .
The root of all these attacks on this doctrine lies in the earlier mentioned pillar 2 – the depravity of man. We live in a culture that is therapeutic and egotistical. A culture that inflates people’s self esteem, but never lays blame at anyone's feet. And if churches want to accommodate those people, they can try and do it by getting rid of Penal Substitutionary Atonement. Because to teach that you have to teach why Christ had to take punishment that we deserve which, in turn, means that you have to present man as a criminal and not a victim.
Did you ever wake up in the morning and wonder “where did all the stars go?” Did they all just disappear? No – but we only ever see them shining in their glory against the background of a dark night sky. And the cross of Jesus Christ shines in its glory against the dark background of our sin against Him – and it was only when God helped me to see the awful darkness of my sin against Him that I could start to see the depth of His love for me in sending Jesus Christ.
What was the one thing Jesus feared? It wasn’t the Jews – he fearlessly humiliated them in public. It wasn’t the Romans – our Lord looked Pilate square in the eye and told him that the only reason the Roman Governor had any power over God in flesh was because God had given him that power for that moment (John 19:11). Jesus did not fear Satan for he overcame and rebuked him in the wilderness. What was the only thing that Jesus feared - when he prayed in the garden. It was the cup, the cup of God’s wrath (Luke 22:42). How terrifying must God’s wrath be if our Lord asked for another way. How serious must God’s Holiness and man’s sinfulness be if this was the only way that payment could be made.
We must preach the cross as the place where the perfect righteous Lamb of God drank the cup of God’s wrath in our place. The key word in this is “propitiation”. Both John and Paul speak of it.
And are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins (Romans 3:24-25).
The word propitiation means a “sacrifice that takes away sin and satisfies wrath” (James White, The God Who Justifies, p194). This is wonderful news and something that true Christians get excited about. God no longer has wrath aimed at those who he saves because Christ has taken it in their place.
And the resurrection is the proof of God’s satisfaction with Christ’s payment. Isn’t it great to hope in a resurrection body (Romans 4:24-25)?
I awoke this morning and peered out the window. I felt like a space traveller viewing a new planet from the safety of my spacecraft. The first fresh snowfalls of this winter had blanketed the bleak and dark Danish landscape transforming it to a beautiful and unblemished white. It instantly brought to mind the book by James White I am currently reading called The God Who Justifies.
In this book Dr. White devotes a chapter to what he calls Luther's dunghill. Luther was known for his "earthy" illustrations and this was no exception. Luther spent most of his life in a region not far from where I live where the climate and landscape were similar. The pretty countryside of summer gradually disappears with the chilling onset of the fall. The days grow shorter and darker, the vegetation becomes leafless and barren, and the great outdoors becomes a place of constant cloud cover with driving wind and rain. And to cap it all off, in Luther's day, the farmers, in desperate need of fertilizer:
would collect the refuse of their farm animals into piles to be spread out on the fields when the weather demanded. These "dunghills" would dot the landscape and were anything but attractive to either see or smell. Drawing on this commonplace occurrence, Luther once attempted to demonstrate the difference between justification and sanctification. He likened our sinful state to a dunghill: ugly and offensive, it has nothing in and of itself that would make it pleasing to anyone, let alone God.
This is what we are like in our sin. There is nothing that would recommend us to God, nothing that is acceptable, nothing that merits His blessing. We are foul and repulsive in our sin . . . Justification, he went on, is like that first snowfall of the approaching winter, the one that covers everything in a blanket of pure white. Unlike later snowfalls, where man has shoveled and plowed and otherwise worked to clear a path for himself, that first snow is clean, beautiful. Everything is covered in the same uniform blanket - even, Luther points out, those piles of dung. What was once foul is no longer. The smell is gone. The repulsive sight is gone. All is white and clean and pure.
This is how justification differs from sanctification. In justification we receive the pure and spotless righteousness of Christ, a blanket that covers over our sin in the sight of the Father. The dunghill is still, intrinsically and internally, a dunghill - that hasn't changed. What has changed is its relationship to an external standard - God's standard.
That first snowfall, the righteousness of Christ, an alien righteousness, the righteousness of another, is imputed to us, covering us and removing our offensiveness before God the Father. We do remain sinners inwardly; it is the work of sanctification that changes us internally, conforming us ever closer to the image of Christ. (The God Who Justifies p119-120)
As I gaze out my window I behold this rare moment of beauty on the long dark night of winter in Northern Europe. The purity of the fresh snow not only conceals the mud beneath, but it creates light and visibility during these short days. The dunghills Luther spoke of were covered by the snow but it did not make them go away. So too, our sinful nature does not leave, but is still there warring against the spirit of a new creation in Christ. It is here where the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit begins growing us in holiness and conformity to Christ. Our good works, or fruit of the Holy Spirit, contribute nothing to God's legal verdict of justification. But they do give outward evidence of the Spirit's inner transforming work. If the outward evidence is not appearing we have cause to heed Paul's words to the Corinthians and:
Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Or do you not realize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?--unless indeed you fail to meet the test! (2 Corinthians 13:5)
For centuries (millenia perhaps) Catholics have confused this vital line of distinction between justification and sanctification. This has played a major role in their devolopment of an apostate works righteous religion where human works make a contribution to our salvation. James White continues:
In the Roman Catholic system our dunghill would become a pile of gold through the "laver of regeneration", baptism. It would then be internally changed and made pleasing to God.
However, the pile of gold may commit sins during the course of its life on earth. Some sins, it is said, do not destroy the grace of justification that has turned the dunghill into a pile of gold. These are called venial sins. But there are punishments, temporal punishments, that come with such sins. We would liken these to flecks or globs of dung that appear on the surface of the gold . . . this leads to the catholic doctrine of purgatory, the idea of a place of cleansing after death but before the entrance into the presence of God. But what about those serious sins that do, in fact, destroy the grace of justification? These "mortal" sins would instantaneously turn the pile of gold back into a pile of dung. The dunghill must then rely upon other remedies to regain the grace of justification (the sacrament of penance, in this particular case) and again become a pile of gold. Yet there can be temporal punishments for mortal sins as well, so even though the dunghill becomes a gold pile, it's not a perfect gold pile - it still must be concerned about self-purification.
The worst thing with such a system is this: the pile never knows whether it is gold or dung. Since there are requirements that must be fulfilled to obtain justification and maintain it, one can never know if everything that needs to be done has been done.
And so the real issue of this entire study comes to the fore. Is salvation the work of God? Does God save, perfectly, completely, in accordance with His own purpose and grace? Or is the Gospel a "maybe", a "do this and live". Is it a matter of "done in Christ Jesus", or is it "do with help and assistance from God"? (The God Who Justifies p121-122)
White summises the liberating truth that delivers us from this quagmire of Catholic bondage when he says "clothed in the righteousness of Christ that is ours by faith and faith alone - this is the hope of the believer.
This is the major line (though there are several others) that seperates Christianity from Roman Catholicism. This is the core of what the reformation was fought over and many lost their lives in the process and don't think for one minute that this gulf that divides has disappeared. The Catholic sponsored Council of Trent has not been revoked which, to this day, clearly states:
"If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema" (Council of Trent, Canons on Justification, Canon 9).
Anathema, according to Catholic theology, means excommunication, the exclusion of a sinner from the society of the faithful. Roman Catholic theology therefore pronounces a curse of excommunication, of being outside the camp of Christ, if you believe that you are saved by grace through faith alone in Jesus. Do not be deceived by attempts at Christian unity with Catholics. The reformers fought for the truth of justification by grace alone, through faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone - and so must we!
May the first snow each winter remind us of the glorious doctrine of justification, how wonderful it is, how precious it is, and why we must fight for our lives to defend it - just as Luther did here 500 years ago!
Click Here To Read Rob Bell Takes Off His Sheep Suit for my latest post concerning the scandal surrounding Rob Bell's "Love Wins" video and John Piper's renunciation of Rob Bell.
I guess it is a fair question to ask why Rob Bell has featured on my last four posts. After all, there are far better things to talk about. But I am continually asked for information regarding Rob Bell by concerned church goers who are continually bombarded by his teaching during church services and youth meetings. As a final installment I thought it might be appropriate to contrast the gospel according to Rob Bell with the Gospel according to John Piper. Bell says "you are the gospel". Piper says "God is the Gospel". What a great contrast. They cannot both be right no matter how much postmodern spin doctoring you try to do. Which Gospel are you trusting because one leads to eternal life and the other is a road to eternal damnation . . .
Clicke Here to see James White's critique of Bell's video.
James White is the director of Alpha and Omega Ministries, a Christian apologetics organization based in Phoenix, Arizona. He is a professor, having taught Greek, Systematic Theology, and various topics in the field of apologetics. He has authored or contributed to more than twenty books, including The King James Only Controversy, The Forgotten Trinity, The Potter's Freedom, and The God Who Justifies. He is an accomplished debater, having engaged in more than seventy-five moderated, public debates with leading proponents of Roman Catholicism, Islam, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Mormonism, as well as critics such as Bart Ehrman, John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg, and John Shelby Spong. He is an elder of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church.
THE GOD WHO JUSTIFIES James White Category: Theology Click Here To Order The history of the Christian church pivots on the doctrine of justification by faith. Once the core of the Reformation, the church today often ignores or misunderstands this foundational doctrine. The God Who Justifies is a major (400 page) exegetical defense of the great doctrine of justification by God's grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone. This work provides in-depth, exegetical discussions of the key biblical passages that define the great doctrine of justification, as well as a lengthy discussion of James 2:14-26. Theologian James White calls believers to a fresh appreciation of, understand of, and dedication to the great doctrine of justification.
