1. You might be a false teacher if your website is not blocked by the Chinese government.
2. You might be a false teacher if you think choosing the base model demonstrates modesty and good stewardship every time you purchase a private jet.
3. You might be a false teacher if your last name is also a monetary currency.
4. You might be a false teacher if you think having a Bible Mantra is an alternative to reading it.
5. You might be a false teacher if Oprah invites you onto her show.
6. You are a false teacher if you appear on Oprah's show and she never objects to anything you say.
7. You might be a false teacher if you don't know what an elephant looks like.
8. You might be a false teacher if Brian McLaren endorsed your book.
9. You might be a false teacher if you think you are the one who has finally figured out what the Apostle Paul was on about.
10. You might be a false teacher if you think tithing puts Satan in a cage.
11. You might be a false teacher if you think "Thou shalt not criticize" is the 11th Commandment.
12. You might be a false teacher if you think "Thou shalt tithe" is the 12th Commandment.
13. You might be a false teacher if you think that when Jesus said, "On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets," He was referring to the 11th and 12th Commandments.
14. You might be a false teacher if Barack Obama finds your spiritual advice to be helpful.
15. You might be a false teacher if you think firing an elder is a form of church discipline.
16. You might be a false teacher if you believe it is the sheep's job to protect the shepherd.
17. You might be a false teacher if you wear a suit when you're in the White House and an Hawaiian shirt when you're in the Lord's House.
18. You might be a false teacher if you agree with Rob Bell about anything.
19. You might be a false teacher if you use the Council of Trent to defend your theological position.
20. You might be a false
teacher if you think that Herman Newtix is the guy who keeps telling John
MacArthur to be mean to Charismatics.
21. You might be a false
teacher if you think that "The Message" is a Bible translation.
22. You might be a false
teacher if you think the Bible is subject to your editorial process.
23. You might be a false
teacher if you think that the Reformation was a speed bump on the highway of
church history.
24. You might be a false
teacher if you think church history refers to the different phases of your
building project.
25. You
might be a false teacher if the promise of the forgiveness of sins found in
Jesus Christ underwhelms you.
My head has been spinning over the last two years at the shocking decisions made by so many people I respect. Who would have ever thought that John Piper would invite Rick Warren to Desiring God, or that The Gospel Coalition would say almost nothing publicly about their member Mark Driscoll's inexcusable behavior, or that James MacDonald would put his stamp of approval on the ministry of TD Jakes. Am I in the matrix? Has modern evagelicalism built a portal into an alternate reality? Have the real James MacDonald and John Piper been abducted by aliens and are currently being impersonated by shape shifting imposters? My friends still laugh at these theories but not too much anymore.
What is going on? I don't know the answer to that, but in the midst of all of this mayhem I have become greatly encouraged by the number of godly men in this country who have been galvanized to action and enlisted in the truth war. Perhaps Rob Bell fully removing his sheep suit was the catalyst for all this combativeness and I finally have something to thank him for. Whatever it is, the growing clamor of zeal by men who desire to earnestly contend for the "Once for all delivered faith", and oppose all other "gospels" is probably the most exciting development in the last twelve months.
One great example of this is Pastor Arvid Svendsen (sounds very Scandinavian) who has withdrawn his mega-church from James MacDonald's Harvest network and given a lengthy public statement as to why. Thank God for men like Arvid, may God bless his congregation for the stand he has taken, may godly men rally around him, and may his stand be an integral part of the much needed correction needed to good preachers who start to go maverick. Read on and be greatly encouraged . . .
March 7, 2012
An Important Message from the Elder Board of Harvest Bible Chapel New Lenox:
Our church began on January 1, 2003 as "Cornerstone Church" with the purpose to glorify God by proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ to our community. On October 2, 2005, we joined with Harvest Bible Fellowship (HBF) and became Harvest Bible Chapel New Lenox (HBCNL). We were excited to be HBF's first "transition church".
By God's grace, we have enjoyed many good times of fellowship and growth since our partnership with HBF. God has worked in our midst as we have determined to preach the Word of God, to call men and women to faith and repentance by the enablement of the Holy Spirit, and to trust God to do His work of drawing them to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ by His grace and for His glory.
Decision to Disassociate with Harvest Bible Chapel Fellowship
As the Elder Board of HBCNL, we now come to a significant moment of change in regards to our affiliation with HBF. Over the past year and a half the elders of HBCNL have sensed an increasing shift away from the convictions and philosophy of ministry that were in place when we joined HBF in October, 2005. In light of these concerns, we are disassociating from Harvest Bible Fellowship, effective March 31, 2012. We will then assume our previous name (held from January 1, 2003 to October 2, 2005), "Cornerstone Church", and continue to serve the Lord together as an independent church.
Harvest Bible Chapel Ministry new distinctives that we oppose:
In order to be clear, greater detail concerning our differences with Harvest Bible Fellowship is necessary. Though we are not accusing Harvest Bible Fellowship or Pastor James MacDonald of abandoning the faith, we are convinced that they have drifted into error in a number of key ministry areas. That drift can be evidenced by at least three major changes in their convictions and philosophy of ministry:
1. A Growing Personality/Celebrity Pastor Centered Ministry
The Elder Board of HBCNL is troubled by HBF's commitment to the establishment of "multi-sites", also called "video campuses", in Chicagoland with Pastor MacDonald projected weekly on the video screen as the lead preacher. Multi-sites minimize the gifting of the Holy Spirit for vocational pastor/teachers to exercise "live" teaching and preaching, personally shepherding the flock, and directly practicing spiritual oversight. The multi-site model is foreign to the biblical model of ministry in the New Testament, as pastors and elders are told by Peter to "…shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight…" (I Peter 5:2a). Our observations of HBF indicate that a corporate mentality is in place that seeks to promote Pastor MacDonald in a way we cannot support.
2. Pastor MacDonald's associations with "pastors" who hold to errant theologies
We do not oppose pastors having friendships with those who are not genuinely regenerate, as long as the goal is be a strong voice of the Gospel to the unregenerate minister. However, we are deeply concerned that HBF has been disrupted by associations and influences of men who hold to errant theologies and ministry distinctives.
A number of those associations include "pastors" given over to a hybrid prosperity/empowerment/love-over-doctrinal-precision posture. The resultant troubling actions, decisions, and statements from Pastor MacDonald demonstrate the negative impact of those associations. For example, Pastor MacDonald allowing prosperity teacher Steven Furtick to preach at HBC Rolling Meadows in August of 2011 is something that would not have happened five years ago at Harvest. Another example of influence was Pastor MacDonald's statement, "I am also excited to hear him (T.D. Jakes) state his views on money, which may be closer to Scripture than the monasticism currently touring reformed world". T. D. Jakes is an empowerment/prosperity gospel preacher. Associations like these have brought about harmful influence. Further, despite Pastor MacDonald's claims to the contrary, the large majority of the public's perception of associations with errant pastors is that there is endorsement in belief and mission.
3. Lack of Discernment in the Elephant Room Discussions
It was learned in the Fall of 2011 that the January 25, 2012, "Elephant Room 2" (ER2) conference would host T.D. Jakes as one of the seven pastors invited to form a discussion panel. The conference was intended to address difficult ministry topics with the seven pastor panel. The announcement of T.D. Jakes' appearance at ER2 was publicly criticized by a number of godly pastors and evangelical leaders. The elder board of HBCNL was also unanimous in our strong disagreement with the Jakes ER2 invitation. As referenced above, Jakes is clearly associated with many TV stations and ministries that are steeped in the false teaching of the Prosperity Gospel/Word Faith Movement. That reality in itself made the ER2 invitation alarming.
Equally alarming is the fact that Jakes is ordained in the Oneness Pentecostal Church, which denies the Trinity. Rather than believing in the biblically correct view of God as one God eternally existing as three "persons", the Oneness Pentecostal church holds to the errant view that God is one God existing as three "manifestations". The Oneness Pentecostal view denies the biblical view of the Trinity, denies the co-eternality, co-existence, and co-equality of the Son and the Holy Spirit with God the Father, and instead claims that one God shows up in history in three different "manifestations".
When given the opportunity, the orthodox pastor must confront unbiblical teachings and doctrines:
"I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths." (2 Timothy 4:1-4).
A large segment of the "evangelical church" has drifted away from strong adherence to biblical doctrines, sadly denigrating the precise and clear explanation of those doctrines. The current thinking among many preachers is that doctrinal precision should be laid aside, and love should be the priority in the church of Jesus Christ so that unity would be attained. The opposite is true. A high regard for biblical truth and the guarding of doctrinal precision is the basis of unity, as the Lord Jesus Christ prayed, "…sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth…" (John 17:17). The truth of the Scriptures clearly defined is the highest expression of love for the listener. Strict adherence to Biblical truth and doctrine, not doctrinal leniency, brings about the unity for which the Lord prayed.
Both Pastor Driscoll and Pastor MacDonald failed to address Jakes' prosperity gospel teaching at ER2. In fact, Jakes' prosperity gospel teaching was not publicly questioned or addressed at all. The reason for ignoring that entire area of false teaching at the ER2 is unknown, since we were told that we would be hearing about Jakes' views on the subject.
During the ER2 session with Pastor MacDonald and Pastor Driscoll, Jakes stated that he was not comfortable with the orthodox term "persons" or the modalistic term "manifestations". Specifically, Jakes stated, "My doctrinal statement is no different from yours except the word… 'manifest' instead of 'persons', which you describe as 'modalist', but I describe it as 'Pauline'."
Jakes then proceeded to make a case for the validity of the term "manifestations" to describe the Godhead based on I Timothy 3:16. However, the phrase Jakes referred to, "He was manifested in the flesh" found in I Timothy 3:16 is not referring to the essence of the Triune Godhead, but rather explains the incarnation of the Lord Jesus Christ. It was deeply troubling that none of the other six pastors on the ER2 panel challenged Jakes' incorrect interpretation of I Timothy 3:16.
Jakes' view on the Trinity, is not only deficient, it is outside the realm of orthodoxy, and can only be labeled as heresy. Jakes urged that we not be too caught in those issues which were surrounded in mystery. Yet we read in Scripture that we must "…contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints..." (Jude 3).
Though we are called to speak to the lost, the church is warned to never welcome the false teacher into any gathering so that his words are given any type of legitimacy:
"If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting; for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds." (2 John 10,11)
The Bible is clear about the stance one should take towards false teachers. T.D. Jakes' stated position on the Godhead is not an orthodox view of the Trinity. Jakes attempted to defend his position of the Trinity using language that is unique to the modalist who denies the Trinity. Unlike T.D. Jakes, no Trinitarian is uncomfortable with the word "persons" to describe the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit of the one God of the Bible.
Ultimately, Jakes' position on the Trinity is not the issue. Rather, the problem is HBF and Pastor MacDonald's not correcting or rebuking the false teaching presented in ER2. Pastor MacDonald's doctrinal tolerance and leniency before, during, and after the ER2 is at the heart of our departure from HBF. Pastor MacDonald's subsequent defenses of the ER2 on his website and on Moody Radio lead us to conclude that this change in direction established is part of the future ministry of HBF. Grievously, doctrinal leniency and disregard for proper theological examination from the pastors present marked the event.
We have addressed our concerns with the leadership of HBF
We addressed our concerns with Kent Shaw and Bill Molinari on two separate occasions, and also had additional conversations. We expressed to them our deep disappointment with ER2. We repeatedly expressed the clear violation of Scripture that was taking place by giving T.D. Jakes a platform to espouse his errant theology concerning the Trinity and the false gospel and prosperity and empowerment that marks his ministry. During all meetings, both Kent Shaw and Bill Molinari were gracious and brotherly. Although the desire to work out our difficulties with HBF was present, it became clear that we could not continue to partner with HBF as directed by Pastor MacDonald.
What is our future direction?
In light of the decision to withdraw from Harvest Bible Fellowship, what is our direction for the future?
1. Independent Church
Our conviction is that we remain independent, with no denominational affiliation at this point. That decision does not mean that we will never form any association with a fellowship of churches in the future, but at this time, we will remain an independent church.
2. A "new" name
Our new name will be "Cornerstone Church", our original name when we began the ministry in 2003. The belief and mission of Cornerstone Church will be given over to the authority of the inspired Word of God, the grace of our Lord, and the n We are deeply committed to declaring the Gospel of Jesus Christ. we will through the ministry of the word, prayer, and the work of the Holy Spirit, we will inform the community that we have changed our name, and will continue to meet in the same place, continuing to seek to obediently minister the word and reach out to the lost for the sake of the glory of Christ.
A new constitution
Legally, we must craft a new constitution, and make necessary legal requirements for the name change. Most of that work has been accomplished, our goal is to have all our necessary obligations completed by March 31, 2012. However, we are not dissolving as a church, we are simply dropping our affiliation. Transition to Cornerstone Church will take place during March 2012.
Please pray for our church as we continue to minister, and that God will be glorified in all that we do and say. Pray also for Pastor James MacDonald and HBF, that they would be attentive to the Holy Spirit and the Word of God.
Sincerely in Christ,
Pastor Arvid Svendsen
arvid@harvestnewlenox.org
Elder Board: Carl Pignotti, Don Howley, Steve Long, Dean Porter, Jim Schwab, Rex Stouffer
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!
It would seem that my theory about the real James MacDonald being abducted by aliens some time last year is not as far fetched as my doubters first thought. Of the multitude of "weird" things James MacDonald has done over the last year or so, perhaps the most alarming was his invitation to TD Jakes to attend his Elephant Room conference where "brothers" discuss their methodological differences. Rather than back down and receive the biblical counsel from his many orthodox friends, MacDonald decided it would be better to redefine the mission statement of the Elephant Room, then redefine what brother means, then redefine Jakes' slippery modalist language, and then resign from The Gospel Coalition. It has been truly amazing to see the lengths James MacDonald (the alien imposter version) will go to to have TD Jakes at his conference. Before the conference MacDonald had promised us that the Elephant Room is a place where "sparks fly", men face up to each other, and don't shy away from disputes . . .
Well, amidst the disappointment, many of us remained intrigued as to how many sparks would appear in flight in the conversation between James MacDonald, Mark Driscoll, and TD Jakes. Since I'm not willing to shell out the bucks to buy a copy of the video from Pastor MacDonald, we'll have to settle for a transcript. And even though this format is text rather than video, I think even the untrained eyes might be able to spot an elephant or two. And if the following conversation proves too tedious then make sure you scroll down to the bottom of the post to see how Todd Friel earned his "elephant spotting badge"!
Jakes: My father was Methodist. My mother was Baptist. My father's family was Methodist as far back as I can remember. I was raised in a Baptist church. But I was raised in church but I really didn't have a real committed experience with Christ until my father died. When my father died, I had a real experience with Christ -- a real conversion in Christ, and I had it in a Oneness church.
Driscoll: By Oneness meaning [what]? -- for those who do not know all the theological terms.
Jakes: Well it would be like, how do I explain it? It was not a UPC [United Pentecostal] church, in spite of the blogs. It was not a UPC church, but somewhat similar.
Driscoll: Jesus only, modalism?
Jakes: "Jesus only -- modalism" which is still a theological term. ... But Christians and Christians [who] believe in Jesus Christ, believe He died and rose from the dead, coming back again -- all the same things that you do. Pentecostal Christians by its virtue. But how they described and explained the Godhead in a traditional oneness sense is very, very different from how traditional Trinitarians describe the Gospel. And I was in that church and raised in that church for a number of years. My problem with it as I began to go on and as God began to develop my ministry, I started preaching from that church and from that pulpit and that sort of thing. But I'm also informed by the infiltration from my Baptist experience and my Methodist experience, so I ended up Metha-Bapti-Costal in a way. So I'm kind of like a mixed breed sitting up here, OK? And what I began to find out [is that] it is easy to throw rocks at people that you don't know, but the more you really get to know them and see Christ work in their lives, regardless of their belief system, you begin to try to be a bridge-builder. ... When you try to build bridges between people who've been fighting for hundreds of years -- hundreds of years before you ever even got into the discussion. There is an old adage that says 'he who stands in the middle of the road gets hit by both sides.' So as I began to progress, I began to understand that some of the dogma that I was taught in the Oneness movement was very dogmatic and very narrow and really not the best description of how I now understand the Godhead. I still did not want to switch teams and start throwing rocks back across the street, because much of what we do today is teach people to take sides. But I believe we are called as the Body of Christ to reconcile wherever possible.
MacDonald: Alright, but before we even get into -- and I think what you're leading us into is wise and helpful and it reflects why we're here -- how we relate to people who differ is on subject. Before we even go to that, I'd love to give you an opportunity to just -- like there were some particular Scriptures that began to inform you, you began to move and develop in what you personally believe. I'd like to just hear you articulate that.
Jakes: My struggle after I was ordained and consecrated in the Oneness church was in several passages, sometimes the doctrine fits; sometimes it doesn't. And when the doctrine becomes the primary thing you force it into many places where it doesn't fit. I really at this point in my life don't want to force my theology to fit within my denomination. I am open to hear whatever God is saying. Jesus was baptized in the Jordan River, for example, coming up out of the water the Holy Spirit descends like a dove, the Father speaks from heaven -- and we see all three of them on one occasion, or in Genesis "let us make man in our own likeness" or Elohim -- He is the one God who manifest Himself in a plurality of ways. Or what Jesus says, "I am with the Father, and the Father is in me" and understanding -- or attempting to understand. And that began to make me rethink some of my ideas and some of the things that I was taught. I got kind of quiet about it for a while. Because when you are a leader and you are in a position of authority, sometimes you have to back up and ponder for a minute, and really think things through. I began to realize that there are some things that could be said about the Father that could not be said about the Son. There are distinctives between the working of the Holy Spirit and the moving of the Holy Spirit, and the working of the redemptive work of Christ. I'm very comfortable with that. You and I have talked; [Jack] Graham and I have talked; there is very little difference in what I believe and what you believe. But here is where I find the problem: I don't think anything that any of us believes fully describes who God is. And if we would ever humble down to admit that we in our finite minds cannot fully describe an infinite God.
Driscoll: ... We all would agree in the nature of God there is mystery, and it's like a dimmer switch: how much certainty, how much mystery. But within that, Bishop Jakes, for you the issue between Trinitarianism and Modalism at its essence is one God manifesting Himself successively in three ways? Or one God three persons simultaneously existing eternally. ... And I understand, there is some mystery -- for sure. Would you say it's One God manifesting Himself in three ways, or One God in three persons?
Jakes: I believe that neither one of them totally did it for me, but I think the latter one is where I stand today.
Driscoll: One God, three Persons?
Jakes: One God, three Persons. One God, Three Persons, and here is why -- I am not crazy about the word "persons." ... My doctrinal statement is no different from yours except for the ...
Driscoll: The word "manifestation."
Jakes: Manifest instead of persons. Which you describe as modalist, and I describe it as Pauline. Let me show you what I'm saying. When I read 1 Timothy 3:16, I didn't create this. ... "And without controversy," which I think we have been bickering about something that is what Paul describes as a mystery, and I don't think we should do that. "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness. So God was manifest in the flesh." Now Paul was not a modalist, but he does not think that it is robbery to the divinity of God to say God was manifest in the flesh. And I think maybe it's semantics. But Paul says this before this fight was started. But He also says God "was manifest in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of angels, preached until the Gentiles, believed on in the world, and received up into glory." Now, when we start talking about that sort of thing, I think that it is important that we realize that there are distinctives between the Father and the working of the Son. The Father didn't bleed, the Father didn't die -- [that happened] only in the person of Jesus Christ. Coming back for us in the person of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ has with us, but only indwells us through the person of the Holy Spirit; we are baptized into the body of Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. I don't think any of that is objectionable to any of the three of us.
MacDonald: Not at all.
Jakes: So that is consistent with my belief system. I'm with you. I have been with you. I teach/preach that all the time. There are many people within and outside quote unquote denominations that are labeled Oneness that would describe that the same way. There are some that would not. But when we get to know people by their labels, then comes all the baggage of how we define that label. ... it's almost like the stereotypical ideologies we have about races. We have little ideas about denominations and movements. The reason I applauded what you said earlier about people who have dual affiliations: We are taught in society that if we disagree with any movement, we leave. We sever. Oh, you said something I disagree with we fall out and then we walk away. I still have fellowship, associations, relationship, and positions within and without Trinitarian and Onenness movements, because I believe that until we bridge the gap between our thinking and humble both sides and say, "We are both attempting to describe a God we love, that we serve, and that we have not seen. And that we are viewing Him through the context of the Scriptures, but that with a glass darkly." Why should I fall out and hate and throw names at you when all that I know and understand, be it very orthodox, is still through a glass darkly? And then face to face. None of our books about the Godhead or anything else will be on sale in heaven. You know why? Because we're only authorities down here, with our little kingdoms in this world. I think it's so important that we realize that our God is beyond our intellect. And if you can define Him and completely describe Him and say you are the end-all definition of who God is, then He ceases to be God. Because the reason Paul says it is a mystery, is that we deify the fact that God does things that don't fit our formulas.
Driscoll: Let me jump in here. I want to say a couple of things. Thank you for joining us. You don't have to be there. You were on the cover of Time magazine. You have options of where you go.
MacDonald: This isn't your biggest gig ever? [laughter]
Driscoll: It takes a lot of courage and humility to put yourself in an unscripted situation and to be outside of your normal tribe. And the fact that you showed up to dinner last night, I was shocked. I was like, "T.D. Jakes is coming to dinner?" I loved you. I enjoyed you. I really appreciated hearing your story of your family in context and your upbringing. And I walked away going, "I really appreciate getting to meet and know and enjoy that man. So thank-you for being gracious; thank-you for being courageous; and thank-you for being humble. And I think it might be helpful because, You're coming out of a Oneness background and out of a different context than a lot of us are. You've demonstrated humility, saying "I've been studying the Bible and I'm even changing some thinking as I'm studying." A lot of pastors will just defend their first position to death rather than humbly reconsidering it biblically. Maybe to help others understand you, on the flip side, How have you been treated and what has the response been from some who were friends that you don't want to throw rocks at, but because of your transition.
Jakes: That's what's funny about this, that's what's really funny to me.
Driscoll: Are you the heretic to them?
Jakes: Oh, very much so in many circles ... Many of the circles that I came from would never allow me in their pulpit because they consider me a heretic. I have to read the article to see which heretic I am.
MacDonald: We'd be honored if you'd come be with us and let's all grow together.
Jakes: OK, and that'd be great. But I think the time has come for us to be willing to take the heat to have a conversation. Because if we do not do this, and we continue to divide ourselves by ourselves and compare ourselves with ourselves, we do it at the expense of decreasing numbers of new Christians in our country. We have to mobilize. Just for your consideration: This is the only thing that Jesus prayed that we can answer. He only prayed, "Father, I pray that they may be one even as You and I are also one." And this is the one thing that is within our power to answer, and we do not do it.
Driscoll: Can I ask a couple of quick questions, and then we can do whatever you want. Do you believe this is the perfect, inspired, final authority Word of God? [Driscoll holds up a Bible]
Jakes: Absolutely.
Driscoll: So you believe there's one God, Three Persons -- Father, Son and Holy Spirit? You believe Jesus was fully God, fully Man?
Jakes: Absolutely.
Driscoll: You believe He died on the cross in our place for our sins?
Jakes: Absolutely.
Driscoll: You believe He bodily rose from death?
Jakes: Absolutely.
Driscoll: You believe that He is the judge of the living and the dead?
Jakes: Yes.
Driscoll: And you believe that Apart from Jesus there is no salvation?
Jakes: Absolutely.
Driscoll: Thank-you. [applause]
MacDonald: That was crazy! I've just want to say this: I am so weary of people thinking they know -- they don't know I think you honor us and you humble us, a man of your stature and commitment to the Gospel and fruitfulness would come and sit in this room, let you and me ask him what he believes? ... I just want to say this, I think you've honored us, and you've shown immense humility, and I want to be in the world where I believe that Jesus Christ stands. And He's told us again and again He stands with the humble. "Get to those people who love my Son, who believe my Word, who express humility." And I'm honored to hear what you said. I want to just say, further, Mark, if I could contribute to this, that I feel deeply in my heart that God is both three and one. Three and one. I believe the Scripture is very clear when we get to heaven, we are going to see Jesus -- the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declare. Jesus is the only God we will ever see. When I was studying Revelation last year I was struck by the number of times that I saw in the book of Revelation that it almost seems in the text like the Father and the Son are on the same throne, and when I start to think about this, I believe in God eternally existing in three persons. But, the more I think about it, the more I feel like my head is going to explode, and I get a little weary of people who feel that they need to erase mystery and replace it with certainty as a test of orthodoxy. If what we have heard today doesn't satisfy, then the person is insatiable, and I'm ready to move on to a new subject. I believe that very strongly.
Jakes: Let me just make one little comment: One of the things that you said at the end, even as we talked about it before, and I've heard Jack Graham say this, too, that there is going to be one throne and there's going to be one God we can see. And I thought the more I hear everybody arguing about this, we're all saying the same thing. And we like fight about it to the death, and I just think that in the world that we're living in today, if we could just connect, and I know that there will always be distracters and there will always be people who define themselves by their differences rather than their connections, who are more comfortable with being known by what they are against than by what they are for. But when I hear you say that there's going to be one throne and one God on that throne, My soul leaps in celebration, and I hear both of us stumbling trying to explain how God does what He does like He does. I think THAT stumbling is worship. I think THAT stumbling is worship. I think the fact that we would humble ourselves and say, "Your thoughts and ways are beyond human comprehension" is what makes worship fill the room.
There you go! Did you spot any elephants? I know Todd Friel earned his elephant spotters badge . . .
The previous post in this series highlighted the farcical state of professing Christianity in Denmark. When high profile Pentecostal leader, Lars Due Christensen, evicted me from a Christian conference - for sharing the Gospel with people - it was just one example of the dreadful biblical illiteracy that plagues church leadership throughout Denmark - whichever denominational stripe they may be. Not only that, it was a blatant demonstration of the overt hostility to the biblical Gospel by those who profess to be the shepherds.
The word of the LORD came to me: "Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel; prophesy, and say to them, even to the shepherds, Thus says the Lord GOD: Ah, shepherds of Israel who have been feeding yourselves! Should not shepherds feed the sheep? You eat the fat, you clothe yourselves with the wool, you slaughter the fat ones, but you do not feed the sheep. The weak you have not strengthened, the sick you have not healed, the injured you have not bound up, the strayed you have not brought back, the lost you have not sought, and with force and harshness you have ruled them. So they were scattered, because there was no shepherd, and they became food for all the wild beasts. My sheep were scattered; they wandered over all the mountains and on every high hill. My sheep were scattered over all the face of the earth, with none to search or seek for them.
"Therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the LORD: As I live, declares the Lord GOD, surely because my sheep have become a prey, and my sheep have become food for all the wild beasts, since there was no shepherd, and because my shepherds have not searched for my sheep, but the shepherds have fed themselves, and have not fed my sheep, therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the LORD: Thus says the Lord GOD, Behold, I am against the shepherds, and I will require my sheep at their hand and put a stop to their feeding the sheep. No longer shall the shepherds feed themselves. I will rescue my sheep from their mouths, that they may not be food for them.
"For thus says the Lord GOD: Behold, I, I myself will search for my sheep and will seek them out. As a shepherd seeks out his flock when he is among his sheep that have been scattered, so will I seek out my sheep, and I will rescue them from all places where they have been scattered on a day of clouds and thick darkness. And I will bring them out from the peoples and gather them from the countries, and will bring them into their own land. And I will feed them on the mountains of Israel, by the ravines, and in all the inhabited places of the country. I will feed them with good pasture, and on the mountain heights of Israel shall be their grazing land. There they shall lie down in good grazing land, and on rich pasture they shall feed on the mountains of Israel. I myself will be the shepherd of my sheep, and I myself will make them lie down, declares the Lord GOD. I will seek the lost, and I will bring back the strayed, and I will bind up the injured, and I will strengthen the weak, and the fat and the strong I will destroy. I will feed them in justice. (Ezekiel 34:1-16)
True shepherds do two things; they feed sheep and they protect them from wolves - not feed sheep to wolves! With this in mind and the reality that many church goers in Denmark were entranced by the "kookiness and spookiness" of the Word Faith prosperity preachers (at least the remainder of those who were not either liberal, emergent, or purpose driven), I called upon my dear friend Justin Peters to see if he was traveling anywhere near Europe in the coming months. As providence would have it Justin was going to be doing seminars in England and had space in his schedule to fly over to us in the summer of 2008 and teach his "A Call For Discernment Seminar". Consistent with the cowardly practices of Danish church leaders it was apparent that there had been somewhat of a stealth campaign with "strong encouragement" for people not to attend Justin's seminar. As usual, it seems that an open discussion with Tilbage Til Bibelen (our evangelism ministry) was not an option. Nonetheless, Justin graciously came and ministered to us. If you haven't seen his seminar, it is jaw dropping! Justin is not a bitter individual, but he does offer an even handed, yet devastating, biblical critique of the preachers who seem to monopolize airtime in religious broadcasting. Here is an overview of Justin's seminar:
Thou shalt not criticize is not the eleventh commandment. It is a manipulative technique used by false teachers to protect them from scrutiny. God's Word has survived millennia of scrutiny, but these Word Faith charlatans cannot survive any!
Coming Friday - Frikirkenet (which is a Danish word that means "a network of church leaders united by their common ignorance of plain biblical teaching").
Today I am starting a series which will examine some of the popular soundbites and cliches used by modern preachers, to see if they are based in Scripture or human inventions. To see if they are consistent with the Christian faith or contrary to it. Is "preach the Gospel, if necessary use words" a helpful catchcry for evangelism? Is hell "eternal separation from God"? Do our churches need to be "seeker sensitive"? Should we "accept Jesus into our heart and make Him Lord"? Does "God have faith in us"? Is "loving God and loving people" the Gospel? Is preaching law before grace "legalism"? Over the coming weeks I will be responding to these, and other popular myths emmanating from many modern pulpits. The first one I will examine today is the popular Charismatic/Word Faith teaching on the Greek words "rhema" and "logos".
Myth 1. The word ”word” is translated either Rhema or Logos in the New Testament. Logos means written word and Rhema means personal revelation.
I can remember 13 years ago when I lived in Australia being at a Bible camp where we were sitting under the teaching of one of the major leaders within the Australian Pentecostal movement. This leader listened to me as I counselled one of the youth on the importance of the Bible by quoting Romans 10:17 which says ”faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God”. Well, then the leader called me over and corrected me. He told me that the ”word of God” in Romans 10:17 was a ”rhema” word and that meant personal revelation – not Scripture.
I thought this guy must be right. He pastors a big church and must know a lot more than me. But about a year later by accident I heard a greek lecturer at a Pentecostal Bible school teach that the words rhema and logos are interchangeable. I was shocked by this revelation. I asked him, don’t you realize that this rhema logos teaching is widely used. There is even a whole movement based on this teaching – There are major churches and bible colleges named Rhema. The lecturer just shrugged his shoulders and said that none of the leaders were interested in having a greek lecturer teach them about greek words.
This is an idea that seems to have originated and gained major traction in the Word Faith movement. So I did some of my own research and this is what I found:
Matthew 26:75 And Peter remembered the word (rhema) of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.
Mark 14:72 And Peter called to mind the word (rhema) that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice.
Luke 22:61 And Peter remembered the word (logos) of the Lord, how he had said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.
1) Jesus' word to Peter that Peter would deny him three times before the rooster crowed is recorded in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. The Matthew and Mark accounts refer to Jesus' word that Peter would deny him three times before the rooster crowed using the Greek word "rhema" for Jesus' word. The Luke account, however, refers to Jesus' word that Peter would deny him three times before the rooster crowed using the Greek word "logos" for Jesus' word. By comparing these 3 accounts side by side we can see that both "rhema" and "logos" can refer to a prophetic spoken word.
Ephesians 6:17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word (rhema) of God:
Hebrews 4:12 For the word (logos) of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
2) Ephesians 6:17 and Hebrews 4:12 both describe the word of God as a sword, but Ephesians uses the Greek word "rhema" for the word of God, while Hebrews uses the Greek word "logos" for the "word" of God. Should we assume that there are two different "swords" of God's word, one that is a rhema word and one that is a logos word? No, the obvious answer is that it's the same sword being described in both cases and that the words "rhema" and "logos" are not distinct enough to justify creating two different categories of the word of God.
Acts 10:44 While Peter yet spake these words (rhema), the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word (logos).
3) Acts 10 describes Peter proclaiming the Gospel to Cornelius' household. Verse 44 uses both the Greek word "rhema" and the Greek word "logos" to refer to the words Peter spoke to them. Once again, this indicates that "rhema" and "logos" are both interchangeably associated with the spoken word.
What is my point in all this? It is that we have the authority of Scripture. The reformation succeeded where the renaissance failed because it was built upon the absolute authority of God’s Word. If you look through church history and look at every movement that honored God and then fell away – you will find the troubles first started with small compromises on God’s Word. Peter said that:
For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased," we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. (2 Peter 1:16-21)
Truth 1. God’s Word is a more certain than even hearing God’s voice from heaven.
Continued on Wednesday: Myth 2 - Doctrines only became true after they were written in creeds.
5. When Jesus talks about a camel going through the eye of a needle He is actually talking about the gate to an ancient city.
This is a very popular idea among the Word Faith teachers. I have heard it taught in Australia, the US and Europe. The most frightening thing about this teaching is not the teaching itself (as bad as that is) but what it says about how little teachers and church members in these churches know their Bibles.
Here's an example of this teaching:
The motive behind the teaching seems quite clear. They want to say that it is good to be rich, you just have to be like the camel that has to bow down as it enters the narrow gate of the city. Likewise the rich man only has to bow down in humility to enter heaven’s gate.
Just a very quick glance at this passage of Scripture shows this teaching to be wrong. But, equally tragically, it ignores a truth that is way more exciting than anything this world has to offer. Let’s pick this up at Luke 18:22 near the end of Jesus’ conversation with the “rich young ruler”:
22When Jesus heard this, he said to him, "One thing you still lack. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me." 23But when he heard these things, he became very sad, for he was extremely rich. 24Jesus, seeing that he had become sad, said, "How difficult it is for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God! 25For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God." 26Those who heard it said, "Then who can be saved?" 27But he said, "What is impossible with men is possible with God." (Luke 18:22-27)
Is the eye of the needle the gate of a city? We can be certain it is not because in verse 26 the disciples understood it as something impossible “who can be saved” and in verse 27 Jesus confirms that he is describing something physically impossible. But Jesus is explaining that salvation is impossible unless God works a miracle. I found it the greatest irony that the people who teach that the eye of the needle is the gate to a city also invite people to make a decision to become a Christian. Even though the text says that “with man this is impossible”.
Here is the great truth we learn from Luke 18:
Conclusion 5: Man is utterly incapable of saving himself. But God is fully able to save sinners – conversion is a miracle!
It is a miracle made possible by the atoning work of Jesus Christ. Once again, it all points to Christ's redemptive work. Those who abuse Scriptuire continually point away from the cross of Jesus Christ. The Cross is where we must begin and end our theology. We need to preach the Cross again and again. It needs to take center stage in our preaching. The older preachers knew this. Spurgeon was once told that his sermons all sounded alike. His response:
That may be so. I can take any verse in the Bible and make a bee-line for the Cross.
As we have gone through this series I have wanted to make these two major points. In all of the five abused Bible verses i have discussed, each can be clearly understood by reading the surrounding text. It is true in fact that most interpretive problems are readily solved by a plain reading of the surrounding text. My other major point has been that sound teachers always take the text they preach and show how it ultimately points to the cross of Jesus Christ - as we will now see as we conclude by reviewing this series.
In Part 2 (John 3:17) we learned that :
Jesus did not come to condemn because this world is already condemned under the wrath of God.
In Part 3 (Romans 2:4) we learned that:
The kindness of God that leads to repentance is shown in that He delays His wrath giving sinners time to repent.
In Part 4 (Matthew 18:20) we learned that:
Two or more of us gathering in God's Name for the purposes of church discipline gives those of us in the church confidence that we have Divine authority to deal with unrepentant sin within our camp.
In Part 5 (Jeremiah 29:11) we learned that:
Jeremiah 29:11 was a promise of blessing to a particular future generation of the Israelites in Babylonian slavery - it is not a verse that we can apply as a personal promise from God to us. If that were the case then we would also have to apply the verses personally that concern God cursing certain people. The major message to 21st century Christians from Jeremiah 29:11 is that God does not abandon His people!
And in Part 6 (Luke 18:25) we learned that:
The eye of the needle Jesus spoke about was not the gate to a city. The following two verses clearly refute this bogus teaching. Jesus' major point here is that man is utterly incapable of saving himself. But God is fully able to save sinners – conversion is a miracle!
Coming Soon - Popular Myths Embraced By Popular Teachers.
A prominent theme in Brian Houston's teaching is "thou shalt not criticize", or as I call it, the eleventh commandment. Many bad teachers survive solely on the basis of this mantra. It is commonplace among the Word Faith and prosperity crowds.
Without a doubt we should be careful about our motivation and attitude when asking critical questions. But Scripture actually mandates the testing of all teaching commanding us to test all teaching (I John 4:1), expose the works of darkness (Ephesians 5:11), mark false teachers (Romans 16:17), and condemn any other gospel than the one found in Scripture (Galatians 1:8-9). John Macarthur had this to say about teaching that opposes any critique:
In a time like this of tolerance, listen, false teaching will always cry intolerance. It will always say you are being divisive, you are being unloving, you are being ungracious, because it can only survive when it doesn't get scrutinized. So it cries against any intolerance. It cries against any examination, any scrutiny—just let's embrace each other; let's love each other; let's put all that behind us. False doctrine cries the loudest about unity. Listen carefully when you hear the cry for unity, because it may be the cover of false doctrine encroaching. If ever we should follow 1 Thessalonians 5, and examine everything carefully, it's when somebody is crying unity, love, and acceptance (online source)
One of the real problems with trying to have productive discussion with people immersed in this kind of "theology" is that they mask their unrepentance in a four fold strategy - change the subject, ignore it, deny it, or question the motivation behind a question. For example, Brian Houston responded to criticism by Tim Costello about his prosperity theology by saying:
Costello, says Houston, "likes what we do generally" but has a problem with Hillsong's success. He, like those from some of the more traditional churches, is simply jealous of it, Houston tells me. "The irony is, Tim Costello is a pretty successful guy himself. The big difference between us is that I like to teach other people to be successful and not just enjoy the success myself."
Did you see it there? Rather than answer the criticism, Houston preferred to question Costello's motivation and then take a veiled swipe by portraying Costello as someone who is unlike him because he does not share his "success" - and all with a smiling face. It is an art form that few of us can exercise so skilfully.
We also saw Robert Fergusson deal with my question about Hillsong's willingness to alter Bible verses by ignoring it altogether. Well done Robert - a great way to display all those years of theological education! Furthermore, Fergusson's denial of any contradiction between Hillsong's faith statement (concerning repentance) and gospel presentation was behavior that any ostrich would be proud of. And from beneath the sand (where Fergusson's head was buried), he managed to slip in the good old subject change when he said:
It would also be ungracious for either of us to suggest that we believe the Bible, repentance or the gospel more than the other.
Encountering the four fold stragey of:
1. change the subject 2. ignore it 3. deny it 4. question the motivation behind a question
serves as a reminder as to why I have gone public with my attempts at engaging in a productive dialogue with Hillsong church. It is my hope that many readers, friends, and beneficiaries of God's glorious Gospel, would diligently pursue increasing public awareness of the drastic difference between the Gospel of God's redemptive work in Christ, and the gospel of man's invention. Only one of them can save us!
Those who know me or read this blog should know that I'm a pretty transparent guy. Getting a good feel for what I love and what I hate requires almost no hermeneutical skill whatsoever. I love the Gospel, the beautiful glorious Gospel which reveals the stunning kindness of God in saving wretched unworthy sinners like myself through the unspeakable substitutionary death of Christ in the place of sinners, satisfying God's holy wrath that I deserved. Grace is amazing when you understand that God punished Christ as if he had committed my litany of crimes, and I get rewarded as if I lived Christ's flawless holy life. The glorious mystery of how God could grant me pardon without violating His character and nature. These are precious things of infinite value.
On the other hand, I hate the so called "prosperity gospel" that dominates the airwaves of modern "Christian television". Those who make Jesus a means to an end instead of exalting Him as the glorious bottom line of everything in life. The fact that they focus so much time on the material things of this world and the gratification of our flesh only serves to show how little they think of the infinite price Christ paid with His lifes blood in order that sinners could be reconciled to a Holy God. I've had one too many run-ins with this so called "gospel" in recent weeks and I thought it appropriate on the Lord's day to expound the true prosperity gospel.
It is also no secret that I love the preaching ministry of Paul Washer. He is a real man who is not enticed with the empty riches of this world but tirelessly preaches Christ crucified. I can't think of anyone better to illuminate the true biblical prosperity gospel . . .
Clearly the book of Job presents a huge problem to the Word Faith preacher who espouses the the idolatrous ideas that God's will is ALWAYS for us to be in perfect health, wealth, success, and free from suffering. I knew what God said about Job:
Job 1:8 And the LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil?" (Job 1:8)
And how Job responded to his loss of wealth, health, and family (that God had clearly appointed in His providence):
And he said, "Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked shall I return. The LORD gave, and the LORD has taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD." In all this Job did not sin or charge God with wrong (Job 1:21-22).
And how favorably Ezekiel and James referred to Job:
"Son of man, when a land sins against me by acting faithlessly, and I stretch out my hand against it and break its supply of bread and send famine upon it, and cut off from it man and beast, even if these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they would deliver but their own lives by their righteousness, declares the Lord GOD (Ezekiel 14:13-14).
As an example of suffering and patience, brothers, take the prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord. Behold, we consider those blessed who remained steadfast. You have heard of the steadfastness of Job, and you have seen the purpose of the Lord, how the Lord is compassionate and merciful (James 5:10-11).
With the knowledge of these passages of Scripture I sat there in disbelief as the prominent Word Faith pastor blamed Job's suffering on his Job's sin. It became clear to me that for this preacher to interpret the book of Job faithfully would totally devastate his precious "prosperity theology". I could smell the stench of fraud and needed to venture out for some fresh air.
The reason for my discussion on this issue is not primarily aimed at Word Faith heresies but to bring to light God's sovereignty over all things whether they be good or evil and that He will ultimately derive glory from everything that transpires in this world. It is a form of idolatry to embrace a theology that views God as a cosmic Santa Claus, and to claim that sickness, poverty, and suffering are foreign to God's providential will - because it amounts to embracing a god who does not exist, a god who is defined differently to the One True God of Scripture. Furthermore it is an explicit denial of His omnipotence (being all powerful), and omniscience (being all knowing).
In recent years I have been brought face to face with preachers at funerals who would rather embrace open theism (that God is not omnipotent and therefore tragedies can happen contrary to His will) than point to the ultimate comfort of resting in God's sovereignty. That God ordains all things according to His purposes and that all things, ultimately, work together for good for those who love God and are called according to His purposes.
Think about it for a moment. Telling a parent who has lost a young child that it was not God's will or that the Devil took them. Making someone's healing entirely contingent on the level of faithfulness we can attain to in prayer for them. Claiming ambitious promises by quoting Scripture out of context. Initially these things may alleviate some pain from a tragedy. But what about the long haul of life - lying awake at night running endless permutations and scenarios through our human brains. Contemplating the "what ifs" - what if I prayed more, what if I didn't catch that plane, what if we went to the doctor 6 months earlier . . . Brothers and sisters, this thinking and understanding of God is not only wrong, it also wreaks havoc on our faith and understanding of Who God is.
The great evangelist and Bible Scholar AW Pink had this to say about God's sovereignty (extract taken from chapter 12 of his classic book "The Sovereignty of God" - please read it all the way through it is powerful and profound):
The doctrine of God's Sovereignty is one that is full of consolation and imparts great peace to the Christian. The Sovereignty of God is a foundation that nothing can shake and is more firm than the heavens and earth. How blessed to know there is no corner of the universe that is out of His reach! as said the Psalmist, "Whither shall I go from Thy Spirit? or whither shall I flee from Thy presence? If I ascend up into Heaven, Thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, Thou art there. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; even there shall Thy hand lead me, and Thy right hand shall hold me. If I say surely the darkness shall cover me; even the night shall be light about me. Yea, the darkness hideth not from Thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to Thee" (Psa. 139:7-12). How blessed it is to know that God's strong hand is upon every one and every thing! How blessed to know that not a sparrow falleth to the ground without His notice!
How blessed to know that our very afflictions come not by chance, nor from the Devil, but are ordained and ordered by God: "That no man should be moved by these afflictions: for yourselves know that we are appointed thereunto" (1 Thess. 3:3)!
But our God is not only infinite in power. He is infinite in wisdom and goodness too. And herein is the preciousness of this truth. God wills only that which is good and His will is irreversible and irresistible! God is too wise to err and too loving to cause His child a needless tear. Therefore if God be perfect wisdom and perfect goodness how blessed is the assurance that everything is in His hand and molded by His will according to His eternal purpose! "Behold, He taketh away, who can hinder Him? who will say unto Him what doest Thou?" (Job 9:12). Yet, how comforting to learn that it is "He," and not the Devil, who "taketh away" our loved ones! Ah! what peace for our poor frail hearts to be told that the number of our days is with Him (Job 7:1; 14:5); that disease and death are His messengers and always march under His orders; that it is the Lord who gives and the Lord who takes away!
The One seated upon the Throne of Heaven, the One who is Governor over the nations and who has ordained and now regulates all events, is infinite not only in power but in wisdom and goodness as well. He who is Lord over all creation is the One that was "manifest in the flesh" (1 Tim. 3:16). Ah! here is a theme no human pen can do justice to. The glory of God consists not merely in that He is Highest, but in that being high He stooped in lowly love to bear the burden of His own sinful creatures, for it is written "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself" (2 Cor. 5:19). The Church of God was purchased "with His own Blood" (Acts 20:28). It is upon the gracious self-humiliation of the King Himself that His kingdom is established. O wondrous Cross! By it He who suffered upon it has become not the Lord of our destinies (He was that before), but the Lord of our hearts. Therefore, it is not in abject terror that we bow before the Supreme Sovereign, but in adoring worship we cry "Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honor, and glory, and blessing" (Rev. 5:12).
Here then is the refutation of the wicked charge that this doctrine is a horrible calumny upon God and dangerous to expound to His people. Can a doctrine be "horrible" and "dangerous" that gives God His true place, that maintains His rights, that magnifies His grace, that ascribes all glory to Him and removes every ground of boasting from the creature? Can a doctrine be "horrible" and "dangerous" which affords the saints a sense of security in danger, that supplies them comfort in sorrow, that begets patience within them in adversity, that evokes from them praise at all times? Can a doctrine be "horrible" and "dangerous" which assures us of the certain triumph of good over evil, and which provides a sure resting-place for our hearts, and that place, the perfections of the Sovereign Himself? No; a thousand times, no! Instead of being "horrible and dangerous" this doctrine of the Sovereignty of God is glorious and edifying, and a due apprehension of it will but serve to make us exclaim with Moses, "Who is like unto thee, O LORD, among the gods? who is like Thee, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders?" (Exo. 15:11).
