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!
How would you deal with a situation where you are a member of a local church that you love and suddenly find out that they have invited a known heretic to come and fill their pulpit? Would you respond? How would you approach this?
My friend Andrew in Australia was recently confronted with this situation and he responded to it. In fact, I was so impressed with Andrew's careful research and gracious presentation that I wanted to post it here over the next week as a very helpful example of a God honoring way to go about responding to such a dire situation. Andrew also compiles an excellent and helpful profile on the beliefs/teachings of Tony Campolo. Take it away Andrew . . .
Earlier this year, our church announced that they would be hosting Tony Campolo as a guest speaker. This immediately raised a red flag for me as I had heard him referenced many times in a negative light and so I began to research his teachings. I also informed a couple of the pastors at our church that I was aware of some theological issues and that I was going to investigate further.
I want to release some of the work I did to the general public for a couple of reasons.
1. I want people to gain a better understanding of Tony Campolo and his teaching. I do not believe he is theologically sound and as such I want people to see the wolf that he is. 2. I want people to learn from my attempt at challenging church leadership. My attempt was by no means perfect, and I don’t want it to be held up as “This is how you should do it”. I was very fortunate to have a number of people come along side me in this process to read and re-read what I wrote. I believe that it is possible to graciously but firmly warn a church that they are hosting a wolf.
I want to emphasise that the leadership of this church are people I consider friends and the church community is one that I dearly love. To this end, I have been careful to remove all names of the people and the church involved so that this cannot be seen as an attack on the church or its leadership.
Below is a letter that I submitted to the church leadership summarising my research.
Dear [Pastors],
I want to bring you up to speed with my research into Tony Campolo and what I have learned.
I want to make a couple of things very clear before I get into specifics:
• I am raising these issues out of a heart for the church and a love for God. I am not interested in causing division or making a scene but rather I am genuinely concerned for protecting the theological integrity of the church and its members. • I have always placed a high value on supporting, assisting and encouraging you as leaders of this church and this remains my commitment. I am not seeking to judge you in any way for this decision to allow Tony Campolo to speak here nor do I wish to undermine you in any way. • I am conerned only with Tony Campolo’s theology. His character and behaviour are not in question. Everything I hear, including from his critics, is that he is a really nice guy and a very skilled communicator, however what concerns me and I have therefore examined are his teachings. I do not have relationship with him and do not need to in order to evaluate his teachings and whether or not he ought be invited as teacher. We must be like the Bereans of Acts 17 who closely examined the scriptures to examine the claims that Paul made. We are also commanded to identify those whose teachings are not in alignment with scripture and beware of them (Rom 16:17). To do this we must look at the breadth of his teachings both in what he has written and said publically.
To that end I have endeavoured to work from primary sources rather than potentially out of context secondary sources: • I have read a number of articles that he has written that are published on the beliefnet website. • I have read transcripts of interviews that he was involved in. • I have also listened to audio of him being interviewed.
As a secondary source, I have also used large sections from his books cited on a couple of blogs. I refer to these as secondary because I do not have complete copies of his work. In these cases I have been careful to examine the blog writer’s integrity with quoting work by comparing quotes to primary sources that I did have access to. For the moment I am prepared to trust these quotes as accurate unless I am shown that they are out of context or otherwise inaccurately reproduced in which case I am more than happy to reconsider their use in making my case.
I have found multiple areas that are of considerable theological concern and I have summarised them below.
1. He denies God’s omniscience and omnipotence
Following hurricane Katrina’s destruction in the US in late 2005, Campolo weighed in with his view that clearly undermined both God’s foreknowledge of the event and his ability to intervene.
“Unfortunately, there are a lot of bad answers. One such answer is that somehow all suffering is a part of God's great plan. In the midst of agonies, someone is likely to quote from the Bible, telling us that if we would just be patient, we eventually would see "all things work together for the good, for those who love God, and are called according to His purposes." (Romans 8:28)”
“I don't doubt that God can bring good out of tragedies, but the Bible is clear that God is not the author of evil! (James 1:15) Statements like that dishonor God, and are responsible for driving more people away from Christianity than all the arguments that atheistic philosophers could ever muster. When the floods swept into the Gulf Coast, God was the first one who wept.”
“Perhaps we would do well to listen to the likes of Rabbi Harold Kushner, who contends that God is not really as powerful as we have claimed. Nowhere in the Hebrew Scriptures does it say that God is omnipotent.
Kushner points out that omnipotence is a Greek philosophical concept, but it is not in his Bible. Instead, the Hebrew Bible contends that God is mighty. That means that God is a greater force in the universe than all the other forces combined.” (“Katrina: Not God's Wrath--or His Will” - http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christianity/2005/09/Katrina-Not-Gods-Wrath-Or-His-Will.aspx)
To imply that this was not God’s will (in the title of the article) implies that the creation is not subject to God. He reinforces this in the later quote by Rabbi Kushner. That is flat out historical heresy.
It is a concession by someone who does not have a Biblical understanding of suffering.
2. He does not understand the Biblical Gospel
In an interview with Shane Claiborne he states:
“Catholicism would say that at the moment of death every person is confronted in that split moment with Christ and is given the opportunity of saying yes or no. To say otherwise is to say God has got to be a pretty unfair deity, to condemn three quarters of the human race to hell without them ever having a chance.”
“There is much in Christianity that would suggest exactly the same thing, particularly Romans the 2nd chapter, where the apostle Paul says "What do we say of those who do not accept the law of God," and I would add "as we understand it," "and are faithful to all the things that God calls us to do--will God not have to make room for them?" He asks that as a rhetorical question, leaving the reader with the obvious sense--"but of course." So I think that the apostle Paul would be a lot more generous towards Islamic people than most of my evangelical brothers and sisters are.” (From: “On evangelicals and interfaith cooperation: an interview with Tony Campolo by Shane Claiborne” - http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2096/is_1_55/ai_n13798048/ - Emphasis mine)
In this statement, he shows a lack of understanding of the justice of God. In his words, “God has got to be a pretty unfair deity” if he punishes people for their sins. This is seen again as he dramatically misinterprets Romans 2:14-15 which clearly speaks of the fact that all people, Jew or Gentile understand God’s standards because he has written his law on their hearts in the form of a conscience and that he has revealed some of himself through nature so that this will leave them without excuse (Romans 1:20). He doesn’t appear to understand that all of us have enough sin to condemn us (Romans 3:23) and that lack of belief in Christ is not the primary reason someone should be condemned (Romans 2:6, 8, 12, John 3:18). It would appear that to satisfy his lack of understanding he has taken on a Catholic teaching which has no basis in scripture.
In addition to this he clearly promotes a work-righteous salvation where a “good Muslim” (see Romans 3:10-12) can have a relationship with Jesus (without knowing his name) if he fulfils the Muslim command to give to the poor.
“When it comes to what is ultimately important, the Muslim community's sense of commitment to the poor is exactly in tune with where Jesus is in the 25th chapter of Matthew. That is the description of judgment day. And if that is the description of judgment day what can I say to an Islamic brother who has fed the hungry, and clothed the naked? You say, "But he hasn't a personal relationship with Christ." I would argue with that. And I would say from a Christian perspective, in as much as you did it to the least of these you did it unto Christ. You did have a personal relationship with Christ, you just didn't know it. And Jesus himself says: "On that day there will be many people who will say, when did we have this wonderful relationship with you, we don't even know who you are ..." "Well, you didn't know it was me, but when you did it to the least of these it was doing it to me."” (From: “On evangelicals and interfaith cooperation: an interview with Tony Campolo by Shane Claiborne” - http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2096/is_1_55/ai_n13798048/ - Emphasis mine)
Again he mishandles Scripture by misinterpreting Matthew 25:31-46. Jesus does not say in this account of end times (which we need to show great care in interpreting) that the good deeds make someone righteous but rather by taking this passage in conjunction with others on the same subject, we can see that Jesus is saying that the fruit of the righteous is good works (i.e. Righteousness causes good works, not good works causes righteousness). In a passage such as this, we must interpret the text in light of clearer Scriptures (Matthew 7:15-20, Ephesians 2:8-9, James 2:14-25, Galatians 5:16-26).
Jesus did not place upon us the yoke of work-righteousness. Christ has declared me righteous through His finished work on the cross and that there is nothing that I can do to contribute to my own salvation. My works and my sins are not judged when deciding my eternal fate. This is not true for Islam, Judaism or Catholicism. It is through a work-righteous theology that Tony Campolo is able to rationalize his ecumenism.
His commitment to the poor is to be highly commended and his work is well known however, I must reiterate that we are not judging his works but his theology.
Mark Dever, in his book "Nine Marks Of A Healthy Church", outlines the key factors in biblical discipleship and growth. Today, we examine the highly suppressed issue of church discipline.
7. Biblical Understanding of Church Discipline
What ever happened to church discipline? Once a normal part of church life (especially in Baptist and Presbyterian circles), biblical correction, admonition, rebuke, and excommunication have become all but extinct - dinosaurs on a contemporary horizon that is now more dominated by worship wars and polished programs than by biblical health and holiness. The flowering and fading of modernity has popularized a moral relativism and a mystic spiritual individualism that have combined to make "judgment" sound like the most recently coined four letter word. Jesus certainly wouldn't use such foul language…would He? He who said Do not judge, so that you will not be judged (Matt 7:1) also said Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgement (John 7:24). And Paul queries the Corinthians Do you not judge those who are within the church? But those who are outside, God judges. "Remove the wicked man from among yourselves" (1Cor 5:12-13). Evidently both Jesus and Paul really do want us to judge one another in some ways, even though they do not want us to judge one another in other ways. And with that, of course, we arrive at the matter of church discipline - Mark Dever
We will grow as disciples in a church that is willing to discipline members for sinful activity. What sin should qualify for church discipline – any sin unrepented of. Church discipline is meant to restore the true believer and remove the false. And unrepentance is the issue. We all sin and we always hope that if we have tender hearts then we will respond to correction in humility and gratitude. But unrepentant sin is a cancer that must be removed or it can kill the whole body. Jesus laid this out in Matthew 18:
"If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them." (Matthew 18:15-20)
It is interesting to note that verses 18 to 20 are verses that I have heard quoted so many times but never in the context of church discipline. Paul teaches that God deals with those outside the church but He gives church elders the authority on earth to deal with those within the fellowship.
I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people — not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler — not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. "Purge the evil person from among you." (1 Corinthians 5:9-13)
The following two videos feature a thirteen minute interview Todd Friel did with Pastor Jeff Noblit on the very subject of church discipline - an issue Pastor Noblit deems important enough to devote a whole conference to the subject:
Part 8 will continue this series and cover the subject of a biblical understanding of church leadership. There are some high profile pastors out there who will need to duck for cover!
While on the subject of Richard Dawkins, I thought I might take a look at the sad fact of his refusal to debate William Lane Craig who is Christianity's foremost debater on the subject of God's existence (even though all men already have the knowledge of God as stated in Romans 1). This is the reason Dawkins gives:
But I suspect that there are four real reasons why Dawkins refuses to get in the ring with Dr Craig.
Reason 1: The severe lack of evidence for the evolutionary views Dawkins advocates!
Reason 2: William Lane Craig would demolish every argument Dawkins brings forth.
Reason 3: Dawkins does not want to be the next cast member from Expelled to get publicly humiliated by Dr Craig.
and Reason 4: Though Dawkins "does not have the time" to debate William Lane Craig he prefers to use his limited time to try and pick on girls he thinks are an easy target.
Rob Bell's new book, Love Wins, has caused a firestorm of controversy among the wider evangelical community. Though it has already provoked a lot of discussion within this forum alone, I am not willing to put it out of its misery just yet. There are far wider ramifications than the obvious heresy of "Pastor Bell". This is fast becoming a watershed moment of a false teacher who finally managed to cross the evangelical line in the sand. False teachers have generally tended to thrive over the last few decades in a prevailing climate of "civility", tolerance, and the good old benefit of the doubt. But notice has now been served that an evangelical community that has tolerated too much for too long still has a threshold - a threshold that took Rob Bell by surprise. Bell's surprise at the outrage over his book may well have more to do with overplaying his hand than a genuine belief in his own orthodoxy.
But has Bell actually done us all a great service by turning our discernment radars on and being increasingly overt in his attacks on the historic Christian faith? I do hope this will become the shockwave that causes much needed climate change in the evangelical world - because that line in the sand took six years too long to cross.
Even back in 2005 Bell was peddling his wares:
When people use the word hell, what do they mean? They mean a place, an event, a situation absent of how God desires things to be. Famine, debt, oppression, loneliness, despair, death, slaughter--they are all hell on earth. Jesus' desire for his followers is that they live in such a way that they bring heaven to earth . . . What's disturbing is when people talk more about hell after this life than they do about Hell here and now. As a Christian, I want to do what I can to resist hell coming to earth (Rob Bell - Velvet Elvis p148).
Rob Bell may say he isn't a universalist, but it's kind of like Bill Clinton giving a sworn testimony:
This reality, this forgiveness, this reconciliation, is true for everybody. Paul insisted that when Jesus died on the cross he was reconciling ‘all things, in heaven and on earth, to God. This reality then isn’t something we make true about ourselves by doing something. It is already true. Our choice is to live in this new reality or cling to a reality of our own making (p83).
We also learned early on that Bell's copy of the Bible is a "Robert Schuller severely abridged" version:
I can’t find one place in the teachings of Jesus, or the Bible for that matter, where we are to identify ourselves first and foremost as sinners (p130).
He also did away with that tired notion of differentiating between believers and unbelievers:
If the gospel isn’t good news for everybody, then it isn’t good news for anybody (p167).
Bell realized that many problems of the historic Christian faith could be solved by humanizing God and elevating man:
Who does Peter lose faith in? Not Jesus; he is doing fine. Peter loses faith in himself. Peter loses faith that he can do what his rabbi is doing. If the rabbi calls you to be his disciple, then he believes that you can actually be like him. As we read the stories of Jesus’ life with his talmidim, his disciples, what do we find frustrates him to no end? When his disciples lose faith in themselves…. God has an amazingly high view of people. God believes that people are capable of amazing things. I’ve been told I need to believe in Jesus. Which is a good thing. But what I’m learning is that Jesus believes in me. I have been told that I need to have faith in God. Which is a good thing. But what I am learning is that God has faith in me (p124-125).
And none of this is a problem if you think that Sola Scriptura was a foreign exchange student you met in the 80's:
It wasn’t until the 300s that what we know as the sixty-six books of the Bible were actually agreed upon as the ‘Bible’. This is part of the problem with continually insisting that one of the absolutes of the Christian faith must be a belief that “Scripture alone” is our guide. It sounds nice, but it is not true. In reaction to abuses by the church, a group of believers during a time called the Reformation claimed that we only need the authority of the Bible. But the problem is that we got the Bible from the church voting on what the Bible even is. So when I affirm the Bible as God’s Word, in the same breath I have to affirm that when those people voted, God was somehow present, guiding them to do what they did. When people say that all we need is the Bible, it is simply not true. In affirming the Bible as inspired, I also have to affirm the Spirit who I believe was inspiring those people to choose those books (p67-68).
Let's hope that this controversy causes the "evangelical line in the sand" to have a seismic shift towards the Apostle Paul:
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed (Galatians 1:8-9).
Warning: contains food references that may be meaningless to people who live outside Australia.
My family is now more than half way through our trek down under and it has been so great to escape the icy tundra of Scandinavia for the sub-tropical atmosphere of Brisbane and the Sunshine Coast. It has also been a great blessing to have Grandma and Grandpa at arms length to play with the kids and spend time getting to know them better. One of the major challenges has been not to gore food that I have been deprived of for the last four years. I have spent my fair share of time thus far devouring Tim Tams, meat pies, musk sticks, Chico Babies, Fruit Tingles, Solo, Crunchie Bars, and all the other good stuff that Elvis would have eaten if he grew up in Australia. And it's great to eat cuts of meat carved straight off the side of a cow rather than one of those pathetic european sausages full of random animal parts from random animals.
Coming back after four years has also helped to give some much needed perspective on how beautiful this part of the world is - and it can all be viewed in a t-shirt for 12 months of the year (even though Denmark has great summers the other eleven months are problematic)! The kids have spent almost the entire first month here in the pool and it has been great to see the bare flesh on their arms and legs once again. Going outside of the house no longer requires the logistical planning equivalent to invading a small country (my wife always points out that I am a man who is highly prone to exaggeration - which is why I said "small country" ok)!
It has been exciting to catch up with many of my old friends and a whole stack of new ones who have tracked me down through my blog and youtube videos. Several preaching invitations have ensued and I have been more than willing to accept those offers (for those of you in Brisbane and South East Queensland who are interested, I will be preaching in Brisbane two times on Sunday May the 8th. Firstly at 9:30am at Hope Christian Church and at 6:00pm at Christian Witness Ministries Fellowship).
Another great thrill during this trip has been the opportunity to go out open air preaching again with my Bullhorn Guy Fraternity friends. And speaking of open air preachers, my arrival has coincided with the departure of my good friend Joshua Williamson from Operation 513. After many years of delivering pizzas so that he could buy tracts and get through Bible college, Josh has now taken up a full time pastoral position at a Reformed Baptist church in the provincial city of Goulburn. We are all going to miss Josh's big voice thundering down the main street of Brisbane but I am so thrilled that he will be able to provide for his young family and devote himself fully to the noble pursuit of preaching. It was great to see you off last weekend Josh. And I was not alone, I know that every lame sissy boy liberal pastor, college lecturer, and Baptist Union appeaser in Brisbane was also thrilled to see you leave town.
Many of the readers have heard about Josh when he has featured on Wretched Radio and TV. In commemoration of Brisbane's loss and Goulburn's gain, here are a couple of great videos from when Josh was featured with Todd Friel on Wretched TV during his last trip to the USA. They feature an open air sermon followed by an interview with Todd:
It's now two months since Rick Warren's highly controversial appearance (if you count a pre-recorded video as an appearance) at John Piper's 2010 Desiring God conference. A lot of the dust has settled, and a lot of the hot blooded blogging has died down. Straight after Christmas I will be launching a series of in depth examination of Warren's sermon at Desiring God. Why is this necessary? Because Warren represents a subtle yet highly dangerous threat to reformed circles when someone like John Piper gives him any credibility whatsoever.
Because of Warren's Purpose Driven plague that infiltrated countless churches around the world, many pastors lost their jobs because of their refusal to abandon a lifetime of preaching for "40 days of purpose". This has had a massive detrimental impact on mainstream evangelicalism. We all hoped that John Piper would at least take Warren to task with some hard hitting probing questions and critique. But none of this happened as Warren's sermon received two bizarre "deer in the headlights" commendations from John Piper and Burk Parsons. These commendations were strangely contrary to so much of Piper's outstanding teaching and preaching. It just seems that there a so many great preachers out there who are unwilling to step across the line into a combat zone with false teachers for the sake of their 21st century sensibilities.
As we step into the new year I hope that we will all learn a great deal, and sharpen our discernment as to the many popular ideas that sound biblical but are actually nothing more than popular psychology. We will also see more clearly the need for a willingness to mark sharp lines of division when it comes to associations and fellowship.
But for now here is some of Todd Friel's feedback on the sermon in question:
Are you tired of lame sanitized Christian media that refuses to be combative about anything going on in the world around them? Are you frustrated at the tough questions that your pastor refuses to answer as well as his unwillingness to sit down and reason from Scripture? Do you have theological alarm bells going off every time you attend your local "church". Can you tolerate media personalities that are theologically sound, with a strong satirical bent, politically incorrect, overtly provocative, and with a very short attention span? Then Wretched Radio/TV is the outlet you've been looking for.
I make no secret of my affection for the Wretched gang and the programs they transmit. It has actually been the biggest part of my Christian education since I awoke from my seeker-sensitive slumber and started asking the right questions about the Christian Gospel. I am not suggesting it as a substitute for seminary level education (unless you attend a seminary like the one Rob Bell went to) but the breadth of subject matter and theological insight serves as a wonderful stepping off point into the amazing world of sound Christian teaching. Most of the preachers I download, books I read, and sources I tap into stem from Wretched's broad sweep of the evangelical landscape where they are so great at harvesting the gems and pouring mockery on the psychobabble trying to masquerade as Christianity. It is your one stop discernment shop. I love this program so much that Todd Friel isn't even paying me very much to say these superlatives.
Todd Friel, the host, is a shock to the system for the average church goer. Todd is what you get when you have solid theological knowledge, excellent apologetics, weird humor, and attention deficit disorder, and then throw it all in the blender! You can read my profile of Todd here.
In a "Christian media industry" plagued with over sensitivity and an unwillingness to talk about many of the hot button issues that persist unresolved, Todd charges at them like a bull at a gate. But he is no theological slouch and Wretched is an arena for all those who love to reason from Scripture. Does he always get it right? Will you agree with everything? Will you always love Todd? The answer to all these questions is no - but that is not the point!!! You will engage your mind and the biblical text and get pointers to help you find countless wonderful Christian resources that your local sissy boy seeker sensitive dude will never tell you about. To their immense credit, the gang at Wretched have been at the forefront of speaking out over the current big issues on the conservative evangelical landscape - like the willingness of many Christians to partner with Glenn Beck, Rick Warren's message at this years Desiring God Conference, and people who are politically conservative but not Gospel-centered. Todd has spoken on these issues with much needed clarity and insight. Thank you Todd for bringing some perspective to the table and keeping it always about the Gospel.
This willingness to speak out comes at a cost and let's just say that Todd and the gang (Lutheran Boy, Brainiac, Hip Hop, The Adult etc) are not on everyone's Christmas card list. With this in mind Todd Friel wrote recently:
Through a series of not so coincidental coincidences, it seems best to us to begin a new Wretched chapter. We are no longer going to be under the protection of a major ministry, but as of (gulp) Nov.1, Wretched is going to be standing alone, alone, all, all alone.
While this is scary (there are a lot of bills), we trust that God will provide through His people. We have decided to not ask for gifts (i.e. money). Instead, we have determined to create products and ministry opportunities that we hope will benefit you. It is our hope that you will consider these IF they will help you grow…and IF you have the funds.
I want to ask all my readers today to consider supporting Wretched by subscribing to their club for about $6 (USD) a month and/or checking out the unique products in their store. The thing I really like about their store is that many of their products are unique and fascinating and teach on topics that few are willing to address whether it be how to practice good hermeneutics when reading the Bible, a spicy atheist debate, full on witnessing encounters, drive by systematic theology, amazing evangelism tools, or retracing the steps of the reformers - there is something there for the serious Christian (and unbeliever). It is not a regular thing I do to give a big plug to support a ministry but because of Wretched's unique and distinctive voice in the overly sanitized world of Christian media, and their willingness to sacrifice popularity for the sake of the truth, I ask you to consider becoming a "fellow wretch"!
I can remember attending a Bible college in the late 90's that, in hindsight, was rather lacking in biblical teaching. There was, however, one elderly lecturer who was a product of far more puritanical times. He was a true Christian statesman and someone who taught me many things that I'll never forget. One thing he always reminded the young men was to always be mindful of the mortality memos that God sends. What he meant by this was that life always, eventually, dishes up circumstances and experiences that remind us of our terminal condition as sons of Adam and the fate that awaits us. These experiences can serve as precious sobering fuel in our eternal perspective tanks. I find nothing more frightening than listening to delusional people who gleefully defy God's law and mockingly shake their fist at Him. Christopher Hitchens is one such man from the ever increasing, ever brazen, band of angry atheists. Like all atheists the real issue is never a lack of evidence for God's existence, it is always that they love sin and hate God. When Hitchens was interviewed by Todd Friel I think you can hear this truth come to the surface:
Not long after that interview Christopher Hitchens received a very loud "mortality memo" - he was diagnosed with cancer. His tone has changed and I am left wondering if God has caught Hitchens' attention. On Monday you will get to read Hitchens - post cancer diagnosis - and hear this change in tone. It makes for interesting reading . . .
Ted Haggard's bizarre claim that he had "over-repented" was discussed in my previous post. Todd Friel was able to share his valuable insight that if true repentance is a 180 degree turn then "over-repentance" may well be a 360 degree turn! Ted Haggard would do well to go looking in Todd Friel's Wretched store and order Thomas Watson's classic book The Doctrine Of Repentance.
Here is an excerpt where Watson explains counterfeit repentance (these are sobering words for all of us):
To discover what true repentance is, I shall first show what it is not. There are several deceits of repentance which might occasion that saying of Augustine that `repentance damns many'. He meant a false repentance; a person may delude himself with counterfeit repentance.
1. The first deceit of repentance is legal terror. A man has gone on long in sin. At last God arrests him, shows him what desperate hazard he has run, and he is filled with anguish. Within a while the tempest of conscience is blown over, and he is quiet. Then he concludes that he is a true penitent because he has felt some bitterness in sin. Do not be deceived: this is not repentance. Ahab and Judas had some trouble of mind. It is one thing to be a terrified sinner and another to be a repenting sinner. Sense of guilt is enough to breed terror. Infusion of grace breeds repentance. If pain and trouble were sufficient to repentance, then the damned in hell should be most penitent, for they are most in anguish. Repentance depends upon a change of heart. There may be terror, yet with no change of heart.
2. Another deceit about repentance is resolution against sin. A person may purpose and make vows, yet be no penitent. `Thou saidst, I will not transgress' (Jeremiah 2:20). Here was a resolution; but see what follows: `under every green tree thou wanderest, playing the harlot'. Notwithstanding her solemn engagements, she played fast and loose with God and ran after her idols. We see by experience what protestations a person will make when he is on his sick-bed, if God should recover him again; yet he is as bad as ever. He shows his old heart in a new temptation.
Resolutions against sin may arise: (1) From present extremity; not because sin is sinful, but because it is painful. This resolution will vanish. (2) From fear of future evil, an apprehension of death and hell: `I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him' (Revelation 6:8). What will not a sinner do, what vows will he not make, when he knows he must die and stand before the judgment-seat? Self-love raises a sick-bed vow, and love of sin will prevail against it. Trust not to a passionate resolution; it is raised in a storm and will die in a calm.
3. The third deceit about repentance is the leaving of many sinful ways. It is a great matter, I confess, to leave sin. So dear is sin to a man that he will rather part with a child than with a lust: `Shall I give the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?' (Micah 6:7). Sin may be parted with, yet without repentance. (1) A man may part with some sins and keep others, as Herod reformed many things that were amiss but could not leave his incest. (2) An old sin may be left in order to entertain a new, as you put off an old servant to take another. This is to exchange a sin. Sin may be exchanged and the heart remained unchanged. He who was a prodigal in his youth turns usurer in his old age. A slave is sold to a Jew; the Jew sells him to a Turk. Here the master is changed, but he is a slave still. So a man moves from one vice to another but remains a sinner still. (3) A sin may be left not so much from strength of grace as from reasons of prudence. A man sees that though such a sin be for his pleasure, yet it is not for his interest. It will eclipse his credit, prejudice his health, impair his estate. Therefore, for prudential reasons, he dismisses it. True leaving of sin is when the acts of sin cease from the infusion of a principle of grace, as the air ceases to be dark from the infusion of light.
In my next post I will discuss some of the things Thomas Watson had to say about the nature of true repentance.
It would seem that I am not alone in being shocked by Ted Haggard's "over-repentance" as quoted in the postscript of my recent post. How exactly does someone "over-repent"? Well Todd Friel shared a fascinating insight into what Ted may be talking about . . .
Sincere repentance is a result of a Holy Spirit wrought transformation of an individual. Ezekiel described the conversion experience that Jesus was talking about when He said that we must be born again (John 3:3,7):
I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. (Ezekiel 36:25-27)
Ezekiel then goes on to describe some of the results of the Holy Spirit's regenerative work in a lost sinner:
Then you will remember your evil ways, and your deeds that were not good, and you will loathe yourselves for your iniquities and your abominations. (Ezekiel 36:31)
The Apostle Paul said that it is godly sorrow that leads to repentance (2 Corinthians 7:8-11). Worldly sorrow leads to death. We all sin, but not everyone repents. Next time we have sin exposed in our lives we should examine ourselves and ask the question whether we are sorry for offending God or sorry that we got caught (or sorry for the negative human consequences). This is the difference between godly and worldly sorrow.
Ultimately, our depravity is so radical that true repentance can only come as a gift from God as Ezekiel revealed (Ezekiel 36:31) and as we see in the book of Acts (Acts 11:18). We can only hope and pray that Ted Haggard will find true repentance all the while being mindful of our own lives.
He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy. (Proverbs 28:13)
. . . but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word. (Isaiah 66:2b)
Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy lovingkindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions. Wash me throughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin. For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me. Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest. Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward parts: and in the hidden part thou shalt make me to know wisdom. Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow. Make me to hear joy and gladness; that the bones which thou hast broken may rejoice. Hide thy face from my sins, and blot out all mine iniquities. Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me. Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me. Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free spirit. Then will I teach transgressors thy ways; and sinners shall be converted unto thee. Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O God, thou God of my salvation: and my tongue shall sing aloud of thy righteousness.O Lord, open thou my lips; and my mouth shall shew forth thy praise. For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise. Do good in thy good pleasure unto Zion: build thou the walls of Jerusalem. Then shalt thou be pleased with the sacrifices of righteousness, with burnt offering and whole burnt offering: then shall they offer bullocks upon thine altar. (Psalm 51)
Examples abound in the secular media propogating fictional portrayals of Islam and Christianity . . .
This is the third of this four part series with Robert Spencer and I am posting them because we need to acquainted with the facts about Islam . . . facts you won't find anywhere in the secular media . . . or Tavis Smiley's home planet!
Continuing on from Monday's post here is the second part of Todd Friel's interview with Jeff Noblit in which they discuss biblical church discipline . . .
I think two of the most interesting things Pastor Noblit said in the course of the interview were that:
1. People who find themselves in a local church that does not practice church discipline "should find themselves a church". The church, the body of Christ, is the "ekklesia" - the called out ones. We are a separate people, strangers in a strange land looking for a city who's builder and maker is God. Church discipline is vital in the maintenance of this purity and separation (this in no way invalidates our need to evangelize an unbelieving world - to be in the world but not of the world).
2. That churches are not to discipline sin but to discipline unrepentance. It is not about the scale of the sin but the unwillingness to repent.
Biblical church discipline is the Christian's true friend and a reality check for the false convert! Let's inhabit and cultivate churches that practice this vital function - the consequences of doing otherwise are on large scale display in the world of "modern evangelicalism"!
The oldest of the doctrinal standards of the Christian Reformed Church is the Confession of Faith, popularly known as the Belgic Confession. How "relevant" could a document from 1561 be? You might be surprised. Have a read of Article 29 which contains this definition of a true church and see if this doesn't provide helpful clarity for the confused church-goer:
We believe that we ought to discern diligently and very carefully, by the Word of God, what is the true church - for all sects in the world today claim for themselves the name of "the church."
We are not speaking here of the company of hypocrites who are mixed among the good in the church and who nonetheless are not part of it, even though they are physically there. But we are speaking of distinguishing the body and fellowship of the true church from all sects that call themselves "the church."
The true church can be recognized if it has the following marks: The church engages in the pure preaching of the gospel; it makes use of the pure administration of the sacraments as Christ instituted them; it practices church discipline for correcting faults. In short, it governs itself according to the pure Word of God, rejecting all things contrary to it and holding Jesus Christ as the only Head. By these marks one can be assured of recognizing the true church - and no one ought to be separated from it.
As for those who can belong to the church, we can recognize them by the distinguishing marks of Christians: namely by faith, and by their fleeing from sin and pursuing righteousness, once they have received the one and only Savior, Jesus Christ. They love the true God and their neighbors, without turning to the right or left, and they crucify the flesh and its works.
Though great weakness remains in them, they fight against it by the Spirit all the days of their lives, appealing constantly to the blood, suffering, death, and obedience of the Lord Jesus, in whom they have forgiveness of their sins, through faith in him.
As for the false church, it assigns more authority to itself and its ordinances than to the Word of God; it does not want to subject itself to the yoke of Christ; it does not administer the sacraments as Christ commanded in his Word; it rather adds to them or subtracts from them as it pleases; it bases itself on men, more than on Jesus Christ; it persecutes those who live holy lives according to the Word of God and who rebuke it for its faults, greed, and idolatry.
These two churches are easy to recognize and thus to distinguish from each other.
It is interesting to note that one of these distinguishing marks of a true church is that it "practices church discipline for correcting faults". Todd Friel interviewed Jeff Noblit to discuss the issue of church discipline, how vital it is, and why it is a necessary attribute of a true body of believers. This is really worth hearing because Jeff Noblit turns church growth philosophy on its head . . .
On Wednesday I will post the second part of this spicy interview.
Today I will continue my series on Gandalf's letter/response to my recent series on NT Wright where I severely criticized Wright for corrupting the Gospel by denying penal substitutionary atonement. I know Wright says he affirms it, but if you read the series you will see how this is standard practice for Wright to affirm something when he is really only affirming his own redefining of critical biblical truths.
The fourth point of Gandalf's letter I wish to respond to is the following:
I generally think the amount of flame and vitriol in this debate goes beyond its purpose. People on both sides should handle it more in a manner like the one you advised in your post about the Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate, otherwise we would only deserve the laughter of the Spongs, Borgs, Bells and McLarens in this world for our quarreling.
There is intensity this debate for good reason. There are debates that can be interesting and worthwhile on some level without being hills to die on. But the subject of the atonement is a hill worth dying on. As I discussed in part 2 of this series, our understanding of the atonement has strong repercussions as to how we view God and how we approach Him as sinners. Todd Friel discusses this here (by the way, Bart Campolo is Tony Campolo's son):
Gandalf, I understand you are a fan of CS Lewis. I don't know a lot about him but I do know that there is a major theological flaw in the first Narnia movie that affects the Gospel. Do you know what it is? Anyone?
Dear readers, just so you know, I don't live under a rock or in a cave. When John Piper invited Rick Warren to be a keynote speaker at the 2010 Desiring God Conference, we could feel the explosion in the blogosphere from as far away as Denmark. I have had numerous requests to comment, but have refrained thus far out of my immense love for, and respect of, John Piper and his three decades of faithful labor in the Gospel.
My views on Rick Warren's theology and modus operandi are no secret. They are well documented on this blog. You are welcome to click on the "Rick Warren" label beneath this post and access all previous posts concerning him. But for now I would ask that we would operate out of zeal for avoiding bringing reproach on Christ's Name, out of zeal for the furtherance of the Gospel, and out of love for John Piper's ministry which has abundantly blessed many of us. What I would ask is that you watch the video below and privately express your concerns to Dr Piper by sending your e-mails to mail@desiringGod.org.
I also highly recommend the April 1st - hour 1 podcast of Wretched Radio where I think Todd Friel gives a very thoughtful and balanced overview of what has transpired. Stay tuned - although I am waiting for some more dust to settle, I will soon be posting on this issue and discussing it in more detail. Until then Christian brothers and sisters, remember that there can be a difference between sinfulness and stupidity - I should know, I have considerable experience in both camps!
What Does a Gospel Without Double Imputation Look Like
1. A gospel without double imputation is a gospel where God forgives us because we tell Him we're sorry. God is bound by His character and nature - He cannot violate His demand for justice. All of mankind must suffer the just wrath of God for eternity in hell unless . . . a substitute stands in our stead!
2. A gospel without double imputation is a gospel where Jesus died to give us a second chance. A man who is unregenerated by the Holy Spirit is a man dead in sin (Ephesians 2:1-3). A second chance is no use to a corpse. He needs the Divine intervention of resurrection power!
3. A gospel without double imputation is a gospel with a god who loves us but requires no justice. If God were unjust He would not be loving.
4. A gospel without double imputation is a gospel where Jesus is an example but not a substitute. Passages such as Phillipians 2 certainly teach us that Jesus set an example how we should live. But it is His role as a penal substitute that only makes that possible. Jesus came to do something we are incapable of doing - fulfill the law without sinning. Jesus came to suffer what we cannot endure - take the punishment of God's wrath in the place of sinners. It is only possible to follow Him as your example after you have trusted Him (in repentant faith) as your penal substitute. Modern catch phrases like "live the gospel" and "you are the gospel" are ludicrous in the light of the fact that we should be proclaiming the One Who is completely unlike we are as fallen men.
5. A gospel without double imputation is a gospel where conversion requires a decision but not a transforming work of the Holy Spirit. Does your salvation hinge on the prayer you pray or on the finished work of the One you are praying to?
6. A gospel without double imputation is a gospel where people are victims but not guilty criminals. Therapy and self-esteem are hindrances to true repentance. It is only when we see ourselves in the true light of our wretched depravity that we can see the kindness of God demonstrated in sending Jesus to die for sinners. Sinners who need forgiveness more than social justice. Sinners who need imputed righteousness more than hedonistic happiness.
7. A gospel without double imputation is a gospel where repentance is an option but not a command. "The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead." (Acts 17:30-31)
8. A gospel without double imputation is a gospel that says plenty about "global warming" but is silent about "global burning". A gospel without double imputation is a gospel that frightens lost men with the ecological plight of this world but neglects to warn of their eternal plight in the world to come.
100 years ago someone spoke prophetically about today when he said:
I consider that the chief dangers which confront the coming century will be religion without the Holy Ghost, Christianity without Christ, forgiveness without repentance, salvation without regeneration, politics without God, and heaven without hell.
Can you guess who said that? I will answer that question on Monday with the final installemtn in this series - What Does A Gospel With Double Imputation Look Like?
Over recent days I have documented a lot of written information concerning Hillsong's "presentation of the Christian gospel". But for today I thought it would be worthwhile to hear it from the horse's mouth!
Todd Friel of Wretched Radio toured Europe in 2007 visiting some major reformation landmarks while doing filming for the fourth season of The Way of the Master television series. While in London, he inadvertently bumped into leaders of Hillsong London who were also filming. Todd took the opportunity to grill them on their knowledge of the Christian Gospel. Check it out by clicking here
I have mentioned on earlier posts how much I respect Kirk Cameron as an authentic Christian who actively shares the Gospel. Just over three years ago on "Way of the Master Radio" Kirk was in the studio and a Catholic guy named Tim called in asking some questions. What followed was an amazing fly on the wall experience of listening to a born again Christian witness to a Catholic with tremendous wisdom and knowledge of the Scriptures.
This is a brilliant case of turning on the light instead of exposing the darkness. Kirk never points out to Tim the erronous doctrines of Catholicism but rather explains the Gospel with clarity and Tim joins the dots. Click here to download the podcast and hear the encounter. It starts about four minutes into the program. Kirk teaches us that we can lead a horse to water, and while we can't make it drink, we can salt his oats.
But the story doesn't end there! It was very apparent that Tim was massively convicted. As Tim got off the phone they pleaded with him to think long and hard about their conversation. Well Tim did think long and hard and actually called the radio show back about a week later. Download this podcast and find out what happened to Tim. Tim calls at 26 minutes into the program (have a box of tissues handy).
Pay particular attention to Tim's hunger for God's word and desire to witness to others - generally strong indicators of genuine conversion.
There is a lot of coded rhetoric that oozes from the mouth of Brian McLaren. It often centres around the emergent idea of "bringing the kingdom" through social programs and not preaching the Gospel. It generally serves as a great smokescreen because who is going to argue against helping the poor and fighting social inequality. In the following audio John Macarthur (the other voice you'll hear is Todd Friel of Wretched Radio) clears the smokescreen through a sound grasp of Scripture and the Gospel itself. I found this really helpful because something very sinister lies beneath the surface of these "humble" self proclaimed good samaritans . . .
The following article is courtesy of R. Scott Clark at www.heidelblog.wordpress.com and is a great expose on all this "bringing the kingdom" talk that is a constant thread in Brian McLaren's conversation.
Sunday night I heard a sermon on Acts 28 during which my attention was drawn to the way Luke uses the expression, “βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ” (Kingdom of God). I was struck by eschatological character of Luke’s conception (and by implication, Paul’s conception, as Luke reports his preaching).That passage pushed me to go back to the beginning of Acts to see how the expression occurs in the rest of the book. Though we rightly think of Matthew’s gospel as the “kingdom” gospel, it is interesting to note that Luke begins Acts by summarizing Jesus’ instruction of the disciples “περὶ τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ θεοῦ” (about the kingdom of God). The disciples, of course, still thinking like dispensationalists, theonomists, and pharisees wanted to know when Jesus was going to establish an earthly dominion. How did Jesus answer their query? By taking visible, bodily leave of them! The ascension is Jesus’ response to the disciples’ lust for this-worldly power, for the restitution of the Mosaic-Davidic-Solmonic theocracy. His answer to the query was also, of course, the promise of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and the establishment of the visible church through the ministry of Word and sacrament and confirmed, in the apostolic period, by signs and wonders.
Luke characterizes Philip the Evangelist’s preaching ministry (Acts 8:12) with the expression: “εὐαγγελιζομένῳ” (preaching the Good News) “περὶ τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ θεοῦ” (about the kingdom of God). Luke quickly fills in the blank as to what he means by “kingdom,” however, as he connects the message about the kingdom of God not to anyone or anything else but “τοῦ ὀνόματος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ,” i.e. “of the name of Jesus the Christ.” In other words, Philip’s Good News was about the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Luke further narrows the conception of the “βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ” by connecting it to the administration of the sacrament (i.e., the covenant sign and seal) of salvation: baptism. The essential character of the Kingdom of God is eschatological but, in Acts thus far, its only earthly manifestation is Christ-centered and ecclesiastical in character.
In 14:22 the fundamentally eschatological character of the “βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ” is made clear when the preaching of Paul and Barnabas is characterized in terms of entering the Kingdom of God through “many tribulations.” Immediately, the message is contextualized in terms of the visible, institutional church (v. 23) where elders are appointed with prayer and fasting. The instruments of the “βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ” are counter-intuitive and decidedly spiritual. For Luke to think about the kingdom is to think in eschatological terms but when he thinks about its manifestation in the earth, he thinks of the visible, institutional church.
Without a broader context, the brevity of the references in Acts 19:8 and 20:25 might be enigmatic but as it is, we do not have to guess at the content of the Apostle’s evangelical preaching. He was pointing his hearers in the synagogues and in the churches to Jesus the Messiah, the fulfillment of the promises and the ascended and reigning king who earned his throne with blood and a cross. That this is so is made certain by Acts 28:23:
From morning till evening he expounded to them, testifying to the kingdom of God (διαμαρτυρόμενος τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ) and trying to convince them about Jesus both from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets.
The book ends much as it began: with preaching about kingdom of God. This time it is not our Lord but it is the Apostle Paul. We find him in prison but the Kingdom is not imprisoned nor is the good news of the kingdom imprisoned. Paul proclaimed the “βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ” which Luke identifies, epexegetically, as “teaching about Jesus Christ” (Acts 28:31). Indeed, it seems to have been Paul’s burden to continue to do exactly what our Lord himself began to do just before his ascension. To convince folk that the “βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ” is not an earthly program obtained by planning and administration or by the proper distribution of goods (even though there was a program for poverty relief within the visible church), or even of healing (which certainly occurred as part of the ministry of the Word), but it is fundamentally other-worldly, heavenly (located where Jesus the King is!) and that it has broken into history in the person of Jesus the Messiah and in the outpouring of the Spirit and his work of the ascended Lord through his Spirit in Apostles through the gospel. Whoever is united to Christ by faith alone, by sovereign gift of the Spirit alone, is a citizen of his kingdom (Phil 3). That kingdom is consistently administered in Acts by the preaching of the Word and the administration of sacraments.
There is no obvious evidence of any political or cultural agenda associated with the “βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ” in Acts. At every point when the Apostles had opportunity to “speak truth to power,” to challenge the socio-economic or political or cultural status quo they refused. According to many modern conceptions of the Kingdom of God, the disciples failed rather badly to “bring in the kingdom” or to restore it. Instead Paul insisted on preaching the foolishness of the crucified Messiah and the foolishness of his resurrection. Terrible way to take back a culture I know, but there it is. Perhaps the apostles learned something at Pentecost? Perhaps they learned that the kingdom isn’t something we bring in? Perhaps they learned that it isn’t a matter of culture or earthly power or influence, but of the inbreaking of the power of salvation through faith alone in Christ the king alone, in whom alone the kingdom is embodied and in whom alone the kingdom comes in this world through the proclamation of the gospel?
