You Can’t Handle The Truth: Addressing the Tolerance of Postmodernism (MP3) – 3.3.2005
A Beginner’s Guide to Postmodernism (MP3) – 6.30.2006
What is the Emerging Church Movement, and why is it a problem? (MP3) – 7.1.2006
Category: Church History Page 3 of 5
This is a very important program that ministers, leaders, counselors, and pastors in the church should take the time to listen to. The White Horse Inn radio program recently did a show entitled The Foolishness of God in which a discussion took place on the relationship of the church to culture. There are a thousand different “approaches” out there. But more and more, it seems many within evangelicalism are bent on the idea that the primary role of the church is to address the various needs of the culture in various temporal ways, instead of primarily ministering the Gospel to its own people. This isn’t just in the emerging church now either, it’s in many average evangelical congregations and fellowships. The question is which approach is Biblical?
This has to be one of the best introductions to a sermon I’ve heard. At only seven minutes long, John Piper hits the nail right on the head concerning the state of evangelicalism. Very excellent analysis, yet very saddening. The truth is hard to hear sometimes, but we must properly and truthfully identify the problems in order to administer an adequate remedy. This is an audio excerpt from the sermon My Anguish, My Kinsmen Are Accursed, pertaining to Romans 9:1-5.
These are not just a bunch of Reformed people criticizing what’s “out there” as it were … these are people from various backgrounds, denominations and traditions within evangelicalism, including the emerging church, discussing what they see as the gutting of historic Christianity in America. The Reformed movement is not immune to these critiques either, I might add. I pray we can all realign our focus again in teaching, preaching, ministering, and counseling … all centered upon Christ and Him crucified as the central message we proclaim, in place of all the alternative, sub-par messages floating around out there.
Today, Scot McKnight wrote a post on his blog in which he raised a question which I believe exposes the heart of much of the emerging/emergent/missional/post____/(fill in the next emerging title) church’s theology, perspective and modus operandi when approaching the Scriptures. In this particular entry, McKnight writes of a person named F.W. Newman in times past who was “disenchanted” with evangelicalism. The truth of the matter is that the guy couldn’t stand the doctrines of the Gospel, its truth claims, over a long process of entertaining personal doubts about their very truthfulness.
In a rant against doctrine itself (that is, propositional truth claims-such as, Jesus is Lord, He died in our place, He literally rose from the dead-something our culture abhors), Newman said, “Oh Dogma! Oh Dogma! How dost thy trample under foot love, truth, conscience, justice!” He couldn’t stand the justice of God as explained by Scripture (probably unlovingly by evangelicals, I grant that … though that doesn’t negate the truthfulness of the doctrines), substitutionary atonement, original sin, which inevitably renders the historic Gospel of Christ null and void. For the good news of the Gospel assumes there is a “bad news” backdrop that makes the good news, well, really good.
(Excerpt taken from the PDF notes of R.W. Glenn’s MP3 audio lecture series on Church History found at www.solidfoodmedia.com in Minnetonka, MN)
A. Warrant for the Study of Church History
1. The Bible does not teach us everything about the outworking of God’s plan of redemption. Although this may sound like a controversial thing to say in a church that believes (rightly) in the sufficiency, infallibility, and inerrancy of Scripture, it is because of what Scripture teaches that I draw this conclusion cf. Matt 28:18-20; Rev 21:1-4. We learn from church history how God’s plan of redemption has been worked out from the time of the end of the first century until today. “The events of this world’s history set the stage upon which the drama of redemption is enacted.” (1)
2. The sovereignty of God over all of history cf. Isa 46:8-11. History is His story just as much as it is ours. Therefore we have an opportunity through the study of church history to see how God protected and preserved his people to the present day so as to bring about the sure accomplishment of his redemptive purposes in Jesus Christ.
3. The Christian faith is historical in character cf. Luke 2:1-2. Studying church history demonstrates concretely that the Christian faith is historical in character – it deals with real people in real places in real time.
… Have your big scholarly brother step up and speak for you. 🙂
(Original): http://www.ivpress.com/cgi-ivpress/book.pl/review/code=3863 – I find some of these surprising and others not so much.
In speaking of N.T. Wright’s new book, Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision, responding to and critiquing Piper’s defense of justification, entitled, The Future of Justification, itself critiquing Wright’s understanding of justification, McLaren says, “John Piper, it turns out, has done us all a wonderful favor. In writing the critique that invited this response, he has given Bishop Wright the opportunity to clearly, directly, passionately and concisely summarize many of the key themes of his still-in-process yet already historic scholarly and pastoral project. Wright shows–convincingly–how the comprehensive view of Paul, Romans, justification, Jesus, and the Christian life and mission that he has helped articulate embraces ‘both the truths the Reformers were eager to set forth and also the truths which, in their eagerness, they sidelined.’ Eavesdropping on this conversation will help readers who are new to Wright get into the main themes of his work and the important conversation of which it is a part. And it will give Wright’s critics a clearer sense than ever of what they are rejecting when they cling to their cherished old wineskins of conventional thought.” —Brian McLaren, author A Generous Orthodoxy
Update: The audio files and pdf are no longer available on the solidfoodmedia.com site because it’s non-existent, but they are available below. This is still a great church history series.
Pastor R.W. Glenn at Redeemer Bible Church in Minnetonka, MN, has now completed his Sunday School lecture series on church history. This series focuses on the development of theology in the history of the church. In addition to the MP3’s available at www.solidfoodmedia.com, I emailed the church and requested a PDF document of all the notes he gave out during the series to go along with the lectures, which is extremely helpful when sorting through all of this information. With his permission, I am posting the PDF in this entry. I have listened to a majority of the lectures now and can’t tell you how helpful this is to understanding the history of our faith! As Tommy Nelson from Denton Bible Church has said in his series on church history a while back, “Church history is the plumb-line of theology.” Or in other words, church history is the lab as opposed to the lecture (theology). Here is the series in its entirety. Enjoy!
Lecture Notes (PDF)
Lecture 1 – Introduction (MP3)
Lecture 2 – 1st Century (MP3)
Lecture 3 – 2nd Century (MP3)
Lecture 4 – 3rd Century (MP3)
Lecture 5 – 4th Century (MP3)
Lecture 6 – 5th Century (MP3)
Lecture 7 – 6th Century (MP3)
Lecture 8 – 7th Century (MP3)
Lecture 9 – 8th Century (MP3)
Lecture 10 – 9th Century (MP3)
Lecture 11 – 10th Century (MP3)
Lecture 12 – 11th Century (MP3)
Lecture 13 – 12th Century (MP3)
Lecture 14 – 13th Century (MP3)
Lecture 15 – 14th Century (MP3)
Lecture 16 – 15th Century (MP3)
Lecture 17 – 16th Century – Part 1 (MP3)
Lecture 18 – 16th Century – Part 2 (MP3)
Lecture 19 – 16th Century – Part 3 (MP3)
Lecture 20 – 17th Century (MP3)
Lecture 21 – 18th Century (MP3)
Lecture 22 – 19th Century (MP3)
Lecture 23 – 20th Century (MP3)
Lecture 24 – 21st Century (MP3)
Until recently, before listening to a series on church history by pastor R.W. Glenn in Minnesota, I had always thought of Luther and Calvin as those desiring to totally split from the Roman Catholic Church. However, it is very clear from quotes by both of these men in particular that they did not seek to split the church in any way but to, you know, bring reform.
They protested the theology and practices the church had become infected with, but they wanted the change they sought to come from within instead of establishing a new parallel church. They wanted to bring this theological revolution within the church itself. They did not want to depart from or create schism within their beloved church, but wanted the whole to see the light of the glory of God in the face of Christ that had been eclipsed to a large degree by the RCC itself. It was not until the end of Calvin’s life that he finally said he did not think he would see this reform within the RCC during his life time. And history shows us that this reform they wanted to bring actually intensified the RCC’s stance on their historically and theologically inaccurate doctrine. And so schism in the church was inevitable.
Unfortunately, because of the false doctrine within the RCC that had become so deeply ingrained (which did not happen overnight but over several centuries of error stacked upon error), as well as the neglect of their own church fathers’ writings (particularly Augustine, as clearly articulated and expounded upon by Luther and Calvin), and most of all, the clear testimony of Scripture itself, schism had to take place. Even though Luther and Calvin were relentless in their pursuit to reform the RCC, a split had to take place. The Gospel had been shadowed, eclipsed by wrong teaching for centuries (even though there were still a thread of people coming to faith during those dark times). Sadly, at the Council of Trent, the RCC then formally confirmed they had rejected the doctrines as proposed by the Reformers. And so the split was made permanent.
I believe it was very noble of the Reformers to seek the unity of the church. I admire them for their pursuit. We should take the courage to make Scriptural reform within our own churches a priority of the utmost importance. However, this is a great test case of how bad teaching, theology, and practice creates schism of necessity. No believer desires splits in the church. These two Reformers fought against schism with great vigor. However, it is inevitable in many cases because bad teaching, error, and heresy, no matter how great a church may be in community life and even works toward the outside world, ruins the pure message of the Gospel, which is the primary reason the church exists. We should seek to unify and “reform” ourselves from within, with a relentless passion to see the truth of the Gospel proclaimed. But unfortunately, many times, schism must and will happen, because the Gospel cannot coexist with massive Satanic errors on the scale seen in the RCC from the Reformation (and even before then) until now.
These are lessons we should all take into account when dealing with error within the church. It would be wise of us to consider the cost, as uncomfortable as it may be, to “split” from false teaching, error, and heretical doctrines that seem to be spreading even within the evangelical world. In some sense, we should always be reforming ourselves and the church to the Scriptures and what it says in contradistinction from what the culture (the world) and the culture-infiltrated (Christ-less Christian) church says.
I have posted this quote recently in another entry, but it applies here as well: “Divisions and separations are most objectionable in religion. They weaken the cause of true Christianity…But before we blame people for them, we must be careful that we lay the blame where it is deserved. False doctrine and heresy are even worse than schism. If people separate themselves from teaching that is positively false and unscriptural, they ought to be praised rather than reproved. In such cases separation is a virtue and not a sin.” (Unknown source)
Some persons love the doctrine of universal atonement because they say, “It is so beautiful. It is a lovely idea that Christ should have died for all men; it commends itself,” they say, “to the instincts of humanity; there is something in it full of joy and beauty.” I admit there is, but beauty may be often associated with falsehood. There is much which I might admire in the theory of universal redemption, but I will just show what the supposition necessarily involves. If Christ on His cross intended to save every man, then He intended to save those who were lost before He died. If the doctrine be true, that He died for all men, then He died for some who were in hell before He came into this world, for doubtless there were even then myriads there who had been cast away because of their sins.
Once again, if it was Christ’s intention to save all men, how deplorably has He been disappointed, for we have His own testimony that there is a lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, and into that pit of woe have been cast some of the very persons who, according to the theory of universal redemption, were bought with His blood. That seems to me a conception a thousand times more repulsive than any of those consequences which are said to be associated with the Calvinistic and Christian doctrine of special and particular redemption. To think that my Saviour died for men who were or are in hell, seems a supposition too horrible for me to entertain. To imagine for a moment that He was the Substitute for all the sons of men, and that God, having first punished the Substitute, afterwards punished the sinners themselves, seems to conflict with all my ideas of Divine justice.
That Christ should offer an atonement and satisfaction for the sins of all men, and that afterwards some of those very men should be punished for the sins for which Christ had already atoned, appears to me to be the most monstrous iniquity that could ever have been imputed to Saturn, to Janus, to the goddess of the Thugs, or to the most diabolical heathen deities. God forbid that we should ever think thus of Jehovah, the just and wise and good!
There is no soul living who holds more firmly to the doctrines of grace than I do, and if any man asks me whether I am ashamed to be called a Calvinist, I answer—I wish to be called nothing but a Christian; but if you ask me, do I hold the doctrinal views which were held by John Calvin, I reply, I do in the main hold them, and rejoice to avow it. But far be it from me even to imagine that Zion contains none but Calvinistic Christians within her walls, or that there are none saved who do not hold our views. Most atrocious things have been spoken about the character and spiritual condition of John Wesley, the modern prince of Arminians. I can only say concerning him that, while I detest many of the doctrines which he preached, yet for the man himself I have a reverence second to no Wesleyan; and if there were wanted two apostles to be added to the number of the twelve, I do not believe that there could be found two men more fit to be so added than George Whitefield and John Wesley.
The character of John Wesley stands beyond all imputation for self-sacrifice, zeal, holiness, and communion with God; he lived far above the ordinary level of common Christians, and was one “of whom the world was not worthy.” I believe there are multitudes of men who cannot see these truths [Doctrines of Grace], or, at least, cannot see them in the way in which we put them, who nevertheless have received Christ as their Saviour, and are as dear to the heart of the God of grace as the soundest Calvinist in or out of Heaven.
Excerpt taken from A Defense of Calvinism by C.H. Spurgeon: A Defense of Calvinism
Related article, what a defense! For Whom Did Christ Die? & What Did Christ Actually Achieve on the Cross for Those for Whom He Died? – John Piper