David Westerfield

Gospel. Culture. Technology. Music.

Category: Culture Page 12 of 20


Government Bail Out Legislation Gaining Ground

By

On June 24, 2008

In Business, Culture, Economics, Politics

(Original): http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080624/D91GKJ4G1.html
(Archived): http://www.westerfunk.net/archives/econ … %20hurdle/

“When in doubt, the government will bail you out.” That seems to be a motto that is increasing in our society. And now it seems to have moved into our national government’s thinking as well. $300 Billion have now been approved by the Senate to bail people out of houses they couldn’t afford to start with. From the wise financial decisions of house-hungry consumers who enviously want to live in uptown Wherever, coupled with the deceitful financial practices of lenders approving loans they know the customer cannot afford based upon a simple formula (called the debt-to-income ratio), this mess has now resulted.

Yes, I feel sorry (in the merciful sense) for anyone who loses their house because they cannot afford the payment, even because of (possibly) bad decisions they made in getting to that point, though of course there are many exceptions. This is just not a good deal and as a sinful person looking at other people suffering, I feel sorry for them, and wish them the best. But should we be forced to pay for others’ bad decisions with our own tax dollars in the form of a $300 Billion bail out package? How is this not socialism, the redistribution of American income to bail out people who, for the most part, made bad financial decisions? This is a very unhealthy pattern of thinking that is seemingly more and more prevalent in our society, and now has reached the upper echelon’s of the government.

Consumers greedily pursue something through whatever means (in this case adjustable rate mortgages, which apparently they don’t even understand how they work before signing the papers, clearly), they get it, then can’t afford it, and then expect all of us, through the redistribution of wealth, to bail them out. Well, thanks to our fine politicians and their wise foresight, the consumers got their wish: $300 Billion. It still has a veto threat by Bush which is good. So it’s not sure. But just the fact that it has passed the Senate is telling about our leaders’ thinking on the matter.

Senator Chris Dodd is quoted in this article as saying that this legislation will “allow us to begin to put a tourniquet on the hemorrhaging of foreclosures in this country.” And in all honesty, right now, in the short term, it will probably solve some issues pertaining to the foreclosures. Maybe. Maybe not. But making this kind of legislation on a consistent basis is creating a way of dealing with (might I say, self-inflicted) disastrous situations that is very unsettling to our democracy, not merely the economy, though of course that is of great concern as well.

If the government is paying for your goods and services increasingly (now they are talking about nationalizing oil fields to be able to control the ebb and flow of the markets’ supply and demand), does it not follow the government can then demand of you, the citizen, certain things it could not have otherwise? I mean if they are paying your way, don’t you owe them something in return?

Socialism just doesn’t work in the long-run and impoverishes nations. I’m not sure exactly why it’s trendy and cool to be for socialism, because the very same people are also for humanitarian efforts, yet socialism defeats those very humanitarian efforts. It is almost like there’s a severe intellectual disconnect for some people with the theory of socialism and the resulting facts that have come out of it as an ideology.

How many case-in-point examples do we need in the world, both at the present time and from history, that it is a failed economic theory? North Korea? Cuba? Venezuela? The former USSR? Vietnam? Belarus? Myanmar? Burma? Do we really want to implement policies that have not worked so well historically in other countries? I’m just not understanding all of this. But once again, for believers in Christ, our hope is not in this world but in the one Christ has established and secured for us by His blood. That is a hope that will not shift with the winds of change in this country.

The Twisted Thought Process of the West

By

On June 6, 2008

In Culture, Politics, Theology

(Original): http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,363434,00.html
(Archived): http://www.westerfunk.net/archives/poli … 0Abortion/

This is a clear, in-depth look at someone’s thinking concerning abortion, though by no means is this a blanket picture for all who have had one. It’s amazing to me that societies in the world who we, in our narcissistic, “cultured,” sophisticated, technologically savvy, Western mindset deem as coming from the old world of thinking (traditional societies), would themselves condemn this sort of behavior as barbaric and morally reprehensible (which it is). I’m not negating the fact that the situation itself is unbelievably emotionally difficult to deal with. I cannot imagine. This negates none of that. But here is the mother’s response as to why she would have one of her own children slaughtered in the womb: “Deciding to terminate at eight weeks was just utterly horrible [and I agree, but then she says] but I couldn’t cope with the anguish of losing another baby.”

“She couldn’t cope with it.” That’s the part I want to focus on. And remember, I am not making light the fact that she has lost children. That is an unbelievable pain that I cannot fathom, especially in light of my son, Grayson. That would tear me apart. Regardless, her focus is not on the child and its well-being (possibly saving it through surgery or what ever and relying on an all-powerful God to provide their deepest needs regardless of the outcome), but the mother’s feelings are supreme, rationalizing the killing of her child. Her feelings are her god, dictating the slaughter of her own child. The slaughter of her own child. Just let that sink in. How is this any different than the child sacrifices to Baal in the Old Testament? The only difference is the “religion” is taken out of it and it’s a secular deed done in the service of the parents because of their inwardly bent focus and exaltation of themselves and their ultimate feelings, instead of self-sacrificially focusing on the well-being of the child who they themselves brought into this world and should take responsibility for.

Miraculously, the baby survived and she felt it kicking again after the abortion. But what was her initial response? Joy? Relief that her awful deed had not been accomplished because of the morally depraved nature of her sin? No. Anger! She was ticked the hospital had failed in the act of killing her child. No remorse, no repentance. It’s like paying a hit man to kill a person that may be a big inconvenience to you and they failed in their endeavor. How is this any different than that, really? Does anyone not see how unbelievably backward this is? It just makes my stomach turn to see our society heartily approve these acts, as if we’re morally upright and correct in doing so. It is the logic of Romans 1 in full bloom. “Though they know God’s decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them” (Romans 1:32).

Then I like the doctors’ response in the article, that this couples’ situation is quite common (meaning the Lord is merciful in sparing people from killing their own children). “‘Women that have early terminations in weeks six, seven and eight, many times the pregnancy is so small that doctors miss removing the baby … The danger is that the failed attempt can damage the baby [well yeah, maybe it shouldn’t be done to start with?]. That is why these patients who get early terminations need follow-ups.'” In other words, after an abortion during these time-frames, go back for a follow-up “abortion” just to make sure you have really killed it off, because it may have been injured from the first attempt and still be alive, but severely wounded. Unbelievable.

The thinking on this is just so twisted, yet for many in our society, it’s just the way it is, a received, presuppositional doctrine of sorts. The manner in which the doctor speaks makes it sound as if the life being killed is so meaningless, even at that early stage of development, that you just need to make sure “the problem” is taken care of then before it grows and becomes an even larger problem. It’s just painted with nice, politically correct language, so as to make it seem like it’s a good, healthy practice. It’s defiled, depraved and reprehensible.

And it is no wonder Christianity is fading in the West: people’s hearts are becoming so hard because of the approval of sins like this, their consciences are being seared. How can they hear the message of redemption while giving hearty approval to things on this level of depravity? Now of course I believe that the Holy Spirit can overcome even the hardest of hearts and create that which is not there. But there can come a point even with the Lord where He just might frighteningly say, “Have it your way,” and give our society over to it’s lustful, selfish, greedy, soul-damning sins.

As a result, we would become unraveled morally, politically, socially, in every way if that happened. All the Lord has to do is lift His hand of restraint and we would fall headlong toward the worst forms of a depravity. It is His sheer mercy and grace we are allowed to stand at all even at this moment for the message we say to His face through committing acts like this.

Praise God that in His mercy He spared this couple from the emotional, moral, and psychological turmoil and scars of slaughtering one of their own children, even a child with a possible life-threatening disease. And I am glad she is delighted with her child now. But at the end of the article, it says, “Another scan a week later confirmed the baby also had kidney problems, but doctors told the couple the baby was likely to survive, so they decided he deserved another chance at life.” Unbelievable. “Well, I guess we can give him another chance,” basically. It seems even then, despite the Lord’s favor and mercy on them, they still don’t get it. There’s still room in the their thinking and thus their future for another child to come which has a similar disease, and they would have the same thing done.

Child-slaughter, infanticide, abortion, it’s all the same in the eyes of the Lord. Where does this stop? At what point do we say something is just flat out wrong, and upon what basis do we say it’s wrong? How much longer before the line gets pushed further and further back, to where we approve of baby-killings, toddler killings, mentally-retarded child killings, all in the name of love for the individual?

Well, actually, some of those things are happening now. Without a moral bedrock, a timeless foundation upon which to stand (the Scriptures), there is no telling how far a culture will stray from the ways of the Lord. It’s only a matter of time before things unravel, unless the Lord mercifully intervenes. May we call out to Him for the cleansing and healing of our land.

This is primarily why I cannot vote for a Democrat, because they give hearty legal and moral approval, granting wide access to these acts. If a group approves of something this morally depraved, how can I trust them to make other decisions for the good of the country when their moral compass is this twisted and off kilter? And despite the fact I am thrilled race relations have now reached the point in this country to where we can have an African American run for President (praise God!), I cannot vote for Obama, because he himself approves of one of the worst forms of abortion: Live Birth Abortions. Just check out this past entry: http://www.davidwesterfield.net/index.p … 112-005217

Contentions with the Reformed, Not Reformed Theology

By

On June 4, 2008

In Apologetics, Culture, Personal, Theology

This was a recent interaction I had with a great friend of mine who is Reformed in his theology, but sees some flaws within the Reformed movement and is concerned with claiming that as a belief system. I agree with the assessments of the flaws within many who claim the “Reformed” title (not all of the Reformed, but some of them), but I do not necessarily agree with the conclusions.

The main thing I want to emphasize before starting this interaction is that those who claim Reformed theology are not without their faults, big faults; I mean, they are sinners after all, saved by grace, myself included. Many are arrogant, filled with head-knowledge just for the sake of head-knowledge, all the while not applying it to their own souls, but just so they can “defeat” their opponents. Theology for the sake of pride? That sounds anti-Gospel to me. You can just see the vitriol that drips on some of the Reformed forums. Sometimes I just can’t read them because they are so frustrating, because ultimately, they are maligning Christ and the Gospel itself through their Pharisaical arrogance. But unfortunately, those are the people many see as the “face” of the Reformed, while in reality, they are in the minority of those who are actually historically Reformed.

Theology, that is, knowledge about God from the Scriptures, that does not result in the humility of the sinner before Christ and His work on our behalf, is of no use. As Paul said, “knowledge puffs up,” if it is not coupled with an active, humble pursuit of Christ as a sinner saved by grace. The attitude of the arrogantly Reformed that results of not putting theology into practice is a big turn-off to a lot of people on the outside looking in. Theology is meant for doxology (Biblical truth is meant for the glory of God). Orthodoxy should result in orthopraxy (right believing and thinking should result in right practice and living).

But, as I say in this response to my friend, you cannot look at a system of theology and conclude the system itself is wrong based upon the stupid, arrogant decisions of a loud minority who claim it. You must look at what the system itself is saying about the Gospel, look at it’s heroes themselves, and check what it is saying against the Scriptures, with all diligence. So without further ado, I’ll give his initial comments to me, and then my reply.

——————————————————————————————-

“John Owen, John Calvin and John Piper aren’t the final authorities on scripture though. I would be very careful following Christianity even from a reformed theological preacher such as the ones i mentioned. Even Paul pointed to the gospel, not to reformed theology. All Paul was doing was helping churches get back on the path to the truth in Christ. I don’t think he was meaning for this reformation to take such a huge stance in Christianity. Why not just say the gospel instead of reformed? It’s important to see these teachers as sinful human ‘equals’ meaning sinners such as ourselves. Seeing them as the tellers of perfect truth can make their weaknesses become our own. For that matter, why let any person who wasn’t apart of the original Bible such a huge stance such as Calvin. I think he has a bigger place in the Bible than say Timothy and Calvin wasn’t even in the Bible.”

Understand that as I go through some of your contentions with Reformed theology (or rather the modern Reformed movement) in this email (which I’m a little confused about where this came from), I’m not coming at you with theological “guns ablazin'” (with a mean spirit or something 🙂 I’m simply engaging some of your arguments honestly with responses to them. I agree with many of your assessments and others not so much. So in no way does this have to be a “heated” (i.e. emotional) engagement. So don’t take it as such.

We’re both men who can debate ideas and still love each other as brothers in Christ, praise God! People can debate ideas without it becoming personal, that’s where things have gone bad with others in debating, they malign the person, instead of engaging the ideas (i.e. “You’re so stupid so as to believe that”). That helps no one.

Just understand that I respond with these things because I love you and care about you and desire to see you pursue Christ on the straight and narrow path, not the twisted, crooked, wide one of the world that many are going down. I believe you are on the correct path spiritually more than ever, but we must always be on guard against deceptive ideas that can come in and slowly take us off track. That is how Satan works to keep our eyes off Christ, by giving us ideas that seem plausible, but in reality, take us down a road slowly but surely that moves us off the center-piece of our faith, that is Christ. With all that said …

“John Owen, John Calvin and John Piper aren’t the final authorities on scripture though.”

I agree, they are definitely not final authorities, I never said they were, nor have any of the historically Reformed. But they are nevertheless authorities, articulating what we believe to be the Biblical positions of Scripture. Will you ignore their teaching simply because they are not the final authority? As a great friend of mine has said before (paraphrasing), “You can go and stare at a great painting for hours and glean a lot of depth into what was being conveyed in the image. And you definitely should do that on a regular basis so that you can be changed by it! Yet there are people who have devoted their entire lives to understanding the painting; the lighting, the shadows, the depth perception, the colors, the mood, things I would never have really paid attention to unless someone explained it to me. So it is with the Scriptures, theology and church history. There is a great wealth of knowledge given to us by people both today and that are now gone, who loved Scripture and wanted others to see its truth, because in it is the beauty and power of Christ in the Gospel.”

Sola Scriptura states that Scripture Alone is the final infallible authority for the life, faith and practice of the church. You owe that statement to the Reformation. It wasn’t even an idea in the history of the church until the 16th century because of the Roman Catholics snuffing out the witness of Scripture. That is a Reformed idea itself and is the basis for all other debating on theological topics. But the doctrine as stated above does not negate the fact that there are church authorities, both individual and corporate, who speak on matters of theology throughout church history. This is actually a classic modern day Arminian argument against Calvinism and Reformation theology oddly enough and it is still null, void and baseless, because we have never said they were final; Jesus is final. That is actually the one thing that attracted me to Reformed theology to begin with: that it pointed to the truth of Christ, the Gospel, just like you said before that we should be doing. Reformation theology, in its summed up essence, is the recovery of the Biblical Gospel, as opposed to all the others that are out there that are blatantly heretical and soul-damning.

“I would be very careful following Christianity even from a reformed theological preacher such as the ones I mentioned.”

Really? Why? Where did this come from? So who will you learn from and follow as a mentor? The Lord uses teachers (people that are more spiritually mature and have studied the Scriptures and are more spiritually knowledgeable than us) to bring things to light you (and I) otherwise would not have seen on your (my) own. To ignore the teaching of those who have gone before you, who put in a lifetime worth of work to faithfully understand what the Scriptures have said to us, is just foolish in all honesty. This goes for anyone who would ignore great teachers of the faith. This is the very thing some people in our society say and we can see how much good it is doing them in their faith. The result is a soul-less evangelicalism that is bright and flashy on the outside and dying on the inside. They are stagnate in their pursuit because they will not listen to anyone who is smarter and wiser than they are, like mules being forced to drink from a clear bubbling brook.

So you don’t believe Reformed preachers are articulating the correct, Biblical position of theology and would not learn from them over against other camps of theology? Reformed theology as a system is not infallible (no one ever said it was, and if they have can you cite it?). But I do believe it is the closest Biblical articulation of what the Scriptures have said. I’m going to be honest: this sounds like you are defending some position or system of theology, yet not stating what that position or system is. And believe me: everyone has a system of theology, even if they deny it, because that in itself is a system of theology. In fact, that is much of the church’s framework/system: anti-intellectualism. They approach the Scriptures as if it’s just plain and simple. And it is in one sense, and then absolutely difficult and complex in another. The Gospel is so simple a child can understand and yet so deep that it takes a life-time to unfold it’s glories. It is both unbelievably simple and unbelievably complex at the same time.

Regardless, many in our culture will say, “All you need is Jesus.” Yet when you ask them, “Who is Jesus? Why did He come?” The answers you will receive back are an articulation of a particular theological position, particularly evangelical and protestant. “Well, He’s the Son of God, God become man, who died on the cross for our sins and rose from the dead that we might be saved.” My response: “Well, others say Jesus is just a historical figure who should just be modeled and looked up to, who is now dead and gone.” Their response? “Well, I disagree with them about that.” My response: “That’s a theological position.” This is why theology matters: it is unavoidable. The question then is not do you have theology or not, because everyone does. The question is do you have good theology or bad theology? I believe that Reformed theology is the most correct out of all other systems, because all other systems are not nearly as Christ-centered as it is.

“Even Paul pointed to the gospel, not to reformed theology.”

Yes, that is true. Reformed theology though is itself the recovery of … the Gospel. This is a null argument purported mostly by Arminians to try and refute Calvinism and Reformed theology (not at all saying you are an Arminian, but they use that same argument). An honest Reformed position never says that Paul was “Reformed.” That’s absurd, because the chronological order of history itself does not allow for this (i.e. Paul lived in the first century, the Reformation began in the 16th century).

Spurgeon said in his Defense of Calvinism http://www.spurgeon.org/calvinis.htm, “The old truth that Calvin preached, that Augustine preached, that Paul preached, is the truth that I must preach to-day, or else be false to my conscience and my God.” That truth is that God saves sinners through Christ. That is a summed up articulation of Reformed theology, over-simplifid, but still at the heart of it. Yes it’s just Biblical, but many who say they believe the Bible deny this very statement by adding things to or taking away from it, which in turn makes it a false gospel. That statement, that God saves sinners through Christ, is absolutely a Pauline understanding, yet Augustine (in the 3rd and 4th centuries) and Calvin (during the Reformation) both reiterated that very truth and expounded upon it later in history because of errors that kept progressing and needed to be dealt with, and it was spoken under different labels over time, but it is still the same truth. The Gospel. Only by God’s doing through Christ can man be saved.

Do you believe that Paul spoke about election? Predestination? Effectual calling? Grace alone? (Rhetorical, because I know you do) These are terms used (some of which are in Scripture, others are not) to articulate giant, great, divine ideas about salvation. The term “Trinity” is not in the Scriptures either, yet the idea is clearly there. So will you throw that out as a received orthodox doctrine (necessary to be believed by the church) that heroes of the faith in the early church died for? So also it is with Reformed theology. The term contains within it a whole understanding of what the Scriptures have said to us, namely that the whole point of the Scriptures is the exaltation of Christ (that itself is a Reformed position that I know you personally hold concerning the Scriptures). By no means is it ultimate, but it is definitely authoritative and I believe very Biblical, as I would think you would agree with as well.

“Why not just say the gospel instead of reformed?”

Here is why: Because every “Christian” group, even heretical one’s who are unbelievers in fact, say they have the one Gospel-truth as well. Who do we believe? Which gospel is true? To answer your question, we don’t have that luxury basically, because there are so many false gospels out there, it’s frightening. The Catholic church says the same thing, “no, we have the true Gospel, anyone outside of us stands condemned.” Unfortunately, you have to distinguish what Gospel you are talking about now, and in order to do that you must use labels, faith-definitions. Paul himself said to be very leery of “gospels” other than the one you first received. Take the Galatians for example. That whole book is a refutation of a false gospel being spoken there that was deceiving its church body.

Our culture denies faith labels and definitions, yet they have historically been utilized since the history of the church to distinguish different ideas. The Reformed gospel, as opposed to the Catholic “gospel,” says something totally different. Same as the Arminian gospel, the Mormon “gospel,” the Jehovah’s Witness’ “gospel,” and so on. We need to be very careful about the Gospel truth we have received, that we protect it and hold onto it with everything we have. Yes, I agree with you that I would prefer to just say the Gospel without using any kind of labels to distinguish what we’re saying, but we live in a super-confused culture who doesn’t know its right from its left and so you need distinctions from other faiths, even within Christianity. I wrote about faith labels and distinctions in this blog entry http://www.davidwesterfield.net/index.p … 530-005706 recently, and it may help clarify some of these points. We live in one unbelievably confused culture who are putting forth just absurd ideas, even within the church.

“It’s important to see these teachers as sinful human ‘equals’ meaning sinners such as ourselves.”

Yes it is. And never should we say they are final, sinless individuals. That’s absurd, and never have I said they weren’t sinners. That would be anti-Scriptural (Romans 3?). Some people who claim the “Reformed” name do say that (implicitly), and honestly, people like that do not have the true Reformed spirit of honest humility and Christ-following about them. Regardless, I do esteem pastors and theologians of the Reformed tradition as better truth-sayers than other teachers and listen to them over others any day. But at the same time, that also doesn’t mean that some things cannot be gleaned from other Gospel-rooted faith traditions. We just have to take what they say with a (sometimes giant) grain of salt.

“Seeing them as the tellers of perfect truth can make their weaknesses become our own.”

I absolutely agree! In addition, I would also go on to say that those who view other fallible men as the final authority (who I will call the Arrogantly Reformed) are not consistent with Historic Reformed theology itself. John Calvin (if you’ll allow me to quote him on this 🙂 said that the life of the Christian should be marked by three things: humility, humility and humility. I agree. That’s what the life of someone following Christ should look like. Humble. Yet many of the so-called Reformed lack this to a great degree and it is sad, because this is supposed to be the mark of the Reformed to begin with: humble pursuit of Christ. If we believe in unconditional election (that God chose us for salvation based on the freedom of His grace, that His loving choice wasn’t rooted in us to begin with) how in the world can we boast, even in our correct theology? Is correct understanding and truth not itself a gift of of the cross of Christ? All boasting is evil. The Reformed would do well to take James’ advice on this, maybe apply it to their lives.

The Need for Faith-Definitions and Labels

By

On May 30, 2008

In Apologetics, Culture, Theology

There is a received dogma within our culture that says using labels to define who you are either politically, religiously, or any other way, is divisive and arrogant. Instead we should just amorphously state our opinions on various subjects instead of using these labels that cause divisions and splits within groups or communities. My generation (and younger) seems to have accepted this as the way things are. You just don’t use labels as much as possible. It is impolite at best and instigating hate at the worst.

Unfortunately, that thinking has seeped into the church to large degree to where we just don’t use labels to define what we believe anymore. We’re all just generally “Christians,” without walls, without denominational barriers, all one in Christ. Now there is some truth to that (and hope for unification somewhere down the road), for some of the denominations out there. Yet for other denominations, there have historically been splits from these groups over truth itself, over the Gospel, not just over church floor color and various subjective arrangements.

On MySpace it seems popular to put “Christian – Other,” that way others have to decide what you are, but you surely won’t be pidgin-holed by a label! You can also see this come out on the site GodTube.com as well. You have a whole range of people from various denominations, some groups of which aren’t even considered historic Christians to begin with (you know, those denying the Trinity, the full deity and full humanity of Christ, etc), coming together as one group of people under the label “Christian,” all assuming they together adhere to the same faith, when the reality is there couldn’t be more of a contrast between different groups. But the waters get muddy when there are no labels or definitions of where people are coming from in their faith.

There is something to be said about unity within the church. We need it, and within the Protestant world in particular, there is far too little unity. This is something I actually commend the Roman Catholic Church for: their unity, despite its falsehood. I desire for the day when Protestants can once again stand in unity on the Gospel and the truths of Scripture. Splits over subjective things is dead wrong. Yet splits over truth and what the Scriptures have asserted as the Gospel should be commended instead of chastised. Unfortunately, within the Protestant realm, there is a ton of poisonous theology being put forward as truth which is so far from the truth of the Scriptures.

Our culture says doctrinal truth claims are not important and we need to come together in the name of unity. In fact, our culture says any truth claims are arrogant and divisive, breaking up our humanity. How is it the church of Jesus Christ seems to think this is okay and should be propagated even? I hear this frequently from people at church as well as your average run-of-the-mill Christian out in the world.

Jesus prayed on our behalf in His High Priestly prayer in John 17:17, “Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.” He also said in John 14:6, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” Jesus is very clear and makes straight forward truth-claims. Maybe we should as well, coming from Scripture of course, instead of giving people no understanding of what it is we believe specifically? Paul made clear in several letters that his readers adhere to correct and truthful doctrine and teaching, and that there be no divisions on these things. That is the kind of division he wanted to keep from happening.

So why do I use labels to define what I believe? Well, for one, because within a label (or word, really) consists a definition, an article of belief, a statement about what the truth is from the Scriptures. Secondly, I use labels because they distinguish my beliefs against other beliefs. Don’t take this as me saying, “I’m better than those who don’t use labels,” or that I in any way look down my nose at those who choose not to use a label. Using labels in no way adds to or takes away from any righteousness we have, because in ourselves, we have none to begin with (total depravity?). Rather our righteousness comes from that which was obtained on our behalf by Christ. Regardless, I am making a recommendation that we do start using labels again to define where it is we are coming from.

Using labels refines what it is you are saying to people about what it is you believe. In all reality though, on a Facebook profile, it doesn’t matter all that much really to use specific labels for your religious beliefs. I just prefer to so maybe someone might investigate further as to what I mean and hopefully I can share the Gospel. However, I do think how we define ourselves in general can be indicative of underlying assumptions about how we personally perceive labels and belief terms themselves. I do feel it is important to be as specific and accurate as possible with your stated beliefs (in any forum or social environment) instead of leaving people with a fuzzy, amorphous understanding of where you are coming from. But that’s just an opinion as it pertains to Myspace or Facebook or any other online social forum.

So why do I use the labels “Christian – Protestant – Evangelical – Reformed” on my Facebook profile? Because each says something about my beliefs against other beliefs. Each says something that further and further distinguishes what I believe concerning “the faith once for all delivered.” I’m going to go through and explain each label and give short, personal definitions within each of the terms:

I’m a Christian as opposed to a Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist:

To just say I’m a “Christian” (while that is obviously true) is way too broad nowadays in our culture. Many will say, “I follow Christ.” Well, a lot of people say that who don’t according to the Scriptures. Many people call themselves “Christian” who according to the Scriptures, have rejected Christ as Savior. Not everyone assumes that when you say, “I believe in Jesus,” that you actually mean you believe in Him alone, that He died for your sins and rose from the dead on your behalf and that you contributed nothing to your salvation.

You must be specific in our culture about your beliefs. You cannot just assume people know where you are coming from as it pertains to the Gospel and Christianity in general. Over in Iran, it may not be as broad to say I’m a Christian. That is a different culture though. But in the thinking of the West, the term Christian encompasses a whole range of beliefs, some of which are fundamentally contradictory to others even. People who are Mormon consider themselves Christians too, yet their beliefs go against the very ecumenical doctrines established in the early history of the Christian church as those which makeup orthodox Christianity.

Nowadays (though historically this has not always been the case), the label Christian encompasses a couple billion people all around the world, from groups ranging from Baptists, Catholics, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Episcopals, and many other “Christian” groups. All of these groups, sects, and denominations have fundamental disagreements over the very nature of God, man, and salvation, amongst a host other beliefs that are vitally important. So I must go further than just saying I’m a “Christian” (though, as I said, that is absolutely true).

I’m Protestant as opposed to Catholic:

This is another distinction of my beliefs that I must make over against the Roman Catholic Church in particular. I am not a Roman Catholic Christian. I am a Protestant Christian. I reject their mass, their Eucharist, their belief in faith plus works for eternal justification before God, their belief in the infallibility of Rome’s authority over the life and faith of the church (even over sacred Scripture), amongst a host of other beliefs, because I believe they directly contradict the passages of Scripture, which I believe to be the only infallible authority for the faith and practice of the church.

Unfortunately though, the term “Protestant” has been hijacked and ruined in many ways by theologically liberal groups who are more open to worldly, cultural interpretations of the characteristics of God, Scripture, Christ, salvation, and man. So I must distinguish even further than this. Yet, I still consider myself a Protestant. I guess more of a Historic Protestant, to be accurate. Protestantism used to be way more theologically conservative than it has become.

I’m Evangelical as opposed to theologically liberal or Pelagian:

I reject that there can be other ways to God besides faith alone in Christ alone, whereas theological liberals will say that Jesus is not the only way, just one of many. The Scriptures are the only infallibly authoritative rule over the life and faith of the church. Salvation is through faith alone in Christ alone. Jesus is fully God, fully man. Jesus, the Son of God, came from heaven to live as a frail human (like us) and lived a perfect life in the eyes of God, in my place, died the death I should have died, taking the wrath of God in Himself, rose from the grave three days later, that if you believe in Him, you will be saved.

This message, the Gospel, is at the heart of evangelicalism. And it totally differs from the liberals version of what the Gospel is, which is “love like Jesus loved,” which is not good news, because He loved perfectly, and I don’t. However, it now seems even many within evangelical circles now are folding on some of these core Gospel-truths by saying that, “we personally believe all of these things, but it isn’t necessary to believe absolutely all of this to be saved.” Still others will say that it isn’t important to preach on hell, sin, wrath, justice, predestination, because they might make people upset. Is that not our culture talking? That right there is the difference between orthodoxy and heterodoxy. And once again, unfortunately, I must refine my beliefs even further than just evangelical, though I am that as well.

I’m Reformed as opposed to Arminian, Semi-Pelagian, partial-Calvinist, or Dispensational:

I hold to the Five Solas of the Reformation: Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Solus Christus, Sola Scriptura, Soli Deo Gloria. Usually upon reflection, a lot of evangelicals will affirm the Five Solas without hesitation, with the exception of maybe grace alone (differing of course on election sadly, inconsistently). Yet grace alone is at the heart of the Gospel itself. God saved me, a rebel, when I wanted nothing of Him. The only reason I’m different and saved is God’s “grace alone” making me to differ, that He would grant me a living faith, to turn from my sin by His power and trust in Christ. That was His work in me, not my work in raising myself from the dead, like Lazarus.

I’m a five point Calvinist. I hold to all five points without reservation. Why?

Well, being the fact that I was dead in sin prior to my conversion, actively in rebellion against Him, I would never have come to Him. I was hell-bound, fully deserving of wrath and punishment (Total Depravity).

Therefore, in eternity past, God chose me to inherit salvation, out of His pure love and affection, not because of anything within me or anything I would do in the future, but just simply because He sovereignly chose to save me (Unconditional Election).

In due time, He sent His Son to accomplish this plan of the Father’s, who willingly lived the life I could never live, die the eternal death that should have been mine, pay for my sins effectively and fully at the cross, justifying me by His blood, confirmed and sealed in His resurrection (Definite/Limited Atonement, He actually bought my redemption at the cross).

He brought me forth into this world by my chosen parents, and on His schedule and plan, despite unbelievable Satanic forces attempting to keep me from salvation, God made sure I was saved and brought to faith (i.e. He did not leave it up to me to decide whether I was in or out because I never would have come to start with). He did this by sending His Holy Spirit to give me new birth, that is to regenerate my dead will enslaved to sin, convict me of my wickedness against Him, give me eyes to see and ears to hear Him, and show me Christ, which inevitably gave rise to my faith in Him (Irresistible Grace).

And I know that because of Jesus’ promises and that He never lies, He will never let me go or allow me to turn away from Him because He will preserve me and cause to me to persevere by His power working so mightily within me (Perseverance/Preservation of the Saints).

That is Calvinism in a nutshell. As Spurgeon once said (paraphrase), Calvinism is really just another label for the Gospel and nothing more. God saves sinners. Man can achieve nothing, nor can we coerce God or force His hand to be merciful to us. Yet how merciful He is, full of grace and kindness to bring sinners into His family! We are at His mercy to turn us and miraculously regenerate us that we may believe in Him with a living faith and so be saved.

I hold to covanentalism (minus the statements on covenant children and infant baptism) as opposed to Dispensationalism even though I’ve grown up within Dispensational churches my whole life, and still attend one. My conviction on this has come from studying many resources on both systems of theology and comparing them with how the Scriptures unfold over the whole plot-line of the Bible.

I have personally found the coventantal understanding more Scripturally grounded, yet I do not claim to have some advantage over Dispensationalists, because I know and love many Dispensationalists who would be classified as Reformed Calvinists and I gladly confess with them in every thing else. I just believe that in terms of the Gospel, God works in covenants, as clearly articulated in Hebrews, doing away with the old and establishing the new in Christ. Covenant theology views the entire Bible as God’s progressive, unfolding outworking of the Gospel, where God creates for Himself a people for His own possession, purchased by the blood of His Son.

So I guess when you get down to it, that makes me a Reformed Evangelical Protestant Christian. Or to shorten that, I’m a Reformed Baptist. So really, you could sum up what I believe in the London Baptist Confession of Faith from 1689. An excellent read!

Gay Marriage, Bioethics, Oil, and the Sovereign King

By

On May 21, 2008

In Culture, Theology

Women win right to children without fathers (in Britain)
Coming to grips with same-sex marriage ruling (in California)

Much can be said about all this, but only a few things are needed: we are looking at the hardening of people’s hearts in the West toward not only a Christian worldview, but even more specifically, the Gospel. With the disintegration of the family as ordained by God in both society and at the official policy-making levels, human relationships are being redefined, reordered, and the social chaos that results will be the continued disintegration of society at large, morally, socially, ethically, emotionally, psychologically, in every facet of human experience. The implications of the decisions made in Britain in recent days affect every realm of society at large, including the church. In America, not just in Britain, we have our own redefinition of human relationships and families in the recent decisions by the California Supreme Court. And do not think this will not happen across the country. California is only the beginning. We are not just headed toward a slippery slope, we are on it I am afraid, and the slope is getting steeper. Where does all of this stop?

From bioethical decisions being made, to relationships being redefined, we are seeing the outpouring of hatred toward a holy, eternal God who rules all things by the power of His word. This saddens my heart, greatly. We are seeing the outright rejection and suppression of His righteousness through acts of unrighteousness, just as Romans 1 is clear to explain in great detail. Here is some great analysis on all of this by Albert Mohler: http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=1154 http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=1153

Oil prices rise (to $132/barrel) after government report of a drop in crude and gasoline inventories
Shortage fears push oil futures near $140

It’s odd to me that we have just as much oil right underneath our feet as there is over in the Middle East, according to geologists. Yet we are unable to drill for it because of an absurd, atheistic, religiously environmental worldview that is imposing their “religion” upon all of us through repressive legislation that keeps us from obtaining that oil. And then they complain about our tie to foreign reserves and the high prices? I don’t get it. Everyone blames the conservatives and oil execs for high energy prices, demanding they be “burned at the stake” by putting them in these stupid hearings in Washington (that our tax dollars are paying for by the way). But their hands are tied by ridiculous liberal policies that do not allow them to pursue a vast supply of energy right underneath our feet. We can’t drill in Anwar, we can’t drill on the coastal shores, places where there are literally billions upon billions of barrels of oil. Oddly enough though, now China is drilling on our own shores, 45 miles off the Florida coast, something we can’t even do! http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/c … lling.html What a backward world … the illogical absurdities are mounting in our society. This is just one example.

While I myself can become very frustrated with all these things (though the oil thing is secondary in nature to the other ethical issues mentioned), I must stake my hope elsewhere, beyond the things of this world because they are fleeting and crumbling. Praise God that though things may be frustrating, backward and just plain offensive to God and His people, we have a sovereign Lord for which nothing happens outside the counsel of His will, according to His good pleasure and choice. That gives me hope, that though things may fall apart around us in all kinds of different ways, Jesus is the King of kings and will see to it that all things are made right in the end. That is something we can bank on: God’s immovable justice and love, clearly displayed in all its glory in the cross of Jesus. So if oil runs out, if our society corrupts to the point of massive moral chaos in the streets and in homes (to a dark point we have yet to see), if Christians are increasingly persecuted in the West, we can stake our trust, hope, and lives upon the solid foundation of Christ’s death and resurrection for us, knowing we can look forward to the reward of enjoyment in His presence. To sum all of this up, for believers, despite the utter corruption in the world, and the inescapable day when our own lives come to an end, everything will work out, and therefore, we have nothing to fear. If God is for us, who can be against us?

Climate Change: Long-Term Graphs Are Helpful

By

On May 6, 2008

In Culture, Environment, Science

When presenting scientific data fairly, it is important to give long-term perspective and context to that data. Yet, when we see CNN or MSNBC scientists come on and present their data, we only see the past 200 years, or maybe even the past couple thousand years. But what about over the long-term, say, within the past 425,000 years? You don’t see that very often.

Typically, when presented with the Earth’s historical average temperature, we are presented with a chart looking somewhat like this, you know, which as the line moves closer to the right, the colors mysteriously fade from blue to red, to somehow subliminally indicate things are getting out of hand and the Darwinian Doomsday is at the door:

If this is the only information you see (above), along with a long-winded scientific explanation that we are on a collision course with the forces of evolution if we don’t act, of course you are going to think we are on the verge of a global meltdown (literally) and need to work to try and steer the global temperature so that our coastal cities are not flooded from the ice caps melting, or whatever.

But what if you saw data that is not presented in the media, say, by other scientists who are actually being fair and giving you the larger context, the long-term picture of the climate temperature? Would you be convinced then that there was very little we could do about it? Well, here’s a long-term chart for you from the past 425,000 years:

As we can see, there has historically been quite a bit of fluctuation over the millenniums. Could it be there are many, many other factors beyond our ability to control that affect whether the atmosphere warms or cools? The overall, long-term evidence shows there are rather large fluctuations that have always occurred, yet life has persisted somehow for quite some time now. I mean, you would think maybe there’s a sovereign God in control of all things or something.

Now that’s not to say we should not try and take care of the Earth God has granted to us through reducing pollution and creating more efficient systems to create energy. I’m all for that. But I sure could do without the atheistic, gloomy worldview the “Going Green” and climate change movements arise from. And it would be nice if the small group of environmentalists out there would stop imposing on the majority a, might I say, religious worldview (in the form of legal reform, the very thing they accuse Christians of doing), a worldview system that is evangelizing short-term data alone to “prove” their case, all the while ignoring the long-term data readily available for their viewing pleasure, all in an attempt to back up what they view as the inevitable Darwinian destiny we all face IF we don’t act now.

I believe all of this is really just smoke and mirrors for systematically implementing a form of utopian socialism on a global scale, the fundamental theories of which we saw worked so well in practice in the USSR, China, Cuba, and North Korea, and now Venezuela, in upholding human rights and all. But never mind history and lessons that could be learned there. All of this just sounds like something to believe in, to make us feel “right” in ourselves, to unite us as one, to bring about some sort of eternal, permanent meaning to our existence, doing the thing religion does for people (particularly Christianity) without the fuss of believing that we will one day be held accountable by an infinitely powerful God who created us for His purposes, not ours, whom we have rebelled against with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength, in every way imaginable, with every faculty of our being.

I guess I just do not understand why “believers” of the Darwinian persuasion even care really about going green if “from dust we come, to dust we go?” Who really cares within their worldview? We just die and that’s it. So what’s all the fuss about climate change in our culture? These things just happen, it’s the way things are. Why try to find any significance or meaning? Or why try and redeem any purpose for humanity if we are no better or worse (really of no more value) than rocks or fox’s or water? Could it be possible we have built within our being the inherent knowledge of an eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, almighty, awesome God who spoke matter into existence “ex-nihilo,” from nothing? And could it be we inherently sense that we do have meaning as humans beyond that of trees, rocks, and even other animals, but that we are somehow disconnected from that meaning, alienated even? I do believe it does. Scripture attests to all of this. Here is the meaning we are seeking after … http://www.westerfunk.net/gospel/

Charts and data taken from http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/watch … change.htm

Update at 4:19 pm:

Only Gore could take a giant natural disaster where people are suffering in ways we can’t imagine right now from our cushy offices and use it to push his marketing agenda:
http://www.businessandmedia.org/article … 60205.aspx

Wesley and Whitefield Rolling Over in Their Graves

By

On May 2, 2008

In Christian Culture, Culture, Theology

http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=1142

That this is even being considered now in the history of the United Methodist Church just makes you stop and wonder what Wesley and Whitefield would say. And on top of that, the fact that the win against the normalization of homosexuality within the denomination at the official level was so narrow. I cannot imagine the righteous anger, the just fury they would feel that their beloved denomination would even be flirting with going over the cliff in this regard. Yes it was still a win for those who oppose the normalization of homosexuality within the denomination, but I agree also with those who want to normalize it too: time is on their side. They just need to extend their reach into the denomination a bit further and a split will surely happen. Or they might get sued for discrimination against homosexual people between now and the next conference in four years. Maybe I’m wrong though. God willing, maybe things will turn around.

But unfortunately, I believe at this point, too much damage may have been done internally to hurt their cause, too much of the culture has infiltrated the denomination, to the point where reversing it will be next to impossible. It would be a tremendous uphill battle on an already slippery slope that is quite steep. God can do all things though and can reverse that damage. But unfortunately, history (how God has acted) shows where these things end up typically: in the gutter of dead, godless, nominal, “progressive” Christianity, turning away from doctrinally convicted, historically faithful, Gospel-centered Christianity. I have a friend who is a pastor in the denomination and he’s having quite a difficult, frustrating time with all of this. And not only this issue, but some other things as well. Pray for his strength and resolve to be sustained by the grace of Christ. There are many faithful believers within the denomination who desire to see change, not change toward the progressive way, but change toward the historically faithful way of the denomination.

On a side note (disclaimer): does this mean I cannot stand homosexual persons, hate them in any manner, or that we should not reach out to them? Absolutely not! I have friends as well as family who are gay, they know my stance on the issue, and yet I still love and care for them, just as I do anyone else who is human (sinful). It is a shame this one sin has been exalted above all others by our Christian culture, unbiblically. Sin is sin and despicable in the eyes of the Lord, from self-righteousness (something tolerated within the church unfortunately) to homosexuality, because it all is an affront to the goodness, name, honor, and glory of God. It is a shame too that there is not more outreach by evangelicals to the homosexual community. We should love them just as we love any other sinners, being the fact that we ourselves are sinners too and no better.

But despite all of this, regardless, homosexuality is explicitly written out as sin in the Scriptures and should not be tolerated as something acceptable in the body of the church, just as adultery should not be, or greed, or really self-righteousness (legalism) as well. We should lovingly oppose it. It is an offense not against evangelicals, but rather, according to the Scriptures, it is an offense against God Himself, just as every single one of our sins are, from the least to the greatest. Those “scholars” like Shelby Spong and others, who would attempt to do theological and Scriptural gymnastics to show homosexuality to be something the Biblical writers themselves accepted is absurd. The text is clear on the issue. Paul was not a “repressed homosexual“.

Christian Mysticism and Inclusivism Taking Hold in Evangelicalism

By

On April 30, 2008

In Apologetics, Christian Culture, Culture, Theology

In one sense, as believers in Christ, we are to be accepting and loving toward those who do not know Christ. Yet we also have doctrinal convictions and beliefs that counter those who differ with us and we are to oppose them (lovingly of course). Jesus put it like this: “Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves” (Matthew 10:16). We are to go out preaching the Gospel in its full array of hard truths (original sin, total depravity, just wrath, hell, substitutionary atonement, justification through faith alone in Christ alone, all of which is made possible by grace alone) and yet we are to be innocent as doves in our speech and conduct toward them. We are not to be deceived by false teaching and even more so, we are to oppose it, but do so with reverence, gentleness, and respect (1 Peter 3:15).

However, in our modern day in age, the Protestant evangelical church, to a large degree, has capitulated to the culture, inviting in its pagan practices and belief systems, as orthodox teaching even. What do I mean? Well, let’s consider the millions of “FW: Fw: Fw:” emails circulating the globe right now, sent by those from within Protestant evangelical churches. Most of these entail some form of superstition or myth, that if you do X then Y will happen, without any regard for a sovereign God who rules all things by His powerful word. In addition, many of these emails are already documented as being false out on www.snopes.com (check it out).

But regardless, the principle is that something can be said about what is being taught (or not being taught) nowadays in our churches concerning who God is and how He has acted in history through Christ to redeem us from God’s impending wrath. Something can be said about the teaching because it has resulted in “believers” folding to these mystical “Christian” emails, believing them to be true. I can’t tell you how many of these my dad receives from people within his own evangelical Bible study group. I had to just ask people to quit sending them to me, or in most cases I would find the snopes.com article speaking about that particular email and reply to all with the link. They stopped coming in quickly. I mean it’s not true, right? Why should things that aren’t true spread around as if they were? But that is not my main point.

Something else concerned me today that prompted me to write this entry. I noticed a Facebook group entitled, “100,000,000 Christians Worship God!” And while I certainly hope that is true (while remaining cautious as to the truthfulness of that), something confirmed my cautiousness. I noticed many of the comments on the forums saying things along the lines of, “Are we Baptists, Methodists, Catholics, etc. or are We CHRISTIANS? Too many times we get all worked up in denominations, that we forget we are all brothers and sisters in Christ, we are Christians indeed. Why do we continue to put down one another, we all have our faults in the denomination.” Yes the church is imperfect. Yes the church has rough edges, in every denomination. Yes, even Reformed denominations and circles for sure. :] But is there not a good reason, in many cases (though not all), for denominational splits?

A quote from Monergism.com’s Bad Theology section says this: “Divisions and separations are most objectionable in religion. They weaken the cause of true (Gospel) 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.” Yet this is lost nowadays on our Christian culture at large.

This is where the evangelical church has capitulated to the pagan culture around us and its ideas. How? Instead of holding fast to the Christian understanding of tolerance, to a large degree, we have adopted their understanding of tolerance. This was set in stone for me on the group itself where it gave rules for the members: “If you or anyone is known to say or write anything unkind or negative to anyone in our group we will ban them IMMEDIATELY upon notification.” Now of course, the rule should stand in the instances where people say unkind and things to others, so as to harm them personally. That should not be tolerated. And of course, trying to manage that for 400,000+ users is next to impossible. However, that’s not my point. It was the addition of something in the rule that I think is revealing. Did you see it? “Anything … negative.” Anything? Really? Even doctrinal disagreements that hit at the root of how people are saved and get into heaven for eternity? Hmm. Is this not the adoption of something that our secular culture values, that is moral and religious relativism?

During the 16th century, there was this little theological schism in the catholic (universal) church called the Reformation. Heresy was the issue at hand, heresy having to do with how people are saved, literally, for eternity. And while I personally desire for all to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth, the uproar in the Reformation was over this very issue: how are people to be saved from God’s wrath? Catholics and Protestants fundamentally disagree over how people are saved. Luther was condemned as a heretic at the Diet of Worms. I hold to Luther’s teachings on the Gospel. To Protestants he should be considered one for whom the world was not worthy for standing strong against false teaching and upholding the Gospel. We do have affirmations together with Roman Catholics on the Trinity, the two natures of Christ, and several other important distinctions that can be made over against other religions (like the Mormons, JW’s, and others who would claim to be under the title of Christianity). But are these enough to unite us? No. They go further to talk about certain, extra-scriptural requirements placed upon the work of Christ, if we are to be saved.

We drastically differ on the nature of salvation itself with the Roman Catholics. This is not an unimportant distinction as most seem to think. This is not something we can just look over. This affects our ability to stand together as one people in Christ with Roman Catholics because we both view each other as heretics (heretics being those who believe doctrines that will take them to hell). Yet it seems those who claim to be Protestant evangelical Christians don’t get this at all, which just makes you have to really wonder about their own understanding of the Gospel to begin with (justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone), though of course you cannot necessarily paint everyone with a broad brush, I know.

Regardless, it seemed a majority of people in the group forums were making many of the same statements (though I only read a handful of the thousands of comments) concerning our unity with Roman Catholics in particular, as well as other denominations, that by Biblical, historical, Gospel, confessional standards, are anathema (accursed), enemies of God, enemies of the cross, because they reject the Gospel message itself in their teaching and preaching, either implicitly or explicitly. “They have a form of godliness while denying its power” (2 Timothy 3:5). Some of the few comments I actually appreciated were those coming from some Roman Catholics opposing the Protestants for trying to bring about this unity. I found this interesting, because the argument by the Roman Catholics was that we Protestants have abandoned the “real” church (Rome) and have no right to call together unity. I agree, not that we have abandoned the real church, but that we have no right to call together unity.

We Protestants, as a group, deny their doctrines that only the Roman Catholic Church can interpret Scripture for us, that she is infallible. We believe in Sola Scripura, that the Scriptures alone are the sole, final, infallible authority for the life and practice of the church. We deny their Eucharist because in it is a most pernicious belief that Christ is re-sacrificed each week at Mass. We deny that Christ’s atonement is incomplete and that only the priests can stand in between us and the Savior. This flies in the face of Hebrews 10:11-13 which reveals that Roman Catholics have simply re-instituted the Jewish sacrificial system all over again each week in their Mass, but instead now, the sacrifice is the “incomplete” work of Christ, at least according to them. And as far as the priests are concerned in the Church of Rome, Christ alone, not a sinful priest, is our intercessor. No man can stand in between us and God. The only One who can, who is qualified, is Christ Himself. The way has been opened, the temple curtain torn in two by His work on the cross. He is our great High Priest. Through the work of Christ alone, we have full, unfettered access to the throne of God above, when outside of it, only wrath and a fury of fire remains.

Surprisingly, even the Roman Catholics (at least those true to the Roman Church) are getting the point in the forums, the very point I’m trying to make: there is and can be no unity between Catholics and Protestants on the basis of the fact that we both have serious doctrinal disagreements on the nature of salvation itself! They see the real issue at hand here: eternity, either with or without God. Maybe we should wakeup too and recover the Gospel in our groups before it is lost amongst our denominations altogether.

All of this in turn makes me consider whether there are 100,000,000 Christians (saved, regenerate, actually believing, Christians) worshipping God right now (through faith alone in Christ alone, the only way to truly worship God to begin with, is it not? (Romans 14:23) if these people claiming to be Christians believe there are other acceptable views within Christianity of how we are saved; and, if they believe there to be no important disagreement on fundamental soteriological (salvation) issues. Yes yes, I cannot know anyone’s heart. I agree with you. No one, not even the person, can really know the heart, but only God knows. Here’s a distinction though: you can know what someone believes (at least outwardly, at face value) by what they state personally as their beliefs, can you not? Is that not what doctrine is, a stated belief in words, sentences, you know, language, that we use to communicate ideas and concepts to others? This seems to be lost now though in our mystical, culturally inclusive, relativistic Christian culture.

Yes, I wish the church could be universal in the sense that there were no denominational splits. But unfortunately, we do not have that luxury, because within many of these different denominations are false doctrines and heresies by which people are being blinded from the very Gospel itself and led straight to hell. That seems to me to be quite important, trumping this postmodern, cultural desire for what really amounts to false unity to begin with. This is frightening and should strike fear in us as believers that we be faithful to the Apostolic Gospel message delivered to us in the Scriptures.

I cannot stand in worship with Catholics or other (theologically liberal or relativistic) denominations even who deny we are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. I will not. Because I’m theologically arrogant? Not at all. I’m a sinner saved by grace alone. How could I possibly be arrogant if God is the One who saved me when I wanted nothing of Him, blind and depraved, turned away from Him? I cannot. This has everything to do though with the very Gospel itself by which we are saved. We lose that, then what is the point of the church? I will not stand with those who differ on these points because we believe we are saved in two entirely different ways. One is supernatural, the other is fleshly. One is by divine intervention, the other we climb the latter of works to be acceptable. One is by Grace Alone through the finished work of Christ; the other is faith plus works you do to get in good with God (which is just smoke and mirrors for humanistic, man-accomplished salvation really).

Within many denominational splits lies important theological (belief) distinctions that must be understood. If someone says this is unimportant, they have clearly adopted the modern pagan postmodern cultural understanding that doctrines and creeds should be eradicated because, “We can’t really know anything for sure can we?” This is sad, mainly because church history is full of people who died, were tortured, let their families be split apart, all for theological distinctions and doctrine even, because they knew the glory of Christ was at stake. Would those early church doctors and fathers who have gone on to be with the Lord before us say the doctrines for which they willingly perished were unimportant? I think not.

This is Just One of the Forms of Persecution the Church Faces

By

On April 30, 2008

In Culture, Theology

Christian Ministry Fined $23,000 in Gay Discrimination Case

Much can be said about where the modern notion of “tolerance” is headed in our society: the legal exclusion of those who are religiously and morally exclusive. More and more of these cases are starting to spring up in Europe and North America, not merely homosexual cases, but cases in which a ministry or church takes a stand on morality. We would be wise to pay attention and consider the cost of holding fast to our doctrinal convictions concerning the Gospel and its implications in our lives. Persecution is always good for purifying the church. Unfortunately, we need it, for we have become polluted by the world.

The Courage to be Protestant – A Review

By

On April 28, 2008

In Audio, Christian Culture, Culture, Reviews, Theology

In The Courage to be Protestant, David Wells notes there are three major groups splintering within the evangelical church now that threaten the entire movement’s original cause (though one of them is remaining faithful and seeks to preserve it). There are smaller groups that are splintering of course, but the focus is on the three major movements. The word “evangelicalism” is rooted in the word “evangel” which means Gospel. This was the fundamental basis upon which the phrase “evangelical” came into existence, starting either during or right before the times of the Puritans (based upon the fact that John Owen and Jonathan Edwards used the term themselves in their writings). Now though, things are taking a drastic turn; a turn, in fact, that has not been witnessed in its entire history since the Reformation.

These three distinct groups that are “emerging” (no pun intended) are the Truth-lovers, those who hold a historic protestant understanding of the Gospel as recovered in the Reformation (though all of these people are not necessarily Reformed); the Marketers, that is those who hold to using corporate marketing techniques to, in a sense, manipulate people into the church (marketing primarily to an aging baby-boomer generation); and the Emergents, those who believe it is necessary to adapt and morph Biblical, theological and historical understanding to our postmodern culture in an effort to win them for Christ (marketing themselves primarily to my generation).

While not doubting the good intentions and desires of the Marketers and Emergents, Wells brings stinging indictments that reveals their shift on crucial doctrines of the Gospel itself, which Satan has historically used to tear the church apart from within and eclipse the Gospel itself, all in the name of Christianity. I have not been able to put this book down it is so good. It has really made me consider the need to be even more courageous (yet loving) to hold fast to historic Protestantism (that is the Gospel) in the face of those, even within our churches unfortunately, who employ worldly means to bring people in and in some cases attempt to save themselves through their own doing and “Jesus’ help”.

Within the Marketing and Emergent movements, everything under the sun (including substitutionary atonement even! Check out Al Mohler in this sermon) is being redefined outside of historic, Biblical definitions, but is instead defined upon what our culture thinks, says and wants. However though, in a lot of cases, historic doctrines are held, yet pastors and teachers seem to be ashamed of them and lighten them up significantly, or just never speak about them in the pulpit at all. Are you ashamed of the doctrines of hell, wrath, sin, justice, predestination even? Jesus Himself spoke more about hell than anyone, yet some teachers would make Jesus out to be this guy who spoke some hippie love language.

Shouldn’t we possibly be willing to talk about that which is uncomfortable (sin and wrath in particular) because it is a prerequisite for getting the Gospel right? Isn’t that why people hate us Christians to begin with, precisely because the Gospel is an offensive message to sinful man? And if our message is not met with a good level of opposition, could there possibly be something wrong with our message? It’s the truth, is it not? The Marketers sure do seem to be ashamed of these hard truths though. Are you ashamed of the Bible speaking in terms of absolute truth? The Emergents clearly are, because a majority of people in our culture now are not sure there is any absolute truth, and the Emergents are folding to the pressure to be culturally relevant. They therefore shape their message to fit what the culture wants.

This book is a clear wakeup call for the evangelical church to recover it’s Gospel-roots as its primary focus and not shift on Biblical language, so that we may preserve the movements’ initial cause: the glory of God and the Gospel through which people may be reconciled to God. Either we recover our roots and threads that hold us together, or the historic evangelical cause will be lost. Unfortunately, David Wells believes the movement may already be lost and so it may be time to just move on and start a new movement of Gospel-centrality in the church, for both salvation and progressive sanctification (for growth in our faith). To me, it seems that a new movement is already under way with the advent of the “truth-lovers”. David Wells, summed up, puts it like this in the book:

“It would be quite unrealistic to think that evangelicalism today could look exactly as it did fifty years ago, or a hundred, or five-hundred. At the same time, the truth by which it is constituted never changes because God, whose truth it is, never changes. There should therefore be threads of continuity that bind real Christian believing in all ages. It is some of those threads, I believe, that are now being lost….I do not know what the evangelical future will be, but I am certain evangelicalism has no good future unless it finds this kind of direction again.”

Nowadays, you have everyone from the Oneness Pentecostals to Joel Osteen being called evangelical, yet Osteen is clear that he never wants to speak on anything negative, even if it is true, because it would offend people. Osteen is a Pelagian in his teaching of how people are saved, heresy condemned by an ecumenical early church council, The Council of Orange, in 529 A.D. And then T.D. Jakes does not believe in the Trinity, he’s a Modalist/Sabellian, two heresies, both of which were condemned in the third and fourth centuries. These teachers not only deny historic ecumenical, early church doctrines on the nature of Christ, God, sin (doctrines that even the Roman Catholic Church holds, whom we Protestants have crucial disagreements with over the nature of salvation), but these guys also specifically deny the roots of evangelicalism in not preaching orthodox, Gospel truth. Yet they are called and labeled evangelical! And then if you criticize what they are teaching, that they are in error, in any fashion, you get labeled a bigot, most specifically within the church! There is something seriously wrong with that.

This is a totally unqualified quote with no backing or proof anyone actually said it, but it honestly would not surprise me with the way things are shifting in evangelicalism. Someone told me that a lady had left a Roman Catholic church to go to one of the nearby “evangelical” mega-churches (remaining anonymous) because, “They didn’t teach the Trinity there and I just can’t believe in that.” If this is true (which again, not sure it is), volumes can be said about the methodologies employed at the church, the messages being communicated, the lack of clear truth that isn’t being taught, and most of all, the fact that there is no Gospel whatsoever (the root of evangelicalism), amongst a host of other things.

As those who hold to the historic truths of Christianity as particularly recovered in the Reformation, we must be willing to take abuse for the sake of Gospel-truth and not shift on those doctrines clearly shown to us in the Scriptures. That does not mean we have to stand up and be jerks toward those who differ. In fact, if this just makes you angry and you know you’ll just be mean, please keep quiet. Rather, we should lovingly confront error with the timeless truth of the Scriptures that has been passed down throughout the ages. This book is a proclamation and warning call to hold fast to what is true, even though our times dictate for us to shift our positions. David Wells says, “It takes no courage to sign up as a Protestant.” However, to be a theologically historic Protestant is increasingly taking more guts. Lord, help us to hold fast to what is true by Your Spirit.

Page 12 of 20

Previous

Next

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén