Category: Theology Page 35 of 67

Why We’re Not Emergent – A Review

On July 4, 2008

In Christian Culture, Culture, Reviews, Theology

This was a great read. The back and forth style between a writer for ESPN (Ted Kluck) and a pastor at a church in East Lansing, MI (Kevin DeYoung) has made for an excellent combination of perspectives on the emerging church movement. On the one hand, Kluck is coming at it from a very down-to-earth, journalistic, street level perspective, giving you a cultural view from all kinds of sources and personal interviews. And on the other hand, DeYoung is taking apart the movement from a theological point of view, affirming the things that are positive about it, and denying the things that are Scripturally contradictory.

Instead of just hearing one authors’ perspective and critiques, by having two authors with differing angles, it really gives you a more well-rounded understanding of what it’s all about. It is an easy read and really pulls you in. As D.A. Carson describes the book, it is “breezy.” It’s one of those books where you don’t get bogged down in a section because of its thickness. Points are explained with exceptional clarity and not made theologically overbearing.

By no means do they cover absolutely every single point of view in the movement (to do so would be next to impossible), but they cover the major teachers and forces driving the movement, both theological and cultural. The summed up thesis is that we have a lot to glean from the emerging church and their critiques of evangelicalism and where it’s gone, and yet they, like their liberal forebears 100 years ago, have swung the pendulum too far the other way. In many ways, the movement has the same taste as modernistic theological liberalism, and oddly enough, some of the almost exact quotes. Therefore the answer is not to “reimagine” Christianity under the shadow of postmodern (as the liberals attempted and failed at 100 years ago under the shadow of modernism), but to recapture historically faithful, evangelical (Gospel-centered), Reformational Christianity.

I don’t want to give too much more away because, well, you just need to read it yourself. I highly recommend it for anyone wanting to know more or understand what this whole movement is about, why it’s appealing, what’s positive, but also show us all a better way. Get this book. You will not be let down by the content, nor the style.

The Operating Principle of a Believers’ Life

By David Westerfield

On July 3, 2008

In Theology

“Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” – Philippians 2:3-11

Every one of us operates in our lives off of some set of principles, presuppositions, and some form of a worldview framework. If you are human, these things are simply unavoidable, inescapable. These principles affect the way we make long-term as well as short-term decisions in every realm of our lives. They come in thousands of different forms, in many variations, and are often very complex and intricate, to the point where sometimes we don’t even know or realize the principle upon which we are making the decisions we do. In addition, most of these principles are culturally informed, and therefore they are just assumed things with how we operate.

For believers though, Christ has broken into our respective cultural context, invaded our lives (in the positive sense obviously) and given us a principle upon which we can now make decisions that glorify Him and produce positive results in our own lives as well as the lives of those we affect with this truth. This is called the Gospel Principle. And this verse in Philippians is a great illustration of exactly this principle that Paul wants to convey to us. “Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves.” But how do we do this? By merely following Christ’s example? Not exactly.

Now I want to make clear that yes, Christ is our example for how we should live and obviously we should model our lives after His way of life. That is a “duh” sort of statement. The Gospel Principle goes further though because it does not simply say “Do this and you shall live.” That is Law. Have we not seen the history of Israel, how miserably a majority of Israelites failed at this? We are all sinners and cannot measure up to the demands of the Law by our own power.

This is exactly where the Gospel principle for believers comes in though. We look not at “What would Jesus do?” for our motivation (though I have absolutely no problem with anyone wearing a WWJD bracelet as a reminder to pursue Christ for our strength and power), but rather we go further with the Gospel and ask “What has Jesus done?” “What would Jesus do?” as great as it is of a reminder, in itself, does not give us any power to do what Paul commands, which is, “Do nothing from rivalry or conceit.” It is Law. There is no power in the Law to give us life. The Law is good (Romans 7) but it gives no life, and instead produces only death in us, because we are sinners and fail its demands.

Only the Gospel gives life. And by asking ourselves everyday, “What has Jesus done,” instead of “What would Jesus do?” we are reorienting ourselves with the power of what was accomplished at Calvary on our behalf to enable us to carry our the very thing Paul is commanding of us. Then and only then, by coming before Christ and looking to His work in His life, death, and resurrection can we do what is commanded in the Law. Apart from Him we can literally do nothing that is pleasing to Him. We are utterly reliant upon Him.

This is what Paul lays out for us. He does not give commands without it being under the power and principle of the life-giving Gospel of Christ, that He submitted Himself humbly to the cross, to bear our burden and free His people from hell. Paul’s commands and the Gospel itself are always interconnected in what he says in the Scriptures. Watch what he does.

“Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”

Yes, Jesus is an example, and this passage itself is a great picture of how that is so. But the passage is more than an example. If it’s merely an example, we’re back to the Law again. The Gospel though is that Jesus perfectly fulfilled the Law out of love for us and frees us now (giving us the power through Him) to carry out its demands. Paul relates doing “nothing from rivalry or conceit,” with the principle of Christ emptying Himself on our behalf.

It is this finished work upon which we can come and find power in Him to perform that which is impossible for us to perform out of ourselves and our sinful nature. In fact, outside of this work is simply moralistic working and toiling that is in fact sin, according to Romans 14:23. There is no power in us and what we bring to God through our self-righteous, self-generated works. Paul is very careful to show that when he commands something it is always related to this Gospel Principle, because he knows no one will be able to accomplish what he commands outside of the power available in what Christ has accomplished for us.

So as believers, though we have many competing principles telling us how we should make decisions coming from our surrounding worldly culture, we have this principle, the Gospel Principle, that we can keep coming back to every moment of every day because the Gospel is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes. As Tim Keller says, the Gospel is not only the way we’re saved at conversion, but it is also the way we’re changed progressively into the likeness of Christ. The Gospel is not merely the A-B-C’s of the Christian life, but the A-Z of the whole thing. Paul never leaves the Gospel behind when talking about how we should live in response to it, because it’s only through its power that we can do perform it.

This passage and others show that to be an inescapable fact. We love because He first loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins, our wrath-bearer and our life-giver. Praise the Lord Jesus Christ for His matchless work to deliver us from hell and give us power and life in the here and now to do what is pleasing in His sight! May we daily return to Him and this Gospel Principle to base all our decisions upon.

“Have this mind [doing nothing from rivalry or conceit] among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus [the Gospel Principle], who though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”

Come to Christ and remind yourself of the power of what was definitively accomplished at Calvary for you, in order to live a life pleasing to Him. There is no power or hope without Him and His work. There is power only in the blood of Christ. Bow before your Lord and Savior who has completed His work for you, who sits at the right hand of the Father now, and let Him satisfy the deepest core of your being by His Spirit and allow Him to give you life through His death and resurrection. It is our only hope for doing anything that glorifies Him and brings Him honor.

Pierced For Our Transgressions – A Review

By David Westerfield

On June 26, 2008

In Apologetics, Reviews, Theology

A recent, thorough study of the American religious landscape conducted by the Pew Forum indicates that around 57% of self-labeled evangelicals now believe Jesus is not the only way to eternal life. This and other studies are showing the exact same thing: evangelicalism as a whole has lost, or is in the process of losing the Gospel as what makes it distinguishable from other “Christian” groups. This is saddening.

But it is no wonder when you have leaders, pastors and theologians in evangelicalism itself outright denying something that lies at the heart of the Gospel: the penal substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross in behalf of sinners. Yes, evangelicals are beginning to deny this now! This excellent book, written by Steve Jeffery, Mike Ovey, and Andrew Sach is a very welcomed, thoughtful, timely and Biblically engaging response to those very people in showing them they are defying the Scriptures as well as historically what the church, its fathers and its doctors, have believed concerning this.

Just to give a short synopsis of the book, the first three chapters give a good thorough definition of what the doctrine is saying, the Biblical background of it from both the Old and New Testaments with a plethora of citations and explanations of the texts, and finally bringing all of this together into a theological framework in defense of the doctrine, respectively. All of this helps us understand the depths of how far God had to go in Christ in taking our sin upon Himself, taking the wrath in Himself that was due to us for that sin, and how we gain His righteousness through that work, by faith. Essentially, through faith and trust in Him, Christ takes our eternal punishment, in our place, and in return we get His reward for His work and toil! Unfathomable!

The fourth chapter then deals with the pastoral implications which I won’t go into as much here. In helping gain a better grasp of what Christians have believed historically concerning penal substitution, the fifth chapter outlines from church history, chronologically, what those who have gone before us said pertaining to this wonderful truth.

And that’s all just Part I.

All of Part 2 deals with answering the modern day critics who state that penal substitution is unbiblical, defies good modern-day common sense, and defies logic/reason. Many critics are making the old theologically liberal argument that penal substitution makes God the Father out to be a child abuser of His Son if He willingly sent Him to the cross to bear the wrath that was due to us. Unbelievable. How do we answer these people and the many other awful accusations of this wonderful truth? This book is a great place to start to know exactly how to do that.

This is was a wonderful read and a great resource to keep going back to in the future. The clear thinking, counter-arguments and Scriptural citations on the matter are so plentiful that it is really hard to negate the reality of this truth. In addition, though I initially thought this was going to be a high-level argumentation for penal substitution, I found it to be quite an easy read and not that difficult to keep up with at all. It’s one of those books that the authors are so smart, they can not only comprehend the most difficult theology, but can then take that theology and make it easily understandable for the average lay person.

In the future, unless God in His mercy and intervenes, turning evangelicals hearts’ back to Him again, this doctrine will continue to be lambasted as outdated, primitive, and downright offensive. We must be ready for the attacks on the heart of the Gospel, unfortunately, within many of our churches now. Believe me, it is coming. If theologians, pastors, and teachers are beginning to say these things now, it is only a matter of time before their cunning and deceitful arguments filter down into the thinking of the average person.

We must stand up for the Gospel now, in all of its difficult and soul-cutting truths, for the sake of the glory of God. Penal substitution is just one of these truths. In fact, it is a linchpin doctrine upon which our salvation rests, because how is it we can be saved unless God’s justice against our wrong-doing was satisfied by Christ bearing our burden in Himself on the tree?

This book is a great place to start really understanding this timeless, Biblical truth and re-examining your own personal understanding of it even. In addition, if you really want to understand the apologetic defense against many of these arguments, this book is a must read. Regardless of where you are coming from, it will be well worth your time and help focus and concentrate you on the center-piece of our faith: Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

Battling the Unbelief of Anxiety

By David Westerfield

On June 8, 2008

In Theology

Excerpts from a sermon by John Piper entitled Battling the Unbelief of Anxiety located here: http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibr … _Anxiety/.

Today’s text (Matthew 6:25-34) illustrates this with a specific evil condition of heart, namely, anxiety.

Stop for a moment and think how many different sinful actions and attitudes come from anxiety. Anxiety about finances can give rise to coveting and greed and hoarding and stealing. Anxiety about succeeding at some task can make you irritable and abrupt and surly. Anxiety about relationships can make you withdrawn and indifferent and uncaring about other people. Anxiety about how someone will respond to you can make you cover over the truth and lie about things. So if anxiety could be conquered, a lot of sins would be overcome.

But what is the root of anxiety? And how can it be severed? To answer that we go to our text in Matthew 6. Four times in this text Jesus says that we should not be anxious.

1. Verse 25: “Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life.”
2. Verse 27: “And which of you by being anxious can add one cubit to his span of life?”
3. Verse 31: “Therefore do not be anxious.”
4. Verse 34: “Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow.”

The verse that makes the root of anxiety explicit is verse 30: “But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothes you, O men of little faith?” In other words Jesus says that the root of anxiety is lack of faith in our heavenly Father. As unbelief gets the upper hand in our hearts, one of the results is anxiety.

So when Hebrews says, “Take heed lest there be in you an evil heart of unbelief,” it includes this meaning: “Take heed lest there be in you an ANXIOUS heart of unbelief.” Anxiety is one of the evil conditions of the heart that comes from unbelief. Much anxiety, Jesus says, comes from little faith. …

To the One Who Struggles Daily with Anxiety

So my response to the person who has to deal with feelings of anxiety every day is to say: that’s more or less normal. The issue is how you deal with them.

And the answer to that is: you deal with anxieties by battling unbelief. And you battle unbelief by meditating on God’s Word and asking for the help of his Spirit. The windshield wipers are the promises of God that clear away the mud of unbelief. And the windshield washer fluid is the help of the Holy Spirit.

Without the softening work of the Holy Spirit the wipers of the Word just scrape over the blinding clumps of unbelief. Both are necessary—the Spirit and the Word. We read the promises of God and we pray for the help of his Spirit. And as the windshield clears so we can see the welfare that God plans for us (Jeremiah 29:11), our belief grows strong and the swerving of anxiety smoothes out.

Anxieties We May Face

(with practical examples for combating them with Scriptural truths)

When I am anxious about some risky new venture or meeting, I battle unbelief with the promise: “Fear not for I am with you, be not dismayed for I am your God; I will help you, I will strengthen you, I will uphold you with my victorious right hand” (Isaiah 41:10).

When I am anxious about my ministry being useless and empty, I fight unbelief with the promise, “So shall my word that goes forth from my mouth; it will not come back to me empty but accomplish that which I purpose, and prosper in the thing for which I sent it” (Isaiah 55:11).

When I am anxious about being too weak to do my work, I battle unbelief with the promise of Christ, “My grace is sufficient for you, my power is made perfect in weakness” (2 Corinthians 12:9), and “As your days so shall your strength be” (Deuteronomy 33:25).

When I am anxious about decisions I have to make about the future, I battle unbelief with the promise, “I will instruct you and teach you the way you should go; I will counsel you with my eye upon you” (Psalm 32:8).

When I am anxious about facing opponents, I battle unbelief with the promise, “If God is for us who can be against us!” (Romans 8:31).

When I am anxious about being sick, I battle unbelief with the promise that “tribulation works patience, and patience approvedness, and approvedness hope, and hope does not make us ashamed” (Romans 5:3–5).

When I am anxious about getting old, I battle unbelief with the promise, “Even to your old age I am he, and to gray hairs I will carry you. I have made, and I will bear; I will carry and will save” (Isaiah 46:4).

When I am anxious about dying, I battle unbelief with the promise that “none of us lives to himself and none of us dies to himself; if we live we live to the Lord and if we die we die to the Lord. So whether we live or die we are the Lord’s. For to this end Christ died and rose again: that he might be Lord both of the dead and the living” (Romans 14:9–11).

When I am anxious that I may make shipwreck of faith and fall away from God, I battle unbelief with the promise, “He who began a good work in you will complete it unto the day of Christ” (Philippians 1:6). “He who calls you is faithful. He will do it” (1 Thessalonians 5:23). “He is able for all time to save those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them” (Hebrews 7:25).

The Twisted Thought Process of the West

By David Westerfield

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 David Westerfield

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 David Westerfield

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!

Assurance of Salvation – Applying Two Tests to Our Lives

By David Westerfield

On May 25, 2008

In Theology

This section is excerpted from the application at the end of a sermon by John Piper. To read the exposition of the Scriptures supporting this, consult the full sermon here: http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibr … Confesses/

Let’s close by applying these two tests to our own lives.

1. The test of hearing and confessing the truth of the apostles’ testimony that Jesus is the Son of God.
2. And the test of loving each other.

Let me suggest three questions for each test. Ask yourself these questions:

1. The Test of Hearing and Confessing

1.1. Does your heart incline to the testimony of the apostles and prophets? That is, do you have a persevering longing to read the Bible or to hear the Word of God?

The question is not: Do you never have dry times of indifference? The question is: Is the ongoing, customary desire of your heart to join Mary at the feet of Jesus and do the one thing needful, namely, listen (Luke 10:42)? “My sheep listen to my voice, and I know them and they follow me” (John 10:27; cf. 10:16; 18:37). Do you long to listen to the teaching of Jesus and his apostles’ teaching about him?

1.2. When your heart grows cool and you begin to drift away from the Word of God, do you feel a godly guilt that humbles you and brings you back broken to the cross for forgiveness and renewal?

1.3. When you hear the testimony of Scripture that Jesus is the Son of God and the Savior of the world, does your heart confess this truth? That is, do you gladly affirm the divine greatness of Christ and how worthy he is of trust and admiration and loyalty and obedience? Does your heart exalt Christ as the greatest thing of all? For that is surely what it means to be “Son of God.”

2. The Test of Loving Each Other

2.1. When you hear a description of love like 1 Corinthians 13 or when you contemplate the example of Christ’s life of love, does your heart fill with longing to be like that, and do you make firm resolves to conquer unloving attitudes and behaviors?

2.2. When you fail in a resolve of love, does it grieve you and bring you broken to the cross pleading for forgiveness and seeking new strength to love again?

2.3. Is the current and pattern of your life to live for the eternal good of other people, or are your thoughts and dreams and daily choices generally aimed at merely making yourself comfortable and your name esteemed?

The Most Important Test

This test is more important than any other you will ever take. In the end your eternal life hangs on whether you pass or fail.

If these questions cause you to doubt that God is abiding in you, then pray with me the following prayer:

Have mercy upon me, O God, for I know my transgressions and my sin is ever before me. I am prone to forsake you and go after other things. The eyes of my heart have been blind and I have not seen or cherished your truth and glory as I should. I am helpless in myself, O Lord.

Deliver me, I pray, from the terrible deceitfulness of my own heart. Create in me a clean heart, O God, and give me a spirit that is willing to believe in the truth and beauty of Jesus Christ. Fill me with joy and peace through the forgiveness of his cross and through the promise of eternal life. And free me from selfishness and pride so I can love the way he loved.

Into your grace I commit my life, merciful God. From this day on I will never call myself my own. I surrender myself to Jesus Christ, my Savior and my Lord. Amen.

Follow your Heart – the Money Will Come!

By David Westerfield

On May 24, 2008

In Christian Culture, Theology

This was the title of a blog entry from a corporate New Age guru on the internet. I can only say that coming from the world, this statement makes a whole lot of sense and I seek not to critique that perspective in this entry. They say we are to pursue whatever makes us the happiest, the fullest of satisfaction. And it is no wonder that this message is money many times. Or maybe not even in money itself, but the satisfaction of your job that you love to do, money just may come along with it. So for the unbeliever of the Gospel, this is an understandable perspective. Jesus said, “You cannot serve God and money” (Luke 16:13).

However, it is odd to me this is the very statement we hear from many so-called evangelical leaders, not just from the health and wealth prosperity people, but other teachers as well. Many times the message is veiled by phrasing it in a different way, and usually goes something like this, “Follow God – the Money Will Come!” or even more specifically, “Follow Jesus – the Money Will Come!” Other times, the message will be veiled further, and instead of using money, because that’s too Biblically idolatrous sounding, to something vague like, “Follow Jesus – the Blessing Will Come.” It’s just that you get to decide what that blessing is for you. It could be money, relationships, satisfaction in the here and now. Regardless, the focus and center of your faith is, “You, your feelings, desires, felt needs, your satisfaction, your pleasure. You are the center of your own universe! God can just help you get there faster!” Really? God can help you find pleasure in everything else except Himself? Youch. That does not sound right.

I cannot seem to forget Jesus’ (and other Scripture passages) clear statements about those who would truly follow Him. “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me” (Mark 8:34). That’s kind of a gruesome image in relation to yourself if you really ponder it. Think about The Passion, the movie. “When they had preached the gospel to that city and had made many disciples, they returned to Lystra and to Iconium and to Antioch, strengthening the souls of the disciples, encouraging them to continue in the faith, and saying that through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God.” Also, “Yet for your sake we are killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered” (Psalm 44:22).

These aren’t necessarily pretty, metaphorical pictures for the followers of Christ who would honestly take up and pursue Him. This journey of faith in Christ, to be conformed to His image, is rigorous. We are expected to be uncomfortable, fight against sin that would seek to mute the witness of the Spirit in our lives, stand against the world and culture in love, for His glory, in hopes they too would be saved by God’s power in Christ. We are to relentlessly pursue the knowledge of Him in the Scriptures, for this is eternal life, just as Jesus said (John 17:3). We are to pursue Him knowing that ahead of us, most certainly, lies a broken road in which our fleshly, prideful selves will be shattered, and our regenerated, new selves will come out of the rubble shining like the stars in the night sky, only because of the work of Christ in us. And we pursue Him not in our own strength (like the rest of the world does in pursuing their idols), but rather in His provdential strength, power and love of the Gospel.

Jesus and the writers of the Scriptures did not say we would be spared trials upon following Him, but that we should expect them. And not only should we expect them, we should rejoice in them! (Romans 5:2-5, James 1:2-4). In rejoicing in the trials, it is not some masochistic, sadistic picture being painted, that we find pleasure in the pain itself, but rather that through the trials, we find ultimate, final, divine pleasure and joy not in the things of this world, but in Christ alone.

We follow Christ knowing very well that He can (and will) permit and bring trials that overwhelm our souls, but that in and through them, we are refined like gold going through the fire to get rid of impurities. In fact, the very granting of the trials by God in our lives is actually His mercy. How? Because He brings us into closer fellowship with Himself through them! What could be better than that out of anything in the world? This is the opposite of how the world speaks about trials. In their eyes they are to be avoided at all costs through some form of risk management (and no, I’m not against insurance, or preparing for disasters financially, it’s just we need to be honestly ready and expect trials to come into our lives).

Because of this, it is no wonder Christianity is fading in the West, because our churches are filled with pastors proclaiming that Jesus wants you to have your best life now through finding pleasure in the Disney Land we call America, not enduring trials for His sake (Psalm 44:22). That really saddens my heart. How does that message handle the death of a child? An earthquake where all of your family members are lost, except you? It can’t.

The message of the world says, “Find your joy, peace, and final happiness in the here and now!” The Scriptures say, “Find your joy, peace, and final happiness in Christ alone. Anything else is idolatry and will lead to hell.” It is sad many sermons being preached today are telling people to commit idolatry by making a hybrid statement out of the two, “Find your joy, peace, and final happiness in the here and now, God’s way!” This message is an embarrassment. When witnessing, this is usually one of the first stumbling blocks I have had to debunk apologetically so people can actually hear what you are saying when talking about the Gospel.

It would be nice if maybe the overall church leaders helped its people out by proclaiming the message the world actually needs to hear: the Gospel itself, instead of the prosperity Gospel, even those versions of the properity Gospel that are further veiled in Scriptural terminology to make them appealing to church-goers. I mean if the world is going to reject our message of peace with God through Christ, let them reject it. But don’t let them reject the true Gospel that isn’t being preached because a false one is preached in its place.

“For the time is coming [and might I add, is here] when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths” (2 Timothy 4:2-4). We desperately need Gospel-recovery in the church as our first priority of change, otherwise, what in the world do we have to offer the poor, the broken, the abused, the homeless, but a bunch of good works, while their souls are left in danger of the fires and torments of hell? I cannot think of anything more unloving than that. Rather we should couple the two together: works in the service of others with the primary intent of witnessing the whole counsel of God, the Gospel, and the works testifying to our genuine desire to see them saved.

What Convinced You of Reformed Theology?

By David Westerfield

On May 22, 2008

In Apologetics, Theology

I have asked a few people this now, and the overwhelming majority of those I asked said that what did it for them was the section on limited atonement in the position paper entitled What We Believe About the Five Points of Calvinism written by John Piper and Bethlehem Baptist Church. I was actually kind of surprised to hear this because for most people, this point is by far the most controversial. But upon thinking about it, I can also see now why it makes sense that this would be the one thing convincing people of Reformed theology’s truthfulness.

When you start distinguishing Christ’s sacrificial work, not as something that He just lobbed out there for us to grab a hold of by our own supposed moral power, but rather paint the Scriptural picture that Christ’s death is what effected even your faith in Him, you begin to see a stark contrast. It is the difference between an atonement that did not go the extra mile to raise you from the dead and get you in its benefits, and an atonement that grabbed a hold of you when you were running headlong into hell, dead in trespasses and sins, regenerating your will that was in bondage to sin, giving you eyes to see when you were blind, ears to hear when you were deaf, and a new heart made anew in the likeness of Jesus’ heart, that will inevitably be fully conformed to His one day. It is the difference between an atonement presented where Christ made it available to all and saves no one in particular effectively, and an atonement of power presented in the Scriptures that grabbed a hold of the sinners’ soul and will, raising them from the dead, breathing life into them when there was none there to start with.

I don’t know about others, but the latter descriptions above, in each instance, is how I was saved. I did not get myself “in” His benefits, but rather He got me “in” at the cross, from beginning to end. He united me to Himself and nothing could stop Him. I take no credit for my love for God, my faith, and my affirmation of the reality and truthfulness of the Gospel. That was God’s work, specifically effected in the cross of Christ, His atonement. What child of God in heaven is going to ever take credit for their coming to Christ? Was this itself not the work of God?

John Owen has a rather long quote in The Death of Death that Jon Dansby summarized a while back that I think is really helpful in distinguishing the difference between the common, American, traditional, “churchy” perception of the atonement and the atonement presented in the Scriptures: “If Christ died for all in the same way and faith itself is not a gift of the cross, then those who are in heaven have no more to thank Christ for than those who are in hell.” Why? Because they got themselves in. How does that honor God? That’s just wrong on so many levels.

The term limited atonement is very misleading because it makes it sound as if we are saying the power of Christ’s atonement is limited. But that is not what is intended, which is why I like the terms definite atonement or particular redemption more, but it messes up the TULIP acrostic. But oh well, who needs a silly acrostic anyway? The power of Christ’s atonement is infinite, able to save an infinite number of lost souls. I confess with John Calvin that the atonement is “sufficient for the whole world, but efficient for the elect,” that is Christ bought for His people more than just the possibility and opportunity of salvation, He actually and really bought their souls at the cross, making sure they would get in, which includes the purchasing and granting of the gifts of faith, repentance, the desire and the very will to come to Christ.

This section of Piper’s article apparently seems to be the most convincing argument for many people when it pertains to Reformed theology, because it is riddled with Scripture that shows these truths to be self-evident. But I know many others have been convinced of the truthfulness of them in other ways. Regardless, it may be helpful for some of you who are just not quite sure about the whole thing or those who are opposed to them, to go through this rather short section.

There are many people out there, including the Reformed, who have done a terrible job of presenting these truths in a way that is loving, Biblical frankly, and God-honoring. For that I am sorry. But what camp or movement does not have those within its circles who do a terrible job of presenting their positions, who are also the most vocal, yet also the minority of those confessing the position? To discount Reformed theology because a few loud, vocal wing nuts who were arrogant, emotionally heated, and unloving in their desire to prove these truths to you, does not negate the truthfulness of the teachings themselves. So just give it a chance and check it out.

How about me, you ask? What convinced me? Well, I was simply presented with the five points and Reformed theology in high school, and because of how God had previously worked in my life to save me, they just made sense. Of course God chose me first! I was running away from Him when He invaded my life. Of course He had me in mind when He purchased me with His blood before I came into existence. He set His affection on me in eternity. This just made sense and squared with the picture of God’s love in the Scriptures. Basically, by God’s grace alone, I needed no convincing, because the Scriptural salvation truths echoed within Calvinism exactly matched up with my salvation experience. God saved me, I did nothing, faith was just the inevitable response of a heart supernaturally changed by grace alone.