Many people assume Reformed theology is only adhered to by Presbyterians who baptize babies and believe that there is no future for ethnic Israel.  Yet as you read through this book, while you will note some paedobaptist and amillenial (i.e. R.C. Sproul Jr.) authors you will also note some authors that hold to believers baptism and pre-millenialism (i.e. John MacArthur).  The conclusion must quickly be drawn that this issues of baptism and eschatology, though important, are not the litmus test for true Reformed theology.  The authors of this book lays the foundation of Reformed theology in ones view of God, Faith and salvation, and they does so by expounding on two of the best systematic views of God, Faith and Salvation:  The 5 Sola’s of the Reformation

1. Sola Scriptura – Scripture alone: “An appeal to the ultimate authority of God’s Word” (chapter 2 written by Keith A. Mathison)
2. Sola Fide – By Faith Alone: Faith that because of the justifying work of Christ “we are as righteous before God as Jesus Christ himself is”. (chapter 4 written by Sinclair B. Ferguson)
3. Sola Gratia – By Grace Alone: Salvation is not a result of our works, but of the grace of God active in our lives. This chapter also includes a look at how a popular evangelist in the 1800′s (Charles Finney) instituted a pragmatic works based religion into our culture that we are still battling over a century later. (Chapter 6 written by Michael S. Horton)
4. Solus Christus – By Christ Alone:  ”Apart from Christ, there is no hope for anyone.” (Chapter 8 written by John F. MacArthur)
5. Soli Deo Gloria – To God alone be the Glory:  ”If we were forced to pick one [of the 5 sola's] that subsumes all the others, it would no doubt be the last one, soli Deo gloria, ‘to God alone the glory.’” (Chapter 10 written by R.C. Sproul Jr.)

and the 5 doctrines of grace (or 5 points of Calvinism).

1. Total Depravity – “Did [man] sin because he is a sinner or because of the sin in his environment?” (Chapter 1 written by Martin Murphy)
2. Unconditional Election – Sinners “are not condemned because they have been passed over, but because they are sinners.” (Chapter 3 written by W. Robert Godfery)
3. Definite Atonement – “The nature of the Atonement – the death of Jesus – underscores the actual accomplishment of redemption” (Emphasis added) (Chapter 5 written by O. Palmer Robertson)
4. Irresistible Grace – “When God gives us the grace of a new heart, the first thing we do with it is to repent and believe.” (Chapter 7 written by Douglas J. Wilson)
5. Perseverance of the Saints – Salvation is assured in Christ, resulting in confidence and love in place of fear. (Chapter 9 written by Jay E. Adams)

The book in it’s entirety is worth the read.  For those struggling with the biblical doctrine of definite atonement I recommend chapter 5.  I came away from that chapter wondering why I had ever struggled with definite atonement and wondering why people still do!

As Tim Challies points out in the intro to his article Christians and Alcohol, the issue of alcohol consumption is a “source of heated disagreement and even separation.”  But where does this heat come from?  When I linked his article on Facebook a 66 comment discussion ensued with parties demanding black and white answers to an issue that the Bible paints in shades of grey.  Let me be clear:  The Bible no where prohibits the child of God (Old Testament or New) from consuming an alcoholic beverage, though in some places and for different reasons it commends abstinence.  By the same token the Bible no where commands consumption, though in some places and for some reasons it commends the ingestion of strong drink and wine to make the heart glad.

I have read articles that come just short of saying that if you don’t drink you’re sinfully avoiding part of God’s creation that we were intended to enjoy.  And of course there are plenty of articles saying that any imbibing, perhaps even of Nyquil, will probably call down the wrath of God, and definitely call down the wrath of the author (full disclosure…I had a shot of Nyquil last night.  Well…two tablespoons in that little plastic cup they give).  And, of course, there are countless articles in between.

Most articles will cite Romans 14, as they ought, but usually focus on one of two points.  The abstainers will focus on how people shouldn’t drink so as not to offend the weaker brother, though some will chafe when you point out that Paul labels the abstainer as the “weaker”.  The imbibers will point out Paul’s focus on liberty, but some will squirm when you point out that Paul showed that there is a time to abstain.  But the point of the chapter I believe is laid out in verse 19-20.

Therefore let us pursue the things which make for peace and the things by which one may edify another.  Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food.  All things are pure, but it is evil for the man who eats with offense.

From this passage I think that most of our debates about alcohol miss the point.  It seems that we debate in order to justify our position – rarely are those debates edifying.  Oft times labels are thrown around (immature, foolish, legalistic, unwise, condescending, etc.) with the aim of, intentionally or not, tearing down the opposition and fortifying our own.  If we aren’t labeling the opposition, we engage in judging the motives of the opposition:  ”If they weren’t so selfish they wouldn’t drink” or “You’re just trying to impose your standards on everyone else”.  And if all else fails we appeal to the emotions:  ”But all the potential dangers of alcohol obviously make it a sin!”  Regardless of which side of the debate we find ourselves on, when we employ these tactics we risk, at best, destroying “the work of God for the sake of food” (or drink).

How then do we approach the issue? In making his point in Romans 14 Paul is demonstrating a very important fact of Christian life:  God is working in each person in unique ways.  There is a black-and-white issue in this area of alcohol:  Drunkenness is repeatedly condemned as sin.  But due to the uniqueness of each individual the line where drinking becomes a sin is different.  I’ve come up with four categories and an analogy that will hopefully prove beneficial.

#1 The person who can, and does.

This is the Christian who is self-controlled, sober-minded and free of conscience as he enjoys his adult beverage of choice.  He knows his limits, and is in no way held in bondage to alcohol.  He can enjoy his drink as a gift from God and would not want to take glory away from God by over indulging in any way.  This person also recognizes his responsibility not to cause others spiritual damage and goes out of his way not to boast or wax eloquent about his liberty recognizing that such boasting in no way brings glory to God and is far more likely to do damage to a brother.  This person would eagerly refrain from all refrence of alcohol in order to enjoy the fellowship of a brother in category #3.  I would place Tim Challies and R.C. Sproul in this category.

#2 The person who can, and doesn’t

This is a person who, if he chose to could enjoy an adult beverage of choice in the same manner as person #1, chooses rather to abstain because of providential circumstances in his life.  These circumstances could include being in a position of leadership and influence where his drinking could be misunderstood or misrepresented by those he is leading.  Perhaps he just despised the taste.  Whatever the circumstances, he believes it would be better for him to abstain than partake.  It’s important for this person not to boast about how he could if he wanted to, or assign to himself some sort of extra-spiritual status because he “chooses” to abstain, when the truth is God has providentially hindered him.  I would place myself, John Piper and probably John MacArthur in this category.

#3  The person who shouldn’t, and doesn’t

Josh Hamilton

This is the person who would in some way be held captive by drinking.  This captivity could include (though not be limited to) an alcohol addiction, a lack of self-control, or a simply conscience that won’t let them take a sip.  The person in this category must know himself and refuse to put himself in situations where stumbling is likely.  I would stress that this person has also been providentially hindered from drinking whether by choices in his past, or genetics in his body.  The person in this category is no less spiritual than the person in categories 1 and 2, rather he has the opportunity to glorify God through triumphing over temptations that others don’t face…at least to the same degree.  This person however needs to be careful not to hold others hostage to his own conscience.  Or to put it another way, this person should not demand that others avoid alcohol the same way he must.  The mature brother in this category can rejoice with others over the path that God is leading him on without demanding that others leave their God-given path.  I would place Josh Hamilton in this category (player for the Texas Rangers).

#4  Those who shouldn’t and do

This category is inhabited by members of each of the other categories who give in to their own selfishness rather than seeking the glory of God and the edification of others.  This is the category 1 individual who feels it his duty to let everyone know how much he’s had to drink recently, being known for what he drinks instead of the Savior who loves him.   This is the category 2 individual who despite the conscience issues or negative influence he will have, drinks anyway…and probably boasts about it to his category 1 friends.   This is the category 3 individual who knows he should avoid the bar or those friends but gives in anyway.  Category #4 should have a high turnover rate.  When we sin and find ourselves in this category our reaction should be one of repentance, thus turning away from the sin that put us here and moving ahead on the path God is leading us down.  However, there are people that seem to like it here, and have camped out in this category.  For them the issue is no longer alcohol, but an eclipse of the Son by their own selfish desires.

These categories are best used for self-inspection.  They are observations and hopefully can be beneficial in directing our gaze to our heavenly Father.  I believe that in a lifetime God can providentially move a person through the first three categories, and by his grace and forgiveness out of the fourth every time it’s entered.

Finally, an analogy.  If, after all this, you’re still struggling with how to accept Christians who drink, or Christians who abstain.  Let me provide an analogy regarding another “grey” area….the internet.

Is using the internet a sin? Well…the Bible doesn’t prohibit it, yet how many families and lives are destroyed by internet porn, gambling, etc. – and the Bible has lots to say about adultery and stewardship! Shouldn’t we as Christians avoid all appearance of evil? Some would say this is a very black and white issue? Others would say that the Bible no where prohibits the internet but it should be used cautiously, and for some it might be a sin to use because of their propensity to stumble.

So to complete the analogy, and thinking of the four categories mentioned above:

Just as, the Bible nowhere prohibits the use of the internet, but does speak strongly about the sin of lust and other vices easily obtained by using it and therefore caution should be used by those who have liberty to use it and benefit from it for God’s glory, while those who cannot not show restraint should abstain for the glory of God:

So

The Bible nowhere prohibits the use of strong drink for every person, but does speak strongly about the sin of drunkenness and therefore those who have the liberty to use it should do so with caution in order to bring God glory and those who cannot use it without causing spiritual damage should abstain in order to bring God glory!

And as this discussion will no doubt come up again many times in our lifetimes, let us abide by the Word of God via the pen of Peter (well..technically the pen of Sylvanus as dictated by Peter):

   “Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.” Humble yourselves, therefore, under the mighty hand of God so that at the proper time he may exalt you, casting all your anxieties on him, because he cares for you. Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.” (1 Peter 5:5b–8, ESV)

May our satisfaction lie not in our liberty or conviction but in the God who gives them.

Enough Already!

Reproduced from More than Tennis, the blog of Harold H. Comings: (picture added)

Okay boys, let’s step up to the mirror and open your shirts and count the hairs on your chest. You’re all grown up now. You’ve broken free from those nasty self-righteous, judgmental, tea-totaling Fundamentalists and earned your own place as nasty, self-righteous, judgmental, beer guzzling, whateverists. Good for you.

Forgive me if I pull the age thing on you, but I was working through questions of freedom and conscience before many of you were even born; yet, somewhere along the line someone managed to get it through my head that re-thinking and re-evaluating are a part of life. Sure, I wish I had re-thought and re-evaluated some things earlier than I did, but when the time came it was no big deal. Of course there were people who were disappointed in me (thus teaching me not to play that card on others), and there were those who became obnoxious and threatening (thus unintentionally turning my thoughts to Jesus’ words to treat others as I would want to be treated and not as they treated me).

In my later years I have watched a few movies, but I have done so because I was convinced it would be profitable in connecting with others or simply because it would be something to do for mental recreation. There was no issue of psychological damage which could be resolved only by marathon visits to the local theaters and DVD stores.

I still have not taken up alcohol; but not because I fear some dark judgment. I just happen to recognize I have an addictive feature to my character and I don’t want to risk becoming a drunk when God wants me to think clearly (at least as clearly as I can with what I have to work with). I personally embrace the counsel of Lemuel’s mother (Proverbs 31) who told him there were too many things he needed to be able to do for others to waste his time developing his taste for fine wine. I’m terribly sorry if this means I don’t measure up; and the reason I think it might mean that is, I cannot read anything you write without being told you’re having a beer, a brandy or a night cap. When something gets mentioned enough times it takes on the character of a mantra – a measuring device, a predictable and expected nod to something which has become more than “accepted” – something worshiped. Nope, I’m not telling YOU not to drink. Far be it from ME to tell YOU anything. However, knowing your desire not to be like those Fundamentalists, you might want to check to see if your indulgence is just a mirror image of their legalism.

Speaking of risk. Wow! You guys sure are adventuresome! Yessiree, real risk takers. From paintball to extreme sports you’re the real wild men of the day! Some of you can swear like a pimp and call people who blush bigots and hypocrites. Can you get more awesome than that? With a manly swagger you let it be known that no Fundamentalist is going to tell you what to do. Yet, golly (spoken like a true wimp), since you and your colleagues are so predictable in so many wild and reckless ways, I wonder what issues in your own circles are “enforced” on each other by the “look.” You know what I mean, that raised eyebrow or sneer other legalists use to keep each other in line? Do you, after all, turn your scorn on any of your group who might dare to say that some sacred cow of your wild and wonderful world is not for them?

Please don’t think I’m picking on you. I’m saying the same thing to you that I’ve said to my Fundamentalist circle (and to myself) about many fetishes wrapped in the vocabulary of conviction or freedom. If you want to lump me with them you may, since you do tend to lump people just like they do. However, please be advised that some of my Fundamentalist friends have lumped me with you. On the other hand, please DO think I’m challenging your self-righteous self-congratulationism. My point is, you sound like a bunch of sneering bullies skulking behind the barn daring each other to light up while laughing at the stupid fools who told you not to. Or, worse, you sound just like some legalistic cliques I’ve known over the years. There is, I believe, a considerable difference between Jesus’ passion to seek and save the lost, and the passion to sit around a campfire sniffing arm pits whether or not you are quaffing a pint in the process.

As I listen to you scorn the weak, I am grateful. You have helped me discover true friendships with people who do things my conscience will not let me do or who do not do things which my conscience will allow. They are dynamic. Even if they drink, they encourage me to focus more toward the blood of the cross rather than toward the wine pitchers of Cana. They and I both understand and encourage each other to remember that the casting out of one demon of legalistic error, if not replaced with the humbling force of truth, can result in becoming the slave of seven self-righteous errors worse than the first. We are not offended when we remind each other that the counsel to stand fast in our liberty in Christ is yoked with the warning not to let that liberty lure us to become trapped by some fleshly fetish.

With that said, I must leave you to count your chest hairs among yourselves. I could never match you. (If you ever want to check out nose hairs, that’s another matter altogether.) Nor do I bid you follow me. You say you trust Jesus. Check out his “tattoos.” They’re awesome.

Charles Finney Image via Wikipedia

(Note:  Helpful links at the bottom of the post)

On October 10, 1821, a 29-year-old lawyer Charles Finney went out into the woods to find God.  He said “I will give my heart to God, or I will never come down from there!”  The next morning he told a client whose case he was supposed to argue “I have a retainer from the Lord Jesus Christ to plead his cause and cannot plead yours.” (1)

If the story ended there, it would be a great illustration in all sorts of religious settings.  But the story doesn’t end there.

Actually, if we took the time to look at that story a bit closer we might catch the glimpse of a deadly “gospel” that had attempted to infiltrate the church for centuries, and one that would, due in part to the influence of Charles Finney, cause considerable damage to the church up to the present day.

It is a gospel that we catch a glimpse of when it is said “I will give my heart to God.”  By itself that statement is rather innocuous, but combined with what Finney would teach and preach throughout the northeast this statement becomes the motto for a gospel that says I am not so bad that I cannot get myself to heaven.

That seems harsh especially in light of what he would later say of his salvation experience:

I saw then as clearly as I ever had in my life, the reality and fullness of the atonement of Christ.  I saw that his work was a finished work; that instead of having or needing, any righteousness of my own to recommend me to God, I had to submit myself to the righteousness of God through Christ.  It was full and complete, and all that was necessary on my part was to…give up my sins and accept Christ.  Salvation, it seemed to me, instead of being a thing to be wrought out by one’s good works, was a thing to be found entirely in the Lord Jesus Christ, who presented Himself before me as my God and Savior. (2)

Again, those words, especially attached to the testimony above, would bring a hearty “amen” from every believer.  But these words are inconsistent with the gospel that Finney preached, and therefore cannot be separated from it.

So what gospel did Finney preach? And, if it is a false gospel why does the man who preached it hold a high position in evangelical circles?

Do we or don’t we have a sin nature?

From his sermon “Justification by Faith“

Do you inquire what influence Adam’s sin has then had in producing the sin of his posterity? I answer, it has subjected them to aggravated temptation, but has by no means rendered their nature in itself sinful.

Therefore the only difference between Adam and me is that I may be a bit more susceptible to temptation, but our natures are the same.  There was another man who taught this….went by the name Pelagius, and this teaching flies in the face of what is taught in Scripture

   “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—” (Romans 5:12, ESV)

“Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.” (Romans 5:18, ESV)

Of course the Bible is clear that no sinner can stand before a holy God, so how is the sin problem dealt with?  We must somehow become righteous.  The Bible teaches that Christ came, lived a sinless life, died to take the punishment for our sin, and rose again conquering death and showing that the sacrifice was accepted.  Christ’s righteousness was imputed to those who would trust Christ (a.k.a. the elect) thereby presenting them justified to a Holy God.  It’s pretty straightforward and passages like Romans 5:18 (above) bear witness to that truth.

But if we’re simply like Adam, with the ability to choose good and evil, and in no way bound to sin by our nature, do we need justification?  Isn’t it possible just to earn our salvation by not choosing to sin?  An altered view of man’s condition leads to an altered view of justification.

So what is justification by faith according to Finney?  Again, from the sermon Justification by Faith:

First, Negatively.

1. Gospel Justification is not the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ.

Under the gospel, sinners are not justified by having the obedience of Jesus Christ set down to their account, as if he had obeyed the law for them, or in their stead. It is not an uncommon mistake to suppose that when sinners are justified under the gospel they are accounted righteous in the eye of the law, by having the obedience or righteousness of Christ imputed to them

2. Justification by faith does not mean that faith is accepted as a substitute for personal holiness, or that by an arbitrary constitution, faith is imputed to us instead of personal obedience to the law. [here Finney combines or confuses justification and sanctification]

3.  Nor does justification by faith imply that a sinner is justified by faith, without good works, or personal holiness.  [He get's this one pretty close]

Secondly, positively.

4. Gospel justification, or justification by faith, consists in pardon and acceptance with God.

When we say that men are justified by faith and holiness, we do not mean that they are accepted on the ground of law, but that they are treated as if they were righteous, on account of their faith and works of faith. This is the method which God takes, in justifying a sinner. Not that faith is the foundation of justification. The foundation is in Christ. But this is the manner in which sinners are pardoned, and accepted, and justified, that if they repent, believe, and become holy, their past sins shall be forgiven, for the sake of Christ.

The key phrase in all of that is that last sentence.  Salvation becomes a work of man for the sake of Christ, not a work of Christ for the glory of God.  Justification in this view is not being declared righteous because of the imputed, finished work of Christ, but rather being viewed as righteous…even though you’re not…and then working to become righteous.   If my salvation is based on my “becoming holy” I’m sunk…I’m toast…I’m a threaded nail.  But, thankfully God saves…not for the sake of Christ, but because of the finished work of Christ on the cross!

This view of man and justification has serious issues, probably the biggest being “why did Christ have to die?”  If Christ’s death was not propitiatory in any way, what did it accomplish?  We know from page 373 in Finney’s Systematic Theology that the atonement ”is not founded in Christ’s literally suffering the exact penalty of the law for them, and in this sense literally purchasing their justification and eternal salvation.”  David Linden sums it up this way:

Finney held that sins may be pardoned, but for those saved, they are not punished; they are merely forgiven. Furthermore, he held that sin cannot be imputed to another person. This is Finney in all his consistency. First, the sinner’s needed obedience comes only from the sinner himself, and now that we look at Finney’s atonement, we learn that sin can fall only on the one committing it, or if forgiven on no one at all. The result is a double denial of the Savior’s work.

I could go on, and a quick Google search will assist anyone who wishes to go on (note the links below).  But I want to ponder the question, why does this man receive such high regard in evangelical circles?  Dr. Michael Horton notes that Jerry Falwell and Billy Graham both hold this man in high honor.  It certainly can’t be for his theology, as Horton notes in the book “After Darkness, Light” some of the things that Finney taught would make even an Arminian cringe.  So why?  I can think of two possible reasons.

1.  Finney’s false gospel has been white-washed.  This of course would make sense, especially for people who live over 100 years later who hear just bits and pieces of what Finney taught, not to mention a great conversion story.  But this also leads to another question, and ultimately to the second answer.  Why was Finney’s gospel white-washed?  Why do only the “good parts” get passed on?

2.  The church became enamored in “results.”  The impact of Finney’s revivals is unquestionable.  Evangelicals look at the souls that filled his “anxious bench” and the appearance of success at the revivals that he orchestrated (note…usually it’s the Holy Spirit orchestrates true revival) and thus outcome trumped truth.  The trouble is, that while everyone looked at the short-term results of Finney’s revivals, few looked at the long-term results.  For a detailed look at Finney’s legacy you can check out the article by Michael Horton, but let me sum up what I think is the most pernicious effect of Finney’s revivals.  Many churches have given up sound doctrine (being like the church at Berea) for short-term results via whatever method will bring it.  Today we still have the altar call and high-pressure evangelistic messages on the back of some major attraction.  I do not doubt that these can be used in good ways, but I fear too many times a church (note, I’m especially looking at the church and not para-church organizations) will sacrifice its biblical foundation for extra-biblical technique.  In doing so we open ourselves up to deadly views of justification…false gospels and false teachers that bring destruction rather than everlasting life, and divine satisfaction.

(1) Quotes from Charles Finney bio at Christianitytoday
(2) The One Year book of Christian History- a daily glimpse into God’s Powerful Work.  Tyndale Publishing (curious as to what was left out at the “…”)

Helpful Links

The complete works of Charles Finney

Charles Finney’s Doctrine of Justification – David H. Linden

The Disturbing Legacy of Charles Finney – Dr. Michael Horton

A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing: How Charles Finney’s Theology Ravaged the Evangelical Movement – Phil Johnson

During these wonderful days of family interaction I also had the opportunity to catch up with friends, talk ministry with a couple of fellow youth pastors, finish reading FBC’s book of the month (After Darkness, Light), read some various blog articles and get involved in some pretty heavy-duty theological discussions both in person and online.  All of these things (not to mention the intense board gaming sessions with my mother, brothers and the Cortland king of board gaming….if he’s reading this, he knows who he is) added up to a very profitable and edifying two weeks.  They also provide a nice line-up for articles to appear on this blog over the next few weeks.  Here are at least some of the upcoming topics (along with a couple of links for pre-reading).

Charles Finney – Friend or Foe to the gospel of Jesus Christ?

To Drink or Not to Drink – Is that the real issue?

• An article by Tim Challies that began a vigorous Facebook discussion
• An article by my father that I think deserves more discussion.

Outreach or Discipleship? – Building a Biblical Philosophy of Youth Ministry

After Darkness, Light – A book review

And finally (and of very little spiritual significance)

The Family That Plays Together… – My list of Favorite Board Games…And Why.

The plan is to have the first post up before this week ends and the rest within two weeks, but in case the delays between posts are too long and you need a blogging fix, head over to my sister-in-law’s site, www.thefeminineintellect.com to catch a new Christmas series she is hosting there.

Last week another “adventure” came to my attention.  On one of my walks to church with Rosalie I was listening to the book of Matthew.  During the course of the walk the narrator read Matthew 25.  Which is summarized as follows:

-A master is going on a journey and entrusts to his servants his property.
-One servant gets five talents, another two, and another one talent
-While the master is gone the first two servants double the amount given them, the third servant does nothing…well…not nothing, he buries the talent.
- The master comes back, rewards the first two servants.
- The final servant tries to excuse his behavior, even tries to cast the blame on the master and is cast out for his actions, and his talent is given to the servant with ten talents.

Now a straightforward reading of the parable shows that the Master pictures Christ, the servants picture those who profess the name of Christ, the lazy servant being one who, at best, does nothing with what has been entrusted to him.

But, if you are pre-occupied with social justice fairness and read everything through glasses of economic fairness and/or an anti-capitalistic worldview this parable might pose some problems.  After all, in today’s day and age the last servant would be idolized as being part of the 99% or something like that – and here he is the villain of the story?

How then would a theologian of the 99% interpret this passage? I’m glad you asked.

Brian McLaren is all things social-justice.  And, as providence would have it, he had a blog entry on Matthew 25.  If you’re interested in seeing convoluted “theology” (and by theology I mean heresy) work itself out ”He links to a couple of different sites that flesh out his view, but he sums it up pretty well with this statement:

…my leaning these days is to refrain from reading violent kings or masters in parables as referring to God. My bias is to associate the kingdom of God/kingdom of heaven with that which is rejected, persecuted, killed, banished, tortured … as Jesus was.

In Matthew 25, then, Jesus and his followers are associated with
a) the servant who refused to play the game of the master’s exploitive “Wall Street” economy, and
b) the imprisoned, naked, homeless …

Let me make a couple of observations about this statement and then wrap up with some final observations about Matthew 25 in light of this statement.

1. “my leaning these days…my bias” On one hand it is nice that he recognizes that he’s biased.  However, our bias does not affect the true meaning/intent of Scripture.

2. “My bias is to associate the kingdom of God/kingdom of heaven with that which is rejected, persecuted, killed, banished, tortured … as Jesus was.” So was Cain, the entire world except for Noah, Sodom and Gomorrah, Lot’s wife, Nadab and Abihu, the Canaanites and nations around Israel, Jezebel, Ahab and other wicked rulers of Israel, etc.  The point being, if one doesn’t have a biblical understanding of sin, it’s consequences and specifically God’s necessary holy reaction to it (justice) then you won’t have a category for necessary punishment.  This is why I don’t see the social-justice crowd really looking for justice, but for a fairness made in their own image…and thus a god made in their own image.

3. “Jesus and his followers are associated with a) the servant who refused to play the game of the master’s exploitive “Wall Street” economy…”  Capitalism stinks…yeah….we know.  But…this parable had nothing to do with economic structures.

4. “Jesus and his followers are associated with… b) the imprisoned, naked, homeless …”  Actually it appears that Jesus is associated with the imprisoned, naked and homeless and his followers are associated with those who are faithful stewards in providing for those needy to whom God gives them to care for.

5. “That doesn’t solve all interpretive problems (in fact, it creates some new ones),”  What I find interesting is that if you don’t bring socio-economic baggage into your hermenutic there aren’t any interpretive problems.  This is why it’s important to allow Scripture to shape your view of the world, and not let what you think the world should look like shape your view of Scripture.

6. “but it seems to resonate most with the whole tenor of Jesus’ life, mission, and message.”  Except….that it doesn’t.  You see…this chapter, and other parables like it, are part of Jesus’ life, mission and message.  Not only that, but Jesus’ life, mission and message are in the context of the Old Testament revelation about the Messiah.  But McLaren has already revealed his bias against anything he perceives as ugly or difficult (the book of Job, for example, not a favorite of his), even coming up with a theory that turns God’s revelation of himself in the Old Testament into an evolution of what man thought about God (To quote: “I think it is both a source of authority, and a library of inspired books that reveal a progressive human understanding about God.”).

The point of the entire chapter, from the parable of the Virgins to the final judgment is Faithfulness.  Let’s look again at the parable.

1.  Who’s resources are they?  “For it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted to them his property.” (Matthew 25:14, ESV)  God entrusts to us that which is His! This is not a no strings attached gift, but a stewardship.

2.  What determines the amount? “To one he gave five talents, to another two, to another one, to each according to his ability. Then he went away.” (Matthew 25:15, ESV)  From my perspective there are two reasons why this does not sit well with the social fairness crowd.  First fairness means equality regardless of ability.  It doesn’t matter if you work hard to earn your money, if you don’t do with it what they think you should do with it, it’s not fair…and generally they seem to think you shouldn’t have it (unless you’re a democrat politician or celebrity apparently).  Second, especially for the Christian social fairness advocate, I see a trend to try to gain stewardship of areas that God has not given them stewardship of.  For example, I think it’s horrible that there are men, women and children starving and dying of disease and war throughout Africa.  However, apart from prayer, has God given me stewardship of this issue?  Or has he given me stewardship of the hurting within the body of believers he has called together at Fellowship Baptist?  Has he given me stewardship of the man I’ll never meet in Sudan or has he given me stewardship of the man I meet as I walk around Lake Mirror?  I cannot “make a difference” in the lives of every hurting person in the worlds, but the hurting people who God brings into my sphere of influence, that person I must be faithful toward, as toward Christ!  Alas…how many times do I bury the opportunity for Christ-like kindness that God has given me.

3.  What are the servants rewarded for?  “His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.’” (Matthew 25:21, ESV)  This goes back to the obvious point of the parable.

This whole study reminds me of this lesson Jesus had for his disciples:

“This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.” (Matthew 13:13, ESV)

Incidentally, I’m not sure how many social-fairness supporters would even get to verse 13 since the previous verse is:

“For to the one who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away.” (Matthew 13:12, ESV)

But that’s another post.

Oh…wait…someone just posted something on Facebook!

Reminds me of this scene:

But yet how many times a day do I do the equivalent of “Jesus, I love you, thank you for your grace and your…..FACEBOOK! HOBBY! GAMES! WORDLY STUFF!!”

My daily prayer must be – Father direct my focus, fix my gaze on you!

Reminds me of:

Related articles

• News Flash! “My Sin” is not listed in Philippians 4:8! (divinesatisfaction.com)

This is mine:

To focus on wealth misses the point.  Even to focus on daily needs (which to the OWS crowd seems to include iPads, iPhones, free sex, and the freedom to deficate on police cars) misses the point.  The believer has one simple message:  Christ is supremely valuable!  Therefore we are willing to place our entire trust in him.  It means that we look out for the needs of others as Christ took our need for a Savior upon himself.

Demanding the wealth of others or even demanding to keep my own wealth demonstrates one thing:  I value wealth above Christ.

4.  The truth of biblical language must be vigorously protected with non-biblical language.

Bible language can be used to affirm falsehood.  Athanasius’s experience has proved to be illuminating and helpful in dealing with this fact.  Over the years I have seen this misuse of the Bible especially in liberally minded baptistic and pietistic traditions.   They use the slogan, “the Bible is our only creed.” But in refusing to let explanatory, confessional language clarify what the Bible means, the slogan can be used as a cloak to conceal the fact that Bible language is being used to affirm what is not biblical.  This is what Athanasius encountered so insidiously at the council of Nicaea.  The Arians affirmed biblical sentences while denying biblical meaning.

R.P.C. Hanson explained the process like this: “Theologians of the Christian Church were slowly driven to a realization that the deepest questions which face Christianity cannot be answered in purely biblical language, because the questions are about the meaning of biblical language itself.” The Arians railed against the unbiblical language being forced on them.  They tried to seize the biblical high ground and claim to be the truly biblical people – the pietists, the simple Bible-believers – because they wanted to stay with biblical language only – and by it smuggle in their non-biblical meanings.

But Athanasius saw through this “postmodern,” “post-conservative,” “post-propositional” strategy and saved for us not just Bible words, but Bible truth.

As Piper alludes to in this section, this way of looking at, and dealing with the Bible is still with us today.  A lot of “Bible” terms get thrown around – grace, justification, faith, kingdom, justice, mercy etc. – but unless we are willing to define these terms the way that the biblical authors (and biblical Author) intended them to be defined we can quickly end up believing or teaching something different from what the Bible teaches.  You don’t have to go far to find examples of this either.  From hyper-fundamentalists to the emerging church to the Wild Goose festival (ok..redundant there on the last two) we the need for Inigo Montoya to say “you keep on using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.”

The final application of these two points is this:  is my life transformed by the truth statements of Scripture?  Or to put it in the words of a reply to the last article:

As in our debates with Charismatic subjectivism a few decades ago, our debates with post-modern anti-propositionalism today must not box us into an either/or corner. While there can be no salvation apart from embracing the propositional truth of Scripture, we will be led astray if we are not on the alert to the danger of offering truth without imagination, truth without community, truth without love, etc.

Piggy-backing on the last statement – does the truth of God’s love (illustrated dynamically against the truth of God’s holy wrath) drive us to deliver the truth in love to those who know nothing of it? Does the truth of God’s grace (illustrated vividly against the truth of God’s justice) drive us to speak graciously to those around us?

Related articles

• A word on propositional truth statements… (divinesatisfaction.com)

Buy at Amazon

I’m currently re-reading John Piper’s book “Contending for our All” in which he gives brief biographical sketches of three men in church history who stood faithful to God’s Word against sometimes overwhelming opposition – A far cry from today where some who claim the name of Christ want to join the opposition, but I digress. The first biographical sketch is of the early church father Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria. In his battle against Arianism (the belief that among other things God the Son is not co-equal with God the Father) he stood oft-times in the minority but firmly on the Truth of God’s Word. As Piper wraps up the chapter he gives several lessons that we can learn from this man’s life, I’d like to reproduce the third for your edification:

3. Loving Christ includes loving true propositions about Christ

What was clear to Athanasius was that propositions about Christ carried convictions that could send you to heaven or to hell. Propositions like “There was a time when the Son of God was not,” and “He was not before he was made,” and “the Son of God is created” were damnable. If they were spread abroad and believed, they would damn the souls who embraced them. And therefore Athanasius labored with all his might to formulate propositions that would conform to reality and lead the soul to faith and worship and heaven.

I believe Athanasius would have abominated, with tears, the contemporary call for “depropositionalizing” that we hear among many of the so-called “reformists” and “the emerging church,” “younger evangelicals,” “postfundamentalists,” “postfoundationalists,” and “postevangelicals.” I think he would have said, “Our young people in Alexandria die for the truth of propositions about Christ. What do your young people die for?” And if the answer came back, “We die for Christ, not propositions about Christ,” I think he would have said, “That’s what the heretic Arius said. So which Christ will you die for?” To answer that question requires propositions about him. To refuse to answer implies that it doesn’t matter what we believe or die for as long as it has the label Christ attached to it.

Athanasius would have grieved over sentences like “It is Christ who unites us; it is doctrine that divides.” And sentences like “We should ask, Whom do you trust? rather than what do you believe?” He would have grieved because he knew this is the very tactic used by the Arian bishops to cover the councils with fog so that the word ‘Christ’ could mean anything. Those who talk like this – “Christ unites, doctrine divides” – have simply replaced propositions about Christ with the word ‘Christ.’ It carries no meaning until one says something about him. They think they have done something profound and fresh, when they call us away from the propositions of doctrine to the word ‘Christ.’ In fact they have done something very old and worn and deadly.

(emphasis mine)

If I were to take these paragraphs and summarize them down to one practical application it would be this, we must continually be asking those who through the name of Jesus around, attaching it to every political cause under the sun – “Which Jesus?” To quote from a previous post:

Now our western Christianity is filled with many people who just “love Jesus”, but the question must be asked – “Which Jesus do you love?” There are many “Jesus’” being proclaimed that look nothing like the Jesus of the gospels, and these “anti-Christ’s” (as it were) tend to focus on making the believer happy, healthy and wealthy.

Which Jesus do you serve? The Jesus defined by truthful statements about Him in Scripture and vigorously protected by men like Athanasius? Or a Jesus of your own making?

Related articles

• An Open Response to Brian McLaren