The "Doctor" Dissects The Emergent Church...Again

It can be put like this: Why am I, or why is anyone else, a preacher of the Gospel? There is only one answer to that question. I am a preacher because I believe I have been called; because in my little way God has given me a burden; because I know by personal experience, by the experience of others, and by experience garnered from the reading of history that there is nothing under heaven that can enable men and women to conquer and to master life and to have a hope that cannot be dimmed except this Gospel. Therefore, the most urgent task in the world today is to make the Gospel known to men and women. And this is the function of the Christian church.

 But as we all know, the great tragedy is that there is utter confusion with regard to what the Gospel is, what the church is, and what Christians are supposed to do. I call your attention to this, God knows, not because I am anxious to be controversial but because I have a burden for the souls of men and women. I would not be a preacher were it not for that. That is what originally put me in the ministry and makes me go on. I see the confusion. I see men and women bewildered, asking, “What is Christianity? What is the church?” And I am not surprised that they are bewildered.

 Furthermore, this confusion is not confined to men and women outside the church. Indeed, I have an increasing fear that the confusion of those outside has been produced mainly by the so-called Christian church herself. A man who has held the highest position in one of the religious denominations and is well-known as one who speaks in the name of Christianity has recently said that he thinks certain things should be done at once, and the first is that the church must give up the foolish habit of having two services on a Sunday. “One is enough,” he says, “and let’s have it at nine o’clock in the morning so that having got that out of the way, we can then give ourselves to what we want to do.” He also says that if he had the power, he would decree that there should be no reading of the Bible at all for twelve months—this in the name of the church and of Christianity! And then he says that any preaching that is done in the one and only service at nine o’clock in the morning should, for at least a year, be on a political text alone.

 I call attention to this because it is so typical of what is being said at the present time. Is it surprising that men and women are in a state of confusion? Speaking generally, the current idea is that the Christian message is, after all, nothing but a kind of teaching with regard to how our affairs should be ordered—that is why it is held that all texts should be political. It is said that the main business of the church is to deal with injustices and to do the work of reform and that in the Sermon on the Mount we have a kind of social charter. People who say this are never interested in the Old Testament; they generally dismiss it in toto, and they have no use for the apostle Paul. Instead, they point to the ethical teaching of Jesus. “There’s your political program,” they say. “There’s your political charter, and all you must do is apply it as best you can. You must not even read the Bible, but pick up these general principles, and try to put them into practice.”

 Others say that Christianity is mainly an elevated, optimistic view of life, a sort of philosophy. Having found out how life can be lived on a higher plane and having experienced a moral uplift, you try to get others to adopt these principles.

 And then there are others who, perhaps nearer to the Christian position, regard Christianity as being mainly a matter of morals and of conduct. They say that what makes people Christians is that they have adopted this ethical teaching and put it into practice. So by living a good life, they have made themselves Christians (emphasis mine).*

Soli Deo Gloria!

*Lloyd-Jones, D. M. (2000). Authentic Christianity (1st U.S. ed.) (6–7). Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books.

Trying To Divorce A Married Couple

That is certainly what many wish to do when they attempt to pit the cross of Christ against His resurrection. Or those that emphasize the resurrection without speaking of the death of Christ. It goes something like this, "The gospel is the good news that God hasn’t given up on the world, that the tomb is empty and that a giant resurrection rescue is underway and that you and I can be a part of it." My fellow blogger awretchsaved does a good job of pointing out the social gospel in that presentation from Rob Bell.

That sounds pretty spiritual from Bell doesn't it? The Holy Writ does say, "For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies "(Ro 8:18–23).


If you notice in that passage the text says that the creation itself waits for the "revealing of the sons of God." It also says that creation was subjected to its present state by God Himself to be set free from its bondage and to obtain the freedom of the children of God. The point being that creation, without the salvation of God's people, itself will not experience its restoration. It is dependent upon the salvation of redeemed sinners- the bride of Christ.

For the moment we will not talk about the cataclysmic judgement ( a point that many want to deny or dodge) that God will bring upon it to bring about this "new heavens and new earth in which righteousness dwells" (2 Pe. 3:10-18), but will focus on the deliverance of God's people before the restoration of creation. This is the part which Bell and many of his kind completely miss. The idea that Christ came to save sinners by virtue of penal substitutionary death is abhorred by Bell. God, according to Bell and the Emergent crowd, is not angry with sinners and needs not to have His divine justice satisfied. According to Bell sinners are like confused, lost, hurt people in need of a little tender loving care and some guidance. We are more of victims instead of rebels. We are victims and not sinners shaking our fists at God in defiance.

Sure he and the Emergent crowd will talk of "sin." The appropriate question to ask is what do they mean by "sin"? According to one of their like minded people, "sin" is "to lack trust in God to do things His way." Once a person fails to "trust" God then life becomes miserable, "hell on earth." Here we go again with sinners being more victims than offenders of a holy God. This is what is missing (among many other things) in the Emergent  Gospel. God, to them, is more of a helper than God the Savior. God is simply saddened rather than offended and angry.

This is why they love to speak of a "resurrection rescue" or something similar. For them that is the view of salvation. There is no eternal judgement awaiting the unrepentant sinner. The cross of Christ is, not to save, but to make things better according to them. Which is why they rely so much on the felt needs and social justice. The cross of Christ is the greatest example of self-sacrifice for the greater good of creation. If one desires to not join in God's "resurrection rescue" then they will be experiencing "hell on earth" being separated from Him and being depressed, sad or bummed out. To them that is the worst thing. The consequences of sin itself is God's judgment because it keeps one away from this "resurrection rescue."


Bell's answer to such problem is to simply follow Jesus's example of self-sacrifice and love for others and you will be a part of this "resurrection rescue." Think like Jesus, feel like Jesus, believe like Jesus, act like Jesus, love like Jesus and you're in this "resurrection rescue."


My question to them is does the resurrection have any relation to justification? Or is it simply a matter of the way we live? You cannot divorce the the cross of Christ from the resurrection of Christ. Each component is intertwined. Permit me to quote Robert A. Peterson:

Justification. When Paul gives the basis for God’s declaring sinners righteous in Romans, he points primarily to the cross of Christ. In Romans 3:25–26 the basis of justification is “Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood.” In Romans 5:18–19 the basis of justification is Christ’s “obedience” unto death, his “one act of righteousness.” Paul focuses on the cross, but does not omit Jesus’s resurrection.

 In one passage in Romans the apostle brings together the cross and empty tomb. Righteousness “will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our LORD, who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification” (Rom. 4:23–25). Here dealing with “our trespasses” and “our justification” are not two separate blessings, but one way of talking about the same blessing—free justification. Justification can be expressed as the positive imputation of righteousness to the believing sinner (Rom. 4:3–5; 5:18–19; 2 Cor. 5:21). It can also be expressed as the nonimputation of sin to the same (Rom. 4:6–7). So when Paul says Jesus “was delivered up for our trespasses,” he means that his atoning death was necessary for our justification. When he says that Jesus was “raised for our justification,” he means that Jesus’s triumphant resurrection was necessary for our justification. Both Jesus’s death and his resurrection are necessary for sinners to be justified before a holy God.

 Jesus’s death is the basis of our justification in that he, our substitute, died in our place, paying the penalty that we could never pay. He also saves us as our resurrected LORD and representative—as the one who lives on our behalf. This is true in at least two senses. First, Christ’s resurrection testifies to the efficacy of his death, as C. E. B. Cranfield explains: “For what was necessitated by our sin was, in the first place, Christ’s atoning death, and yet, had His death not been followed by His resurrection, it would not have been God’s mighty deed for our justification.” Second, Jesus’s resurrection saves us as he who died for us is freed from death by God. His saving death and saving resurrection are the reasons that God will free us from death too. James Dunn clarifies: “The link between justification and Jesus’ resurrection . . . underscores its point—that the justifying grace of God is all of a piece with his creative, life-giving power.” As we will see, his resurrection is the basis and guarantee of our resurrection to eternal life on the last day.

 Forgiveness of sins. Because Jesus’s death and resurrection combine to constitute the basis of our justification, Paul announces to his hearers in Pisidian Antioch: “God has brought to Israel a Savior, Jesus, as he promised. . . . but he whom God raised up did not see corruption. Let it be known to you therefore, brothers, that through this man forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you” (Acts 13:23, 37–38). With these words Paul is not detracting from the saving value of Jesus’s atonement. Rather, he is teaching an additional truth—the saving value of Jesus’s resurrection. Specifically, Jesus’s (death and) resurrection is the basis for the apostolic message of the “forgiveness of sins” (v. 38).

 Similarly, when Paul contemplates what would be true if Christ had not risen from the grave, he emphasizes, “And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins” (1 Cor. 15:17). Why would that be the case? Anthony Thiselton answers: “Without the resurrection of Christ, Christ’s death alone has no atoning, redemptive, or liberating effect in relation to human sin.” It is because Jesus our divine-human representative not only died in our place but also lives as Victor over sin and the grave that he saves to the end all who come to God through him.*

Of course they will object that doctrine is impractical but, at a later time, I hope to show that justification and the resurrection should lead to what is called "social justice" of course with some clarifications.The danger with false teaching is sometimes there is a measure of truth in the errors.Theology is indeed practical.

Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando


*Robert A. Peterson. Salvation Accomplished by the Son: The Work of Christ (Kindle Locations 3044-3073). Crossway.

Jesus Is Not Like Ghandi

That Jesus is not like Ghandi is almost a sacrilegious thing to say since the two are not even comparable. One is the Creator, God incarnate, sovereign, and Savior. The other is the creation, human, a sinner perishing apart from the savior for his rejection of Christ. Yet when Jesus is often proclaimed nowadays He is preached in such a way that He is taught to be much like Ghandi. For some a difference is that Jesus meant for His words to be practiced (as if Ghandi didn't).

"Just follow Jesus" in His life example and all is well. Jesus taught us morality and love and all must pursue this for the greater good of humanity. After all "no one puts lamp under a basket" so goes the sentiment. The idea seems to be that to "follow Jesus" simply means to live His example.

There is one fundamental problem- an unbeliever can't. There is something in the natural human make up that with out the saving grace of God is bent on sin. Have you ever observed a leopard change it's own spots? Is not that what God says about the sinner through the prophet Jeremiah? He asks, "Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then also you can do good who are accustomed to do evil" (Je 13:23).  Is not that consistent with "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one” (Ro 3:10–12)? Which is consistent with John 8:34 and is consistent with Ephesian 2:1-3. How come those that present Jesus as example never preach or teach on these passages and how they relate to "come follow me?" The call to follow Christ was not given in a vacuum.

The problem of man is not that he needs reform. Not even a little more morality will suffice. Man's problem is that he is sinner "dead in his trespasses and sins." He is a rebel an enemy of God, a breaker of His law; destined to be consumed by His just wrath unless God mercifully, graciously and lovingly intervenes (1 Thess. 1:9-10; 5:1-11, Jn. 3:36, Ro. 3:5-6; 4:15, Rev. 6:12-17; 16:1-11 ). It is at this point that we hear the beautiful words of John the Baptist when speaking of Christ- "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world (Jn 1:29)! And why the Apostle Paul can say- "For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified" (1 Co 2:1–2). And again- "But far be it from me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world(Ga 6:13–14).


Sinful man needs life, forgiveness and the righteousness of Christ ( John 10:10; 17:1-3, Mk. 2:5-11, Act. 2:38, Heb. 4:22, Phil. 3:8-11, ). That is why the precious Gospel of Christ is of eternal importance. It gives rest for the soul while the moral example of Jesus causes much grief and stress for the sinner trying to follow His example but failing to keep it. His conscience is tormented day and night, as Martin Luther's was, in trying to make the law his hope of salvation. As Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones said it:

Such was the teaching of the theological school called Modernism or Liberalism which came in about the middle of the last century in this country. Its theme was ‘the Jesus of history’. They took out miracles, indeed the entire supernatural element, and the substitutionary atonement. What is Jesus? ‘Ah,’ they said, ‘Jesus is the greatest religious teacher the world has ever known. Listen to His teaching, emulate His example, follow Him; and if you do so you will be a good Christian. Do not bother about doctrines, they are not important; it is Jesus’ teaching that matters.’

So Christianity has been reduced to a moral and an ethical code and teaching. That leads inevitably to failure and to disaster, for it leaves the whole business to us as individuals. I have got to admire the teaching, next I am required to accept it, and then I have to proceed to put it into practice. It is left entirely to me. ‘Ah but,’ they say, ‘look to the example of Jesus.’ Example of Jesus? I know of nothing that is so discouraging as the example of Jesus! As I look at His moral stature, at His absolute perfection, as I see Him walking through this world without sin, I feel that I am already condemned and hopeless. Imitation of Christ? It is the greatest nonsense that has ever been uttered! Imitation of Christ? I who cannot satisfy myself and my own demands, and other people still less—am I to imitate Christ? The saints make me feel ashamed of myself. I read of men like George Whitefield and others, and I feel that I have not yet started. And yet I am told to take this ethical teaching of the Sermon on the Mount, this idealistic social teaching, and to put this into practice! ‘It is so marvellous,’ they say, ‘it will stimulate you; look at Him and follow Him! (emphasis mine)'*

 It is important to note that  Lloyd-Jones was responding to the presentation of Jesus' example without the proclamation of Christ's penal substitutionary death in the Gospel.

Isn't that what many modern Jesus as example advocates do today? They neglect the cross of Christ. They treat it very minimal while emphasizing the example of Christ. Sure they may even affirm the miraculous but they certainly deny or avoid the substitutionary death of Christ for sinners. Could it be that they avoid preaching the cross of Christ because that would mean they have to talk about sin, judgment, God's wrath along with forgiveness, life (abundant) and salvation? Or perhaps the cross is little spoken of by them because they deny those things and therefore not that significant in terms of salvation (what exactly in their view are we saved from anyway) but more in relation to His example of self-denial for the greater good of humanity?

How about Mark 4:21? Simply put it tells us what Christians look like and that we are not to shack up somewhere in isolation but that our fruit should be public for the glory of God and the benefit of our neighbors. What it is not telling us is that our works are the basis of our salvation. In other words Christ is stating what Christians ought to look like not how one becomes a Christian. He already made clear how one follows Him and becomes a Christian back in Mark 1:15 when He says, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.” Both repentance and faith are life long, not onetime, acts.

No, my friends, Jesus is not like Ghandi. Nor is Ghandi like Jesus. In fact contrary to Rob Bell, Ghandi, is as Jonathan Edwards so biblically put it, a sinner in the hands of an angry God. That is why Christ bluntly stated "No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish” (Lk 13:5).

There were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices.  And he answered them, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish” 

(Lk 13:1–5). 

Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando


*Lloyd-Jones, D. M. (1976). The Christian Warfare : An Exposition of Ephesians 6:10 to 13 (33). Edinburgh; Carlisle, Pa.: Banner of Truth Trust.   

N.T. Wright And The Emergent Crowd

N.T. is certainly a tricky fellow. He has just enough credibility as a biblical scholar to take him seriously. On the other hand, in my opinion, the man is not a credible theologian. He has good things to say on Christ and the historical resurrection. Yet, the theology he develops from that is dangerous. I think Doug Wilson says it best concerning N.T. Wright, "One of the worst of the lot in this regard is N.T. Wright who cannot come within ten feet of a timeless truth without getting out his old cricket bat and taking a swing or two."


We see it with Wright's view of justification. That it is not soteriological (not about salvation) but ecclesiological (church membership). In simple terms justification is not about salvation by grace through faith. In his mind it is not about "getting in." It is about "table fellowship" between Jew and Gentile and faith is "the badge of covenant membership." He believes that the church has misunderstood Paul during the Reformation. It wasn't until  E.P. Sanders, James G.D. Dunn and himself recovered "What Saint Paul Really Said" in regards to justification. Quite an arrogant thing to say in my opinion. Here is an area where Bishop Wright comes within ten feet of a core biblical truth (justification) and brings out his old cricket bat and hacks away.

I believe this is why some in the Federal Vision (Doug Wilson is excluded here) like Wright's novel understanding of justification. Others such as the Emergent folks love him even more. If justification is not salvific then it can be put on the back burner. Evangelism (as far as the verbal proclamation of the Gospel is concerned) is not a priority- "Kingdom living" is or that the Christians duty is "building for the kingdom." Another way to say it is our works are the emphasis of "building for the kingdom." Wright's confusing understanding of justification coupled with his misunderstanding of God's kingdom is a theological recipe for disaster. Hence, his two understandings of the kingdom and justification are heavy upon our works. He has stated that our justification is on the basis of our works. Admittedly he does not exclude the work of Christ but yet he finds a way to smuggle in our own works.

These two things, with a few others, are why the Emergent crowd will embrace N.T. Wright. They loathe the doctrine of justification by faith alone and highly emphasize our works in the matter of "kingdom living."

Now, no Christian in their right mind would deny the importance of good works. Simply put, if there is no good fruit there is a rotten root. Yet what passes for fruit in much in Emergent theology  is really not good fruit. For it divorces the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ from their works. They aim to do things, it seems to me, to make Christianity palatable to the natural man.

The bond between Wright and the Emergent crowd (more from the Emergent side than Wright's) gets even stronger when it comes to the issue of heaven and hell. For the Emergent people hell is here on earth when we fail to believe in Jesus for whatever reason, with salvation (deliverance from the wrath of God and reconciliation to God) being the most unacceptable in their minds, and do things God's way. One way it has been put by one person is, "Repent and stop thinking bad things about yourself. God doesn't want you to think that away." Hell, to them, is here and now apart from Jesus.

Couple that with Wright's denial of an eternal conscious torment, hell primarily being about losing the image of God in our humanity. And you have a marriage meant for heaven (pun intended) and probably not from Wright's perspective. Here is how he puts it (you can find the full interview with Trevin Wax here):

So, I’ve struggled to take seriously the whole “heaven coming to earth” theme as the great wonderful renewal. But at the same time, I’ve struggled to take seriously what the Bible says about the possibility and the actuality of final loss for those who persist in rebellion against the gospel. Romans 2 says it all. For those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury, tribulation, distress… Paul is talking about those who are persisting in saying “no” to God, at whatever level that is, (and there are different ways of saying no to God).

 It dawned on me several years ago that when somebody says “no” to God and refuses to worship the God in whose image they are made, saying “I’m not going to worship that God,” then what happens to their humanness is that it progressively ceases to bear the image of God. You become like what you worship. You reflect the one you worship. It’s one of the great truths of spirituality.

 So my way of describing it is that once this life is over, people who have decided not to worship God cease to bear God’s image. The thought of an ex-human being is something that some people find shocking and horrifying. In a sense, it is shocking and horrifying. Think about people we know! I’m sure most people, unless we live in very enclosed worlds, must know some people (if we truly hold to a theology of hell) who are going there! That should give us pause. That should cause us to pray for them and to weep over them. So I don’t say this with any relish at all.

My description is neither an annihilationist view nor an eternal conscious torment view, because it seems to me that to cease to be image-bearing is actually to reduce the scale of what’s going on. This is a creature which will be a memory, a sad memory, an abiding ex-humanness. That is something that the biblical language of hell may be pointing to. But I don’t want to be dogmatic on this. This is merely a way to go to try to hold on to the two things that the Bible is saying. 1. The reality of loss for some and 2. the absoluteness of God’s victory over the whole creation.

 What you don’t want to end up with is the picture that some theologies have of a wonderful, glorious countryside with a concentration camp in the middle with people being tortured. I think the 19th century rightly reacted against that image, and I don’t think there’s any way back to that except perhaps by closing our hearts to the sort of pity and love which we are told is at the heart of God himself.

The false caricature aside (something Wright and the Emergent crowd are notorious for) the last paragraph tickles the hearts and ears of Rob Bell and company. They are looking for credible scholars to throw their lot in with.

Now Wright has, rightly, been accused of an overly-realized eschatology (an emphasis of the age to come being about here and now). For him heaven is here and now. By this time the Emergents are shouting for joy and jumping up and down. They too have an over-realized eschatology. Their emphasis is on here and now thinking social justice is helping build the kingdom of God. They accuse most of Christendom of having a view of heaven as being some ethereal place with us being spirits floating around on clouds playing harps. Granted there are indeed many Christians which have an impartial or naive view of heaven. But none that I know of who believe what Wright and the Emergents accuse us of.

Perhaps now we can see why they would use Wright. No mention of judgment or God's wrath in the Gospel, an over emphasis on works (social justice), minimizing justification (from a false view of it), an over-realized eshatology having heaven and hell about being here and now- right now and now they have someone they believe to be theologically credible in the academic realm.

I have not critiqued their views here. I will simply direct the readers attention to this review of Wright's book Surprised By Hope by Dr. Tom Schreiner. Here is a quote:

All this is to say that the call for Christians to evangelize remains more pressing than any call to work in the political sphere, even though all our work in this world is significant. Wright emphasizes that the good news of the gospel is that Jesus is Lord, but, as John Piper has pointed out, this isn't good news if you're still a rebel against God; its terrifying news. The New Testament is permeated with the message that we must turn from our sins and put our faith in Christ. Wright does not disagree with the need to do so, but he seems to be most excited about our work in the political and social sphere (emphasis mine).

Two books that I recommend relating to the discussed issues: What is the Mission of the Church by Kevin DeYoung and Greg Gilbert. You can find it here. The other book is Heaven is a place on Earth by Michael Wittmer. Found here.

 N.T. Wright has some good stuff to say, in particular to the historical resurrection of Christ, among a few other things. But he also has some really bad stuff to say that I believe far outweighs the good. But what do I know I am only a "reductionist?" As for the faulty accusations of the orthodox position of heaven. We say "amen" when we read:

But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed. Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of people ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be set on fire and dissolved, and the heavenly bodies will melt as they burn! But according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells (2 Pe 3:10–14).

Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando