Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Gospel Therapy?
I do not believe in the "Theraputic Gospel," but, to turn a phrase (I suppose...), I do believe in Gospel Therapy, i.e. "Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God..." (Romans 5: 1 - 11).
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Truth in Love
Truth without love is cruelty, but love without truth is hopelessly lost. In the Jesus Christ, truth and love are brought together, perfectly manifested and expressed to a world that desperately needs both. "I am the way, and the truth, and the life" (John 14:6).
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Together for the Gospel?
I have a question for my Evangelical brothers and sisters. In the midst of all our intramural debates and disagreements, i.e. Calvinist vs. Arminian, Complementarian vs. Egalitarian, Charismatic vs. Cessationalist, are we still remaining Gospel centered? Is the good news of Jesus Christ our rallying point, our sure foundation, the rock to which we cling? Can we, at the end of the day, lay aside our differences, and rejoice in awe and wonder that “God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16)? If not, then let us drop “our daggers,” fall to our knees, and ask forgiveness for letting our hearts get caught up in lesser things. I am not saying that doctrine is unimportant, it is VERY important, but within much of the Evangelical family of faith, there is way more upon which we agree than disagree, but as a whole we tend major on the latter.
For example, I may agree with a friend on the inerrancy of Scripture, the centrality of the Gospel, the Sovereignty of God, but differ on our conviction regarding the interpretation and application of I Timothy 2: 12. We may both believe that it clearly applies to the church today, but hold to different views on how. Now, there some who disregard a passage like this as being irrelevant, archaic, in error, etc.; I am not speaking of this kind of quasi-Christian perspective (I say quasi-Christian, because once someone or some group begins to undermine the authority of Scripture upon which the faith is based, they have already begun to slide into something other, or lesser, than Christianity). However, where I believe that I Timothy 2:12 and other passages like it (Ephesians 5:22 – 33, Colossians 3: 18 – 19, etc.) clearly teach that men and women, as created by God, in his image, are fully equal or co-equal, they do have different God given roles to fulfill (Even at this time I am tempted to argue why I hold to this position, but that is not the point here, so I digress); my friend may believe that is not true. He may say that while there different roles for men and women, they are dictated by culture and therefore are somewhat fluid. While he agrees that Paul is writing authoritatively, under the unction and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and that these words are as much for us today as for the church in antiquity, he may level a different interpretation on the passage, one based, not in deconstructing Scripture, but on attempting to better understand and apply it today.
I have a choice here, I can pick up my “dagger” and engage in combat regarding the interpretation of this passage or I can lift my glass in a friendly toast, acknowledging, that while I disagree with him (and probably will continue to do so), I agree with his heart to see Scripture faithfully applied today as well as tomorrow. He and I both want to see the Gospel, the full counsel of God, preached to a world that desperately needs it. Can we come together on the platform of grace, the under the banner of the Cross, based on the common ground of the Gospel of Jesus (Romans 5: 1 – 11) in order to live out the Great Commission? “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age” (Matthew 28:19-20).
I look forward to constructive feedback, but before I do I would like to address one argument I already see coming. It is the one that starts, “once we give ground on ‘interpretation,’ where does it end?” I agree that interpretation of Scripture is of paramount importance and that one seemingly insignificant misinterpretation can lead to wider and deeper problems down the road. However, that being said, there are many issues where differing views will not lead to eventual heresy and a key point in some cases (definitely not all, but some), is not to be found in the ‘what,’ but in the ‘why.’ As in the case above, my fictional friend and I disagree on an important, albeit not terminal issue. The ‘what’ we disagree on are the roles of men and women as laid out in Scripture. But the ‘why’ we disagree is far more important. The ‘why’ could have arisen because he thinks the Bible is wrong on this issue, or is outdated, but that is not the case. It could have come about because I have a “Bible says it, I believe it” overly literal mentality, but that is not the case either. We both understand and believe that the Bible is inerrant and authoritative, was written by men in a culture to a culture, and that we must apply what was written to today, by the grace of God, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Here we reach the ‘why;’ our difference comes not from a theological or an absolute standpoint, but from a subjective interpretational vantage point.
Is one interpretation, better than the other? Yes. I can say that with certainty, because I do not believe in contradictions and therefore one of us must be closer to the truth. But, in this case, neither one of us is trying to usurp the authority of God’s word, nor are we attempting to undermine the truth. Now, if he had said, “I’ll tell you what; I think the Bible is way off here” or if I had said, “Honestly, I do not think men and women are equally made in God’s image” then we would have had a serious problem, one that, in either case, would lead to a disaster if not arrested in fairly short order by the work of the Holy Spirit. I guess what I am saying is; always be careful to ask the ‘why’ question in disagreements that do not lead to heresy (I know, I know, what defines what leads to heresy and what doesn’t…? It is amazing how cyclical our arguments can be!).
I have focused mostly on the roles of men and women, but that is far from the only stumbling block that keeps Evangelicals apart. If you are an Arminian or you are a Calvinist and find yourself arguing with your counterparts on this question, stop and ask ‘why.’ Perhaps your foe is much closer to you than you thought when in the heat of battle. Perhaps one day you may find yourself in a conversation with someone, who is neither Arminian nor Calvinist, but holds to the doctrine of fatalism or, conversely, open theism; you may then long to have your old foe back, but at your side, standing with you for the Gospel of the Sovereign and loving God. I will leave you now with one of my favorite conversations ever.
Charles Simeon: “Sir, I understand that you are called an Arminian; and I have been sometimes called a Calvinist; and therefore I suppose we are to draw daggers. But before I consent to begin the combat, with your permission I will ask you a few questions. Pray, Sir, do you feel yourself a depraved creature, so depraved that you would never have thought of turning to God, if God had not first put it into your heart?”
John Wesley: “Yes, I do indeed.”
C.S.: “And do you utterly despair of recommending yourself to God by anything you can do; and look for salvation solely through the blood and righteousness of Christ?”
J.W.: “Yes, solely through Christ.”
C.S.: “But, Sir, supposing you were at first saved by Christ, are you not somehow or other to save yourself afterwards by your own works?”
J.W.: “No, I must be saved by Christ from first to last.”
C.S.: “Allowing, then, that you were first turned by the grace of God, are you not in some way or other to keep yourself by your own power?’
J.W.: “No.”
C.S.: “What then, are you to be upheld every hour and every moment by God, as much as an infant in its mother’s arms?”
J.W.: “Yes, altogether.”
C.S.: “And is all your hope in the grace and mercy of God to preserve you unto His heavenly kingdom?”
J.W.: “Yes, I have no hope but in Him.”
C.S.: “Then, Sir, with your leave I will put up my dagger again; for this is all my Calvinism; this is my election, my justification by faith, my final perseverance: it is in substance all that I hold, and as I hold it; and therefore, if you please, instead of searching out terms and phrases to be a ground of contention between us, we will cordially unite in those things wherein we agree.”
For example, I may agree with a friend on the inerrancy of Scripture, the centrality of the Gospel, the Sovereignty of God, but differ on our conviction regarding the interpretation and application of I Timothy 2: 12. We may both believe that it clearly applies to the church today, but hold to different views on how. Now, there some who disregard a passage like this as being irrelevant, archaic, in error, etc.; I am not speaking of this kind of quasi-Christian perspective (I say quasi-Christian, because once someone or some group begins to undermine the authority of Scripture upon which the faith is based, they have already begun to slide into something other, or lesser, than Christianity). However, where I believe that I Timothy 2:12 and other passages like it (Ephesians 5:22 – 33, Colossians 3: 18 – 19, etc.) clearly teach that men and women, as created by God, in his image, are fully equal or co-equal, they do have different God given roles to fulfill (Even at this time I am tempted to argue why I hold to this position, but that is not the point here, so I digress); my friend may believe that is not true. He may say that while there different roles for men and women, they are dictated by culture and therefore are somewhat fluid. While he agrees that Paul is writing authoritatively, under the unction and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and that these words are as much for us today as for the church in antiquity, he may level a different interpretation on the passage, one based, not in deconstructing Scripture, but on attempting to better understand and apply it today.
I have a choice here, I can pick up my “dagger” and engage in combat regarding the interpretation of this passage or I can lift my glass in a friendly toast, acknowledging, that while I disagree with him (and probably will continue to do so), I agree with his heart to see Scripture faithfully applied today as well as tomorrow. He and I both want to see the Gospel, the full counsel of God, preached to a world that desperately needs it. Can we come together on the platform of grace, the under the banner of the Cross, based on the common ground of the Gospel of Jesus (Romans 5: 1 – 11) in order to live out the Great Commission? “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age” (Matthew 28:19-20).
I look forward to constructive feedback, but before I do I would like to address one argument I already see coming. It is the one that starts, “once we give ground on ‘interpretation,’ where does it end?” I agree that interpretation of Scripture is of paramount importance and that one seemingly insignificant misinterpretation can lead to wider and deeper problems down the road. However, that being said, there are many issues where differing views will not lead to eventual heresy and a key point in some cases (definitely not all, but some), is not to be found in the ‘what,’ but in the ‘why.’ As in the case above, my fictional friend and I disagree on an important, albeit not terminal issue. The ‘what’ we disagree on are the roles of men and women as laid out in Scripture. But the ‘why’ we disagree is far more important. The ‘why’ could have arisen because he thinks the Bible is wrong on this issue, or is outdated, but that is not the case. It could have come about because I have a “Bible says it, I believe it” overly literal mentality, but that is not the case either. We both understand and believe that the Bible is inerrant and authoritative, was written by men in a culture to a culture, and that we must apply what was written to today, by the grace of God, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Here we reach the ‘why;’ our difference comes not from a theological or an absolute standpoint, but from a subjective interpretational vantage point.
Is one interpretation, better than the other? Yes. I can say that with certainty, because I do not believe in contradictions and therefore one of us must be closer to the truth. But, in this case, neither one of us is trying to usurp the authority of God’s word, nor are we attempting to undermine the truth. Now, if he had said, “I’ll tell you what; I think the Bible is way off here” or if I had said, “Honestly, I do not think men and women are equally made in God’s image” then we would have had a serious problem, one that, in either case, would lead to a disaster if not arrested in fairly short order by the work of the Holy Spirit. I guess what I am saying is; always be careful to ask the ‘why’ question in disagreements that do not lead to heresy (I know, I know, what defines what leads to heresy and what doesn’t…? It is amazing how cyclical our arguments can be!).
I have focused mostly on the roles of men and women, but that is far from the only stumbling block that keeps Evangelicals apart. If you are an Arminian or you are a Calvinist and find yourself arguing with your counterparts on this question, stop and ask ‘why.’ Perhaps your foe is much closer to you than you thought when in the heat of battle. Perhaps one day you may find yourself in a conversation with someone, who is neither Arminian nor Calvinist, but holds to the doctrine of fatalism or, conversely, open theism; you may then long to have your old foe back, but at your side, standing with you for the Gospel of the Sovereign and loving God. I will leave you now with one of my favorite conversations ever.
Charles Simeon: “Sir, I understand that you are called an Arminian; and I have been sometimes called a Calvinist; and therefore I suppose we are to draw daggers. But before I consent to begin the combat, with your permission I will ask you a few questions. Pray, Sir, do you feel yourself a depraved creature, so depraved that you would never have thought of turning to God, if God had not first put it into your heart?”
John Wesley: “Yes, I do indeed.”
C.S.: “And do you utterly despair of recommending yourself to God by anything you can do; and look for salvation solely through the blood and righteousness of Christ?”
J.W.: “Yes, solely through Christ.”
C.S.: “But, Sir, supposing you were at first saved by Christ, are you not somehow or other to save yourself afterwards by your own works?”
J.W.: “No, I must be saved by Christ from first to last.”
C.S.: “Allowing, then, that you were first turned by the grace of God, are you not in some way or other to keep yourself by your own power?’
J.W.: “No.”
C.S.: “What then, are you to be upheld every hour and every moment by God, as much as an infant in its mother’s arms?”
J.W.: “Yes, altogether.”
C.S.: “And is all your hope in the grace and mercy of God to preserve you unto His heavenly kingdom?”
J.W.: “Yes, I have no hope but in Him.”
C.S.: “Then, Sir, with your leave I will put up my dagger again; for this is all my Calvinism; this is my election, my justification by faith, my final perseverance: it is in substance all that I hold, and as I hold it; and therefore, if you please, instead of searching out terms and phrases to be a ground of contention between us, we will cordially unite in those things wherein we agree.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)