Eternal Perspectives

“Faithful are the wounds of a friend, but deceitful are the kisses of an enemy.” - Pr 27.6
“Like a club and a sword and a sharp arrow is a man who bears false witness against his neighbor.” - Pr 25.18
“Like a trampled spring and a polluted well Is a righteous man who gives way before the wicked.” - Pr 25.26
“Like a madman who throws firebrands, arrows and death, so is the man who deceives his neighbor, and says, ‘Was I not joking?’” - Pr 26.18-19

It’s always difficult to know which one applies, isn’t it? And to whom it applies.

Well, it appears that I have certainly stuck my thumb in more than a few eyes with my post “The Vast Godblog Wasteland.” This was not my intent, although in retrospect I see that it was inevitable.

What follows is a response I made to the charge of being an elitist (and, elsewhere, un-American for supposedly calling for “censorship”). The accused-tried-convicted post is entitled, “VIEW FROM THE PEW Breaking News: A blogsphere [sic] for the elite?” It appears on “A site dedicated to the thoughtful criticism and understanding of contemporary wisdom and folly without judging the motives or intentions of any specific individual. As Iron sharpens Iron, so one man sharpens another. Please feel free to understand and then criticize back.” I have encouraged the author to establish a trackback so anyone can read it firsthand.

(I will admit from the beginning that some of the criticisms in the aforementioned post were valid. I also admit that it pushed a few of my many buttons. Self-serving, self-analysis follows: as a counselor, I all-too-often am left to pick up the pieces after someone’s faith is shattered by false teaching. I feel like the guy who sweeps up after the Circus-of-Poor-Theology Parade passes by. So I know I am overreacting. Maybe. But, as one of my profs once said, “God can use your pathology. Well, He’s got plenty to use with me!)

I am posting this to help clarify my intent because I may have offended some who did not understand what I was trying to say. As will become apparent, I take responsibility for that. (I have corrected some typos and changed a word here and there. The essence of my reply, though, I think remains the same.)

David:

Yours is the first negative feedback I’ve gotten, but it is instructive: the positive feedback has been from those who (a) have read my blog frequently, (b) have interacted with me via emails or comments I left on their posts, or (c) both.

After reading your somewhat-scathing review of my post, I realized that I had written with a particular audience in mind: those who “know” me. I completely failed to read my post through the eyes of those who don’t know me. That was a serious oversight on my part.

I obviously should have emphasized some points that (in retrospect) were made only in passing. For example, I wrote regarding the people on my “A” list that “they have either paid their dues and sharpened their skills through seminary, intense personal study, or both.” Paying dues and intense personal study are sufficient - and sometimes superior - substitutes for seminary. Most on my “approved list” have never been to seminary. But they do have good bible study skills and it is evident in their writing, which reflects some scholarship and serious thought.

I’ve been to seminary - twice - and taught as a graduate assistant at Denver Seminary. Trust me: just because someone’s been to seminary does not mean they have something to say or that they are diligent about “rightly dividing the word of truth.” A lot of my own theological study was done before I went to Denver at the age of 33 - oh, so many (20+) years ago.

I regret that I was not more careful in how I said what I said. All but a handful of my friends have never been to seminary or Bible college, but I have learned immensely from them - from their insights into Scripture, but even more through the Christ-like lives they live.

I think your charge of me being an “elitist” is mistaken; I also think your editing of my post accomplished how you wanted to make me appear, not necessarily what I was saying. Clarifying remarks or obvious satire were left out, thus giving quite a different tone to my remarks. Again, I take some responsibility for the mis-reading: if you’re not familiar with me, then you’re going to miss my attempts at dry humor aimed at my own issues. I am sorry that I did not take that into account.

But I am not at all apologetic for trying to raise the bar: many of the embarrassing talking heads for Christendom make ludicrous statements because they have not done their homework. Issues are proof-texted and all Christians wind up getting painted with a wide, dirty brush. I’ll not apologize for wanting to curtail that.

What you call “elitism,” I call scholarship or expertise. Who preaches in your church? Someone trained in bible study methods, or someone who thinks they have found something “new and exciting” based on their own imaginations? The Old Testament and New are pretty clear about being careful what you listen to, testing any messenger who claims to speak for God, and searching the Scriptures to see if these things be so.

If calling for the Blogdom of God to do likewise - and to have a way to identify the more careful scholars out there - if that sort of call is wrong in the eyes of some, then I’m happy to be wrong. I think I have some biblical support for being “wrong” in the eyes and personal opinions of others. Around the world, it has been said, America is known for exporting two things: Coca-Cola and Cults. Think about it: where have most Christian cults originated? The blogosphere only makes the exportation of distortions of our faith that much easier.

Is freedom of speech really a higher value than accurately presenting the nature of God? I, for one, don’t think so. Given the harsh consequences in the Bible for misrepresenting God, it would seem that He is not so big on irresponsible speech, either.

In closing, my purpose in my post was this: to protect young and undiscerning Christians from bad theology and misunderstanding about who God is. If I’m an elitist in your eyes (or anybody else’s), then so be it: “Here I write. I can do no other. God help me” (with apologies to Martin Luther).

Reading it now, there are a couple of points I would add. The first is this: if you needed to have brain surgery, would you go to someone trained and qualified to do the surgery, or just to someone who had a scalpel and a copy of Grey’s Anatomy? Which is more important to you: your physical health or your spiritual health?

I would also include a story about John Wesley that I will try to reconstruct. I don’t know if it’s true or not, but I hope it is. Here goes:

John Wesley was once approached by a man who said, “God told me to tell you that He don’t need none of your fancy knowledge and book learning.” “I’m sure that is true,” replied Wesley, “but neither does He need your ignorance.”

We are ambassadors for Christ, entrusted with a gospel of salvation. Is it not worth getting it as correct and accurate as possible? I know we will disagree; I enjoy reading the considered positions of others. I do not have an inspired theology. Because of that, I study and am as careful as possible to represent Jesus Christ as He truly, not how I imagine Him or might want Hiim to be.

Trying to figure out who is an evangelical and who is not seems to be a popular pasttime these days in the Blogdom of God. Since I’m always a bit late to the party, I thought I’d offer my own thoughts - or, more honestly, thoughts that have been stimulated by Dr. Robert Cook, former professor of systematic theology at Western Seminary. Much of what follows is taken from his systematic theology.

The place to start, Cook says, is with the word “evangelical” itself:

It is derived from the word, “evangel” which is a transliteration into English of the Greek word euangelion. A synonym coming from another etymological background is the word gospel. As is well known to all, these words all mean “good news,” and when used in the New Testament, they have a somewhat specialized meaning of good tidings, coming from God, of salvation through his free favor through Jesus Christ. [Thus], that which is evangelical pertains to the biblical message of good news and its attendant implications.

Cook rejects the idea of a “liberal” evangelical since “one who is evangelical is theologically conserv­ative.” His reasons for this statement will be made clear as this expanded definition progresses.

He also provides the following disclaimer:

Please observe carefully that this is not intended to be a list of things which must be believed in order to be saved. If such were the case, I would be very unevangelical. Rather, I am suggesting that the following items are some of the things which distinguish evangelicals from others within Christendom.

Two things to especially notice from Cook’s statement: (1) all of the following does not have to be believed in order for a person to be saved, and (2) there are other Christians who are genuine believers but are not evangelical.

The foundational fact about an evangelical is this: an evangelical is a person who believes in the good news of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. As Cook points out, this statement is pregnant with an assortment of implications and ramifications that constitute what he calls “evangelical distinctives.” These distinctives are:

1. An Evangelical is Biblical in Orientation. This means that the evangelical uses the Bible as a compass to live life. Scripture is that which provides direction and destiny for the believer; it is also the believer’s source of authority . “This means that the Scriptures stand above the traditions, reasonings, and musings of men. It further means that our authority is external to ourselves. It is derivative from the Scriptures which derive their authority from God himself (cf. 2 Thessalo­nians 2:15). As Paul commended the Thessalonians, they received his message “not as the word of men, but, as it is in truth, the word of God” (1 Thess. 2:13). “We preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus our Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake” (2 Cor. 4:5). This recognition of biblical authority is the natural concomitant of the self‑claims of Scripture regarding its own inspiration (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:21) and inerrancy (John 10:35).”

2. An Evangelical is Trinitarian in Theology. An evangelical is not a modalist (believing that God is one Person who manifests Himself at different times as the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit). Neither is the evangelical a unitarian, as many modern theologians and popular Christian musicians are. There is a biblical conviction that God exists as “three persons called the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit who possess not a similar but the same numerical essence and the distinction between them is not merely nominal but real.”

3. An Evangelical is Christocentric in Faith. Jesus Christ is not only the Savior, but He is the focal point of history, the beginning and the end of everything. “He is unqualified, undiminished deity and genuine, sinless humanity everlastingly joined together in one person. This one was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, died a vicarious death, arose bodily from the dead, ascended bodily into heaven, and will return bodily to the earth. Regarding man’s eternal salvation, he is the only worthy and saving object of faith.”

4. An Evangelical is Evangelistic. Believing that salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, the evangelical is compelled to share the good news to a world that is under judgment and presently destined for eternal punishment. “But the evangelical’s concern arises not only, nor primarily, from man’s need. It is supremely prompted by the revelation of the grace of God in Jesus Christ. Apart from the operation of the grace of God no Christian man will be properly motivated and no lost man will be saved.”

(”Surely a consideration of God’s character will give the evangelical a concern for social justice; a consideration of his providential dealings with men will move him to goodness; and, observation of the life of Christ will provoke him to love and compassion; but, these things although certainly biblical are not distinctively evangelical, since they are also manifested by groups for social action and by other segments of the organized church.”)

5. An Evangelical is Ecclesiological in Ministry, that is, the evangelical is committed to the ministry of the church, which is the Body of Christ. This commitment is true of both the universal church (all true believers everywhere) and the local church (which likely consists of true believers and some unbelievers). “The evangelical recognizes that there is one body and that he is to maintain and manifest the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. He realizes that this unity is organismic rather than organizational; that it is essential rather than external or numerical (cf. John 17:22, 23). The church is seen to be a communion of saints wherein God is corporately worshiped and the believers are individually equipped for the work of ministry both within and without.”

6. An Evangelical is a Supernaturalist in World View. When the world began is anybody’s guess, but for the evangelical there is no question how the material universe came into being: it is a creation of God. On a more specific level, Adam and Eve are a special creation of God, not the result of evolution. Being supernatural also means that evangelicals believe in miracles and the spiritual world, including (but not limited to) the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit in believers. Such a view results in the evangelical seeing “man, the image of God, as a creature of dignity and responsibility in the purposes of God.”

7. An Evangelical is Eschatological in Outlook. History is linear, not circular, and is moving toward a predetermined end. The goal of history is a singular Person: the Lord Jesus Christ.
God has made promises regarding the future; God will keep all of His promises. A Day of Judgment is coming when unbelievers will suffer eternal torment and believers will enter into the presence of God in a new heaven and new earth. “Those who have trusted him throughout the ages will be raised to a new phase of the eternal life that they now possess, while those who have rejected him will be raised to a new phase of the damnation they are now experiencing. Consequently, the evangelical rejects every form of universalism, including its modern manifestation which views all men as finally reconciled and in Christ whether they realize it or not.”

Obviously, these distinctions are going to anger and offend some people who consider themselves to be evangelical but do not subscribe to some or all of the above. This is not unexpected; this is not necessarily undesirable. If the term is to have any meaning whatsoever, it must be exclusive to some extent.

Over the past several decades, evangelicalism has attracted a large number of people who will strongly disagree with this definition. The term has begun to lose its initial theological meaning and now teeters on the brink of being associated with a particular political philosophy at the expense of its far-more-important theological sense. But a definition of “evangelical” can not be determined or shaped by the world.

If this definition - which is what the term originally meant - is applied, it will result in “thinning the herd” quite a bit. While it is not the Christian’s place to judge other people, it is our responsibility to clearly declare our beliefs and allow people to decide whether they belong inside or outside of the camp.

One of the things that really makes me mad at times is how the writers of the New Testament keep telling me how to live my life. That just goes all over me, ya’ know?

Throughout the NT there are just ‘way too many verses that make me responsible to do something, and usually something that’s going to cost me something. Like this one:

“We know love by this, that He laid down His life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. But whoever has the world’s goods, and sees his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him? Little children, let us not love with word or with tongue, but in deed and truth.” - 1 Jn 3.16-18

Now, John didn’t put the boldface in there; I did. But that’s one of those passages that ticks me off: it’s a measurable, visibile, verifiable lifestyle that someone can see and measure my spirituality by. I’d much rather they ask me what I know about God and the Bible.

Here’s another one. The application of this one is usually lost in theological debates, which is just fine with me.

“What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,” and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.” - Jas 2.14-17

My response is to think of another verse, one from the Old Testament: “Am I my brother’s keeper?” which, of course, is from Gen 4.9. The only problem is that it’s Cain that’s saying this after he’s killed his brother. Paying attention to context can ruin a verse sometimes, I think.

Well, here’s my dilemma. Joe Carter at Evangelical Outpost is facing a cash-flow, underemployment problem right now. He’s let us know and has posted a “tip jar” on his blog.

I don’t think Joe would do this unless he needed to and, when I read about it here, those two stupid passages cited above popped into my head. He’s asking for “subscriptions” to his blog (completely voluntary) at a rate of 25 cents a week.

Joe has a lot of readers. He’s helped a lot of us get noticed. He has a pretty broad ministry to a whole lot of different folks, both in and out of the kingdom. Now he needs some help.

I’ve been reading comments on his post and there are a lot of encouraging words and promises to pray. I’m all for encouraging words and certainly would never discourage anybody from praying. But he needs people who will be involved in their prayers.

I’m thinking this: what if each of us put our money where our mouths are and helped him out financially? Why not “subscribe” to his blog for a year or two? That would set you back $13 for one or $26 for two. Better yet, subscribe for many years as you can. And if you can only manage a subscription for a couple of months or so, then do that.

What was it that James said? Oh, yeah, it was “If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,” and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that?”

And then John chimed in with “But whoever has the world’s goods, and sees his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him?”

Do what you think is loving.

A chronic problem for the church - and for Christian ministries in general - has been a glaring lack of quality control and self-policing. Nowhere is that problem more evident than in the Christian blogosphere.

Any professed Christian can speak for God on his or her blog. Unsubstantiated proclamations reflecting a lack of biblical understanding are put forth as though they were new revelation from the Most High. Perversions of the gospel and doctrinal fallacies are rampant, and the sub-standard level of maturity - measured by grace and love - is tragic.

Sadly, the more outrageous or idiotic the claim made by someone, the greater the response seems to be. One thing is sure: if you want to increase your traffic, throw out some bad theology or make a biblically ignorant statement. People will flock to your site to either defend you or condemn you. There will be a lot of heat generated, but virtually no light.

And there is nothing to be done about it.

Since it’s not possible, I’m not saying that “this rabble that knows not the law” should be silenced. They have a right to speak; unfortunately, they’re not being held accountable for their words. At least, not in this lifetime. Of course, a day will come . . .

Similarly, I am not at all suggesting that there are not good, thoughtful, biblical blogs out there. There are many, such as 21st Century Reformation, Biblical Theology, Challies, It Takes a Church, Jollyblogger, Albert Mohler, John Mark Reynolds, Smart Christian, and Wittenberg Gate.

Lest you think I’m playing favorites, I don’t agree doctrinally on many issues with any of these bloggers. But I do respect them: they have either paid their dues and sharpened their skills through seminary, intense personal study, or both. (Actually, seminary without intense personal study isn’t worth much; indeed, it can be worse than no seminary at all.)

There are plenty more blogs that could be listed with the nine above, but those are representative of what’s good in Christian blogs. But for every one blogger who is genuinely endeavoring to rightly divide the word of truth, there seems to be ten who are either careless in their study, with their words, or both. Fortunately, most of the above enjoy a wide audience; sadly, so do some of the less-than diligent bloggers.

So am I just whining to be whining? Maybe. Or maybe I’m saying that we - the Christian blogging community - need to be more discerning about who it is that we promote on our own blogs. I read somewhere recently that a particular blogger took a blogroll off her site because she could not - in good conscience - endorse some of the people listed. That reflects discernment and integrity. We need more of that. I need more of that. A lot more.

What is posted in the Name of Jesus Christ is a witness to the unbelieving world. I, for one, am going to more careful before adding more links on my blog. In fact, I need to go through the ones I have now carefully to see if some of them should be removed.

Or maybe we need another “exclusive” blogroll, one populated only by those who adhere to some yet-to-be-determined evangelical litmus test. A kind of doctrinal Shibboleth not unlike those required of professors by Christian colleges and seminaries. Nothing that would exclude solely on the basis of denominations, but one that would include only those in agreement with some foundational beliefs shared by most denominations. I’ll leave it to someone smarter than me to figure out what that might be.

Personally, I’d just like to have a good place to go to read good scholarship. No politics or other hobby horses allowed. Sort of like a theological reading room. A place for an irenic exchange of ideas. A place of mutual respect and grace. A place where it’s OK to be wrong, but a willingness to re-think a position or statement is present. A safe place.

And, most of all, a place of love. No name calling, cheap shots, or hit-and-run comments. A marketplace of theological ideas.

Maybe - just maybe - I’m looking for a L’Abri blog. A shelter for serious people wanting to talk about serious things. I wish I knew how to make it happen.

(Andy at Smart Christian triggered this thinking. Go read his comments here.)

In my previous post, I examined Adrian Warnock’s The Simple Gospel in 10 Points, concluding that I did not believe that it was necessary to believe all of his points in order to be saved. I also emphasized - and believe that Adrian would agree - that faith is in a Person and not a set of doctrines or creeds. I also provided illustrations from the life of Abraham and the experience of Peter and Cornelius to support my contention that it is faith in God that is salvific.

The purpose of this final post is to present what I believe to be the essence of the gospel message. It is found, I believe, in Rom 4.5:

“But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness . . .”

What follows is but a mere peek into the riches of this verse. I would encourage you to study it for yourself to see much more of the riches and truth packed therein. At the outset, however, let me provide two quick definitions:

To be “righteous” means to be in conformity to a standard. Theologically, it means that the person is at all times fully doing and being that which is right and never that which is wrong. This includes all thoughts, feelings, and behaviors: everything must conform to God’s original design and purpose for that particular aspect of his creation.

“Justify” or “justification” means to declare righteous. Throughout the history of the orthodox church, justification is understood forensically: people are not made righteous but are declared righteous. God’s righteousness is His righteousness; it is not ours. It is credited to us, but it remains His.

Rom 4.5:

“But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness . . .”

1. Note first of all the kind of person that God is said to justify: the ungodly. Ungodly people are not merely unlike God or different from God; ungodly people are opposed to God and enemies of God. Unsaved people are not morally neutral or ambivalent: they are hostile to God and aligned against Him. These are the kinds of people that God is said to justify.

It should also be pointed out that God does not justify Baptists. He does not justify Bible Church members. He does not justify Reformed people whether Charismatic or not. God justifies one type of person only: the ungodly. They are the objects of His grace. To be ungodly is to be in a perfect position to be saved.

2. It is also significant that the kind of person God saves is described as “one who does not work,” that is, someone who does not believe that by his or her own individual efforts salvation can be accomplished or merited. God does not save people because of what they do or who they are; God saves people because of who He is and what He has done.

Requiring or offering works in order to be saved is putting the cart before the horse. Works follow faith and are a natural consequence of being born again of an imperishable seed (1 Pe 1.23), but our works having nothing to do with our salvation. Absolutely nothing (Tit 3.4-7). Even faith is a gift from God, not a work that we produce (Eph 2.8-9).

3. Finally, it is the individual’s faith that results in righteousness being credited to his or her account. The verse also identifies the content and object of faith: belief in Him. Again, it is a Person that is trusted, not a doctrine or an event. It is the blood of Jesus that makes salvation available to us, but it is our faith in Jesus that accomplishes it. And, as stated above, even our faith is a gift from God. We can take no credit; all credit goes to God.

What, then, would my gospel points be? They might subsist of this:

• A recognition that I am ungodly and estranged from God;

• An awareness that there is nothing I can do to save myself;

• A desperate belief that a Person - Jesus Christ - is the One who will declare me righteous based solely on my trust in Him.

To me, this is the heart of the gospel; this is what must be communicated when explaining the good news to a unsaved person. It is about a Person who will save them, not because they are good or because they promise to be good, but because they realized that they are ungodly, that they are without hope if left to themselves, and that God will do for them what they cannot ever do for themselves.

Adrian Warnock, the British psychiatrist and self-described Reformed Charismatic - which is not at all the same as a reformed charismatic - has posted The Simple Gospel in 10 Points, which he contends is the essence of the gospel message. He also provides a link to one of his sermons drawn from Acts 2 (download) that elaborates on this assertion.

Having a great admiration and affection for Adrian, I would like to respond to his Simple Gospel. Let me make clear at the beginning, however, that I agree doctrinally with much of what he states and that, with regard to our differences, I do not believe he is completely wrong and I am absolutely correct. We look at the biblical data through different interpretive lenses (hermeneutics) and thus come to different conclusions. Such differences, however, should not create distance between believers: differences may distinguish us from one another, but they should never unnecessarily divide us.

In the two-part response that follows, I will interact with his ten points, analyzing them as I go, making observations, and suggesting my own perspectives. I will conclude (in the second post) with what I believe to be the essence of the gospel, i.e., the answer to the jailer’s question, “What must I do to be saved?”.

Here are Adrian’s 10 Points:

1. Everyone has Sinned
2. God hates sin
3. Sin must be punished
4. Jesus took the punishment instead of us on the cross
5. Admit you have been naughty
6. Believe that Jesus took your punishment
7. Say sorry to God
8. Ask God to be in charge of your life
9. Be baptised (note the order here)
10. Receive the Holy Spirit

This list is certainly specific and involved: there is much theology here reflecting Adrian’s tradition and beliefs. The central point in the present discussion, however, is this: Must a person believe all of these points and go through this process in this particular order for salvation to occur? I would argue that they do not.

Salvation is from beginning to end a work of God. As people who are dead in sin, an unbeliever is completely unable to contribute to his or her salvation: God does it all, from calling to conviction (our experience of repentance) to the provision of faith and, finally, to glorification (this list is not exhaustive). God enables us to believe; the Holy Spirit is the Agent of salvation. With all of this, I think, Adrian would agree.

And, although I do not want to put words in his mouth, I believe he would also agree that the gospel does not ultimately consist of a set of principles, doctrines, or beliefs that must be accepted or to which a person must submit themselves. The gospel is about a Person: Jesus Christ. It is about faith in God, a living Being who has made it possible for us to be saved. Salvation is a relationship with Him and not adherence to a set of theological constructs.

This is not to disparage systematic theology, doctrines, or creeds: knowledge of such things is important for growth and maturity in the Christian life. These truths are incidental, however, to the gospel message that leads to salvation.

For the sake of brevity, allow me to illustrate my point with two examples, one from the Old Testament and one from the New. (I am not attempting to build my argument on illustrations or historical records, but only trying to provide windows through which a little illumination might shine.)

After these things the word of the LORD came to Abram in a vision, saying, “Do not fear, Abram, I am a shield to you; Your reward shall be very great.”
Abram said, “O Lord GOD, what will You give me, since I am childless, and the heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?”
And Abram said, “Since You have given no offspring to me, one born in my house is my heir.”
Then behold, the word of the LORD came to him, saying, “This man will not be your heir; but one who will come forth from your own body, he shall be your heir.”
And He took him outside and said, “Now look toward the heavens, and count the stars, if you are able to count them.” And He said to him, “So shall your descendants be.”
Then he believed in the LORD; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness. - Gen 15.1-6 (NASB)

What was it that Abraham believed? If you go back to Adrian’s list, how many of his points appear in this passage? I do not see any. It is possible, of course, that God took Abraham aside at some point prior to this moment and explained all of those things, but (1) it would seem that God would include such an important conversation in the biblical record and (2) this would be an argument based on eisogesis, i.e., reading into the text what is not there.

The second illustration comes from the Book of Acts when Peter goes to Joppa in answer to the prayer of Cornelius, a Gentile:

Opening his mouth, Peter said: “I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him.
“The word which He sent to the sons of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ (He is Lord of all) — you yourselves know the thing which took place throughout all Judea, starting from Galilee, after the baptism which John proclaimed.
“You know of Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit and with power, and how He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him.
“We are witnesses of all the things He did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They also put Him to death by hanging Him on a cross.
“God raised Him up on the third day and granted that He become visible, not to all the people, but to witnesses who were chosen beforehand by God, that is, to us who ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead.
“And He ordered us to preach to the people, and solemnly to testify that this is the One who has been appointed by God as Judge of the living and the dead.
“Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.”
While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message.

- Ac 10.34-44

In comparing record of salvation with Adrian’s list, we find more correspondence with his points and the experience of Cornelius’ household. But what is also evident is that not all his points were present and that salvation occurred before Peter even had an opportunity to call for repentance and faith! There does not appear to be any mention of substitutionary atonement, either, or an admission by the people that they were sinners.

I believe it was the last sentence Peter uttered just prior to being interrupted by the Holy Spirit: “Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.” The people believed in God, i.e., Jesus Christ. It was faith in a Person once again. The people were saved because the Holy Spirit was at work convicting the people of sin, righteousness, and judgment (Jn 16.8-11). Were they consciously aware that they were repentant or exercising faith at that moment? The text does not say. I would argue, though, that the object of their faith was Jesus Christ.

The verse that I would present as providing the essential answer to the question, “What must I do to be saved?” is found in Rom 4.5. An exposition of that verse will be the subject of the next post.

Part 2: The Simple Good News

College Station, TX (EP) - David Wayne’s Jollyblogger sits atop the poll of Top Ten List of Favorite Blogs for Right Now or Until I Get Around to It Again, as announced by Eternal Perspectives earlier today (see sidebar at right).

Tied for second were Adrian Warnock’s UK Evangelical Blog and Joe Carter’s the evangelical outpost.

Jollyblogger received one vote to lead the way, with Warnock and Carter following with one vote each. Close behind with one vote was Wittenberg Gate in fourth place.

“It was amazingly close,” said poll director Mike Russell, who also was the only one allowed to vote. “Tabulating the computer polls with those of the coaches, AP, UP, DOA, RIP, U2, and the USSR was a nightmare - er, well, actually it was a nightmare, ’cause I was asleep.

“But when I woke up,” he continued, his breath reeking of coffee and tiny beads of perspiration breaking out on his foreh- (wait, sorry, wrong post), “I decided to do this and spent more time working on the Top Ten than I ever could have justified to my wife. But she was still asleep, so I got away with it. Lucky for me, huh?”

Conspicuous by its absence was Eternal Perspectives. It was thought the blog was overlooked due to its current negotiations with Eli Lilly to market the blog as a new, very powerful sedative and sleeping pill.

“Me? Upset?” said Eternal Perspectives’ producer, who uses the alias Dr.Mr at times. “No, no, I’m far too humble for that.” It was also suggested that the blog was left off because the author hasn’t had anything to say since the last millennium.

Wayne captured the top spot with his on-going, revealing, hour-by-hour account of his testimony (available soon in a three-volume set from Tulip Pressed, Inc.)

“I’m obviously very honored,” Wayne said when not contacted by EP. “I’ve spent my whole life preparing for these posts, and to have the Pulitzer committee - What? It’s not? Oh. Who in the world is EP, some other guy trying to ride my coattails? Why did you bother not emailing me?

“Excuse me,” said a confused and obviously distracted Wayne, “but I’ve got to remember what I did from 10-11 a.m. on March 14, 1987.”

Spots five through eleven in the Top Ten were also closely contested, with each receiving one vote.

There was some controversy stirred by the fact that Mind and Soul was ranked higher than Parableman and La Shawn Barber. MaS has been in Tunisia for over a week and hasn’t posted anything since he left.

“What are you talking about?” said Barber when not informed by EP. “Are you nuts?”

Jeremy Pierce of Parableman said he was concerned about voter irregularities in Ohio and would be talking to his senior adviser about a recount.

“Once I have the opportunity to consult with (senior advisor) John Kerry,” Pierce never said, “I will definitely make a decision about which action to take. Or maybe not. Of course, it also depends on what France thinks. Did you know Sen. Kerry was a war hero?”

As determined by all of the voters, blogs are ranked based upon philologicial value, theological vacuity, pedantry, obsequiousness, banality, and obfuscation (plus number of times each mentions EP on their blog).

A new poll will be released each Saturday or whenever, Russell said.

Why are there divisions in the Body of Christ? Are these divisions good things? Necessary evils? Mark at Pseudo-Polymath asks,

“Of the differences we hold, why are they strong enough to keep us apart, out of communion, and in (sometimes bitter) disagreement? What are these differences? I challenge you to defend them! Tell us what differences you hold more important than what you profess each week: your belief in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. Or are the differences just political and based on historical inertia? If it is just traditions of styles of worship and praxis, why does that still hold us apart?” (emphases his)

David, a clear-thinking and theologically-rooted brother in the Reformed tradition, replies at Jollyblogger that

“The question itself assumes that “one holy catholic and apostolic church” shouldn’t have any divisions in it, and I’m not sure that we can assume such a thing . . . Certainly, most division in the church is needless and wrong, but it is not axiomatic that all division mitigates against the idea of there being ‘one holy catholic and apostolic church.’”

He promises more later; happily, he is a man of his word.

Off the top of my head, it seems that divisions must be examined in light of a couple of passages – and undoubtedly many more. The first is Jn 17.20-21, where Jesus prays,

“I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me.” (NASB)

The unity of the church is a powerful witness to the reality of Jesus Christ having been sent by the Father. Lack of unity obviously hinders that testimony. It is no surprise, therefore, that divisions would be a supreme tactic of Satan to casts doubt about and aspersions on the Name and Person of the Lord Jesus Christ. Sadly, he has been very successful.

Part of the problem, I think, is that we frequently mistake unity for uniformity, loving the latter and desiring to be surrounded by like-minded people. This certainly makes fellowship much easier (although even then we find ways to differentiate ourselves). When everyone agrees with me, I can be a most agreeable fellow.

Sadly, I would require a lot more maturity and grace than I presently possess to live in true fellowship with an Arminian, amillennial, charismatic sister in Christ. I would have to focus on what we have in common – saving faith in Jesus Christ, the hope of heaven, love of God – than the doctrines upon which we disagree.

So I primarily associate with modified-Calvinistic, dispensational, premillennial, pretribulational, non-charismatic brothers. Safely separated in the Body of Christ.

The second passage is 1 Jn 2.18-19:

“Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us.” (NASB)

The pronouns are problematic in this verse (I think the “us” refers to the apostles, not all believers) but the point remains the same. Divisions or schisms will appear, but their purpose is not to divide the Body but to identify those who are not truly a part of the Body. John is discussing fundamentals in this passage – denying that Jesus is the Christ (1 Jn 2.22) – and not whether the elements are sacramental or if baptism really counts if you are sprinkled rather than immersed.

Ideally, there would be thousands and thousands of churches in which we could all enjoy close fellowship and belong regardless of non-essential doctrinal differences; essential differences, however, would result in separation rather than division.

Ah, but the details: what is essential and what is non-essential? Well, we can certainly disagree on these, too. Inerrancy? Eternal insecurity? Speaking in tongues?

And the really hard thing would be concluding that those who do disagree with us on what we believe to be the fundamentals - baptismal regeneration? so-called “lordship” salvation? - are not members of the Body of Christ. Anyone want to make that call all the time? But maybe it is something from which we should not back away.

In The God Who Is There, Francis Schaeffer attributes the following to Martin Luther:

“If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved, and to be steady on all the battlefield besides, is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point.”

Strong words, yet perhaps timely for our own generation. If the choice were not safe, distant divisions but instead the identification as heretical those who differ from our favorite fundamental beliefs, we might have fewer truly fundamental beliefs. Some of our favorites drums to pound might be laid aside for the sake of fellowship and unity. How many non-negotiable beliefs do you have? Are they truly essential?

The bottom line, of course, is that it is sin that causes theological differences and ecclesiastical divisions. Not only do we all have the right to our own convictions, we have the responsibility for them. This, however, is not the problem, and this is not sin. The problem is our inability to accept our brother or sister in Christ with all their differences, no matter how wrong we may believe them to be.

If division were not an option, or - more accurately - if unity were more important than our sense of doctrinal purity in tangential matters, then perhaps we would be more inclined to include rather than exclude.

In the end, I think, it becomes a matter of either living a comfortable, easier Christian life within our denominational walls or living in a city without walls, one characterized by unity with one another in a manner that glorifies Jesus Christ. Through our unity we would thereby show the world that He most certainly did come from the Father.

Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY, has a very good essay at his crosswalk.com site on Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong. Mohler’s remarks were triggered by Spong’s appearance at Stetson University, where the bishop spoke at its pastors’ school. I’ll comment on some of Spong’s comments here, but please head to Mohler’s site for the full story.

(All of the following quotes are from Mohler’s essay. My comments are italicized.)

“’The God I know is not concrete or specific,’ Spong has written. ‘This God is rather shrouded in mystery, wonder, and awe. The deeper I journey into this divine presence, the less any literalized phrases, including the phrases of the Christian creed, seem relevant. The God I know can only be pointed to; this God can never be enclosed by propositional statements.’”

Spong uses evangelical language, but it is empty due to the new meanings he pours into the words. One cannot help but think that he’s looking in a mirror when he talks like this. Clearly, he is a man in love with his own fame and supposed genius. According to Sam Keen in Fire in the Belly, Albert Schweitzer once said that “men searching for the historical Jesus look into a deep, dark well, see a reflection of themselves, and call it ‘Lord.’” Spong epitomizes this type of lordship.

“’A literal ascension makes no sense to those of us who live on this side of Copernicus, Galileo, and the space age. Indeed, the very word up is a meaningless concept in our time’” (emphasis mine).

Spong must be absolutely paralyzed in elevators. He certainly doesn’t appear to know which end is up regarding Christ, and he leaves true believers longing for his time to be up.

“’There is no human being that can know the reality of God. There is no inerrant Bible. There is no true Church. There is no corner on the market of salvation. There is no faith once delivered to the saints.’”

To make absolute negative statements requires one of two things: complete knowledge, which eliminates the possibility that the speaker is unaware of something, or an inerrant source to provide such absolute knowledge. Perhaps Spong believes himself to be the embodiment of both.

“Spong pulled no punches, rejecting the Bible as an adequate guide to human sexuality and insisting that the ancient Scriptures are simply too out of date to be relevant in today’s world. The bishop simply takes the sexual revolution as a fact and insists that Christianity must change its sexual ethic or be consigned to the dustbin of cultural history.”

Spong is just the latest iteration of the “change or die” school of ecclesiology. The church does, in fact, change over time but not in its fundamental beliefs. What Spong advocates is his own religion: “Spongianity.”

“Accordingly, the bishop argued for the full acceptance and normalization of homosexual behavior. ‘Contemporary research is today uncovering new facts that are producing a rising conviction that homosexuality, far from being a sickness, sin, perversion, or unnatural act, is a healthy, natural, and affirming form of human sexuality for some people.’”

The research is “producing a rising conviction” among those that have already decided homosexuality is OK. Since I work with people facing these kinds of issues and problems, I try to stay up with research as best I can. It remains ambiguous. At the most, however, genetics predispose, not predetermine.

“’Once the naturalness of majority and minority orientations is established, and the expectation of celibacy for gay and lesbian people is removed, the question of the moment will then become,’ Spong insists, ‘How does a gay or lesbian person lead a responsible sexual life?’ Celibacy, he argues, is simply too much to ask.”

Spong has no interest in what is best for people but only in making them happy. Certainly there is pleasure in sin for a season (Heb 11.25 - KJV), but watch out when the seasons change or one’s years come to an end!

“’His admirers acclaim his legacy as a teaching bishop who makes contemporary theology accessible to the ordinary layperson–he’s considered a champion of an inclusive faith by many both inside and outside the Christian church.’”

Spong makes theology “accessible” by gutting it. He does two things: he removes anything that might be a stumbling block to Jews, and he eliminates whatever might be folly to everyone else (1 Cor 1.23). He winds up with his own, gutless Spongology.

There are a lot of interesting things out there to read right now. As mentioned below, this week’s Christian Carnival is up at Wittenberg Gate. There’s a wealth of insightful and interesting posts there.

Jollyblogger continues his candid testimony. It is “robust” but certainly a well-written and compelling read. Such openness is wonderful.

Christianity Today, although not a blog, has an interesting, disturbing, and unsettling interview with Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad, “the leader of one of the most controversial Islamist groups in the U.K., Al Muhajiroun (which means ‘the emigrants’ in Arabic). He attracted global media scrutiny on the first anniversary of 9/11 by staging a meeting entitled ‘A Towering Day in History,’ and unveiled a poster that depicted the second airplane advancing toward the World Trade Center.”

SmartChristian continues his work on GodBlogCon 2005, the first Christian blogosphere convention (scheduled for this autumn in Mesa, AZ). Hugh Hewitt and others will be speaking and presenting workshops. If you haven’t checked it out before, do so now.

Bene Diction has an interview with a spammer that explains why highly rated blogs are getting swamped.

The usual excellent menu is available at Adrian Warnock’s UK Evangelical Blog, Challies, the evangelical outpost, and Parableman. These are a few of my favorite bloggers. There are more. Lots more. (See the links at right.)

Of course, for a full buffet of new posts, head over to The Blogdom of God: there’s enough there to fill even the most ravenous among us.

This week’s Christian Carnival is up at Wittenberg Gate. It’s a compilation of some of the best writing in the God blogosphere. I’m in there somewhere, but there are a lot of very good reads. Dory’s done a good job of organization them, as well. Check it out.