“We need to adjust our presentation of the gospel. We cannot dismiss the fact that God hates sin and punishes sinners with eternal torment. How can we begin a gospel presentation by telling people on their way to hell that God has a wonderful plan for their lives?” It is true that God has a wonderful plan for their lives—but it is that they would repent and trust the Savior, and receive the righteousness of Christ.”
- John MacArthur

The re-examination of the gospel presentation is a continuing process that is a combination of evaluating the common understandings and the sincere and uncompromising desire to include all the vital components of the saving message. Of what use is preaching the gospel if it either cannot be understood or equally that it is incomplete or deficient? A hundred section bridge is not a bridge with only ninety-nine sections, and the bridge with all one hundred sections is of no use if it cannot be found. So the suggestion that we should always communicate the gospel in truth and completeness and with the core spiritual components that makes it eternal and trans-cultural is imperative.

But as one of my constant observations I must again take issue with the last sentence as it is presented in a reformed context.This theology is what it is and those who espouse it cannot run from it, neither should we allow them to. When Dr. MacArthur states that “It is true that God has a wonderful plan for their lives – but it is that they would repent and trust the Savior, and receive the righteousness of Christ” he is overstating and actually misrepresenting his own theology. How can he encourage believers to present the gospel to sinners and inform them that God’s plan is for them to trust Christ, as it were, when that statement just may be a lie if the sinner to whom they are witnessing is not included in the redemptive plan of God?So while it is true that many of the formula gospel presentations are ineffectively pragmatic and remove much of the Biblical completeness in the message, the essence of the gospel presentation in the reformed (et. al.) persuasion must be tailored to accurately reflect what they believe. They cannot assure the person of any plan that God has for them, in fact, it just might be that God’s plan is hell for the individual with whom they are sharing Christ. You cannot have it all ways and if you embrace some form of Calvinism you should not be offended by remaining consistent with your theology, you should desire to be as consistent as possible in what you communicate to saint and sinner alike.

Now a Christian who believes Christ died for every man and that salvation has been made available to all sinners can with a clear conscience share the good news that Christ died for their sins and offers them eternal life in Him. But if a Christian believes that Christ only died for a few, would it not be Biblically honest and in the interest of full disclosure to communicate that fact to the sinner himself? Why not? If that sinner is predestined to be saved it cannot alter his conversion, and it would surely give a more Biblical view of salvation and even help to prevent false professions of faith based on the assumption that the person is assured of being chosen. The presentation of John 3:16 must include a defining of the word “world” in order not to mislead the person and again encourage a false understanding that Christ died for everyone in the entire world, no, this sinner must understand that he may or may not be a candidate for salvation lest he make a false profession based upon faulty assumptions and not the direct drawing of the Spirit which is reserved for only the pre-elected and not the desire/will of the listener. The sinner may desire to trust Christ but how can he be sure that this feeling is the Spirit and not his own counterfeit will which would give him a tragic sense of security when if fact he was still lost.

My contention is that in order to insure the most authentic conversion experiences, which I believe is the thrust of Dr. MacArthur’s point, we all must present the gospel truth in the most clear and complete way. For me that means I can with all confidence and Biblical authority offer everyone the gift of eternal life through the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. But for men like John MacArthur this should mean that their message must include a caveat of caution that includes the truth that Christ only died for the limited elect, not so the sinner can better discern if the Spirit is drawing him, no, the sinner’s place is only reactionary to the Spirit’s will, but the message should be accurately and completely presented for God’s glory and Biblical consistency. No?

Now the amazing thing is that the gospel presentations of the reformed group never seem to make a clear revelation of the limited scope of redemption and the cross of Christ. Why not? Well, you say, it doesn’t really matter in the presentation, we are supposed to preach the same to all creatures and God will do the work. If that is true, then why does it matter at all and why does everyone make such an important issue of it if that truth doesn’t even need to be told to lost sinners to whom it affects most directly? And what would be the most effective way to avoid shallow and fleshly professions of faith than informing the lost person of the limited scope of Christ’s death? Doesn’t the Scripture exhort people to examine themselves to see whether they are in the faith? And doesn’t that Scripture by implication warn of false conversions? So are we saying that we can only warn of false conversions after the false conversion is made? And are we saying that the witness to sinners must be limited in truth, and that informing a sinner that he may not be chosen is for some reason unwise.

And in Dr. MacArthur’s theology the completeness of the message is uneventful in the salvation of souls, the Spirit will save who God wills to be saved not predicated on the completeness of the gospel presentation, hence the obvious truth that many are saved under a free will message. But the reformed group would stress, and correctly so, that we should endeavor to most completely and accurately communicate the truth of salvation’s gospel because of God’s glory and the sacredness of His Word. And that brings us back to the original point, if I am reformed, and part of my understanding of the gospel scope is its limitations, should I not make that clear for God’s glory?

Therefore, a reformed believer can never and should never tell a sinner that God’s will for his life is to believe the gospel and be saved. That perhaps is a misspeak by Dr. MacArthur, but he should immediately see the incongruous nature of such a statement and abandon any further implications in the future. And he should not be offended when it is pointed out to him, he should embrace it because, after all, he desires to present God’s truth as he believes it, right? And what offense could anyone take by being exhorted to make clear that which you believe? The discussion of those beliefs is for another time, but since we are all avidly examining everyone’s gospel presentation we all need to let our own words come under the scrutiny of what we believe. It’s only right.

This past weekend was one of lots and lots of emotion here in the Lyons family. We finished moving my oldest son, Phoenix, into his dorm up at Purdue (aka “the ONLY Indiana University” if you live in our house), and I’m not sure my wife has stopped crying yet (at least on the inside). It was also a weekend for amazement and an object lesson in what it means to “always be ready”.

“Be dressed ready for service and keep your lamps burning, like men waiting for their master to return from a wedding banquet, so that when he comes and knocks they can immediately open the door for him. It will be good for those servants whose master finds them watching when he comes. I tell you the truth, he will dress himself to serve, will have them recline at the table and will come and wait on them. It will be good for those servants whose master finds them ready, even if he comes in the second or third watch of the night. But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what hour the thief was coming, he would not have let his house be broken into. You also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.” – Luke 12:35-40

As many of you know, Phoenix was accepted into the Purdue Varsity Glee Club this summer, an organization I have always been impressed with. This is its 114th year in existence – at a school without a music program! In fact, the lack of a music program is, I believe, part of the secret of its success. As a club that receives no university support, it is free of the pitfalls of church/state arguments, which means that it is able to unapologetically expect high moral fibre in its members and sing sacred music without fear of legal busybodies. Each year for the past 74 years, the PMO has hosted a Christmas Show (not a “Holiday Extravaganza” or “Winter Concert” – a “Christmas Show”) that is nothing short of spectacular. Typically, the first part of the show is traditional and modern, primarily secular, Christmas music with large dance/interpretive routines and lots of instrumentation. The second part of the show is then a Christmas Cantata that rivals anything I’ve ever heard (and I’ve heard a LOT of college/professional choirs). But I digress…

Back to this past weekend.

[more] 

With the increased linking to Old Truth by the watchdoggies I thought I’d just put out a little bit of a tutorial on how to link to that blog. It seems the webmaster over there has, in the past (and at the time of this writing) tinkered with his server so that critics are unable to link to his writings. We have no idea what the exact motivation is, but rampant speculation concerns massive insecurity.

Anyway, to get around this silly bit of chicanery simply go over to here* and paste the URL of what you want to link to into the URL box. So for example if you want to demonstrate that Jim has no idea what the people he’s criticizing believe you’d go to this URL and quote this:

It challenges the modern notion of “God has a wonderful plan for your life”,
at least – so far as the supposed necessity of earthly fulfillment is concerned. Today we recall one of the bloodiest events in church history, yielding the death of as many as 100,000 Christians at the hands of those who sought the extermination of Christianity. It’s an event that ecumenical emergents and ECT advocates would prefer to put aside.

So, could someone explain to me why Jim quotes Rick Warren in an attempt to smear emergents?

*Of course old Jimbo can’t take any sort of criticism so he blocked Google (good one dude), so instead of using google translate you can use any of the phproxy engines. Just search for some of them on google. And there you go, thousands of different ways to link to Jimbo’s site.

The anonymous editor over at CRN.com has come up with a justification for parading around the failings of his brothers and sisters with joy, its the venerable the “they did it too” defense.

What’s interesting is that the “they” in this case is the secular media. Apparently the standard for the conduct of Christ followers is whatever the secular media does.

If I possessed those kind of reasoning skills I’d remain anonymous too.

Edit:
For a peek into why this sort of thing is so damaging take a peek at this comment on a secular blog. If that doesn’t bother you then maybe you need to re-consider having anything to do with any church anywhere at anytime.

I like Big Macs. The fries I can do without. But the combination of a sesame seed bun, cheese, special sauce, and all beef patties is irresistible. And there is nothing more patriotic then chomping down on a big meaty pile of American decadence.

As McDonalds restaurants have spread from the West to the East, it has been observed that as cultures are introduced to our finer foods, they are getting fatter. We want our food cheaper and faster. Convenience is king.

I am currently “fasting”, if you will, from most fast food, in particular, bad fast food. My BMI, according to the Mayo Clinic, in the past three weeks has gone from 25 to 24. While 25 is considered good, I was on the high end of the BMI range and heading towards 26.

Scripture is clear that moderation and self control are important to our faith walk (Ecclesiastes 7:18, Galatians 5:23; Titus 2:12). And yet we almost never hear people talking about moderation and self control in terms of non-alcoholic food. We hear it in terms of our sexuality, our tv or movie viewing habits, or alcohol use, especially from the critics who we write about.

Proverbs 23 cuts really close to home for us indulgent calorie chomping Americans, though:

Proverbs 23

1 When you sit to dine with a ruler,
note well what is before you,

2 and put a knife to your throat
if you are given to gluttony.

3 Do not crave his delicacies,
for that food is deceptive.

4 Do not wear yourself out to get rich;
have the wisdom to show restraint.

5 Cast but a glance at riches, and they are gone,
for they will surely sprout wings
and fly off to the sky like an eagle.

6 Do not eat the food of a stingy man,
do not crave his delicacies;

7 for he is the kind of man
who is always thinking about the cost.
“Eat and drink,” he says to you,
but his heart is not with you.

8 You will vomit up the little you have eaten
and will have wasted your compliments.

Obviously, an obsession about being thin or healthy is a sin as well. And being proud of being skinny isn’t good either. Anything that becomes our idol (pride, dieting, exercise, etc.) also takes away from our ability to worship God.

I am not going to completely stop eating Big Macs. However, I am going to try to be more conscious about the number of times I go out to a fast food restaurant in a given week. Seeing that I’m a single guy and I donate sometimes 20 hours a week to my church, I don’t have a lot of time to cook a decent homemade meal. But I am reworking my menu, trying to freeze meals, and buying more fruits and vegetables. Hopefully I will be at a healthier place then I currently am.

I have to hand it to Ingrid because sometimes she surprises me. She wrote a great article on F. Scott Fitzgerald and his wife Zelda. Her comments on the moral slide in America caught me off guard, because I’ve long thought the same thing. Here’s a quote:

In reality, a case could be made that America was in serious moral crisis even before it formally became a country. By all accounts the era of the American Revolution was one of moral decadence within cities, despite the Christian teachings of churches throughout the colonies.

I’ve gotten the feeling from organizations like Focus on the Family that in the 1950s, we were this great Christian nation. And yet we had all kinds of moral discrepancies, like racism. Sure, just about everyone went to church, but a whole lot of people ignored the Truth.

Thank you, Ingrid, for writing this article.

We have discussed how and to what extent should a leader be restored when he or she has been caught in moral failure. But all through the discussion I continued to have an overall question about the entire way in which some blogs handle the sins of others.

Why does SOL and some other blogs link to secular newspapers as they report moral failures of a youth pastor and others? Isn’t it just sensationalism akin to the National Enquire? Even if they argued that these were warning examples for all of us, why would it be necessary to provide names and places, why not just the scenario itself? How can people possibly adhere to Phil.4:8 and think on good things when they are absolutely bombarded with gossip and dirt about other people? We all know about moral failures, they happen in churches in all of our communities and they are tragic, but why do we need to be informed about moral failures that happen in churches in Anywhere, USA?

Is there not a wide difference between a Scriptural teaching about moral purity and a blog peep show into the sins of strangers? I find it interesting that Paul did not share the issue of moral failure in the Corinthian church in his epistles to other churches, but it was dealt within the church where it occurred. It is a disgusting display of spreading filth about specific people and it encourages everyone to have the “I’m glad I’m not like that publican” attitude. Isn’t that EXACTLY what Jesus was trying to teach us NOT to do?

You can teach Biblical warnings without providing a smorgasbord of the sins of others, many times gleaned from the secular press and posted with a self righteous effervescence that draws the hungry sharks. And with the comments on those type of posts outnumbering the comments on devotional posts 10 to 1 at least, we have proof that some blogs have created a kind of “Christian” gossip newsletter that rivals the Hollywood rags. And in two years of seeing these posts, I cannot remember once reading for everyone to pray for these fallen brothers or sister.

Moral failures in local churches are not exclusively a symptom of liberal or modern churches, they occur in the most orthodox of local gatherings. I continue to wonder, what spirit could possibly lead a believer to read a secular report about a brother’s sins and be energized to reprint it and add to the chastening and misery that he, his family, and the entire church is painfully going through? The personal dirt that is served on these sites is void of any semblance of the redemption that appears once in a while in the reprinted hymn words and devotional writings of various authors. When Haggard fell he was systematically dismembered on Christian sites, complete with some of the shocking details, and with comment sections that mirrored wolves gathered around the carcass of a fresh kill. Unseemly, unchristian, and a sad misrepresentation of the grace and mercy that defined our Savior’s earthly ministry.

Sorry, I was affected by that self righteous pile on.