Judging by this pyrotechnic display of whining when Johnny Mac is criticized with a remarkably watchdoggie-like terminology from Doug Pagitt there is very little taking of what is dished out (oh, and before you get all “OH NOES TEH HYPROCRSY” on me I don’t approve of what or how Pagitt expressed himself, I’m just making an observation about how the watchdoggies have responded to someone who has applied the terminology of the watchdoggies to the head watchdoggie).

And just in case you think this is an actual matter of theological differences they also manage to criticize Mark Driscoll who is all about being Reformed.

Before you get too excited about that, note that Driscoll also took some hard shots at non-Emerging critics who don’t approve of the methodology (and scatology) he employs to contextualize his ministry for postmodern young people. Driscoll dismissed all such critics as “fundamentalists” (he clearly doesn’t relish saying that word the way he does certain four-letter expressions). He said such people pose a danger equal to that of the heretics within Emergent.

I guess its not a matter of being Reformed, its a matter of doing it with the right kind of style.

And then there’s this:

Meanwhile, Driscoll himself is under fire from some of his Emerging friends who don’t like his combativeness and claim he fudged the numbers in his description of Mars Hill’s “baptsmalooza.”

So it seems the “Emerging Conversation” is coming apart at the seams.

I think I’ve finally figured out the watchdoggie gag-reflex towards conversation. Within the watchdoggie ranks there is no room for differences at all. A watchdoggie conversation is one person talking and everyone else nodding in agreement. While within the e/e communities conversations are pursued specifically because of the differing views. So a watchdoggie sees what is a normal conversation with people disagreeing and talking it out and sees something that is “coming apart at the seams”, while the rest of us who aren’t checking with Johnny Mac first before forming an opinion see a normal conversation.

This post which was linked on CRN contains one of the oddest attempts of storytelling I have seen. The author calls it the “Doctrine of the Three Little Pigs”. It basically takes different verses and strings them together to make the point the correct doctrine will keep us safe from the enemy. There is some truth in that statement, but I guess the thing that I found most egregious in this parable was the references to the Parable of the Prodigal Son. It seems to me the author is taking away points from the parable that are not there.

The story of the prodigal son starts with Jesus introducing us to a son who asks his father for his part of the inheritance.  First off, this request would have been enough to justify the father disowning the son, if not having him put to death for disobeying the Fifth Commandment.  This son was basically wishing his father dead.  However, the father honors his son’s wish, and gives him his inheritance.  This would have been a shocking start to this story for the Jewish audience.

It doesn’t stop there.  The son goes to a “far country” which would have been considered a cursed pagan land.  Things like famine and drought in those time would have been considered God’s judgment on evil people.  To make matters worse, the son, in order to survive ends up defiling himself further by working with pigs.  Pigs were unclean, and Jews were forbidden to raise or eat them.  Basically, Jesus makes a point of portraying this young as the most vile and disgusting thing a good Jew could think of.

So we all know how the story goes.  The son regains some sense and decides to return home and beg his father’s forgiveness in hopes of being made a servant in the house.  He starts his journey home.  Now is where the real shocking part of the story begins.  The father sees the son, and actually runs toward him.  This was not the act of a dignified Jewish father.  To top it off he gives the son a robe, a ring, and sandals.  The robe is a sign of honor, the ring a sign of inheritance, and the sandals a sign of prestige.  Basically the father gives the son back all his rights and privileges of sonship in spite of the son’s dishonorable and horrible deeds.  Then, of course, the party begins.

Enter the elder son.  This son was dutiful.  He was working in the fields for his father.  He hears the party and wonders what’s up.  When he finds out this is a party for his younger brother, he is livid.  This is the brother that deserted his father, why is his father celebrating his return?  Is there no retribution, no justice?  It seems the elder son, while dutiful, has lost the ability to experience his father’s joy.  Perhaps he doesn’t really understand the depth and width of his father’s love.  But still, the father invites him to the party.  Does the elder son accept the request?  We are left with the unanswered question.

This brings me back to the beginning of my post.  It seems that some have taken the story of the prodigal son to be a warning against sinful living.  That may be a small part of the story, but to make it a focus misses the point entirely.  It is interesting that the parable has come to be known as “The Prodigal Son”.  Many people assume the meaning of the word “prodigal” to be “wayward” or “lost”.  In actuality, the definition is this:

adjective-

1. wastefully or recklessly extravagant: prodigal expenditure.

2. giving or yielding profusely; lavish (usually fol. by of or with): prodigal of smiles; prodigal with money.

3. a person who spends, or has spent, his or her money or substance with wasteful extravagance; spendthrift.

noun

4. a person who spends, or has spent, his or her money or substance with wasteful extravagance; spendthrift.

So, yes the son can be describes as being a prodigal, since he wasted his father’s inheritance.  On the other hand, I believe it would be more accurate to call this parable, “The Prodigal Father”.  The Father in this story is the one who the Jewish audience would have considered “wasteful or recklessly extravagant”.  He bestows honor and wealth on a son who earlier in the story wished him dead.  He gives lavish gifts that the son didn’t deserve.  This story is about the extravagant love of God.

So the question we must ask ourselves is the same question that the elder son is left with.  Will we partake in the Father’s extravagant love toward sinners, or will we remain outside and be bitter that sinners do not get what is coming to them.  It is the choice between cynicism and joy, judgment or acceptance.

I have to say, with all the talk of man-centered, semi-pelagians running about in pulpits and churches, only attracting people by their creativity and talent I was a bit surprised to see this post praising George Whitefield. After all, Whitefield was the very definition of innovation and creativity when it came to crafting a sermon.

Check it out:

At an early age, he found that he had a passion and talent for acting and the theatre, a passion that he would carry on through the very theatrical re-enactments of Bible stories that he told during his sermons.

Oh, but it gets even worse:

Whitefield was also known to be able to use the newspaper media for beneficial publicity. His revolutionary preaching style shaped the way in which sermons were delivered.

So why is Whitefield admired and praised while current preachers who innovate, create and revolutionize detested by the watchdoggies?

Were one cynical one could conclude that Whitefield is admired by watchdoggies because he hasn’t been around for over two hundred years. A slightly less cynical person might conclude that he gets a free pass because they agree with him. Either way, it’d be nice to see a slightly less subjective view from the watchdoggies.

Greetings!  It is great to see the discussion which has gone on this past weekend while I was out, directing music for my church’s Great Banquet weekend.  Since this past week seems to have been more centered on orthodoxy, I think I’m going to (at least attempt to) steer part of this week’s discussion toward practice (though I’ve got some -doxy posts in the works, as well)…

In this light, I’ve had a few RL conversations this past week on the poor, and what Jesus believed and taught as our response to the poor.  To start this off, here is a repost of a scriptural study I put together last fall on Jesus’ comments along the lines of ‘you will always have the poor…’

Blessings,

Chris

__________________________
It is interesting how the Spirit works – I don’t know about you, but I cannot count the times that I have read a passage of scripture, a chapter in a book, or listened to a sermon and *BAM* within the next day or so I find that I need exactly what I heard/read. What if I hadn’t taken the time for personal study and devotion? It is a sobering thought.

Interestingly, when I hear/read scripture being misused (particularly by literalists), I often bite my tongue, waiting for that ‘leading’ or ‘tugging’ that seems to then happen when I see the exact passage misused multiple times by multiple individuals in multiple forums.

Today is just such a day, and the passage(s) in question are the three gospel accounts where Jesus states that ‘the poor you will always have with you’. These are located in Matthew 26:11, Mark 14:7, and John 12:8. Where these scriptures seem to be (mis)used is in casting aside calls to be ‘missional’, particularly relating to serving the poor and addressing poverty at home and abroad. Usually, the misuse is along the lines of “We should be far more concerned with eternal issues, rather than temporal ones. Besides, Jesus said that ‘For the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always.’”

So, what is Jesus’ point here?

First off, let’s look at the context. All three accounts are of the same event in Bethany, where Jesus is eating at the house of Simon the Leper with Lazarus, Mary, Martha, Judas and at least some of Jesus other disciples. There, a woman (identified by John as Mary) took expensive perfume and anointed Jesus with it (two accounts accentuate her use of it on his head, the other account accentuates the use on his feet – possibly indicating that she was anointing the head, heart, hands and feet, as with a miqvah.)

Then, Judas criticizes Mary’s actions by saying ‘Why wasn’t this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year’s wages!’. However, John also includes this statement about Judas’ motives:

He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it. (John 12:6)

So, we can already see that the question being put to Jesus isn’t really a genuine one in the first place. It was one that was self-serving with the appearance of appealing to service to the poor. And so, Jesus answers:

“Leave her alone,” Jesus replied. “It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial. You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me.” (John 12:7-8)

As I’ve discussed on a number of occasions, Jesus was a master rabbinical teacher, using PaRDeS and Parable as his key methods. As such, this teaching contains (at the very least) P’shat and Remez.

The P’shat (or ‘plain meaning’) is often expressed in contrast and placed second (like with ‘you have heard it said X, but I say to you Y’). In John 12:8, the emphasis (or plain meaning) is after ‘but’. The key is ‘you will not always have me’ and not ‘you will always have the poor’. So, to give the proper interpretation to Jesus’ words, you would see that he is agreeing with the sentiment (you will always have the poor), but making an exception based on his physical presence and the significance of Mary’s anointing with the perfume to be used in his burial. This is not a callous statement that ‘we will always have the poor, and therefore we have no responsibility to do anything about it’ – that is 180-degrees apart from His teaching!

To emphasize this, we need to look at the remez (the ‘hint’). When Jesus says ‘You will always have the poor among you’, he is actually quoting from Deuteronomy 15:11, which states ‘There will always be poor people in the land.’ If you will remember, to understand remez, we must look at the verses immediately before and after the one quoted. Jesus’ audience, who had the Torah memorized, would have been able to do this instantly -

If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother. Rather be openhanded and freely lend him whatever he needs. Be careful not to harbor this wicked thought: “The seventh year, the year for canceling debts, is near,” so that you do not show ill will toward your needy brother and give him nothing. He may then appeal to the LORD against you, and you will be found guilty of sin. Give generously to him and do so without a grudging heart; then because of this the LORD your God will bless you in all your work and in everything you put your hand to. There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land. (Deut 15:7-11)

So, if it wasn’t obvious from the P’shat, the Remez should not only put the lie to those who misuse Jesus’ words, but show us, once again, that – while the eternal destination is not unimportant – our temporal responsibility is to care for both the physical and spiritual needs of those less fortunate.

Mike Ratliff has written an excellent post on “Limited Atonement” which you can read here. I consider it to be excellent because Mike is clearly concerned about presenting a balanced and fair explanation of not only the monergist/synergist debate but also strives to show how monergism allows for man’s free will when understood against the backdrop of his earlier post on “unconditional election”. He concludes with a summary statement that I am in full agreement with:

The doctrines of grace is a Soteriological view that is highly misunderstood, even by many Calvinists. Many have a tendency to remove Man’s Responsibility to believe and repent to the point of not offering the Gospel freely to all. To do that is the result of dishonest interpretation of clear Biblical texts. On the other hand, most Synergists’ Soteriological views remove the Sovereignty of God and seem to elevate man to that position. Can you see how each extreme is out of balance? The correct view of our incredible Salvation is one in which God is glorified and man cannot boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9)

Amen! I think Mike has gone a long ways towards helping both sides to see that we are alot closer in our beliefs than sometimes the “extreme” viewpoints would have us believe. I heartily concur with his statement:

I believe that many of the Synergistic and Monergistic disputes are born from prideful arguments that have little to do with describing and defining the truth.

Towards glorifying God and not allowing man to boast, and also in the interests of promoting synergy across “many aisles” I thought the following might be of interest to those who wonder what our Catholic friends have to say about the subject of faith. They also attempt to balance God’s sovereign role in faith with man’s free will:

Faith is a Grace

When St. Peter confessed that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, Jesus declared to him that this revelation did not come “from flesh and blood,” but from “my Father who is in heaven.” Faith is a gift of God, a supernatural virtue infused by him. “Before this faith can be exercised, man must have the grace of God to move and assist him; he must have the interior helps of the Holy Spirit, who moves the heart and converts it to God, who opens the eyes of the mind and ‘makes it easy for all to accept and believe the truth.’”

Faith is a human act

Believing is possible only by grace and the interior helps of the Holy Spirit. But it is no less true that believing is an authentically human act. Trusting in God and cleaving to the truths he has revealed are contrary neither to human freedom nor to human reason.

In faith, the human intellect and will cooperate with divine grace: “Believing is an act of the intellect assenting to the divine truth by command of the will moved by God through grace.”

Faith and Understanding

What moves us to believe is not the fact that revealed truths appear as true and intelligible in the light of our natural reason: we believe “because of the authority of God himself who reveals them, who can neither deceive nor be deceived.”

Interesting isn’t it? What divides us is, in many cases, inconsequential to what should be uniting us, our mutual faith in our one Lord and Savior who made it possible for us to be reconciled to God.

Beneath the cross of Jesus I fain would take my stand,
The shadow of a mighty rock within a weary land;
A home within the wilderness, a rest upon the way,
From the burning of the noontide heat, and the burden of the day.

O safe and happy shelter, O refuge tried and sweet,
O trysting place where Heaven’s love and Heaven’s justice meet!
As to the holy patriarch that wondrous dream was given,
So seems my Savior’s cross to me, a ladder up to heaven.

There lies beneath its shadow but on the further side
The darkness of an awful grave that gapes both deep and wide
And there between us stands the cross two arms outstretched to save
A watchman set to guard the way from that eternal grave.

Upon that cross of Jesus mine eye at times can see
The very dying form of One Who suffered there for me;
And from my stricken heart with tears two wonders I confess;
The wonders of redeeming love and my unworthiness.

I take, O cross, thy shadow for my abiding place;
I ask no other sunshine than the sunshine of His face;
Content to let the world go by to know no gain or loss,
My sinful self my only shame, my glory all the cross.

Let us worship the Lamb that was slain for us…

Jim from Old Truth writes:

Every once in a while you run across a leader in the Church Growth Movement that has a verbal slip which reveals their thinking, and exposes the rotten root structure that this movement is based on. Now perhaps this church leader doesn’t realize what he’s just said, and his statement may not reflect his true beliefs, but have a look at point 3 in his list. He says: “It’s important to learn from churches bigger and smaller then you. Churches that are smaller have to be even more creative, because their success depends on it”. I certainly hope he doesn’t believe that ANY church’s success depends on human creativity. The Apostle Paul never talked like that; he spoke as though success depends on God, and he didn’t want to do anything that would replace or “enhance” the Gospel with human wisdom and cleverness. …

What Jim wants you to believe is that this particular writer believes that churches are the product of only man’s effort. But right there within the same article he quotes from is this:

I couldn’t open the doors that God has to help us grown and learn from people who are way smarter then us.

Wait a second Jim, you just told me that this guy believes that a church’s success is dependent only on man, so why is he crediting God with “opening the doors”? Maybe this was just a mistake.

We need to Lord’s help to get a full year at the school and then more help to renovate some huge building in town.

Wait. What? What’s going on here?

What’s going on is that Jim has either done some real sloppy investigative journalism, or he’s been deliberately deceptive about what the author is communicating. It gets even worse as the author responds to some of Jim’s disciples.

Most people tend to take the naive approach when listening to church planters or people in fast growing churches. Instead of assuming that we all want to see God move and that we are still preaching the same Gospel as First Baptist Somewhereville, they just throw the pastor under the bus for working harder.

Every church wants to grow. Differing methods don’t mean one church must be teaching out of the Koran instead of the Bible or that they are “entertaining” instead of praising God. It’s obtuse to think that pastors have forgotten that God is still sovereign [emphasis mine].

Of course this was written after Jim’s commentary, but I’m sure if Jim was just mistaken rather than malicious we’ll see an update shortly apologizing for his mistake and retracting his comments.

How do we come to understand truth? And once we come to an understanding of truth how do we communicate it? How can we combat our own subjectivity? What part should others play in our journey to get understanding? And can our lives be a reflection of Biblical truth and the One who is called “Truth”?

Read more.

In the wake of Rick’s post about the error of the doctrine of limited atonement Mike Ratliff responds. The most interesting thing about his response is that, rather than exegete scripture, he posts a Spurgeon sermon.

Chris’ article about the failures of systematic theology are evident here. At some point the system takes over as authoritative. Every bit of scriptures is hammered until it fits the system, and individuals are measured against the system. The result is that if the systematic theology is flawed there’s no way to reform it as scripture is twisted to fit it, and individuals who disagree are labeled apostates, heretics, and hell bound.

Check out the comment by Paul on that post:

BTW, we read the sermon by Spurgeon and it is GREAT! There are a few that commented that need to read it word for word,slowly,and let it soak in.

He might as well have said, “turn in your Bibles to the 1st book of Spurgeon, 2nd chapter, 3rd verse.”

Every few generations there’s a “back to the Bible” movement. Calvinism, Lutheranism, Methodism, the Restoration Movement and many others started that way, then at some point tradition takes over as authoritative and in the next generation we start all over again. Today many of the independent evangelical churches that have started, as well as the e/e movements are breaking away from churches that have made their systematic theology authoritative. The real irony is that in the modern day reformation playing out the watchdoggies are playing the role of the Catholic church, and the people they despise are playing the role of Calvin, and Luther. Sort of makes you wonder if C?N was around in 1546 what names they would have called Luther (the odds seem to favor “Hollow man of the reformation”).

The doctrine that is called “limited atonement” is a wrong teaching that is only eclipsed by salvation through works and the denying of Christ’s divinity. It teaches that the Lamb of God, Jesus the Christ, only died for a very few upon the cross. God chose a “few” that would “find” the narrow path and Christ came only to die for them and no others. So you can never have the assurance that when you witness to someone that Jesus actually died for that person. Jesus may not have died for your children, your husband or wife, you mother or father, only God knows who Jesus died for and by His own admission the total pool of sinners that Jesus suffered for is very small.

One of the great mysteries in the theological metamorphosis is how can anyone really believe that since the Scriptures are very clear about who Jesus came to provide a ransom for. So read these verses and without attempting to make them fit into any preconceived doctrine what do they openly teach? Would a saved man stranded on an island, new in his faith, and with only a Bible and a dictionary, ever come to believe this teaching? Read more.