Meet Your Accuser: Moses!

Text: John 5:39-47

John 5 is a glorious unveiling of the Lord Jesus and the final verses of the chapter provides no let up whatsoever as Jesus’ indictments against the religious leaders are stunning and penetrating. At the last judgment, the one who will bring accusations against them is Moses himself, their hero in the faith. Yet the question before each of us is this: Do you believe Moses?

What has Joy got to do with the Protestant Reformation?

By Tim Chester (PhD), a faculty member of Crosslands Training and the pastor of Grace Church Boroughbridge in England. He is the author of Reforming Joy: A Conversation between Paul, the Reformers, and the Church Today (Crossway). (original source here)

I’m writing a book on joy and the Reformation.” His raised eyebrows were enough to tell me he was skeptical. “What’s joy got to do with the Reformation?” It was one of those questions that is really a statement.

Joy is not something many people readily associate with the Protestant Reformation. Courage, yes. Controversy, yes. Truth, maybe. But not joy. Joy is a long way down the list when it comes to most people’s perception of John Calvin.

A Belly Laugh
Yet consider this from William Tyndale, one of the key figures in the English Reformation. In 1526 Tyndale published the New Testament in English. It was his second attempt to do so. The first time around, he had to flee when the authorities raided the press on which it was being printed. He was living in exile and would eventually be martyred for his passion to make an English Bible available to every ploughboy in the land. He included a preface (much of it ripped from Martin Luther) to that first edition which he later expanded into A Pathway into the Holy Scripture. Here’s what he said about the gospel and the Bible.

What we call “the gospel” is a Greek word that signifies good, merry, glad and joyful tidings, that make a man’s heart glad, and make him sing, dance, and leap for joy … Now the wretched man (who is wrapped in sin, and is in danger to death and hell) can hear nothing more joyous then such glad and comforting tidings of Christ. As a result, he cannot but be glad and laugh from the low bottom of his heart, if he believes that these tidings are true.

For Tyndale, the Reformation brought news that makes people sing and dance and leap for joy. It is a message that makes a man laugh from “the low bottom of his heart.” I guess today we might say “a belly laugh.” What is this good news? Tyndale says it is “[Christ’s] life, through which he swallowed and devoured up death; his righteousness, through which he banished sin; his salvation, through which he overcame eternal damnation.”[1]

The Reformation as a Rediscovery of Gospel Joy
There’s a sense in which the young Luther was the one person who took Medieval Catholic theology seriously. He really believed it and it crushed him. He would spend hours confessing to his superior in the Augustinian order, and then come rushing back with some new misdemeanor he had remembered. At one point his superior said: “Look here, Brother Martin. If you’re going to confess so much, why don’t you go do something worth confessing? Kill your mother or father! Commit adultery! Stop coming in here with such flummery and fake sins!”[2]

But Luther could find no rest for his soul in the theology he had been taught by the church. It spoke of faith and grace. But faith was understood more like our word “fidelity.” Faith was our loyalty to God that might perhaps earn his favor. And grace was like a shot of adrenalin, a kind of spiritual boost to help us live the Christian life, that you received through the sacraments. But still, it was down to you to earn enough merit before God. No one could have hope or peace before God. The very idea was errant presumption. Continue reading

Are Mormons Brothers and Sisters in Christ?

Article “Dear Mormon—I Can’t Call You a Brother in Christ” by Josh Buice (original source here)

Yesterday I had lunch with a very kind and gracious man in our community. This man is a committed member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. In short, my friend is a Mormon. He was respectful, gracious, and I enjoyed our conversation very much. However, at one point the conversation shifted and he asked me if I was willing to call him a brother in Christ?

I explained that we both hold to very different doctrines that cannot stand in harmony—especially the teachings about the person and work of Jesus Christ. He said that he was offended by that statement. I acknowledged how that would be offensive, but I must stand upon the gospel of Christ. The most loving thing I could do would be to point him to the truth. The most unloving thing I could do would be to ignore the differences and embrace him as a brother in Christ.

The devil is the father of all lies and he is really good at causing people to embrace error as truth. How do you determine the difference between denominations of Christianity and other religions outside of Christianity? In other words, we know that Baptists and Methodists are quite different on many theological levels, but they’re both Christian denominations. Today, a growing number of people continue to purport the idea that Mormonism is just another denomination like Methodists within the family of orthodox Christianity.

How can we determine if Mormonism is Christian or cult? Based on foundational doctrinal evidence—I can’t embrace Mormons as fellow Christians.

Mormonism Rejects the Sufficiency of the Bible
If you can add to the authoritative body of teachings of the church each year by a vote—it would make the religion more fluid and apt to change with culture or adapt over time based on pressures from the culture. This is true of the Roman Catholic Church regarding their belief regarding the RCC’s official tradition. The same thing is true of the Mormon religion. At one point polygamy was defended as permissible, but later it was changed.

Christians stand upon the absolute sufficiency of God’s Word—something that does not change with time, circumstances, and geographic location. Not one other source from church history is needed outside of God’s Word alone as the sufficient guide for God’s revelation of himself to humanity. For the Mormons, they hold to a group of writings called the “Four Standard Works.” This body includes the King James Version of the Bible (as properly translated), the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, and The Book of Mormon.

Anytime a religion adds books to the same divine level as God’s Word—that should cause an immediate red flag to be raised. Consider what Joseph Smith said, “I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book” (History of the Church,4:461).

Mormonism Rejects the Deity of Jesus
While the Mormons do uphold Jesus as “a god”—they do not embrace Jesus as “very God of very God” who is one with the Father (John 10:30; John 8:58). Mormons believe Jesus is a god, but they also believe it’s possible for any human to become a god (Doctrine and Covenants 132:20; Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345–354). In John 10:33, we find these important words:

The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.”

The driving reason that Jesus was nailed to a Roman cross was on the basis of his teachings—which threatened the authority and teaching of the religious establishment of the day. Jesus made it clear that he is God. If Jesus is the Creator of all things—how can he be a created being? That does not make sense and it certainly doesn’t align with the Word of God. Mormons claim that Jesus was the first of the spirit beings begotten through a physical relationship between Elohim and one of his many heavenly wives. This is in clear violation to Matthew 1:20, but nevertheless, they maintain aberrant doctrines about God the Father existing in flesh like a perfect man who would be capable of such a relationship.

According to the Articles of Faith on the Godhead, the LDS doctrine of God consists of a God who possesses a physical body. In comparing the LDS beliefs with Christian doctrine, their Articles of Faith read, “But where Latter-day Saints differ from other Christian religions is in their belief that God and Jesus Christ are glorified, physical beings and that each member of the Godhead is a separate being.” Jesus said something quite different in John 4:24, “God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.”

Mormons are not Christians based on several key teachings. Some of those troubling teachings include the spirit brotherhood of Satan and Jesus, the baptism for the dead, a racial problem, a polytheistic view of many gods, and a clear denial of the Trinity. These teachings stand in clear contradiction to the teachings of God’s Word—and have never been embraced as merely another Christian denomination.

Mormons have a troubling past with Joseph Smith Jr.—the founder who had multiple wives—one of whom was only 14 when he was 39. Their troubling past also includes a lengthy letter by Professor Charles Anthon of Columbia University who was said to validate the translation of Jospeh Smith’s writings (Book of Mormon) from the “Golden Plates.” According to Professor Anthon, “The whole story about my having pronounced the Mormonite inscription to be ‘reformed Egyptian hieroglyphics’ is perfectly false.” While all of these things are troubling—none are more troublesome than their rejection of the deity of Jesus Christ as second Person of the Godhead who is co-equal and co-eternal with the Father and the Spirit.

In short, the Mormons have one Jesus and the Christians have a very different Jesus. Make no mistake—they aren’t the same Jesus. For that reason—I can’t call my Mormon friend my brother in Christ. I want to, but I simply can’t. Therefore, I will continue to have such gospel conversations praying that God will open his eyes to the truth.

Five Myths About Preaching

Article by Dr. Joel Beeke (PhD, Westminster Theological Seminary) who has written over one hundred books. He is president and professor of systematic theology and homiletics at Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary, a pastor of the Heritage Reformed Congregation in Grand Rapids, Michigan, as well as the editor of Banner of Sovereign Grace Truth, the editorial director of Reformation Heritage Books, the president of Inheritance Publishers, and vice president of the Dutch Reformed Translation Society.

(original source here)

Five False Dichotomies
Which is your kind of preaching—expository or relevant? That is an example of a false dichotomy—a logical fallacy. False dichotomies operate under the assumption that there is no alternative, including no way to combine the qualities entailed in the so-called opposites.

One of Satan’s methods to mislead preachers is the false dichotomy. By setting two valid ideas against each other when they really belong together, the devil can use the appeal of one truth to attack another. If we swallow the bait, then the devil’s hook and line pull us away from faithful preaching and we lose both sides of the truth. Here are five myths—false dichotomies—that can catch preachers.

Myth #1: Preachers must be either exegetical lecturers or church motivators.
The exegetical lecturer is the pastoral version of a Bible commentary. The preacher is determined to avoid subjectivism; his sermon will be only the pure Word of God. Consequently, he rarely speaks from his heart to the hearts of his hearers, and they leave with full heads and withered souls.

Offended by the barrenness of that approach, the church motivator seeks not to inform but to transform by convincing people to adopt certain courses of action or programs. However, though he may lace his messages with Bible quotations, he sounds more like a motivational speaker or even a cheerleader than a messenger of God.

The faithful preacher takes the best from both sides of this dichotomy, for he strives—with the Spirit’s blessing—to have his expositions of the Holy Scriptures burn as fuel inflaming the church to holy affection and action.

Myth #2: Preachers must be either spiritual directors or doctrinal instructors.
The spiritual director—a fatherly figure—doles out specific advice to his children in the Lord. His mouth is full of wise counsel and practical directions, but he does not bother much with lofty doctrines of the faith such as the Trinity, the holiness of God, or Christ’s atoning work.

The doctrinal teacher—knowing how shallow Christians can be if they do not know what they believe—thoroughly explains the system of Christian faith revealed in the Holy Scriptures. However, he says little about application, leaving it to the Holy Spirit to apply the general principles of God’s Word to each individual’s life.

In reality, we must avoid both extremes, since “All Scripture . . . is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:16). The faithful preacher must have his eyes on Christ as revealed in the doctrines of the Bible and his feet on the ground to apply that doctrine to the needs and lives of his hearers.

Myth #3: Preachers must be either verse-by-verse expositors or textual preachers.
Another false dichotomy is set up when we insist that the only way to expound the Scriptures is by preaching through a book of the Bible one verse at a time. Sadly, the verse-by-verse expositor may be so chained to his method that he will not depart from it to address a crying need in the congregation’s life. Continue reading

Catechetical Evangelism

This excerpt is adapted from Living for God’s Glory: An Introduction to Calvinism by Joel Beeke.

Although evangelism differs to some degree from generation to generation according to gifts, culture, style, and language, the primary methods of Puritan evangelism—plain preaching and catechetical teaching—can show us much about how to present the gospel to sinners.

Like the Reformers, the Puritans were catechists. They believed that pulpit messages should be reinforced by personalized ministry through catechesis—the instruction in the doctrines of Scripture using catechisms. Puritan catechizing was evangelistic in several ways.

Scores of Puritans reached out evangelistically to children and young people by writing catechism books that explained fundamental Christian doctrines via questions and answers supported by Scripture. For example, John Cotton titled his catechism Milk for Babes, drawn out of the Breasts of both Testaments. Other Puritans included in the titles of their catechisms such expressions as “the main and fundamental points,” “the sum of the Christian religion,” the “several heads” or “first principles” of religion, and “the ABC of Christianity.” At various levels in the church as well as in the homes of their parishioners, Puritan ministers taught rising generations from both the Bible and their catechisms. Their goals were to explain the fundamental teachings of the Bible, to help young people commit the Bible to memory, to make sermons and the sacraments more understandable, to prepare covenant children for confession of faith, to teach them how to defend their faith against error, and to help parents teach their own children.

Catechizing was a follow-up to sermons and a way to reach neighbors with the gospel. Alleine reportedly followed his work on Sunday by several days each week of catechizing church members as well as reaching out with the gospel to people he met on the streets. Baxter, whose vision for catechizing is expounded in The Reformed Pastor, said that he came to the painful conclusion that “some ignorant persons, who have been so long unprofitable hearers, have got more knowledge and remorse of conscience in half an hour’s close disclosure, than they did from ten years’ public preaching.” Baxter invited people to his home every Thursday evening to discuss and pray for blessing on the sermons of the previous Sabbath.

The hard work of the Puritan catechist was greatly rewarded. Richard Greenham claimed that catechism teaching built up the Reformed church and seriously damaged Roman Catholicism. When Baxter was installed at Kidderminster in Worcestershire, perhaps one family in each street honored God in family worship; at the end of his ministry there, there were streets where every family did so. He could say that of the six hundred converts brought to faith under his preaching, he could not name one who had backslidden to the ways of the world. How vastly different was that result compared with those of today’s evangelists, who press for mass conversions and turn over the hard work of follow-up to others.

Is Evolution a Viable Option Scientifically?

Is Evolution a Viable Option Scientifically?

Some Key Problems With Evolution

1. Darwinian evolution is based on a hopelessly illogical premise, the concept of spontaneous generation, or life arising from non-living matter.

2. If Darwinian evolution were true we should literally find millions of transitional forms in the fossil record, but the missing links are still missing.

3. Darwinists claim that natural selection is evidence of macroevolution. However, natural selection, which is basic science, simply demonstrates change within species or microevolution.

4. Critiquing Darwinism does not make a person anti-science. We all share the same scientific evidence. The question is, what theory or interpretive framework best explains the evidence? (Ron Carlson, Christian Ministries International)
Synopsis of 6 Big Problems with Evolution:

(1) Scientists today generally agree that the universe had a beginning. This implies the existence of a Beginner or Creator (Hebrews 3:4, “For every house is built by someone, but the builder of all things is God.”).

(2) The universe is so perfectly fine-tuned for life on earth, it must have come from the hands of an intelligent Designer ([God] Romans 1:20 & Psalm 19:1, “For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse….The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork”).

(3) If evolution were true, the fossil records would reveal progressively complex evolutionary forms with transitions. However, no transitional links (with species forming into different species) have been discovered in the fossil records.

(4) Evolution assumes a long series of positive and upward mutations. In almost all known cases, however, mutations are not beneficial but are harmful to living beings. This is a huge problem for evolution.

(5) The Second Law of thermodynamics, which has never been contradicted in observable nature, says that in an isolated system (like our universe), the natural course of things is degenerate. The universe is running down, not evolving upward. In a closed, isolated system, the amount of useable energy decreases. That is, matter and energy deteriorate gradually over time. Also, things tend to move from order to disorder, not the reverse.

(6) Evolutionists often make false claims. Some have claimed that scientific evidence confirms that evolution is true. They generally appeal to the fact that mutations do occur within species (microevolution). But an incredible leap of logic is required to say that mutations within species prove that mutations can yield entirely new species (macroevolution). Two dogs cannot produce a cat! (Ron Rhodes, 5-Minute Apologetics for Today)

How Did the Universe Come to Be? The opening line of Genesis puts it succinctly: “In the beginning God created the heavens and earth” (1:1). The Bible teaches that through an act of God the temporal creation of the universe came from nothing (ex nihilo). Continue reading

John Calvin’s Views on Worship

Original source here.

A review of a lecture by Dr. Robert Godfrey

In Taylors, South Carolina on March 11, 2OO3, at the Greenville Seminary Conference on Worship, Robert Godfrey, President of Westminster Theological Seminary in California, discussed John Calvin’s views on worship. Dr. Godfrey, who is also a church history professor as well as a minister in the United Reformed Churches of North America, began by reading Psalm 2 and by addressing common misapprehensions regarding Calvin. People think of him, stated Dr. Godfrey, as a “joyless killjoy, ruining people’s lives in Geneva.” People have had this sort of negative reaction to Calvin since the l6th century when, ‘His enemies circulated the rumour that his wife had died of boredom”

Nearly as many misapprehensions abound about Calvin among Calvinists because we think of him as more of a theologian than as a pastor. We must not, Dr. Godfrey said, divorce Calvin the theologian from Calvin the pastor, one concerned not only with the truth but with the application and ministration of that truth.

The great danger the church faces today is the separation of our theology from our practice or the viewing of the Bible as somehow separate from theology. Calvin believed that there was no theology that did not come out of the Bible, but that out of the Bible came a theology of coherence. It is distressing, President Godfrey said, when people dismiss the theology of the Reformation as being not adequately Biblical. Concerned with being “mean spirited” in his reply, Godfrey responded that most people today who would make such a charge do not know one tenth as much about the Bible as John Calvin or Martin Luther did.

Calvin did not separate his theology from the Bible or from his pastoring. He was an extraordinary preacher, a devoted pastor, a catechist who wrote his own catechism, a visitor of the sick, a counsellor, and one deeply concerned about missions, ecumenism, church polity, and church discipline.

He was, according to the seminary president, a pastor in every area of life, and he was a pastor in the matter of the careful thought he gave to worship.

In his treatise, “On the Necessity of Reforming the Church,” a document to be presented by the leaders of the Protestant movement to the Emperor Charles V, Calvin wrote.

“If it be inquired, then, by what things chiefly; the Christian religion has a standing existence amongst us, and maintains its truth, it will be found that the following two not only occupy the principal place, but comprehend under them all the other parts, and consequently the whole substance of Christianity, viz., a knowledge, first, of the mode in which God is duly worshipped; and, secondly, of the source from which salvation is to be obtained.”

The speaker stated that Calvin’s ranking worship as first in importance over salvation is due to one very important fact, namely that salvation is a means to an end, with worship being the end itself: We are saved, Dr. Godfrey said to worship God, now and eternally, with our public worship being a foretaste of the heavenly worship that awaits us. So, worship was not peripheral to John Calvin but fundamental. Continue reading

The Pharisees were not careful enough about theology

Article 1: Seduced by Mysticism

(original source here)

Personal experiences and feelings are dangerous sources from which to derive one’s theology. The subjective impressions of reprobate minds rarely reflect concrete truth. Our most pressing need is for the fixed, external, objective, and unshakable truth found in God’s inerrant Word.

But even in the church, the allure of mystical experience regularly trumps the heavy lifting Bible study requires. The popularity of self-appointed prophets, outlandish claims of trips to heaven, and bizarre charismatic manifestations show that mysticism is alive and well in modern evangelicalism.

As one authority on mysticism has written, “A mystical experience is primarily an emotive event, rather than a cognitive one.” [1] The emotive event apart from cognitive functioning (an emotional high while the intellect is passive) has become for many Christians the ultimate spiritual experience. Multitudes have concluded that God’s most powerful work in our lives is not in the realm of truth but in the realm of emotion. This idea is rapidly changing the face of evangelicalism.

The Battle for Truth over Experience

Evangelicals have historically waged their most important battles in defense of truth and sound doctrine—and against an undue emphasis on emotion and experience. The early fundamentalist movement was a broad-based coalition of evangelicals who understood that sound doctrine is the litmus test of authentic faith. They defined true Christianity in terms of its essential doctrines. The doctrines they labeled fundamental were nothing new; these were truths all Christians had held in common since before the Protestant Reformation. But the fundamentalists were responding to the threat of liberalism, which was attacking doctrines at the very core of the historic Christian faith.

Liberals argued that Christianity is supposed to be an experience, not a doctrine. They wanted to discard the core of Christian doctrine but continue to call themselves Christians on the basis of their lifestyle. The original fundamentalists rescued evangelicalism from the liberal threat by unashamedly declaring that Christianity must be doctrine before it can be legitimate experience. Christianity is grounded in truth, they maintained, and no experience can be part of authentic Christianity if its origin is not in essential Christian truth. That is why they put such an emphasis on doctrine.

Today’s evangelicals are losing the will to hold that line. Voices within the camp are now suggesting that experience may be more important than doctrine after all. The evangelical consensus has shifted decidedly in the past three decades. Our collective message is now short on doctrine and long on experience. Thinking is deemed less important than feeling. Ironically, we have succumbed to the very ideas that the early fundamentalists argued so fiercely against. We have absorbed the same existential influences they fought so hard to overthrow.

Modern evangelicals can no longer define their identity in terms of doctrines they hold in common because the movement has become fragmented doctrinally. The obvious solution would be to return to our common doctrinal roots. Unfortunately, the panacea usually offered instead is an appeal to soften our doctrinal stance and unite on the basis of common experiences. This may be the most serious assault on truth evangelicalism has ever faced, because it comes from within the movement and has met little resistance.

Lest anyone misunderstand, I am by no means appealing for doctrine divorced from experience, or truth apart from love. That would be worthless. The apostle James said it this way: “Just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead” (James 2:26). Truth genuinely believed is truth acted upon. Real faith always results in lively experience, and this frequently involves deep emotion. I am wholly in favor of those things. But genuine experience and legitimate emotions always come in response to truth; truth must never become the slave of sheer emotion or unintelligible experiences.

At least that is the position evangelicalism has always taken. Are we prepared to abandon that conviction? Shall we now exalt experience at the expense of sound doctrine? Will we allow emotion to run roughshod over truth? Will evangelicalism be swept away with unbridled passion?

Old Battle, New Battlefield

Unfortunately, those things are already happening by default. Sound doctrine and biblical truth are practically missing from evangelical pulpits. They have been replaced by show business, pop psychology, partisan politics, motivational talks, and even comedy. Many pastors and church leaders are woefully ill-equipped to teach doctrine and Scripture. The love of sound doctrine that has always been a distinctive of evangelicalism has all but disappeared.

Add a dose of mysticism to this mix, and you have the recipe for unmitigated spiritual disaster. People begin seeking spiritual experiences in everything except the objective truth of Scripture. Sheer emotion begins to replace any sensible understanding of truth and anyone who dares voice doctrinal concerns is likely to be labeled legalistic (or worse). More and more people are therefore encouraged to seek God via emotional experiences that are essentially divorced from truth. They eventually get caught in an endless cycle where, in order to maintain the emotional high, each experience must be more spectacular than the preceding one.

God’s people need to recognize danger before getting swept up in unrestrained emotion. In the days ahead we’ll examine the various fronts where mysticism is invading the church, considering both historic and current examples. Join us as we learn to detect and resist the insidious incursion of mysticism into our local churches.

Article 2: (Adapted from Reckless Faith by Dr. John MacArthur – original source here)

Pastors need Bereans in their congregations—members “who received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so” (Acts 17:11). Those who would teach God’s Word must be held accountable to its exacting standards. Unfortunately, the opposite is true for those who desire to preach personal opinions and exegete experiences. Their very survival depends on their ability to suppress all theological scrutiny.

Defenders of mystical phenomena such as “holy laughter” frequently admonish critics that they are in danger of grieving, quenching, or worst of all, blaspheming the Holy Spirit. Often this is nothing more than a form of spiritual intimidation. But it usually proves quite effective, silencing the voice of reason and absolving the promoters of mystical phenomena from any responsibility to give a sound biblical basis for what they are doing.

Notice, however, that all the stern warnings against quenching the Spirit constitute a very obvious circular argument. They assume from the outset the very point they wish to establish—that these phenomena are the work of the Holy Spirit. This is the essence of the argument: if things happen we cannot explain or find a basis for in Scripture, we dare not question or challenge them. Such phenomena are de facto proof that the Holy Spirit is working. Thus sheer mysticism is equated with the moving of the Holy Spirit. Any discerning souls who attempt to “examine everything carefully” in accord with 1 Thessalonians 5:21 are warned that they are sinning against the Holy Spirit.

One of the fullest efforts to defend this perspective is a book by William DeArteaga titled Quenching the Spirit. The blurb on the book’s cover reads, “Examining Centuries of Opposition to the Moving of the Holy Spirit.” [1] This book is neither scholarly or accurate but must be addressed since many have used it in an effort to give historical legitimacy to charismatic mysticism. DeArteaga is convinced that all who oppose modern charismatic phenomena are simply latter-day Pharisees—and he implies that some may have already committed the unpardonable sin. [2]

Pharisaism becomes the metaphor for all that DeArteaga opposes. His appraisal of the Pharisees is revealing:

The Pharisees’ real problem came from two sources. First, they drastically overvalued the role of theology in spiritual life and made theological correctness the chief religious virtue. Somewhere in the process the primary command to love God and mankind was subordinated to correct theology. Second, they had a man-given confidence in their theological traditions as being the perfect interpretation of Scripture. They falsely placed their theology, referred to as the traditions of the elders, on the same level as Scripture. [3]

Notice that DeArteaga’s portrayal of pharisaism amounts to a not-so-subtle attack on theology—especially “theological correctness.” He implies that love for God is somehow in conflict with a concern for correct theology. He even pits sound theology against Scripture, suggesting that those concerned with “theological correctness” are guilty of placing their theology on the same level as Scripture.

But those are false dichotomies. Real love for God is inseparable from love of the truth. The heart that genuinely loves God will be inclined to truth (see 2 Thessalonians 2:10; 2 John 6). And true theological correctness is found only in an accurate understanding of Scripture (1 Timothy 6:3–4; Titus 1:9). Those determined to cast sound theology aside must also abandon Scripture (2 Timothy 4:2–3). Scripture and sound theology are not antithetical; they are indissolubly bound together. One simply cannot esteem Scripture highly yet scorn sound doctrine. One cannot love God and remain indifferent to His truth. Scripture is how He makes Himself known. So a sound understanding of Scripture is essential to a true knowledge of God.

Moreover, DeArteaga completely misunderstands the real error of pharisaism. The Pharisees were in no sense guilty of an undue emphasis on theological orthodoxy. If anything, their problem was the opposite. They weren’t careful enough in seeking to understand the Scriptures. In fact, they set Scripture aside in favor of their own rote traditions. Tradition, not theology, was their downfall. If they had stuck to Scripture and built their theology on that alone, they would not have fallen into error. Jesus confronted the Pharisees for their pride, their spiritual blindness, their legalism, their want of compassion, their love of power and recognition, and their lack of knowledge about the Word of God. At no time did He rebuke them for overemphasizing “theological correctness.”

DeArteaga’s book is a freewheeling romp through revisionist history. For example, he uses the Great Awakening as a model to show how “theological correctness” poses a threat to the working of the Holy Spirit. This argument is worth examining more closely, because the Great Awakening is becoming a favorite paradigm for modern-day mystics. But as we’ll see next time, that great eighteenth-century revival was actually derailed—not driven—by mystical phenomena.

Literal Interpretation?

Article: The Bible: Reading the “Ordinary” Way by Greg Koukl
(original source here)

I never like the question “Do you take the Bible literally?” It comes up with some frequency, and it deserves a response. But I think it’s an ambiguous—and, therefore, confusing—question, making it awkward to answer.

Clearly, even those with a high view of Scripture don’t take everything literally. Jesus is the “door,” but He’s not made of wood. We are the “branches,” but we’re not sprouting leaves.

On the other hand, we do take seriously accounts that others find fanciful and far-fetched: a man made from mud (Adam), loaves and fishes miraculously multiplied, vivified corpses rising from graves, etc.

A short “yes” or “no” response to the “Do you take the Bible literally?” question, then, would not be helpful. Neither answer gives the full picture. In fact, I think it’s the wrong question since frequently something else is driving the query.

Taking “Literally” Literally

Let’s start with a definition. According to the New Oxford American Dictionary, the word “literal” means “taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory, free from exaggeration or distortion.” Why do people balk at this common-sense notion when it comes to the Bible or, more precisely, certain passages in the Bible?

Let’s face it, even non-Christians read the Bible in its “usual or most basic sense” most of the time on points that are not controversial. They readily take statements like “Love your neighbor as yourself” or “Remember the poor” at face value. When citing Jesus’ directive “Do not judge,” they’re not deterred by the challenge “You don’t take the Bible literally, do you?”

No, when critics agree with the point of a passage, they take the words in their ordinary and customary sense. They naturally understand that language works a certain way in everyday communication, and it never occurs to them to think otherwise.

Unless, of course, the details of the text trouble them for some reason.

What of the opening chapters of Genesis? Is this a straightforward account describing historical events the way they actually happened? Were Adam and Eve real people, the first human beings? Was Adam created from dirt? Did Eve really come from Adam’s rib? Did Jonah actually survive three days in the belly of a great fish? Did a virgin really have a baby? Such claims seem so fanciful to many people, it’s hard for them to take the statements at face value.

Other times, the critic simply does not like what he reads. He abandons the “literal” approach when he comes across something in the text that offends his own philosophical, theological, or moral sensibilities. Jesus the only way of salvation? No way. Homosexuality a sin? Please. A “loving” God sending anyone to the eternal torment of Hell? Not a chance.

Notice the objection to these teachings is not based on some ambiguity in the text that makes alternate interpretations plausible. The Scripture affirms these truths with the very same clarity as “Love your neighbor.” No, these verses simply offend. Suddenly, the critic becomes a skeptic and sniffs, “You don’t take the Bible literally, do you?”

This subtle double standard, I think, is usually at the heart of the taking-the-Bible-literally challenge. Sometimes the ruse is hard to unravel.

An example might be helpful here.

Literal vs. Lateral

In the Law of Moses, homosexual activity was punishable by death (Lev. 18:22 and 20:13). Therefore (the charge often goes), any Christian who takes the Bible literally must advocate the execution of homosexuals.

Of course, the strategy with this move is obvious: If we don’t promote executing homosexuals, we can’t legitimately condemn their behavior, since both details are in the Bible. If we don’t take the Bible literally in the first case, we shouldn’t in the second case, either. That’s being inconsistent.

How do we escape the horns of this dilemma? By using care and precision with our definitions, that’s how. Continue reading