Author Archives: Dan C.

“The work is not mine, but Thine.”

Posted by Dan C. on

Those are words from Martin Luther and part of a prayer Luther wrote in the hours before his second appearance at the Diet of Worms, which had convened in 1521 and before which Luther was summoned and asked to recant his writings. At his initial appearance before the Diet, when asked by Johann vn Eck if he recanted his writings, Luther asked for time to think it over. It was during that time between sessions that he wrote the following prayer:

O God, Almighty God everlasting! how dreadful is the world! behold how its mouth opens to swallow me up, and how small is my faith in Thee! . . . Oh! the weakness of the flesh, and the power of Satan! If I am to depend upon any strength of this world – all is over . . . The knell is struck . . . Sentence is gone forth . . . O God! O God! O thou, my God! help me against the wisdom of this world. Do this, I beseech thee; thou shouldst do this . . . by thy own mighty power . . . The work is not mine, but Thine. I have no business here . . . I have nothing to contend for with these great men of the world! I would gladly pass my days in happiness and peace. But the cause is Thine . . . And it is righteous and everlasting! O Lord! help me! O faithful and unchangeable God! I lean not upon man. It were vain! Whatever is of man is tottering, whatever proceeds from him must fail. My God! my God! dost thou not hear? My God! art thou no longer living? Nay, thou canst not die. Thou dost but hide Thyself. Thou hast chosen me for this work. I know it! . . . Therefore, O God, accomplish thine own will! Forsake me not, for the sake of thy well-beloved Son, Jesus Christ, my defence, my buckler, and my stronghold.

Lord – where art thou? . . . My God, where art thou? . . . Come! I pray thee, I am ready . . . Behold me prepared to lay down my life for thy truth . . . suffering like a lamb. For the cause is holy. It is thine own! . . . I will not let thee go! no, nor yet for all eternity! And though the world should be thronged with devils – and this body, which is the work of thine hands, should be cast forth, trodden under foot, cut in pieces, . . . consumed to ashes, my soul is thine. Yes, I have thine own word to assure me of it. My soul belongs to thee, and will abide with thee forever! Amen! O God send help! . . . Amen!

While Luther’s “Here I stand!” speech at his next appearance before the Diet is by far his most famous, and has been memorialized on the silver screen forever, this humble prayer prepared Luther for the ‘final showdown’, as it were, and set the course of the rest of Luther’s life.

Perhaps this is a prayer to remember and pray even today, but from within the ranks of Protestant evangelicalism.

Foor for thought. . .

First Thoughts about The History Channel Series ‘The Bible’

Posted by Dan C. on

Yesterday evening I watched the first installment of THC’s The Bible and came away with mixed feelings. Which feelings are relevant or accurate is anyone’s guess at this point and depends on the perspective from which a person watches the epic tale. I watched it from the perspective of a person who has read the source document multiple times in different translations, as well as one who has engaged is serious Bible study more than just occasionally. I was therefore interested in both literal Biblical accuracy and the faithfulness of the stories that would be told to the text and context of the Bible.

I realized that I might need to immediately adjust my expectations as well as my opinion when at the very beginning viewers were provided this disclaimer:

“This program is an adaptation of Bible stories that changed our world. It endeavors to stay true to the spirit of the book.”

One review I read called that a ‘get out of jail free’ card. Perhaps it was and perhaps it wasn’t. It might just have been an honest goal, considering that inspiring thousands (if not millions) of viewers to pick up a bible and actually read it was also a goal, according to an interview I read. However, I would expect someone who ends up reading the Bible might end up with an often repeated thought running through his/her brain that sounds something like: “Well, that‘s a bit different than that TV series I saw!"

I found myself numerous times thinking "Well, that part is not in the book!" as I watched the first segment. The most notable instance was undoubtedly when the ‘destroying angels who wreaked havoc in Sodom went all ‘ninja’ with two edged swords and left numerous bloody dead bodies lying in the city street.

I have to admit that the scene in Sodom was as I expected it would be when they portrayed the men of Sodom clamoring at Lot’s door demanding to be handed the angels, but didn’t mention their stated purpose in wanting to have sex with them, at least according to every Bible translation I’ve read. I cannot however stand in judgment on the saga’s producers concerning their motive in leaving out those details, although I have ‘ratings related’ suspicions.

As usual with these sorts of things, I was also asking the question “What about the gospel?” as I watched the stories from the books of Genesis and Exodus and knowing that all 66 books of the Bible have to do ultimately with Jesus Christ, the savior of God’s people, either prophetically in the Old testament or literally in the New Testament. That aspect was missing in this segment, but the series is just beginning. Perhaps when the series nears its end in the crucifixion and resurrection of the Savior, that connection will be emphasized and viewers will be further encouraged to read the Bible for themselves.

Sadly, I have doubts that the ‘gospel connection’ will be communicated to the many viewers who will watch the entire series. Roma Downey stated that her favorite character in the entire series is Mary, the mother of Jesus, whom she portrays. That’s of course understandable, since she is a devout Catholic.

Without passing judgment at this juncture, I will say that the saga will undoubtedly open a lot of doors for discussion, which could in turn lead to talking about spiritual matters, which could lead to a clear presentation of the gospel, It’s also a more fitting film as a backdrop for preaching a sermon than many others used in today’s movie based sermons that seem to permeate the evangelical landscape. Green Lantern, anyone?

If you think ‘permeate’ is too strong a word, just Goggle something like ‘movie based sermons’ and see what it generates.

I’ll let it rest for now and keep watching.

Interesting take on THC’s ‘The Bible’

Posted by Dan C. on

Newsmax

‘The Bible’ Miniseries on History Channel Gets Poor Reviews

Monday, March 4, 2013 09:50 AM

By: Alexandra Ward

Sunday’s premiere of “The Bible,” a new miniseries on the History Channel that dramatizes scenes from what one producer calls “the most debated book of all time,” may not have gotten the best reviews from television critics, but the show’s creators still expect the holy drama to draw record numbers.

Divided into five two-hour episodes, the series covers Genesis to Revelation with one overarching narrative, according to Mark Burnett and Roma Downey, “The Bible” husband-and-wife producer team. Burnett is known for his work on “Survivor” and “Celebrity Apprentice.”

“The Bible” highlights some old favorites — Noah’s ark, Adam and Eve, and the Exodus — and includes both the Old and New Testaments. The series, despite its modest $22 million budget, has an action film feel, with a lot of computer-generated scenes meant to wow audiences.

“We wanted it to look, sound and feel like a $100-million production, not some old donkeys-and-sandals movie of the past,” Downey said. “We have incredible special effects with Moses parting the Red Sea, Jesus walking on water. We have this amazing international cast. We set out to create scale.”

But Sunday night’s premiere left most critics scratching their heads. Here’s an overview of what everyone’s saying about “The Bible.”

The New York Times – Neil Genzlinger


Overall feeling: Mark Burnett missed out on a good opportunity to do something great.

“The result is a mini-series full of emoting that does not register emotionally, a tableau of great biblical moments that doesn’t convey why they’re great. The Red Sea parts no more convincingly here than it did for Charlton Heston in 1956.”

The Hollywood Reporter – Allison Keene


Overall feeling: The show struggles with identifying its central audience.

“Unfortunately, The Bible is fractious and overwrought. Others are sure to pick apart the deviations from the sacred text, but that’s just the beginning of the miniseries’ issues. In the end, this is the most well-known and popular book in the history of humanity for a reason—it’s exciting and interesting and full of hope. The Bible is unfortunately none of these.”

The Los Angeles Times – Robert Lloyd

Overall feeling: It’s been done.

“The Bible according to Burnett and Downey is a handsome and generally expensive-looking production, but it is also flat and often tedious, even when it tends to the hysterical, and as hard as the Hans Zimmer soundtrack strains to keep you on the edge of your sofa, the dialogue is pedestrian and functional… It is ‘psychological’ only in obvious ways, with the poetry of the King James version all but ignored.”

The Miami Herald – Glen Garvin

Overall feeling: Totally unbelievable.

“With the pace of a music video, the characterizations of a comic book and the political-correctness quotient of a Berkeley vegetarian commune — laughably, the destruction of Sodom is depicted without the faintest hint of the sexual peccadillo that takes its name from the city — this production makes Cecil B. DeMille look like a sober theologian. ‘The Bible’ marks the first attempt at drama by reality-show maven Mark Burnett, whose soul I would consider in serious jeopardy if it hadn’t already been forfeited during the second season of ‘Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?'”

The Christian Post’s Dr. Geoff Tunnicliffe, however, called the miniseries “a remarkable spiritual and emotional experience.”

“The theme of God’s love and hope for all humanity is the thread that holds the entire series together,” Tunnicliffe wrote. “I received a fresh new perspective on many of the famous Bible stories: Looking through the eyes of Sarah as she thinks that her husband, Abraham, has sacrificed their son Isaac; listening to Noah telling the story of Creation to his children on the ark; agonizing with Mary (played by Roma Downey) as she sees her son, Jesus, beaten and crucified. These and so many other stories allow you to connect with the characters on a deep emotional level.”
___________________________________________
Dan’s notes: We watched it (the DanDee couple) with mixed feelings, from the perspective of two people who have each read the source document a few times. Will post those later.

 

 

The Cost of Compromise by John MacArthur

Posted by Dan C. on

Martin Luther wasn’t prone to compromise. He famously said in his sermon “Knowledge of God’s Will and Its Fruit”:

The world at the present time is sagaciously discussing how to quell the controversy and strife over doctrine and faith, and how to effect a compromise between the Church and the Papacy. Let the learned, the wise, it is said, bishops, emperor and princes, arbitrate. Each side can easily yield something, and it is better to concede some things which can be construed according to individual interpretation, than that so much persecution, bloodshed, war, and terrible, endless dissension and destruction be permitted.

Here is lack of understanding, for understanding proves by the Word that such patchwork is not according to God’s will, but that doctrine, faith and worship must be preserved pure and unadulterated; there must be no mingling with human nonsense, human opinions or wisdom.

The Scriptures give us this rule: “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).

It is interesting to speculate what the church would be like today if Luther had compromised. The pressure was heavy on him to tone down his teaching, soften his message, and stop poking his finger in the eye of the papacy. Even many of his friends and supporters urged Luther to come to terms with Rome for the sake of harmony in the church. Luther himself prayed earnestly that the effect of his teaching would not be divisive.

Compromised truth has no hope of rescuing the eternal souls of men and women… —@JohnMacArthur

When he nailed his Ninety-five Theses to the door, the last thing he wanted to do was split the church.

Yet sometimes division is fitting, even healthy, for the church. Especially in times like Luther’s— and like ours—when the visible church seems full of counterfeit Christians, it is right for the true people of God to declare themselves and defend the truth. Compromise is sometimes a worse evil than division. Second Corinthians 6:14-17 isn’t speaking only of marriage when it says:

Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? Or what harmony has Christ with Satan, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, “I will dwell in them and walk among them; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. Therefore, come out from their midst and be separate,” says the Lord.

Sadly, this familiar command to separate is frequently both misunderstood and violated. But Paul is not giving believers license for legalism, sectarianism, or monasticism.

Instead, he’s drawing on an analogy from the Mosaic law. In Deuteronomy 22:10, the Lord commanded the Israelites, “You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together.” Those two animals do not have the same nature, gait, or strength. Therefore it would be impossible for such a mismatched pair to plow together effectively. They would be unequally yoked.

Paul’s meaning is clear: believers and unbelievers are two very different creatures and cannot work together in the spiritual realm. He called for separation in matters of the work of God, since such cooperation for spiritual benefit is impossible.

We sometimes tend to think of the early church as pristine, pure, and untroubled by serious error. The truth is, it wasn’t that way at all.

From the very beginning, the enemies of truth launched an effort to infiltrate and confuse the people of God by mangling the truth and by blending lies with Christian doctrine. Attacks against the truth regularly came not only from persecutors on the outside but also from false teachers and professing believers within the visible community of the church.

That was the case in the Corinthian church, where false teachers brought with them a quasi-Christian syncretism of gospel truth, Jewish legalism, and pagan mysticism. They were eager to blend the people of God with the pagan worshipers, and the truth of Scripture with the lies of Satan.

That kind of spiritual blending is exactly what Jude warns against in the third verse of his short epistle. “Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.” Through the pen of Jude, the Holy Spirit urges us to exercise caution, discernment, courage, and the will to contend for the truth.

Notice what we are supposed to be fighting for. It is not anything petty, personal, mundane, or ego related. It’s not mere wrangling between competing ideologies. It’s not a campaign to refine someone’s religious creed or win denominational bragging rights. It’s not a battle of wits, or a game of any kind.

What we are called to defend is no less than “the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.” He’s talking about a serious struggle to safeguard the heart and soul of the truth itself and unleash that truth against the powers of darkness. Compromised truth has no hope of rescuing the eternal souls of men and women who have been unwittingly ensnared by the trap of devilish deception.

This is a battle we cannot wage effectively if we always try to come across to the world as merely nice, nonchalant, docile, agreeable, fun-loving people. We must not take our cues from others who are perfectly happy to compromise the truth whenever possible for “harmony’s” sake. Friendly dialog may sound affable and pleasant. But neither Christ nor the apostles ever confronted serious, soul-destroying error by building collegial relationships with false teachers. In fact, we are expressly forbidden to do that (Romans 16:17, 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 2 Timothy 3:5, 2 John 10-11).

The appearance of unity, no matter how enticing, is not worth sacrificing the clarity of the gospel. —@JohnMacArthur

Infiltrating churches under the guise of tolerance and cooperation is one of Satan’s most cunning ploys. He does not want to fight the church as much as join it. Undiscerning believers who partner in a common spiritual cause with unbiblical forms of Christianity or other false religions open the door wide to satanic corruption. The appearance of unity, no matter how enticing, is not worth sacrificing the clarity of the gospel.

Furthermore, embracing those heretical systems falsely reassures their followers that all is well between them and God, when actually they are headed for eternal damnation. Partnering in a spiritual enterprise with unbelievers helps Satan muddy the doctrinal waters, and it cripples our ability to preach the need for repentance.

Scripture is clear about how we are to respond when the very foundations of the Christian faith are under attack: our duty is to contend, not compromise.

Online Source – Ligonier Ministrues

Super Apostles – They’re Everywhere, They’re EVERYWHERE!

Posted by Dan C. on

During my morning Bible reading today 2 Corinthians, Chapter 11 stood out among all of the various readings in the Old and New Testaments. I’m sure that happens to most folks engaged in Bible reading plans, and for various reasons.

As the title of this post states, for me today it was the subject of Super-Apostles! It does seem that like ‘Chicken Man’ of radio long ago, they are indeed everywhere! I’m not going to name any of them. I will however share some of what the Apostle Paul said about them.

11 I wish you would bear with me in a little foolishness. Do bear with me! 2 For I feel a divine jealousy for you, since I betrothed you to one husband, to present you as a pure virgin to Christ. 3 But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. 4 For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough. 5 Indeed, I consider that I am not in the least inferior to these super-apostles. 6 Even if I am unskilled in speaking, I am not so in knowledge; indeed, in every way we have made this plain to you in all things.

7 Or did I commit a sin in humbling myself so that you might be exalted, because I preached God’s gospel to you free of charge? 8 I robbed other churches by accepting support from them in order to serve you. 9 And when I was with you and was in need, I did not burden anyone, for the brothers who came from Macedonia supplied my need. So I refrained and will refrain from burdening you in any way. 10 As the truth of Christ is in me, this boasting of mine will not be silenced in the regions of Achaia. 11 And why? Because I do not love you? God knows I do!

12 And what I am doing I will continue to do, in order to undermine the claim of those who would like to claim that in their boasted mission they work on the same terms as we do. 13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. 15 So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds. (2 Cor 11:1-15)

Here’s my take on the passages highlighted above, which I conclude either from the plain text or Paul’s strong implication:

  • They preach to you, but a different Jesus, a different spirit, and a different gospel than the true Biblical gospel (v 4).
  • They are usually gifted speakers! They will grab your attention and keep it (v 6). Cloaked in false humility, if any, they always find ways to ‘charge’ you for their false gospel (v 7).
  • They boast of grand exploits; visions of and trips to heaven, direct messages from God, new and fresh revelations never found in the text of scripture, while claiming to be on the same mission as genuine preachers of the true gospel (v 12)
  • They are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ (shiny toothed wolves dressed in sheep suits) (v13).
  • Disguised as servants of Christ, they are not even saved (v 15)!

What’s really sad is the ‘itching ear syndrome’ that seems to not only be a malady that permeates unbelievers and deceived, those of us who not only profess, but posses Christ also fall victim to the slick preaching and nefarious schemes of professional flock-fleecers.

So how do we know we are being duped?

Well, I suppose you can memorize all of the characteristics Paul presents us, and use them to evaluate those you find suspicious. I would like to suggest a simpler approach that cannot and will not fail – ever.

First, ask a simple question, as you listen to them: “Where’s the gospel?” If it is not present at all – if all they do is boast about themselves and their spiritual exploits, run for the door.

Second, if there seems to be a gospel in their preaching, ask: “What IS their gospel?” If the gospel they preach doesn’t challenge you to face your sin, repent of it and believe in Christ as your substitute, run for the door.

Third, if their salvation message seems to be spot on, yet they tell you that the life of a Christian is promised to be one of continuous prosperity, health and happiness (provided you are ‘doing’ all the right things or that you have enough ‘faith’), run for the door. If you have somehow been convinced already that the life of a Christian is supposed to be ‘your best life now’, read what the New Testament really promises us.

Lastly, remember Jesus’ words:

The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly. (John 10:10 ESV)

Today’s ‘super-apostles’ are only out to steal, kill and destroy. Truly abundant life is found by abiding in Christ, and on His terms, that the Glory of God may be manifest in our lives and demonstrated to the world around us, whatever that might ‘look’ like.

Share

Top 10 Worst Bible Passages

Posted by Dan C. on

Readers of the humorous Christian website shipoffools.com were asked to submit their ‘favourite’ worst verses to compile the list, in a light-hearted project called Chapter & Worse.  It’s an interesting list:

This is the top 10 list in full:

No. 1:St Paul’s advice about whether women are allowed to teach men in church:

“I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” (1 Timothy 2:12)

No. 2: In this verse, Samuel, one of the early leaders of Israel, orders genocide against a neighbouring people:

“This is what the Lord Almighty says… ‘Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’” (1 Samuel 15:3)

No. 3: A command of Moses:

“Do not allow a sorceress to live.” (Exodus 22:18)

No. 4: The ending of Psalm 137, a psalm which was made into a disco calypso hit by Boney M, is often omitted from readings in church:

“Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us – he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.” (Psalm 137:9)

No. 5: Another blood-curdling tale from the Book of Judges, where an Israelite man is trapped in a house by a hostile crowd, and sends out his concubine to placate them:

“So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight. When her master got up in the morning and opened the door of the house and stepped out to continue on his way, there lay his concubine, fallen in the doorway of the house, with her hands on the threshold. He said to her, ‘Get up; let’s go.’ But there was no answer. Then the man put her on his donkey and set out for home.” (Judges 19:25-28)

No. 6: St Paul condemns homosexuality in the opening chapter of the Book of Romans:

“In the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.” (Romans 1:27)

No. 7: In this story from the Book of Judges, an Israelite leader, Jephthah, makes a rash vow to God, which has to be carried out:

“And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord, and said, ‘If you will give the Ammonites into my hand, then whoever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return victorious from the Ammonites, shall be the Lord’s, to be offered up by me as a burnt-offering.’ Then Jephthah came to his home at Mizpah; and there was his daughter coming out to meet him with timbrels and with dancing. She was his only child; he had no son or daughter except her. When he saw her, he tore his clothes, and said, ‘Alas, my daughter! You have brought me very low; you have become the cause of great trouble to me. For I have opened my mouth to the Lord, and I cannot take back my vow.’” (Judges 11:30-1, 34-5)

No. 8: The Lord is speaking to Abraham in this story where God commands him to sacrifice his son:

‘Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt-offering on one of the mountains that I shall show you.’ (Genesis 22:2)

No. 9: “Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.” (Ephesians 5:22)

No. 10: “Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.” (1 Peter 2:18)

I’ve heard most of these, but was surprised that the #1 verse was on the list until I realized that the original site is visited mostly by Christians. Many of them are used by non-Christians as excuses for continuing in rebellion against God, but they are also problematic for Christians to explain to the same non-believers.

Online Source

The Prodigal Church

Posted by Dan C. on

Courtesy of Jared WIlson at The Gospel Coalition

For my own part I hate and distrust reactions not only in religion but in everything. Luther surely spoke very good sense when he compared humanity to a drunkard who, after falling off his horse on the right, falls off it next time on the left.
– C.S. Lewis, “The World’s Last Night”

Once there was a church that loved God and loved people but had a difficult time showing it because the image they gave of God was rather one-dimensional and so then also was the way they attempted to love people. The church believed in a holy God, a just God, a vengeful God, and so they preached wrath very well, pushing the hearts of all who darkened the church doors with the imminent foreboding of their eternal damnation. They did their best to scare the hell out of people, and when that didn’t work, they cried and pleaded and begged. Wretchedly urgent, the church regularly reminded its people of the dire importance of obedience to God, of being holy as God is holy. And the church grew vividly aware year in and year out of the “thou shalt not”s of the Bible. And they came back for more. But fewer and fewer did. When some began to suspect this god was not quite love and that this god could never quite be pleased, they stopped trying. Some kept trying, fearful and diminished.

One day someone suggested the old way wasn’t working. People could not be won by a god who seemed angry all the time, and in fact it made no sense to expect people to have interest in a god who didn’t care about their happiness. The god of the old way seemed so preoccupied with holy things that he did not care much for people’s every day lives. Couldn’t we make the way of the church more practical, more appealing? The way we may see growth again, he reasoned, is to deconstruct the old way, remove the old barriers, and reassert that God is love. Where once the church emphasized God’s holiness, now they emphasized his love. Where once the church emphasized obedience, now they emphasized success. Where once the church emphasized sin, they now emphasized happiness. Where once the church focused on God’s demands, they now emphasized man’s specialness and abilities. If we help people tap into their inner potential, remind them of how wonderful they are, and how God loves them no matter what, people will be interested in church again. They changed the songs, the architecture, the style of dress. They took the crosses down. And lo and behold, people began to come again.

But as the years went by they noticed something. Little by little, they discovered that while some new people were discovering church for the first time, most who came were in recovery from the old way of doing church. And all together, they learned that many could not grow very deeply in their faith. They changed Sunday School to small groups, special music to video montages, began applying Bible verses to songs on the radio and movies at the theater. They deconstructed more things, made more things over. The church had — in their own estimation, cleverly — traded out the “don’t”s for “do”‘s, but even the regular dispensing of practical helps for victorious living wasn’t having the desired effect. People enjoyed the worship services now. But day to day they seemed no closer to God than in the old way of doing church. In fact, they seemed day to day less interested in God than before . . .

And he cautioned them, saying, “Watch out; beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod.”
– Mark 8:15

Share

Divine Sovereignty Versus Pragmatism

Posted by Dan C. on

What does God’s sovereignty have to do with the subject of this book? Everything. The very reason many contemporary churches embrace pragmatic methodology is that they lack any understanding of God’s sovereignty in the salvation of the elect. They lose confidence in the power of God to use the preached gospel to reach hardened unbelievers. That’s why they approach evangelism as a marketing problem. Their methodology is shaped accordingly.

More than thirty years ago, J. I. Packer wrote,

If we forget that it is God’s prerogative to give results when the gospel is preached, we shall start to think that it is our responsibility to secure them. And if we forget that only God can give faith, we shall start to think that the making of converts depends, in the last analysis, not on God, but on us, and that the decisive factor is the way in which we evangelize. And this line of thought, consistently followed through, will lead us far astray.

Let us work this out. If we regarded it as our job, not simply to present Christ, but actually to produce converts—to evangelize, not only faithfully, but also successfully—our approach to evangelism would become pragmatic and calculating. We should conclude that our basic equipment, both for personal dealing and for public preaching, must be twofold. We must have, not merely a clear grasp of the meaning and application of the gospel, but also an irresistible technique for inducing a response. We should, therefore, make it our business to try and develop such a technique. And we should evaluate all evangelism, our own and other people’s, by the criterion, not only of the message preached, but also of visible results. If our own efforts were not bearing fruit, we should conclude that our technique still needed improving. If they were bearing fruit, we should conclude that this justified the technique we had been using. We should regard evangelism as an activity involving a battle of wills between ourselves and those to whom we go, a battle in which victory depends on our firing off a heavy enough barrage of calculated effects.

What Packer was warning against is exactly the kind of thinking that has given rise to the user-friendly church and its market-driven, pragmatic philosophy.

Actually, the pragmatic approach to ministry is nothing new. It has roots deep in American church history. The main  was not made by Harry Emerson Fosdick, Norman Vincent Peale, Robert Schuller, or any other contemporary advocate of pragmatism. They, along with others, have followed the influence of another man—early nineteenth-century evangelist Charles G. Finney.

Charles Finney got off on the wrong foot when he dismissed the orthodox view of divine election as “an exercise of arbitrary sovereignty.” He rejected the doctrine that conversion is wholly a work of God. He taught instead that faith is fundamentally a human decision and that salvation is secured by the sinner’s own movement toward God.

Although Finney’s fundamental theological error was his rejection of God’s sovereignty, that led inevitably to other errors in his teaching. He concluded that people are sinners by choice, not by nature. He believed the purpose of evangelism should therefore be to convince people to choose differently—or as many would say today, “make a decision for Christ.” The sinner’s choice—not God’s—therefore became the determinative issue in conversion. The means of moving out of darkness into light was in Finney’s opinion nothing more than a simple act of the human will. The preacher’s task was to secure a decision of faith, applying whatever means proved useful. Finney introduced “new measures” (unconventional methodology) into his ministry, often using techniques whose sole design was to shock and intrigue apathetic churchgoers. He was willing to implement virtually any means that would elicit the desired response from his audiences.

Charles Finney’s approach to ministry thus foreshadowed and laid the foundation for modern pragmatism. His teaching and his methods have colored much of American evangelism for the past century and a half. He could rightly be called the father of evangelical pragmatism. The modern market-driven ministry is simply a culmination of the movement Finney began (see Appendix 2). We would expect those who reject the biblical doctrine of God’s sovereignty to follow Finney, but not those who say they affirm it. Their pragmatism becomes a denial of their theology—a kind of spiritual schizophrenia.

____________________

The above is an Excerpt From Ashamed of the Gospel:  When the Church Becomes Like the World  (page 167), Dr. John MacArthur

Eisegesis Unplugged – Isaiah 54:17

Posted by Dan C. on

Exegesis and eisegesis are two conflicting approaches in Bible study. Exegesis is the exposition or explanation of a text based on a careful, objective analysis. The word exegesis literally means “to lead out of.” That means that the interpreter is led to his conclusions by following the text.

The opposite approach to Scripture is eisegesis, which is the interpretation of a passage based on a subjective, non-analytical reading. The word eisegesis literally means “to lead into,” which means the interpreter injects his own ideas into the text, making it mean whatever he wants.

Obviously, only exegesis does justice to the text. Eisegesis is a mishandling of the text and often leads to a misinterpretation. Exegesis is concerned with discovering the true meaning of the text, respecting its grammar, syntax, and setting. Eisegesis is concerned only with making a point, even at the expense of the meaning of words.

The Passage

“No weapon formed against me shall prosper.” (Isaiah 54:17)

Thanks to the 2013 Super Bowl and a famous professional football player, the above passage now has worldwide recognition! Initially, I thought it was just a Super Bowl occurrence, but I found out that it was also used after a previous 2012 playoff game, by the same player, in a post-game interview. Having had my curiosity piqued, I Googled it and found out I can even buy a t-shirt with the passage and the players face! How cool is that?

A little more Web searching revealed that there’s a popular Christian song that has as the chorus:

“No weapon formed against me shall prosper, it won’t work
No weapon formed against me shall prosper, it won’t work”

A well known and very popular preacher uses the verse in a personal testimony, preaching it to a thunderous applause and applying it to everyone in the congregation, meaning that no weapon formed against any of them has a chance of success either.

I mentioned a few celebrities, but I also suggest that we ordinary folks have a tendency to just grab on to what they tell us just because they say it. That can get us in trouble if we are being fed a bill of goods and we don’t play the role of good Bereans (See Acts 17) and test what we are being fed no matter how sweet it sounds!

So what about “No weapon formed against me shall prosper”? Does it mean, as is often assumed, that all of our earthly plans and desires will meet with success just because we are children of God? Does it mean that obstacles to those plans and desires are ‘weapons formed against us’ by personal enemies or diabolical forces? Let’s take a closer look.

The Context

Having described the great provision of vicarious atonement through the Suffering Servant (Isa. 53), in chapter 54, Isaiah the prophet announces the consequent blessings: the expansion of Israel, the blessings of safety and peace, and anticipates the salvation and restoration of Israel, This chapter contains awesome descriptions of the everlasting love of God toward His covenant people and promises of a glorious future (vv. 11-17). Verse 17 concludes the chapter, and should be considered in its entirety, along with verse 16:

16 “Behold, I have created the blacksmith
Who blows the coals in the fire,
Who brings forth an instrument for his work;
And I have created the spoiler to destroy.

17 No weapon formed against you shall prosper,
And every tongue which rises against you in judgment
You shall condemn.
This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord,
And their righteousness is from Me,”
Says the Lord. (NKJV)

We can summarize these two verses together as follows:

The city of God is secure because (1) all the powers of evil are under God’s control and (2) he will defend his people. Behold, I. God alone accomplishes the promised victory. This is the heritage (all the promises of chapter 54) no weapon that is fashioned against you shall succeed. God will protect his people and defeat every enemy, no matter how powerful.[i]

The promised heritage (no weapon formed against them shall succeed) is for ‘servants of the Lord’, those who serve him faithfully and obediently, and whose righteousness is found from Him and not of their own. There may even be obstacles (enemy weapons) along the way like the Babylonian captivity Isaiah spoke of, but the enemies of Israel will not ultimately succeed. Isaiah 54 points to the final culmination of all of God’s covenant promises at the end of the age, the destiny of God’s covenant people, whom God created for His glory (Isa 43:1-7). There is a much bigger picture here than our personal plans, desires and schemes!

So how do we apply these verses?

I’m glad you asked! There certainly is an application for Christians today and it is found in the pages of the New Testament.

“As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For it stands in Scripture:

“Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”

(1 Peter 2:4-6)

Peter reminds us that “we are an elect nation, a holy priesthood, living stones built on the foundation stone, a people that has obtained mercy and will not be put to shame; and that we are to show forth our praise of Him as we live in righteousness before all people who will see our good works and glorify the Father. So the message for us today is the same as the message for the returning exiles spoken of in Isaiah 54. God has begun a new work in Christ and called us as a kingdom of priests and a holy nation displaying the mercy and righteousness of God. Great promises of the blessings of peace, safety, prosperity and victory are held out to those who obediently walk in God’s perfect will for their lives.”[ii]

Dear friends, the passage we tear its context and claim for personal glory and gain (no weapon formed against me shall prosper) has nothing to do with winning football games, or any of the other selfish plans and schemes of men.  And yes, I am among the guilty! However, now knowing that this passage is about the goorious restoration of the people of God and the city of God,  we will surely have opportunities to explain to others the Master’s eternal plan, maybe even someone wearing the t-shirt!

I don’t know about you, but I’m not buying the t-shirt!

[i] ESV Commentary

[ii] The Book of Isaiah, By Allen Ross, Th.M., Th.D., Dallas Theological Seminary