We conclude our lecture (#3) By comparing all these teachings with HOLY SCRIPTURE, God’s infallible, unchanging Word. God's Word is what truly matters. We have to put everything through the grid of Scripture. Thus, we must ask answer a few important questions. Have either of these camps accurately understood the gospel of grace?
The gospel answers three of life’s most important questions:
1. How can unjust sinners become just in the sight of a holy God?
2. How can I be made right with this God?
3. How can God save anyone w/o violating His very character (holiness, justice, and wrath)?
Let’s look at 4 important truths from the Biblical witness.
#1. The Bible clearly teaches us that the Judaism of Jesus’ day (and Paul’s) represented Legalism, pride, and human self-effort.
On this point, Tom Wright could not be any more wrong. Paul anathematizes the Judaizers because they were preaching a “false gospel” (see Gal. 1).One pastor has observed that, “There are really only 2 religions in the world today:
(1) The false religions of human achievement
(2) (&) The true religion of Divine accomplishment.”
Stephen Charnock adds, “It is the disease of the human nature, since its corruption, to hope for eternal life by the tenor of the covenant of works.” Salvation by works is not inherently a Jewish problem. It's been a problem for all us. We simply do not understand how holy God truly is (see Dr. Sproul's book on "the Holiness of God"). The religion of the Pharisees and most of the first-century Jews had corrupted the Old Testament teachings on grace & faith. They turned salvation into faith by "human achievement". There are many Scripture that support this understanding...Check out: Luke 18:9-14; Acts 13:38-39; Romans 4:3-6; Romans 9:30-32; Romans 10:3; or Romans 11:6.
Listen to how Paul summarizes the religion of Judaism in Romans 10:3, "For not knowing about God's righteousness, and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God."
Paul’s personal testimony in Philippians 3:8-10 proves my point; If anyone where to be admitted into God's heaven through religious works, Paul would be the ideal candidate (see the first part of Phil. 3). He was so zealous over his beliefs that he killed those who parted from his understanding of the Law.
He wrote, "More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish (literally, “dung”) in order that I may gain Christ, 9 and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith, 10 that I may know Him, and the power of His resurrection."
The righteousness Paul gained was “alien righteousness” and the way Paul obtained this perfect righteousness was through faith in Christ (Phil 3:9, Rom 10:4).
The Judaizers tried to establish merit through their religiosity. They desperately wanted to contribute something to their salvation...The Bible clearly teaches us that the Judaism of Jesus’ day (and Paul’s) represented Legalism, pride, and human self-effort.
Which leads us to #2:
The New Perspective's interpretation of the phrase “works of the law” is inconsistent with the entire context of Galatians 2 and Romans 3.
Time does not allow me to do an in-depth exposition of either Galatians 2 or Romans 3.
For now, just take note of the following general observations from Galatians 1 & 2:
a) In Gal. those who were abusing the Law were the problem (the Judaizers). As one Greek scholar notes, “It is not an issue of admitting Gentiles into the faith, but of the Judaizers themselves not being in the faith.” They were misusing or abusing the Law of God.
b) The Judaizers in Galatians were clearly teaching a false gospel (see Ch 1).
c) The context of Galatians 2 is about justification not sanctification.
d) In Galatians the “works of the law” are placed in opposition to saving “faith” in this text. Galatians 2:16 says, “Yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified”.
e) This passage is all about how one gets saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone! Dr. Bill Barrick summarizes my observations well, “Indeed, ‘(the) works of the law’ can neither save nor sanctify (Romans 6:12-14). For the believer, faith produces good works, not the reverse (Eph. 2:8-10).”
#3. Justification by faith alone was taught well before Calvin & Luther by Augustine, the apostle Paul, the Lord Jesus Christ, and Moses.
The Reformers did not invent "Sola Fide;" They simply rediscovered it during a very dark period in church history.
If you don’t agree with me on point #3, then please read the book of Genesis, the Gospels, the epistle of Romans and Galatians. -->The gospel msg. has always been consistent: We’re saved by grace through faith alone.
Iain Murray adds this insightful thought, “The gospel is not, ‘Do this and live,’ but, ‘Receive Christ and His righteousness.’ It is salvation for believers, not workers; for the ungodly, not the righteous, and by Christ’s obedience not our own.” (Read Titus 3:5-7).
Notice what Moses taught in Genesis 15 (Abraham believed God and what?)
Check out what Jesus taught in Luke 18:9-14
Observe what Paul taught in Romans 1-10
This is what A.W. Tozer meant when he wrote, “Nothing is new that matters and nothing that matters can be modernized, the old way is the true way and there is no new way.” Justification by faith alone was taught well before Calvin & Luther; by Augustine, the apostle Paul, the Lord Jesus Christ, and Moses.
Δ We come now to our final point, #4 which deals with the Biblical teaching on justification. Δ
The R.C. Council of Trent views justification as a process! Catholics and NP proponents wrongly merge justification and sanctification together. The Council of Trent issued this explicit denial of sola fide: “If anyone says that by faith alone the sinner is justified, so as to mean that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification…let him be anathema.” NP advocates believe justification is more about ecclesiology than soteriology (see my previous notes for more detailed comments on this issue).
But the Bible teaches us that Justification is:
I. A judicial act of God (note: Luke 18:14; Romans 4:3-9; Genesis 15:6).
R.C. Sproul says we first have to answer the question, “Are we justified by a process by which we become actually just or are we justified by a declarative act by which we are counted or reckoned to be just by God?” The great Sovereign Judge of the universe declares sinners righteous (that’s biblical justification). MacArthur adds, “Sanctification is (thus) a result, not a prerequisite.” Jesus promised immediate salvation to believers (John 5:24). When God opens our eyes to embrace the gospel, in that moment, we are declared righteous before (a) Holy God! This is some amazing truth. In Luke 18:14, Jesus said the repentant tax-collector “went down to his house justified.” Salvation was instantaneous. Jesus told the repentant thief of the cross, “Today, you will be w/me in Paradise.” That one word must have been heavenly, "TODAY, Today, Today, you shall be with me in Paradise."
The Scriptures teach that justification is a judicial act of God! It is a declarative act by which we are reckoned to be just by God. Luther put it this way, "At the same time just and sinner."
II. The Bible also teaches that justification is by faith alone (Hab. 2:4; Romans 4:4-9, Eph 2:8, Phil 3:8-9). Faith is the instrumental cause of our justification.
The old acrostic sums this up, Forsaking All I Trust Him (F.A.I.T.H.). Ephesians 2:8-9 clearly teaches, “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast.” Justification is by faith alone and faith itself is a gracious gift from God!
III. The Bible also declares that justification is made possible only through the life and death of Jesus.
A) Christ died for us while we were yet sinners (Romans 5:8). "But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."
B) The Son poured out his holy wrath on the sinless substitute (the 2nd Adam, Jesus [note Rom 5]). -->Thus Christ is our propitiation (our sin offering). 1 John 4:9-10, By this the love of God was manifested in us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him. In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. We are saved from the wrath of God by the love of God. Jesus Christ became our sin offering before GOd!
C) And then God declares us righteous through imputation.
2 Corinthians 5:21, He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. This verse describes “The Divine Transaction.” Jesus bore the sins of all those who ever would believe and we recieve the perfect righteousness of Christ through imputation. The grounds of our justification remain solely the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ. Christ and Christ alone is our righteousness (Jer. 23:6)! We do not stand before GOD, naked and ashamed; for we are clothed in the righteous robes of Christ.
Conclusion
In theology, everything that glitters isn’t always genuine gold. On the surface “The New Perspective” looks pretty attractive. At first glance, N.T. Wright’s exegesis appears valuable and his conclusions seem to be extremely well researched. He is a top notch academic scholar. But after closer examination (when we compare what the Bible teaches w/what N.T Wright supposes), the “New Perspective” is exposed for what it truly is. In my opinion, the New Perspective on Paul is “fools gold.”
Personally, I can not recommend any "New Perspective" authors, in part because they’ve messed around w/the heart of the Biblical gospel. Again nothing is more important to Christ's Church then God's gospel (see 1 and 2 Corinthians).
Instead of spending countless hours reading “new perspectives” on old truth; Dedicate yourself to understanding the Fundamentals of the Christian Faith. Read through the Old and New Testament as often as you can. My bibliography would be a good starting point if you want to really understand the doctrine of justification.
Some of you may be thinking that sometimes it must take an M. Div or a Ph.D to mess up a really straightforward truth like justification by faith alone...In this case, i believe you're right.
Monday, July 31, 2006
New Perspective (part 3)
Church history is not infallible but it is often a helpful safe guard. The better we understand church history the more protected we are against new heresies. After all there is nothing new under the sun right? Most of the modern day cults are simply old heresies redressed in more modernized clothing. One could look at many examples today to further strengthen this point but for time sake we must press on.
We need to focus our attention now on our second major category? (#2) Let’s examine the ancient writings of the Church Fathers, the Reformers, and the Puritans. Again, we only have time to observe a few select quotations. These quotes will hopefully give us a general idea of what these men taught concerning the various issues at hand...
Augustine of Hippo wrote, “Can we possibly, without utter absurdity, maintain that there first existed in anyone the good virtue of a good will, to entitle him to the removal of his heart of stone? How can we say this, when all the time this heart of stone itself signifies precisely a will of the hardest kind, a will that is absolutely inflexible against God? For if a good will comes first, there is obviously no longer a heart of stone.”
In his “Against Two Letters of the Pelagians” he added, “For we are now speaking of the desire for goodness. If they want to say that this begins from ourselves and is then perfected by God, let them see how they can answer the apostle when he says, “Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God” (2 Cor. 3:5)’
Martin Luther, writing on Romans 3:27-28, understood this, “What the apostle means by ‘works of the law’ are works in which the persons who do them trust as if they are justified by doing them, and thus are righteous on account of their works.”
Commenting further on the “works of the law” Luther writes, “For Paul, ‘works of the law’ means the works of the entire law. Therefore one should not make a distinction between the Decalog and the entire law. Now if the work of the Decalog does not justify, much less will circumcision, which is a work of the ceremonial law.” Luther believed justification by faith alone was the doctrine “on which the church stands or falls.” Luther believed that the Roman Catholicism of his day was similar to the false religion of Paul’s day (which was Judaism). Works salvation has been a common thread that has connected most of the false religions in the world (past and present).
John Calvin called sola fide, “the main hinge on which religion turns.” Commenting on the Law, John Calvin remarked, “Because observance of the law is found in none of us, we are excluded from the promises of life, and fall back into the mere curse…Since the teaching of the law is far above human capacity, a man may view the proffered promises yet he cannot derive any benefit from them.” In his Romans commentary he said, “It is a memorable truth of first importance that no one can obtain righteousness by the keeping of the law.”
Theodore Beza (expounding on Romans 4) comments, “Abraham was not justified, and made the father of the faithful, by any of his own works, either preceding or following his faith in Christ, as promised to him; but merely by faith in Christ, or the merit of Christ by faith imputed to him for righteousness.”
Philip Melancthon said, “The only thing you bring to your salvation is the sin that makes it necessary.”
William Pemble (a Puritan) wrote, “We deny that faith justifies us as a work which we perform in obedience to this law; it justifies us only as the condition required of us, and as an instrument of embracing Christ’s righteousness.”
One could summarize these two major views this way:
The Protestant view
faith = justification + works
The Roman view
faith + works = justification
We need to focus our attention now on our second major category? (#2) Let’s examine the ancient writings of the Church Fathers, the Reformers, and the Puritans. Again, we only have time to observe a few select quotations. These quotes will hopefully give us a general idea of what these men taught concerning the various issues at hand...
Augustine of Hippo wrote, “Can we possibly, without utter absurdity, maintain that there first existed in anyone the good virtue of a good will, to entitle him to the removal of his heart of stone? How can we say this, when all the time this heart of stone itself signifies precisely a will of the hardest kind, a will that is absolutely inflexible against God? For if a good will comes first, there is obviously no longer a heart of stone.”
In his “Against Two Letters of the Pelagians” he added, “For we are now speaking of the desire for goodness. If they want to say that this begins from ourselves and is then perfected by God, let them see how they can answer the apostle when he says, “Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God” (2 Cor. 3:5)’
Martin Luther, writing on Romans 3:27-28, understood this, “What the apostle means by ‘works of the law’ are works in which the persons who do them trust as if they are justified by doing them, and thus are righteous on account of their works.”
Commenting further on the “works of the law” Luther writes, “For Paul, ‘works of the law’ means the works of the entire law. Therefore one should not make a distinction between the Decalog and the entire law. Now if the work of the Decalog does not justify, much less will circumcision, which is a work of the ceremonial law.” Luther believed justification by faith alone was the doctrine “on which the church stands or falls.” Luther believed that the Roman Catholicism of his day was similar to the false religion of Paul’s day (which was Judaism). Works salvation has been a common thread that has connected most of the false religions in the world (past and present).
John Calvin called sola fide, “the main hinge on which religion turns.” Commenting on the Law, John Calvin remarked, “Because observance of the law is found in none of us, we are excluded from the promises of life, and fall back into the mere curse…Since the teaching of the law is far above human capacity, a man may view the proffered promises yet he cannot derive any benefit from them.” In his Romans commentary he said, “It is a memorable truth of first importance that no one can obtain righteousness by the keeping of the law.”
Theodore Beza (expounding on Romans 4) comments, “Abraham was not justified, and made the father of the faithful, by any of his own works, either preceding or following his faith in Christ, as promised to him; but merely by faith in Christ, or the merit of Christ by faith imputed to him for righteousness.”
Philip Melancthon said, “The only thing you bring to your salvation is the sin that makes it necessary.”
William Pemble (a Puritan) wrote, “We deny that faith justifies us as a work which we perform in obedience to this law; it justifies us only as the condition required of us, and as an instrument of embracing Christ’s righteousness.”
One could summarize these two major views this way:
The Protestant view
faith = justification + works
The Roman view
faith + works = justification
Friday, July 28, 2006
"The New Perspective on Paul" (Bibliography)
Primary Works Consulted
Barrick, William D. “The New Perspective and ‘Works of the Law.’” The Master’s Seminary Journal.(2005:Vol. 16, No. 2.
Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. Carlisle: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2000.
*Bruce, F.F. “Commentary on Galatians.” New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1982.
Busenitz, Irvin A. “The Reformers’ Understanding of Paul and the Law.”The Master’s Seminary Journal. (2005): Vol. 16, No. 2.
*Farnell, F. David. “The New Perspective on Paul: Its basic Tenets, History, and Presuppositions.” The Master’s Seminary Journal. (2005): Vol. 16, No. 2.
Hughes, Jack. “The New Perspective’s View of Paul and the Law.” The Master’s Seminary Journal. (2005): Vol. 16, No. 2.
Johnson, Phil. “What’s Wrong with Wright: Examining the New Perspective on Paul.” Unpublished essay, 2005.
Luther, Martin. Commentary on Galatians. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1979.
*MacArthur, John; Sproul, R.C.; Beeke, Joel; Gerstner, John; Kistler, Don; Justification by Faith Alone. Morgan: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 2003.
*Moo, Douglas. The Epistle to the Romans. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.
Murray, Iain H. The Old Evangelicalism. Carlisle: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2005.
*Piper, John. Counted Righteous in Christ. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2002.
Sproul, R.C. Getting the Gospel Right. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999.
Stuhlmacher, Peter. Revisiting Paul’s Doctrine of Justification: A Challenge to the New Perspective. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001.
Thomas, Robert L. “Hermeneutics of the New Perspective on Paul.” The Master’s Seminary Journal. (2005): Vol. 16, No. 2.
Waters, Guy Prentiss. Justification and the New Perspectives on Paul, A Review and Response. Phillipsburg: P & R Publishing, 2004.
Westcott, B.F. Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians: The Greek Text with Notes and Addenda. London: Macmillan, 1906.
White, James R. The God Who Justifies. Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2001.
Wright, N.T. Paul, In Fresh Perspective. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005.
_________. What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity? Grand Rapids, Mich.: 1997.
Barrick, William D. “The New Perspective and ‘Works of the Law.’” The Master’s Seminary Journal.(2005:Vol. 16, No. 2.
Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. Carlisle: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2000.
*Bruce, F.F. “Commentary on Galatians.” New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1982.
Busenitz, Irvin A. “The Reformers’ Understanding of Paul and the Law.”The Master’s Seminary Journal. (2005): Vol. 16, No. 2.
*Farnell, F. David. “The New Perspective on Paul: Its basic Tenets, History, and Presuppositions.” The Master’s Seminary Journal. (2005): Vol. 16, No. 2.
Hughes, Jack. “The New Perspective’s View of Paul and the Law.” The Master’s Seminary Journal. (2005): Vol. 16, No. 2.
Johnson, Phil. “What’s Wrong with Wright: Examining the New Perspective on Paul.” Unpublished essay, 2005.
Luther, Martin. Commentary on Galatians. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1979.
*MacArthur, John; Sproul, R.C.; Beeke, Joel; Gerstner, John; Kistler, Don; Justification by Faith Alone. Morgan: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 2003.
*Moo, Douglas. The Epistle to the Romans. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.
Murray, Iain H. The Old Evangelicalism. Carlisle: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2005.
*Piper, John. Counted Righteous in Christ. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2002.
Sproul, R.C. Getting the Gospel Right. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999.
Stuhlmacher, Peter. Revisiting Paul’s Doctrine of Justification: A Challenge to the New Perspective. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001.
Thomas, Robert L. “Hermeneutics of the New Perspective on Paul.” The Master’s Seminary Journal. (2005): Vol. 16, No. 2.
Waters, Guy Prentiss. Justification and the New Perspectives on Paul, A Review and Response. Phillipsburg: P & R Publishing, 2004.
Westcott, B.F. Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians: The Greek Text with Notes and Addenda. London: Macmillan, 1906.
White, James R. The God Who Justifies. Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2001.
Wright, N.T. Paul, In Fresh Perspective. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005.
_________. What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity? Grand Rapids, Mich.: 1997.
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
N.P.P. (part 2)
(#1) Let’s first try to understand something about this “New Perspective on Paul”
The NPP on Paul has 3 main spokesmen today:
1. E.P. Sanders (1937-) Arts and Sciences Professor of Religion at Duke University
2. James D.G. Dunn (1939-) Professor of Divinity at the University of Durham, England. Dr. Dunn first coined this phrase (“the NPP”) in a 1982 lecture.
3. N.T. Wright (1948-) the Bishop of Durham, one of the highest ranking bishops in the Church of England.
N.T. Wright is the most popular proponent of NPP. He is the only one (of the 3 mentioned above) to consider himself an “evangelical.” Wright has said of himself, “I see myself as a deeply orthodox theologian.” On the back of his newest NPP book, “Paul: In Fresh Perspective” a writer from TIME magazine endorsed Wright’s book noting, “N.T. Wright is one of the most formidable of traditionalist Bible Scholars.”
Now it’s true, N.T. Wright has written a number of books that have been very helpful and well-researched. He is a very smart individual. Some of his NT scholarship has truly benefited the Church (such as his massive tome on the resurrection and his books that dealt with the historicity of the gospels). But when it comes to his “New Perspective on Paul”, sadly, Tom Wright is outside classic Evangelicalism.
-->So what do you need to know about the New Perspective?
A. They depart from the Grammatical-historical method of exegesis
In place, the NPP proponents utilize Historical Criticism. Dr. F David Farnell notes, “Essentially, the NPP’s central tenet accuses the Reformers of subjective bias, at the same time ignoring the extreme bias of their own approach that promotes subjectivity through historical criticism and the New Hermeneutic.” Historical criticism has an anti-supernatural bias. As a result they discount inspiration and often undermine the inerrancy of the original autographs. (For more detailed info check out my recent lecture on “hermeneutics” or read Evangelical Hermeneutics by Dr. Robert L Thomas).
B. They view the NT “church” through Covenantal lenses.
In other words, the New Perspective believes the church is the “covenant community” of God. They would view the Church as the “New Israel.” For this reason, the NPP has been more alluring to Presbyterians (those holding to Covenant theology) more than its really attracted Reformed Baptists and Dispensationalists.
C. New Perspective leaders believe the Reformed community has badly misunderstood second temple Judaism throughout church history.
The New Perspective essentially teaches that 2nd Temple Judaism was a religion of grace. Tom Wright makes this very clear on page 120 (from his book), “What St. Paul Really Said.” New Perspective leaders would have you believe that first century Judaism was not a works-righteousness system. If they are right here, then the traditional interpretation of Romans and Galatians (by scholars like Augustine, Luther, and Calvin) have been dead wrong. In short, the NP presents a “fresh” understanding of the ancient religion of Judaism.
D. The NPP asserts a firm belief in “covenantal nomism” as the way to understand 2nd temple Judaism.
E.P. Sanders describes covenantal nomism as “the view, that one’s place in God’s plan is established on the basis of the covenant and that covenant requires as the proper response of man his obedience to its commandments, while providing means of atonement for transgression.” In short, Judaism during Jesus’ and Paul’s day, was a religion of grace; but maintenance of that salvation was through covenant (by works). One professor summarizes Covenantal nomism this way, “Getting in by faith, staying in by obedience.” Understanding this distinction is very important!
E. N.T. Wright (and others) redefines classic Texts like Gal. 2:11-21 and Phil 3:1-11.
Tom Wright adds, “The (Gal. 2) passage works far better if we see the meaning of “justified” not as a statement about how someone becomes a Christian but as a statement about who belongs to the people of God, and how you can tell that in the present” (FROM-->Paul: In Fresh Perspective, page 112). According to the New Perspective, Protestants have simply read Luther into Paul’s writings (“What St. Paul Really Said” pg 117). Wright is really accusing the Reformed tradition of 500 years of serious exogesis!
F. More specifically, N.T. Wright redefines the classic Protestant understanding of the important Biblical phrase, “the works of the law” (from Gal 2:16, Rom 3:20, etc).
N.T. Wright and others limit this important theological phrase to circumcision, Sabbath-keeping, and dietary restrictions. They believe these works marked out the people of the covenant. NP teachers believe that, in context, this phrase is about ethnic and social identification NOT legalistic self-righteousness and justification.
Again this is a major departure from the traditional interpretation of this biblical phrase. (Check out Dr. Barrick's journal article on this for more detailed information).
G. The NPP redefines the classic Reformed understanding of “Justification.”
The NPP suggests that justification is more about ecclesiology (the doctrine of the church) than soteriology (the doctrines of salvation). From: What St. Paul Really Said, page 158. Wright translates “pistis Christou” not as human faith in Messiah but as the faithfulness of the Messiah. N.T. Wright also appears to question the historic Reformed teaching on imputation: In one of his recent books he writes, “If we use the language of the law court, it makes no sense whatever to say that the judge imputes, imparts, bequeaths, conveys or otherwise transfers his righteousness to either the plaintiff or the defendant. Righteousness is not an object, a substance or a gas which can be passed around the courtroom…To imagine the defendant somehow receiving the judge’s righteousness is simply a category mistake. That is not how the language works.” From: What St. Paul Really Said, page 98. This is quote is very troubling. Romans 3:22, Rom. 4:6, and 2 Cor. 5:21 are major texts that deal with this issue. Next week we will look at many different passages that discuss this issue. Suffice to say, The NPP redefines the classic Reformed understanding of “Justification.”
H. The NPP sounds more like Roman Catholic dogma than it does classic Protestant theology. Covenantal Nomism (which I described earlier) is very similar to Roman Catholic theology (in certain respects). Dr. Jack Hughes makes this important connection, “Roman Catholic theology teaches that infant baptism places one into the ‘covenant community’ and as long as that person continues to observe the sacraments, he will preserve himself and be saved.” This definition is simplified quite a bit but gets at the heart of the issue at hand. Roman Catholicism of course is a legalistic system which holds to salvation by faith and works.
E.P Sanders and James Dunn seem to believe that Christians today (in the covenant community) are under a “bilateral” covenant: They enter into this covenant by faith but remain in the covenant through works. (Note: What St. Paul Really Said, page 19). Friends do you see the eerie close similarities between Roman Catholic theology and the NPP?
I. And to top things off, The NPP offers a new understanding of the biblical Gospel.
According to N.T. Wright the gospel is “Jesus is the Lord and Messiah.” N.T. Wright redefines the doctrine of imputation and he redefines the concept of Christ’s righteousness…(Note What St. Paul Really Said, pages 41, 60-61, & 98). To Wright, the gospel is not the message of justification (like Augustine, Luther and Calvin believed). The good news is more about Romans 1:1-4 NOT Romans 1:16-17 or Romans 3:21-28. The gospel then is about the Person of Christ rather than the work of Christ. Of course I believe the Bible teaches the gospel is a both/and combination not an either/or concept as NT Wright and other New Perspective folks wrongly believe. But that is getting ahead of myself, so I’ll stop here.
To summarize then:
A) The New Perspective departs from the Grammatical-historical method of exegesis
B) The New Perspective views the NT “church” through “Covenantal” lenses.
C) It believes the Evangelical Church has badly misunderstood Judaism throughout church history.
D) The NPP asserts a firm belief in “covenantal nomism” as the way to understand 2nd Temple Judaism.
E) N.T. Wright (and others) redefines classic Texts like Gal. 2:11-21 and Phil 3 (among many key New Testament passages)
F) More specifically, N.T. Wright redefines the classic Protestant understanding of the important Biblical phrase, “the works of the law” (from Gal 2:16, Rom 3:20, etc).
G) The NPP redefines the classic reformed understanding of “Justification.”
H) In doing all this, the NPP sounds more like Roman Catholic dogma than it does classic Protestant theology.
I) Finally, The NPP offers a new understanding of the biblical “gospel.”
The NPP on Paul has 3 main spokesmen today:
1. E.P. Sanders (1937-) Arts and Sciences Professor of Religion at Duke University
2. James D.G. Dunn (1939-) Professor of Divinity at the University of Durham, England. Dr. Dunn first coined this phrase (“the NPP”) in a 1982 lecture.
3. N.T. Wright (1948-) the Bishop of Durham, one of the highest ranking bishops in the Church of England.
N.T. Wright is the most popular proponent of NPP. He is the only one (of the 3 mentioned above) to consider himself an “evangelical.” Wright has said of himself, “I see myself as a deeply orthodox theologian.” On the back of his newest NPP book, “Paul: In Fresh Perspective” a writer from TIME magazine endorsed Wright’s book noting, “N.T. Wright is one of the most formidable of traditionalist Bible Scholars.”
Now it’s true, N.T. Wright has written a number of books that have been very helpful and well-researched. He is a very smart individual. Some of his NT scholarship has truly benefited the Church (such as his massive tome on the resurrection and his books that dealt with the historicity of the gospels). But when it comes to his “New Perspective on Paul”, sadly, Tom Wright is outside classic Evangelicalism.
-->So what do you need to know about the New Perspective?
A. They depart from the Grammatical-historical method of exegesis
In place, the NPP proponents utilize Historical Criticism. Dr. F David Farnell notes, “Essentially, the NPP’s central tenet accuses the Reformers of subjective bias, at the same time ignoring the extreme bias of their own approach that promotes subjectivity through historical criticism and the New Hermeneutic.” Historical criticism has an anti-supernatural bias. As a result they discount inspiration and often undermine the inerrancy of the original autographs. (For more detailed info check out my recent lecture on “hermeneutics” or read Evangelical Hermeneutics by Dr. Robert L Thomas).
B. They view the NT “church” through Covenantal lenses.
In other words, the New Perspective believes the church is the “covenant community” of God. They would view the Church as the “New Israel.” For this reason, the NPP has been more alluring to Presbyterians (those holding to Covenant theology) more than its really attracted Reformed Baptists and Dispensationalists.
C. New Perspective leaders believe the Reformed community has badly misunderstood second temple Judaism throughout church history.
The New Perspective essentially teaches that 2nd Temple Judaism was a religion of grace. Tom Wright makes this very clear on page 120 (from his book), “What St. Paul Really Said.” New Perspective leaders would have you believe that first century Judaism was not a works-righteousness system. If they are right here, then the traditional interpretation of Romans and Galatians (by scholars like Augustine, Luther, and Calvin) have been dead wrong. In short, the NP presents a “fresh” understanding of the ancient religion of Judaism.
D. The NPP asserts a firm belief in “covenantal nomism” as the way to understand 2nd temple Judaism.
E.P. Sanders describes covenantal nomism as “the view, that one’s place in God’s plan is established on the basis of the covenant and that covenant requires as the proper response of man his obedience to its commandments, while providing means of atonement for transgression.” In short, Judaism during Jesus’ and Paul’s day, was a religion of grace; but maintenance of that salvation was through covenant (by works). One professor summarizes Covenantal nomism this way, “Getting in by faith, staying in by obedience.” Understanding this distinction is very important!
E. N.T. Wright (and others) redefines classic Texts like Gal. 2:11-21 and Phil 3:1-11.
Tom Wright adds, “The (Gal. 2) passage works far better if we see the meaning of “justified” not as a statement about how someone becomes a Christian but as a statement about who belongs to the people of God, and how you can tell that in the present” (FROM-->Paul: In Fresh Perspective, page 112). According to the New Perspective, Protestants have simply read Luther into Paul’s writings (“What St. Paul Really Said” pg 117). Wright is really accusing the Reformed tradition of 500 years of serious exogesis!
F. More specifically, N.T. Wright redefines the classic Protestant understanding of the important Biblical phrase, “the works of the law” (from Gal 2:16, Rom 3:20, etc).
N.T. Wright and others limit this important theological phrase to circumcision, Sabbath-keeping, and dietary restrictions. They believe these works marked out the people of the covenant. NP teachers believe that, in context, this phrase is about ethnic and social identification NOT legalistic self-righteousness and justification.
Again this is a major departure from the traditional interpretation of this biblical phrase. (Check out Dr. Barrick's journal article on this for more detailed information).
G. The NPP redefines the classic Reformed understanding of “Justification.”
The NPP suggests that justification is more about ecclesiology (the doctrine of the church) than soteriology (the doctrines of salvation). From: What St. Paul Really Said, page 158. Wright translates “pistis Christou” not as human faith in Messiah but as the faithfulness of the Messiah. N.T. Wright also appears to question the historic Reformed teaching on imputation: In one of his recent books he writes, “If we use the language of the law court, it makes no sense whatever to say that the judge imputes, imparts, bequeaths, conveys or otherwise transfers his righteousness to either the plaintiff or the defendant. Righteousness is not an object, a substance or a gas which can be passed around the courtroom…To imagine the defendant somehow receiving the judge’s righteousness is simply a category mistake. That is not how the language works.” From: What St. Paul Really Said, page 98. This is quote is very troubling. Romans 3:22, Rom. 4:6, and 2 Cor. 5:21 are major texts that deal with this issue. Next week we will look at many different passages that discuss this issue. Suffice to say, The NPP redefines the classic Reformed understanding of “Justification.”
H. The NPP sounds more like Roman Catholic dogma than it does classic Protestant theology. Covenantal Nomism (which I described earlier) is very similar to Roman Catholic theology (in certain respects). Dr. Jack Hughes makes this important connection, “Roman Catholic theology teaches that infant baptism places one into the ‘covenant community’ and as long as that person continues to observe the sacraments, he will preserve himself and be saved.” This definition is simplified quite a bit but gets at the heart of the issue at hand. Roman Catholicism of course is a legalistic system which holds to salvation by faith and works.
E.P Sanders and James Dunn seem to believe that Christians today (in the covenant community) are under a “bilateral” covenant: They enter into this covenant by faith but remain in the covenant through works. (Note: What St. Paul Really Said, page 19). Friends do you see the eerie close similarities between Roman Catholic theology and the NPP?
I. And to top things off, The NPP offers a new understanding of the biblical Gospel.
According to N.T. Wright the gospel is “Jesus is the Lord and Messiah.” N.T. Wright redefines the doctrine of imputation and he redefines the concept of Christ’s righteousness…(Note What St. Paul Really Said, pages 41, 60-61, & 98). To Wright, the gospel is not the message of justification (like Augustine, Luther and Calvin believed). The good news is more about Romans 1:1-4 NOT Romans 1:16-17 or Romans 3:21-28. The gospel then is about the Person of Christ rather than the work of Christ. Of course I believe the Bible teaches the gospel is a both/and combination not an either/or concept as NT Wright and other New Perspective folks wrongly believe. But that is getting ahead of myself, so I’ll stop here.
To summarize then:
A) The New Perspective departs from the Grammatical-historical method of exegesis
B) The New Perspective views the NT “church” through “Covenantal” lenses.
C) It believes the Evangelical Church has badly misunderstood Judaism throughout church history.
D) The NPP asserts a firm belief in “covenantal nomism” as the way to understand 2nd Temple Judaism.
E) N.T. Wright (and others) redefines classic Texts like Gal. 2:11-21 and Phil 3 (among many key New Testament passages)
F) More specifically, N.T. Wright redefines the classic Protestant understanding of the important Biblical phrase, “the works of the law” (from Gal 2:16, Rom 3:20, etc).
G) The NPP redefines the classic reformed understanding of “Justification.”
H) In doing all this, the NPP sounds more like Roman Catholic dogma than it does classic Protestant theology.
I) Finally, The NPP offers a new understanding of the biblical “gospel.”
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
The New Perspective on Paul (part 1)
The New Perspective on Paul
Opening Introduction
It has been said that nothing dispels a lie more quickly then the truth; & nothing exposes a counterfeit faster then examining the genuine object. Well-crafted counterfeit dollars often go unnoticed by the untrained eye. What every Counterfeiter fears is that someone will examine his bogus bill, while holding a genuine bill next to it. If you look at a genuine bill and compare it with a bogus bill you will expose all the inconsistencies.
Cubic Zirconia is a gemstone that is sometimes confused for a genuine diamond. It glitters and shines like a diamond but is obv. way less valuable! Diamond sellers must be very careful NOT to purchase counterfeit stones. The better they know genuine diamonds, the more equipped they are to purchase real ones. The more they know the qualities and characteristics of genuine diamonds the less likely they'll purchase a counterfeit.
In my estimation, the best way to combat heresy is to know the gospel message, inside and out. The better you know ‘the truth’ the more readily you’ll be able to uncover ‘error.’ One pastor said, “To recognize and expose fatal error is not judgmental, it is discerning. To communicate contrasting truth graciously, is not vindictive; it is loving.” Our own Pastor (Joe Flatt) has reminded us many times that “Every Christian is a theologian.” All of us need to study God’s Word diligently...Some of us simply need to turn off our TVs and open up the Book. According to the A.C. Nielson Co. (this from 1998) the average American watches over 3 hours of TV each day. By age 65 the average American will have spent nearly 9 years of his life glued to the tube. Need anyone answer the question, why is the Church so biblically ignorant?
We need to study the Word to know our God better! This should be motivation enough to have devotions every morning. Study the Scriptures to know your God. We also need to study the Bible for apologetic reasons. We should be ready to defend the Truth whenever necessary. 1 Peter 3:15 says,"But sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence." (Also note Jude 3).
Galatians, chapter 1, makes it very clear that there is only one true gospel. Galatians 1:6-9, "I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you, and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed."
Nothing is more important to the Church than the gospel of Jesus Christ! If you doubt this reality, do a careful Bible study through Galatians, Romans, or 1 & 2 Corinthians. When the church loses sight of the centrality of the Cross she is not far from grave danger; and if the church embraces or tolerates a heteros (“another”) gospel she is on the road to apostasy. Church history has proven the truthfulness of these assertions.
The next statement I’m about to make is radical but I believe it reflects the heart of Jesus and the Apostles: Every believer should be willing to sacrifice, and if necessary, to lay down their life for the purity of the Gospel!
In Mark 10:29-30, Jesus said, "Truly I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or farms, for My sake and for the gospel's sake, but that he shall receive a hundred times as much now in the present age, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and farms, along with persecutions; and in the age to come, eternal life."
This reality has to grip us! If it doesn’t, then these lectures (during the next two weeks) will be of no interest to you. God’s gospel is infinitely precious (Note: Matthew 13:44-46); When you read through the 4 Gospels you’ll find Jesus preaching the gospel msg. everywhere he goes. The Bible says the gospel is “the power of God unto salvation”(Rom 1:16-17). Its value is incalculable!
Perhaps no human understood this reality better than the Apostle Paul In Acts 20:24 he declared, "But I do not consider my life of any account as dear to myself, in order that I may finish my course, and the ministry which I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify solemnly of the gospel of the grace of God."
Paul’s personal encounter with the glory of God and the saving grace of Jesus Christ radically altered his entire life! Thus his purpose in life (Phil 2:21) was totally consistent with God’s passion for His glory (Eph 1:12, Isaiah 43:7)!
In 1 Corinthians 9:23 Paul said, “And I do all things for the sake of the gospel, that I may become a fellow partaker of it.”
You know that gospel has been assaulted in a variety of ways throughout church history.
I. On one spectrum there are ‘antinomian’ attacks- (“this view isolates justification from sanctification”). We see this heresy addressed by the Apostles in James, 2 Peter, and Jude.
II. On the other front, there are those who try and blend justification and sanctification together. This turns salvation into a process. It mixes human achievement w/sovereign grace. We see this heresy addressed by Jesus in the gospels and by Paul in Galatians and Romans (The Judaizers and the Pharisees).
III. One of the more modern day attacks on the euaggelion comes from within Evangelicalism: This movement is called, “The NEW Perspective on Paul.”
(also referred to as the NPP or NPP).
Let me say upfront, this subject is very technical. It is promoted by some very excellent New Testament scholars and thus is almost impossible to summarize and fairly critique in a 30 minute time period. Much of the material I’m discussing tonight comes from the excellent scholarship found in the books I’ve given you in the bibliography section of your notes. Please check out my bibliography for more in-depth research.
My objective during these lectures is really three-fold: (#1) I want to Examine the claims made by advocates of the NPP. What are they teaching? We can not fairly critique them if we don't understand what they are teaching.
(#2) I’d like to Briefly examine the ancient writings of the Church Fathers, the Reformers, and the Puritans.
And finally (#3) We’ll end by comparing all these teachings with HOLY SCRIPTURE, God’s infallible, unchanging word.
Once we accomplish this objective, we’ll quickly realize those who have taught the true biblical gospel and those who’ve invented a “new” one.
Opening Introduction
It has been said that nothing dispels a lie more quickly then the truth; & nothing exposes a counterfeit faster then examining the genuine object. Well-crafted counterfeit dollars often go unnoticed by the untrained eye. What every Counterfeiter fears is that someone will examine his bogus bill, while holding a genuine bill next to it. If you look at a genuine bill and compare it with a bogus bill you will expose all the inconsistencies.
Cubic Zirconia is a gemstone that is sometimes confused for a genuine diamond. It glitters and shines like a diamond but is obv. way less valuable! Diamond sellers must be very careful NOT to purchase counterfeit stones. The better they know genuine diamonds, the more equipped they are to purchase real ones. The more they know the qualities and characteristics of genuine diamonds the less likely they'll purchase a counterfeit.
In my estimation, the best way to combat heresy is to know the gospel message, inside and out. The better you know ‘the truth’ the more readily you’ll be able to uncover ‘error.’ One pastor said, “To recognize and expose fatal error is not judgmental, it is discerning. To communicate contrasting truth graciously, is not vindictive; it is loving.” Our own Pastor (Joe Flatt) has reminded us many times that “Every Christian is a theologian.” All of us need to study God’s Word diligently...Some of us simply need to turn off our TVs and open up the Book. According to the A.C. Nielson Co. (this from 1998) the average American watches over 3 hours of TV each day. By age 65 the average American will have spent nearly 9 years of his life glued to the tube. Need anyone answer the question, why is the Church so biblically ignorant?
We need to study the Word to know our God better! This should be motivation enough to have devotions every morning. Study the Scriptures to know your God. We also need to study the Bible for apologetic reasons. We should be ready to defend the Truth whenever necessary. 1 Peter 3:15 says,"But sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence." (Also note Jude 3).
Galatians, chapter 1, makes it very clear that there is only one true gospel. Galatians 1:6-9, "I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you, and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed."
Nothing is more important to the Church than the gospel of Jesus Christ! If you doubt this reality, do a careful Bible study through Galatians, Romans, or 1 & 2 Corinthians. When the church loses sight of the centrality of the Cross she is not far from grave danger; and if the church embraces or tolerates a heteros (“another”) gospel she is on the road to apostasy. Church history has proven the truthfulness of these assertions.
The next statement I’m about to make is radical but I believe it reflects the heart of Jesus and the Apostles: Every believer should be willing to sacrifice, and if necessary, to lay down their life for the purity of the Gospel!
In Mark 10:29-30, Jesus said, "Truly I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or farms, for My sake and for the gospel's sake, but that he shall receive a hundred times as much now in the present age, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and farms, along with persecutions; and in the age to come, eternal life."
This reality has to grip us! If it doesn’t, then these lectures (during the next two weeks) will be of no interest to you. God’s gospel is infinitely precious (Note: Matthew 13:44-46); When you read through the 4 Gospels you’ll find Jesus preaching the gospel msg. everywhere he goes. The Bible says the gospel is “the power of God unto salvation”(Rom 1:16-17). Its value is incalculable!
Perhaps no human understood this reality better than the Apostle Paul In Acts 20:24 he declared, "But I do not consider my life of any account as dear to myself, in order that I may finish my course, and the ministry which I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify solemnly of the gospel of the grace of God."
Paul’s personal encounter with the glory of God and the saving grace of Jesus Christ radically altered his entire life! Thus his purpose in life (Phil 2:21) was totally consistent with God’s passion for His glory (Eph 1:12, Isaiah 43:7)!
In 1 Corinthians 9:23 Paul said, “And I do all things for the sake of the gospel, that I may become a fellow partaker of it.”
You know that gospel has been assaulted in a variety of ways throughout church history.
I. On one spectrum there are ‘antinomian’ attacks- (“this view isolates justification from sanctification”). We see this heresy addressed by the Apostles in James, 2 Peter, and Jude.
II. On the other front, there are those who try and blend justification and sanctification together. This turns salvation into a process. It mixes human achievement w/sovereign grace. We see this heresy addressed by Jesus in the gospels and by Paul in Galatians and Romans (The Judaizers and the Pharisees).
III. One of the more modern day attacks on the euaggelion comes from within Evangelicalism: This movement is called, “The NEW Perspective on Paul.”
(also referred to as the NPP or NPP).
Let me say upfront, this subject is very technical. It is promoted by some very excellent New Testament scholars and thus is almost impossible to summarize and fairly critique in a 30 minute time period. Much of the material I’m discussing tonight comes from the excellent scholarship found in the books I’ve given you in the bibliography section of your notes. Please check out my bibliography for more in-depth research.
My objective during these lectures is really three-fold: (#1) I want to Examine the claims made by advocates of the NPP. What are they teaching? We can not fairly critique them if we don't understand what they are teaching.
(#2) I’d like to Briefly examine the ancient writings of the Church Fathers, the Reformers, and the Puritans.
And finally (#3) We’ll end by comparing all these teachings with HOLY SCRIPTURE, God’s infallible, unchanging word.
Once we accomplish this objective, we’ll quickly realize those who have taught the true biblical gospel and those who’ve invented a “new” one.
Sunday, July 23, 2006
New Perspective notes (will be released soon)
The NPP lectures notes will be uploaded on Wed.
Thanks,
Caleb
Thanks,
Caleb
Basic Bible Interpretation (pt 3)
IV. The Need for this Particular Study
The Bible truly is God’s Word. As such, it is authoritative and binding for all peoples in all times (that’s why Satan hates it). He loves to undermine and minimize God's book. Throughout history, The Bible has been misinterpreted, thousands of times. Some people have done this intentionally while many more have done so unintentionally.
A) Some Atheists claim the Bible supports their position, after all Psalm 14:1 does say, “there is NO God.”
Of course the first part of the verse says, “The fool has said in his heart, there is NO God.”
B) Jehovah Witnesses and other cult groups say they believe in the Bible.
They quickly point out Colossians 1:15 which says, “Jesus is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation.” J.W.’s teach that Jesus is not eternal (He has an origin), thus He can’t be God. Of course a basic understanding of the original languages and the context of this particular passage clearly reveals what Paul was trying to say: Jesus is the “first-born” in this sense: He is preeminent in rank and supremacy over all His brethren. In addition, verse 16 claims Jesus was present when the universe was created (His eternality). This passage of Scripture does not destroy the Deity of Jesus Christ…On the contrary, it emphatically upholds it!
C) Roman Catholics often point out James 2:24 to show the apparent inconsistencies of Sola Fide (Justification by faith alone);
James 2:24 says, “You see that a man is justified by works, and NOT by faith alone.” Yet when this Epistle is understand in its historical setting, one realizes that James was attacking the errors of the Antinomians (cheap grace); Which is why he repeatedly emphasizes this concept: True saving faith works itself out in sanctification. A person is justified by faith alone BUT NOT by a faith that is alone (the evidence of our justification)!
D) Christians sometimes point out Matthew 7, which says “Judge not, least you be judged.”
This verse is used by some professing Believers to excuse sinful behavior. Others use it as an excuse not to faithfully confront people (after all who I am to judge?). But when understood in its entire context, Jesus is getting at a much different point. Jesus isn’t saying, “Don’t confront a sinning brother” what he is saying is “1st examine your own life(and make it right) BEFORE judging another person. The key word is found in verse 5, (circle the word), “THEN”………..
E) I’ve heard many Christians misapply Matthew 18:20 which says, “For where two or three have gathered together in My name, there I am in their midst."
During scarcely attended prayer meetings someone will inevitably quote this verse in a earnest attempt to bring comfort to all that God is still in their midst (which of course He is). Unfortunately in context this verse is talking about the Lord’s presence (His confirmation) during the church discipline process NOT….
F) One person recorded this somewhat humorous example of how a pastor totally misapplied the Word of God during a Bible conference.
The speaker was preaching from John 11, the story of the resurrection of Lazarus. This was his interpretation, “Lazarus is a symbol of the church, and what we have here is a vivid picture of the rapture of the believers. The resurrection of Lazarus is the church going through the rapture.”
G) Some people try and handle poisonous snakes based on their reading of Mark 16:18 while others speak in tongues because the apostles did so in Acts 2.
-->One thing that’s essential is to recognize the difference between prescriptive and descriptive passages of Scripture.
H) A more common error today is perfectly described for us in a blog posting from a member of our church.
He writes, “I believe one of the key issues today regarding poor hermeneutics is our American tendency to 'need' the quick fix. We aren’t interested in hard-work and seeing the bigger picture; rather, we believe it is our right to have the solution presented to us in a clear/concise way. We want to believe the infomercials showing us how to become millionaires by age 30 or get great abs in 5 minutes a day. We want the maximum benefit with the least amount of work. For Christians, this attitude creates the desire for 'THE verse'. You know… the perfect summary in 10 words or less that gives us the answers we so desperately need to all of our current problems. When we approach scripture this way, we frequently impose our presuppositions on the text. We surgically remove a verse that 'speaks' to us, from the surrounding paragraph, letter, and book.”
All of us have probably been guilty of doing this at some point in our Christian life. We’ve played fast and loose with the biblical text…We’ve wanted a quick answer so we’ve imposed our meaning the Bible. We need to be very careful how we interpret and apply the Bible……….
The Bible truly is God’s Word. As such, it is authoritative and binding for all peoples in all times (that’s why Satan hates it). He loves to undermine and minimize God's book. Throughout history, The Bible has been misinterpreted, thousands of times. Some people have done this intentionally while many more have done so unintentionally.
A) Some Atheists claim the Bible supports their position, after all Psalm 14:1 does say, “there is NO God.”
Of course the first part of the verse says, “The fool has said in his heart, there is NO God.”
B) Jehovah Witnesses and other cult groups say they believe in the Bible.
They quickly point out Colossians 1:15 which says, “Jesus is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation.” J.W.’s teach that Jesus is not eternal (He has an origin), thus He can’t be God. Of course a basic understanding of the original languages and the context of this particular passage clearly reveals what Paul was trying to say: Jesus is the “first-born” in this sense: He is preeminent in rank and supremacy over all His brethren. In addition, verse 16 claims Jesus was present when the universe was created (His eternality). This passage of Scripture does not destroy the Deity of Jesus Christ…On the contrary, it emphatically upholds it!
C) Roman Catholics often point out James 2:24 to show the apparent inconsistencies of Sola Fide (Justification by faith alone);
James 2:24 says, “You see that a man is justified by works, and NOT by faith alone.” Yet when this Epistle is understand in its historical setting, one realizes that James was attacking the errors of the Antinomians (cheap grace); Which is why he repeatedly emphasizes this concept: True saving faith works itself out in sanctification. A person is justified by faith alone BUT NOT by a faith that is alone (the evidence of our justification)!
D) Christians sometimes point out Matthew 7, which says “Judge not, least you be judged.”
This verse is used by some professing Believers to excuse sinful behavior. Others use it as an excuse not to faithfully confront people (after all who I am to judge?). But when understood in its entire context, Jesus is getting at a much different point. Jesus isn’t saying, “Don’t confront a sinning brother” what he is saying is “1st examine your own life(and make it right) BEFORE judging another person. The key word is found in verse 5, (circle the word), “THEN”………..
E) I’ve heard many Christians misapply Matthew 18:20 which says, “For where two or three have gathered together in My name, there I am in their midst."
During scarcely attended prayer meetings someone will inevitably quote this verse in a earnest attempt to bring comfort to all that God is still in their midst (which of course He is). Unfortunately in context this verse is talking about the Lord’s presence (His confirmation) during the church discipline process NOT….
F) One person recorded this somewhat humorous example of how a pastor totally misapplied the Word of God during a Bible conference.
The speaker was preaching from John 11, the story of the resurrection of Lazarus. This was his interpretation, “Lazarus is a symbol of the church, and what we have here is a vivid picture of the rapture of the believers. The resurrection of Lazarus is the church going through the rapture.”
G) Some people try and handle poisonous snakes based on their reading of Mark 16:18 while others speak in tongues because the apostles did so in Acts 2.
-->One thing that’s essential is to recognize the difference between prescriptive and descriptive passages of Scripture.
H) A more common error today is perfectly described for us in a blog posting from a member of our church.
He writes, “I believe one of the key issues today regarding poor hermeneutics is our American tendency to 'need' the quick fix. We aren’t interested in hard-work and seeing the bigger picture; rather, we believe it is our right to have the solution presented to us in a clear/concise way. We want to believe the infomercials showing us how to become millionaires by age 30 or get great abs in 5 minutes a day. We want the maximum benefit with the least amount of work. For Christians, this attitude creates the desire for 'THE verse'. You know… the perfect summary in 10 words or less that gives us the answers we so desperately need to all of our current problems. When we approach scripture this way, we frequently impose our presuppositions on the text. We surgically remove a verse that 'speaks' to us, from the surrounding paragraph, letter, and book.”
All of us have probably been guilty of doing this at some point in our Christian life. We’ve played fast and loose with the biblical text…We’ve wanted a quick answer so we’ve imposed our meaning the Bible. We need to be very careful how we interpret and apply the Bible……….
Saturday, July 22, 2006
Herm. (pt 2)
II. The Good News
Hallelujah friends, God has spoken! The infinite God of the Universe has revealed Himself and His glorious character to finite man! This is a great news! We could not know GOD apart from him revealing himself to us. The primary way God speaks today is through His external Word. Thus it is our great privilege to figure out the spiritual significance of God’s Holy Word. To study the Bible to know its meaning. This of course can only be done through the Holy Spirit’s enablement,
see 1 Cor 1-2. 1 John 2:20 and 1 John 2:27 should provide every believer with hope. All of us can accurately understand the Word of God because of the H.S. The H.S. guides true believers into the Truth!
This does not eliminate the need for diligent study (1 Tim 2:15 makes that clear). This does not eliminate the need for gifted teachers either (Note 1 Cor 12:28 & Eph 4:11); But it does mean you are not totally reliant on us. I hope this reminder is received as good news this evening! God has provided us a light onto our feet and a lamp until our path. We can know something of the mind of Christ and the will of God.
III. A Basic Definition
Before I move forward in this lecture let me 1st try and define this seminary word for you: “Hermeneutics” is simply a set of principles. It’s the science and art of interpreting the Bible. Bernard Ramm adds, “It is a science because it is guided by rules within a system; and it is an art because the application of the rules is by skill, and not by mechanical imitation.” More specifically sound hermeneutics “determine the rules which are legitimate in the interpretive process and those which are not.”
Another key concept that must be understood is the word exegesis: This means to lead the meaning out of the text, to show the way, or to interpret the proper meaning. IN other words, the human interpreter must avoid imposing a preconceived notion into any given text (Eisogesis). Our goal as we study the bible is to determine the original meaning of the text! We want to know what God meant when He, by the Holy Spirit, led the prophets and apostles to write the Holy Scriptures!
The handout I gave you tonight illustrates how an exegetically-driven theology should look! (see my handout for a diagram on this)
Hallelujah friends, God has spoken! The infinite God of the Universe has revealed Himself and His glorious character to finite man! This is a great news! We could not know GOD apart from him revealing himself to us. The primary way God speaks today is through His external Word. Thus it is our great privilege to figure out the spiritual significance of God’s Holy Word. To study the Bible to know its meaning. This of course can only be done through the Holy Spirit’s enablement,
see 1 Cor 1-2. 1 John 2:20 and 1 John 2:27 should provide every believer with hope. All of us can accurately understand the Word of God because of the H.S. The H.S. guides true believers into the Truth!
This does not eliminate the need for diligent study (1 Tim 2:15 makes that clear). This does not eliminate the need for gifted teachers either (Note 1 Cor 12:28 & Eph 4:11); But it does mean you are not totally reliant on us. I hope this reminder is received as good news this evening! God has provided us a light onto our feet and a lamp until our path. We can know something of the mind of Christ and the will of God.
III. A Basic Definition
Before I move forward in this lecture let me 1st try and define this seminary word for you: “Hermeneutics” is simply a set of principles. It’s the science and art of interpreting the Bible. Bernard Ramm adds, “It is a science because it is guided by rules within a system; and it is an art because the application of the rules is by skill, and not by mechanical imitation.” More specifically sound hermeneutics “determine the rules which are legitimate in the interpretive process and those which are not.”
Another key concept that must be understood is the word exegesis: This means to lead the meaning out of the text, to show the way, or to interpret the proper meaning. IN other words, the human interpreter must avoid imposing a preconceived notion into any given text (Eisogesis). Our goal as we study the bible is to determine the original meaning of the text! We want to know what God meant when He, by the Holy Spirit, led the prophets and apostles to write the Holy Scriptures!
The handout I gave you tonight illustrates how an exegetically-driven theology should look! (see my handout for a diagram on this)
Friday, July 21, 2006
Hermeneutics (PT 1)
Applicational Hermeneutics
I. The Problem
We live in a day and age when people want to express there opinions at almost any cost.
(E.G.) Radio shows: Jim Rome, Sean Hannity, Howard Stern, etc.
TV Shows: Phil Donahue, Oprah Winifrey, Dr. Phil, etc.
Internet: everybody seems to have a blog these days.
Americans like to share their opinion in just about every venue imaginable…This attitude has inevitably permeated herself into the church. I think that this can be both a positive thing and a negative thing.
Dialogue teaching is one, of many different ways, the Bible can be taught during: small group settings, Sunday school classes, or even home bible studies. Dialogue & Interaction can be helpful for both the teacher (clarity) and the students (understanding/attention).
Expository exultation (ie. biblical preaching) should never be replaced by these popular teaching methods; But that doesn’t mean other forms of teaching don’t have a place in the life of the church…. (That’s exactly why FBC offers a variety of teaching styles during our Connect hour and FLOCK groups).
I don’t have time tonight to go into all the different ways Postmodern thought has affected the church…Suffice to say it has; in a variety of ways (check out Pastor Flatt's lecture on the Emerging Church for more information).
-->One of the more common errors is a very catchy but potentially unwise small group question:
WHAT DOES THIS BIBLE PASSAGE MEAN TO YOU? (Have you heard this one before?)
Some people believe a passage of Scripture can rightly mean multiple things to different people… Certain teachers would have you believe the Bible can be rightly explained with multiple, contradictory interpretations. So they ask: WHAT’S YOUR personal take on THIS VERSE? What does this passage mean to you? Some ask this question AS IF absolute truth was simply a by-product of modernity…As if truth were relative…Professor Roy Zuck wisely asks, “If the Bible can be made to mean anything we want, how can it be a reliable guide?”
When it comes to interpreting the Bible my fallible opinion and your personal impressions don’t matter too much. One Pastor put it this way, “the meaning of Scripture is the Scripture.” In other words, IF you don’t have the correct interpretation, you don’t have the Scriptures! You can not rightly apply a passage if you have the WRONG interpretation of the biblical text.
Friends, this is one of the reasons why sound hermeneutics are so essential! One of the most important disciplines for Christians to grow in, is learning how to apply sound hermeneutical principles to the biblical text. This is a crucial discipline for all of us to grow in.
This needs to happen regardless of the ministry context:
A) In our Children’s ministries…
B) Ladies Bible Study,
C) During Youth Group,
D) Adult Flocks,
E) Sunday School time
F) at home during family devotions
G) During biblical counseling sessions
H) & obviously in the pulpit on Sunday mornings.
If you’d like one key verse that supports my thesis carefully, study 2 Timothy 2:15, “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, handling accurately the word of truth.”
I. The Problem
We live in a day and age when people want to express there opinions at almost any cost.
(E.G.) Radio shows: Jim Rome, Sean Hannity, Howard Stern, etc.
TV Shows: Phil Donahue, Oprah Winifrey, Dr. Phil, etc.
Internet: everybody seems to have a blog these days.
Americans like to share their opinion in just about every venue imaginable…This attitude has inevitably permeated herself into the church. I think that this can be both a positive thing and a negative thing.
Dialogue teaching is one, of many different ways, the Bible can be taught during: small group settings, Sunday school classes, or even home bible studies. Dialogue & Interaction can be helpful for both the teacher (clarity) and the students (understanding/attention).
Expository exultation (ie. biblical preaching) should never be replaced by these popular teaching methods; But that doesn’t mean other forms of teaching don’t have a place in the life of the church…. (That’s exactly why FBC offers a variety of teaching styles during our Connect hour and FLOCK groups).
I don’t have time tonight to go into all the different ways Postmodern thought has affected the church…Suffice to say it has; in a variety of ways (check out Pastor Flatt's lecture on the Emerging Church for more information).
-->One of the more common errors is a very catchy but potentially unwise small group question:
WHAT DOES THIS BIBLE PASSAGE MEAN TO YOU? (Have you heard this one before?)
Some people believe a passage of Scripture can rightly mean multiple things to different people… Certain teachers would have you believe the Bible can be rightly explained with multiple, contradictory interpretations. So they ask: WHAT’S YOUR personal take on THIS VERSE? What does this passage mean to you? Some ask this question AS IF absolute truth was simply a by-product of modernity…As if truth were relative…Professor Roy Zuck wisely asks, “If the Bible can be made to mean anything we want, how can it be a reliable guide?”
When it comes to interpreting the Bible my fallible opinion and your personal impressions don’t matter too much. One Pastor put it this way, “the meaning of Scripture is the Scripture.” In other words, IF you don’t have the correct interpretation, you don’t have the Scriptures! You can not rightly apply a passage if you have the WRONG interpretation of the biblical text.
Friends, this is one of the reasons why sound hermeneutics are so essential! One of the most important disciplines for Christians to grow in, is learning how to apply sound hermeneutical principles to the biblical text. This is a crucial discipline for all of us to grow in.
This needs to happen regardless of the ministry context:
A) In our Children’s ministries…
B) Ladies Bible Study,
C) During Youth Group,
D) Adult Flocks,
E) Sunday School time
F) at home during family devotions
G) During biblical counseling sessions
H) & obviously in the pulpit on Sunday mornings.
If you’d like one key verse that supports my thesis carefully, study 2 Timothy 2:15, “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, handling accurately the word of truth.”
Thursday, July 20, 2006
Pastor Flatt's essays will be online soon
This summer Pastor Flatt (and I) are doing some critiques on major movements with Evangelicalism.
Look for Pastor Flatt's "critical response papers" online at www.fbccarmel.com
Pastor Flatt has done lectures on the following:
1. The Purpose Driven movement
2. The Emerging Church movement
3. The DaVinci Code
I have talked on
1. Applicational Hermeneutics
2. The New Perspective on Paul (this sunday 7/23).
Look for Pastor Flatt's "critical response papers" online at www.fbccarmel.com
Pastor Flatt has done lectures on the following:
1. The Purpose Driven movement
2. The Emerging Church movement
3. The DaVinci Code
I have talked on
1. Applicational Hermeneutics
2. The New Perspective on Paul (this sunday 7/23).
Friday, July 14, 2006
New Book
Today is my "off" day. Pastor Flatt now gives us Friday and Saturday off! I am reading "Paul: in Fresh Perspective" by N.T. Wright because i am doing a lecture at FBC on the New Perspective next Sunday night. I would rather read other material but i want to read more original source stuff before i offer a critique.
Most Fridays i have work to catch up on anyways but atleast now i can do it from home!
Last Sunday night i lectured on Hermeneutics. Any thoughts on how it went from you who heard it (www.fbccarmel.com)?
Have a great weekend!!
Most Fridays i have work to catch up on anyways but atleast now i can do it from home!
Last Sunday night i lectured on Hermeneutics. Any thoughts on how it went from you who heard it (www.fbccarmel.com)?
Have a great weekend!!
Thursday, July 13, 2006
Paul Lamey on Preaching
What happens when a word reaches beyond any meaningful consensus and everyone makes a claim to its use? This is exactly the problem with the word “expository” as in “everyone claims to be an expository preacher.” It is no stretch to say that many preachers consider themselves expository preachers yet there is little agreement about what the word means. A survey of standard books on preaching will reveal that various authors all emphasize different perspectives (e.g., Robinson, D. A. Carson, Kaiser, Lloyd-Jones, Vines, Olford, Greidanus, Broadus, et al). This was a question we considered at some length in our first D.Min session today and one all preachers should carefully consider.
An examination of terminology raises difficult questions: Can there be biblical preaching that is not expository? Can there be exposition that is not preaching? Is exposition limited to a verse, a paragraph, or something else? Can topical preaching be expositional? The questions could be multiplied at this point. As a reference point I offer Richard Mayhue’s foundational definition from Rediscovering Expository Preaching.
Expository preaching is preaching that focuses predominantly on the text(s) under consideration along with its (their) context(s). Exposition normally concentrates on a single text of Scripture, but it is sometimes possible for a thematic/theological message or a historical/biographical discourse to be expository in nature. An exposition may treat any length of passage.
Following is a helpful summary of the essential elements of expository preaching:
1.The message finds its sole source in Scripture.
2.The message is extracted from Scripture through careful exegesis.
3.The message preparation correctly interprets Scripture in its normal sense and its context.
4.The message clearly explains the original God-intended meaning of Scripture.
5.The message applies the Scriptural meaning for today.
An examination of terminology raises difficult questions: Can there be biblical preaching that is not expository? Can there be exposition that is not preaching? Is exposition limited to a verse, a paragraph, or something else? Can topical preaching be expositional? The questions could be multiplied at this point. As a reference point I offer Richard Mayhue’s foundational definition from Rediscovering Expository Preaching.
Expository preaching is preaching that focuses predominantly on the text(s) under consideration along with its (their) context(s). Exposition normally concentrates on a single text of Scripture, but it is sometimes possible for a thematic/theological message or a historical/biographical discourse to be expository in nature. An exposition may treat any length of passage.
Following is a helpful summary of the essential elements of expository preaching:
1.The message finds its sole source in Scripture.
2.The message is extracted from Scripture through careful exegesis.
3.The message preparation correctly interprets Scripture in its normal sense and its context.
4.The message clearly explains the original God-intended meaning of Scripture.
5.The message applies the Scriptural meaning for today.
Saturday, July 08, 2006
Heroes of the Faith (pt 3)
As I mentioned in my last post this discussion is all about (biblical) balance. It is possible to idolize gifted teachers in a way that would shame the Giver of all good gifts. We must be very careful not to worship our heroes. At the same time, it is entirely appropriate to “honor” faithful servants of the Lord. I will argue in this essay that it also fitting to “imitate” faithful Christian leaders.
We looked at 1 Corinthians 3:5-17 in my previous post. Don Carson summarized this section as follows:
“1. Christian leaders are only servants of Christ and are not to be accorded allegiance reserved for God alone.
2. God cares about his church, and he hold its leaders accountable for how they build it.”
The apostle Paul was not interested in dividing the Church. He gave his very life trying to unite the Church under the banner of Jesus Christ her Head. He did not want a bunch of Paul-groupies causing disunity in the Church. This is one of the reasons why he wrote 1 Corinthians 3:5-17. Yet in this same epistle the apostle Paul called the Corinthians to “imitate” him as he followed Christ (1 Cor 11:1). Paul understood that he was a leader. Pastors are examples and role-models whether they want to be or not. Their can be no Charles Barkley pastors in the ministry (“I’m not a role-model, parents should be role-models”). Paul actually encouraged his readers to imitate his life on numerous occasions (1 Cor 4:16; 1 Thess. 1:6). One pastor puts it this way, “Spiritual leaders must set an example of Christlikeness for all to follow.”
Hebrews 13:17 is pretty straightforward. In this passage of Scripture the author of Hebrews writes, “Remember those who led you, who spoke the word of God to you; and considering the result of their conduct, imitate their faith.” The Greek work for “imitate” is mimeomai from mimos. Here we are told "to mimic" the lives of our own church leaders (those who are worthy of imitation of course).
Of course in chapter 11 the author of Hebrews gave a number of illustrations of men and women who lived tremendous lives of faith. These godly heroes from the past should provide inspiration for all Christians (in the present). Hebrews 12:1-2 says, “Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also lay aside every encumbrance, and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, 2 fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.”
When I think of the Christian heroes I have (Spurgeon, Calvin, Whitefield, MacArthur, Begg, etc) I view them in these categories. Their faithfulness to God encourages me to live with the same type of consistency. Their commitment to the Word in the midst of great opposition is something I hope to imitate and mimic. Their love and passion for Christ is something that I desire as well.
Christian heroes (past and present) can help point us to Christ and motivate us all to live more faithful lives.
We looked at 1 Corinthians 3:5-17 in my previous post. Don Carson summarized this section as follows:
“1. Christian leaders are only servants of Christ and are not to be accorded allegiance reserved for God alone.
2. God cares about his church, and he hold its leaders accountable for how they build it.”
The apostle Paul was not interested in dividing the Church. He gave his very life trying to unite the Church under the banner of Jesus Christ her Head. He did not want a bunch of Paul-groupies causing disunity in the Church. This is one of the reasons why he wrote 1 Corinthians 3:5-17. Yet in this same epistle the apostle Paul called the Corinthians to “imitate” him as he followed Christ (1 Cor 11:1). Paul understood that he was a leader. Pastors are examples and role-models whether they want to be or not. Their can be no Charles Barkley pastors in the ministry (“I’m not a role-model, parents should be role-models”). Paul actually encouraged his readers to imitate his life on numerous occasions (1 Cor 4:16; 1 Thess. 1:6). One pastor puts it this way, “Spiritual leaders must set an example of Christlikeness for all to follow.”
Hebrews 13:17 is pretty straightforward. In this passage of Scripture the author of Hebrews writes, “Remember those who led you, who spoke the word of God to you; and considering the result of their conduct, imitate their faith.” The Greek work for “imitate” is mimeomai from mimos. Here we are told "to mimic" the lives of our own church leaders (those who are worthy of imitation of course).
Of course in chapter 11 the author of Hebrews gave a number of illustrations of men and women who lived tremendous lives of faith. These godly heroes from the past should provide inspiration for all Christians (in the present). Hebrews 12:1-2 says, “Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also lay aside every encumbrance, and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, 2 fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.”
When I think of the Christian heroes I have (Spurgeon, Calvin, Whitefield, MacArthur, Begg, etc) I view them in these categories. Their faithfulness to God encourages me to live with the same type of consistency. Their commitment to the Word in the midst of great opposition is something I hope to imitate and mimic. Their love and passion for Christ is something that I desire as well.
Christian heroes (past and present) can help point us to Christ and motivate us all to live more faithful lives.
Sunday, July 02, 2006
Christian Role Models and Factionalism? (pt 2)
Is it really Idolatrous to have Christian Heroes? (pt 2)
Our God is the creator of the universe. He’s made every single person in the universe different and unique. In other words, none of us are exactly like another human being. This diversity surely is an expression of the creative genius of God. God is glorified in Man’s creative differences.
God has given all of us different talents, gifts, and abilities. When these “spiritual gifts” are used in the local church God is glorified and the body is edified. God has given believers a diversity of gifts for the unity of the body (1 Peter 4:10-11, 1 Cor 12-14). Of course, God has also given each of us different personalities, genetic make-ups, etc. so when two godly pastors preach on the same passage of Scripture it should not sound exactly the same (even when they apply the same hermeneutical principles with great exegetical skill).
It’s important to start here because some people try and imitate Christian leaders (from the past or present) and find themselves frustrated because they can’t duplicate them (at least not very well). Because of this reality some people say it is silly to try and imitate any Christian heroes (past or present). Others say trying “to imitate” or “model” another person shows an underlined attitude of discontentment (i.e. I wish I were made just like so and so). In my judgment this is a both/and deal NOT an either/or situation. Like in so many areas of life this is all about biblical balance.
The Apostle Paul warned the Corinthians against the dangers of factions (read 1 Cor 3). The early Corinthian church was apparently divided over a number of different issues. One of these dividing issues was Christian leadership. Some were saying, ‘I am of Apollos,’ while others declared, ‘Apollos is so ignorant of the Apostles writings, I am of Cephas;” while still others proclaimed, ‘You fools I was trained by our founding father, the great apostle Paul.”
D.A. Carson summarizes 1 Corinthians 3:5-17 very well. He writes, “Two truths can be simply set out:
1. Christian leaders are only servants of Christ and are not to be accorded allegiance reserved for God alone.
2. God cares about his church, and he hold its leaders accountable for how they build it.”
We can learn a lot from these two points. Every man, woman, and child is nothing apart from the grace of God (1 Corinthians 15:10). When God saves us we have the great privilege of being servants of the Master, fools for Christ, children of God. Martin Luther, John Wesley, and Sinclair Ferguson (to name just a few notable churchmen) are only “servants of Christ and are not accorded allegiance reserved for God alone.” We must be very careful not to worship our heroes (yes Calvinists are included in this discussion). One pastor puts it this way, ‘the best of men are still men at best.” Ultimately glory, praise, and honor is only due God (1 Tim 6:16).
Yet the Bible ALSO tells us to “honor” a variety of people and (God ordained) positions. Generally, we are told to give honor to whom honor is due (Romans 13:7). We are commanded to honor our father and mother (Matt 19:9); Honor widows who are truly widows (1 Tim 5:3); Honor elders who labor hard in the Word (1 Tim 5:17); Honor our human masters (1 Tim 6:1); Honor the king and all men (1 Pet 2:17); and honor our wives (1 Peter 3:7). It would be entirely appropriate then to “honor” and “esteem” faithful Christian ministers (see 1 Thess 5:12-13).
Carson goes on to say in his book The Cross and Christian Ministry, “It is not that gratitude to Paul or Apollos or some other worker is inappropriate. Rather what Paul finds inexcusable is the kind of fawning and defensive attachment to one particular leader that results in one-upmanship, quarreling, and jealousy. Implicitly, such allegiance is making too much of one person. It verges on assigning that person godlike status…No Christian leader is to be venerated or listed to or adulated with the kind of allegiance and devotion properly reserved for God alone.”
Much more could be said about this passage but I will save those thoughts for my next post.
Our God is the creator of the universe. He’s made every single person in the universe different and unique. In other words, none of us are exactly like another human being. This diversity surely is an expression of the creative genius of God. God is glorified in Man’s creative differences.
God has given all of us different talents, gifts, and abilities. When these “spiritual gifts” are used in the local church God is glorified and the body is edified. God has given believers a diversity of gifts for the unity of the body (1 Peter 4:10-11, 1 Cor 12-14). Of course, God has also given each of us different personalities, genetic make-ups, etc. so when two godly pastors preach on the same passage of Scripture it should not sound exactly the same (even when they apply the same hermeneutical principles with great exegetical skill).
It’s important to start here because some people try and imitate Christian leaders (from the past or present) and find themselves frustrated because they can’t duplicate them (at least not very well). Because of this reality some people say it is silly to try and imitate any Christian heroes (past or present). Others say trying “to imitate” or “model” another person shows an underlined attitude of discontentment (i.e. I wish I were made just like so and so). In my judgment this is a both/and deal NOT an either/or situation. Like in so many areas of life this is all about biblical balance.
The Apostle Paul warned the Corinthians against the dangers of factions (read 1 Cor 3). The early Corinthian church was apparently divided over a number of different issues. One of these dividing issues was Christian leadership. Some were saying, ‘I am of Apollos,’ while others declared, ‘Apollos is so ignorant of the Apostles writings, I am of Cephas;” while still others proclaimed, ‘You fools I was trained by our founding father, the great apostle Paul.”
D.A. Carson summarizes 1 Corinthians 3:5-17 very well. He writes, “Two truths can be simply set out:
1. Christian leaders are only servants of Christ and are not to be accorded allegiance reserved for God alone.
2. God cares about his church, and he hold its leaders accountable for how they build it.”
We can learn a lot from these two points. Every man, woman, and child is nothing apart from the grace of God (1 Corinthians 15:10). When God saves us we have the great privilege of being servants of the Master, fools for Christ, children of God. Martin Luther, John Wesley, and Sinclair Ferguson (to name just a few notable churchmen) are only “servants of Christ and are not accorded allegiance reserved for God alone.” We must be very careful not to worship our heroes (yes Calvinists are included in this discussion). One pastor puts it this way, ‘the best of men are still men at best.” Ultimately glory, praise, and honor is only due God (1 Tim 6:16).
Yet the Bible ALSO tells us to “honor” a variety of people and (God ordained) positions. Generally, we are told to give honor to whom honor is due (Romans 13:7). We are commanded to honor our father and mother (Matt 19:9); Honor widows who are truly widows (1 Tim 5:3); Honor elders who labor hard in the Word (1 Tim 5:17); Honor our human masters (1 Tim 6:1); Honor the king and all men (1 Pet 2:17); and honor our wives (1 Peter 3:7). It would be entirely appropriate then to “honor” and “esteem” faithful Christian ministers (see 1 Thess 5:12-13).
Carson goes on to say in his book The Cross and Christian Ministry, “It is not that gratitude to Paul or Apollos or some other worker is inappropriate. Rather what Paul finds inexcusable is the kind of fawning and defensive attachment to one particular leader that results in one-upmanship, quarreling, and jealousy. Implicitly, such allegiance is making too much of one person. It verges on assigning that person godlike status…No Christian leader is to be venerated or listed to or adulated with the kind of allegiance and devotion properly reserved for God alone.”
Much more could be said about this passage but I will save those thoughts for my next post.
Saturday, July 01, 2006
Is it Idolatrous to have Christian Heroes?
If you were to enter my pastoral office at work you would quickly notice two things. 1. The massive bookshelves that surround my office; and 2. The pictures of Christian preachers (past and present) that look over my shoulder (on my office walls). As a young minister I often look to the past to find Christian inspiration. I love reading about the legacies of the former “giants of the faith”. Godly men like George Whitefield, John Calvin, John Knox, and Charles Spurgeon (all of whom grace my walls) are heroes of mine (for a variety of reasons). These men were solely dedicated to the Word of God; men who gave their very lives for the gospel. Leaders who did not compromise even when it cost them dearly. Powerful Bible preachers and in many regards wonderful Christian role models. These men loved their Savior and lived for his approval. In my estimation they were Hebrews 11 type people.
There are also many modern day preachers who I greatly respect and admire. For this reason I have an autographed picture of my former pastor (John MacArthur), a small cut out picture of D Martyn Lloyd-Jones, and a postcard picture of Alistair Begg posted on my wall. I attended Grace Community Church for close to 13 years so obviously John MacArthur’s ministry is near and dear to my heart. He was my pastor for many years as well as the President of the two institutions I graduated from (TMC and TMS). Lloyd-Jones was a tremendous leader and a fantastic preacher, while Pastor Begg is a charismatic speaker who (in my opinion) really knows how to drive home the biblical application of a Text. I have great admiration and respect for all the pastor-preachers who grace my pastoral walls. In some ways they keep me accountable and humble. They encourage me to persevere and remain steadfast in my ministerial calling. They remind me that nothing matters more than God's gospel.
With that said, there is clearly a major “famine in the land” when it comes to great expository preaching that is both exegetical (i.e. deep), God-centered, Christ-exulting, and clear. Well-known preachers like John Piper, Mark Dever, R.C Sproul, John MacArthur, Al Mohler, Don Carson, and Alistair Begg are exceptions to this trend. {Of course there are many "lesser-known ministers" who faithfully serve God, (&)who are equally committed to this method/model of ministry/preaching (the contributors of this blog I hope are fair examples of this).}
The questions I want to ask and answer are ones that I hear quite frequently these days: Is it wrong to have a modern day (or ancient day) Christian heroes? Is it sinful to talk about having a favorite preacher (past or present)? Does all this “hero worship” inevitably lead to idolatry, human kingdom building, and/or divisive Christian factions? Are Piper-ites and MacArthur-ites and Begg-ites guilty of unbiblical factionalism (see 1 Corinthians 3)? Is it wrong that I have pictures of sinners saved by grace on my walls?
These are some of the questions I hope to tackle during my upcoming posts. Please be patient as it will take some time to develop and answer all these questions fairly.
There are also many modern day preachers who I greatly respect and admire. For this reason I have an autographed picture of my former pastor (John MacArthur), a small cut out picture of D Martyn Lloyd-Jones, and a postcard picture of Alistair Begg posted on my wall. I attended Grace Community Church for close to 13 years so obviously John MacArthur’s ministry is near and dear to my heart. He was my pastor for many years as well as the President of the two institutions I graduated from (TMC and TMS). Lloyd-Jones was a tremendous leader and a fantastic preacher, while Pastor Begg is a charismatic speaker who (in my opinion) really knows how to drive home the biblical application of a Text. I have great admiration and respect for all the pastor-preachers who grace my pastoral walls. In some ways they keep me accountable and humble. They encourage me to persevere and remain steadfast in my ministerial calling. They remind me that nothing matters more than God's gospel.
With that said, there is clearly a major “famine in the land” when it comes to great expository preaching that is both exegetical (i.e. deep), God-centered, Christ-exulting, and clear. Well-known preachers like John Piper, Mark Dever, R.C Sproul, John MacArthur, Al Mohler, Don Carson, and Alistair Begg are exceptions to this trend. {Of course there are many "lesser-known ministers" who faithfully serve God, (&)who are equally committed to this method/model of ministry/preaching (the contributors of this blog I hope are fair examples of this).}
The questions I want to ask and answer are ones that I hear quite frequently these days: Is it wrong to have a modern day (or ancient day) Christian heroes? Is it sinful to talk about having a favorite preacher (past or present)? Does all this “hero worship” inevitably lead to idolatry, human kingdom building, and/or divisive Christian factions? Are Piper-ites and MacArthur-ites and Begg-ites guilty of unbiblical factionalism (see 1 Corinthians 3)? Is it wrong that I have pictures of sinners saved by grace on my walls?
These are some of the questions I hope to tackle during my upcoming posts. Please be patient as it will take some time to develop and answer all these questions fairly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)