Why do Calvinists....

[Boxmaker]

So was God mistaken when He said that a son like this is a shame to his mother? Why is it not only his own shame? Because the parents have responsibility in the matter.
Is this verse a suggestion, or is it a promise? There are many calvinists that have rebellious, even unsaved children. It means the same thing. It is a shame to them because they failed to believe God's promises and follow His instructions. But an "open christian" starts out from a basis of not believing God's promises, not even believing in a god that is scriptural, so even in their best efforts it is from unbelief, and therefore hold no promise. Lots of calvinists do the same thing. It's pretty sad.
1. Open christians.
2. They have a rebellious son - a shame to them according to scripture.

SDG,

Brad

I guess sending him to jail for three years was not a big enough rod.

Having an open or setteled view of how God works is not central to or even part of salvation. And you know it.

 

[Boxmaker]

What would cause him to lose respect for their views of God?

You cannot lose what you never had. He has never had any respect for them.

Might I ask, how might their view of Openness leave open the possibility that he can convince God to ... be more open to his rebellion?

There open view did not encourage his rebellon. They were always very direct with him. They have told him using scripture that if he continues in his Godless ways he will end up in hell.

Who do you think supplied the drugs and alcohol in the first place? Bio dad is an abuser and drugie on his own. Mom left him and later came to Christ.

He's saying this world is against him.
He's also against what the Creator declares is right.
[/INDENT]This is obvious; universalism can't even enter the picture. The Creator is not going to be pleased with him afterward.

Universal salvation says that if you die not knowing God you will go to the lake of fire. You will only stay in the lake long enough to pay for your sins and accept Christ as your saviour. Universalism does real harm to people and serves the devil.

But you can understand why he clings to it. Mom and step dad have taught him that his choices have concequencs. They have shown him in scripture what those consequences are and that they are eternal. He hears this universal salvation junk and suddenly he has this (false) hope that he can do whatever he wants now and still go to heaven later. He is selfcentered enough to believe that.

 

[Boxmaker]

Well the question is, when did this family (parents) start to follow the christian faith? Have they raised their child up in the church? With a proper view of God and the teaching of the law to their sons/daughters as young children? Did the parents teach their children the way they should go in faith and obedience in Jesus Chirst at a young age? Did they teach their children the undeniable truth of the gospel and sovereignty of God? Did they teach them the truth and then teach them to excersise their own "free will" to make a choice if they wanted to believe or not? If they did, then they can see right now how that view of Christianity just falls apart.

But anyway, my answer to your question...

If this family would have the calvinist view of christianity, they would fully know and trust that God's will, in the life of their disobedient child, WILL STAND! They would know that we were ALL BY NATURE CHILDREN OF WRATH!(Eph 2:3) They would be praying to God that HIS will be done in their lives. They would pray for God to change the heart and call upon their son to walk in the ways of the Lord. And know! that if their child is a covenant child of God, he will be called to obedience. They wouldn't pray for their "FREE WILL", look where that gets ya.
Look at the way they believe now. They believe that their choices (open view) determine the outcome of their situations in the end. But if they were calvinists, they would know that their sons choices and disobedience has already been planned and seen by God for His glory and thier son's good. They would know that Gods decisions of the outcome, dictate the actions and wills of man, and that God will bring it to pass. And know that truly God knows what He is doing in the life of thier son, that they may send him out on his way, so that the Lord may bring him to his knees for the shame that he may see in his life of depravity apart from God. Because if it were up to the son's "FREE WILL" he would NEVER EVER choose GOD! Until people understand that, they can never say that they fully trust in the power of God and His will be done.

.....I was once that family's son.

Or Gods will may just be to send the boy to the lake of fire....

Their prayers are that God would work on the boys heart and change it so that the boy can enter into a saving relationship with Jesus. In accordance with Biblical teaches on church discipline, they are turning him over to his lusts in the hopes that the destruction of the body will bring salvation to the soul. They are fully trusting God with this because the boy has not responded to anything else.

You see, they and you are at the same point. Fully trusting God.

 

[Boxmaker]

GodsElect,

Would you share your testamony? How did you turn your life around a come to Christ?

 

[bradfordl]

Having an open or setteled view of how God works is not central to or even part of salvation. And you know it.

This statement is immaterial to the discussion. What an open view does indicate is that the covenant promises of God are not believed. Are you saying that God was kidding when He said that such a son is a shame to his mother? If you believe God doesn't kid, then why is it any of HER shame, if she has no part in it?

Or Gods will may just be to send the boy to the lake of fire....

Box, you sound like a Calvinist!

Brad

 

[FreeInChrist2]

They have told him using scripture that if he continues in his Godless ways he will end up in hell.

Here in lies the problem. This is not the gospel of grace. Yes it is the law... but turning from his Godless ways will not save him. Many a good people whom have turned from bad habits and immorality are turning up at the gates of hell everyday.

Just as they have thrown salvation back on his resposibility to turn and save himself, they too (as all whom preach that gospel) obviously stand in the same comdemnation of works righteousness and will also perish.

Where is Christ in that (not the gospel) statement?

 

[Boxmaker]

This statement is immaterial to the discussion. What an open view does indicate is that the covenant promises of God are not believed. Are you saying that God was kidding when He said that such a son is a shame to his mother? If you believe God doesn't kid, then why is it any of HER shame, if she has no part in it?

If it was all predestined, she had no meaningful part in it. She was going through a predetermined set of steps the predestined to have no impact on her sons life.

 

[FreeInChrist2]

Is there anyone here that can say (as parents) they have not failed their children? Are there any children here that can say they have not shamed their parents? (besides... GodsElect)

I too was once those parents and their son. Still Am, for the command is to be perfect as He is perfect.

Thank God for Christ and the grace to repent.

 

[Boxmaker]

Here in lies the problem. This is not the gospel of grace. Yes it is the law... but turning from his Godless ways will not save him. Many a good people whom have turned from bad habits and immorality are turning up at the gates of hell everyday.

I agree. Mathew 25 talks to this to some degree.

Just as they have thrown salvation back on his resposibility to turn and save himself, they too (as all whom preach that gospel) obviously stand in the same comdemnation of works righteousness and will also perish.

Where is Christ in that (not the gospel) statement?

His salvation is his responsability.

Revelation 3:20
Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me.

​

As I have said before, we play a role in our salvation. We are created to respond to God and we can harden our hearts to God. That is what this boy has done. Jesus will continue to knock. If this boy does not hear His voice then...

I service this past Sunday we were going through Genesis. We were looking a Abraham, Jacob, Esau and all the rest. Jacob was a bit of a schemer and tricked his father into blessing him instead of Esau. There were people in this story who doubted Gods promise and let their husbands sleep with their hand maids to makes sure a child was born. Lots of kids were born and a lot of deciet happend along the way. Did God plan this? No. Men did what they wanted to speed Gods plan along. Inspite of all the things men did, God still worked His plan the Joseph would be born.

How would that story have read if men had been patient and waited for God? We may never know. But the conclusion was clear. God is in control. God will make the things happen that are part of His will. He can even make this happen inspite of mens vain attempts to help God with His plans.

 

[bradfordl]

If it was all predestined, she had no meaningful part in it. She was going through a predetermined set of steps the predestined to have no impact on her sons life.

All is predestined, even the part she played. You claim to be an engineer, so I assume you have some concept of the innumerable forces in play to keep a single grain of salt together. Over 160,000,000 atoms, billions of electrons, protons, neutrons, even more quarks, subatomic forces in perfect balance, all spinning and moving through time, and all we see is this dumb cube just sitting there. The mind that is capable of creating and sustaining that insignificant grain of salt must have thought it to be worth the effort to create it, even with all the complexity it takes to have it just sit on the table before our dull eyes, and the table, and the house, and the continent, and the planet, among the solar system, among the milky way, among the galaxies, & etc. & etc. What makes you think that mind can't coordinate something as simple as both the parent's failure and the son's rebellion? And why would you assume that just because He planned it, they were not responsible? Their actions came out of their own wills, did they not? You see from your perspective, and try to foist it upon God. It will never come close.

SDG

Brad

 

[FreeInChrist2]

I agree. Mathew 25 talks to this to some degree.

His salvation is his responsability.

Revelation 3:20
Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me.

Is this what your church is teaching you this means..."see it's your resposibiltiy"! And this is the verse that proves it...SIGH!

What is Jesus talking about? Mans free will, ability, choice...or the chastisement of the church for their errors and sins of worldliness, compromise and idolatry, (Pergamos), tolerance of sin and false teachers (Thyatira), contentment with formal and mans traditions in worship (Sardis), liberterian and phoney worship in luke warmness (Laodiceans) and to the church of Philadelphia, the faithful church, showing His faithfulness in His Sovereign work to preserve His church and protect it from the gates of hell, warning every church to persevere in the truth least they become just like those mentioned, ready to be cast into the lake of fire...blind preachers and followers alike...like the blind leads the blind and they both fall into the ditch. (Matt 15:14). (Just a breif statement of this verse, it's all the time I have left for you Boxmaker, unless by your testimony, we see a change of heart and mind, wrought by the Spirit.)

Another verse taken out of content by the post modern church, (such as the one you are going to) twisted to support their false doctrines and heresy, to suit mans desire to hang on to thier free will, and to feel as though they will be aproved of by God because they were responsible to respond to Jesus's teachings, while their neighbors (or as in the case of the young rebellious sinner mentioned) is simply stupid and unwise...thus, the church that continues in rebellion as Christ is knocking at their door, on that apointed day will perish, right along with those whom did not heed..."He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. (notice...none of those churches mentioned are around today)

Yet only those whom have been given ears to hear by the grace of God, is the faithful church, trust in Christ alone, because we have little strength, and did not have any ability of strength in ourselves to believe, come to faith, or play any role in our salvation... as you claim you have done.

As I have said before, we play a role in our salvation. We are created to respond to God and we can harden our hearts to God. That is what this boy has done. Jesus will continue to knock. If this boy does not hear His voice then...

​

In service this past Sunday we were going through Genesis. We were looking at Abraham, Jacob, Esau and all the rest. Jacob was a bit of a schemer and tricked his father into blessing him instead of Esau. There were people in this story who doubted Gods promise and let their husbands sleep with their hand maids to makes sure a child was born. Lots of kids were born and a lot of deciet happend along the way. Did God plan this? No. Men did what they wanted to speed Gods plan along. Inspite of all the things men did, God still worked His plan the Joseph would be born.

Again showing blind leaders leading the blind.

How would that story have read if men had been patient and waited for God? We may never know. But the conclusion was clear. God is in control. God will make the things happen that are part of His will. He can even make this happen inspite of mens vain attempts to help God with His plans.

Yes...God did plan all this! Either God is in total control, or He is not in control at all!

So this pretty much does it for me Boxmaker. We can be your friend, but still not brothers...unless...the Trinity alone works and not the Quadrinity.

 

[Boxmaker]

All is predestined, even the part she played. You claim to be an engineer, so I assume you have some concept of the innumerable forces in play to keep a single grain of salt together. Over 160,000,000 atoms, billions of electrons, protons, neutrons, even more quarks, subatomic forces in perfect balance, all spinning and moving through time, and all we see is this dumb cube just sitting there. The mind that is capable of creating and sustaining that insignificant grain of salt must have thought it to be worth the effort to create it, even with all the complexity it takes to have it just sit on the table before our dull eyes, and the table, and the house, and the continent, and the planet, among the solar system, among the milky way, among the galaxies, & etc. & etc. What makes you think that mind can't coordinate something as simple as both the parent's failure and the son's rebellion? And why would you assume that just because He planned it, they were not responsible? Their actions came out of their own wills, did they not? You see from your perspective, and try to foist it upon God. It will never come close.

SDG

Brad

I have never said could couldn't have done something, I have said, and maintain, that God Chose not to do something.

Those forces that hold the salt together. They are Gods laws to. He created the physics that govern all of those forces, how they would form Na nd Cl and how those two would join to form salt. One the laws are set, He does not need to form each grain of salt. When Na and Cl are put together in the proper conditions, salt will form.

In Job, God did not send the afflictions on Job. God do not kill His Job's familly. God allowed Satan to test Job with now interference from God. God did not send cancer into my wifes breast. These things happen as a part of life. When life is at its worst, how will you respond? Turn to God or away from God.

God is control. GOd does not need to plan every single detail to be incontrol and sovereign.

 

[Boxmaker]

Is this what your church is teaching you this means..."see it's your resposibiltiy"! And this is the verse that proves it...SIGH!

What is Jesus talking about? Mans free will, ability, choice...or the chastisement of the church for their errors and sins of worldliness, compromise and idolatry, (Pergamos), tolerance of sin and false teachers (Thyatira), contentment with formal and mans traditions in worship (Sardis), liberterian and phoney worship in luke warmness (Laodiceans) and to the church of Philadelphia, the faithful church, showing His faithfulness in His Sovereign work to preserve His church and protect it from the gates of hell, warning every church to persevere in the truth least they become just like those mentioned, ready to be cast into the lake of fire...blind preachers and followers alike...like the blind leads the blind and they both fall into the ditch. (Matt 15:14). (Just a breif statement of this verse, it's all the time I have left for you Boxmaker, unless by your testimony, we see a change of heart and mind, wrought by the Spirit.)

Another verse taken out of content by the post modern church, (such as the one you are going to) twisted to support their false doctrines and heresy, to suit mans desire to hang on to thier free will, and to feel as though they will be aproved of by God because they were responsible to respond to Jesus's teachings, while their neighbors (or as in the case of the young rebellious sinner mentioned) is simply stupid and unwise...thus, the church that continues in rebellion as Christ is knocking at their door, on that apointed day will perish, right along with those whom did not heed..."He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. (notice...none of those churches mentioned are around today)

Yet only those whom have been given ears to hear by the grace of God, is the faithful church, trust in Christ alone, because we have little strength, and did not have any ability of strength in ourselves to believe, come to faith, or play any role in our salvation... as you claim you have done.


​

Again showing blind leaders leading the blind.

Yes...God did plan all this! Either God is in total control, or He is not in control at all!

So this pretty much does it for me Boxmaker. We can be your friend, but still not brothers...unless...the Trinity alone works and not the Quadrinity.

It is interesting how willing you are to lable something heresy that is not central to nor even tangential to salvation.

God is in control. Control does not requre predestined. Control is also the ability to take things as they come and trun them towards His will.

And we can be brothers. You believe that Christ did everything for your salvation and that you had no part in it. I believe that Christ did everything required for my salvation and asked me to participate in that. Other than that, we both believe in our hearts and confess with our mouths that Jesus as our Lord and saviour. That means we are brothers in Christ.

 

[Boxmaker]

We need to be very carefull. We, meaning Christians, are dividing the church against itself. We are accusing each other of not being Christians over issues that are not central to the faith. That Jesus died for the forgiveness of sins and rose again for our salvation are central. That we must confess with our mouth and believe in our heart that Jesis is Lord is central. That from our faith we will love one another as Christ loved us are central to the faith. That God is in control is central to faith.

I believe the earh is very old but was enierly created by God. Other people believe the world is 6000 and was entierly created by God. In either case, we both believe that the world was created by God.

Being a charistian is not a noun, its a verb. We believe in Jesus the Christ as our lord and saviour. Out of that belief grows our service to each other. We must be careful about what is heresy and what is not. And we should be extremely caushish about accusing other believers of being non-believers lest the same measure be used against us.

Think about. Pary about. The Church of Christ needs us to be loving servents of each other first and foremost.

 

[bradfordl]

We need to be very carefull. We, meaning Christians, are dividing the church against itself. We are accusing each other of not being Christians over issues that are not central to the faith. That Jesus died for the forgiveness of sins and rose again for our salvation are central. That we must confess with our mouth and believe in our heart that Jesis is Lord is central. That from our faith we will love one another as Christ loved us are central to the faith. That God is in control is central to faith.

I believe the earh is very old but was enierly created by God. Other people believe the world is 6000 and was entierly created by God. In either case, we both believe that the world was created by God.

Being a charistian is not a noun, its a verb. We believe in Jesus the Christ as our lord and saviour. Out of that belief grows our service to each other. We must be careful about what is heresy and what is not. And we should be extremely caushish about accusing other believers of being non-believers lest the same measure be used against us.

Think about. Pary about. The Church of Christ needs us to be loving servents of each other first and foremost.

I don't fully disagree with you here, box. I'm sure there are plenty of God's elect who are presently wound up in arminian error, just as I'm sure I'm wound up in some other kind of error. May God have mercy on us all. But I do believe there is an important distinction to be made here. To unknowingly adhere to error is one thing, to steadfastly cling to ideas that are plainly contrary to scripture is another entirely. I've seen it, heck, I've done it, but it is futile and frustrating. And after all the months this thread has dragged on you have had plenty of scripture quoted to you to reprove your error, you have often conceded that you can't rectify your stance with those scriptures, and yet you continue to clinch tightly to it with your eyes shut tight. That's kinda strange, friend and, I hope, brother, but you certainly scare me sometimes.

SDG,

Brad

 

[FreeInChrist2]

Box maker, have you studied this?

THE CHURCH'S NEED FOR POLEMICS IN THE POSTMODERN WORLD

D. Massimo Lorenzini
A.P.M., New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, 1997
April 16, 1998
CONTENTS
Chapter

• 1. INTRODUCTION
  2. THE RISE AND INFLUENCE OF POSTMODERNISM
  
  3. THE LOST ART OF POLEMICS
  
  4. CURRENT CHALLENGES TO THE CHURCH
  
  5. RECOVERING A POLEMICAL STAND IN THE POSTMODERN WORLD
  
  6. CONCLUSION

NOTES
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY


CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom: Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables. But you be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.1​

These words from the Apostle Paul to Timothy, written over nineteen hundred years ago, are appropriate for the church of Jesus Christ as the twentieth century draws to a close. The current culture has experienced a paradigm shift from modernism to postmodernism. Truth is dead and intellectual anarchy reigns.


Experience and power are what people are seeking in postmodernity, and the church is not unaffected. Christians have been influenced by postmodern culture more than they have influenced the culture. In resistance to modernism, evangelical Christians created their own Christian subculture. But now they are letting their guard down and the Christian subculture is looking more and more like a microcosm of the larger secular culture.


Postmodernism has brought society from an age of reason to an age of relativism. The only thing postmodernists cannot tolerate is intolerance. The only absolute truth they believe is that there is no absolute truth. People create their own "truth" and all "truths" are equally valid. The result of all these equally valid "truths" is known as pluralism.


The influence of postmodernism can be seen in the church in various areas and to varying degrees. One area is theology. Theology has classically been made up of three major branches: dogmatics, ethics, and apologetics/polemics. The fact that the average Christian, and minister, does not know what these words mean illustrates the point all the more. Dogmatics is the study of Christian doctrine or theology. Dogma is that which is considered absolute truth. The postmodern attitude toward dogma is seen in the bumper sticker that reads, "My karma ran over my dogma." Dogmatics, or doctrine, is not popular because truth is not popular anymore. While 88 percent of those in evangelical churches say the Bible is the infallible Word of God, 53 percent also say there is no such thing as absolute truth!2 Ethics is the study of moral values and practices. It is the application of dogmatics. Apologetics is defending Christian truth before unbelievers. If Christians do not believe in absolute truth, then it is no wonder that they do not engage in apologetics. Polemics is defending Christian truth within the professing church.


In order to strengthen itself against the negative influences of postmodernism, a renewed interest in doctrine is needed by the church. The Apostle Peter wrote, "For the time has come for judgement to begin at the house of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God?"3 The most neglected branch of theology is polemics. The reason is because of the rise of tolerance in the church. The growing attitude of tolerance among Christians today is seen in the downplay of doctrine for the sake of unity. This position used to be considered repulsive by evangelicals who resisted ecumenism and groups like the World Council of Churches. But now the spirit of the ecumenical movement is back and can be seen in groups like Promise Keepers which is committed to interdenominational unity even with the Roman Catholic Church.4


Postmodern thought is a rejection of absolute, objective truth. Today's church needs polemics to resist the influence of postmodernism which undermines the gospel and the authority of Scripture. The following chapters will bring broader coverage of postmodernism, polemics, examples of the need for polemics, and how to use polemics to resist postmodernism.

Section 2 tomorrow.

 

[FreeInChrist2]

CHAPTER 2
THE RISE AND INFLUENCE OF POSTMODERNISM
"Wither is God," he [the madman] cried. "I shall tell you. We have killed him--you and I. All of us are his murderers. But how have we done this? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon?...Are we not straying through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breathe of an empty space? ...Do we not smell anything yet of God's decomposition? Gods too decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we, the murderers of all murderers, comfort ourselves? ...I come too early," he said then; "my time has not come yet. This tremendous event is still on its way, still wandering--it has not yet reached the ears of man."1

The strangely prophetic words of Friedrich Nietzsche, written over a hundred years ago, have now reached the "ears of man." In the words of James Sire, "The acknowledgment of the death of God is the beginning of postmodern wisdom."2 But the beginning of postmodern wisdom is the end of wisdom. Defining postmodernism is difficult; to do so will require some background.


Five major philosophical ontologies or worldviews exist. Ontology answers the question: What is reality? Before the modern era the three major ontologies were idealism, naturalism, and realism. Proponents of these three ontologies believe that there is an essential reality. That is, reality can be defined as to its essence and thus objective truth exists. Idealists such as Plato, Augustine, Descartes, Kant, Hegel, and Brightman believed that the essence of reality is immaterial ideas, forms, essences, that transcend the material world which is but a copy or a transient shadow of the really real. Naturalists such as Thales, Hobbes, Newton, Marx, and Sagan believed reality is defined by the natural, sensible world. Realists such as Aristotle and Aquinas believed reality is both material (physical) and immaterial (spiritual).


The modern era witnessed the development of the next two ontologies, pragmatism and existentialism, which believe that no essential reality exists (more specifically that ontology is unnecessary and misguided, respectively) and thus no objective truth. Pragmatists such as James and Dewey believed that reality is what works in empirical (physical) experience. Existentialists such as Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and Sartre believed that reality is chosen by the individual. That means, basically, that reality is whatever the individual wants it to be. Individuals must create their own meaning because life does not come with any meaning in itself.
Premodern thought, governed largely by theism (the worldview centered on God as defining reality), addressed what is there (ontology). Modern thought, governed by Enlightenment naturalism, addressed how to know what is there (epistemology). Postmodern thought, governed by pragmatism and existentialism, addresses how language functions to construct meaning itself. In other words, a shift has taken place in "first things" from being to knowing to constructing meaning.3


James Sire shed additional light on the shift from premodern to modern to postmodern thinking:

Two major shifts in perspective have occurred over the past centuries: one is the move from the "premodern" (characteristic of the Western world prior to the seventeenth century)to the "modern" (beginning with Descartes [1596-1650]); the second is the move from the "modern" to the "postmodern" (whose first major exponent was Friedrich Nietzsche in the last quarter of the nineteenth century). Take the following as an example of these shifts. . . . There has been a movement from (1) a "premodern" concern for a just society based on revelation from a just God to (2) a "modern" attempt to use universal reason as the guide to justice to (3) a "postmodern" despair of any universal standard for justice. Society then moves from medieval hierarchy to Enlightenment democracy to postmodern anarchy.4​

Postmodernism has its roots in modernism which began in the 1700s with the Enlightenment. Rene Descartes is seen as the first modern philosopher. Gene Edward Veith observed,

In the 1700s the progress of science accelerated so rapidly that it seemed as if science could explain everything. . . . This age of reason, scientific discovery, and human autonomy is termed the Enlightenment. Its thinkers embraced classicism with its order and rationality (although their version of classicism neglected the supernaturalism of Plato and Aristotle). However, they lumped Christianity together with paganism as outdated superstitions. Reason alone, so they thought, may now replace the reliance on the supernatural born out of the ignorance of ‘unenlightened' times.5​

So with the Enlightenment man became the center of the universe rather than God. The modern era left little or no meaning in life. In order to overcome this Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) developed his philosophy of existentialism. He called for living by faith, not reason. David Breese summarized, "He [Kierkegaard] had the problem of involvement in dead religion. He went to the Danish Church in Denmark, a cold brownstone place, but he wasn't satisfied. So he began to think -- ‘Reality is not something outside ourselves. Truth is not something objective. Reality is within ourselves. Reality is an encounter, reality is involvement, reality, is what happens to you, and if it doesn't happen to you, forget it. It's not true.' He is what we call a subjectivist, actually a super-subjectivist."6


On the heels of Kierkegaard came Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), the philosopher whose words began this chapter. Nietzsche realized that the people of Europe lived as though God were dead, so he made atheism the cornerstone of his existential philosophy. The news that "God is dead" has now reached the "ears of man."
James Sire characterized postmodernism as follows:

(1) There has been a shift in "first things" from being to knowing to constructing meaning. . . . (2) The truth about the reality is forever hidden from us. All we can do is tell stories [narratives]. . . . (3) All narratives mask a play for power. Any one narrative used as a metanarrative is oppressive. . . . (4) Human beings make themselves who they are by the languages they construct about themselves. . . . (5) Ethics, like knowledge, is a linguistic construct. Social good is whatever society takes it to be. . . . (6) The cutting edge of culture is literary theory.7​

Postmodern thought has greatly influenced contemporary culture. The hallmark of postmodern thought is the death of truth. Don Matzat noted, "The only absolute truth that exists in the postmodern mentality is that there is no such thing as absolute truth, and as far as the postmodern scholar is concerned, that is absolutely true."8 The self-contradiction is obvious but the postmodernist is not concerned with logic or truth. Everyone has his or her own "truth" and the height of arrogance is to say that one's "truth" is actually the truth. Nothing frightens the postmodernists more than a "fundamentalist" claim to absolute truth which they view as nothing more than an attempt to oppress those who disagree. So with the rise of postmodernism came ideas such as political correctness, tolerance, moral relativism, multiculturalism, new age spirituality, religious syncretism, empowerment of minorities, denigration of white European males, and homosexual rights. Every area of society has been touched by postmodernism. Health care, literature, education, history, psychotherapy, law, science, and religion are all mutating under the influence of postmodernism.9


Because of their claim to an exclusive metanarrative (worldview), conservative, Bible- believing Christians are alone in being exempt from society's tolerance. Christians are not only ignored by the popular culture, they are increasingly singled out for ridicule and outright bashing by the kinder, gentler postmodernists. The postmodernist's "tolerance" masks the reality of an underhanded power play. However, the Christian church has not escaped the influence of postmodernism.




More Coming

 

[FreeInChrist2]

CHAPTER 3
THE LOST ART OF POLEMICS

"Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints."1 This passage of Scripture from Jude, along with dozens of others, provides the biblical basis for what is called polemics. Polemics is defending the truth against error. It deals with refuting false doctrine in the church.


The dictionary definition of polemic is, "1. A controversy or argument, especially one that is a refutation of or an attack upon a specified opinion, doctrine, or the like. 2. Plural. a. The art or practice of argumentation or controversy. b. The practice of theological controversy to refute errors of doctrine."2 It is easy to see why polemics is not popular in postmodernity. Most people, including Christians, have disdain for the "negative" words found in the definition: controversy, argument, attack, refute, errors, doctrine. The nature of polemics assumes that truth and error actually exist, and that they are important enough to fight for.
It is hard to believe that a chair of Didactic and Polemic Theology existed at Princeton Theological Seminary. B.B. Warfield held this position from 1887 until his death in 1921. Michael Horton noted, "Warfield was an example of what has become a dying breed in this century: a defender of truth at all costs, regardless of its unpopularity with either liberals or conservatives."3 Horton further observed, "There was a time, of course, when every theologian, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic, was a polemicist. Later, polemics became merely a distinct position on a theological faculty. Finally, it disappeared altogether in a spirit of congenial tolerance."4
Where did the idea come from that Christians should just present the gospel without refuting error? It certainly did not come from the Scriptures or the leaders in church history. Horton explained it well:

The church was born in doctrinal debate. It fought its way to dominance through centuries of arguments over doctrinal detail. The Reformation was a controversy between two different gospels. The Great Awakening was in part the result of the controversial and polemical defense of the grace of God and human inability. John Newton not only gave us "Amazing Grace," but polemical attacks on Arminian legalism in his day. Luther and Calvin not only wrote heated polemics against the Church of Rome, but against the "enthusiasts" whom we would know today as Pentecostals. But let us go back further. Where would we be without the polemics of Athanasius? And yet he was accused by Arians--that is, those who denied Christ's divinity (and this was in some regions the majority view)--as a divisive person. Thank God that Irenaeus preferred truth to tolerance when he drove Gnosticism out of the church.

And what of the Scriptures themselves? God gave us St. Paul, who told legalists to castrate themselves, just as Jesus had told the religious leaders of his day that they were a den of robbers, a nest of snakes, white-washed tombs that appeared spotless on the surface but were full of hypocrisy and dead men's bones. He told them that they travel over land and sea to evangelize one single convert only to make that person more a child of hell than he was before. And the prophets? They were so polemical that they were often executed by the very people against whose judgment the prophets were trying to warn. It seems that the whole progress of biblical revelation and church history through the ages has been forged out of the fire of controversy and the often angry struggles over truth. It is these great debates that have preserved the church from error and when the church grows lazy and fat, unwilling to be corrected, the world loses its only hope of salvation. It is never easy to correct, nor is it pleasant, but we are to "preach the truth in love." However, neither are we to pretend that our laziness, ignorance and apathy in defending the truth are really attempts to preserve the bond of unity. With Luther, we must say, "Unity wherever possible, but truth at all costs."5
​

It seems that the church has forgotten that it is the "pillar and ground of the truth."6 The church, in large measure, has lost its will to discern between truth and error. John MacArthur stated, "Discernment demands that we should hold biblical convictions with the most fervent tenacity. Titus 1:9 says a basic requirement for every elder is that he be the kind of man who ‘[holds] fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, that he may be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict.' It is thus mandated by God that we take issue with error. We must refute those who contradict, or we do not fulfill our divine calling."7 If one fails to love the truth, one fails to love God; or as Gordon Clark wrote, "Since God is truth, a contempt for truth is equally a contempt for God."8


Martyn Lloyd-Jones wrote decades ago:

Disapproval of polemics in the Christian Church is a very serious matter. But that is the attitude of the age in which we live. The prevailing idea today in many circles is not to bother about these things. As long as we are all Christians, anyhow, somehow, all is well. Do not let us argue about doctrine, let us all be Christians together and talk about the love of God. That is really the whole basis of ecumenicity. Unfortunately, that same attitude is creeping into evangelical circles also and many say that we must not be too precise about these things. . . . If you hold that view you are criticizing the Apostle Paul, you are saying that he was wrong, and at the same time you are criticizing the Scriptures. The Scriptures argue and debate and dispute; they are full of polemics.9​

People today want to cast everything into varying shades of gray. The truth is that far more things are black-and-white issues. Nowhere can this fact be more clearly seen than in the Scriptures. Jay Adams called this the principle of antithesis.

In the Bible, where antithesis is so important, discernment--the ability to distinguish God's thoughts and God's ways from all others--is essential. Indeed, God says that "the wise in heart will be called discerning" (Proverbs 16:21).

From the Garden of Eden with its two trees (one allowed, one forbidden) to the eternal destiny of the human being in heaven or in hell, the Bible sets forth two, and only two, ways: God's way, and all others. Accordingly, people are said to be saved or lost. They belong to God's people or the world. There was Gerizim, the mount of blessing, and Ebal, the mount of cursing. There is the narrow way and the wide way, leading either to eternal life or to destruction. There are those who against and those who are with us, those within and those without. There is life and death, truth and falsehood, good and bad, light and darkness, the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Satan, love and hatred, spiritual wisdom and the wisdom of the world. Christ is said to be the way, the truth, and the life, and no one may come to the Father but by Him. His is the only name under the sky by which one may be saved.10
​

Adams suggested that "people who study the Bible in depth develop antithetical mindsets: they think in terms of contrasts or opposites."11 How different this antithetical thinking is from the thinking of postmodernism which claims truth is a fuzzy gray with no center. Also, how different it is from the attitude of Evangelical Christians who want to only present biblical truth in positive terms but never point out error and especially never point out proponents of error. The name for this type of Christianity is called New Evangelicalism.


In the simplest of terms, "the heart of New Evangelicalism is this: It is a repudiation of the negative aspects of biblical Christianity."12 New Evangelicalism has its origins in leaders like Harold Ockenga and Billy Graham. Its main voice has been the magazine Christianity Today and its main organization has been the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE). Another way of identifying New Evangelicalism is its mood of neutralism. "New Evangelicalism is a philosophy, but it is also a mood. In his discerning book on Evangelicalism, subtitled New Neutralism, William Ashbrook notes: ‘[New Evangelicalism] might more properly be labeled The New Neutralism. It seeks neutral ground, being neither fish nor fowl, neither right nor left, neither for nor against--it stands between!' (p. 2). . . . New Evangelicalism can be identified by the following terms: Soft, cautious, hesitant, tolerant, pragmatic, accommodating, flexible, non-controversial, non-offensive, non-passionate, non-dogmatic."13 New Evangelicalism is the prevailing ideology among Evangelicals today. Its major premise is a repudiation of separatism in favor of infiltration.


In order to better understand the decline of polemics, an understanding of New Evangelicalism is needed.14 If polemics died with modernism, New Evangelicalism nailed the coffin and buried it. However, as has been shown, this is not the biblical position.

 

[FreeInChrist2]

CHAPTER 4
CURRENT CHALLENGES TO THE CHURCH

The combination of postmodern thought raging against truth and the church relinquishing her responsibility for polemics to guard truth requires an intentional and diligent effort on the part of the church to reclaim a polemical stand for truth. Without a soon recovered love for the truth by the church, Christianity faces a severe crisis; a crisis of losing biblical truth and ministry by following the influence of an ungodly culture. Indeed, this crisis is already in progress and has been addressed in many recent books.1
The following is just a few examples of the church's crisis over truth. Consumerism. In an article which appeared in Christianity Today in November 1992, Charles Colson cataloged some of the attitudes that are prevailing in the postmodern church.2 In the article, titled "Welcome to McChurch," Colson noted the shift among church goers from seeking God to seeking self. Colson wrote,

Even secular observers have noted how this demand for "feel better" religion is affecting church life and practice. A 1990 Newsweek cover story heralded the dramatic religious resurgence among the nation's baby boomers. But "unlike earlier religious revivals," the study noted, "the aim this time (apart from born-again traditionalists of all faiths) is support, not salvation, help rather than holiness, a circle of spiritual equals rather than an authoritative church or guide. A group affirmation of self is at the top of the agenda, which is why some of the least demanding churches are now in the greatest demand."3​

People now approach the church as consumers, just like everything else in life. Consumerism is one of the results of pragmatism which, along with existentialism, is the philosophy driving postmodern thought. William James, one of the philosophers of pragmatism, said, "Truth's verification is its cash value in experiential terms."4

Religious content is losing relevance as people more and more desire to have their "felt needs" met. People now want a religion that "works," or that they can use to make them happy. So in order to get people into the church, church leaders are willing to give them what they want.

The name for this movement in Christianity is the Church Growth Movement. The new model for the church is the marketplace;5 the church is established along the lines of a business, the pastor functions as the CEO, and the target group is the customer base. The church is less theocentric and more anthropocentric. John D. Hannah has noted, "To parrot David Wells's judgement of the church at large, and I have in mind the evangelical one, theology is fast becoming ‘an embarrassing encumbrance.' The doctrine of the utter otherness, or holiness, of God has been replaced by the idol of the moral self. God is slick and slack, happiness is the opposite of righteousness, sin is self-defeating behavior, morality is a trade-off of private interests, worship is entertainment, and the ‘church is a mall in which the religious, their pockets filled with the coinage of need, do their business.'"6

Consumerism is most prominent in American megachurches which provide a string of ministries designed to meet the felt-needs of various special interest groups. Bruce Shelley and Marshall Shelley have written, "These churches are able to pack large numbers of people into an auditorium to participate in a single service of worship, but the audience is no longer united by the shared beliefs summarized in a denominational covenant. Many are attracted by some specific ministry of the church: care for mothers of preschoolers, support for single parents, financial counseling and others. The denominational or generic name over the door seems to be irrelevant. Under the shelter of the congregation's umbrella, deeper commitments are expressed in the diverse special interest groups sponsored by the congregation."7

Consumerism is also dangerous to the church because of its effect on theology. Millard J Erickson has expressed well this sentiment as it relates to the disappearance of evangelical theology:

This disappearance of theology can be seen in two realms: the actual life of evangelicals and evangelical ministry. Evangelical piety has become very internalized, very privatized, a development that reflects the broader psychology of our day. At one time happiness was considered by evangelicals to be a by-product of right behavior. Now happiness has become the main goal of concern and activity. This experience of feeling good has increasingly become the object of much evangelical activity. This has enabled it to be very successful, for the consumer mentality simply is not hospitable to the habits of reflection and judgment required to frame and defend orthodox belief. Wells shows the parallels between the message of Robert Schuller and that of Harry Emerson Fosdick. He says that the psychologizing of life undercuts historic Christianity at three points: (1) it assumes the perfectibility of human nature, contrary to the Christian gospel; (2) it undermines the desire and capacity to think, thus making theology impossible; (3) it severs interest in the outside world, sacrificing culture for self. Not only the understanding of the nature of evangelicalism but the understanding of ministry has been corrupted by modernization. Two roles that are highly admired in our society have become the models that ministers now tend to adopt: the psychologist and the manager. Thus, preaching, even in evangelical pulpits, tends to be therapeutic, and the pastor is seen as the CEO of a corporation, responsible for its efficiency and growth. This is in keeping with Well's contrast between two types of ministry–one theologically based, the other professional in orientation. In the latter, one's occupation has become a career, in which advancing to larger, more financially rewarding, and more prestigious positions is the goal. Wells describes in considerable detail the process by which this has happened, and the present status of ministry and of the church.

The new style of ministry is not actually one that enables the laity. In fact, Wells refers to the second type of clergy as the "new disablers." The result of their ministry is to create what Stanley Hauerwas and William Willimon have termed practical atheism: "It is an atheism that reduces the Church to nothing more than the services it offers or the good feelings the minister can generate. In other words, where professionalization is at work, there the ministry will typically be deprived of its transcendence and reduced to little more than a helping profession." It has produced a kind of sentimentality "that wants to listen without judging, that has opinions but little interest in truth, that is sympathetic but has no passion for that which is right. It is under this guise of piety–indeed, of professionalization–that pastoral unbelief lives out its life."8
​

Consumerism undermines the gospel and the authority of Scripture by promoting self over the Lordship of Jesus Christ. To be faithful to the Lord, the church must draw its message, mandates, and direction from Scripture, not from the culture. God is at the center of the universe, not man.

Counterfeit Revival. The Counterfeit Revival is a movement that is prevalent among Charismatic Christians, most notably in churches like the Toronto Airport Vineyard in Toronto, Canada and the Brownsville Assembly of God in Pensacola, Florida. Revival is on the lips of Christian leaders worldwide. However, it is not a revival of biblical truth. It is, in fact, not really a revival of anything Christian, but a new movement.

In the words of Hank Hanegraaff, president of the Christian Research Institute, it is a new movement based on the "F-L-E-S-H".9 Hank Hanegraaff has researched this so-called revival in-depth. His book, Counterfeit Revival, uses the acronym F-L-E-S-H to make the material in his book memorable and to distinguish the work of the Spirit from the counterfeit work of the FLESH. Each letter corresponds to a characteristic of the Counterfeit Revival. The "F" stands for fabrications, fantasies, and frauds. Hanegraaff documents how the leaders of the Counterfeit Revival are steeped in deception. Many of their followers have become disillusioned and unable to trust God or those who claim to represent him. Genuine revival always rests firmly of the foundation of faith and facts. The "L" is for lying signs and wonders. However, genuine revival always finds its genesis in the Living Word. The "E" is for endtime restorationism, the belief that at the end of the age God will restore supernatural signs, "super apostles, and prophets." Genuine revival is predicated on earnest repentance. The "S" is for slain in the spirit, or falling backwards onto the floor as an alleged manifestation of the Holy Spirit. Genuine revival is focused on salvation and sanctification of the Spirit. The "H" is for hypnotism. Whether they are referred to as Hindu gurus or Holy Ghost bartenders, the methods they employ have much in common. They all work subjects into altered states of consciousness, use peer pressure to conform them to predictable patterns, depend heavily on arousing people's expectations, and abuse the power of suggestion to make subjects willing to accept virtually anything that enters their minds.
Leaders of genuine revival enlighten disciples through Holy Scripture. While multitudes clamor for a massive revival, what the body of Christ desperately needs is a mighty reformation. A sampling of the Counterfeit Revival leaders includes the names of Jack Deere, John Arnott, John Wimber, Rick Joiner, John Kilpatrick, Rodney Howard Browne, Wes Campbell, Paul Cain, Randy Clark, Kenneth Copeland, Paul Crouch, and Benny Hinn.

The Counterfeit Revival undermines the gospel and the authority of Scripture by deceiving its followers through socio-psychological manipulation that emphasizes feelings, fantasy, and esoteric revelation over faith, fact, and reason. Room does not permit in-depth discussion of the Counterfeit Revival here, but the reader is encouraged to examine Hanegraaff's book and other sources.10

Spiritual Abuse. Ken Blue explained spiritual abuse as what "happens when a leader with spiritual authority uses that authority to coerce, control, or exploit a follower, thus causing spiritual wounds."11 Spiritual abuse is something of a secret sin of the church. It happens often but is not very often talked about. However, the damage it causes is severe. Ron Enroth has written:

Unlike physical abuse that often results in bruised bodies, spiritual and pastoral abuse leaves scars on the psyche and soul. It is inflicted by persons who are accorded respect and honor in our society by virtue of their role as religious leaders and models of spiritual authority. They base that authority on the Bible, the Word of God, and see themselves as shepherds with a sacred trust. But when they violate that trust, when they abuse their authority, and when they misuse ecclesiastical power to control and manipulate the flock, the results can be catastrophic. The perversion of power that we see in abusive churches disrupts and divides families, fosters an unhealthy dependence of members on the leadership, and creates, ultimately, spiritual confusion in the lives of victims.12​

Characteristics of spiritual abuse are legalism, authoritarian leadership, manipulation, excessive discipline, and spiritual intimidation. One good example of a spiritually abusive group is the International Churches of Christ (formerly known as the "Boston Movement").13 The ICC's ten percent-plus annual growth rate places it among the fastest-growing religious groups in North America. Nearly 12,000 attend regular Sunday services at the L.A. Sports Arena. The ICC claims to be the only true church and that discipleship is a "necessary part of the process of salvation."14 People who have left the group claim that excessive control is exercised over members.

According to one researcher, "it is common for some leaders to exert a strong influence on their disciples' choices for everything from which college courses to take to the right marriage partner. ‘They advised me on every aspect of my life–when to go to bed, where to work, whom to date, whether to go on vacation,' former member Kim says."15 The group is very active on university campuses and practices "love bombing." They will be very cordial and pleasant when recruiting, but once in the group leaving is hard to do. Another former member said, "They teach that if you leave the church, you're leaving God."16 Spiritual abuse undermines the gospel and the authority of Scripture through legalism rather than grace in spiritual life and oppressing people while supposedly representing Christ.

Cont'd

 

[FreeInChrist2]

Evangelicals and Catholics Together. Evangelicals and Catholics Together (ECT) is a movement led by Chuck Colson, representing Evangelicals, and Richard John Neuhaus, representing Roman Catholics, to form "common convictions about Christian faith and mission."17 The first document, entitled "Evangelicals and Catholics Together: The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium," was published in 1994. The document states that "Evangelicals and Catholics are brothers and sisters in Christ."18 On this foundation the ECT drafters and signatories desire to unify Evangelicals and Catholics to witness for the gospel together and fight the culture war together. The drafters included Charles Colson, Kent Hill, Richard Land, Larry Lewis, Jesse Miranda, Brian O'Connell, and John White among the Evangelicals. After controversy, Southern Baptists Richard Land and Larry Lewis removed their names from the list of signatories which included Bill Bright, Os Guiness, William Frey, Richard Mouw, Mark Knoll, Thomas Oden, J.I. Packer, Pat Robertson, and John Rodgers among the Evangelicals.

A second document has since been published, along with a commentary article by Timothy George, entitled "Evangelicals and Catholics Together: The Gift of Salvation."19 The signatories of this document include the same as the previous but also added to the list were Gerald Bray, Harold O.J. Brown, Timothy George, Max Lucado, T.M. Moore, Timothy Phillips, and John Woodbridge for the Evangelicals. "The Gift of Salvation" was written to address "two important topics of perceived ambiguity in ECT: the doctrine of justification by faith alone and the biblical mandate for world missions and world evangelization."20 Again the signers of ECT have stated that they express "a common faith in Christ and so to acknowledge one another as brothers and sisters in Christ."21 By simply claiming belief in justification by faith the Catholic signers, along with the Evangelicals, have stated that "what we here affirm is in agreement with what the Reformation traditions have meant by justification by faith alone (sola fide)."22 And still the Catholics signers can state that they are, "...Catholics who are conscientiously faithful to the teaching of the Catholic Church..."23 The teaching of the Reformation and that of the Catholic Church are in great disagreement about justification. This type of inconsistency and intellectual dishonesty demands a polemical response from both Evangelicals who believe the Bible and Catholics who believe the teaching of their Church. ECT undermines the gospel and the authority of Scripture by compromising truth and destroying a true gospel witness to millions of lost Catholics for the sake of ecumenical unity.

Consumerism, the Counterfeit Revival, spiritual abuse, and Evangelicals and Catholics Together are but four challenges that require a strong polemical voice to reprove their error and warn other believers of the danger to their spiritual health and testimony. The Apostle Paul wrote in Ephesians 5:11, "And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose [or reprove] them" (NKJV). Just how to do that is the focus of the next chapter.