This post is about the lie that the world and the devil use to lull people into spiritual somnambulance. Words from me cannot do justice. Here is what God Himself says:
Behold, I am against those who prophesy false dreams," says the LORD, "and tell them, and cause My people to err by their lies and by their recklessness. Yet I did not send them or command them; therefore they shall not profit this people at all," says the LORD.
Wake up! Pay attention! The truth confronts you!
(The first clip is from the site "A little Leaven", the second is doing the rounds on YouTube.)
Decide for yourself!
This is also what God has to say in His inerrant Word:
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ....In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace.
God Help you!
Saturday 8 March 2008
Thursday 6 March 2008
Thoughts on the "Social Gospel."
This is just going to be a short rant on the pejorative and thoughtless use of the term “social gospel.”
It is common among fundamentalists of today to use this term in ways which denigrate, in a passive/aggressive sort of way, all those for whom the betterment of society, the help of the downtrodden poor and generally the alleviation of unnecessary suffering or hardships are valid—albeit partial—expressions of their Christianity. This is unfortunate and, in my view, dishonouring to Christ.
The common response of these people is to create a “package” through an arbitrary and false dialectic of “either/or” which in turn allows him or her to isolate the whole idea, to allow him or her to begin applying hedges, warnings, restrictions and eventually prohibitions against what has come to be seen as something illegitimate and impure, “not the Gospel.”
But of course this process of isolation is only partially based in reality or the Bible. A case in point is the reliance on such verses as Deut. 15:11a “For the poor will never cease to be in the land;” and which Christ referred to in Matt. 26:11: The—false—sentiment behind these verses can only be maintained by reading such verses, and others like them, out of context and in so doing are to deny many other verses such as: Deut 15:7; 1 Sam. 2:7-8; Job 29:12; Psalm 72:13; Prov. 22:22; Matt. 19:21; Luke 18:22 (chosen almost at random!) that clearly indicate God’s greater and overarching concerns for the poor and the needy.
In fact, in order to maintain this dichotomous belief, one has to ignore entire sections of the Bible altogether, in both Testaments, but especially in the Gospels, Acts and one or two of the apostolic letters. (I’m thinking of the obvious passages such as Matthew 22, 25 and Luke 14 as well as others.)
To imply that a “social gospel” even exists is downright dishonest. The only ones who would be willing to defend such an idea are those for whom the complete and finished work of Christ has not been accomplished (i.e. liberals). There is only the Gospel. There is no “other Gospel” with which it must compete. The choice of the “true gospel” over against the “social gospel” is not—however much the fundamentalists among us would like to have it—an “either/or” choice. It has been presented to us that way of course, in an attempt to keep people from realizing the falseness of the whole idea. It is subterfuge, pure and simple. The choice is and always was a “both/and” choice. The Gospel is a call to fallen sinners to repent and believe in God’s one and only Son for salvation from the guilt and dominion of sin and from eternal destruction. There is no other Gospel. But this gospel is based on love; love for God and love for others. This fact simply cannot be denied by anyone claiming to be a Christian. The gospel includes a compassionate response from disciples of Christ even as He taught and exemplified. God’s loving-kindness for the suffering and ill-treated is evident in page after page of the Bible; God’s love of justice and fair-dealing is everywhere expressed. It seems to me that those who call themselves “Christian” cannot turn away from these truths without turning away from their Lord and King for whom these truths were self-evident.
Those among us in the Reformed tradition who tend towards the view that there are two competing gospels: the one “true gospel” and the other “social—read false—gospel” at the same time pride themselves on being the inheritors of the Reformation itself and those lofty ideas, doctrines and principles rediscovered in the Bible by men such as Zwingli, Beza, Bucer, Knox, Calvin and Luther and wrested from the grasping hands of those who had either forgotten or who deliberately chose to ignore those very things in favour of dark superstition, oppressive social and political control of the people or conversely a new humanism that would place man at the very centre of the universe.
But these same people forget their own history, or have never bothered to learn it. They forget, for instance that when John Calvin came to Geneva, that city was a cesspool of immorality and suffering and that it was largely his biblically-based program of social reform that made the city a silk purse out of what had hitherto been a sow’s ear.
Wherever the Protestant Reformation took hold, conditions of average people improved dramatically. To assume that a significant part of the “success” of the Reformation, and the spread of the Gospel was not due to social change brought about through various means (including a bent for republican democracy, universal education and social welfare for the disenfranchised) is simply to ignore history (and we all know what happens to those who ignore history).
Nor is this truth is not confined to the Reformation. Throughout the history of the Christian church during revival after revival, the spread of the Gospel and the improvement of average living conditions has gone hand in hand. I think now of the labours of such Christian men (some Calvinists, some not) as Samuel Rutherford, William Wilberforce, John Newton, George Whitefield, the Wesleys and so on. Again, to deny this simple fact is to deny the truth and to grieve the Holy Spirit as well, who was and is the actual agent of such change.
So let us hear no more charges against the “social gospel.” In fact, let the term drop from our vocabulary. “There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all” (Eph 4:4-6).
Soli Deo Gloria.
It is common among fundamentalists of today to use this term in ways which denigrate, in a passive/aggressive sort of way, all those for whom the betterment of society, the help of the downtrodden poor and generally the alleviation of unnecessary suffering or hardships are valid—albeit partial—expressions of their Christianity. This is unfortunate and, in my view, dishonouring to Christ.
The common response of these people is to create a “package” through an arbitrary and false dialectic of “either/or” which in turn allows him or her to isolate the whole idea, to allow him or her to begin applying hedges, warnings, restrictions and eventually prohibitions against what has come to be seen as something illegitimate and impure, “not the Gospel.”
But of course this process of isolation is only partially based in reality or the Bible. A case in point is the reliance on such verses as Deut. 15:11a “For the poor will never cease to be in the land;” and which Christ referred to in Matt. 26:11: The—false—sentiment behind these verses can only be maintained by reading such verses, and others like them, out of context and in so doing are to deny many other verses such as: Deut 15:7; 1 Sam. 2:7-8; Job 29:12; Psalm 72:13; Prov. 22:22; Matt. 19:21; Luke 18:22 (chosen almost at random!) that clearly indicate God’s greater and overarching concerns for the poor and the needy.
In fact, in order to maintain this dichotomous belief, one has to ignore entire sections of the Bible altogether, in both Testaments, but especially in the Gospels, Acts and one or two of the apostolic letters. (I’m thinking of the obvious passages such as Matthew 22, 25 and Luke 14 as well as others.)
To imply that a “social gospel” even exists is downright dishonest. The only ones who would be willing to defend such an idea are those for whom the complete and finished work of Christ has not been accomplished (i.e. liberals). There is only the Gospel. There is no “other Gospel” with which it must compete. The choice of the “true gospel” over against the “social gospel” is not—however much the fundamentalists among us would like to have it—an “either/or” choice. It has been presented to us that way of course, in an attempt to keep people from realizing the falseness of the whole idea. It is subterfuge, pure and simple. The choice is and always was a “both/and” choice. The Gospel is a call to fallen sinners to repent and believe in God’s one and only Son for salvation from the guilt and dominion of sin and from eternal destruction. There is no other Gospel. But this gospel is based on love; love for God and love for others. This fact simply cannot be denied by anyone claiming to be a Christian. The gospel includes a compassionate response from disciples of Christ even as He taught and exemplified. God’s loving-kindness for the suffering and ill-treated is evident in page after page of the Bible; God’s love of justice and fair-dealing is everywhere expressed. It seems to me that those who call themselves “Christian” cannot turn away from these truths without turning away from their Lord and King for whom these truths were self-evident.
Those among us in the Reformed tradition who tend towards the view that there are two competing gospels: the one “true gospel” and the other “social—read false—gospel” at the same time pride themselves on being the inheritors of the Reformation itself and those lofty ideas, doctrines and principles rediscovered in the Bible by men such as Zwingli, Beza, Bucer, Knox, Calvin and Luther and wrested from the grasping hands of those who had either forgotten or who deliberately chose to ignore those very things in favour of dark superstition, oppressive social and political control of the people or conversely a new humanism that would place man at the very centre of the universe.
But these same people forget their own history, or have never bothered to learn it. They forget, for instance that when John Calvin came to Geneva, that city was a cesspool of immorality and suffering and that it was largely his biblically-based program of social reform that made the city a silk purse out of what had hitherto been a sow’s ear.
Wherever the Protestant Reformation took hold, conditions of average people improved dramatically. To assume that a significant part of the “success” of the Reformation, and the spread of the Gospel was not due to social change brought about through various means (including a bent for republican democracy, universal education and social welfare for the disenfranchised) is simply to ignore history (and we all know what happens to those who ignore history).
Nor is this truth is not confined to the Reformation. Throughout the history of the Christian church during revival after revival, the spread of the Gospel and the improvement of average living conditions has gone hand in hand. I think now of the labours of such Christian men (some Calvinists, some not) as Samuel Rutherford, William Wilberforce, John Newton, George Whitefield, the Wesleys and so on. Again, to deny this simple fact is to deny the truth and to grieve the Holy Spirit as well, who was and is the actual agent of such change.
So let us hear no more charges against the “social gospel.” In fact, let the term drop from our vocabulary. “There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all” (Eph 4:4-6).
Soli Deo Gloria.
Monday 3 March 2008
Experimentum!
In several posts over the last little while, I’ve been exploring ideas that for me are not settled or necessarily resolved once and for all. One of these ideas is the relationship that exists between the Testaments; that is, the idea of continuity verses discontinuity between them. I’ve even said that I’m flirting with New Covenant Theology (partly as a response to my examination of the testaments).
I’m afraid that in this I have been saying things that have concerned many people whom I love and respect. Rest assured brothers and sisters, I have not lost my moorings! This morning I came across an article written by Joel Beeke that actually explains what some of my underlying assumptions are, first and foremost as a Christian. I’d like to reproduce one paragraph from the article as a kind of creedal statement, if you will allow me the use of such language. It is my belief that these words should be true for every Christian but sadly are not. I believe that the Bereans, for instance, were representative of the attitude of Christian Experience and as such are modals to be emulated.
“Christian Experience. Calvin used experiential (experientia) and experimental (experimentum) interchangeably, since, from the perspective of biblical preaching, both words indicate the need for examining or testing experienced knowledge by the touchstone of Scripture (Isaiah 8:20). Experimental preaching stresses the need to know by experience the truths of the Word of God. It seeks to explain in terms of biblical truth, how matters ought to go, and how they do go, in the Christian life. It aims to apply divine truth to the whole range of the believer's experience: in his walk with God as well as his relationship with family, the church, and the world around him. We can learn much from the Puritans about this type of preaching. As Paul Helm writes: ‘The situation calls for preaching that will cover the full range of Christian experience, and a developed experimental theology. The preaching must give guidance and instruction to Christians in terms of their actual experience. It must not deal in unrealities or treat congregations as if they lived in a different century or in wholly different circumstances. This involves taking the full measure of our modern situation and entering with full sympathy into the actual experiences, the hopes and fears, of Christian people’”.
Mr. Beeke’s article is really focused on experimental preaching. But surely there is a direct connection between the experimental preaching of God’s Word and the experimental (or experiential) living out of it in the day-to-day life of every Christian. Well, that’s my belief at any rate. If all that is said and written about amounts to nothing more than words on paper or blog postings (this in reference to a recent valuable exchange of thoughts and comments over at the blogsite of friend Mark Jones at Thomas Goodwin) then I for one can do without it all as it won't help me to be salt and light as I am called to be and told that I am! The Christian life is an experienced life or else it is useless! Let's spend more time in the Word and prayer and less time worrying about whether so and so is an antinomian or worse.
As usual, your thoughts are always welcome.
Soli Deo Gloria.
I’m afraid that in this I have been saying things that have concerned many people whom I love and respect. Rest assured brothers and sisters, I have not lost my moorings! This morning I came across an article written by Joel Beeke that actually explains what some of my underlying assumptions are, first and foremost as a Christian. I’d like to reproduce one paragraph from the article as a kind of creedal statement, if you will allow me the use of such language. It is my belief that these words should be true for every Christian but sadly are not. I believe that the Bereans, for instance, were representative of the attitude of Christian Experience and as such are modals to be emulated.
“Christian Experience. Calvin used experiential (experientia) and experimental (experimentum) interchangeably, since, from the perspective of biblical preaching, both words indicate the need for examining or testing experienced knowledge by the touchstone of Scripture (Isaiah 8:20). Experimental preaching stresses the need to know by experience the truths of the Word of God. It seeks to explain in terms of biblical truth, how matters ought to go, and how they do go, in the Christian life. It aims to apply divine truth to the whole range of the believer's experience: in his walk with God as well as his relationship with family, the church, and the world around him. We can learn much from the Puritans about this type of preaching. As Paul Helm writes: ‘The situation calls for preaching that will cover the full range of Christian experience, and a developed experimental theology. The preaching must give guidance and instruction to Christians in terms of their actual experience. It must not deal in unrealities or treat congregations as if they lived in a different century or in wholly different circumstances. This involves taking the full measure of our modern situation and entering with full sympathy into the actual experiences, the hopes and fears, of Christian people’”.
Mr. Beeke’s article is really focused on experimental preaching. But surely there is a direct connection between the experimental preaching of God’s Word and the experimental (or experiential) living out of it in the day-to-day life of every Christian. Well, that’s my belief at any rate. If all that is said and written about amounts to nothing more than words on paper or blog postings (this in reference to a recent valuable exchange of thoughts and comments over at the blogsite of friend Mark Jones at Thomas Goodwin) then I for one can do without it all as it won't help me to be salt and light as I am called to be and told that I am! The Christian life is an experienced life or else it is useless! Let's spend more time in the Word and prayer and less time worrying about whether so and so is an antinomian or worse.
As usual, your thoughts are always welcome.
Soli Deo Gloria.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
