Whatever Happened to the Bible, Part 2: My Reply to Pastor McKeever’s Reply
Joe McKeever said, on June 29, 2011 at 11:20 am (Edit)
Utter nonsense, my friend? You attack my article in your blog. Why didn’t you send your thoughts to me? You attack it for being directed to laypeople, but if you had bothered to check out my blog you’d see everything on it is directed toward pastors and church leaders. Crosswalk (and others who picked it up from my blog) put the spin on it they chose. In fact they called it “7 things we get wrong about worship” when there are no 7 things in there we get wrong. I had named it something like “Worship: Getting it all wrong.” — There is a mean spirit in your attitude, my brother.
Joe,
My missionary daughter whom I am very close to sent me the article thinking that I would be impressed with it—I also suffered the wrath of her displeasure as well. But remember, my article is addressed to “WE.” I reread the article, and if there was a place where I said “Joe is ridiculous,” rather than a reference to your statements, I missed it. I do not mean to say that stupid ideas equal stupid people; “we” all espouse stupid ideas from time to time (however, I retract the statement regarding the idea that you are “clueless,” I simply don’t know that about you based on the one article you wrote and would definitely ask your forgiveness accordingly).
Though my use of words reflects my frustration with the lack of practical application that leads to hopelessness in our day—I meant nothing personal toward you. BUT, the fact remains, that in our day, instruction has been replaced with spiritual sounding truisms that only address symptoms and not the core problem. In my own life just the other day, I was counseling with a pastor who was laying the ground work in regard to a trial in my own life. I found myself thinking: “Ok, I feel better, BUT WHAT NOW? Feelings don’t last, but new ways (specifically, God’s way) create a new path that’s perpetual and produces peace. In fact, good instruction did come, and the effects of the application have had a profound and powerful impact in the lives of my family.
Joe, your counsel to Christians who go to a church that has weak leadership is: “You can still bring your offering.” What does that mean? It sounds good, but how do we bring an offering (and what exactly is the offering? Worship? What’s worship? Today’s Christians don’t even have a working definition of what sanctification is—do your own survey) in the midst of a bad church situation?
Dr. Jay E. Adams, the father of contemporary biblical counseling, often shares his experience regarding the reaction of many Christians in our day that come to realize their biblical role in sanctification: “You mean, there is something ‘I’ can do?! I didn’t know, I thought all I could do is pray and hope for the best.” Which “hoping for the best” usually leads to HOPELESSNESS. We live in an age where following God’s instruction is supposedly an affront to the instructor! That is why your implication that all actions
(“Evangelism & Discipleship, Giving & Praying, Grow Out of Worship; Not the Other Way Around”) flow from “worship” is VERY upsetting to me. Joe, what in the sam-heck does that even mean? If we have to do worship before we do truth—we better know exactly what worship is. You are making “worship” something other than doing truth, so what exactly does worship look like? You don’t say—you just throw the term around like an idol that means anything to people that they want it to mean. That’s what idols are all about—they’re nebulous and open to our own self-serving interpretations. This is a HUGE problem among Christians today: spiritual sounding truisms that mean all things to all people and affect a fill in the blank yourself teaching prism.
Joe, as far as going to you privately: you made the statement publicly. With all due respect, you have no problem with the thirty-plus comments that were also public and were not addressed to you privately. I am the only one that had a problem with your post, and that should be private? Forgive me if I am uncomfortable with that. Besides, it’s not a Matthew 18 issue—it’s a 2Cor.10:5 issue.
Joe, I deeply appreciate you referring to me as a brother and I gladly return the same to you, but let us bring in-depth, practical God-breathed instruction that is full of hope back to the church, and not the spiritual neo-novelties of the day.
Paul
Gospel Sanctification and Sonship’s Gospel-Driven Genealogy, Part 11: Walter Chantry’s Suffering
One day I hope to meet him. Soon, it would be like those meetings we used to see on Oprah where people who have suffered the same type of traumas meet to share their experiences. In fact, there are clubs all over the country where people meet to do just that. It’s like they have always known each other, and the very first meetings are filled with tears and hugging. Whether it’s the My Poodle Was Slain by a Pitbull in Front of My Eyes Club or some other club of trauma, the reunions seem to be a healing balm of some sort.
Chantry and I could start our own club for those who are traumatized by debating proponents of New Covenant Theology. Chantry tried to destroy the evil child soon after it was delivered and wasn’t yet named ( http://wp.me/pmd7S-Ld ). Apparently, survivors of Chantry’s onslaught split from Reformed Baptist into a meager fellowship called Continental Baptist. New Covenant Theology (NCT) is based on the Australian Forum’s centrality of the objective gospel (COG) which found new life in Sonship Theology and is now a gargantuan movement known as New Calvinism. Chantry’s bantering back and forth with one of two patriarchs of NCT, Jon Zens, is well documented and exhausting. One example can be seen here: http://solochristo.com/theology/nct/zens-chantry.htm .
Method 1: Annoying, and repetitious oversimplified denial.
Chantry, knowing that NCT hacks like to confuse and wear down their opponents with an endless flogging of residual issues, rightly focused on the fact that it all boils down to Antinomianism. The very annoying way in which Zens debates can be seen clearly in present-day COG proponents; for example, “Show me one reference where I have ever written that I am an Antinomian you slanderer!” Chantry’s reply usually followed along these lines: “For substantiation of what I have to say, I could quote almost the entirety of the articles that you [Zens] have printed in ‘Baptist Reformation Review.'” Further, he [Chantry] viewed my [Zens] pleas for documentation as “quibbling about words, a mere strife about terminology that has no point to it.”
Method 2: Rewrite traditional meaning.
COG proponents are very sensitive to the Antinomian charge, so they continually attempt to rewrite the English language and church history to avoid the accusation. Recent articles by Tullian Tchividjian and Elyse Fitzpatrick deny that there is any such thing as Antinomianism. They also try to replace the word “antinomianism” with what they call “neonomianism (“new legalism” as opposed to “anti-law”). Likewise, “obedience” (we obey) is replaced with “new obedience” (Jesus obeyed in our place as part of the atonement, and apparently still obeys for us via the imputed active obedience of Christ). Sanctification is now “progressive sanctification” which is nothing more than the unfolding of our justification via John Piper’s “beholding as a way of becoming.” Of course, he includes “….a way….” so if he’s confronted he can say that he’s talking about contemplative spirituality being just one of many avenues while assuring us that he believes in “obedience.” But of course, he’s really talking about “New Obedience.”
Method 3: Fake contentions against supposedly contrary beliefs.
COG proponents contend against many other belief systems as a way to appear like standguards for orthodox truth. Often, the “contrary” beliefs are very similar to their own. An assistant to DA Carson recently wrote a book on Keswick theology, which has many similarities to COG. Carson also disses Keswick theology on a routine bases, but according to one article:
“Beginning in the 1920s, the Keswick Convention’s view of sanctification began to shift from the view promoted by the leaders of the early convention. William Graham Scroggie (1877–1958) led that transformation to a view of sanctification closer to the Reformed view. Today its speakers include people like D. A. Carson and Sinclair Ferguson, whose views on the Christian life differ significantly from the Keswick Convention’s first generation.” http://ccclh.org/blog/?p=1234
….But apparently, not the second generation of Keswick theology. One of their (COG proponents) favorite targets is postmodernism or the Emergent Church who they share like philosophies with. I go into detail on this subject here: http://wp.me/pmd7S-Lk
Method 4: Quote other leaders who have written against COG-like doctrines.
JC Ryle wrote extensively on doctrines that distorted biblical sanctification, and many of them were very similar to New Calvinism and NCT. In fact, such doctrines that were running about in his day inspired his famous “Scriptural Holiness” which is considered to be one of the best works on Christian living ever written. The introduction outlines seven elements of Quietist type doctrines that fit Gospel Sanctification to a T. Therefore, COG proponents like Kevin Deyoung now quote Ryle extensively. A proponent of NCT has recently sent me emails that contain excerpts from Scriptural Holiness that seem to indicate Ryle supported a synthesis of justification and sanctification, and asked me to post them. Only problem is, I am very familiar with Ryles writings and find the suggestion preposterous. Knowing what I know about Ryle’s theological positions, I assume the quotes pertain to a contention against those who believe that sanctification is a much lesser concern than justification. This doesn’t mean Ryle believed they are exactly the same in essence as the proponent implied.
Mix those four methods with an attitude that is driven by a belief that God is using them to orchestrate a “second reformation” (I’m not joking), and the same kind of confidence the apostle Paul mentioned about the false teachers he contended with, and what you have is a serious Excedrin headache. With that said, one remembers what Jay Adams said about Quietist type doctrines: they will “ruin people’s lives.” He also said Gospel Sanctification is “dangerous and must be stopped.” No doubt—so the fight continues.
paul
Backslidden Christians: Jeremiah 15:6
The Southern Baptist attitude concerning backslidden Christians reminds me of what Jay Adams shares in a lecture from INS’s biblical counseling correspondence course. He shares that he would often ask audiences for a show of hands by those who would admit that they worry. Apparently, in almost every case, most of the audience would raise their hands with a this is funny because we all know that we worry smirk on their faces. He would then ask for a show of hands from those who would admit that they had stolen in the past, or who were tempted to lie from time to time. According to Adams, the demeanor was instantly less festive and but a few raised their hands—reluctantly. Adams’ point is that we must gauge our concern for the seriousness of an issue according to how God sees it, not us. Like telling lies and stealing, we are commanded in the Bible NOT to worry. By the way, worry can take a person out just as quick as any other sin.
Hence, in this hyper-grace, we can’t keep the law perfectly anyway age that we live in, backslidden Christians are spoken of with the same urgency as aunt Betty’s common cold “that’s going around.” And the prescription is the same: “Take two Jesus Loves You pills and one We can’t Earn His Love Anyway capsules and see me at the next ice cream social. “You are coming—right? We would love to see you there to prove that we don’t judge.”
In Chapter 15 of Jeremiah, we see that Christ died for much more than the common cold. Heaven looks low on an attitude that doesn’t share God’s loathing for what sent Christ to the cross to redeem man. Verse 6 reads as follows:
“You have rejected me,” declares the LORD. ‘You keep on backsliding. So I will lay hands on you and destroy you; I can no longer show compassion.’”
God was not talking to the Canaanites, or the Babylonians, or any other Gentile nation that represents the unregenerate. How can they be backsliders? What are they backslidden from? He is talking to His covenant people—those who claim His name and claim to belong to Him. In all English translations (in other words, all of the translators agree), the idea taken from the Hebrew is that Judah was in a backward motion. Or, if you will, backslidden people who claimed to be of God. God hates sin in general, but apparently, He is particularly agitated by those who claim to be His while reveling in what He hates, or at least indifferent to it. For sure, it could be deemed worse because vile behavior is expected of the unregenerate.
Notice that regardless of one’s claim, backsliding ( Tanakh Jewish Study Bible: “ever backward” indicating a continual pattern) is a rejection of God. From God’s perspective, He is being rejected. Regardless of what we think while raising our hands with a knowing grin, God says: “You have rejected me,” and in case you miss the point, he adds; “declares the Lord.” It’s a declaration by God—any questions?
Just how angry does God get when those who claim His name backslide? We get an idea in this same chapter:
“Then the LORD said to me: ‘Even if Moses and Samuel were to stand before me, my heart would not go out to this people. Send them away from my presence! Let them go! And if they ask you, ‘Where shall we go?’ tell them, ‘This is what the LORD says: ‘Those destined for death, to death; those for the sword, to the sword; those for starvation, to starvation; those for captivity, to captivity. ‘I will send four kinds of destroyers against them,’ declares the LORD, ‘the sword to kill and the dogs to drag away and the birds of the air and the beasts of the earth to devour and destroy. I will make them abhorrent to all the kingdoms of the earth because of what Manasseh son of Hezekiah king of Judah did in Jerusalem.’”
In contrast to what they had in Him, God asks: “Who will have pity on you, O Jerusalem? Who will mourn for you? Who will stop to ask how you are?” There is only one who really cares for us, but yet, backslidden Christians will not even be a memory to the world they lust for while rejecting the God who gave it all to redeem them.
Backslidden Christians don’t get it, and it is our responsibility to make sure they know that they are rejecting God. Jeremiah did not preach anything different from the apostle John who called on the church to do the following: “If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask and God will for him give life to those who commit sin not leading to death. There is a sin leading to death; I do not say that he should make request for this.”
Eventually, backslidden Christians will go too far, and prayer will be futile. Unless we pray and come along side with wise counsel (Galatians 6:1), it will be too late. This is no trite matter. Churches that are lax in regard to turning souls from death should ask themselves why they neglect such a high calling of love towards other Christians.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
leave a comment