Albert Mohler Has the Audacity to Lament Bible Illiteracy
In an article written by Albert Mohler, President of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky and posted on Christian Headlines.com, he bemoans Bible illiteracy among Christians. It begs the question: is he really this blinded by orthodoxy, or is he just gaming the herd?
You can read the article for yourself which chronicles examples of how bad it is, but I think it’s common knowledge for the most part, no pun intended. Even among Christians that are regarded as knowledgeable, including those with university degrees from religious institutions, they know little that is beneficial. Orthodox Christianity is the blind leading the blind and always will be.
First of all, his bemoaning defies the very major tenets of the Protestantism that he claims to represent as a leading authority. Protestantism is predicated on a loathing of human reason and a faith exemplified by blind trust in those whom God has supposedly “appointed to save His people from ignorance”; this according to Mohler at a 2011 pastors conference (mark 1:14:00). This same mentality came from the Catholic Church that gave birth to the Reformers and believes that Bibles in the hands of the great unwashed is like a loaded gun held by a toddler.
Secondly, Mohler’s admission that Protestantism at large is biblically illiterate is a stunning admission and revelation regarding his real belief in the herd’s aptitude. If a vampire is a pastor and says he advocates daylight saving time, that is apparently good enough for the herd, and raises no questions in their minds whatsoever. Mohler knows he can get away with verbalizing these metaphysical absurdities. Al Mohler is a leading figure in the evangelical industrial complex that makes billions of dollars from the massive distribution of Christian teachings via books, church events, conferences, the internet, printed media, recorded media, movies, and radio. How could Christians possibly be biblically illiterate? This is proof positive that content is indeed the issue. REAL knowledge empowers people and would threaten the authority of the Protestant church. The harlot that gave birth to Protestantism merely outlawed knowledge; Protestant leaders have to skin the cat another way because people started printing Bibles upon pain of death.
Go to any Catholic Church, the parishioners don’t have any Bibles with them. Go to any Protestant church and watch the people carefully during the sermon; they refer to their Bibles little if there is any need to open them at all. The general mentality is that they are not qualified to understand it anyway. In fact, there is no reasonable difference between Catholic ex cathedra and elder authority according to the likes of Mohler himself and the Protestant hierarchy in general.
Lastly, Mohler has the audacity to suggest that lack of knowledge is the issue when Protestant academia denies that the Bible is for the express purpose of knowledge to begin with. Pastors continually fustigate those who read the Bible to gain knowledge because “Jesus is a person, not a precept.” Simply stated from a true Protestant perspective, the Bible is a metaphysical narrative about salvation and EVERY verse is about the gospel/justification/salvation. Few parishioners deem themselves as able to see Jesus in every verse, so they merely close their Bibles and listen.
Mohler calls Biblical illiteracy a “scandal.” And why not? After all, a popular mantra in today’s Protestant church refers to their faith as a “scandalous gospel.” And what is the scandal? That God would save sinners and fill His church full of them. But alas, our temptation is to think that we can actually do a good work, and the primary purpose of the Bible is to keep us grounded in faith which seeks to see ourselves more and more for the sinners that we are which results in a deeper and deeper gratitude for our salvation. That’s why every verse in the Bible is supposedly about salvation.
So what knowledge is Al Mohler talking about exactly? With all things Protestant, it depends on what the definition of “is” is.
paul
Video Edition of Bumper Stickers from Hell: A Review of 14 “Christian” Memes
Suggested Follow-up Resources:
Why the “Sinner’s Prayer” is NOT the Gospel
Nowhere in the Bible are we instructed to lead someone into salvation by reciting the “sinner’s prayer,” and there is a reason for that; it’s not the gospel. The following is a typical rendition of said Prayer:
“Heavenly Father, I come to you in prayer asking for the forgiveness of my sins. I confess with my mouth and believe with my heart that Jesus is your Son, and that he died on the cross at Calvary that I might be forgiven and have eternal life in the kingdom of heaven. Father, I believe that Jesus rose from the dead and I ask you right now to come into my life and be my personal lord and savior. I repent of my sins and will worship you all the days of my life. Because your word is truth, I confess with my mouth that I am born again and cleansed by the blood of Jesus. In Jesus’ name, Amen.”
The great danger of something like this becoming an orthodox canned ritual to obtain salvation is fully realized in our day. As a recovering baptaholic, I have witnessed the falling away of most people who are “saved” by this prayer or responding to an alter call at an institutional church. Also, I have witnessed the lack of alarm following in response to this reality.
Why the lack of alarm? It’s the “prayer of faith” that saves and not the realty of it. Let me repeat that: It’s the “prayer of faith” that saves and NOT the reality of it. “It” being the reality of salvation itself. Salvation is a reality and not a mere mental assent to the facts of the gospel. However, no evidence of a new life is acceptable in Protestant circles because its gospel is a “believing only” definition of faith rather than a decision. The difference is major.
Note the structure of the prayer; it’s a disaster. Why? First of all, on the one hand, it calls for belief only rather than a decision, coupled with a commitment: “[I] will worship you all the days of my life.” Totally confusing. Is salvation by faith alone or not? “Repentance” is NOT a commitment, it is a change of mind—it is a decision to go in a different direction; specifically, from death to life.
And that is the crux: the new birth. Though the new birth is in the prayer, it is framed as something that you believe mentally only rather than something that you decide to accept as a gift. Salvation is a decision to accept the gift of the Spirit and His baptism. It is a onetime decision to follow Christ in death and resurrection, and this is only possible through the gift of the Holy Spirit otherwise known as the new birth. Salvation is NOT, I repeat, not… “Asking Jesus into my heart” or “Asking Jesus to come into my life.” No, no, no, and in fact, where are we told in Scripture to “ask” for salvation? We are told to “believe” (mental assent to the facts of the gospel) AND repent – a decision to follow Christ in death and resurrection, or a passing from death to life made possible by the Spirit, and “you WILL” receive the GIFT of God’s PROMISE concerning the Spirit (Acts 2:37-39). I hope you see the major difference here.
The correct gospel has an expectation of new life built in. It is a decision to die to the old self and become new with Christ who also received the promise of the Spirit when He resurrected Christ from the grave (Galatians 3:16). Christ paid the penalty for our sins, but without the promise of the Spirit, there is NO salvation. An overemphasis on some “receiving of Christ” in lieu of the promise of the Spirit is an ill advised gospel presentation (Galatians 3:1,2).
Salvation is a decision to accept a promise to all people. It is a repentance, not an asking. When one decides to turn from their old self to a new self made anew by the promise of the Spirit, they WILL receive the promise. This is EXACTLY what Christ was talking about when he said “follow me.” This is EXACTLY what Christ was talking about in regard to losing one’s life in order to find it. He was talking about the promise. He was talking about passing from death to life. He was talking about the new birth. He was talking about the baptism of the Holy Spirit.
Indeed, the reality of Protestant professions that do not pan-out in large numbers is due to a canned orthodox gospel that exchanges a promise for an ambiguous “asking Jesus into my heart.” It redefines the promise of the Spirit and denies the reality of a literal passing from death to life.
This is why the “walk of the new man” is optional in regard to any great concern in the institutional church while the flippant truism “We are all just sinners saved by grace” plays in our minds like a bad song that we cannot get out of our heads.
By its fruit the tree is known.
paul
Reformed Questions in Response to “False Reformation”
Originally published December 11, 2012
Paul,
Just a few questions:
1. If you accept the idea that “flesh” and “spirit” refer to parts of regenerate believers rather than to spheres in which people live and by which we are controlled, where does sanctification take place, in the flesh or in the spirit? The same question applies in terms of “old man”/ “new man.” Which of those grows in sanctification?
Answer: This question reflects the fact that the Reformed crowd doesn’t openly discuss what they really believe about this issue, and I commend you accordingly. Authentic Reformed doctrine holds to the idea that the active obedience of Christ is manifested in the “Spirit realm” as a result of what we see in the Bible being imputed to us by faith alone in sanctification (see Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation, theses 27). We don’t change. The “Spirit realm” and the “flesh realm” are two forces that put pressure on us, and at any given time, we “yield” to one or the other. This is the position of the elders who are over the NANC training center in Springboro, Ohio according to an email I received from them when they thought I was on board with their doctrine.
Of course, the take on this varies among those in the Reformed tradition. Another example would be the idea that we are still dead spiritually, and the living Christ within us is the one obeying. What is consistent is the idea that this obedience is experienced in a certain way: joy and a willing spirit (see LHD, theses 27); that’s how we know Jesus is doing it and not us. At any rate, the crux of Reformed theology is that all good works take place outside of the believer; i.e., Luther’s “alien righteousness” for not only justification, but for sanctification as well. Your question is at the very core of debates that took place between heretic Dr. Ed Welch of CCEF and the commendable Dr. Jay Adams.
Jay Adams oversees INS as he was pretty much run out of NANC and CCEF—largely due to the fact that NANC and CCEF are both bastions of evil. I find it utterly intolerable that thousands are sent to these organizations daily with the hope of change when these Reformed organizations in fact don’t believe that God changes them. There are no words for my loathing of such hideous deception while these organizations also take people’s hard-earned money to boot. And some don’t go along with these ideas, but they stand silent and therefore are just as guilty. And my “whole life” is contending against this? Perhaps, but better that than one’s whole life buying acceptance with silence. Moreover, people praise CJ Mahaney and co. for their tireless night and day service to the “gospel” which is really the work of the kingdom of darkness against the kingdom of light. A pity that I would counter that with my own life.
Unfortunately, Adams, who is much more advanced in patience than I am—associates with them, and in my estimation thereby causes confusion regarding the kind of counseling that will change people. Also, the possibility that the only biblical counseling organization left on the face of the earth that is not infected with Trippism and Powlisonism is also a major concern. Nevertheless, Adams and his associate, Donn Arms, are the only ones who have taken a stand against the heretical onslaught taking place in biblical counseling circles which is fraught with mindless followers, lackeys, lovers of filthy lucre, shameless cowards, and lying integrationists. The idea that these people care about any marriage or the well being of any saint is laughable.
But to answer your question completely, I believe the Scriptures are clear that the old self was put to death and no longer has the ability to enslave us to sin. The old self was “under the law” which means that the law provoked him to sin and a final judgment according to the law. As long as we are alive, our mortality has influence over us in regard to the old ways of being under the law, but the enslavement is broken. We are in fact born again, and have a regenerated “law of our mind.” Hence, “the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.” The warfare takes place inside of the believer between the law of his mind and the “law of sin.” The apostle makes it absolutely clear: this warfare takes place between my “inner being” and “in my members.” What is clearer? Unless the Bible is a Reformed gospel narrative that isn’t meant to inform our co-laboring with God in sanctification. But it is, because we are no longer “under” it for justification, but are informed by it for sanctification. Because the Reformers believe we are still under it, we must continue to live by the gospel that saved us from the law. We are still under it, but Jesus keeps it for us. How this is applied to the Christian life by the Reformers is outright Gnosticism to the core.
Furthermore, the “law of my mind” part of the believer that “delights in the law” in our “inner being” is what grows. Something in us is in fact growing: a host of passages that include 1Peter 2:1-3 make this certain. Really? Jesus isn’t really talking to us when he states, “Well done faithful servant”?
2. Do you believe sanctification occurs completely apart from faith? Do we have everything we need at the point of regeneration, so that further dependence on the Holy Spirit is no longer necessary? It sounds as if that is what you are saying.
Answer: Your question is framed within the confines of the Reformed either/or hermeneutic. Reality is either interpreted through the “glory story” or the “cross story.” This is the interpretive foundation of Reformed theology as stated in Luther’s HD. Because sanctification includes us, it must be by faith alone like salvation or it includes our glory as well. Therefore, where faith is, it must be by faith alone because faith is of God who will not share His glory with another. Therefore, if our doing is involved with sanctification, it must occur completely apart from faith. It must be the glory story, or the cross story. Reformed proponent Gerhard Forde states this in no uncertain terms.
Biblicists reject that metaphysical presupposition with prejudice. We stand with our beloved brother James, whom Luther rejected for obvious reasons, in saying that faith and works are together in sanctification while faith is alone in justification. Luther and his Reformed minions believe that grace is fused with works apart from our faith when it is faith in the works of Christ alone in sanctification (LHD theses 25).
Also, “Do we have everything we need at the point of regeneration, so that further dependence on the Holy Spirit is no longer necessary?” Again, we see Reformed metaphysics. If any part of our story is in the narrative, it’s semi-Pelagianism and not the cross story. This is a rather simple concept. All of the power that raised Christ from the dead is credited to our account in salvation. The Holy Spirit, our “HELPER” (ESV) “helps” us (that’s what a “helper” does, they “help”) in appropriating the blessings of salvation. He aids us (that’s what a “helper” does, he “aids”). And those blessings are appropriated “IN” (that’s a preposition) the DOING (James 1:25).
3. Do you believe Jesus’ actions are ever to be considered not only as instructional as a pattern for our obedience, but as motivation to imitate him?
Answer: As many have forcefully argued in several articles, especially Presbyterian Pastor Terry Johnson, God uses many different incentives to motivate us other than gratitude and meditating on the salvific works of Christ. This was also Adams’ primary contention against Sonship Theology.
4. Do you see any difference between God’s work in a believer that replaces his need to obey and God’s work in believers motivating them to obey?
Answer: The very question suggests a “need” to “replace (s)” the “need” of a believer to “obey” in sanctification? Of course, a clear distinction is not made regarding….in sanctification or justification? But, NO SUCH NEED EXISTS for sanctification. Our work in sanctification has NO bearing on our justification. The premise of the question is based on faulty Reformed presuppositions.
5. How do you see the Reformed doctrine as teaching that sanctification completes justification?
Answer: They call it a “CHAIN” (The golden chain of salvation-Romans 8:29,30). What’s a “chain”? What happens if you remove the middle links of a “chain” ? It’s not completed—this would seem apparent.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
5 comments