Romans 5 and the significance of Adam

When asked about the importance of the fact that Adam was the literal and historical person that the Bible claims he is, as opposed to being symbolic, and how it relates to our salvation (commenting specifically on Romans 5:12-21), John Piper said this:

“I think that the whole structure of Paul’s arguments falls to the ground, and since he is not creating arguments out of nothing, but rooting them in reality which is past and future, that is relating to sin and our future salvation, our salvation would evaporate. That may sound like a lot to hang on the historicity of Adam, but Romans 5 documents our problem as people who have sinned in Adam and it documents our rescue as One who explicitly modeled His teaching to reverse the error that Adam committed and the misery, the fall, that has come upon us. So if you put stock in the inspired word of God as not just creating arguments out of nothing, but as being rooted in history and therefore able to relate to future real-life history, namely our lives, I would say the denial of the historical person of Adam is a gospel-threatening denial.”¹

---

¹ “Adam, Christ, and Justification” by John Piper (Desiring God Radio broadcast 9/12/2006)

Sunday School Lessons & Blog Update!!!!!

Recently I purchased an iPod – so now I can be like every other suburban yuppie, student, vagabond, and jogging fanatic – primarily so that I could listen to the various ministry related programs that I thoroughly enjoy (the same ones that are listed on the sidebar under “great preaching”). However, since I sit in-front of a computer for my job, I could fairly easily listen to these same programs using my computer’s media player, it would be difficult to justify the expense of a spendy little toy. So, fortunately I have had another idea and plan in mind that I have been thinking about for almost 1 year to make better use of an iPod if I were to get it. A friend of mine, who had an iPod, showed me his iTalk adapter. Basically, it turns the iPod into a Dictaphone when this adapter is connected. I was so excited because I knew that there could be many uses for that.

Well, to make a long story short (or a short story long, I’m not sure which one it is, anymore); I had to wait for a while because the current iPods weren’t compatible with this same accessory. But once I could buy both, I did.

So what?

Well, I have always had the idea that I wanted to make this blog a virtual online mirror (in many ways) of the Sunday school class that I teach. I have done this by trying to post thoughts and comments about the texts that we are studying as well as thoughts and meditations on other subjects that I read and deal with during the week. So, I thought that a good idea would be to record the lessons from our weekly class and upload them.
You can see a link to the available lessons on the sidebar under “Contender Sunday School Lessons” and I will update this link list whenever new lessons are available.

I also am trying to develop a good way to have the basic outline (that I would hand out in class) available to view. I can’t decide if it would be better to have all of the blanks filled in or to have an interactive word document that will let you fill in the answers as you go. (you can give me feedback on what you think is best)

The first lesson available is called “Christology 099”. Basically, I was asked to do an overview of Christology during the month of July (4 weeks), and since I didn’t have a snazzy title for it, I just decided to give it a title that would be fitting – Christology at a less than collegiate level.

I will be updating (soon I hope) with my lesson from yesterday where we are beginning to review Titus 1:1 – 2:10 (which we covered last school year) so that we can go the rest of the way through Titus. Enjoy the resource!

blasphemy or not blasphemy? That is the question.

What constitutes blasphemy? I am specifically referring to taking the Lord's name in vain.

I don't think that it is disputable to say that if one uses God, Jesus, or Christ in an irreverant way, it is blasphemy. However, what about substitute words like "gosh", "gee", or "oh my Word" or things that replace the the blatant blasphemy in common expressions, but are used to express similar feelings?

I don't have an answer that I am comfortable with yet, so I really would like some input/feedback.

be a berean - don't be fooled

When dealing with the issue of Iraq being a just war, watch to see if you can see someone misusing/misquoting scripture to. Also, the point of using this clip is not to get into a discussion for the pros/cons of Iraq or any other political matter, it is only to show the use of scripture by people who claim to affirm Christ.



Did you notice the quick references to the prophets by Bishop Talbert? He made reference to "making swords into plowshares" as having been promoted by three prophets (Joel, Isaiah, and Micah) and uses that as the basis to say that Christ would be opposed to war (specifically this one). Well, I took the liberty of looking up the references that he seemed to be talking about.

"And He will judge between the nations, And will render decisions for many peoples; And they will hammer their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, And never again will they learn war." (Isaiah 2:4)

"Beat your plowshares into swords And your pruning hooks into spears; Let the weak say, 'I am a mighty man.'" (Joel 3:10)

"And He will judge between many peoples And render decisions for mighty, distant nations. Then they will hammer their swords into plowshares And their spears into pruning hooks; Nation will not lift up sword against nation, And never again will they train for war." (Micah 4:3)

Isaiah and Micah both tell their audience to "hammer their swords into plowshares" but Joel says, "Beat your plowshares into swords" which is the exact reverse. This shows that at times God calls for the use of arms, and at others we are to be peaceful. It is as untrue to make the blanket statement that God is opposed to all war as it is to say that He is a war monger who always delights in endless warring.

responding to an onslaught of Catholic criticism & accusations

If you have read any of the discussions that I have had with Danny or others on my blog you will notice that I try to stick to issues that can be discussed, defined, and defended in the scriptures. Not once have I assaulted you or anyone else’s perceived motives for saying or believing what you do, they are not what I am primarily concerned with because they cannot be known by me unless you articulate them to me. In a totally different fashion you have attacked me personally and attributed motives and experiences to me that you have no idea if they are true or untrue. A few of the more egregious ones are below:

“You were raised on beliefs that the evil Catholic church persecuted good Christians for thousands of years until Martin Luther came to free them, you also believe that the evil catholic demonized church hid the bible from people and kept them illiterate in order to somehow rip them off on salvation.”

“…you are spouting off things that you have no real clue about except from local legend taught to you be your childhood church and family that the Catholic Church is the devil.”¹

“Look at it this way, Danny is throwing all his seed out on the fertile ground in hopes of having a great harvest... you on the other hand is content that you don't have to throw out any seed to have a harvest...”²

You do not know me, my family, my upbringing, the diversity (or lack thereof) of my own personal spiritual heritage, nor the experiences and studies that I have done. You know nothing about me except what I have written, and to attack me on these other issues is simply abhorrent and does more harm to any possible valid arguments that you may present. One thing that I appreciated corresponding with Danny is that, for the most part, we debated the issues according to the scriptures. He and I have very different theology, ecclesiology, as well as soteriology and we debated them rationally, reasonably, and in a fair manner. I invite you to do the same because again, attacks on perceived personal characteristics, motives, amount of study or anything else is folly and it makes you look spiteful, angry, and it undermines any valid argument that you would seek to make.

So, if you want to have a discussion or debate about the issues that are on this blog, let’s do that and stick to the issues and leave the speculation on each other’s family life, education, and motivates off the table. I also find it strange that you haven’t made any response to the article that I wrote that you requested (“Prayer to Saints”). In that article you will see my spirit in that I try to tackle the issue and deal with it in a fair way by searching the scriptures.

“There are now over 78,000 Protestant denominations all claiming that they hold the one true truth of Christ.... [Martin Luther] split up the unity of Christ, he split Christ... now you tell me which denomination has held true to its teachings? Which denomination can trace its roots back over 2000 years? Can your independent church do that? When you got ordained or whatever you call it, did a Bishop in the lineage of the apostles lay his blessed hands on your head and give you the power of the Holy Spirit? Is your ordination even valid? In the Old Testament, the Jews had a lineage of Priests and the Priesthood... do protestants share that line? Why do protestants not have priests??? Remember in the bible it talks about presbyters (priests) and bishops...”³

I would like to see your source for the total number of Protestant denominations. I don’t doubt that the number is high, but I have never seen a statistic that has shown the number to be 78,000, so I will dispute this number until you can show me a credible source that shows that. But even if there are 78,000 or 100,000 denominations, that is not the primary issue. The question should be, “Is there a church or denomination that is preaching Christ and His gospel truthfully from the Bible?” If anyone is a part of a church that preaches a false gospel, we should try to call that church back to the truth (or call them to the truth for the first time), but if the church will not, we must divorce ourselves from that assembly and find one that does preach the gospel. That is the historical reason why people have left the Catholic church or other denominations – in an attempt to preserve and proclaim the gospel.

As to whether or not my church can trace its roots back 2000 years, yes we can. Not in a church hierarchy or structure like the Catholic church, but in the truth of our doctrine and in it’s primary root in the scriptures. The funny thing about Protestant churches is that there are churches that preach the gospel of Christ that are Presbyterian, Methodist, Lutheran, Assemblies of God, Baptist, and non-denominational Bible churches. There are also churches of the same denomination or affiliations that do not preach the gospel. So this issue begs the question as to why do those churches that do preach the true gospel belong to various denominations. The answer, which is not the most desirable one but it is reality, is something that I addressed in “Fundamentalism”. The main catalyst for this was an article by Dr. R. Albert Mohler Jr. where he talked about the reasons for division in and amongst churches.⁴

The most disturbing parts of the above comment were the references to the giving of the power of the Holy Spirit, the Papacy, and priests or bishops. Scripture says that all Christians are given the Holy Spirit (John 7:39; Romans 5:5; 8:9; 1 Corinthains.3:16; 6:19). To say that people are given the Spirit by men (whatever their role in the church) is an abomination. Why don’t Protestants have priest? Peter said, when writing to Christians in his first epistle, “But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God's OWN POSSESSION, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light.” (1 Peter 2:9) We are all priests if we are believers in Christ and are born again because the Spirit dwells within us. As far as the office of bishops goes, the word that you are referring to (presbuteroV) is pronounced pres-boo-ter-os and it means elder. But even if the word bishop is to be used, it seems to be synonymous with that of an elder (see 1 Timothy 3:1ff and Titus 1:6-8). Finally, as to the papacy and the office given to Peter and the reference (I believe) to Matthew 16:18, I think that it is folly to see this as the indoctrination or ordination of Peter as the end-all be-all apostle and head of the Church. Here are a few reasons why I think this:

The words “rock” and “Peter”

• petroV - (pet-ros)“Peter” a rock or a little stone


• petra - (pet-ra) rocky ground (firm), a large rock (Matthew 7:24-25; 27:51, 60; Romans 9:33; 1 Corinthians 10:4; 1 Peter 2:8; Revelation 6:15,16)

It seems clear that after you look at the biblical text to better understand the words used in Matthew 16:18 that Christ is making a play on words to get his point across. I would like to paraphrase John MacArthur made this point well in one of his lectures about the papacy. He said, “You are Peter – petros, small rock – and on this PETRA – a rock bed – I will build my church.” He was referring to Peter with “petros” (petroV) and to Himself with “petra” (petra). If Peter was the prime and unchallengeable apostle, why then did he refer to himself as a fellow elder in 1 Peter 5:1 and not a special word or title for being a Pope, bishop, or cardinal? Corresponding to that, why was Paul able to reprimand Peter in of faith and doctrine?

“But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy.” Galatians 2:11-13

Peter had fallen in with the Judaizing crowd of false teachers who were teaching that Christians had to be Jewish (observing the dietary, social, and other laws) and were denying the freedom in Christ that the apostles proclaimed. Finally (for now, anyway) If you look at Romans 9:33 and 1 Corinthians 10:4, the rock (petra) being referred to here is explicitly and unquestionably Christ, not Peter. Ephesians 2:20 says that the apostles (all of them) laid the foundation, but it is Christ on whom the structure holds together in that He is the corner stone. The point is that Christ is what the Church is built on, not Peter. To say that Peter is the “rock” that the church is built upon (as miss-interpreted from Matthew 16:18) is at best an aberrant teaching, but at worst it is idolatry because it places Peter in the place of Christ.

Before I go on, let me clear up something that some readers seem to have misunderstood. I was debating another Catholic about the truth that we are saved by grace alone we are saved through faith alone, and he kept on asking me to show him where the used the phrase “faith alone” in order to prove my point. Well, the bible doesn’t use that phrase in those words, but the overall testimony of salvation is just that. So, in my response, I wrote this:

“Does the phrase “faith alone” or “only faith” appear in scripture referencing the requirements for salvation? Nope. But neither does the word Trinity. Orthodox Trinitarian theology is taken from the whole of Scripture in what it has to say about God, not just a few passages that, if seen alone, may lead to some incorrect conclusions. Nevertheless, the important thing is that we have come up with a way to express how the Bible describes God – He is a Triune God and thus we have the word Trinity. In the same way we confess that man can be saved only by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone because it is only by this way that God alone gets all of the glory because He does everything to save wretched sinners who can do nothing to save themselves.”⁵

This is not saying that I don’t believe in the Trinity. What it is saying is that there are some ways that we express doctrinal truths in words that capture the meaning of the scriptures even if the word or phrase itself is not found in the text itself (i.e. grace alone by faith alone for salvation and the theology of the Trinity). I used this same line of argument and theology to challenge some Roman traditions and doctrines, some of which concerned the doctrines of Mary because they don’t have scriptural support.

“On the [bodily] assumption of Mary:

Check out Revelation in your bible and read this: (Rev. 11:19). Both Enoch and Elijah were assumed into heaven (Heb. 11:5, 2 Kgs. 2:11). Also, in Matthew 27:52-53 one can read about saints whose bodies left the grave after the Resurrection of Christ. If God did that for two of his prophets, don't you think he would also do it for his own mother?”⁶

The bible makes no case for the bodily assumption of Mary. To base a doctrine of Mary on vague passages and assumptions based upon the logic that if God did it for these other people, “don’t you think He’d do it for his mother?” is a problem. Primarily, these assumptions are not based in scripture. Are there passages where God does something for a few people, it doesn’t require that God would do it for more. Also, this idea of Enoch and Elijah being taken into heaven has nothing to do with their status as great or important men of God, necessarily. David was a man after God’s own heart, Moses had the closest relationship with God (in the Old Testament) of anyone, and John the Baptist was the greatest of all of the prophets and all of these men were not taken bodily into heaven. To say that the doctrine of the bodily assumption of Mary is an argument from silence is an understatement.

“…take a look and see what the divorce rate is for married ministers? It’s about 70%, that is a high rate. Why juggle a family and God, remember God said that he is a jealous God, if you are his minister, don't you think he would want you to focus on him 100% instead of being disc traced by family? Jesus himself didn't marry, some of his apostles didn't either, in fact the ones that were married when Jesus called them, left their wives and family to follow Christ and they probably never saw them again.”⁷

In the same spirit as my challenge to the previous statement that there are 78,000 Protestant denominations, I simply would like to know the source for the 70% divorce rate among protestant ministers. I know that so-called Evangelicals have a divorce rate similar (if not a little above) the rest of the culture, but I have never heard of this shocking rate, so I doubt this figure’s credibility. The only semi-cogent argument is the fact that Jesus, Paul, and others didn’t marry. This is true. As a matter of fact Paul makes the case that it is better if a man can remain single, but he clearly knows that not many men can. Regarding singleness and sexual purity, Paul wrote, “Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am. However, each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that. But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I. But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion. “(1 Corinthians 7:7-9) Furthermore, if it were the call of God to have the elders of the church (presbuteroV) be single, why then is the call to be a husband of one wife made repeatedly (see 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6). As far as the statement that many of the apostles weren’t married or that they never saw their families again, “Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?” (1 Corinthians 9:5) Again, I am no Catholic theologian, but doesn’t the fact that Peter was married and had his wife with him really hurt the idea of forced celibacy of the priesthood?

There was a panel discussion involving various religious leaders (Jew, Protestant, Catholic, and others) on the Larry King Live show on 3/11/2003 where they were discussing the different positions on the war in Iraq. During this conversation, the gospel came up and was discussed between the panel members (John MacArthur and United Methodist Bishop MelvinTalbert) and Larry King. Here is a part of the transcript from that show:

MACARTHUR: I see what you are saying, Well, they, do. But there has to be truth, and untruth and once you've established the truth and I think the word of God has been established as true, I think it can hold up under the most intense scrutiny and other book do not.

KING: Bishop, don't you believe, Bishop Talbert, that Christianity is the right path?

TALBERT: I do believe for Christians, but we're not here to settle which religion is right. That settle -- that dispute belongs to God. We are here to practice what we preach.

KING: Do you believe your religion is right.

TALBERT: Yes I do.

KING: Or else why believe it.

TALBERT: That is right.

KING: So therefore the other religions have to be wrong.

TALBERT: No, I don't say that at all.

KING: If you believe your religion is right. The other religions are wrong.

TALBERT: I believe my God is large enough to be inclusive of all human beings who were created in god's image and that includes those religions that are not Christians.

MACARTHUR: I want to ask a question. Why did Jesus say -- why did Paul say if any man preaches any other Christ than the true Jesus Christ, let him be a cursed? Let him be [anathema]. Why does the Bible say neither is their salvation in any other name than Jesus Christ. Why does the scripture condemn anyone who rejects Jesus Christ and the gospel of Christ? Why is the message so exclusive?

TALBERT: For me, salvation in Jesus Christ is the way, and what I try to do as a Christian is to live that example. My responsibility is not to convert all other religions, but to live the Christian faith in the face of those religions. Are you going to say that my -- our friend on the show tonight who is Jewish is on the wrong path? That's god's choice. That's god's judgment, not mine.⁸

It was to this video clip (you can see the video in my post titled “Compromising the Gospel” from 9/8/06) that the same Catholic blogger made the following comment on my blog,

“That Methodist Preacher has his own way of trying to convert and for that, he should not be bashed. Just think about this for a second... Think about the hermits in the bible, the first Monks, did they go out and yell fire and brimstone and try to convert every soul they met? NO! They worked out their salvation in the wild, they preached to people that came to listen to them... do you see where I am going with this, they were like magnets and that is what attracted all those people... Jesus in a way did the same thing... instead of knocking on doors and trying to convert people, he healed and the people followed, think of the miracle of the loaves and fishes, the people followed him there on their own free will.

My point is, everyone is called to their own way of evangelizing and spreading the truth of Christ, just because that Bishop didn't do what you do, that doesn't make him wrong. Your way of evangelizing, is I am sure you talk to the youth, on the streets where you live, and most of all on your blog. I leave you with this, don't be bothered with the splinter in someone else’s eye, while you have the beam in your own.”⁹

I hope that my Catholic friend just didn’t listen to the Methodist Bishop at all, because it is not with his “way” of evangelism that I had a problem with; it was his message, the gospel that he believes that I have a problem with. He was discounting the clear scriptures showing that Jesus is the only way for salvation for anyone by using phrases like “I do believe [that Christianity is the right path] for Christians” or “For me, salvation in Jesus Christ is the way” but possibly the most condemning thing that he says is that according to his judgment (based on the scriptures) he cannot say whether a devout Jew would go to heaven or not. The answer is clearly that he wouldn’t! If anyone believes that the gospel as articulated by this Methodist Bishop, they do not understand Christ and they deny the truth of the scriptures. Then according to the apostle Paul, they are to be cursed (Galatians 1:6-10), or according to Christ they are false teachers or wolves in sheep’s clothing (Matthew 7:15).

Again, you show your biblical ignorance by using the text in Matthew 7 where Christ says, "Do not judge so that you will not be judged. Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.” (Matthew 7:1,3,5) This text is referring specifically to the pharisaic way of passing judgment on people for various issues, not their theology. We know that it is not referring to judging someone by what they preach or teach because later on in that same chapter Christ says that we are to judge teachers by their fruit – what they do and say (Matthew 7:18-20). So please don’t misuse the admonition not to judge as seen in the first pat of Matthew 7 to promote spiritual and theological lethargy and apostasy.

“By the sounds of your post... my friend... you have chosen to save your seeds and your harvest will yield nothing.”¹⁰

I have no idea what this means regarding anything that I have written. The word “baffled” does not even come close to how little I understand this comment.

“Should Protestants be called Christian, if they reject the teachings of Christ, and do their own thing??? If you do not follow the teachings laid down by Christ, theoretically you should not call yourself a Christian. This is a controversial topic, many will scoff at the very idea. But what do you think?”¹¹

That is a very good question. If the standard of what is to be “Christian” is the Catholic church, then no. But if the standard is a clear understanding and steadfast holding onto what the bible clearly teaches about all matters of doctrine, then Protestants absolutely are Christian, but the same cannot be said for Catholics. It is definitely a provocative question.

Here is a provocative question for you, my Catholic friends. If Catholic theology is true, I am not sure where I – a Protestant who is sold out to the Lord and who loves and is serving Christ – would go when I die. It could be purgatory or hell, but I don’t know which. However, if the “sola” theology as articulated in the reformation is correct (which is in direct opposition to Catholic theology), then, my Catholic friends, you will not go to purgatory because it does not exist. You will be in hell. I say this to make this point: If we do not have the right gospel and therefore we don’t have the right Christ, we will not be saved. Examine the scriptures and plead with God in prayer to open your eyes to the truth. Only He can save you, and if He does, He will completely save you. None of your works count for your salvation.

We cannot be sloppy with the gospel and distort that which Christ died to give us as Bishop Talbert did on Larry King Live. We must always examine the facts that we hold on to, no matter if we are Protestant or Catholic. I find it ironic that in the same responses where I was berated for “spouting off things that you have no real clue about except from local legend taught to you be your childhood church and family” and then to have the same person within a day make the absurd statement that 70% of protestant ministers are getting divorced without any citation of any source (much less a credible one). Let us debate these issues vigorously because eternity hangs in the balance. And I will hold to the Truth (unpopular among Catholics) that salvation is by God’s grace alone through faith in Christ alone and that it is not on the basis of any work (baptism, penance, or anything else). This salvation which is completely by grace alone and not as result of works then produces good fruit from the saved person. But this fruit does not contribute to the justification of that person or make it more likely that they will get into heaven.

sola gratia, sola fide, solus Christus, soli Deo gloria, sola Scriptura amen

---

¹ http://contendersbiblestudy.blogspot.com/2006/09/grace-baptism-and-scripture.html#115794251070662334

² http://contendersbiblestudy.blogspot.com/2006/09/grace-alone.html#115798436432443951

³ http://contendersbiblestudy.blogspot.com/2006/09/grace-baptism-and-scripture.html#115794251070662334

⁴ A Call for Theological Triage and Christian Maturity by R. Albert Mohler, Jr.

⁵ http://contendersbiblestudy.blogspot.com/2006/09/grace-baptism-and-scripture.html

⁶ http://contendersbiblestudy.blogspot.com/2006/09/grace-baptism-and-scripture.html#115794251070662334

⁷ http://contendersbiblestudy.blogspot.com/2006/09/grace-baptism-and-scripture.html#c115794251070662334

⁸ http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0303/11/lkl.00.html

⁹ http://contendersbiblestudy.blogspot.com/2006/09/compromising-gospel.html#115798387546400349

¹⁰ http://contendersbiblestudy.blogspot.com/2006/09/grace-alone.html#115798436432443951

¹¹ http://contendersbiblestudy.blogspot.com/2006/09/compromising-gospel.html#c115799333045977332

Compromising the Gospel

I know that I am way behind on getting involved in the "you tube" phenomenon, but...oh well. I thought that the video clip below was a good articulation of the gospel and specifically regarding the exclusiveness of it.

I think that this shows the danger of being at all squishy in our theology or even in how we express our theology. We dare not ever proclaim a gospel that is only true "for me" or that is "my path" and not make the declaration that all men need to repent and believe in Christ. I also think that the pointed scriptural questions that John MacArthur asks as a rebuttal of the statements of a non-exclusive God is clarifying. The first response back is to ask about the faith of a genuine Jew, and if what MacArthur is saying (he is expressing what the Bible clearly teaches), then the Jew is on the wrong path. EXACTLY! That is why we need to evangelize everyone.

Fundamentalism

Recently my pastor forwarded a critique or a response to an article by Dr. Albert Mohler Jr.. The article was on the topic of the necessity for Christians to make distinctions in what doctrines are most important and need to be divided over and which ones do not. In order to understand my comments, I advise you to read his article.¹ Also, I have copied the response/rebuttal/condemnation by David Cloud below:

"I have long said that the central problem of the Southern Baptist Convention is its commitment to New Evangelicalism, and this is evident from a recent article by R. Albert Mohler, Jr., president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. In "A Call for Theological Triage and Christian Maturity" (Baptist Press, August 23, 2006), Mohler divides biblical truth into three categories: First-order, which are "those doctrines most central and essential to the Christian faith" (in this category Mohler lists only the incarnation, humanity and deity of Christ, the Trinity, justification by faith, and the authority of Scripture); Second-order, which are things "that believing Christians may disagree on though this disagreement will create significant boundaries" (he gives the examples of the mode of baptism and women pastors); and Third-order, which "are doctrines on which Christians may disagree and remain in close fellowship" (here Mohler lists eschatology and "any number of issues related to the interpretation of difficult texts or the understanding of matters of common disagreement"). While Mohler adds a caveat that "a structure of theological triage does not imply that Christians may take any biblical truth with less than full seriousness," he blatantly contradicts this statement by lumping many biblical truths into a "third-order" category and claiming that these particular truths should not be divisive. Mohler says that liberalism's error is "the refusal to admit that first-order theological issues even exist," while the error of fundamentalism "is the belief that all disagreements concern first-order doctrines." He says that this results in Christians being "wrongly and harmfully divided." This is the typical New Evangelical position, and while it might sound reasonable it is nowhere supported by Scripture. Though we recognize that not everything in the Bible has equal weight, all has some weight and the division of biblical truth into second or third classes after the fashion of modern evangelicalism is artificial and man-made. The Lord Jesus Christ instructed the churches to teach the believers "to observe ALL things whatsoever I have commanded you" (Mat. 28:20). There is not a hint in Christ's teaching that some of His doctrine can be placed into a "third-order" category. The apostle Paul instructed Timothy to keep the apostolic commandments "without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Tim. 6:14). This refers to the details of the New Testament faith and includes things such as church discipline, standards for pastors and deacons, restrictions to the woman's ministry, regulations pertaining to the exercise of spiritual gifts, separation from the world, separation from false teaching, and the interpretation of prophecy, all of which are clearly commanded in the apostolic epistles. Nowhere does Paul instruct his fellow preachers or the churches that a segment of biblical truth can be placed into a "third-order" category for the sake of unity. It is the Scripture itself that has made me a Fundamentalist and has led me to reject New Evangelicalism. Divisions created by a stand for biblical truth are not wrong."²

After reading both the response by David Cloud as well as the full article by Dr. Mohler and I feel as though there are a few things that I must say.

I believe that the response by David Cloud mischaracterizes Dr. Mohler’s article in a few places. First of all it is plain that Mr. Cloud sees the list of “first-order” things as only those doctrines that were initially cited (“incarnation, humanity and deity of Christ, the Trinity, justification by faith, and the authority of Scripture”). However, Dr. Mohler makes it plain that these are not the only doctrines, rather they are representative of the first-order category of doctrines by saying, “doctrines such as the Trinity…” implying that there are other foundational (first-order) issues than the ones listed. Furthermore, Dr. Mohler concludes his comments on the importance of the first-order issues (and he expounds on the Christological issues too) by saying, “Those who deny these revealed truths are, by definition, not Christians.” Basically stated: First-order things are those doctrines on which any disagreement necessarily pushes one party or another outside of orthodoxy.

I also believe that Mr. Cloud’s comment citing a blatant contradiction by “lumping many biblical truths into a "third-order" category and claiming that these particular truths should not be divisive.” is not a fair representation of Dr. Mohler’s ideas either. If you read the article, the parameters for the division in “order” is this:

1. First-order things must be divided over, because those who disagree on these issues are not Christians.


2. Second-order things divide because there can be no compromise (see his appropriate example of Baptist and Presbyterian understanding of baptism). We would affirm (I hope) that gospel believing Presbyterian’s are Christians, but vigorously disagree about their stance on this issue.

*Note the difference between the first and second order ideas – disagreeing on first order things means that we cannot have fellowship with Christ, and disagreeing on 2nd order things means that we cannot have fellowship with one another (in local congregational worship).

3. Third-Order things are not minor, but they are more disputable. We must always seek to defend the Word of God for all that it is and all that it says, but there are some things that we can have differences of theological positions on (that are arrived at by study, prayer, and meditation), but not forsake fellowship.

I think that this idea that Dr. Mohler brings out is just a way of framing how we as Christians have always tried to adhere to Christ’s call for unity but still remain faithful to the specific and discriminating statements and proclamations of Holy Scripture. I think it pans out in our own church. Without naming specifics, there are disagreements over certain points of nuanced doctrine. We affirm the same doctrine, but through our own growing understanding of the scriptures, we would make stands at different points along the spectrum. These are disagreements, but we choose to not divide over these issues (think Divine Sovereignty vs. man’s free will). Simply by having these differences (however nuanced they may be, they’re still important), but choosing not to divide is the practical application of what Dr. Mohler was communicating.

Also, upon a little further investigation on this article and the response by David Cloud, I found that Mr. Cloud seems to be a proponent of KJV-Onlyism. He wrote an article describing why he feels that it is an important issue to debate and fight about.³ Now I do agree that this issue is worth debating, but my conclusions are very different from Mr. Cloud. Also, I do think that in the extreme case, some KJV-Onlyist proponents may be somewhat cultish (and I use that word carefully and purposeful). The reason I say that is this: if we put any translation of scripture on the same level or above the level of the original manuscripts written by the apostles and prophets and inspired by the Holy Spirit, we make a grave mistake. This uplifting of any translation is almost idolatrous because the focus is then on the translation and not on the meaning and truth contained in it. I am not one for watering down the gospel or the Word of God, but we must not be jingoistic and make the error of lifting up an English translation and make that the standard when we should be going back as close as we can get to the original.

---

¹ A Call for Theological Triage and Christian Maturity by R. Albert Mohler, Jr.

² http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/fridaynews/news/2006/fridaynews060901.html

³ Is The Bible Version Issue Worth Fighting Over? by David Cloud

a little levity...ok, 4 little levities

And now for something totally different...click on the picture to see something that will make you smile, I guarantee it.

grace, baptism, and scripture

I have recently been having a conversation/debate with Danny who is a fellow blogger and a Catholic. We have covered much ground in our discussions, but the primary focus has been soteriology even though the specific issues have been some of the statements that came out of the Reformation: “sola fide” (faith alone), “sola gratia” (grace alone), and “sola scriptura” (Scripture alone). The most recent discussion area has been surrounding baptism and how we are to view it. Is it a prerequisite for salvation or is it something that relates to the obedience of an already saved individual? Below is a statement that Danny made regarding baptism:

“Even Paul, who was converted by Christ Himself, had to be baptized! It wasn't enough for him to just believe in Jesus (which he surely did after Christ appeared to him), he still needed baptism!(cf. Acts 22)

The thief on the Cross received a Baptism by intent. Because he believed and testified to who Christ was, he desired to become a Christian. If he had been rescued from the Cross, the Apostles would have immediately baptized him as they did with all new Christians (cf. Act 10).”¹

To say that water baptism is necessary for salvation and then to go onto say that if someone really believes and some situation does not allow them to be baptized that this will be okay, it seems a little contrived. Especially when there is no baptism by intent spoken of in the Bible. Baptism (the act of being immersed in the water – the Greek word for baptize (baptizw) means to immerse) is only a symbol of the work that Christ has completed on the cross. Also, the theif would not have been immediately baptized by the apostles when he came down – the only apostle present was John, the others had diserted Christ. Peter not only had deserted Christ but he had cursed Him publically (Matthew 26:69-74). The theif didn’t need to be baptized for salvation because it had been granted to him when he placed his faith in Christ while dying next to Him. In fact it is the very mark of a truly regenerated person, when after being made aware of Christ’s command to be baptized, that they earnestly seek to obey their Lord. The fact that they are obedient shows that they have been made new, but it does not add to or take-away from the salvation of an individual. I think that a strong case can be made that sanctification (growing in holiness) can be greatly stagnated by a refusal or a delay in obeying Christ in the explicit command for believers to be baptized, but salvation is withdrawn or withheld. Finally, if Christ were to require the act of baptism so that one would be saved, why then in John 6:40 did He say, “For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”

Also concerning Baptism, Peter himself says, “Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,” (2 Peter 3:21) The key is that it is not the effect of the water that saves, but it is the effect of the Spirit’s working that saves. And it wasn’t even the immersion (baptizw) in water that is the key, but it is the immersion in Christ and His atoning work that saves. Peter was primarily referencing the story of Noah. They were not immersed in water in the sense of a holy ceremony; they were immersed in the flood of God’s wrath and they were saved by their faith in God that was shown by their obedience to Him (works) in building the ark. In this way, Noah foreshadowed what Christ would endure for us. The full wrath of God would be poured out on Christ, and only by placing faith in Christ can we survive God’s perfect wrath at our own sinfulness.

So baptism is necessary for salvation, just not water baptism (immersion or sprinkling for that matter). That is why I originally answered Danny’s question by saying, “Water baptism is not necessary for salvation. We are saved by God’s grace alone. (Mark 16:16; Luke 23:40-43; Eph 2:8,9).”² One’s baptism into Christ’s death (which is spiritual, not physical) is the only means by which we are able to be granted eternal life.

Just as Abraham was justified by his faith (Genesis 15:6) and his faith was perfected (shown to be true in that he was willing to sacrifice his son) as we see in James 2:22, we are to be justified by our faith. Then our actions testify to the world about the very Lord that we have placed our trust in. The fact is that Abraham was already saved (justified and effectively declared “not guilty” in the court room of God) and that he had the ability to believe that God would raise his son from the dead after he killed him showed just how much he believed in God.

“I asked you to show me anywhere in the Bible where it says that we are saved by ‘Faith Alone.’”³

Does the phrase “faith alone” or “only faith” appear in scripture referencing the requirements for salvation? Nope. But neither does the word Trinity. Orthodox Trinitarian theology is taken from the whole of Scripture in what it has to say about God, not just a few passages that, if seen alone, may lead to some incorrect conclusions. Nevertheless, the important thing is that we have come up with a way to express how the Bible describes God – He is a Triune God and thus we have the word Trinity. In the same way we confess that man can be saved only by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone because it is only by this way that God alone gets all of the glory because He does everything to save wretched sinners who can do nothing to save themselves.

Not only does Scripture not say “faith alone” in reference to salvation, it also says nothing about the bodily assumption or immaculate conception of Mary (or other Marian doctrines), praying to her or to other saints, of the office of Cardinals, the Pope or the Papacy, forced celibacy of clergy, or many other Roman doctrines. This is why the Roman system must always reject the primacy of the Scriptures and the understanding that they are the only source of revealed and inspired truth. That is also why keeping the Scriptures from the people (and much of the clergy too) was one of Satan’s greatest weapons against mankind which allowed the Catholic church to grow relatively unchecked (on human standard) for centuries leaving only remnants of true believers throughout the ages that were systematically persecuted.

Concerning Ezekiel 36:24-27:

“And in Ezekiel, the water mentioned does in fact refer to real water. Ezekiel fortells Christ. The passage you referred to, prefigures Christ's institution of the sacrament of Baptism.”⁴

This passage does talk about the washing and regeneration of the Spirit prior to the coming of Christ. But this shows that the emphasis is on the inner change of the heart of the person (and ultimately the stance before God) and the cleansing from spiritual filthiness and idolatry. Just as circumcision did nothing to save Abraham, baptism does nothing in to save you or me.

In an earlier part of our ongoing discussion, Danny wrote, “And we are not given salvation. We are given the grace to achieve that salvation by obeying Christ and perservering to the end. Once saved, always saved is a false doctrine. By virtue of our free will we can resist the Grace of God that was purchased for us by Christ's death on the Cross. If we disobey we will not receive our reward:”⁵ (he then quoted Matthew 7:21-27). I want to look at this for a bit. The apostle John lays out a good picture of what salvation for an individual looks like. We see that God draws some people, gives those people to Christ, and Christ holds onto them all. No one comes to Christ unless drawn by the Father, and all who are drawn by the Father come to Christ (John 6: 37-39, 44). Not only does Christ say that He will keep us in that text, but he also says that nothing at all can take us out of God’s hand (John 10:27-30) and Paul reiterates the same thing in Romans 8:38,39 (I wrote about this same issue in “kept by God”). The longest of John’s epistles, 1st John, has the theme, “These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.” (1 John 5:13) We can know that we are saved, we don’t have to worry. God has given us His word so that we can “Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves!” (2 Corinthians 13:5a)

The issue of works in the believer’s life is hammered on from both ends of the spectrum. Proponents of “easy believism” call it legalism to say that any works accompany salvation whereas Catholics say that the works contribute to people attaining salvation. The view that is most consistent with Scripture is that works are the fruit of being saved by Grace. They do not contribute to our salvation (justification) but they do serve as benchmarks for others to judge our profession of faith by, as well as the good works further the cause of the gospel on the earth. You can read more about this issue (dealing with it against the attack of the “easy believism” side) by reading “Repentance and Faith: two necessary sides of the same saving coin” and “Is Turning from Sin Legalism?”

My Catholic friends, my goal is not that you become baptist or to have you become a member of a specific denomination. My goal is that you encounter Christ, as all true believers have, as a wretched, naked, and dead sinner who can do nothing to add to the completed work of Christ which He extends as a free gift of God to all who believe (see Romans 6:23). Then and only then can you experience the unfailing, limitless, and unfathomable love and grace of Christ and you can know that you are saved.

---

¹ http://irishanddangerous.blogspot.com/2006/09/saved-by-faith-alone-still-not-found.html

² http://contendersbiblestudy.blogspot.com/2006/09/grace-alone.html (emphasis added)

³ http://irishanddangerous.blogspot.com/2006/09/saved-by-faith-alone-still-not-found.html

⁴ Ibid.

⁵ http://irishanddangerous.blogspot.com/2006/09/so-long-sola-fide.html