Baby Steps From Orthodoxy to Heresy

Whenever the Scriptures are misused, it grieves God and all of His children. As one of those children, I initially have a two-fold thought on this matter. First of all, I realize that I am imperfect, quite flawed, actually, and I have misused Scriptures in the past. Worse than that, I am sure that I will misuse Scriptures in the future. I have not done so intentionally, and I will not do it intentionally in the future, but even though I cannot think of a specific example, I am sure that this is a true description of me. The second thought that I have is one of indignation and anger that the Word of God is distorted by careless, immature, or malicious individuals when they use a Scripture to state as a fact what that Scripture, or perhaps even the Scriptures as a whole, does not teach at all.

And it is in the mindset of my two-fold reaction that I hope to address misuses of Scripture. First of all, if I am approached with an example of where I have used a Scripture out of context in order to support a theological conclusion (whether my final conclusion is Biblical or not, it makes no difference), I hope and pray that I will quickly have a humble attitude to investigate the issue to see if I am at fault. And once I become aware of an occurrence of out of context proof texting, then not only will I not use the text in the same incorrect manner, but I will do what I can to rectify my previous use of it in that manner.

My hope and prayer is that my Christian brethren will do the same. However, since we are all sinful, there are verses and issues that will not be given up easily or at all. Even if these misuses of Scripture are for theologically true issues or issues that are false but not at the level of being heretical, it is still a very troubling and problematic activity. If a text can be twisted out of context and accepted to affirm something that it doesn’t, even if that affirmation is not heretical, what is to stop the next person who wants to twist it even further?

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28)

When I have researched and discussed the issue of female pastors, Galatians 3:28 is the verse that is used, along with other vague references and elusions to women, to argue the point. Furthermore, the passage in Galatians is the primary Scriptural cudgel that is used to bat down the opposing arguments. Proponents of female pastors and elders basically see this verse as washing away the distinctions of men and women as it relates to pastoral ministry. But along with the gender neutralizing application that is taken from Galatians 3:28, those who advocate female pastors from the Scriptures are quick to site the fact that there have been female prophetesses (Ex 15:20, 2 Kings 22:14, Luke 2:36, Acts 21:9), a female Judge (Jud 4:4), and a female member of a prominent husband and wife team that helped Apollos (Acts 18:24-28). However, without the glue of the above interpretation of Galatians 3:28, these examples don’t teach us anything about the role or qualifications of elders in the church, they are simply examples of what women had done under the Law and during the transitional time of the early church. But even the examples of prophetesses in the New Testament are not listed as elders or pastors, and that must not be overlooked or brushed under the rug.

So the question that must be addressed is this: does Galatians 3:28 teach the washing away of gender distinctions in the church, or at least regarding the issue of elders and pastors in the church? My answer is simply and quickly that it does no such thing. First of all, Paul’s letter is primarily addressing the issues raised because of the Judaizing false teachers who were teaching that one must follow the law as well as have faith in order to be saved. Paul’s pronouncement of this idea as anathema in the first chapter is one of the harshest in all of his letters.

So when we arrive at chapter three, Paul is now trying to give a presentation about the correct use or function of the law since following the law has no part in our justification. And it is in the context of the proper understanding of the law that we find Galatians 3:28.

²² But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. ²³ But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. ²⁴ Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. ²⁵ But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. ²⁶ For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. ²⁷ For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. ²⁸ There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. ²⁹ And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise. (Galatians 3:22-29)

Verses 24-26 make it clear that Paul is referring both to who can be justified and how they can be justified. And the answer is that there is no racial, class, or gender disqualifiers for justification that occurs by faith. Forgetting that Paul’s parallel statement in Colossians 3:9-11 doesn’t mention a distinction between male and female. Even if Paul would have made the same “neither male nor female” statement, the context in Colossians is about the renewal that believer’s experience who have been justified by faith and not about serving in the church.

Another textual objection raised in this text, but in my experience much less frequently, is that we are all, male and female, “heirs according to promise”. The promise that we are heirs to in Christ is the promise made to Abraham and not one of temporal gifts or service in the church. Being an heir in this sense is saying that we receive the promise that was made to Abraham and passed down through Isaac, Jacob, and the nation is one of salvation (see Galatians 3:6-9).

But one proponent of the egalitarian view made a very wild “logical” continuation of applying Galatians 3:28 “only to salvation.”

“If Galatians 3:28 only refers to salvation, then we would have a difficult time defending the inclusion of the gentiles in the leadership roles of the church. Let me explain what I mean.

What if someone said that only the Jews were to rule, and all the gentiles had to be subordinate? After all, weren’t all of the books of the Bible written by Jews? Weren’t all of Jesus disciples Jews? Jesus never appointed anyone who wasn’t a Jew to a place of authority in the church.

Is that Biblical? It may sound logical because these are the same arguments that have been used against women. But the wall of separation has been taken down in every case.”¹

The proof-text that is used here referring to this dividing wall that is broken down and that the speaker relates to the roles of men and women in the church is Ephesians 2:14-16. While the verses do talk about breaking down a barrier and making the two into one new man, the context is about the Jews and the gentiles, not men and women.

One of the explicit qualifications given for the role of elder or overseer is that the person must be a one woman man. The language is clear that the individual must be a man, not simply a person who is devoted to one other person. He doesn’t say that the elder or bishop must be a good looking man, a black man, a white man, a young man, an old man, a Jewish man (Israelite), or a gentile man; he just says that he must be a one woman man.

Galatians 3:28 does not overrule or even clarify the male qualification for being an elder or bishop when Paul announces that there is no “male or female” in Christ Jesus. Paul is responding to the heresy of the Judaizers in Galatia and their insistence that you must add law-keeping to faith, especially circumcision, in order to be saved. And there is no distinction because of pedigree, gender, or social status. Conversely, when Paul wrote to Timothy and Titus, he was giving positive instructions on leading in the church.

We must be careful not to confuse the Scriptures in their application. Even though it is my conviction based up on the Scriptures that it is wrong for a woman to be a pastor or teacher of men, it is not heresy (not by a long shot). That being the case, using Galatians 3:28 as a verse that breaks down gender distinctions when this passage says nothing of the sort can open it up to further abuses. What context is to stop someone from making the positive case for committed Christian homosexual relationships? Of course the Bible explicitly refers to one man and one woman for marriage, but if there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave or free man, male or female in Christ Jesus, who are we to stop two loving people from being married?

There are always a few baby steps from orthodoxy to heresy, and we must be careful to school the steps of faith that we take by the Word of God in its proper context.

---

¹ Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free? part 7 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCUFC1ss-Dw&feature=user

Satan the Scriptures and Sound Doctrine

⁵ Then the devil took Him into the holy city and had Him stand on the pinnacle of the temple, ⁶ and said to Him, "If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down; for it is written, `HE WILL COMMAND HIS ANGELS CONCERNING YOU'; and `ON their HANDS THEY WILL BEAR YOU UP, SO THAT YOU WILL NOT STRIKE YOUR FOOT AGAINST A STONE.'" ⁷ Jesus said to him, "On the other hand, it is written, `YOU SHALL NOT PUT THE LORD YOUR GOD TO THE TEST.'" (Matthew 4:5-7)

Scripture alone is the final voice in all things pertaining to godliness, theology, and anything else in life. As Christians, we must be humble enough to bow our own desires and thoughts to the truth of God’s Word. Everything, from how I raise my family to how I interact in my political world, should be guided from a thorough study of and implementation of the Word of God.

It is hard to find any example that better displays the supremacy of Scripture than the example of Christ being tempted by Satan in the desert. In the broader context, Jesus rebukes the devil and answers the temptations put before Him by quoting Scripture as well as simply commanding him. I have always found it interesting that Jesus didn’t simply command Satan not to tempt Him, but He quoted Scripture to stand firm against temptation.

But even more than that, even Satan quotes Scriptures in an effort to have God sin before him. We must never be foolish enough to think that just because someone quotes Scripture and sounds authoritative, that doesn’t mean that the message being conveyed is true. Whether you hear Scripture from a preacher, teacher, evangelist, or anyone else, don’t simply ingest, digest, and manifest what they are proclaiming. Satan and his slick salesmen are very keenly aware of what the Scriptures say. In fact, I have heard it said before that if Satan had true and uncontrolled power over the world that it would look cleaner and nicer, it would be full of smiling people who filled up church buildings on Sunday’s and Wednesdays. But the church buildings would not preach Christ aright.

Now, whether that is truly how the world would look or not, I think that it gives a glimpse at one of the most tragically effective deceptions that the devil is adept at using. Church without God, Jesus without the cross, and the Scriptures without their context all lead to an abysmal “gospel” that is truly no gospel.

We must not be lackadaisical in our vetting of the preaching and teaching of our ministers and lay-teachers, nor should we be casually tolerant anytime anyone throws out a Bible verse or a biblical cliché. “God helps those who help themselves.” What Bible verse is that? It’s not in the Bible, but if I had a nickel for every time that I heard someone use that phrase in reference to Christianity and the God of the Bible, I would have no small fortune.

One of the favorite Scriptures for non-Christians, pseudo-Christians, and Christians alike to quote is from Jesus’ words on the Sermon on the Mount, when referring to Matthew 7:1 they say, “Judge not lest ye be judged.” And when this verse is brought out, it is often used as an offensive weapon against those Christians who see sin in our midst, whether in ourselves or in others, and have the audacity to call sin “sin”. Or if a Christian calls attention to a self-styled Christian teacher or a professed believer and notes that this same person betrays that they are not born again based on their actions, this same verse is brought out as a cudgel to put down this kind of judgmental attitude.

I forget where I first heard the best fitting response to the abuse of the words of our Lord from Matthew 7, but I find it to be so refreshing and true. So the next time that you are rightly making an identification of something as sinful, evil, wicked or false and you are doing so while not being pharisaical and executing a sentence or punishment (excluding church discipline, of course) on that individual in the place of God Himself, you may want to remember this concise retort.

“You say, ‘Judge not lest ye be judged.’ But I say, ‘Twist not Scripture lest ye be like Satan.’” - Unknown

The Parable of the Speed Limit

If you were to take a completely unscientific poll of people in modern western Christian-influenced culture to find out what the greatest sin is, you might hear the loudest condemnation proclaimed against intolerance and judgmentalism. And when you boil these two down, they come to the same common denominator that is best expressed by the commandment that is most beloved, at least by my contemporaries; the eleventh commandment. Of course, there is no “eleventh commandment” but the misunderstanding, misinterpretation, and cultural acceptance of Jesus’ statement to “judge not lest ye be judged” in Matthew 7 has been elevated to the status of the one thing that no one should ever dare to do, especially if you are a Christian in America.

"¹ Do not judge so that you will not be judged. ² For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. ³ 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? ⁴ Or how can you say to your brother, `Let me take the speck out of your eye,' and behold, the log is in your own eye? ⁵ 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 7:1-5)

Now I must note a few things about what our Lord says in Matthew 7. First of all, He is winding down the Sermon on the Mount and He is not saying that His followers are never to make a discerning judgment about anything or anyone. If He really meant that we are never to challenge what people say, then why did He tell believers to beware of false teachers who can be known by their fruits (c.f. Matthew 7:15)? But most people don’t want to understand the meaning of Jesus’ words or the teaching of the New Testament on sin and the role that sin plays in the message of the Gospel; they just don’t want to be judged. Tragically, many of the proponents of this type of false tolerance toward sin, false religion, and an inability to alert sinners of their own sin are firmly inside the perimeter of modern popular-Christendom.

When the objection to any kind of Christian witness or evangelism is based upon this eleventh commandment, it is usually brought up when someone is told that what they believe or do is wrong and sinful. On one hand I sympathize with those who simply don’t want to hear that they’re sinners; I wouldn’t want to hear that if I were an unsaved sinner either, but it is the truth. The biggest issue at this point, on some level anyway, is to make it clear that all sin and all sinners deserve hell and they are headed that way. One of the many different listing descriptions of the people’s character who will be condemned is penned by Paul in his letter to the Corinthians,

“⁹ Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, ¹⁰ nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Corinthians 6:9,10)

This is one of the texts in the New Testament that makes it absolutely clear that God’s hatred for sexual immorality, whether hetero or homo in nature, has not changed. However, my point is not to bang the drum only on the basis of sexual sin here. This Scripture says that thieves, drunkards, swindlers and the covetous will be condemned. I have never met one person who has been able to completely avoid coveting; it is impossible. Therefore, all people, no matter how moral their lives may appear and how nice they are to you or me, are in the cross-hairs of God’s wrath if they are not found in Christ. But before we can truly explain the gospel and truly explain the way of salvation, the man or woman must understand that they need to be saved. And in order to do that, the person must see that they are a sinner in truth and in deed.

This understanding is not something that can be accomplished by a casual agreement between the evangelist and the sinner with the generic “we’re all sinners,” I believe that it must go deeper and be more personal than that. It is true that we are all sinners, but the individual sinner still has the idea that “I’m not that bad,” and that needs to be dealt with head on. It is when we get down to the nitty-gritty level of coveting, lying, lusting, and idolatry (among others) as we attempt to illuminate the sinner’s understanding of their own personal guilt before the entire panorama of God’s holy standards, if not before this point, that we are accused of breaking the sacred eleventh commandment.

If you have ever felt that you were committing the one unforgivable sin of being judgmental when you call a spade a spade, or call someone who admits to lying as being a liar, don’t be dissuaded when you’re told to deal with “the log in your own eye” first. Now, if you are witnessing to someone you know well and the testimony of your life is such that you are known as a hypocrite, then you may have forfeited your credibility with that person. And the reason that you need to work on your own testimony and lifestyle is not only so that you will be able to witness to that person, you may not be saved if your life is that of a reprobate sinner.

But, if your life is characterized by striving to live and serve God in submission to His will and conformity to His Son, you will still sin. And when you do, it is important to own up to it, repent, and move forward. So if this is the case and you find yourself witnessing to someone, anyone, who throws the same objection to you, don’t stop. Don’t fear that by showing someone God’s standards and their personal guilt before them that you are judging in a way that Christ forbids in Matthew 7, you’re not.

Suppose you are driving down the Interstate at 75 miles an hour. It’s not a big deal because there is not a lot of traffic and the cars that are on the road are going as fast, if not faster, than you are. As you are going, you pass a sign that reminds you that the maximum speed allowed by the law is 65 miles per hour. When you look down at your speedometer, you notice that you are, in fact, going much faster than that. Does the driver get angry at the speed limit sign for judging him? Now the driver may well attempt to justify his actions in light of the fact that he is breaking the speed limit so that he can continue in his course of action. “I’m not hurting anyone by speeding,” “it’s a dumb rule to have this slow of a speed limit,” and “I’m in a hurry.” But most famous, and pathetically cliché, is the objection, “Everyone else is doing it.”

When an officer of the law pulls that driver over, it doesn’t matter if the entire city was speeding along with him; the law clocked this particular driver at speeds in excess of the allowed limit. There is no excuse or reason valid enough that will be convince the officer that the driver is innocent of breaking the law, and so the just punishment will be given.

Now, in Christian terms, we are not the legislative body that makes the laws. We are not the police officers who hand out the citations. We are not the judge who hears the case, sustains the citation, and enforces the punishment. Christians who witness are much like the speed limit sign that the driver sped past. The sign did not create rules or pronounce any kind of judgment on its own accord or power, but it only represents what the legislative body, the police, and the judge who make and enforce the laws have already put in motion. Any guilt that the sinner feels at this point is usually not from the questions and loving opening of the Truth of Scripture, but it is the echoing of their own guilt coming from their own conscience. Simply calling the sinner’s own attention to the fact that God’s standards have been given to us, and that by their very testimony (usually) they are breaking those laws is not judgmental. It is an act of grace to bring it to their attention.

Soon after I moved to my current home, I went out to get some food for my wife and I. On the way back from the fast food place, I turned on a little access road between the main highway and my residential street. I was cruising along at 40 miles per hour when for a block or two when I saw the flashing lights behind me. I pulled over and was informed that the speed limit was only 30, not 40. When I apologized to the officer and informed him that I thought the limit was 40, he was not moved. I even informed him that there was not a speed limit sign from the point where I turned onto this street until where he pulled me over. That is true; the only sign for quite a ways was posted before my intersection, so I could not have seen it. However, that didn’t matter. As much as I hated it, I was still in violation of the law.

The point is just this; the law is the law whether or not you see the sign. Now, on human terms we may be able to get out of a ticket on a technicality, but God’s moral law and standard is written on the hearts of men, and so we will have no case before God even if no one acts as a sign to warn us of our sin. We must not be halted in our proclamation of the problem of sin or the solution of the Savior because we’re called judgmental. Know the truth, that what we do when we alert sinners of their sin and the punishment that will follow is not judging, but it is a merciful alerting to the truth that they already know in their hearts, even if they deny that they know it.

The other thing that we need to know is that this same concept is just as important for those who claim to be Christians as it is for others who make no attempt at a Christian identity. The speed limit sign can, and should, be used on those who profess no faith in Christ as well as those who speak Christianese fluently but do not have the fruit of the new birth in their lives. The apostle John, in his epistle called First John, penned that this letter was written “so that our joy may be made complete” (1 John 1:4), but specifically so that our joy may be complete with the knowledge that we “have eternal life.” (1 John 5:13) In light of this, those of us who claim to be believers can make our way through First John using the various contrasting statements to evaluate our lives and the truth of our claim to faith in Christ.

Many people in western Christendom today, I believe, have been lulled into the false belief that if they prayed the sinner’s prayer as a child (or at one point in their lives) that they are saved without a doubt. I am convinced that not only is this untrue, but it is one of Satan’s biggest lies that so many have believed today. It is as foolish as the Roman false teaching that the act of baptism and the taking of the Eucharist saves the soul. They are both forms of works righteousness – if I do “X”, then I’m on my way to heaven. If someone lives as if they have not been saved as evidenced by reveling in unrepentant sin, there is good cause to doubt the validity of someone’s claim to have been born again.

“5 This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. 6 If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth; 7 but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.

8 If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.” (1 John 1:5-10)

I am convinced that turning a blind eye and a false hope of salvation toward a professing brother who is living in unrepentant sin is not the loving thing for a Christian to do. In the same way that we would approach a self confessed non-Christian, we also must do the same by using the Law as a speed limit sign in an attempt to alert the conscience of the professing believer. A true believer will come to understand the error of his ways, repent of them, and grow in Christ. A false brother may truly get saved, or he may oppose your loving concern for his soul by resisting and debating various things without dealing with the sin.

Whether dealing with a confessed non-Christian or a confessing Christian whose lives give testimony that they are liars, covetous, or idolaters, we are called to glorify God by proclaiming the Truth of Scripture regarding man’s sin, our just deserts in the righteous punishment of a holy God, God’s compassion and love in sending Christ as our propitiation, and the response that is evidence of a truly saved person; repentance from sin and true and lasting faith in Christ alone.

Christendom

After church on Sunday I was fellowshipping with one of my good friends and I asked him for some feedback on the lesson that I had just given. I did so on this occasion because during the lesson on Galatians 5:1-15 I made a statement that was either miss-stated or just plain wrong. Both are conclusions are completely plausible given what was said and the difference would depend on what I meant when I said what I did…. Ok, if that wasn’t convoluted enough, let me summarize the situation.

“You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.” (Galatians 5:4)

In this passage there are a few words and phrases used that seem to cause readers’ eyebrows to go up (they did for me). The concerning phrases are “severed from Christ” and “fallen from grace” because I have seen them used as arguments for the fact that someone can lose their salvation. Put another way, some people use this text to argue that you can become un-justified before God. I fully and whole-heartily reject this notion based on the overwhelming testimony of Scripture.¹

There are passages of Scripture (like this one) that can seem to be in conflict with that theology, and so I wanted to explore that for a bit. My basic point to the class was three fold:

1. The texts of John 6:35-44; 10:27-29, and Romans 8:28-30 are so explicitly clear about the security of the believer. Once he or she is truly saved, there can be no doubt as to the truth of the doctrine of eternal security.
2. The letter to the Galatians is addressed to a church that has genuine believers in it (Peter and Barnabas are mentioned by name), but there are also unsaved false teachers in their midst. The audience is diverse enough that we cannot use this passage as a sweeping contradiction of eternal security. Basically, I appealed to the context (audience) of the whole letter when making this point.
3. The overall flow of Paul’s argument in the book is to contrast the impossibility of works righteousness with salvation by faith apart from works of the Law. This truth is conveyed very clearly in various places in the letter including the above verse.

"I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly." (Galatians 2:21)

“Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law.” (Galatians 3:21)

After having made this point, Stu, my good friend, pointed out that the context of this verse was utterly clear and that Paul was speaking to those people who are trying to be justified by works and that they are not connected with the gospel of Christ. My comment in class and afterwards to Stu was one of frustration over having poorly stated what was going on there. But even more so, I was frustrated that the direct context of the verse didn’t hit me in that same (and correct) way until he voiced it. God bless the discerning, loving, and gentle correction of Christian brothers and sisters.

After I thanked Stu for his “iron sharpening iron” addition to class, we continued talking and my use of the word “Christendom” was brought up. Over the past few weeks this word has been creeping more and more into my vocabulary in an attempt to make a distinction between all things and people who would call themselves “Christian” and true Christianity. My concern is that there are so many people, denominations, religions, and world views that are lumped into what culture calls Christianity that it has made this group indefinable and vacuous amalgam.

So, in an attempt to show my disassociation with groups with heretical doctrine that culturally fall under the all encompassing umbrella of Christianity, I refer to that group as Christendom. Technically speaking, these two words are synonyms, but since the latter is almost never used and virtually unknown in the common vernacular, I am using it in order to elevate the use of and the definition of Christianity to only include those who hold to the doctrines set forth by the Bible. Namely the views expressed by the five “solas” of the reformation (sorry Rome) and the Trinity (sorry T.D. Jakes; sorry Gov. Mitt Romney²) to name a few.

I did not mention the doctrines of grace and various doctrines on Spiritual gifts in the above list for a reason. I believe that those issues are very important, but I can (and do) disagree with family and good friends of mine on some of these issues and I think that they’re wrong. However, regardless of who is right or wrong on these secondary issues³, and I do firmly believe that there is a right and a wrong, that does not thrust one outside of true Christianity where Jesus Christ is truly worshiped.

In other words, when I use the word “Christendom” I am referring to the world wide community of people who would call themselves Christians, and it would (or may, depending on the context of my statement) include Roman Catholics, Modalists, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Scientologists, Protestants, and many more groups. And when I use the word “Christianity” or “Christian”, I will attempt to reserve its application to those groups who at least claim and seem to try and hold onto the essential doctrines of Scripture.

---

¹ Please read “The Perseverance of the Saints (a.k.a. Once Saved Always Saved)” for more information on this topic.

² He’s a member of the Mormon religion, and they believe that Jesus is a created being. That’s enough to make them heretics and outside of the bounds of Christianity.

³ They secondary in relevance to the central and overall message of the gospel, but not secondary so as to show that they are unimportant. Please see Fundamentalism for more thoughts on the "secondary" topic.

Profane or not Profane? That is the Question.

Before you read this article, please know that there are words and phrases used in this article – both created by me and quotations of others – that I consider profane. Because of the subject matter and the way in which this issue was raised, there is no way to really communicate the stark contrast in views of how Christians can use language without showing examples. Please be aware and read (or don’t read) accordingly.

Last Friday I called a radio show to express some concern over a song that was played for bumper music. Now, before I get pigeon-holed for something that I am not, I want to setup the scenario. The Internet radio show, the Narrow Mind, is a fun program covering many of the different types of things that interest me – theology, apologetics, and other things – and I have enjoyed listening to it ever since I found it a few weeks ago.

One of the “catchy” things (for me, anyway) was the style of bed music that the host chose to have during the breaks. The music tends to be more…driven. By that I mean that the music is more rock/hard rock in style. I was a head-bangin’, air guitar playin’, thrash metal listening born-again Christian. I listened to groups like Deliverance and Tourniquet, but I did my best to avoid the secular heavy metal groups. So, hearing this type of music on a Christian broadcast, even if only in short bursts, is fun for me. This is all to say that I do not have any negative knee-jerk reaction to hard rock/heavy metal music as a style.

Well, when listening to this radio program I heard some provocative and somewhat questionable lyrics on one of the songs. Knowing that sometimes words can sound different than intended, I googled the lyrics that I could definitely make out and I was directed to a song by the secular (definitely not Christian) band, Nickelback with their song “Throw Yourself Away.” Here are the lyrics from the portion of the song that can be heard on the program (at least the few times that I heard it),

Baby's born on a bathroom floor
Her mother prays that it'll never cry
But nothing's wrong you've got your prom dress on
When they ask you'll say "it isn't mine"
You know there gonna know you lied

Why the hell don't you throw yourself away?
You know there gonna burn it down

Wash my, hands of this
You notice how god ain't even helping you out¹

Again, the above lyrics are not the exhaustive lyrics from the song, just the lyrics that are able to be heard when listening to the show.² After reading the lyrics that I had been listening to, I was a little shocked and confused as to what possible reason could there be to use a song with a profanity in it. This is what prompted me to call. When I called, I had a very good natured discussion/debate with Pastor Gene Cook Jr., but we failed to see eye to eye on this issue.³

I asked him if he was aware that the song this song in particular had profanity in it and his response was “not in the part that we play.”⁴ When I clarified my statement to refer to the word hell, the response I received at that time was hell is a biblical term. And if we’re making the statement that all words used in the Bible are not to be considered profanity, then any use of “ass” (Matthew 21:5 KJV), “bastard” (Deuteronomy 23:2 KJV), and various forms of the word “damnation” (Matthew 23:14.33 KJV) should not be considered profanity either.

I would agree that all of the above words – ass, bastard, and (forms of) damnation – are able to be used in a precise fashion and using their technical definitions in certain contexts that would be acceptable. That is very different that excusing the use of these words because they are Bible terms. For instance, referring to a donkey as an ass is very different than referring to a person as an ass. The same word is used, yes, but the use of that word in contemporary language refers to someone who is acting in a particular way (I say “particular” because the use is so broad, that it would be foolish to try and over define it here) or to refer to someone’s posterior. In any event, modern usage of the word “ass” is (except on rare occasion when reading from the Bible or when referring to a beast of burden) is not used in the same way that the Bible does.

In the same way, referring to hell as the eternal place of torment for those people who die in their sins is very different than telling someone to “go to H@&&” or saying “why the H@&&...”. My main point is basically that just because certain words are in the Bible, that doesn’t give us a free pass to use them in any way that we want to.

When I continued with my concern, Pastor Cook said that one reason that this song is used on his program was to demonstrate “the antithesis between the Christian mindset and the mindset of the worldly person.”⁵ He also went on to say that he plays this music intentionally in order to facilitate or encourage conversation with unbelievers. The reason for doing this is to share the gospel and to demonstrate how to talk to unbelievers.

I am in favor of creating an atmosphere where interaction with unbelievers is important for the reasons that Pastor Cook gave, but the problem is not with the intention, my problem is with using a song with profanity in it to accomplish this goal. I think that it is appropriate to consider various passages on Christian speech as a guideline for our spoken words in all arenas.

“Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, so that it will give grace to those who hear.” (Ephesians 4:29)

“But now you must rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips.” (Colossians 3:8)

“Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving.” (Ephesians 5:4)

The above passages specifically refer to the speech of a Christian and not to what Christians play on their radio or television programs (obviously). However, I don’t think that it is a stretch to say that if you host a radio or television show that you are responsible for what is said or done on it. In other words, if during my radio show I have an audio clip of someone telling crude jokes, I am responsible and accountable for that because it is my show. However, if I am doing a live program and a caller slips in a crude remark that I cannot get edited in time, that is different if, for no other reason, than I did not plan it nor did I sanction it.

Therefore, even though Pastor Cook (and his production team) didn’t actually speak the words from the Nickelback song, in a sense they are doing just that because they are intentionally placing that on the air as part of their show. My concern is that this does not fit with our call as Christians to speak good things that are not foolish, filthy, or full of rage.

However, the heart of where our disagreement lies is with how we define profanity differently. I personally think that Pastor Cook, with all due respect to the man (and I sincerely mean that), is being very inconsistent in his application of what is or is not profane. To get at the heart of this issue, I asked him if he would allow his son (I believe he has a school aged child) to use this language. He responded by saying that he wouldn’t, but he also does not allow his child to drink beer either, and that there are some things that are inappropriate for children to say, but the same things can be okay for an adult to say. That is a fair qualification to make even if I don’t think that it applies to the current issue, but I conceded that in order to move on.

I then asked him that if, hypothetically, he had a 22 year-old son who used that kind of language, would he consider it to be profane. Pastor Cook answered by saying that he would not defend the use of profanity by anyone. This gets us back to square-one with the question of is the use of the word “hell”, as done in the song by Nickelback, a profanity even though hell is a biblical term?

But before I can even get back to that issue with the example that I think proves my overall point, Pastor Cook asked me one more question.

The question that he asked me was, “What do you think [that] Jesus would think about two Christians arguing about whether it is appropriate to use ‘hell’ or not?”⁶ Well, if the reason for the discussion, debate, or argument is done with the goal of glorifying God and if the discussion is done so in a respectful manner (as I think that ours was), then I believe that Jesus would be pleased and glorified with this discussion. He is glorified because we are holding up the lofty calling of being a Christian and scrutinizing what we do to see if there is any fault in it.

I am not sure what answer he thought I would give or if this would be the question to ask that would ultimately dismiss my fairly intense scrutiny of this issue. But I think that my answer (and I stand by it) is true and that we should be in the business of scrutinizing what we do in an effort to not sin in our ministry. I cannot see the things that I do in the light that others can, and so naturally things can (and do) slip by me. I either do not see a problem or do not see an issue as a problem, and it takes a loving brother or sister in the Lord to bring up concerns that may or may not be legitimate.

The rest of the conversation and any follow-up conversations that I have had with others always comes back to what is defined as profanity and the rationale is either that hell is a biblical term or that God used “much worse word” than hell in the way that the culture used it that day in order to make a very strong point.⁷ I do not know what exact examples that Gene was referring to in Scripture, and I am skeptical that any scriptures would have use of terms that is the same as or worse than the lyrics of this song.

Perhaps the key to articulating my point would be with the use of other biblical terms. The words that I am referring to are “Jesus”, “Christ”, “God”, and a form of the word “damnation”. Now, I tread lightly here because I do want to make my point, but I do not want to sin in doing so. So, please bear with me.

We would agree (I hope) that saying “Jesus Christ is the only true Son of God, and that to reject His gospel result in your damnation,”⁸ is a correct use of the words that I referred to. I also hope that we would agree that if someone used these same words in a different way that it would be considered course, profane, and truly blasphemous. For instance, “J C, Gene, don’t use G-D’ed profanity on your radio program!”

My point in the above sentence, as well as my overall argument, is to show that just because certain words are in the Bible, that doesn’t give us a free pass to use them in any way that we want to. Granted, if said, the sentence that I constructed would definitely violate the third commandment by taking the Name of the Lord in vain, and in that sense it is not equivalent to the profane use of another word, but the principle of how to use words is very similar.

---

¹ http://www.elyrics.net/read/n/nickelback-lyrics/throw-yourself-away-lyrics.html

² You can hear this excerpt on the 2/23/07 show (The Narrow Mind Show #750). You can click here to hear the song, it is the very first thing that is played as the introduction to this particular episode. Total length of the song excerpt is 50 seconds.

³ You can listen to the actual interchange between the host and myself by downloading/streaming The Narrow Mind Show #755 by clicking here. My conversation begins at 15 minutes into the show and lasts for about 14 minutes.

⁴ TNM #755 17:00 To be fair, he may have been thinking of the stanza where the lead singer is condemning the woman in the song by signing,

“Damn you for thinking we would never know
And damn you for thinking we would never mind
Only reason that you made it this far
You never asked him, but you never tried”

⁵ The Narrow Mind Show #750 18:30

⁶ During the actual radio conversation, the connection was not as good as it could be so I did not understand that he said “Jesus” (even after asking him to repeat himself), so my answer was not given exactly as I would have if I had heard and understood his question correctly.

⁷ The Narrow Mind Show #750 28:30

⁸ In this case, please disregard the theological incorrectness or incompleteness of this sentence (i.e. rejecting the gospel doesn’t send someone to hell, our sins do that).

sacrifices

I recently received an e-mail with the picture (to the right) on it. The caption is somewhat hard to read, but it says,

“Pearl Harbor survivor Houston James of Dallas embraced Marine Staff Sgt. Mark Graunke Jr. during a Veterans Day commemoration in Dallas yesterday. Graunke lost a hand, a leg, and an eye when he defused a bomb in Iraq last year. This week’s images of U.S. troops in combat in Fallujah deepened the day’s significance for many who attended tributes held in San Diego and across the nation.”

This is a truly moving story and picture that causes all Americans to be even more grateful for our soldiers. That being the case, I want to address the text of the e-mail that was sent along with this picture and show how I think that it is ultimately not honoring to God, and it may even be blasphemous. But in doing so I want to make it clear that I hold the men and women who have served, fought, bled, died or have been maimed with only respect and gratitude.

The e-mail was one of those forwards that insists that you send it out to everyone (or a certain number of people). Most of these types of e-mails say that you need to forward it to receive good luck, to avoid bad luck, or some other type of superstitious mumbo-jumbo. Here is the text that came along with the e-mail:

"We truly take a lot for granted. Forget the football "heroes" and movie "stars". Pass this on so that all may know the price of freedom. Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American Soldier. One died for your soul; the other for your freedom."

Did anything about the comparison made between Jesus and an American soldier? First of all, from a purely biblical and theological perspective, comparing anything with God is utterly unthinkable. Now, I know that we use stories, parables, and other types of creative ways to communicate the message of the gospel, but none seem to be as crass as this is.

The equivocation of the sacrifice that Jesus made for our souls with the sacrifice an American soldier made for our freedom is shocking and upsetting. First of all, do I am very grateful that American servicemen who’ve fought and died on behalf of people (both American and of other nationalities). In fact, if it wasn’t for American soldiers, the world as we know it would be very different because Hitler would have crushed the rest of Europe. So, my consternation at the parallel has nothing to do with a dislike or disrespect for servicemen, but it has everything to do with Jesus being shown in a disrespectful manner.

You see, to put anyone at all on a similar plain with Jesus is a troubling, and most likely incorrect, thing to do. But, the audacity to put someone on a similar plain with Jesus in what He accomplished through His singular voluntary sacrifice on behalf of an unworthy sinful humanity is utterly offensive. It is not only the state of sinful humanity that makes this equivocation reprehensible, but the fact that Jesus Christ is, and was, perfectly holy that only punctuates this flaw.

Other than having a very blasphemous comparison as the core of the seemingly encouraging exhortation to appreciate both Christ and our servicemen is the problem with the theology of the distinction in who died for what. The Bible is clear, in the Old (Isaiah 61:1) and New Testament (Galatians 5:1), that one of the effects of God’s salvation that was accomplished through Jesus Christ was freedom.

“The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me, Because the LORD has anointed me To bring good news to the afflicted; He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to captives And freedom to prisoners;” (Isaiah 61:1)

“It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.” (Galatians 5:1)

Christ died for, and accomplished, both the forgiveness of sins and the freedom from sin for all of those who are called by God (Ephesians 1:4; 1 Peter 1:1b-2).

So, we should be thankful and grateful for all that the men in arms have done on our behalf so that we can enjoy life and freedom in America. But as Christians, we must always hold Christ higher than anyone or anything in what we say or do. We must never fall into the trap of casually referring to Jesus in either our off hand comments or our well intentioned stories or illustrations.

By no means am I guiltless in this same light of scrutiny, but it is my goal to always contend for the supremacy of Christ in all things, and that is why I attempt to censor how I communicate (or think) about God in relation to anything else.

The UnFair Gospel

This past Wednesday I began teaching some of the children (K – 6) in our mid-week church service in the role of bible instructor. Even though I do teach adults and kids at different times, this was going to be very different for me. You see, this children’s program has been setup to have 3 “stations” where the kids rotate throughout the course of the evening. My station is set to be a time for prayer and a chance for the children to “ask anything” about anything related to God, the Bible, life, or almost anything at all.

Having worked with children before, I know that kids can ask really good questions that totally catch me off guard. Knowing this, I tried to be prepared for it, but I received questions from “Why do Americans care about popularity when we say that we believe that all men are created equal?” to “Why does God allow sin to exist?” With these (as well as others) questions, I started off by attempting to answer the question by finding out the reason for the question (i.e. what motivated this question from this child), answering that question, and finally moving into some biblical truth or principle that we can learn from looking at this question and the issues that are raised by it.

The best question of the evening was from a little boy who must be no older than 7 or 8. His question was, basically, “Why is life not fair?” His reason for the question came from a recent event at school where his class had watched a video, but the teacher had told the class that they’d get an extra break during the video. Well, they didn’t get the extra break because they ran out of time. He was upset and didn’t understand why his teacher would say one thing and not deliver on it. I totally understood his disappointment, so I tried to explain that his teacher probably meant to give them another break, but because they ran out of time watching the video, the teacher couldn’t follow through. I then asked him if he would rather have had regular class with an extra break or if he would have rather watched the movie. To that, he smiled and answered (very quickly) that he’d rather have watched the movie, and (although it was unfair) preferred what had happened.

Well, all of that to say this: that question made me think. So, after I addressed his situation and answered the question, I then told the children (4 boys around the ages of 8 or so) this story.

ME: In this room where we are now there are many rules. If any of the rules are broken, the person who broke the rule is given a specified punishment. One of these rules is that if you kick me in the shins, you will have to pay a $50,000 fine to me. All kicks to the shins must be punished and payment must be made in full.

Even though they know the rules, both Billy and Tommy kick me in the shins. Since they did that, what would be the right and fair thing to do? Would it be the fair thing to make them both pay me the $50,000 fine?

Kids: Yes.

Me: Yes, that would be the fair thing to do. But, what if I decided to have Billy pay me the $50,000 fine, but instead of having Tommy do the same, I made my son, Micah, pay Tommy’s fine for him? Would that be fair?

Kids: No.

Me: Why?

Kids: Because Micah didn’t kick you in the shins, so he shouldn’t be made to pay.

Me: That’s right, it isn’t fair because Micah is being punished for something that he didn’t do, and you’re not being punished for something that you did.

I then went on to talk to these kids about how this is exactly how God acts if we repent of our sins and place our trust in Christ Jesus. When that happens, God poured out His wrath – the wrath that would have and should have come to me – upon Jesus Christ for the sin of the believer. God has done this so that He could welcome man into His presence as well as satisfy His justice.

This truth, as it is flushed out and really dealt with for all that it entails, is really foreign to most people. And not just 8 year-old children, but older kids and adults alike don’t grasp this (or haven’t dealt with it) either. The weight of what happened on the cross, the truth of the substitutionary atonement that we find in Christ Jesus, was made most clear to me when I considered the following facts.

1. Sin (any sin) is deserving of punishment in Hell.


2. I have sinned, and therefore it would be just to punish me in Hell.


3. The Bible is clear that man’s punishment in Hell will be eternal, because man can never pay it in full.


4. Jesus Christ is and was perfect and sinless before, during, and after His incarnation.


5. Jesus Christ deserves no penalty, no condemnation, and no punishment from God.


6. Jesus Christ paid the full penalty for my sin (as well as for the sin of all true believers of all time) on the cross.

Implication: The just punishment of me and my sin that would have been inflicted upon me by the pouring out of the wrath of God, and which I would have spent an eternity paying for but never satisfying, has been paid in full by God Himself. Jesus Christ endured the wrath of God necessary to fully atone for my sin. That is something that I could never, in an eternity, do myself.

It was thinking about the fact that caused me to more clearly and truthfully appreciate the work of Jesus on my behalf. Namely, I would have been in Hell for all eternity and yet I’d still be no closer to satisfying the justice of God than when I first began my time in hell. I am convinced that only when we think of the cross of Christ in this manner, with this detail, that we can have any sort of tangible grasp of both the wrath and the love of God.

It is from meditating on this truth, this unfair treatment of Jesus Christ by God the Father, and the unfair treatment of me by God the Father, that my love and adoration for God has been increased higher and farther than ever before. Even now, I believe that my understanding of this great exchange, this double imputation of sin and righteousness, is very dim. The clarity that I have to understand this comes from my knowledge of the Word of God and my knowledge of my own utter depravity before a Holy God. And I am sure that when I am near death and I look back at this time of my life where I have such clarity and understanding about this great truth, that my current understanding will be a flickering candle next to the roaring fire of the understanding that only many more years of walking with God, studying His Word, and warring with sin can bring.

To God alone be the Glory for His grace and mercy, His unfair treatment, in the salvation of sinful men.

Quote of the Day (10/21/06)

Pertaining to the subject of apologetics and debating over various doctrinal issues, John Piper said the following:

“Try to understand another person's view before you criticize it. The rule that Dr. Fuller used to teach us back in seminary was that if you can't restate a person's view to their own satisfaction, so that they hear that you've got it, then you're probably not ready to criticize it publicly. And so I think to try to restate the view, let's say on baptism - I'm a Baptist, and so I don't baptize babies, but – I don’t want to taunt a person who believes in infant baptism by somehow charactering what they’re doing. I want to be able to re-say it, and I think I can, and I try to re-say the argument for infant baptism that is the best argument for it, and then show why, over the years of my interaction with folks, I have not been compelled by it.”¹

---

¹ This was transcribed from Piper's commentary before the Desiring God radio broadcast of “United with Christ in Death and Life, Part 2a” on 10/9/06.

credit where credit is due (attention Catholics)

I came across an audio file of a short debate between Richard Dawkins and David Quinn on a radio program in Great Britain (Ireland or England, I am not sure which one). Richard Dawkins is the current bright and shining star in atheism, and David Quinn is an Irish Catholic columnist, and I think he's even a Roman Catholic Priest, if I'm not mistaken. It doesn't matter whether or not he is a priest or not, but it would be interesting if I could find out.

The reason I'm posting this article and the following link is that it is no secret how strongly I disagree with Roman Catholicism. Specifically, I vehemently disagree with Roman Soteriology, but Mariology and the doctrines surrounding the papacy fall close behind. Also, it is not a secret that I believe that someone who believes in the gospel according to Rome (i.e. that Penance, Baptism, Eucharist, or faith + works, etc. are necessary for the attaining and maintaining of salvation), that person is not be saved.

I only state that here to illustrate my overall distance from anything Roman Catholic so as to frame my next comment in the proper light. Today, I am commending and applauding the work of this Roman Catholic man. It was truly a joy to here a clear, concise, and articulate argument for Theism (it didn’t ever get down to Christianity) leveled against Richard Dawkins.

I thought that the questions and objections raised by Richard Dawkins were easily handled by David Quinn, and especially when they were surrounding the two main issues that come up during the debate. The first issue concerned causality. Causality is basically the fact that there must be an uncaused first cause (or an unmoved first mover) for anything at all to exist. The second issue was concerning the role of religious systems and people in war and atrocities. Quite frankly, I think that Dawkins got shellacked with his double standard when Quinn gave examples of how Dawkins deals with humanist/atheist atrocities verses those motivated by religion.

Way to go Mr. Quinn.

You can listen to the debate by clicking here. The part where Mr. Quinn and Mr. Dawkins get involved in the causation issue starts around 11 minutes into the interview.

The final comment that I want to make about this interview was one other issue that was discussed (actually, Dawkins really avoided it). That was the issue of free will. The only reason I bring this up is that I have a different view of free will than some questions (it’s more an issue of the scope of a person’s free will than of the existence of free will) and how Mr. Quinn seemed to define it. He seemed to be defining free will as the ability to make decisions and be responsible for those decisions by some means apart from a genetic or chemical reason. Many atheistic evolutionists deny free will because everything must have its cause from matter or biology. Basically, David Quinn articulated that you (as a person) make the decisions and are responsible for them; they are not the natural outcome of a biological or physiological reaction.

All have sinned...

When the Bible says that all people have sinned (Romans 3:23), it is referring to all people. There is only one exception in all of humanity's history. Christ, and Christ alone, is the only sinless member of mankind. To say that someone else, other than Christ Himself, was sinless or even ceased from sinning at a certain point (except for death) is a horrible heresy that needs to be combated.

There are those in modern churches who claim that no matter what they do after they have been saved, it is not sin. Basically they would affirm that they do things that should be considered sin if done by an "unbeliever" but because they have been saved (so they claim), it is not a sin for them. Similarly, there are also those who say that once they were born again, they actually stopped sinning. They don't do anything that is sinful. Saying that anyone - anyone - other than Christ either stopped sinning after they were saved, or saying that they never sinned is heresy, and it misses the point of sin in relation to salvation. So, whether I say that I have stopped sinning or that Mary (Joseph's husband, the mother of Jesus) never sinned or ceased from sinning is contrary to the testimony of the entire Bible.

Please look at these verses and consider the weight of the Biblical text to combat and destroy your objections (whatever they are) or to show you in the fact that yes, in fact, all people have sinned, and are naturally condemned because of our sin in Adam and our own personal sin.

Genesis 6:5
"Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."

Genesis 8:21
"The Lord smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: "Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done."

1 Kings 8:46
"When they sin against You (for there is no man who does not sin) and You are angry with them and deliver them to an enemy, so that they take them away captive to the land of the enemy, far off or near;"

Psalms 14:1-3
"The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good. The Lord looks down from heaven on the sons of men to see if there are any who understand, any who seek God. All have turned aside, they have together become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one."

Psalms 130:3,4
"If You, LORD, should mark iniquities, O Lord, who could stand?
But there is forgiveness with You, That You may be feared."

Psalms 143:2
"And do not enter into judgment with Your servant, For in Your sight no man living is righteous. "

Proverbs 20:9
"Who can say, "I have cleansed my heart, I am pure from my sin"?"

Ecclesiastes 7:20
"Indeed, there is not a righteous man on earth who {continually} does good and who never sins."

Romans 3:23
"for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,"

1 John 11:8-10
"If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us."

Do not be deceived. Neither you nor I nor Mary will be sinless in this life, but only when we are glorified in the presence of our Lord.

More on Justification by Faith and Adam

"Do not think that the doctrine of justification by grace, based on the imputation of the obedience of Christ through faith apart from works, is a mere concoction of a western European worldview that got off the ground with the guilty conscience of a monk named Martin Luther. That's not true. It can't be true, because it is the historical remedy in the person of Jesus Christ for the historical damage in the person of everybody's first ancestor.

The doctrine of justification by grace through faith cannot be replaced by a redemptive analogy. If Paul had merely said for example, "Sin is like drowning in the ocean, and salvation is like being pulled out of the water into a boat by a strong man," then you might go to a people group somewhere far from oceans and boats and say, "Sin is like sinking in quicksand and salvation is like being pulled onto a firm rock by a strong man." That's fine. But you can't do that with this doctrine of justification - not now, not after Romans 5:12-21.

Why not? Because now Paul has connected it with Adam. And Adam is the historical ancestor of every people group on the face of the earth. This is not a myth; it's not an analogy; it's not an illustration. It is historical fact. Adam, the first human being, sinned and in him all human beings sinned, and all died and all are condemned. And the remedy for that is another historical Person - the God-man, Jesus Christ, who came in space and time to undo what Adam did. He trusted and obeyed God perfectly, so that all who are in him by faith have that obedience imputed to them and become right with God forever." - John Piper

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)