Good Works Aren’t All Bad

Posted on 24 May 2015 by Seth Meyers

No true Christian depends on his own works in order to be justified before God. The Father did not elect anyone to whom He also will not give a feeling of abject hopelessness in his own righteousness (Matt. 5:3-4; Luke 18:9-14; Eph. 2:9). Saving faith is prefaced with a conviction that turns the heart away from its own intrinsic worth or ability (John 16:7-11). The historic Reformation doctrine of Sola Fide is gospel truth.

Yet that is not the only category of Scriptures dealing with works. How would you describe good works in these passages?

The Parable of the Talents ~ Matt. 25:19-31
Three servants are given responsibility and gifts by their lord. Two of them labored—they worked, but one did not. One outworked the other two. The text says he “traded” in order to gain a profit (25:16) and his friend did the same (25:17). Any entrepreneur knows how many long hours are needed to double the start-up capital. The last slave worked as well. He had to collect digging tools, make a hole, and cover it up again. This parable distinguishes between works.

When the master returned his attitude displayed a marked contrast between these three servants who now make up two groups. “Well done, good and faithful servant.” The works of the first two were the basis for the reward that the master gave (25:21). They were praised because they were ethically superior by an objective standard.

The third man was also judged on his works. He earned the title “wicked” (25:26) as well as consignment to the place of outer darkness (25:30). He was judged by the same objective standard that honored the first two.

What words should we use to demonstrate how Christ wants us to feel about good works in this passage? We obviously know that whatever it means does not contradict with the teaching all through Scripture about justification by faith.

The Promise of Rewards According to Works ~ Rev. 22:12
Most weeks when our church members finish working, we remind ourselves of Christ’s final words in the Revelation: “Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done.”

Whatever these rewards are, three things are certain.

  1. They are intended as motivations for good works.
  2. They differ according to the good works of each believer.
  3. This passage does not explain the way to be justified by faith.

First, if we are not motivated to do good works because of this passage, we have missed a vital teaching of our Lord. None of His words were offered without reason, but how much more when He returned from Heaven to give John a final message after a generation or more of silence! And of all those 22 chapters, the final words that the Holy Spirit and the Son of God joined together to give to the church are certainly imperative for believers to emphasize. The KJV reads, “as his work shall be” clearly capturing the call to good works found in the Greek noun ergon. Rewards come as a response to our works, and thus we are more spiritual than God to work without an eye to them, or to look for a reward without intense labor.

Second, believers will receive different levels of rewards. Possibly, the worldly spirit of the 21st century has crept into the church whispering that hierarchy is bad and equality is a superior virtue. Why else would it be hard to accept that even in Heaven some will have more than others? Is our eye evil because God’s eye is good? Some in this life are rich and others poor simply because God placed them in those circumstances. The same could be said for natural intellect, steadfastness of purpose, sensitivity, and ambition. Egalitarianism doesn’t receive much support from the created order, and it won’t receive any support from the new creation. Believers will stand differently in Heaven based on their works here.

Third, if we want to learn about tithing, we shouldn’t start in the book of Jonah. And if we are looking for an explanation of justification by faith, Galatians might be a good starting point. This verse is directed to the process of sanctification or Christian growth. It doesn’t tell us how to enter the family, but rather what kind of attitude the family members live by.

Many other passages could be added with similar conclusions. Three examples:

  • Heb. 12:14 Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord:
  • The famous faith works passage in James 2:14-24
  • 2 Peter 1:5-11 Give diligence to make your calling and election sure…

How would you describe the role of works in these passages? In our zeal to protect sola fide let us not lose precious truths about sanctification because without practical, sin-denying, active, laboring holiness, no man shall see the Lord.

Posted in Pastoral | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Putting Legalism to Good Use

Posted on 22 May 2015 by Seth Meyers

Names matter because words matter. And the words that give us handles for our most common ideas are our mind’s best friends. Who can you turn to for help in communication but tried and true terms that have been invested in a nearly divine way with meaning? Who appears an enemy like that one who blocks you from using the verbal pathways you’ve become familiar with?

We don’t want to change the name of a town or city that we have come to know and love. When we name something, we are taking a kind of ownership or fellowship with it. That is especially true of words from the Bible, like “Christian” or “church” or “baptism” or “tongues.”

Even extra-biblical words can become a battle ground. Galatians offers a very clear test case. In this book, the false teachers peddled legalism to the unsuspecting young Christians, and Paul takes up some of the most confrontational language in the NT against them.

What was the heresy Paul fought in his letter to the churches of Galatia?

At the front door, the Apostle tells his readers what to expect. The problem is “another gospel” (1:6, 8, 9). False teachers that history now calls the Judaizers were responsible for this heresy (1:7). Throughout this relatively short letter, two sides are constantly in view, the works of the law and faith in Christ. Three times in 2:16 he compares these two and again in 2:21, 3:8, and 3:11. Analogy often teaches better than mere propositions, so Hagar and Sarah represent these two opposites (4:21-31). Over a score of times, faith is found in the text. What does this letter teach positively? Justification by faith. What does this letter teach negatively? Good works cannot contribute to justification.

This error was so influential and widespread that the church has developed a word for this false doctrine: legalism. In the 21st century it is still codified in Catholic and Mormon dogma. Positively, the church has called this doctrine sola fide. If you believe that a man gains the righteousness of Christ as alien merit recorded to his account solely on the basis of his resting in the person and work of Jesus, then you have not committed this error. If you believe that a man through a combination of his works and his faith in Christ gains a position as a son of God (John 1:12), or that in this way he can be rescued from the domain of darkness and transferred to the kingdom of His beloved Son (Col. 1:13), or that in this way his position in the heavenly places is secured (Eph. 2:6), or that with this works-and-faith mix he may receive the grace of justification, then you have committed the sin about which the letter to the Galatians was written.

The great majority of the world’s professing Christians are snared in this terrible trap, and it is thus no wonder that Paul spent an entire book dealing with this subject. It is no wonder that he refers to the glory of justification by faith in several other books (2 Cor. 5:21; Eph. 2:8-9; Phil. 3:9; Tit. 3:5). And what of the extended treatment in Romans 3-5 of this vital topic? The author of Hebrews joins in throughout his lengthy letter establishing justification by faith (see especially Heb. 9:11-15; 9:21-26; 10:1-18, etc.). Jesus taught this doctrine explicitly in the parables of the Tax collector and the Pharisee (Luke 18:9-14) as well as the Wedding Feast (Matt. 22:1-14).

I love the Five Solas of the Reformation; most of the members of the church I pastor could list all five because Sola Fide is my watchword. Galatians lays these bricks and gives us warrant to use this important word legalism as the word identifying the opposite of this teaching. A legalist is a gospel denier. He is a heretic who has another gospel. He is a wolf in sheep’s clothing or a novice set up to damage Christ’s flock.

But sadly this needed word has been carelessly pulled out of the tool chest when justification by faith is not the issue at stake. Like government funds, it has been too often misdirected toward those that Paul was not aiming at in his Galatian letter.

Recently, I commented among a group of friends that a teenaged boy was sinning when he caressed his teenaged girlfriend. Someone in the group replied, “Isn’t that a bit legalistic?”

Now, I’ll leave to one side the question of whether the boy was actually sinning, and for sake of argument I’ll grant that he wasn’t (only for sake of argument though). Is it legalism to identify some action as sin? Is it legalism to identify sin so consistently and boldly that some people remember your particular convictions in that situation? Have I committed the Galatian heresy by calling as sin a whole list of actions done in the 21st century, yet not listed in the Bible?

Is the Westminster Larger Catechism contradicting itself when it spends 334 words defining and defending justification by faith (Questions 70-73) yet it lists hundreds of specific actions as sins in Questions 99-148 (the 10 Commandments)? Has this confession of faith and all other like it fallen into legalism? Here is the question and answer of just one of the 10 Commandments (I bolded a few that modern Christians may see as the most “legalistic.”)

Question 139: What are the sins forbidden in the seventh commandment?

Answer: The sins forbidden in the seventh commandment, besides the neglect of the duties required, are, adultery, fornication, rape, incest, sodomy, and all unnatural lusts; all unclean imaginations, thoughts, purposes, and affections;all corrupt or filthy communications, or listening thereunto; wanton looks, impudent or light behavior, immodest apparel; prohibiting of lawful, and dispensing with unlawful marriages; allowing, tolerating, keeping of stews, and resorting to them; entangling vows of single life, undue delay of marriage; having more wives or husbands than one at the same time; unjust divorce, or desertion; idleness, gluttony, drunkenness, unchaste company; lascivious songs, books, pictures, dancings, stage plays; and all other provocations to, or acts of uncleanness, either in ourselves or others.

In that one question of that one commandment, there are over 30 specific sins listed by the godly men of old. I’m not defending everything on their lists, but I am vigorously defending the right and the necessity of having lists at all. If you read the rest of the catechism there are hundreds of other specific actions listed as sin including playing sports too much, or playing at all on Sunday.

Legalism is a slippery word today, but it shouldn’t be. Though it is used as a verbal rook card to instantly win the argument, actually it is the opposite of sola fide. There is no justification for whipping out this epithet against someone who believes in justification by faith. When used of someone who knows, loves, preaches, and exalts in sola fide it is slander (James 4:11).

What are we really trying to say by using legalism to critique a brother who makes lists of sins? Really, we’re saying that he binds himself to duties that we don’t think come from the Scripture. That may be annoying because the brother is wrong, yet he is setting up a false standard of spirituality. Or that may be annoying because the brother is right, and we are lazy or carnal.

In my study, I could not find an example of someone in the Bible who believed in justification by faith and yet added too many works or laws to his life in an effort to be more like Christ. Can you think of anyone? In 1 Cor. 8-10, some of the believers were not eating meat offered to idols, yet Paul does not call them legalists. However, when someone does not use the law enough, Paul says, God forbid (Rom. 6:1)!

Legalism means what Paul meant in Galatians. It is a gospel-denying heresy that if believed damns the soul. It doesn’t mean someone who is trying to become more like Christ by denying himself. They may have written some useless, overly strict, even controlling rules. The rules might be bad or damaging, and if so, they should be addressed and changed to be more like Scripture. But the writing of rules in an attempt to obey the Bible is not legalism. It may actually be the path to holiness as the godly authors of the catechism told us many years ago.

Posted in Hermeneutics, Pastoral | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

Where the Differences Lie

Posted on 26 April 2015 by Seth Meyers

Another blog post that should be a book. This comes from David de Bruyn at Towards Conservative Christianity.

Where the Differences Lie

April 25, 2015

Useful debate takes place when sparring parties understand their opponent’s position, and can represent it in terms the opponent would agree with. Apart from this proper knowledge, disagreements cannot be profitably discussed, for the disagreements are not even properly understood. What follows this ignorance is usually a headache of talking past one another, flaming straw men, arguing against caricatures and stereotypes, dismissing positions out of hand – all in all, much sound and fury, signifying nothing.

In the ten years since I came to embrace conservatism, I have watched and participated in a number of sound-and-fury debates with other Christians, usually online. The debates have typically been around worship forms, music, ministry philosophies or techniques. In short, the debates have been around how Christianity is to be incarnated in modern culture.

I cannot claim that I represent ‘The Conservative Christian Position’ (how would one determine that, anyway?). I can claim that I am in sympathy with conservatives such as Richard Weaver, T.S. Eliot, Roger Scruton, and others. I can claim that I am a Christian, and I think conservatism and Christianity require one another to be consistent and healthy. I, and others like me, have tried to articulate what a conservative Christianity looks like in modern culture.

I have come to see the intensity of the debate is often because our interlocutors do not understand how deep the differences lie. They see the differences to be relatively superficial applications of ministry, and see the conservative’s vehement disagreement as incomprehensibly stubborn. If you see the differences as cosmetic, unwillingness to budge can be nothing other than pigheadedness. On the other hand, if some of my debate-opponents had known how far apart we really are, they may have questioned whether we share the same faith, or at least if we see with the same eyes. I suggest there are three areas of difference between a conservative Christian and his progressive/ pragmatic/ liberal counterpart. Each level leads to the next, where the disagreement is deeper.

On the first level, we disagree on what should be used or done in corporate worship, ministry, or Christian living because we differ over what these things mean, or signify. We differ on what certain forms of music mean, what certain cultural phenomena such as dress, or poetry, or technology mean. Because we disagree on what they mean, we disagree on their appropriateness for worship, ministry and Christian living in general. You can read men such as Ken Myers, Leonard Bernstein, or Roger Scruton to read how I’d understand the meaning of these cultural phenomena. This leads to a second level of disagreement.

On the second deeper level, we disagree as to whether what these cultural artifacts mean corresponds with something in reality. Romans 14 could end the debate for us all, unless we had a difference in whether ‘appropriateness’ is a matter of morality or preference. Here our disagreement is deeper: it is epistemological. We differ on whether there is such a thing as moral knowledge, or knowledge of beauty, and whether such things can be true. Underneath the surface of what worship forms mean, is a deeper debate about whether beauty exists in reality, and whether our cultural forms are supposed to correspond to that or not. C.S. Lewis’ The Abolition of Man or Richard Weaver’s Ideas Have Consequences consider the ideas of moral, aesthetic or personal knowledge.

This difference as to whether there exists true aesthetic knowledge or true moral knowledge reveals the third and most severe difference. On the deepest level, we disagree about the nature of reality itself. Ours is a metaphysical difference. In my experience, I find those debating me to be people who profess the Christian faith, but are modernists in their understanding of reality. That is, they see the world very similarly to a naturalist scientist: the world exists independently of human beings, following natural laws. A chasm exists between ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’ realities. Objective realities, to them, refer to the concrete material world. To these, my Christian [modernist] counterpart will add to his list of objective realities God’s existence, the supernatural or unseen world, and the objective propositions of God’s Word. Subjective realities, to him, refers to perceptions of beauty, judgements of value, and personal relationships. Matters of imagination, intuition, and aesthetic judgements belong to a private world of individual preference. They are nothing more than self-contained experiences inside a human’s consciousness, which do not affect the objective world of the natural, created order.

I don’t believe that such is the world, and neither did people like Eliot, Weaver, or, in my opinion, David, Isaiah or John. Certainly, I believe in the reality of the created order, and that the world exists apart from my perception. I agree that concrete facts about the world can be objectively measured. However, I do not believe that the ‘subjective’ world is nothing more than a brain firing neurons at itself when it perceives ‘the objective world’.

Rather, subjective knowledge is the only kind we have access to. In fact, I don’t believe it is possible for humans to ever possess pure ‘objective’ knowledge as long as they remain living, perceiving, subjects. Your pupil cannot see itself from itself. Owen Barfield, Michael Polanyi, and Weaver will be helpful to get your mind around this one.

Subjective perception is in fact the God-given faculty of judgement of a meaning-saturated creation, which can either conform to the reality God wishes me to see, or skew it. That is, the world, (including us human subjects) is made by a meaning-making, moral, Person. Consequently, all that is made is invested with meaning – what God meant to signify with it. All that is made is also invested with morality – the goodness and beauty God meant it to have. My debate-partner and I don’t just disagree about whether there is such a thing as moral knowledge, we disagree about whether the universe is moral. My counterpart might agree that the Ten Commandments are moral. I think sub-atomic particles are moral.

A meaningful, moral universe does not exist independently from moral persons, the way scientific naturalism asserts. It exists by the word of a Person – God – and it exists in the form we perceive it for persons – us. (We see colour, but individual atomic particles don’t have colour.) And it is rightly perceived and understood, not when we merely examine it under a microscope or dissect it, but when we receive it reverently as meaningful, moral, and personal. We are supposed to understand that we are part of the web of the created order, and only a reverent, personal, moral relationship with the personal Creator can enable our subjective perceptions of creation to correspond to what God meant by it.

To put it simply, we can understand what is ‘out’ there, or we can misunderstand what is ‘out’ there. Here science is helpless, except to give us facts, nor can our senses independently figure it out. A right relationship with God enables us to understand the meaning of what is ‘out there’, which is the same as the truth of what’s out there – what my counterpart would like to call objective. But this truth is more than physical properties, it is beauty, goodness, and meaningful analogy. I cannot know objective truth independently; I must embrace the fact that I am a subject, and can only perceive and understand what God reveals to me. I must pursue His judgement as to what is true, good and beautiful, to rightly construe what my senses perceive. That’s not a preference; that’s submission.

This is why, for me, the questions of beauty are not questions of decoration, excellence, or good decorum. Beauty is part of the fabric of the universe. Aesthetic knowledge is fundamental to knowing God Himself. The subjective knowledge of goodness and beauty as God sees it, the subjective, personal knowledge of God is, in fact, the only way to know Truth.

That’s where the difference really lies.

[This post is from David de Bruyn, but I couldn’t figure out how to reblog it here.]

 

Posted in Definitions, Multiculturalism, Orthopathy | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

8 Ways Women Are Better Than Men

Posted on 15 April 2015 by Seth Meyers

In creating women, God gave the world some wonderful gifts that He did not unveil when He formed men. Women are uniquely vessels of God’s beauty, goodness, and truth, and yes, this post is filled with stereotypes. Not every woman surpasses every man in every one of these tests, but as a whole, women score much higher in these categories than men. Our Father is responsible for women scoring higher in these areas, so if we miss them, we’re dishonoring His generosity to us.

1.    Women are kinder, gentler, and softer than men.
When charities make telemarketing calls, they’d rather speak with the lady of the house. It is common for children to prefer correction from their mother rather than their father. The Holy Spirit produces kindness and gentleness and mothers usually set the standard here rather than fathers. The father’s wrath usually burns hotter than the mother’s sometimes pointing us to the perfect hatred in God Himself. The mother’s grace and consideration usually brightens the home more the man’s sometimes pointing us to the perfect kindness in God Himself.

2.    They nurture children.
Closely connected to the first, women are specially designed by God to raise and nurture children (Titus 2:4-5). Because of their higher impulse toward gentility, infants flourish under their care. Our language talks about a “mother’s love” for her children, but not a father’s. Is this some kind of subtle disrespect for men? No more so than praising a minivan for passenger transport over a pick-up truck. These traits are so valuable that the nursing quality of moms should be imitated by pastors (1 Thess. 2:7). Jehovah compares himself to a hen watching her young not a rooster ruling his territory (Ps. 91:4; Matt. 23:37).

3.    They have babies.
I’ve sometimes heard women speak about men who think, “A woman’s only good for having babies.” While the word “only” is too far, having babies is a vital role for women. Like saying derisively, “That truck is only good for transport.” Think of the predicament humanity would be in without this benefit. First of all, there would be no humanity. Secondly, men desire a family and the health and growth of society, but they are incapable and incompetent to birth or nurse babies. “She shall be saved in childbearing” points us all back to the vital role that mothering occupies. The virtuous, complete woman of Proverbs 31 is a busy mother first of all.

4.    They foster relational communication.
Women score higher typically in language arts than men, and it is common for both sexes to comment on feminine agility with reading emotions in others and expressing it themselves. Scripture warns them about gossip (1 Tim. 4:7; Tit. 2:3) which implies what many experience: Women want to build personal relationships based on expressing mutual feelings.

5.    They beautify the world.
Not only do women physically beautify the world with their hair, their higher voices, their gentler frames, and their overall floral appearance in contrast to men’s arboreal presence, women also tend to beautify their homes with cleanliness, orderliness, color, life, and art. Their clothes are typically more vibrant and eye-catching, and even the social structures they encourage such as benefit societies, children’s parties, and public parks tend to make life more attractive, comfortable, and desirable.

6.    They are practical.
It would be shocking and a constant failure if someone were given the responsibility and gifting to bear and nurse children, to keep the home, and to help a man yet she was not practically minded. Women think about the details; they marry themselves to methods that help them keep all the complexities of their calling in balance. What pleasure would there be when two families meet if the floor was not cleaned, the toilet roll had not been restocked, baby cups had not been arranged, and the food was insufficient, late, and raw? Every time we enjoy visits in our homes, the pleasure and comfort we take for granted was made possible usually by the consistent, exhausting, detail-catching eye of the woman of the house.

7.    They live longer.
If living is a benefit, they have more of it than men. And since most deaths are not suicides, we may safely infer that people want to live longer. Women do this better than men. So, who’s the stronger sex?

8.    They picture Christ’s submission to the Father better than men.
His pattern at creation represents the best possible world that could have been made. Had there been a better kind of world conceivable, He would have made it that way (Ps. 115:3). He is the one who chose to make a certain kind of person to picture the Father’s headship and yet another person to point our hearts toward the beauty of Christ’s submission to the Father (1 Cor. 11:3). Is Christ’s submission not beautiful? Could the Father have used another better means to picture it here on earth? If there were a better way to show His own perfections would He not have done it? The world we live in—including the women in it—was intentionally designed to display the fountain of God’s infinite perfections. So, we must conclude that since God designed women for this end, that they are uniquely suited to this end better than any man. And since this end is the grand demonstration of God’s beauty, then it is a very important advantage God has generously bestowed on Eve and her daughters.

You may think of an individual man or woman who don’t fit one or more of these categories, but the exceptions should serve to prove the rule. Women can’t do some things very well, and other things they can’t do at all. But there is a significant field of play whereon men as a team consistently lose to their feminine superiors.

Posted in Lists | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Women Could Never Have Colonized the World

Posted on 16 March 2015 by Seth Meyers

Feminism010915Maybe the world should not have been colonized. But regardless of the morality of England, Portugal, France, and some others trying to spread their culture and govern lands outside their own, that could never have been done by women.

What would make me bring up a topic that to so many is offensive? Currently, I’m reading a great history of southern Africa at the same time that I am privately meditating on 1 Corinthians. The history of southern Africa has more unexpected plot twists and characters than most adventure movies. The men who dug for Diamonds at Kimberley, the Zulu warriors who stood with spears against men with guns, and the politicians (on all sides) who clamored for more land, authority, and money evidenced amazing levels of masculine tendencies.

Take just one example: Cecil Rhodes arriving in South Africa around the age of 17 with a few months’ living expenses in his pocket. From that beginning, in 20 years he becomes the richest man in Africa. Though he was often unscrupulous and certainly did not respect the Africans, his vision for the continent brought railways, telegraph lines, hospitals, and schools into the country now called Zimbabwe.

It has been repeatedly obvious as I move through these continent-changing events that God has not given that conquering drive to the fairer sex. Of course, not all men have Rhodes’ ambition either, but a good number do as the history attests. Colonization required a huge number of people who have a level of ambition that is dramatically higher than the average amount possessed by people who have or can give birth. If feminists read history, could they deny this?

The second literary influence on this inflammatory article (that should probably be expanded into a book) is the 11th chapter of Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians that we’re working through at our church right now. He says that men must be submissive. They obey Jesus Christ, and that is good, true, and beautiful. He says that wives must obey their husbands, and that too is good, true, and beautiful. But who gives much attention to his final sentence in 11:3, “And the head of Christ is God”? Everyone shows submission to the head placed over him because in so doing, he reflects the Captain of our Salvation, the Author and Finisher of our Faith, the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, who gladly submits to His Head.

Submission and headship are beautiful because through these means God has once more indelibly signed His name into the painting that is the world such that all men can view—nay, cannot escape except through extreme rebellion—the reminder that the Son willingly comes to do His Father’s will. He finishes that work even at the cost of His life. And feminine submission points that way.

Conversely, feminism points the other way. Anything that points away from the glory of Christ’s work for His people deserves to get a verbal beating every now and then. Feminism is not only unrealistic because it doesn’t fit real life as seen in history, but it is also non-Christian because it denies male headship through which God wants us to understand vital truth about the Trinity and salvation.

As I read about South Africa, both vices and virtues that are peculiar to men stand out on nearly every page. They plot, murder, and steal in ways that we never expect to read about in a woman’s life. We all know women are sinners, but not usually those kinds of sins. The Bible has one Jezebel, but many Ahabs. While a rare female may be full of aggression, initiative, and power, great historical epochs happened because many thousands of men had those traits.

Colonization showcased sickening sins as well as amazing feats of heroism, but women just aren’t that kind of bad or good.

 

Posted in Hermeneutics, Inconsistency | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

American African Revival

Posted on 16 March 2015 by Seth Meyers

IMG_0264The worst of American revivalism and the worst of African showmanship all for the shockingly low price of R50.Notice the art: Heavy make up for an African Tammy Baker, flashy dresses, Tsonga dancing, the dynamic “man of God,” and the stretched out “t” which is supposed to be a cleverly designed, and eye-catching cross.

Isn’t the cross an instrument of death where our Lord was made a curse for us, a reminder that we too must kill our own desires in order to follow Christ? Are the off-the-shoulder dresses an accident of the costume department that won’t even be noticed by the young men? Are the three pictures of Tsonga women dancing supposed to make us think about our sin and Christ’s conquering of Satan? Will the Apostle Mudau be one of the men whose names are written on the foundation of the New Jerusalem, or does he just love the sound of a three syllable title more so than the mere two syllable “pastor”?

Maybe the church of 2015 is led by a lady named fun, but you can’t find her or her dazzling sisters, entertaintment and glamor in the book of Acts. This flier isn’t as explicit as others I’ve seen, but the message is still there: Give us money, and we’ll give you entertainment.

This is the great revival that is sweeping Africa, but it has nothing to do with the revival that swept Jerusalem when Peter preached.

Posted in Prosperity gospel, Rewarding mediocrity | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Another Reason to Love Election

Posted on 8 March 2015 by Seth Meyers

Harry ChaukeFriday afternoon, I found myself alone with Harry Chauke, a 19 year old young man who has been attending our church for about three years. During that time, he has repeatedly arrived with friends at our worship services or Bible studies. Not once or twice, but probably closer to a dozen times. Several of them have continued on for months and nearly become church members, but not one has, as of yet, offered a public testimony of conversion and entered the waters of baptism.

So, Friday I asked this young man who has no father in his life why he is still coming to church when others have dropped off.

As best as I may recall and translate into English he said, “I persevered because God chose me. God has some people, and He gives them what they need.”

And in case anyone thinks this has made him disinterested in evangelism, few in our church have brought as many people as Harry to the services with the exception of the pastor who planted those life-giving seeds in his heart.

I love doctrines that cause believers to keep on the path against relentless cultural forces trying to weaken their fledgling and faltering resolve.

Posted in Missions, Pastoral | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

A Prayer for God’s Sheep Scattered Amongst the Muslims

Posted on 8 February 2015 by Seth Meyers

Father of all prodigals,

What has turned away from the right path more than the Jews who reject their Messiah, or  the Muslims who see your son as one more voice supporting a petty, works-based religion?

Adding to this high and terrible insult, they love kingdoms on earth and evangelism with the sword more than the heavenly countries that the holy men of old looked for.
Though our Lord offered His life for sinful men,
Though He suffered shame as an innocent man,
Though He prayed for His murderers while they were killing Him,
Though He took on Himself the guilt of the world,
Though He gave up His spirit,
They reject this ultimate love in the most despicable manner by denying that it ever occurred.

Not a day paces in our present world without someone being physically attacked in the name of their demonic deity. While many are not violent themselves, they condone in their sacred writings and in their silence and in their approbation the murder and maiming of these victims.

Truly, their sins have filled the earth deserving a second flood.

But you are a God who glories in your mercy.
You are a Father who rejoices to call those who refuse to hear.
You are a King who exercises power even over the wills of His subjects.
We pray to One who has already conquered us when we had served our old master.

Do we not have many examples of your over-powering love?
Do we not know irresistible grace?
Do we not love you because you first loved us?
Do we not acknowledge that we were weak and helpless,
Foolish and twisted,
Angry and agressive,
Apathetic and lazy,
Sinful and sinning?

The chiefest among us took the lives of your children as an act of worship to his idol before you called him with such power that he fell off his horse and submitted to Your Son.

For this overwhelming power,
We stand in awe and hope that you will move in a slow and steady march through the ranks of this foul religion calling again many from darkness to light.

For this grace,
We love You that though men set themselves against You to mock Your name, Your Son, and Your laws, the unquenchable flame of your divine joy in saving sinners will change even Muslims.

And we have great confidence as we intercede for our lost yet loved Muslim friends since we pray with the authority of Jesus Christ who rejoices to find His sheep.

Amen.

Posted in Missions | Leave a comment

The Five Points of Taylorism

Posted on 4 February 2015 by Seth Meyers

Recently, an influential evangelical, Justin Taylor pulled some reasons together that we should doubt young earth creationism. By Young Earth, as I’ve mentioned before, we do not mean 6,000 years, but rather no macroevolution. If we have no macroevolution, we will have an earth that is relatively young. There may be some gaps in the genealogy of Genesis 5. There may be an undefined period of time that Adam and Eve lived in sinless perfection.

But what there will not be is any death before sin. There will not be Cro-Magnon man. There will not be a hermeneutic guided by secular scientists.

Here are his arguments.

His Introduction:

Taylor: 

Contrary to what is often implied or claimed by young-earth creationists, the Bible nowhere directly teaches the age of the earth.

The issue is not the exact number of years, but whether or not we are giving any respect to evolution.

Taylor

It is commonly suggested that this is such a “plain reading” of Scripture—so obviously clear and true—that the only people who doubt it are those who have been influenced by Charles Darwin and his neo-Darwinian successors. The claim is often made that no one doubted this reading until after Darwin. (This just isn’t true—from ancient rabbis to Augustine to B. B. Warfield—but that’s another post for another time.)

  1. The five men he quotes from are after Darwin, except for Augustine, and including B. B. Warfield (1851-1921) whom he implied was before Darwin.
  2. Augustine’s supposed comment was treated in the comments. Historically, before Darwin, who ever held to an old earth?
  3. Two, possibly 3 of the 5 “stalwarts of the faith” were men who couldn’t see the errors of ecumenism (Young and Henry). Like all men, they were not always discerning, or if they were, they were afraid of giving offense for the truth.

Taylor

I fear that we’ve built an exegetical “fence around the Torah,” fearful that if we question any aspect of young-earth dogmatics we have opened the gate to liberalism.

Because of the repeated compromises in evangelicalism we are rightly concerned that questioning “young-earth dogmatics” again is in fact opening the door to evolution.

And now to his five points.

1. Genesis 1:1 Describes the Actual Act of Creation Out of Nothing and Is Not a Title or a Summary

How exactly does this damage young earth creation? It is possible that God formed matter in 1:1 and formed it throughout the rest of the story. It is possible that 1:1 stands as a summary. But either way, how does that weaken YEC or strengthen OE?

He mentions the perfect tense and the vav conjunction, but that sounds like trying to squeeze more out of the grammar than the author intended. For example, a verse he’ll use later Ex. 31:17, has God’s resting in the perfect tense. So does that mean God’s resting is now done? Well, he’s going to argue in point #3 that God’s resting is not done. Don’t make grammar do more than it was intended to do.

Even if those observations are what the author intended, its not clear how that casts a shadow on YEC.

2. The Earth, Darkness, and Water Are Created Before “The First Day”

This could refer to matter being created in an unformed state before God formed it each day. It could also be part of the summary. Either way, this doesn’t weaken YEC in any way that I can see.

His comments about “let there be” should be understood more by the immediate context than by jumping to a cross reference. If there is nothing in Gen. 1 to tell us what the phrase means, then lets go elsewhere, but the first chapter of the book is not opaque unless you bring that opaqueness with you, like Boromir brought a dark heart into Loth-Lorien.

3. The Seventh “Day” Is Not 24 Hours Long

Doubtful is the best thing that could be said for this observation. He sees that there is a rest belonging to God in Psalm 95:11. He then assumes that it is the same rest as Gen. 2:3. He then assumes that the seventh day is longer than 24 hours. As D. A. Carson has said, before I form an opinion on an important doctrine I want to see it more than in an obscure passage. Do you think we could introduce Carson and Taylor?

Using that hermeneutic, we could say the Peter’s call to Jesus while he was sinking, “Lord, Save me!” (Matt. 14:30) is a proof text for the sinner’s prayer because he said the word “save.” “We shall judge angels” (1 Cor. 6:2) contradicts Jesus’ teaching, “Judge not, that ye be not judged.” Then again, if God is resting, then why did Jesus say I work and my Father works (John 5:17)? Just because we see the word “rest” used twice referring to God does not mean that they are the same rest or that the first rest endured chronologically to the second rest.

But of all five points, I think this is his strongest one.

4. The “Day” of Genesis 2:4 Cannot Be 24 Hours Long

Fine. It’s not a 24-hour day. The normal laws of language allow everyone to see that it refers to time periods. Young earthers prefer normal usage, not necessarily literal since we all acknowledge figures of speech.

Since normal language allows this to be a figure, there is no problem at all with consistency.

Hosea 6:2 seems to be an exception to the general rule that numbered yom is a 24-hour day. But isn’t Hosea 6 referring to a type of Christ’s death and resurrection? If so, there is another tie to a literal day. However, put this in perspective: Scripture uses yom with an ordinal scores of times, and each time it refers to a 24-hour day. Once, probably, in Hosea it refers to a time period, yet the overwhelming usage says, yom with ordinals are literal days.

Specifically, the context of Gen. 1 does not need anything other than literal days to be understood by any reader unless he has a PhD.

5. The Explanation of Genesis 2:5-7 Assumes More Than an Ordinary Calendar Day

This is as pretty a picture as the first observation. The logic no more implies a long day than it implies a short day. Ordinary providence (italicized by Taylor) could fit a YEC explanation. God created everything in 6 days, and we were still going to wait until man and God’s ordinary providence brought all the beauty of the shrubs and crops. But if you quote a PhD from a Reformed seminary and if you mention the covenants, you’ve really proved your point, I guess. In some circles at least.

Why did Taylor write about this?

What would motivate an article like this? Notice his last line of the article: “But I see no reason to insist that they were only 24 hours long.” Nothing? Not even weaker arguments? There’s no danger in evolution? You can’t possibly be wrong? He is totally committed to OE and whatever evolution must come with it. Nice, open-minded position on a “secondary” issue, eh?

We not only know he’s confident, but he thinks its really important because:

  1. He knew it would be controversial, yet he still clicked “publish.”
  2. Its on the Gospel Coalition website which supposedly centers on the most vital issues to Christianity and overlooks the minor debates.
  3. He can’t even concede that there is any support for a firm 24-hour day position.

Mr. Taylor thinks it is critical for Christians to loosen their grip on Young Earth Creationism. Why? Because he wants to argue for an old earth model, and old earth means evolution. Now, why would he want to give any support to evolution? More cynical (or realistic) minds than mine can go in print on that question, but that is where the debate should be.

When I first read this article, I didn’t think: We’ve really got to respond to him point by point because his arguments are so trenchant! I thought rather, What would make a committed brother in Christ sell out the faith and the Word of God to worldly philosophy on this vital point?

When atheist Gordon Stein tries to derail Greg Bahnsen in the Great Debate by asking him about immoral actions in the OT, Bahnsen rightly ignores his specifics and goes for the root of the tree: “In an atheist universe, why is that wrong?”

I would say to Justin Taylor, In a Christian universe, who needs evolution? If no one, then take that divisive post off the Gospel Coalition which is supposed to be about unity around the essentials? If he really is jockeying for evolution, then speak up. Let’s have no gamesmanship. Let the lines be clearly drawn so we can see what we are debating over.

Gullibility is no fruit of the Spirit, and evolution is no fruit of true exegesis.

 

Posted in Pastoral | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

6 Reasons to Love Young Earth Creation

Posted on 3 February 2015 by Seth Meyers

Last year I made a list of Biblical reasons to hold to a Young Earth. By that term, I mean thousands of years not millions. No one knows precisely the age of the earth, but that’s not what is being debated by, for example, Justin Taylor. What’s at stake is evolution. Since I’ve posted some negative things recently, here’s a positive list of pure love for YEC—which of course implies hatred for evolution.

  1. YEC is the only view of Creation that removes all forms of macroevolution. Day-Age, gap theory, and framework hypothesis all need millions of years for the sake of evolution.
  2. YEC is the overwhelmingly dominant view of the church until Darwin. Who can you find before Darwin to talk about millions of years? Not even Augustine. Church history, if we read before the 20th century, is not on the side of any Christian who thinks fondly of evolution.
  3. YEC supports perspicuity. Once upon a time, the Reformers actually thought the clarity of Scripture was a vital point in the spiritual war.
  4. YEC naturally supports the global flood of Noah rather than some local spillage. By getting Genesis 1 right, you are set up to get chapters 2-9 right. That’s 9 chapters for the price of one. Or you lose all 9 if you somehow find millions of year lurking between “the evening and the morning were the first day.”
  5. YEC keeps the antithesis clear. Especially these days, YEC says, “There are two sides that cannot be reconciled. One is founded on the authority of Scripture and the other is founded on the authority of man. Choose you this day.” Sure, maybe other views can try to use Scripture, but it takes more work for a theistic evolutionist to demonstrate to an unbeliever that he is really loyal to the Bible not merely the latest book.
  6. YEC fits the scientific record. The lack of missing links, tree fossils through multiple geologic “layers,” and animals that can only mate within their kind is just the tip of the iceberg of evolution’s difficulties.

 

Posted in Hermeneutics, Lists | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment