Unbiblical Theology

Yes, that is the same title as Dan Phillips used. Since he said a lot of what I was thinking (and a lot more), I thought I might as well use it. Dan correctly states that Spiderman 3 contains a lot of good moral principles, but horrible theology. Dan’s objections begin where mine did, with this statement from the movie: “First, you must do the hardest thing. You must forgive yourself.” I've previously written on this subject here. Read Dan’s article, in which he concludes: “Spider-Man 3 is a fun, expertly-done movie. It contains a nice bit of moralizing. It preaches an appalling sermon.”

I only have two things to add to what has already been said.

First, assuming we buy the psychoskubalon of self-forgiveness (as though such a thing as a sin against self exists), it is not hard to forgive ourselves. What could be more self-indulgent? and what is more definitive of human nature than self-indulgence? Letting ourselves off the hook for our sins is as natural as breathing.

Second, in answer to the objection, “Well, you know, it's not a Christian movie. You can't expect them to get it right,” I reply, “You're right. In fact, I should expect them to get it wrong; and when they do, I should be prepared to say so.” You see, whenever anyone, whether Christian, Roman Catholic, Jew, Muslim, or atheist opens his mouth on anything touching on God, theology, or spirituality, he is obligated to get it right. God will accept nothing less. There is only one God, one Way, one Truth, one Life. God makes no allowance for false theology, even due to ignorance.

“But it's just a movie. It's just entertainment. No one came to hear a sermon.” But they did hear a sermon — a moralistic, man-centered sermon. A sermon that leads away from Christ, even while promoting moral character. That is damning, and it needs an answer.

This does not mean you can't go see Spiderman 3 and enjoy it for the entertaining (though mediocre) work of ignorant men that it is. Just be prepared to answer those who praise the good moral of the story with the true Gospel.

"It's just so weird to hear him say stuff like that . . . Seriously, 'If you want to relieve stress, go to the Word of God'? Ha, ha! Oh, my goodness!"

OK, will everyone please stop telling me emergents are Christians? Can we just dispense with that fiction? Good, that's settled.

As you know, I’ve been reading The Truth War by John MacArthur. Like everyone else whom I have read on the subject of the Emergent [whatever] and postmodernism, he points out the fact that the postmodern belief system is not easily defined. That is certainly true, and I am afraid that that fact makes many (but certainly not MacArthur!) reluctant to condemn it outright, and uncertain about how to react to it. But is that hesitancy justified? The typical postmodernist’s response to criticism is, “You don’t understand us! We are not all alike!” The implication is that, since we don’t understand them, we cannot judge them. But is that necessarily true?

Let’s suppose they are right: let’s assume D. A. Carson, John MacArthur, and anyone else who has written about Emergent and postmodernism has completely misunderstood them and has no idea what they believe. Does that disqualify us from judging them to be outside the Christian faith? If we don’t understand what they are saying, can we still say they are wrong? Yes, we can. It is enough to know what they do not believe, as deduced from what they do not — and will not — say.

The fundamentals of the Biblical, Christian faith are clearly stated in Scripture and are easily understood by any believer who diligently seeks to know. Those fundamentals — the Trinity, the virgin birth and deity of Christ, the sovereignty of God, the inspiration and authority of Scripture, original sin and depravity, justification by faith, the atonement, the resurrection — are clearly stated propositions, and Scripture makes it plain that these truths exclude any other religion, no matter how sincere and devout.

So I don’t have to know what Emergents believe. I don’t have to engage them in “conversation” in order to determine what they really believe. It is enough to know what they do not believe, and in knowing what they do not believe, I know who they are not. And they are intentionally vague and noncommittal on virtually everything. They consistently refuse to affirm the fundamentals of the faith, and so are unable to give a Biblical account for the hope that is in them (1 Peter 3:15). Furthermore, they ridicule anyone who claims faith in anything certain.

This is not the Biblical, Christian faith. Our faith is certain. We know the truth, and it has set us free (John 8:32). And we are growing in our knowledge of the truth. We are not becoming more confused, “ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth” (2 Timothy 3:7), “carried about with every wind of doctrine” (Ephesians 4:14).

The battle against postmodern heresy is no intramural disagreement. It is no less than a battle against apostasy. Our opponents are not brothers with disagreements on disputable matters. At stake is the Gospel itself, our opponents are enemies of “the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3), and no negotiation is possible. The lines are drawn.

Which side are you on?

Learn everything you need to know about Joel Osteen from one picture.

I came across the following quote at The Riddleblog:

The biblical picture of a saving experience is masterful in its clarity and simplicity. A single, one-time appropriation of God's gift results in a miraculous inward transformation that can never be reversed.

Since this is true, we miss the point to insist that true saving faith must necessarily continue.  Of course, our faith in Christ should continue.  But the claim that it absolutely must, or necessarily does, has no support in the Bible . . . . It is sufficient to observe that the Bible predicates salvation on an act of faith, not on the continuity of faith.

—Zane Hodges, Absolutely Free

We advocates of so-called “Lordship Salvation” are called legalists for insisting that genuine saving faith is God’s gift to those whom he has regenerated as new creatures, whose lives are then marked by the new behavior that comes naturally to the new nature. We have the audacity to believe that if God transformed a cat into a dog, it would from that day forward bark, and not revert to meowing.

But observe the inherent legalism of the quote above. Salvation results from the performance of an act. God offers the gift, but the sinner must do something — something that is contrary to his nature, like a cat barking — to receive it. It sounds like “Free Grace” is not “Absolutely Free.” In fact, it sounds Absolutely Impossible.

Observe also the contradiction: performing that act “results in a miraculous inward transformation that can never be reversed,” but we are wrong “to insist that true saving faith must necessarily continue.” Exactly what is this impermanent permanent transformation? Is it something like the Arminian temporary eternal life?

Any regular reader of this blog knows I think quite highly of John Piper. That being the case, I am reluctant to be critical of him. But sometimes the man just says some silly things! And since people like me are often accused (sometimes justly) of sparing their own from the same critical treatment we zealously meet out to our opponents, and since Dr. Piper is so influential, I think it is good to comment when he says something particularly nutty.

The purpose of this post is not to criticize any man, but simply to encourage you to think.

Here is what happened. First, David Wilkerson wrote this:

I am compelled by the Holy Spirit to send out an urgent message to all on our mailing list, and to friends and to bishops we have met all over the world.

AN EARTH-SHATTERING CALAMITY IS ABOUT TO HAPPEN. IT IS GOING TO BE SO FRIGHTENING, WE ARE ALL GOING TO TREMBLE - EVEN THE GODLIEST AMONG US.

For ten years I have been warning about a thousand fires coming to New York City. It will engulf the whole megaplex, including areas of New Jersey and Connecticut. Major cities all across America will experience riots and blazing fires—such as we saw in Watts, Los Angeles, years ago.

There will be riots and fires in cities worldwide. There will be looting—including Times Square, New York City. What we are experiencing now is not a recession, not even a depression. We are under God’s wrath. . . .

WHAT SHALL THE RIGHTEOUS DO? WHAT ABOUT GOD’S PEOPLE?

First, I give you a practical word I received for my own direction. If possible lay in store a thirty-day supply of non-perishable food, toiletries and other essentials. In major cities, grocery stores are emptied in an hour at the sign of an impending disaster.

As for our spiritual reaction, we have but two options. This is outlined in Psalm 11. We “flee like a bird to a mountain.” Or, as David says, “He fixed his eyes on the Lord on his throne in heaven—his eyes beholding, his eyelids testing the sons of men” (v. 4). “In the Lord I take refuge” (v. 1).

. . .

No surprise there. While Wilkerson is far from being a barking mad Pentecostal, we know that he is, theologically speaking, a couple of fishes and loaves short of a miracle, if you get my drift. But then John Piper wrote this in response.

What shall we make of this? The part that depends on the Bible we should take with absolute seriousness. . . .

But the part of the prophecy that goes beyond what the Bible says, we measure by biblical standards. Two things give me pause in Wilkerson’s extra-biblical specifics.

First, it does not resonate with my spirit when he claims that God told him to “lay in store a thirty-day supply of non-perishable food, toiletries and other essentials” because when disaster comes “grocery stores are emptied in an hour.” God might have said this. But it doesn’t smell authentic to me. Too prudential. Too reminiscent of the embarrassing Y2K excesses.

Second, my confidence level drops when the Scriptures are not handled carefully. Wilkerson says, one way we can respond is: “As David says, ‘He fixed his eyes on the Lord on his throne in heaven—his eyes beholding, his eyelids testing the sons of men’” (Psalm 11:4).

This does not have the feel of authority to me because what Psalm 11:4 really says is: “The Lord is in his holy temple; the Lord’s throne is in heaven; his eyes see, his eyelids test the children of man.”

So my take on this prophetic word is that the scare will probably do good for a lot of people. The Bible is a scary book. And the future that is coming on unbelievers is scary beyond anything any preacher could conjure up.

But my own effort to be discerning says: Stick with the Bible, David. It is scary enough. And it is absolutely true. And your credibility will never fall.

What is this, but subjective musings? Piper doubts the authenticity of Wilkerson’s “prophecy” because “it does not resonate with [his] spirit” or “smell authentic,” to which I answer, “So what?” Wilkerson’s “prophecy” doesn’t feel right to a fallible man. When did that become a standard of credibility?

Next, Piper points out the misuse of Scripture. This is helpful. But for Piper, it only causes his confidence level to drop. It “does not have the feel of authority” because actually, the passage cited says something else. But maybe it’s only the feel of authority that is lacking, because “God might have said that.”

Which brings me to the silliest part. God might have said it, but Wilkerson shouldn’t repeat it. Piper himself calls this a “prophetic word” that will “probably do good for a lot of people,” but Wilkerson should have kept it to himself. How can one man advise another not to repeat the Word of God? Can we become any more contradictory?

It also troubles me that the final reason Piper gives for sitting on this “prophetic word” is to avoid damage to Wilkerson’s credibility. When I read that, I think, Noah, don’t tell anyone it’s going to rain and flood the earth. They’ll think you’re nuts! And what if it doesn’t happen? What will that do to your credibility?

This is all very confusing.

I’ll be blunt: There is not a single clear-thinking Christian who finds the words of John MacArthur, Tim Challies, et. al. on filthy preaching controversial at all. The issues are clear, and the truth is plain. I’ll be even more blunt: It seems to me that those who have read MacArthur’s posts and still don’t get it (or feign confusion on the matter) are being willfully obtuse. I might have more to say about this next week, but until then, take an hour to listen to Phil Johnson:

God loves everyone.

I make a point of saying so because I have recently come across a couple of blog posts stating emphatically that he does not. (Even if I agreed, it is beyond me why anyone would feel the need to rub it in; but anyway . . .)

God loves everyone. This has nothing to do with the meaning of the words “world” and “all.” I know those all-inclusive words are seldom meant to be universally-inclusive (as I have written elsewhere). John 3:16 does not prove universal anything.

I know that God loves everyone for one simple reason: he commands me to love everyone. The entire Christian life, i.e. everything related to sanctification, can be summed up as becoming more like Christ (Romans 8:21; 2 Corinthians 2:16). Sin is nothing other than not being like God (Romans 3:23). So the following syllogism applies:

God is making me to be like him.
God commands me to love everyone.
Therefore, God loves everyone.

I don’t claim that God loves everyone in the same way. I certainly don’t love the generic everyone in the same way as I love my wife. And marriage, of course, is the right comparison to make here, because I am talking about the difference between the love of God for his chosen, the love of Christ for his bride, and his love for everyone else. I don’t bestow the same favor on the entire world as I do on the one I have chosen for my own. But to say, then, that I don’t love the rest of the world at all does not follow, nor should it.