Pre-New Year's Ramblings

As this gets posted on mid-morning New Year's Eve, I will spare you any resolutions about being a more regular blogger. My life right now simply doesn't provide the time and space for daily, or even sometimes weekly, posts.

Usually, I'll put up a simple "Happy New Year," sometimes with a spiritual application, sometimes not. And why would I be doing a post on an Evangelical Free Church blog with Martin Luther's picture? Bear with me, and you'll see why. 

This New Year's Eve, I want to end 2013 with a passage from Dr. Harold Lindsell's timeless "The Battle for the Bible." We will see the battle for the Bible continuing into 2014, and until Jesus comes to gather His own. But as I've been rereading Lindsell for the umpteenth time, a particular passage leapt out at me because Lindsell addresses an issue that's always bugged me enormously. And that is the lack of integrity involved when people sign on to a doctrinal statement that they don't really believe, and seduce the church or theological school of which they are a part.

In "The Battle for the Bible," Dr. Lindsell documents numerous places within denominations and theological schools where drift has begun and the battle has been enjoined. Keep in mind, this book was written in the mid-1970s, and Dr. Lindsell has gone on to glory. In this passage, Lindsell discusses the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod—long a stalwart for holding on to essential truth on the inerrancy and authority of Scripture. More specifically, he addresses a statement by Lutheran Paul Bretscher about inerrancy. Read closely . . .

Since Luther and the Synod both agree on the principle sola Scriptura, are not the opponents of biblical inerrancy wrong when they refuse to believe what Scripture teaches about itself? What the Missouri Synod has done in its Brief Statement of 1932 is not something new; it has been part and parcel of the Synod's views since it was founded in the United States. Bretscher was raised in this environment. If he personally believes that the Synod has erred in demanding adherence to an infallible Scripture, and he cannot convince the Synod that it is wrong, he is free to remove to another Lutheran group more to his liking. So long as he wishes to remain within the Synod, he is bound by his ordination oath to believe, teach, and propagate what the Synod is committed to. He has every right to change his views and depart from synodal teachings. He has NO right to remain within the church when he does this.

We need to explore what it means to be a Lutheran, keeping in mind what Martin E. Marty said about who Lutherans are. If a man denies what a Lutheran church teaches, is he truly a Lutheran? Let me illustrate this. Suppose Bretscher denies the deity of Christ, the vicarious atonement, the bodily resurrection of Jesus from the dead, and His Second Coming. Does he then have any claim to the title "Lutheran?" Does he have any right to remain with a church that calls itself "Lutheran?" More than that, does a Lutheran church not have the right to exclude from its fellowship those who deny truths that their confession says a Lutheran church believes? Does a church have a right to permit those who disbelieve Lutheran teaching to remain in its fellowship? Does not the presence of those who disbelieve Lutheran teachings almost surely guarantee further infection in the church and at last the loss of the church to historic Lutheranism in all except name? Since any church has the right to determine what its own confessional standards shall be, men like Bretscher have no right to deny those teachings, or to defy the authority of the church that has set up those standards. This is an ethical issue that cannot be avoided.

Dr. Lindsell is right. And this is a serious issue that goes way beyond Lutheranism. It impacts any Bible-preaching, Bible-teaching, conservative evangelical church body. When you have seminary professors who sign doctrinal statements to belong to a faculty in good standing, or pastors who sign a doctrinal statement to have their ordination renewed, but in reality DENY the doctrine onto which they are signing, it is an ENORMOUS ethical issue. Let's call it what it is. It's lying. Deceptive lying. And it is right in keeping with the warning of the Apostle Peter in Scripture:

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. Many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned, and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep (2 Peter 2:1-3).

We've been warned in advance. Before the Lord returns, we who hold to biblical truth will be facing quite a battle. Will we be ready and able to stand when called on? Or will we fold and cave in to the "innovative and trendy?" Will we throw biblical doctrine out the window for expediency, or to maintain "peace and harmony?"

God forbid!

Popes Change, but God Does Not!

The world is abuzz today with Pope Francis' recent interview, where he in essence says the Catholic Church needs to re-assess how it handles homosexuality and other issues. Needless to say, political and theological liberals are ebullient, while those of us who are biblical (and political) conservatives are not.

It all depends on precisely what Francis means. As a non-Catholic evangelical Protestant, of course I do not recognize his spiritual authority. But conservative Catholics and conservative Protestants are in agreement on many moral issues, and I would join those conservative Catholics in alarm if this signals a liberalizing of theology. Because in the end, it all boils down to the authority of God and His revealed, written Word—the Bible. And as we know, the authority of the Bible in relation to the authority of the church has always been a bone of contention since the Reformation.

God's Word says what means and means what it says. What the Bible calls sin and evil is—and remains—sin and evil. God does not change and His Word does not change, even though human spiritual leaders do change over time. Human spiritual leaders have no right whatsoever to alter the Word of God. Whoever does so will pay a very severe price in eternity.

If Francis means only that the truth must be communicated in love, and not in legalistic, heartless coldness, I would agree with him. After all, we are all sinners saved by grace—assuming we really ARE saved. But Jesus said, "If you love Me, keep my commandments." Our obedience to His Word and moral behavior is a sign that we truly are His children, and confirms such to the world. We are Christ's ambassadors. If we try to justify sinful behavior and say that it doesn't matter, we have only become antinomian and are ultimately deniers of the Lord, because we make Him a liar. The same Jesus who forgave the woman in adultery also told her very clearly, "Go, and sin no more." The Lord did not excuse her sin, and commanded her to repent of it.

The Gospel holds out hope of salvation and deliverance from the power of sin. Note the Apostle Paul's words on that subject . . . Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor effiminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, not the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you, but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

Paul, in the authority of the Lord Himself and under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, laid out quite a laundry list of sins, and then said, "such WERE some of you." Christ came to free us from the power of sin. Romans 6:2 - will we who died to sin still live in it? God forbid!

I hope Francis believes the above, and will uphold it. But if he means to sweep these sins under the rug and water down the truth of the Gospel, that cannot go unchallenged. And it won't. Time will tell.where he in essence says the Catholic Church needs to re-assess how it handles homosexuality and other issues. Needless to say, political and theological liberals are ebullient, while those of us who are biblical (and political) conservatives are not.

It all depends on precisely what Francis means. As a non-Catholic evangelical Protestant, of course I do not recognize his spiritual authority. But conservative Catholics and conservative Protestants are in agreement on many moral issues, and I would join those conservative Catholics in alarm if this signals a liberalizing of theology. Because in the end, it all boils down to the authority of God and His revealed, written Word—the Bible. And as we know, the authority of the Bible in relation to the authority of the church has always been a bone of contention since the Reformation.

God's Word says what means and means what it says. What the Bible calls sin and evil is—and remains—sin and evil. God does not change and His Word does not change, even though human spiritual leaders do change over time. Human spiritual leaders have no right whatsoever to alter the Word of God. Whoever does so will pay a very severe price in eternity.

If Francis means only that the truth must be communicated in love, and not in legalistic, heartless coldness, I would agree with him. After all, we are all sinners saved by grace—assuming we really ARE saved. But Jesus said, "If you love Me, keep my commandments." Our obedience to His Word and moral behavior is a sign that we truly are His children, and confirms such to the world. We are Christ's ambassadors. If we try to justify sinful behavior and say that it doesn't matter, we have only become antinomian and are ultimately deniers of the Lord, because we make Him a liar. The same Jesus who forgave the woman in adultery also told her very clearly, "Go, and sin no more." The Lord did not excuse her sin, and commanded her to repent of it.

The Gospel holds out hope of salvation and deliverance from the power of sin. Note the Apostle Paul's words on that subject . . . Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor effiminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, not the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you, but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

Paul, in the authority of the Lord Himself and under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, laid out quite a laundry list of sins, and then said, "such WERE some of you." Christ came to free us from the power of sin. Romans 6:2 - will we who died to sin still live in it? God forbid!

I hope Francis believes the above, and will uphold it. But if he means to sweep these sins under the rug and water down the truth of the Gospel, that cannot go unchallenged. And it won't. Time will tell.

Biblical Theology, Debate and Balance

As is the case in any generation of Christians, there are issues that arise and trigger significant debate. In recent years, we've seen the Emergent Church/postmodernism debate, the Open Theism debate, a renewed "Battle for the Bible" to quote the late Dr. Harold Lindsell, the debate over the seeker-sensitive church model, and the list goes on. While we are not quite at the stage where a modern day Martin Luther is being hauled off to the Wartburg to escape Duke George and Pope Leo, the battle over theology is again getting quite intense.

It should be no surprise that this would happen. Scripture is replete with warnings about the last days and deception. The Lord Jesus Himself asked the question, "When the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth?" (Luke 18:8). The picture painted by the Apostle Paul in 2 Timothy is severe, marking out especially for condemnation those who "have a form of godliness, but deny its power." I think it is safe to say that, while Revelation speaks of a multitude that no man can number, this number - as vast as it apparently will be - is but a remnant of those who could have been saved. I believe Scripture also makes it clear that the Lord expects those who name Him as Savior to be faithful to His Word. "If you love Me, keep my commandments."

As of yet, I haven't said a whole lot about the debate in the Evangelical Free Church about our doctrinal statement, especially in reference to eschatology. But what little I have said has been pretty stark. In essence, I would have preferred it to be left as it was. I am thankful that the most recent change left premillennialism in there, but as has been pointed out, the argument isn't over. Both sides are keeping their powder dry for a future revisiting of the issue.

The EFCA has historically been a premillennial, largely dispensational fellowship. A change was made back in the 1970s to reflect other understandings of the word "imminence" in a historic premillennial sense. The changes that some wanted to introduce appeared to me to allow for amillennialism and other eschatological ideas. All of this rather confirms a long-standing belief of mine. I seldom see doctrinal statements strengthened by changes. Almost always, they get watered down. The EFCA was formed to stand for something. There are numerous other fellowships out there having amillennial views on eschatology. It's hard for me to understand or appreciate people coming in from the outside and then agitating for change. I would assume they knew of our fellowship's stance on eschatology before they became members. There are plenty of amillennial churches out there. Why cause a ruckus with us?

I know also that there are probably people who have always been E-Free, but their theological views have altered with time. I'll address that in a moment.

Lest I get chastised for it later, I should qualify the above with the following. I am not suggesting that one's stance on eschatology should be a test of fellowship unless the physical return of Jesus to earth is denied. I have friends who are amillennial whom I respect very much and their core theology is solid, despite my disagreement on that particular matter. What I AM suggesting is that we ought not try to force a fellowship to abandon its doctrinal statement or distinctives because we might happen to hold a different view. If it gets that bad, it's better to find a fellowship more in line with what you think. And most certainly, a pastor should not obtain or maintain credentials under false conditions. I am sorry to say that I have seen that happen in the past within my own circle of acquaintance (thankfully in another denomination, not the E-Free).

And that leads me to comment briefly on that issue, because it's bothered me for a long time. In many denominations, a pastor must reaffirm the doctrinal position of his denomination to remain in good standing with his credentials. I have seen it on more than one occasion that the pastor actually no longer holds to some of the doctrinal distinctives of his fellowship, but when it's renewal time, "nudge nudge..wink wink..say no more, say no more." This is dishonest and lacking in integrity. If you can't sign on to your fellowship's doctrinal statement, it's time to move on. But no, it seems some would rather engage in what amounts to a surreptitious campaign to change the doctrine of the fellowship in question while supposedly pledging to uphold it. Scripture says "let your yes be yes and your no be no."

In other cases, I think we've all seen rather high profile "pastors" (Bishop Spong anyone?) who plainly deny core orthodoxy, yet their fellowships do nothing to discipline or defrock them. I've seen in the past where Robert Schuller was questioned over some of the ridiculous statements he's made in his books, but all he'd do would be to wave a Reformed Church doctrinal statement at the interviewer or the camera and insist that's what he believed. He never would answer the questions.

Until recently, we have been spared (at least to my knowledge) battles over serious doctrinal error in the E-Free, that is until the Emergent Church nonsense began having an impact on us. As time marches on to its denouement, the struggle over fealty to the Lord and to Scripture will only grow more pronounced. I would like to see us throw out all the best sellers we're buying with the latest pop theology, and get back to the time tested, proven Word of God. A biblical theology is a balanced theology, and is the best guarantee for the church having the impact on the culture.