Most of us have probably seen the 1994 Tom Hanks hit movie, Forrest Gump in which the titular character shares his experiences and reflections on life and society with various people on a Savannah park bench.
As the story goes on, Gump often shares with us little insights and maxims from his mother, which invariably begin, “Mama always said...”
For many who have been reared in a “pseudo-Christian Culture” such as the United States, we have a tendency to assume that the values and norms that we have known, lived under, and been taught are universal and transcendent truths and “Christian.”
Sadly, this is not always the case. For instance, you may have been told that it’s okay to tell a “little white lie” if it means not hurting someone’s feelings. God’s word, by contrast, tells us that God is a God of Truth, hates liars, and demands that His people love the truth so much that they forsake lying.
Many people who call themselves Christians live out a spirituality that consists simply of what they were taught by their parents and the traditions of their society. But is that where Christians are supposed to learn how to live as His people? Yet many in our society have a religion that consists of little more than “my mama always said...”
True Christianity is found and learned from God’s word, the Bible. The Bible teaches us that every culture is imperfect, riddled with sin, and doomed to pass away. Because of this, God’s word confronts every culture with its sins, failings, and shortcomings as it calls the people of every culture to embrace Jesus Christ offered in the gospel and follow His commandments.
As Presbyterians, we must not be crippling our growth in grace by living a “Forrest Gump spirituality” that consists only of traditions and sentiments of the past. We must be constantly looking to Christ and His word to see if the traditions and values that we hold dear are actually from God or merely of man’s devising.
One of the problems that has continually dogged the Church is that as persecution dies down, the saints become increasingly comfortable with the culture and the church begins to increasingly resemble the culture. The only defense against this is a robust and disciplined love for God’s word, not simply the “idea” of God’s word, but the actual words, sentences, paragraphs, teachings and themes of the Scripture.
Do you love God’s Word? Is your Christianity, your piety founded upon a faithful study of the words of Christ? Do you make time to know your Bible? Or is your religion simply that of traditions and customs? A religion that resembles the culture is not a religion of the Christ who was crucified for offending the traditions and customs of the society in which He lived. We must each ask ourselves and evaluate is my religion based on “my mama always said” and “I always thought” or “God says in His word?”
This was written by a friend of mine Rev. Ryan Biese who is the minister of Winona PCA church in Winona, MS. He wrote this for his church bulletin and after visiting with him I asked him if I could post this on my blog. I hope that you enjoy it.
Monday, 21 July 2014
Friday, 11 July 2014
Liturgical dances are not the way forward for the church!
In recent times, I have encountered a new phenomena which is the use of liturgical dances in public worship. This kind of thing is sometimes included in churches as a means of facilitating the worship of God. But does it actually achieve its intended purpose? I have never personally seen this in the West, but while our family served oversees, I found it to be a common occurence in Kenya. Why would good churches go down such routes?
In talking to various people, ones who have observed churches sliding away from biblical faithfulness by introducing such novelties into public worship, there appear to be two primary causes of this phenomena.
1. Some churches become more concerned about people outside the church than those already in the church. Therefore, they seek ways to attract non-Christians, while abandoning their duty to feed the sheep.
2. Pragmatism drives the agenda rather than by searching the Scripture for biblical directives.
On a pragmatic level, watching a bunch of amateurish women performing a choreographed dance, dressed in lively colors, would seem at best a distraction, at worst a cause of stumbling. This is not the apostolic method and in my opinion it acheieves nothing in communicating the gospel to a lost and dying world. These liturgical dances move the church on deviant paths trod by the church in the Middle Ages, ones which sought visual means to communicate instead of preaching. Let us ask two questions.
1. Did Jesus and the apostles use such methods in their ministries? The plain answer is no, but they could of. In Ancient Greek cities there were always amphitheaters which were used for dramas and visual performances, but these worldly methods were never used.
2. What does the Scripture teach regarding liturgical dances in public worship? There are no references of such things. Yet many well meaning Christians sit in churches which conduct themselves in ways not becoming of the church of God. In my experience when churches seek such methods such as dances, puppets, handing out balloons and free hair cuts, then there is a slide away from a confidence in God's primary method for gospel advance. This is the preaching of the gospel. If you are sat in a church that talks about sharing and not preaching, perhaps you should consider seeking out a church that is committed to preaching sound doctrine instead.
Listen to three passages from the Book of Acts.
Acts 8:5: "Philip went down to the city of Samaria and proclaimed to them Christ".
Acts 17:2-3: "Paul went in, as was his custom and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying 'This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ'".
Acts 28:30-31: (Paul in Rome) " He lived there two whole years at his own expense, and welcomed all who came to him, proclaiming the kingdom of God and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ with all boldness and without hindrance".
Preaching the message of the gospel was the primary means for extension in the New Testament church and it should be ours also today. There is no mention of novelties such as liturgical dances in the New Testament, so why would any church that is faithful to the Lord God even consider such a possibility? May congregations return to solid paths using solid methods which is a joyful commitment to preaching in our worship services in season and out of season.
In talking to various people, ones who have observed churches sliding away from biblical faithfulness by introducing such novelties into public worship, there appear to be two primary causes of this phenomena.
1. Some churches become more concerned about people outside the church than those already in the church. Therefore, they seek ways to attract non-Christians, while abandoning their duty to feed the sheep.
2. Pragmatism drives the agenda rather than by searching the Scripture for biblical directives.
On a pragmatic level, watching a bunch of amateurish women performing a choreographed dance, dressed in lively colors, would seem at best a distraction, at worst a cause of stumbling. This is not the apostolic method and in my opinion it acheieves nothing in communicating the gospel to a lost and dying world. These liturgical dances move the church on deviant paths trod by the church in the Middle Ages, ones which sought visual means to communicate instead of preaching. Let us ask two questions.
1. Did Jesus and the apostles use such methods in their ministries? The plain answer is no, but they could of. In Ancient Greek cities there were always amphitheaters which were used for dramas and visual performances, but these worldly methods were never used.
2. What does the Scripture teach regarding liturgical dances in public worship? There are no references of such things. Yet many well meaning Christians sit in churches which conduct themselves in ways not becoming of the church of God. In my experience when churches seek such methods such as dances, puppets, handing out balloons and free hair cuts, then there is a slide away from a confidence in God's primary method for gospel advance. This is the preaching of the gospel. If you are sat in a church that talks about sharing and not preaching, perhaps you should consider seeking out a church that is committed to preaching sound doctrine instead.
Listen to three passages from the Book of Acts.
Acts 8:5: "Philip went down to the city of Samaria and proclaimed to them Christ".
Acts 17:2-3: "Paul went in, as was his custom and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying 'This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ'".
Acts 28:30-31: (Paul in Rome) " He lived there two whole years at his own expense, and welcomed all who came to him, proclaiming the kingdom of God and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ with all boldness and without hindrance".
Preaching the message of the gospel was the primary means for extension in the New Testament church and it should be ours also today. There is no mention of novelties such as liturgical dances in the New Testament, so why would any church that is faithful to the Lord God even consider such a possibility? May congregations return to solid paths using solid methods which is a joyful commitment to preaching in our worship services in season and out of season.
Thursday, 3 July 2014
Thoughts on the latest Noah Movie
I have to confess that I am not a huge movie expert, but on a recent flight I had the opportunity to check out the latest Noah movie starring Russell Crowe. I had heard mixed reports from different sources and ironically I have been preaching through Genesis in our evening services at church. The story of Noah is therefore fresh in my mind. So, what were my impressions of the movie?
As a Christian, I was not impressed by the opening line that "in the beginning there was nothing" and then the narrative of Genesis is unfolded in a way that I could not reconcile with the biblical record. Fallen creatures that look like deformed transformers with rock skin, apparently helped fallen man to build huge cities. There is Gandolf style mysticism and magic inter-twined,and Noah kills people in self-defense in the hostile world that he lives in pre-flood. It was a huge surprise to find that Hollywood had no problem in including an adopted daughter into Noah's family though the biblical record does not have any such details.
From a non-theological point of view, the movie was not impressive, I got bored and I admit that I did not finish the whole film. It was like watching a low-budget "Lord of the Rings" movie, but without any of the impressive scenery and thought of the "Lord of the Rings". Its deviation from biblical truth, its bizarre imagination that bore little resemblance to Noah's godliness, and the poor quality of style means that I do not endorse this movie whatsoever.
What are some learning points? Hebrews 11:7 reminds us of Noah's faith: "By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, in reverent fear constructed an ark for the saving of his household. By this he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith". The first lesson should be to draw us all to the faith of Noah from the biblical record. This is because he walked by faith in the midst of loneliness, with a lack of spiritual fruit from his warnings to his fellow men, and he spent just over a year in the ark before he stepped out into the new world after the flood. Faith always requires us to walk into a degree of the unknown, trusting the Lord. Therefore, Noah's example should encourage the church in our own day.
The second lesson for me is that the world cannot be trusted today to faithfully handle biblical narrative. In times past, credible movies of the life of Moses, and stories such as Ben Hur, moved millions of people to simply acknowledge historically based narratives. Today, Hollywood and the world have so departed from truth in their post-modern fantasies, that they cannot be trusted to handle Bible stories or truth itself.
Thirdly, the Lord Jesus taught explicitly that Noah did not know the exact time when the floods will come, so also we will not know the time when Jesus returns but we must be ready. In the time before the Lord Jesus returns to bring final judgment upon this world and all of its inhabitants, then the world's population will behave the same as in Noah's day. Matthew 24:38 "For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man". Therefore, do not be surprised by the world's indifference to the gospel, Noah faced the same. However, let us look to the Lord for great fruitfulness, and pray that God by his grace would save some, those who will come into the Lord's ark of salvation, before it is too late.
As a Christian, I was not impressed by the opening line that "in the beginning there was nothing" and then the narrative of Genesis is unfolded in a way that I could not reconcile with the biblical record. Fallen creatures that look like deformed transformers with rock skin, apparently helped fallen man to build huge cities. There is Gandolf style mysticism and magic inter-twined,and Noah kills people in self-defense in the hostile world that he lives in pre-flood. It was a huge surprise to find that Hollywood had no problem in including an adopted daughter into Noah's family though the biblical record does not have any such details.
From a non-theological point of view, the movie was not impressive, I got bored and I admit that I did not finish the whole film. It was like watching a low-budget "Lord of the Rings" movie, but without any of the impressive scenery and thought of the "Lord of the Rings". Its deviation from biblical truth, its bizarre imagination that bore little resemblance to Noah's godliness, and the poor quality of style means that I do not endorse this movie whatsoever.
What are some learning points? Hebrews 11:7 reminds us of Noah's faith: "By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, in reverent fear constructed an ark for the saving of his household. By this he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith". The first lesson should be to draw us all to the faith of Noah from the biblical record. This is because he walked by faith in the midst of loneliness, with a lack of spiritual fruit from his warnings to his fellow men, and he spent just over a year in the ark before he stepped out into the new world after the flood. Faith always requires us to walk into a degree of the unknown, trusting the Lord. Therefore, Noah's example should encourage the church in our own day.
The second lesson for me is that the world cannot be trusted today to faithfully handle biblical narrative. In times past, credible movies of the life of Moses, and stories such as Ben Hur, moved millions of people to simply acknowledge historically based narratives. Today, Hollywood and the world have so departed from truth in their post-modern fantasies, that they cannot be trusted to handle Bible stories or truth itself.
Thirdly, the Lord Jesus taught explicitly that Noah did not know the exact time when the floods will come, so also we will not know the time when Jesus returns but we must be ready. In the time before the Lord Jesus returns to bring final judgment upon this world and all of its inhabitants, then the world's population will behave the same as in Noah's day. Matthew 24:38 "For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man". Therefore, do not be surprised by the world's indifference to the gospel, Noah faced the same. However, let us look to the Lord for great fruitfulness, and pray that God by his grace would save some, those who will come into the Lord's ark of salvation, before it is too late.
Friday, 27 June 2014
Book Review: Charles Hodge by Don Fortson
This short biography brings the life of Charles Hodge (1797-1878) out of what will be “relative obscurity” for most readers. It is written in a way that is interesting, accessible, helpful and theologically engaging. Hodge’s life spanned such important events in the life of America as the Civil War, the emancipation of slavery and the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. In the church, his association as a teacher of theology at the renowned Princeton Theological Seminary for half a century is what he is most known for. There is perhaps no equal to Hodge in the history of the Reformed church in North America because he trained almost 3000 students who became gospel ministers, missionaries and professors.
This accessible biography carries great potential use in that it will introduce the readers to whole range of doctrinal debates, ones which Hodge had to get involved with. These diverse issues include the revivalism of Charles Finney, debates over church polity with James Henley Thornwell, the necessity or otherwise for the rebaptism of Roman Catholics and the church’s connection to national politics. Hodge’s life provides a “lens” through which to view a range of topics that have ongoing and perpetual significance.
This giant in the faith was unashamedly Calvinistic. He was also unashamedly presbyterian. However, this does not mean that readers will agree with every stance that he took on the many debates and issues that he got involved with. On some matters, one may deem he was too soft, on others, maybe he won the day due to his huge influence rather than due to holding the right line of doctrinal logic. It is this reviewer’s opinion that the debates that Hodge held with Thornwell on church polity are perhaps a case in point: Hodge won the vote at the General Assembly, even though Thornwell presented a stronger argument.
In sum, this book is highly recommended and enjoyable. It will introduce the next generation of Christians to the necessity for sound doctrine in a time-frame spanning from Archibald Alexander to B.B. Warfield. Hodge as a man is someone to be followed, in that he emulated a passion for academic rigour concerning the Word of God along with pastoral warmth and care. The Reformed church needs robust theological training for its future ministers and hopefully this book will further spark desires for a theologically educated ministry within evangelicalism in the U.K.
This accessible biography carries great potential use in that it will introduce the readers to whole range of doctrinal debates, ones which Hodge had to get involved with. These diverse issues include the revivalism of Charles Finney, debates over church polity with James Henley Thornwell, the necessity or otherwise for the rebaptism of Roman Catholics and the church’s connection to national politics. Hodge’s life provides a “lens” through which to view a range of topics that have ongoing and perpetual significance.
This giant in the faith was unashamedly Calvinistic. He was also unashamedly presbyterian. However, this does not mean that readers will agree with every stance that he took on the many debates and issues that he got involved with. On some matters, one may deem he was too soft, on others, maybe he won the day due to his huge influence rather than due to holding the right line of doctrinal logic. It is this reviewer’s opinion that the debates that Hodge held with Thornwell on church polity are perhaps a case in point: Hodge won the vote at the General Assembly, even though Thornwell presented a stronger argument.
In sum, this book is highly recommended and enjoyable. It will introduce the next generation of Christians to the necessity for sound doctrine in a time-frame spanning from Archibald Alexander to B.B. Warfield. Hodge as a man is someone to be followed, in that he emulated a passion for academic rigour concerning the Word of God along with pastoral warmth and care. The Reformed church needs robust theological training for its future ministers and hopefully this book will further spark desires for a theologically educated ministry within evangelicalism in the U.K.
Thursday, 12 June 2014
"From Heaven He Came and Sought Her": A Book Review
From Heaven he came and Sought Her: Definite Atonement in Historical, Biblical Theological, and Pastoral Perspective, Editors David Gibson and Jonathan Gibson.
This book is a landmark contribution to settle the issues surrounding particular redemption. Ever since the Arminian and Synod of Dort firestorm of debate concerning the extent and intent of the atonement of Christ Jesus, discussion has rumbled on. And rightly so in many respects, because every new generation needs to understand the truths of Scripture for themselves.
A foreword by J. I. Packer sets the “ball rolling” and twenty three chapters and 703 pages follow (including indices). It is fitting that Packer writes the foreword because he also wrote the contemporary foreword for the seventeenth century classic on the same subject by John Owen, “The Death of Death in the Death of Christ”. This new book is written to engage in all the debates that have ensued since Owen’s thesis was let loose on the theological world several centuries ago.
The editors have involved erudite reformed scholars and the list of contributors is indeed impressive. Men such as Carl Trueman, J. Alec Motyer, Sinclair Ferguson and John Piper. Motyer’s chapter is perhaps my favorite and it is a comprehensive exposition of the Servant Song in Isaiah 52-53 entitled “Stricken for the Transgression of my People”; he anchors definite atonement in the biblical text in a way that is refreshing.
There are some common threads throughout this book, one which is arranged around four loci: Definite Atonement in Church History; Definite Atonement in the Bible; Definite Atonement in Theological Perspective; and Definite Atonement in Pastoral Practice. The common approach includes a preference for the term definite atonement instead of limited atonement or particular redemption. Additionally, most contributors are writing as academic theologians, and their style maybe such, that it may be too dense for many to have the time or background knowledge to comprehend. There is a strong polemic in each chapter and most contributors appear to knock down a specific opponent to definite atonement.
From my perspective, it is written with clarity, acumen, and boldness. For example, Piper exposes the flawed understanding of the atonement that is propounded by Mark Driscoll of the Mars Hill Church, Seattle. It never ceases to amaze me that British evangelicals can be captivated by popular speakers such as Driscoll, even when his theology carries such unreformed and unorthodox strands. I am persuaded that this book will stand the test of time and buttress the church to stand firm on the historic truths concerning the atonement. After reading these many pages, I sought refuge in the distilled sentences of the Westminster Confession concerning this subject: “To all those for whom Christ has purchased redemption, He does certainly and effectually apply and communicate the same ... revealing unto them, in and by the Word, the mysteries of salvation ... 8:8”.
This book is a landmark contribution to settle the issues surrounding particular redemption. Ever since the Arminian and Synod of Dort firestorm of debate concerning the extent and intent of the atonement of Christ Jesus, discussion has rumbled on. And rightly so in many respects, because every new generation needs to understand the truths of Scripture for themselves.
A foreword by J. I. Packer sets the “ball rolling” and twenty three chapters and 703 pages follow (including indices). It is fitting that Packer writes the foreword because he also wrote the contemporary foreword for the seventeenth century classic on the same subject by John Owen, “The Death of Death in the Death of Christ”. This new book is written to engage in all the debates that have ensued since Owen’s thesis was let loose on the theological world several centuries ago.
The editors have involved erudite reformed scholars and the list of contributors is indeed impressive. Men such as Carl Trueman, J. Alec Motyer, Sinclair Ferguson and John Piper. Motyer’s chapter is perhaps my favorite and it is a comprehensive exposition of the Servant Song in Isaiah 52-53 entitled “Stricken for the Transgression of my People”; he anchors definite atonement in the biblical text in a way that is refreshing.
There are some common threads throughout this book, one which is arranged around four loci: Definite Atonement in Church History; Definite Atonement in the Bible; Definite Atonement in Theological Perspective; and Definite Atonement in Pastoral Practice. The common approach includes a preference for the term definite atonement instead of limited atonement or particular redemption. Additionally, most contributors are writing as academic theologians, and their style maybe such, that it may be too dense for many to have the time or background knowledge to comprehend. There is a strong polemic in each chapter and most contributors appear to knock down a specific opponent to definite atonement.
From my perspective, it is written with clarity, acumen, and boldness. For example, Piper exposes the flawed understanding of the atonement that is propounded by Mark Driscoll of the Mars Hill Church, Seattle. It never ceases to amaze me that British evangelicals can be captivated by popular speakers such as Driscoll, even when his theology carries such unreformed and unorthodox strands. I am persuaded that this book will stand the test of time and buttress the church to stand firm on the historic truths concerning the atonement. After reading these many pages, I sought refuge in the distilled sentences of the Westminster Confession concerning this subject: “To all those for whom Christ has purchased redemption, He does certainly and effectually apply and communicate the same ... revealing unto them, in and by the Word, the mysteries of salvation ... 8:8”.
Saturday, 7 June 2014
What is replacement theology?
This blog post has arisen to attempt to answer some proponents of Christian zionism. I am well aware that my answer will be far too short and inadequate to offer a full treatment of this subject, but hopefully it will offer some lines of thought for consideration. Many years ago I visited the Yad Vashem holocaust memorial in Jerusalem, which I found deeply moving. As a Christian I have always been touched by the needs of the downcast and also for the ancient people, the Jews. After all, according to the flesh our Saviour was born a Jew and Romans 9:1-5 is clear: Paul writes: "I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit—that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen".
However, at that memorial site, I mused the reason for the Jewish suffering at the hands of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis. The holocaust began with Hitler's "Mein Kampf" (My Struggle) which was Hitler's autobiographical manifesto which shaped his political ideology. This book led to the formulating of the Nazi vision, which led to the Holocaust and other unspeakable sufferings. In short, Hitler had the wrong doctrine, which led to the wrong vision, which led to disaster. We as Christians cannot assume that our doctrine is in accord with sound principles of biblical interpretation. It made me think that I had also better make sure that I held to the right biblical doctrine, because this will shape my vision in Christian service. Paul wrote to the Thessalonians in 1 Thess. 5:21-22 "but test everything; hold fast what is good. Abstain from every form of evil".
My first appeal in any theological engagement is that we must all do this with humility, with teachability and honesty. I am about to critique opponents of a so called "replacement theology" and it is not uncommon to get a strong reaction when you do so. My question is "why is that?". We need to make sure that when we react, that we do so with fruit of the Holy Spirit and not in the flesh; my experience over the years has taught me that sometimes vociferous opponents are trying to convince themselves, as much as others, because their doctrinal footing is unstable.
Let me attempt to give an initial and brief summary of replacement theology. This term replacement theology is a pejorative term or label used by those Christians who hold to a dispensationalist framework to understand the Bible, against those who do not hold to the same ideas as them, especially in relation to a special "supposed" plan for the Jews and the political state of Israel. The phrase "supersessionism" is another term used to identify this doctrine. It would be asserted that those who hold to a replacement theology teach that the church has replaced Israel with the church and that the state of Israel has no place in God's prophetic purposes. While this would be simplistic, it at least opens up the dialogue.
Those Christian groups that hold to a strong value system to support the Jews, the State of Israel and so forth, commonly hold to a dispensationalist approach to the Bible, one that is pre-millenial and almost always an Arminian understanding of salvation. Those that hold to the supposed "replacement theology" generally speaking hold to a reformed, Calvinistic and covenantal approach to theology, one that takes sound doctrine and biblical exegesis very seriously. I write supposed "replacement theology", because I do not think that this term is sufficient in its assertions. In essence we are considering two very different hermeneutics to interpreting the Bible. Our doctrine shapes our vision, which then motivates our mission, which will be either be faithful or unfaithful to the Lord Jesus Christ, who is the head of the church (Ephesians 1:22-23).
I have several questions to begin with, followed by three book recommendations.
1). Is a dispensational view to the Bible valid? This approach was pioneered by John Nelson Darby in the 19th Century and this approach to biblical interpretation is a relative newcomer on the block. Has the church misunderstood the Bible through centuries until the 19th Century and Darby's new ideas? This is not acceptable in my view.
2). Does God have one people or two? My answer is that the Lord has only ever had one people, the people of God. The church has not so much replaced the Jews, but the purpose of God has expanded in its scope beyond the Jews, following the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
3). Does a dispensational framework hold to a form of replacement theology itself? Why do I say that? In my experience, the dispensational zeal for the Jews, in effect ends up replacing the church with a new found vision for the state of Israel, a political theology, and at times a recovery of the Jewish OT ceremonies, feasts and practices.
Here are three book recommendations for those who would like to explore a different viewpoint to the widely assumed dispensationalist opinion.
1). William Hendriksen "More than Conquerors: An Interpretation of the Book of Revelation".
2). O. Palmer Robertson, "The Christ of the Covenants".
3). D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, "Romans 2:1-3:20, The Righteous Judgment of God".
However, at that memorial site, I mused the reason for the Jewish suffering at the hands of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis. The holocaust began with Hitler's "Mein Kampf" (My Struggle) which was Hitler's autobiographical manifesto which shaped his political ideology. This book led to the formulating of the Nazi vision, which led to the Holocaust and other unspeakable sufferings. In short, Hitler had the wrong doctrine, which led to the wrong vision, which led to disaster. We as Christians cannot assume that our doctrine is in accord with sound principles of biblical interpretation. It made me think that I had also better make sure that I held to the right biblical doctrine, because this will shape my vision in Christian service. Paul wrote to the Thessalonians in 1 Thess. 5:21-22 "but test everything; hold fast what is good. Abstain from every form of evil".
My first appeal in any theological engagement is that we must all do this with humility, with teachability and honesty. I am about to critique opponents of a so called "replacement theology" and it is not uncommon to get a strong reaction when you do so. My question is "why is that?". We need to make sure that when we react, that we do so with fruit of the Holy Spirit and not in the flesh; my experience over the years has taught me that sometimes vociferous opponents are trying to convince themselves, as much as others, because their doctrinal footing is unstable.
Let me attempt to give an initial and brief summary of replacement theology. This term replacement theology is a pejorative term or label used by those Christians who hold to a dispensationalist framework to understand the Bible, against those who do not hold to the same ideas as them, especially in relation to a special "supposed" plan for the Jews and the political state of Israel. The phrase "supersessionism" is another term used to identify this doctrine. It would be asserted that those who hold to a replacement theology teach that the church has replaced Israel with the church and that the state of Israel has no place in God's prophetic purposes. While this would be simplistic, it at least opens up the dialogue.
Those Christian groups that hold to a strong value system to support the Jews, the State of Israel and so forth, commonly hold to a dispensationalist approach to the Bible, one that is pre-millenial and almost always an Arminian understanding of salvation. Those that hold to the supposed "replacement theology" generally speaking hold to a reformed, Calvinistic and covenantal approach to theology, one that takes sound doctrine and biblical exegesis very seriously. I write supposed "replacement theology", because I do not think that this term is sufficient in its assertions. In essence we are considering two very different hermeneutics to interpreting the Bible. Our doctrine shapes our vision, which then motivates our mission, which will be either be faithful or unfaithful to the Lord Jesus Christ, who is the head of the church (Ephesians 1:22-23).
I have several questions to begin with, followed by three book recommendations.
1). Is a dispensational view to the Bible valid? This approach was pioneered by John Nelson Darby in the 19th Century and this approach to biblical interpretation is a relative newcomer on the block. Has the church misunderstood the Bible through centuries until the 19th Century and Darby's new ideas? This is not acceptable in my view.
2). Does God have one people or two? My answer is that the Lord has only ever had one people, the people of God. The church has not so much replaced the Jews, but the purpose of God has expanded in its scope beyond the Jews, following the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
3). Does a dispensational framework hold to a form of replacement theology itself? Why do I say that? In my experience, the dispensational zeal for the Jews, in effect ends up replacing the church with a new found vision for the state of Israel, a political theology, and at times a recovery of the Jewish OT ceremonies, feasts and practices.
Here are three book recommendations for those who would like to explore a different viewpoint to the widely assumed dispensationalist opinion.
1). William Hendriksen "More than Conquerors: An Interpretation of the Book of Revelation".
2). O. Palmer Robertson, "The Christ of the Covenants".
3). D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, "Romans 2:1-3:20, The Righteous Judgment of God".
Monday, 2 June 2014
The Falsity of Mormonism
It is important to warn people of false religious cults. Quite often in the reformed world we discuss, and rightly, the nuanced differences of fine points of doctrine. This is important because precision is needful when handling the Scriptures in the Christian Church. However, no matter what their claims, the Church of Latter Day Saints or the Mormons as they are commonly labelled are not part of the communion of Christian churches. I will explain why in a moment.
It is astonishing that many conservative Christians in the United States were willing to support a Mormon Republican candidate (Mitt Romney) for the White House in the presidential elections in 2012. God in his all wise providence prevented this from happening and for this I thank God. I think most American Christians and preachers give far too few warnings concerning the falsity of Mormonism. It is an American based religion that has missionary endeavours and yet there is so much wrong with them despite their apparent "clean-cut" image.
What is wrong and false about the Mormon religion?
1. The first thing is one of authority. The Book of Mormon has greater authority in their eyes than the Holy Bible. Jesus warned of this in Matthew 24:4-5 And Jesus answered them: “See that no one leads you astray. For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and they will lead many astray". The Lord Jesus Christ was the last prophet to bring the final revelation from God and yet the Mormons claim that in the early part of the 19th Century that Joseph Smith had heavenly visions. This included the discovery of golden plates which apparently included the history of the American inhabitants, including a visit by Jesus Christ. This became the Book of Mormon. The unfortunate thing is that these gold plates do not exist. So here is the first false premise. Unbiblical revelations outside of the Scriptures, ones which contradict the truth of the Bible.
2. The denial of basic Christian doctrines. The doctrine of the Trinity is held by all orthodox branches of the Christian church but it is not held by the Mormons. This is common of all cults and sects which also includes the Muslims and Jehovah's Witnesses who deny the truth that God is Triune and the full deity of Jesus Christ. The Westminster Shorter Catechism states succinctly:
Question. 6. How many persons are there in the Godhead?
Answer. There are three persons in the Godhead: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory.
The Athanasian Creed expounds the orthodox Christian understanding of the doctrine of God and of the Trinity and it concludes that: "This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved". Therefore, the Mormon denial of the Trinity means that there is no salvation within their walls and they are an utterly false church.
3. They unfortunately come under the guise of truth by falsely using the word "church" in their title as well as the name "Jesus Christ". The question is "does the Mormon understanding of Jesus Christ measure up to the biblical teaching of the person of Jesus Christ?". If you have visited the temple in Salt Lake City you will be struck by the Mormon love of pictures of a white and blonde haired Jesus. Despite the fact the Scriptures forbid us to have images of God, they seem to relish in their portrayals of a white American Jesus. They are not a church founded on the rock of Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God, who is begotten by the Father, not created and co-equal with the Father and the Holy Spirit.
4. Mormonism is an American skewed religion. They believe that Jesus will come back to North America and that he will set up his earthly kingdom in America. There is a common problem when investigating this religion and it is finding out what Mormons really believe because they are not always that clear. It is almost a deliberate vagueness to confuse and mislead people. Their official website will cite the Book of Mormon as authoritative material, not to explain the Scriptures, such as Christian Creeds or Confessions, but as primary source material.
Here is a link of a book to expose the falsity of Mormonism in more detail: http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0801063353/ref=pe_385721_37986871_TE_item_image
For online resources check out this website: Mormonism Research Ministry: http://www.mrm.org/about
If you are interested in hearing the gospel, or if you are a Mormon and you live in England and yet you are thirsty for the true historic gospel of God, then you are welcome to come and worship at Sheffield Presbyterian Church: www.sheffieldpres.org.uk
It is astonishing that many conservative Christians in the United States were willing to support a Mormon Republican candidate (Mitt Romney) for the White House in the presidential elections in 2012. God in his all wise providence prevented this from happening and for this I thank God. I think most American Christians and preachers give far too few warnings concerning the falsity of Mormonism. It is an American based religion that has missionary endeavours and yet there is so much wrong with them despite their apparent "clean-cut" image.
What is wrong and false about the Mormon religion?
1. The first thing is one of authority. The Book of Mormon has greater authority in their eyes than the Holy Bible. Jesus warned of this in Matthew 24:4-5 And Jesus answered them: “See that no one leads you astray. For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and they will lead many astray". The Lord Jesus Christ was the last prophet to bring the final revelation from God and yet the Mormons claim that in the early part of the 19th Century that Joseph Smith had heavenly visions. This included the discovery of golden plates which apparently included the history of the American inhabitants, including a visit by Jesus Christ. This became the Book of Mormon. The unfortunate thing is that these gold plates do not exist. So here is the first false premise. Unbiblical revelations outside of the Scriptures, ones which contradict the truth of the Bible.
2. The denial of basic Christian doctrines. The doctrine of the Trinity is held by all orthodox branches of the Christian church but it is not held by the Mormons. This is common of all cults and sects which also includes the Muslims and Jehovah's Witnesses who deny the truth that God is Triune and the full deity of Jesus Christ. The Westminster Shorter Catechism states succinctly:
Question. 6. How many persons are there in the Godhead?
Answer. There are three persons in the Godhead: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory.
The Athanasian Creed expounds the orthodox Christian understanding of the doctrine of God and of the Trinity and it concludes that: "This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved". Therefore, the Mormon denial of the Trinity means that there is no salvation within their walls and they are an utterly false church.
3. They unfortunately come under the guise of truth by falsely using the word "church" in their title as well as the name "Jesus Christ". The question is "does the Mormon understanding of Jesus Christ measure up to the biblical teaching of the person of Jesus Christ?". If you have visited the temple in Salt Lake City you will be struck by the Mormon love of pictures of a white and blonde haired Jesus. Despite the fact the Scriptures forbid us to have images of God, they seem to relish in their portrayals of a white American Jesus. They are not a church founded on the rock of Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God, who is begotten by the Father, not created and co-equal with the Father and the Holy Spirit.
4. Mormonism is an American skewed religion. They believe that Jesus will come back to North America and that he will set up his earthly kingdom in America. There is a common problem when investigating this religion and it is finding out what Mormons really believe because they are not always that clear. It is almost a deliberate vagueness to confuse and mislead people. Their official website will cite the Book of Mormon as authoritative material, not to explain the Scriptures, such as Christian Creeds or Confessions, but as primary source material.
Here is a link of a book to expose the falsity of Mormonism in more detail: http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0801063353/ref=pe_385721_37986871_TE_item_image
For online resources check out this website: Mormonism Research Ministry: http://www.mrm.org/about
If you are interested in hearing the gospel, or if you are a Mormon and you live in England and yet you are thirsty for the true historic gospel of God, then you are welcome to come and worship at Sheffield Presbyterian Church: www.sheffieldpres.org.uk
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)