Brian McLaren and the Clarity of Scripture (Part 1)
December 18th, 2006
(By John MacArthur)
This article is adapted from the Fall issue of The Master’s Seminary Journal. The full text of this article can be read by obtaining a copy of the journal.
The doctrine of the clarity (or perspicuity) of Scripture (that the central message of the Bible is clear and understandable, and that the Bible itself can be properly interpreted in a normal, literal sense) has been a cornerstone of evangelical belief ever since the Reformation.
The dominant Roman Catholic idea had been that the Bible was obscure and difficult to understand. But the Reformers disagreed, arguing instead that anyone who could read could understand biblical teaching. Rather than limiting biblical interpretation to the clergy or the Magisterium, the Reformers encouraged lay Christians to study and interpret God’s Word on their own. All of this was premised on the Reformed belief that the Bible itself was inherently clear, and that God had been able to communicate His message to men in an understandable fashion. As Luther explained to Erasmus:
But, if many things still remain abstruse to many, this does not arise from obscurity in the Scriptures, but from [our] own blindness or want [i.e. lack] of understanding, who do not go the way to see the all-perfect clearness of truth…. Let, therefore, wretched men cease to impute, with blasphemous perverseness, the darkness and obscurity of their own heart to the all-clear scriptures of God…. If you speak of the internal clearness, no man sees one iota in the Scriptures but he that hath the Spirit of God…. If you speak of the external clearness, nothing whatever is left obscure or ambiguous; but all things that are in the Scriptures, are by the Word brought forth into the clearest light, and proclaimed to the whole world. (Bondage of the Will, 25-29)
While such an understanding, as Luther openly admits, did not demand complete agreement among Protestants on every secondary doctrine, it did establish an important principle: That the Word of God was revealed in an understandable way, that its central message is clear, and that (because it is clear) all men are fully accountable to its message.
In contrast to this, the teachings of Brian McLaren (and others of his Emergent persuasion) directly assault the doctrine of biblical clarity. Instead of promoting a settled confidence in the fact that the Bible can be understood, McLaren does just the opposite. And he does so in at least five important ways.
1. McLaren and Doctrinal Uncertainty
First, McLaren undermines the clarity of Scripture by denying that biblical doctrine can be held with any degree of certainty. Certainty, of course, comes from clarity. Where there is no clarity, there is no certainty. And vice versa.
For the Reformers, it was because the Bible was clear that they were certain about its central message. But not so for McLaren, who says: “Certainty is overrated . . . History teaches us that a lot of people thought they were certain and we found out they weren’t.” And in another place:
When we talk about the word ‘faith’ and the word ‘certainty,’ we’ve got a whole lot of problems there. What do we mean by ‘certainty’? . . . Certainty can be dangerous. What we need is a proper confidence that’s always seeking the truth and that’s seeking to live in the way God wants us to live, but that also has the proper degree of self-critical and self-questioning passion.
In A Generous Orthodoxy, McLaren even makes it a point to champion ambiguity. He writes,
A warning: as in most of my other books, there are places here where I have gone out of my way to be provocative, mischievous, and unclear, reflecting my belief that clarity is sometimes overrated, and that shock, obscurity, playfulness, and intrigue (carefully articulated) often stimulate more thought than clarity. (pp. 22-23)
So it comes as no surprise, then, when he readily admits that he is not even sure if what he is espousing is correct.
If I seem to show too little respect for your opinions or thought, be assured I have equal doubts about my own, and I don’t mind if you think I’m wrong. I’m sure I am wrong about many things, although I’m not sure exactly which things I’m wrong about. I’m even sure I’m wrong about what I think I’m right about in at least some cases. So wherever you think I’m wrong, you could be right. If, in the process of determining that I’m wrong, you are stimulated to think more deeply and broadly, I hope that I will have somehow served you anyway. (Ibid., 19-20)
For McLaren, benefit comes not from being right, but from dialoguing with those of all different viewpoints. Thus, there is great reward in always pursuing but never finally arriving at truth. Correctness in doctrine is something that cannot be attained—at least not with any degree of certainty. In McLaren’s words, “The achievement of ‘right thinking’ therefore recedes, happily, farther beyond our grasp the more we pursue it. As it eludes us, we are strangely rewarded: we feel gratitude and love, humility and wonder, reverence and awe, adventure and homecoming” (Generous Orthodoxy, 296). In his view, Christians “must be open to the perpetual possibility that our received understandings of the gospel may be faulty, imbalanced, poorly nuanced, or downright warped and twisted . . . [and must] continually expect to rediscover the gospel” (Ibid., 261).
McLaren rightly anticipates the fact that theological conservatives will find such an approach to biblical doctrine unacceptable.
If, for you, orthodox means finally “getting it right” or “getting it straight,” mine is a pretty disappointing, curvy orthodoxy. But if, for you, orthodoxy isn’t a list of correct doctrines, but rather the doxa in orthodoxy means “thinking” or “opinion,” then the lifelong pursuit of expanding thinking and deepening, broadening opinions about God sounds like a delight, a joy. (Ibid., 293–94)
By reducing biblical doctrines to “opinions,” McLaren denies both Scripture’s clarity and its authority. Because the Bible is unclear, the chorus of divergent interpretations are all granted equal validity. This means, then, that the authority of any one viewpoint (as that which is correct) vanishes, since all sides are equally reduced to nothing more than personal opinion.
(Part 2 to come tomorrow)
I don’t believe this style of ECM will have any purchase with the great majority people. We are hard wired for truth seeking, despite what the academics of pomo profess. God made us this way, so the sort of sly avoidance of people like McLaren eventually will prove more frustrating than illuminating.
“The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know. But the man who loves God is known by God.” God does the knowing, and we love him.
Almost everybody thinks they know a lot more than they really do. “The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know.” What I think I know only puffs me up. “Knowing” with the absolute certainty some people have is, in my humble opinion (!), a vaporous illusion. In fact, Paul seems to believe that “knowing” is not our business, “knowing” is God’s business. Our business is to love him and, according to the Son of God, the people around us.
When we are convinced of the truth of our position, that we “know” we’re right in our exegesis, then we use the Scripture as a weapon against one another. Paul warns us, “If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destoyed by eah other.” (Galatians 5:15)
Look at who is attracted to the thread titled, “Why Fight for Truth?” The posters there end up attacking James Dobson, Billy Graham, Greg Laurie, and John MacArthur himself. And the thread titled, “The Time for Truth” quickly devolved into a debate over Creationism.
*sigh*
Some one of you reading this is more concerned about being “right” than being loving. All of the Law and the Prophets is summed up in *love.* Period. Without love all your “sound doctrine” is just a menstrual rag (lit. Gk).
If this applies to you, you already know it. If it doesn’t, then relax.
“The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know. But the man who loves God is known by God.”
23 “Thus says the LORD, ‘Let not a wise man boast of his wisdom, and let not the mighty man boast of his might, let not a rich man boast of his riches; 24 but let him who boasts (H)boast of this, that he understands and knows Me, that I am the LORD who exercises lovingkindness, justice and righteousness on earth; for I delight in these things,’ declares the LORD. (Jeremiah 9:23-24)
“and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” (John 8:32)
3 “This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent…17 “Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth.” (John 17:3,17)
I have got to go with the Lord on this one…
Just reading the Whyte Stonne comment, certainly does illustrate MacArthur’s point. I went away asking myself as I would Stonne, “How do you know love and knowing are either/or.” Seems the example of Jesus, as the mentoring of the prophets of the OT, Apostles of the NT and the early church, along with the vast historical tradition of Christian theology, would with broken heart challenge such a either/or conclusion. A humble knowing something God has sought to clearly communicate to us, while at the same time pursuing love to others is the template for all of us. Yes, knowledge can “puff up” but that doesn’t mean we deny certainty - we just keep our humble perspective. It is not simplistically either/or but both/and.
There is the simplicit of the Bible, and there is the obscureness of the deep things. But even the deep things we can understand, if we are not lazy, and dig a little.
McLaren is dangerous, because he is such a gentle kind of a guy.
He seems to have more confidence in thinking “I am a loving person, and if I don’t understand the Bible, that’s OK, because I care about people”.
This is very deceptive.
The Scriptures rule. The whole counsel of the Holy Writ, not just portions drawn out to make a point.
Whyte,
Here’s some more Scripture for you:
” Love … rejoices in the truth”
“My people are destroyed for a lack of knowledge: because you have rejected knowledge, I will also reject you” Hosea 4:6
“Teaching them to observe all things”
“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness”
“But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.”
And there are many, many more verses that encourage us to have knowledge.
“Man does not live by bread alone, but by every Word that proceeds from the mouth of God”.
Whyte Stonne,
You said: “Look at who is attracted to the thread titled, “Why Fight for Truth?””
Did it ever occur to you that contending for the Truth is a biblical concept? (Not just “loving everybody”) Did you know we are COMMANDED to contend for the truth so that we may be approved? 1 Cor 11:19 “For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you.”
The posters you accuse as being unloving (”attacked” was your word) might have legitimate truth concerns that could be of great concern to them, the leaders, and the body of Christ. How do you know, it’s not OUT OF LOVE that hard issues must be confonted in the body. I do not know the true status of the issues raised and hopefully they are being prayerfully considered in light of Biblical admonition, but I hope you don’t think that leaders are above being challenged or corrected (so long as it’s not done hypocritically). If, for the sake of “love and unity” we reliquish all truth claims, as you seem to suggest, then our faith becomes a vacuum. One might as well become a Buddhist in that case.
My fear is that because of the public education system today, his message might have far more resonance than many of us would believe. Os Guinness (in “Time for Truth”) recounted a college teacher’s surprise that after many years of assigning “The Lottery” to her class and then discussing it, that eventually no one questioned the premise of human sacrifice.
“Knowing” with the absolute certainty some people have is, in my humble opinion (!), a vaporous illusion.”
whyte, I know for certain that God almighty has revealed Himself in these last days in His Son, Christ Jesus, who is the complete fullness of His glory.
I know for certain that when He says,”If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.” that He said it clearly, and I understand Him, and that it does not make me proud to understand Him, but humbled, because though my flesh seems to comply, my heart has broken His commands.
I am also certain that I am no longer a slave to sin, even in my heart, because sin and death have been defeated, and God himself is working in my life to bring me to maturity.
I am also certain that Christ Jesus is God, is the Son of God, and is both King of Kings, and Lord of Lords. Every fiber in my body wants to exalt Him. Every sound in my throat wants to praise Him, to preach Him crucified, and to exalt the works of His hands. Even if I were to be cast into hell for my sinfulness, I would still exalt this Lord Christ Jesus because He is who He is.
I do not know these things because I am smart. I do not know these things because I have studied. I know these things because God has revealed Himself to those whom He foreknew, and not because anyone was worthy, or even deserving, lest any man boast, but because He is Holy, and is glorified in both salvation and judgment.
“Some one of you reading this is more concerned about being “right” than being loving. All of the Law and the Prophets is summed up in *love.* Period. Without love all your “sound doctrine” is just a menstrual rag”
I suppose statistically you could say this anytime, anywhere, and probably be right. Most are sinners worrying about being right. Regardless, Christ is a savior and redeemer for sinners such as these, and one thing we want to be right about is whom we serve.
Do you, whyte, presume to know that love and truth do not go hand in hand? I say love pushes us to declare to the blind man, “you are about to step off a cliff”. Love is more than an external showing with smiles and hugs.
I think these articles on postmodernism and the emergent church are very civil and loving.
Whyte Stonne,
With all due respect, we are humbled to learn that you know that you have it right and we are privileged to learn from one as wise and as humble as you… And you don’t even need the Scriptures to be wise.
*sigh*
Somehow we, like many before us , foolishly put our trust in stuff like this…
Psalm 19:7-8 7 The law of the LORD is perfect, restoring the soul; The testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. 8 The precepts of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart; The commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes.
Psalm 119:99-100 99 I have more insight than all my teachers, For Thy testimonies are my meditation. 100 I understand more than the aged, Because I have observed Thy precepts.
After all who can really understand the Scriptures? After all, what did Paul “know?”
1 Corinthians 15:1-19 Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. 3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; 7 then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; 8 and last of all, as it were to one untimely born, He appeared to me also. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, who am not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me did not prove vain; but I labored even more than all of them, yet not I, but the grace of God with me. 11 Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed. 12 Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; 14 and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. 15 Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we witnessed against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; 17 and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.
*sigh*
After all who really knows what “Christ” means? Who really knows what the “resurrection” was? Perhaps its a metaphor for enlightenment? Maybe it was spiritual? Maybe it was allegorical. Tell you what. Let’s recite some creeds burn some candles during a church service and dialogue with Satan… he knows… But maybe we can first allow Satan to belong… then maybe he’ll become… How do we know he was wrong to say, “has God really said?” I mean the Scriptures seem to say so…but perhaps it was a legitimate question and he’s been misunderstood all these years.
Who knows? Whyte Stonne, who knows what the meaning of “is” is… or what is the sign of one hand clapping?
Whyte Stonne—maybe You can inform God about His short sightedness… After all, as the Sovereign Creator of the universe who intended to record His will for those who He created, by your logic He has done a rather incompetent job.
Apparently, the god of your understanding lacks sufficient intellectual competency to clearly communicate with those He holds accountable for understanding His Scriptures. Alas, most likely He was unable to clearly preserve His thoughts over time, being confounded by men.
*sigh*
Furthermore, your god has failed to anticipate the changes in culture, vocabulary, and declining intellect, despite his own omniscence and omnipotence since we really can’t be too sure what He unsuccessfully attempted to communicate.
Maybe he didn’t intend for us to take his word too seriously but to be mischievous and playful because he’s decided everybody’s going to heaven anyway…and has waited til now to reveal it through the whimsical writings of McClaren.
But you know…while you may attempt to suppress the truth of the clarity of His Scriptures (which He says makes wise the simple—i.e. clear enough for a simple person to understand) He has spoken. He has spoken clearly… don’t fall into the trap of pretending otherwise.
Maybe you’d like to spend some time in Jude’s epistle. What does it say to you?
Jude 1:3-4 3 Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. 4 For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.
Grace to you,
Keith Crosby
Green Bay, Wisconsin
Dear Dr. MacArthur, this is exactly why Brian McLaren and the ECM is able to deceive both Shepherd and sheep.
Psalm 1 says the blessed man does not walk in the counsel of the wicked, stand in the path of sinners, sit in the seat of scoffers. Those who follow Brian and his emergent cult are those sitting in the seat of scoffers. The ECM does not delight in the law of the Lord, they are out to deconstruct and destroy the very foundation of our faith and that begings with an assault on the Word of God…Is this not what took place in that garden, with Satan planting doubts about the Word of God. As we research and monitor the ECM daily, we are still amazed that intelligent, so-called men and women and God could entertain anything that comes out of the mouth of Brian McLaren, with his double-speak and ridiculous riddles/parables he uses to disguise and deceive and to dance around answering straight-forward questions. Psalm 11, says, “If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?”
Thank you for speaking out and exposing this dangerous movement and its leaders. We must remember God is on His throne and my husband reminds me, that Christ will build “His Church” and the gates of hell will not prevail..
Keith…
I was thinking the same think as you (except much less eloquently) when I read Whyte Stonne’s response to this article–it is loaded with epistemological inconsistencies.
I found it ironic that he was so convinced he was right. In fact, his tone modeled his criticism toward us: “What I think I know only puffs me up.”
I also found it ironic that he cited Scripture when he apparently is coming to the defense of McLaren’s belief in the obscurity of Scripture. If “knowing is God’s business”, then he shouldn’t demonstrate his apparent superior knowledge of God’s Word. In fact, he shouldn’t even read it, for he just might learn something of God–and that’s none of his business.
Keith, Steven and Sandra:
Amen!
Whyte Stone:
So, if I *think* I know something but don’t, how do I know?
You *think* you know something, and have voiced it. How do you know?
Tim
As I’ve read all of these posts on the Emerging/Emergent whatchamacallit I keep thinking of the men Paul was talking about in 2 Timothy 3:7 who were “always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.”
Blind man’s bluff anyone?
Josh
“…the word of God is not bound.”
–2 Timothy 2:9
Let’s see . . . people who “claimed to know the Truth” and who “contended earnestly for the Faith”– J. Gresham Machen; B.B. Warfield; Charles H. Spurgeon; Jonathan Edwards; the Puritains; the Reformers; Augustine; Jude; Paul; Jeremiah & Isaiah. Each of these “named names” and did so out of a love for the Truth and the “saints.”
The “false dichotomy” of love vs truth is just that, false; several comments above have attempted to show that. Also false is the pseudo-humility of those who say “we can’t know,” “don’t need to know,” “God doesn’t expect us to know, just love” and similar ideas/statements. The one making such claims is himself making a knowledge claim!
Consider Deut 29:29; 1 John 5:13; God expects us to know, from His Word, through the illumination of the Holy Spirit (see Calvin, Insitutues, I, v-vii).
The whole idea that language cannot be understood by the average human being is absurd on its face. We all operate every day on the assumption that the written word is clear at least in certain, perhaps most cases. A few examples suffice: the crosswalk sign, labels on packaged food, a Betty Crocker recipe, Webster’s dictionary, a good novel, etc. It seems that the only writing that is constantly questioned is the Bible.
The point is that God, understanding perfectly both the advantages and limitations of the written Word chose to record His will for us in written form, knowing the fogginess sin places upon our understanding. That being the case, we can assume that we will be able to understand enough of His Word to find salvation or be held accountable for rejecting it.
And this is exactly what the Scripture says! (2 Tim 3:14-17)
God has not only given us His written Word so we can know Him, He has given to the believer His Holy Spirit who brings us the understanding. It seems to me these are great advantages that ought to help us understand the main issues!
Perhaps what’s at the root of this “conversation” about the clarity of Scripture by some (not all) in the ECM is a desire to find an excuse to disregard some of what it teaches.
Blessings,
Steve
Whyte Stonne;
If we are just to love and not ‘Know’ why would Christ sum up eternal life with these words of His prayer to the Father John 17:3 “This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.”
Seems to me that if you don’t ‘Know’ you will not ever ‘Love’ as you ought.
Terry
“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
I start with this assumption in all my posts.
Rev. Silva,
I’m glad that you would “boast” that you understand and know God, who exercises lovingkindness, justice and righteousness. And I “know” (asume) that you know God, and not just know about God. (Jer.9:23-24)
“and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” Jesus said, “I am the truth.” If you know Jesus, not just know about him, then Jesus will set you free.
“This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.” Again, I’m glad you know God, and that you know Jesus, and that you are not left like the demons, who know about God, know about Jesus, and tremble.
Rev. Silva, you said you “have got to go with the Lord on this one.”
Me too.
* * * * * * * *
Rev. Heck,
I never suggested that knowledge and love are an either/or proposition. They are, however, different. Paul distinguishes between them in the passage I first quoted, ““The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know. But the man who loves God is known by God.”
And of course there is I Corinthians 13:2, “If I…can fathom…all knowledge,…but have not love, I am nothing.”
But I know the limits of knowledge. I know that for me, knowledge is no guarantee that I will be a loving person, no guarantee that I will walk in the Spirit, no guarantee that I will seek to edify and build up by brothers and sisters in the Body of Christ.
I very much appreciate what you wrote, that humbly “knowing something God has sought to clearly communicate to us, while at the same time pursuing love to others is the template for all of us. Yes, knowledge can “puff up” but that doesn’t mean we deny certainty - we just keep our humble perspective. It is not simplistically either/or but both/and.” Amen.
It sounds like you would take a position of “humble certainty.” It also sounds like you think this is how Paul’s comments (“The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know. But the man who loves God is known by God.”) are heeded.
How would two Christian pastors characterized by humble certainty get along? For example, Brian MacLaren and yourself? It seems like that should be do-able.
* * * * * * * *
donsands, I obviously have misrepresented myself. I LOVE knowledge! The Proverbs say, in many ways, that only a FOOL despises knowledge.
You quoted Jesus, “Man does not live by bread alone, but by every Word proceeds from the mouth of God.” I agree. EVERY word.
There are many words, or themes, in the Bible which are almost totally ignored among evangelicals.
Most evangelical and Reformed congregations are suffering from a Scriptural diet deficient in justice, mystical union with Christ, Spirituality, and love.
And because of this, God’s “people are destroyed for a lack of knowledge: because you have rejected knowledge, I will also reject you.”
* * * * * * * *
Sandra, yes, it has occured to me that contending for the Truth is a biblical concept? I’m not sure what in my post suggested to you that I wouldn’t be.
Sandra, if you’ll read Keith Crosby’s post, you’ll notice a strong element of sarcasm. Sarcasm is a natural form of speaking, and usually we understand it.
Paul was emphatically criticizing the Corinthian church for having so much division, so many factions. I am pretty sure he was being “sarcastic” when he wrote, “No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval.”
* * * * * * * *
Rev. Crosby, grace to you as well. May you be filled to overflowing with the love of Jesus Christ and with the Paraclete. I especially hope that God blesses your ministry there in Green Bay. I know that if my fingers feel frozen here in the Sun Belt, that your fingers must feel pretty cold, too.
* * * * * * * *
Brent, if I may, my comments above were based on Paul’s statement,“The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know. But the man who loves God is known by God.”
I have read nothing by McLaren. My comments had nothng to do with “McLaren’s belief in the obscurity of Scripture.” In another thread I have argued that some passages in Scripture do lack clarity. Scripture itself acknowledges this. Peter wrote that “Our brother Paul has written many things, some of which are difficult to understand correctly, and there are many people who misinterpret them and go astray.”
It seems apparent that many people here think I misinterpreted Paul in the passage above.
Brent, you wrote that “he shouldn’t demonstrate his apparent superior knowledge of God’s Word. . . he shouldn’t even read it, for he just might learn something of God–and that’s none of his business.”
Well, as I opened this post, the Scripture says that “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
* * * * * * * *
Tim, I enjoyed reading your testimony on your blog site. “I had no sense of personal sin and a need for a savior. I had “prayed the prayer” but there was no transformation. It was only after the Lord let me bottom out and see myself as a sinner ripe for judgement that I realized that I needed a savior. There was simply no other remedy. Paul told the Corinthians “Examine yourselves to see if you are in the faith.” If you profess to know the Lord, that is the best advice I can give you.”
How do I know? I am participating in a forum, or a thread, where we come to discuss the Scripture, postings by John MacArthur, and one another’s remarks.
I try to reason from the Scriptures to the best of my ability. I know there are times I err. Rev. Heck responded very graciously with a position I characterized as “humble certainty.”
It should come as no surprise that I feel more comfortable with the “humble” part than the “certainty.” I spent my adolescent years in a GARB congregation, and I saw the vitriol and ugliness that seemed to flow out of “certainty.”
If you and others can be “certain” and not disregard the primacy which both Jesus and Paul place on love, then terrific!
I do repeat, “Without love all your “sound doctrine” is just a menstrual rag (lit. Gk).
If this applies to you, you already know it. If it doesn’t, then relax.”
I am almost fearful to say what I think to be true. When I have expressed even my limited knowledge on a subject, there have been some preachers who say, I am puffed up with knowledge, I say I know. When I say I am rather clear of the truth of my position, this is viewed
as puff up. Are we not responsible of preaching truth, with love? And on the other hand if I readily admit that I am not ready to admit I have the full unders- standing of the text I might be thought of “why is he preaching or teaching then.”
If McLaren declares he is unsure of a biblical doctrine is he saying the Scripture is unclear, or is he saying he is unclear?
When my comprehending of the clarity of Scripture falls short of clear understanding I would say that its my understanding has fallen short not the Scripture.
Charles
Funny, my husband and I have envisioned a debate or should I say “converstation” since we are talking Brian McLaren. I am almost positive Pastor Heck would have many problems with the theology of Brian McLaren and although it would be a civil, mature, intellegent dialog, those two in the end would find themselves at an impass, and incompatible. About 5 years ago, Pastor Heck was using terminology I was unfamiliar with, like postmoderism, and open theism. But, I remember him saying “stick this in your back pocket.” Some are just gifted to read the signs of the times and warn. You know I think of Peter saying remember, and I want to remind you, for later, so you can “pull it out of your back pocket” for a later date…
And as for “humble certainty”, that makes me think that I cautiously, with reservation, because I am not quite certain, that I know for sure, with certainty, that what I believe is true. I could be wrong, I am hoping I am not. That is ridiculous, where is the faith, where is the firm belief that what God says is TRUE, and I can count on it 100% without any doubt, with certainty that it is the For Sure Word of God and it’s ok to believe it with certainty? How could I trust His promises, or His prophecies? Having constant, unreconciled, unsurrendered, questions and doubts, seems very unstable and just where our enemy probably wants us to live..Jesus said the greatest commandment is to Love the Lord your God with all your heart,soul, mind, and strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself..Love and Knowledge, Love and Truth, they are not mutually exclusive..Love and discipline are not to be mutually exclusive…Jesus told the woman at the well, that God is to be worshipped in Spirit and Truth, they are not to be mutually exclusive…Confidence in the Lord and His Word and trusting it, and fully believing every word, does not necessarily mean I am “puffed up.” You can be doubtful, and uncertain, and be puffed up that your relativistic views are right. At some point in my walk I have to get past questioning God all the time, and gain some confidence, objectively moving away from a self focus and subjectivity to just believing God and what He says as true…Truth is truth whether we believe it or not..
Steven, I am in agreement with the spirit of everything you wrote. I could nit-pick with details, but I won’t. I have never argued against the general clarity (perpiscuity, as Rev. MacArthur and the theologians put it).
I grew up with a retarded sister, and I knew from a young age that whatever truth that was necessary for salvation had to be simple enough to be grasped by someone with a very low I.Q.
I would like to respond to the following comment: “It seems that the only writing that is constantly questioned is the Bible.”
My response is my opinion, not based on Scripture. I believe that the reason you hear so many voices questioning the Bible is because so many evangelical voices and Reformed voices argue for things like inerrancy, a literal six-day creation and the like, as though not believing in inerrancy or Creationism could keep a person out of heaven. (Yes, I admit it. I am not a Calvinist. But can I stay anyway?
)
Obviously there are more reasons than this, but this is part of the reason. I base my responses and arguments on the Scripture.
I know that Inerrancy and Creationism are part of a larger “System,” and that many Christians believe that the integrity of statements from Paul and the omniscience of the Son of God would be undermined without them, but I am not called to invest my intellect thusly.
Steven, I really, really like this paragraph:
“The point is that God, understanding perfectly both the advantages and limitations of the written Word chose to record His will for us in written form, knowing the fogginess sin places upon our understanding.”
I also like the following paragraph, although we might find points of disagreement applying the last sentence. Hopefully our disagreement would not be rancorous: “Love covers a multitude of sins.”
“God has not only given us His written Word so we can know Him, He has given to the believer His Holy Spirit who brings us the understanding. It seems to me these are great advantages that ought to help us understand the main issues!”
Charles,
Your question: “If McLaren declares he is unsure of a biblical doctrine is he saying the Scripture is unclear, or is he saying he is unclear?”
I’m still reading about this and have much more to learn about the ECM and it’s main promoters, but some of them will say the Scriptures are unclear because they assume that the written word (or even vebal communication) of any kind is unclear and therefore, no certainly can be attached to its intended meaning.
Others will say that God was clear in the recording of His Word, but that sin has so clouded our judgment that we cannot arrive with any certainty at what His intended meaning is. So it doesn’t matter anyway.
One is a denial of the sufficiency of Scripture the other a denial of its clarity. Either view seems to knock the legs out of the truth foundation of Christianity.
If I took either view, it would make it pretty hard to minister to people who ask hard questions about what course God wants them to take regarding an important issue of life.
Blessings,
Steve Lamm
Whyte, I have to admit I have had trouble following your arguments in whatever thread you have posted in. It is hard to understand your arguments,so I thought I might ask you to clarify something. Now, I know you might be tempted to make a lengthy post to clarify yourself, but that doesn’t help me. Could you read the entire article once more and try to specify what you don’t like about it. Boil it down to at least one major thing you disagree on. Thanks.
“There are many words, or themes, in the Bible which are almost totally ignored among evangelicals.
Perhaps, but has the author of the article, Dr. John Macarthur,almost totally ignored some themes or words in the Bible? Have the commentators?
“Most evangelical and Reformed congregations are suffering from a Scriptural diet deficient in justice, mystical union with Christ, Spirituality, and love.”
Thats a pretty bold generalization. “mystical union with Christ”? As a believer, I do have a union with Christ, and it is a mystery to behold. However, to say that most reformed and evangelical congregations spiritual diet is deficient in that union means they aren’t really believers. Thats a bold statement. Moreover, how is justice been neglected in your opinion? Spirituality? Love?
Do you really believe these things? What would your advice be to those reformed and evangelical congregations?
Dear Whyte,
I think most of who read this blog would agree with you that one ought to be humble about one’s interpretation of Scripture. Lot’s of us would agree that the modern evangelical church has been pretty deficient when it comes to obeying Christ’s commands to show mercy and love. But, to be fair, the evangelical (and fundamentalist) church has also shown God’s love in done some tremendous ways. Improveing on this is a discussion that eserves its own blog!
Sometimes we fight over things which clearly should not cause a fight. But, as the Apostles warned, there are some things we simply must “contend earnestly for” because not to do so, would be to give the church of Christ up to those “savage wolves” Paul warned us about in Acts 20. I admit that sometimes it takes considerable discernment to know what to fignt over and what not to. Sometimes I fail in this area.
My I ask you a couple of questions merely for understanding? What is your view of inspiration? In your opinion, do the Gospels take precedence over the Epistles?
Blessings,
Steve Lamm
Steve mentions: or comments about the EMC
“Others will say that God was clear in the recording of His Word, but that sin has so clouded our judgment that we cannot arrive with any certainty at what His intended meaning is. So it doesn’t matter anyway.”
“One is a denial of the sufficiency of Scripture the other a denial of its clarity. Either view seems
to knock the legs out of the truth foundation of Christianity. ”
Scripture is sufficiency for life and godliness. Scripture is without error, of course. Would you
say the understanding of Scripture is in your ability to comprehend how to interpret the Word?
Could one say “Scripture is unclear, therefore doctrine can not be held with certainly?.”
We should remember that the review of MacArthur’s book is with only a few quotes from the book, and thus a ull understanding of his point will be more clear as we read the whole book.
Of course if I had followed Doug Heck’s guideline to understand the Scripture, there would be more clarity of Scripture.
Charles
Is the point of the ECM that they want to say since Scripture is unclear thus the interpretation is
going to be unclear?
Charles
Well, if McClaren’s goal is to be unclear…he certainly (can I say that?) has achieved his goal. Of course a conversation that doesn’t move toward a conclusion isn’t really a conversation…it’s rambling. Why get in a conversation just for the sake of the conversation. It’s like Dr. Macarthur has said before, we live in a time when many emphasize not the destination, but the journey. What’s the point of a journey that doesn’t go anywhere, nor does it care to go anywhere. Those like McClaren think it is “being humble” to say they are so uncertain. This is actually the opposite of the truth. Jesus said, “You will know the truth and the truth will set you free” (John 8:32). The meaning is clear, we will KNOW the truth. Not participate in a perpetual conversation about the fact that you can’t be sure about truth.
Setting aside Bryan Mclaren for the moment ( he is not a serious theologian so why be obsessed with him?) what about the clarity of scripture and the Reformation? Luther and Calvin were responding to a long history of obfuscation within the RC church. Their emphasis on clarity of scripture should be viewed against this background. Luther and Calvin were not promoting “common sense realism”. Listening to the blogsphere uproar about the hermeneutics of Emerging/Emergent it appears that we have the valiant defenders of orthodoxy promoting a form of “common sense realism” against the post-Kantian epistemology of the self identified post-moderns.
I am a defender of ancient orthodoxy but I do not model my biblical exegesis after Charles Hodge or any of his latter day exegetical disciples. The impact of language theory over the last century has made the hermeneutics of Old Princeton no longer viable. Read anything by K.Vanhoozer on hermeneutics.
There is a lot more ambiguity in the biblical text than the valiant defenders of orthodoxy are willing to admit. We need to be honest about this or no one is going to take anything we say seriously.
Whyte,
You said: “Sandra, if you’ll read Keith Crosby’s post, you’ll notice a strong element of sarcasm. Sarcasm is a natural form of speaking, and usually we understand it.
Paul was emphatically criticizing the Corinthian church for having so much division, so many factions. I am pretty sure he was being “sarcastic” when he wrote, “No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval.””
I didn’t think I’d misunderstood 1 Cor 11:19 incorrectly, but for your sake I double checked my use of the verse with several commentaries: Wickliffe’s, Matthew Henry’s, and Barnes notes. All three are in agreement with the normal sense and interpretation that I used the verse. What Biblical authority are you relying on Whyte for your interpretation of “sarcasm”?
Terry, I think most people agree that “to know” has different meanings, and we need to try to figure out which meaning is meant in a particular passage, which is one reason it’s good to have several different Bible translations. When Bible translators translate from Greek to English, they often have to choose from as many as 8 or 10 English words that could be used to translate the one Greek word.
Let me use “know” in 3 or 4 different sentences. “I know my algebra.” “Adam knew Eve.” “Terry knows God.” “Jeff knows all about God.”
#1 is subject matter.
#2 is sex.
#3 is relationship.
#4 is subject matter.
A casual paraphrase might read, “This is eternal life, to have a relationship with the only true God, and with Jesus Christ who God sent.”
I believe that love is implicit in relational knowing especially in view of Adam and Eve.
What Jesus said is “information,” but it’s about a personal relationship. And no one here would say that knowing information *about* God will save you.
Pastor Charles,
I’d say you are describing a damned-if-you-do and damned-if-you-don’t situation. Someone will criticize no matter where you stand. Jesus said as much when he compared the criticism the Scribes and Pharisees made of himself and his cousin John the Baptist.
“You say he has a demon, and you call me a wine-bibber and a glutton. But wisdom is known by her actions.”
I can’t speak for the Emergent Church Movement. But I would say that the it’s the condemning, authoritarian, unreasoning spirit which frequently accompanies sermonic “certainty” that is objectionable. I certainly find it objectionable.
It’s fine when you’re preaching to the choir, rallying the troops, etc.
Do you remember the idea of having a “winsome personality”? I think that’s what we’re talking about in some ways.
About LOVE; It is true that without it, we are not complete Christians. However, the meaning of the word is thrown around so casually and carelessly by the Emergent movement that it’s so distorted it’s almost meaningless. Love everybody, hate nothing, goes the emergent Love Mantra as though Christ EVER said that. Group hug anybody? How bout some warm fuzzies to take the frost off? Sin? NO PROBLEM. We’ve got the cure! ….hang around us and we’ll just wink at it ;D …no meaness or judging from us, nosirreee. We love everybody (well almost).
I have to ask, is that the Bible’s definition of Love? Or does that sound more like Buddhism walking around in Christ’s mantle. Biblical Love is about Truth. Truth with ourselves, with our brothers, with our neighbors and most importantly with the God of Scripture. Only then will we find reconciliation, then love, then the warm fuzzies.
Steve Adkins, almost all of Rev. MacArthur’s post is descriptive, generously quoting Brian McLaren. He really only gets into his own assertions in the final paragraph of this two-part series.
MacArthur: “By reducing biblical doctrines to “opinions,” McLaren denies both Scripture’s clarity and its authority.”
This is mere, unreasoned assertion. There are many theological “opinions” in Christendom. Look at this selection from a reformed theological site on the topic of soteriology:
Supralapsarian, Infralapsarian, Amyraldian, Arminian, Semi-Pelagian, Pelagian.
What becomes of the “clarity” of Scripture in the face of these competing Protestant systems?
This does not deny, however, the Scripture’s authority. Rev. MacArthur and others may feel they can logically infer that it does, but just sayig it doesn’t make it so.
MacArthur characterizes the McLaren/ECM position thusly: “Because the Bible is unclear, the chorus of divergent interpretations are all granted equal validity. This means, then, that the authority of any one viewpoint (as that which is correct) vanishes, since all sides are equally reduced to nothing more than personal opinion.”
If we don’t even know who the elect are, then isn’t disputing over the order of election a little ridiculous? Are you a 4-point Calvinist or a 5-pointer? God forbid you should be an Amyraldian! And what a monster the supralapsarians have concocted as their god.
I ended my “Pretend Parable” in another thread with this sentence:
“We must be wary of placing too much emphasis on the Truth Systems developed by the Great Minds. We must individually decide how much valuable time and energy we will devote to understanding the Truth Systems, and we must decide to what degree we will allow the Truth Systems to divide us from other people [Christians] in the Land.”
whyte,
I liked it better when you used your ridicule story method. It was more entertaining than this more line you have stirred up here.
May I ask your purpose?
It does not seem to be a line by line refutation of the scripture, but rather some may be known,but not others.
Oh, there
you did reference it.
Thanks
Whyte Stonne,
Pelagianism, semi-palagianism are pre-reformation ideas… Pelagius was a heretic, condemned by the Roman Church although they later incorporated his ideas as they moved away from Augustine (the proto-Calvinist). Pelagianism is not a protestant system, nor is semi-pelagianism…
Infra and Supralapsarianism are not “protestant systems…” they are more speculative theology (I hope I do not oversimplify) based upon when the decrees of God for salvation were determined… they are not necessarily tied to protestantism…
Perhaps you’re being playful and mischievious?
Now, when you read the language of Scripture what does it say to you?
Ephesians 1:3-5 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love 5 He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will… or Romans 9 might prove interesting…
If one digs hard enough at the truth one finds it. I redirect you to my earlier comments. Are you saying that God incompetently sought to communicate with us? Are you saying the Spirit lacks power to illumine the truth?
But for some to say that they can’t be sure Christ is the only way… (contra John 14:6; Acts 4:12) or that homosexuality is in fact a sin (Romans 1:18-32; 1 Corinthians 6:9) is ludricous.
There is no doubt that some doctrines are more easily understood than others. Some require time in the study and exegetical diligence… But to say that little can really be known for sure–the message of those of McClaren’s stripe is folly.
When you say you begin to reason from the Scriptures… why? If we can’t be certain then why bother? The fact is there is more certainty than apparent uncertainty.
Grace to You,
Keith Crosby, Green Bay, Wisconsin
Steven Adkins, sorry that last post was not as succinct as you may have wanted it, but a reasoned reply to the problems in an entire paragraph require more than one or two sentences.
I can’t speak about the corpus of Rev. MacArthur’s works, or the body of his sermon production. I have listened with admiration to radio broadcasts of his sermons. I grew up on Expository Sermons, have preached, and I appreciate the care and skill of MacArthur’s sermons and their delivery.
I believe Rev. MacArthur has the same deep-seated distrust of mysticism as most other Bible-centered conservatives. Mysticism de-values verbal truth formulas in favor of the direct experience of God. So you can see why strong proponents of “the Bible as Truth” would not only dislike mysticism, but preach against it.
By Spirituality, I meant reliance on the Holy Spirit in daily life and ministry. This would not just include the frequent rejection of charismatics and pentacostals, but even fundamentalist rejection of the Keswick Movement, described as “soft fundamentalism.”
I have not directly aware of Rev. MacArthur’s positions on justice. Many conservatives do, however, seem to show an aversion for “justice,” I believe, because of its inevitable association with the so-called “social gospel.”
In working for justice, you’d find yourself having to work with Christian liberals and non-Christians, which would drive the Biblical Separationists bananas.
Love? How often have you heard, or even said, “Yes, love is important. But don’t forget about holiness,” or “But don’t forget about God’s righteousness.”
It’s as though we are afraid to immerse ourselves in either the concept or the experience of God’s love alone without first providing some qualifying proviso which will insure that we don’t “go overboard on this love thing.”
Steven, your questions are very thoughtful, and I’m trying to do them justice.
“Most evangelical and Reformed congregations are suffering from a Scriptural diet deficient in justice, mystical union with Christ, Spirituality, and love.”
It’s their Scriptural diet that is deficient. God will fill a hungry heart, even if the pulpit doesn’t have a generous menu. If the “Scriptural diet” is deficient in specific references to spiritual union with Christ, there are other avenues to the experience.
For example, the metaphor that we are Christ’s brothers illustrates spiritual union using sibling equality language. The metaphor of the Church as the Bride of Christ also illustrates spiritual union using a “one flesh” relationship between two equals. “I am the vine, you are the branches,” the “Body of Christ,” the living temple metaphor–all these illustrate the mystical union experience.
“Advice for reformed and evangelical congregations?”
(I feel like Anne Landers!)
First, as an INDIVIDUAL, live with these spiritual ideas, these spiritual truths, for a long time. Meditate on them. Read what the Bible says about justice (especially in Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hosea and Amos), study the metaphors of union with Christ I mentioned and be alert to others in the Greek Scriptures.
Why not “advice for congregations”? Groups and organizations change slowly, if at all. You can’t expect to help others into new Spiritual territory if you haven’t explored it yourself.
Exploring this new territory is especially good if you can do it with friends.
In terms of changing your church, look up the Parable of the Wineskins. Jesus brought the new wine of the Spirit, yet he admitted that the old wine tasted better. Don’t destroy your fellowship by being a divisive influence. Figure out where you should be.
Sandra, I believe that he’s being sarcastic because of his unyielding hostility to people who cause dissension and divisions. They like to argue over words, and make merchandise of the gospel.
I believe he’s being ironic here, saying what these divisive groups believe about themselves (that they are approved by God), while throughout the epistle he has been raking them over the coals for their divisions.
Put these two passages together and see how it sounds.
“I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought.
“Some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, ‘I follow Paul’; another, ‘I follow Appolos,’; another, ‘I follow Cephas,’; another, ‘I follow Christ.’ Is Christ divided?”
But then he writes,
“No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval.”
I think the divisive leaders got the message.
Whyte,
How odd that you would suggest Paul had “unyeilding hostility” are you suggesting Paul was unloving? Even hostile? Did he not also confront Peter in front of all because Peter sinned by hypocritically separating himself because of the judaizers? Was Paul divisive when he did this? No, I would suggest that it’s the ECM and their sympathizers who argue over words and make merchandise of the gospel.
Whyte,
“There are many words, themes, that are ignored by evangelicals”
I agree. Your point is true. And how about all the doctrine which Paul, in his 14 Epistles, has written for us is ignored. Not to mention Peter, James, Jude, John, and even Luke.
I’m guessing, and you can correct me, what you lean towards is that there are those who know the truth, but have not the Spirit.
But what about those who lean on the Spirit, but neglect the truth. I know many like this. The Bible isn’t that important.
I think that’s the bottom line of Dr. MacArthur’s concerns, of which i strongly agree.
You say you LOVE knowledge. Good. I pray that the body of Christ would have this hunger grip the deepest parts of their hearts, so that they would LOVE knowledge as you do.
”The doctrine of the clarity (or perspicuity) of Scripture (that the central message of the Bible is clear and understandable, and that the Bible itself can be properly interpreted in a normal, literal sense) has been a cornerstone of evangelical belief ever since the
Reformation.” John MacArthur
And yet the Scripture has been the subject of debate for almost 2000 years, since Christ.
How interested is that?
Charles
[…] From Pulpit Magazine The dominant Roman Catholic idea had been that the Bible was obscure and difficult to understand. But the Reformers disagreed, arguing instead that anyone who could read could understand biblical teaching….Instead of promoting a settled confidence in the fact that the Bible can be understood, McLaren does just the opposite. And he does so in at least five important ways. […]
There is no new thing under the sun…
With all of this emphasis on “new spirituality”, “new forms of worship”, “new spiritual territory” etc, I think many have forgotten that these are all the same old heresies which men of faith, infinitely wiser than the scholars and leaders of today, fought and sometimes died for while the church was in it’s infancy. The only difference is the color of paint today’s “shepherds” use to decorate their new and improved Christ-followingness.
“Whited sepulchres” comes to mind
McClaren loses me when he starts in on this whole clarity thing…he just doesn’t make sense and this sort of thing, in my humble opinion, makes him look very foolish. I don’t mind some of the questions he asks towards the universal church these days, but the way that he proports we change are seemingly ridiculous
Mr. Stonne seems like a modern day pneumatakoi to me.
My response is simple. All Scripture is inspired by God. 2 Tim 3:16. It is entirely inconsistent with the nature of God (perfect) that God would create confusion, ambiguity, or lack of clarity.
Steve Lamm, you asked me what my view of inspiration is. I actually like to keep it simple, in the spirit of “Do not go beyond what is written.”
II Timothy says that the Scriptures are “inspired by God” and “useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
The inspiration of Scripture is what makes it useful. The words of the man Paul are as useful as the words of the God-man Jesus.
Morris, I could only wish that I really were as filled with the Spirit, that is, as spiritual, as pneumatikoi suggests. Alas, I am not.
First time commenter here…I haven’t read through all the commments, but have a question, if anyone is still listening…
“The doctrine of the clarity (or perspicuity) of Scripture (that the central message of the Bible is clear and understandable, and that the Bible itself can be properly interpreted in a normal, literal sense) has been a cornerstone of evangelical belief ever since the Reformation.”
Does anyone else see reformed circles (mainly presbyterian) heading towards more “Catholic” thinking as opposed to the above quote (what the reformers fought against)? Mainly with the post-mils/preterist reinterpretation of scripture and departing from literal interpretation? More and more, and I know there is nothing new under the sun, I see this thinking…mainly among seminary grads who have been holing up too much with there books and trying to squeeze Scripture into molds, but was wondering if anyone had any thoughts on this? I know it’s a broad topic…does anyone have any thoughts?
Whyte,
You wrote:
The inspiration of Scripture is what makes it useful. The words of the man Paul are as useful as the words of the God-man Jesus.
Please clarify what this means in practical terms. It seems from your previous posts that the Spirit living within you takes precedence over the words of Scripture.
Scott, forgive me if I start my answer with the passage from II Timothy 2:14-15, 23.
“Keep reminding them of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen.
“Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.
“Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels.”
Many of my posts have addressed this very issue “quarreling about words,” about “foolish and stupid arguments” which “produce quarrels.”
And I have also used Scripture to draw attention to the fact that in two places, propositional truth has at least been augmented (if not replaced), by a covenant written on our hearts and by Jesus, “the truth.”
There are many other places where non-propositional Christian truth could be documented–yes, from the propositional Scriptures. I have never denied there is propositional truth in the Scriptures, nor have I denied that I utilize propositional truth. For example, Jesus Christ is the living Word that came and dwelt among us. He is the perfect “expression” of the living God. There are way more.
Let me give you an example of a passage of Scripture which must be meditated on to be experienced, and not to be understood with a simple word study and a look at the commentaries.
Paul made an incredible statement to the Corinthians:
“Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone but in fleshy tables of the heart.”
Scott, you are an epistle of Christ. I am an epistle of Christ. Each of us is like one of the seven letters to the seven churches in Revelation. Each of us is like the New Covenant in that the writing is not done with ink buy with the Holy Spirit of God, and the epistles are not in stone, but in our hearts.
Jesus was the living Word of God, the perfect expression of God, the Truth. Jesus said, “As I am in the world, so send I you.” I submit that among the many things this means, it means that Scott G. is the Word of God in the world–a living Epistle from Christ.
Someone will surely say that II Cor. 3:3 will not bear the weight of what I would load onto it. That’s okay. My struggle to understand what it means–in practical terms–is taking quite some time.
If we are correct in calling the Bible “the Word of God,” and much of the Word of God is comprised of epistles, then II Cor.3:3 tells me that:
Scott G., Kat, Kevin, Morris Brooks, Seth McBee, Charles Whisnant, Michael, Sandra, Keith Crosby, JSB, Doug Heck, Ken Silva, Carson, John MacArthur, Karie Hays, Brent Railey, Steven Adkins, Steven Lamm, C. Stirling Barholomew, and Brian McLaren
are all
Epistles of Christ,
and all
the Word of God.
We are in the world as Christ was in the world, the living Word of God. This is so because of what Christ said, and though our Union with Christ.
Scott, I don’t know the practical application of this yet.
Kat, the reason you see mainline protestant denominations heading down the Roman road, is because they are being influenced by the ECM. Just google Catholicism and the emerging church. I think you will get the picture, and some answers. The ECM is affecting all denominations across the board.
Whyte,
I know that you have faced assaults on many fronts, and I admire your gracious words toward me and so many of your other debaters in this last post.
You said:
And I have also used Scripture to draw attention to the fact that in two places, propositional truth has at least been augmented (if not replaced), by a covenant written on our hearts and by Jesus, “the truth.”
There is a huge difference between “augmented” and “replaced.” It seems to me that this needs to be nailed down. This is important because it has a direct bearing on what you observe to be divisive quarrels.
Take the issue of homosexuality, for example. I believe that the Bible clearly teaches that this is a sin and a lifestyle that characterizes those headed for eternal punishment in hell. This is not a minor issue. If I tell a homosexual that he is “okay” because God made him that way, I may, in the end, be simply paving the way to hell for that man. I don’t want his blood on my hands.
For many Christians, the issues that we are talking about are inextricably linked to the Gospel. This is not a debate over the number of angels who can dance on the head of a pin. This is about eternal life and death issues. John MacArthur is dogmatic, but not a nit-picker. At his Shepherd’s Conference, he shared his platform with Mark Dever, Al Mohler, Ligon Duncan, R.C. Sproul and C.J. Mahaney. All of these men have significantly different positions on visible issues in Christian theology, yet they have chosen to stand united for the Gospel.
I contend that if you examine the context of both letters to Timothy, you will discover that the quarrels Paul speaks of relate to “endless myths and geneologies”–definitely more petty than “truth.”
Whyte,
You said: Scott, you are an epistle of Christ. I am an epistle of Christ. Each of us is like one of the seven letters to the seven churches in Revelation
How poetic, how lovely, my what creativity! You sound so profound. Just think! I AM the Word of God in your view. Wow, I just never knew that. Thanks a zillion.
Ya, I’m being sarcastic. Besides the fact that you are taking gargantuan panentheistic/pagan liberties with the word of God; Jesus never said we are “epistles”, etc. You are as much as declaring everyone there own god. Where do you get this stuff?(John 4:1)
We live by FAITH in Jesus and His written WORD which is given to us for our edification as the Holy Spirit enlightens us. That is the truth.
Sandra, you asked for the source of my belief on this. I base this on a clear statement the the apostle Paul makes, which I will quote again, first from the KJV, then from the NIV.
“Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone but in fleshy tables of the heart.”
“You show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.”
Whyte,
I’ve noted that whenever I ask you where you get your ideas, you only come back as your own authoritative source, interesting. There isn’t a single good reason I can think of to take your personal interpretation over the cumulative, scholarly, historical, orthodox work of traditional commentators.
Here’s what Wycliffe says:
2 Cor 3:1-3
Paul vehemently exposes those who need letters of self-commendation (cf. 2 Cor 5:12; 10:12,18; 12:11). His mission and ministry did not need such conceited self-appraisal. 2. On the contrary, Paul’s letter is (1) personalized - our epistle; (2) permanent - written in our hearts; (3) public - known and read of all men. 3. The genuineness of the Corinthians as an epistle of Christ (ASV) is authenticated (1) by their ministry - ministered by us; (2) by their supernatural origin - with the Spirit of the living God; (3) by their internal testimony - in fleshy tables of the heart (cf. Jer 24:7; 31:33; 32:39; Ezek 11:19; 36:26).
(from The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1962 by Moody Press)
Here is what Barnes Notes says:
2 Cor 3:1
Verse 1. [Do we begin again] This is designed evidently to meet an objection. He had been speaking of his triumph in the ministry (2 Cor 2:14), and of his sincerity and honesty, as contrasted with the conduct of many who corrupted the Word of God, 2 Cor 2:17. It might be objected that he was magnifying himself in these statements, and designed to commend himself in this manner to the Corinthians. To this he replies in the following verses.
[To commend ourselves?] To recommend ourselves; do we speak this in our own praise, in order to obtain your favor.
[Or need we, as some others] Probably some who had brought letters of recommendation to them from Judea. The false teachers at Corinth had been originally introduced there by commendatory letters from abroad. These were letters of introduction, and were common among the Greeks, the Romans, and the Jews, as they are now. They were usually given to persons who were about to travel, as there were no inns. and as travelers were dependent on the hospitality of those among whom they traveled.
[Of commendation from you] To other congregations. It is implied here by Paul, that he sought no such letter; that he traveled without them; and that he depended on his zeal, and self-denial, and success to make him known, and to give him the affections of those to whom he ministered-a much better recommendation than mere introductory letters. Such letters were, however, sometimes given by Christians, and are by no means improper, Acts 18:27. Yet, they do not appear to have been sought or used by the apostles generally. They depended on their miraculous endowments, and on the attending grace of God to make them known.
(from Barnes’ Notes, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1997 by Biblesoft)
In either case, the verse is clearly stating that the Corinthians are Paul’s witnesses, testimony, and proof of the genuineness and authenticity of his work. There was no need for him to carry “proof papers” (epistle’s if you prefer). That is a far, far cry from the twist you are putting on the verses and the theology behind them.
Once again, there is only ONE LOGOS incarnate, it isn’t:
“Scott G., Kat, Kevin, Morris Brooks, Seth McBee, Charles Whisnant, Michael, Sandra, Keith Crosby, JSB, Doug Heck, Ken Silva, Carson, John MacArthur, Karie Hays, Brent Railey, Steven Adkins, Steven Lamm, C. Stirling Barholomew, and Brian McLaren…”
We are not the Light (as John the Baptist testified) and John the Apostle gave testimony that Jesus is the LOGOS of God. JESUS is the Light and Jesus said “Thy Word (LOGOS)is Truth”. We as Christians are to be witnesses of and give testimony of the True Light that came into the world; Not to find the “light” in us. What that amounts to is seeking the “divinity within” which comes from eastern thought and practice (ECM has absorbed this). I do not know if it’s permissible for me to recommend an outside book here besides the one being discussed, but I highly recommend to anyone confused by these issues to read a book called “Running Against the Wind”. It is the personal testimony of an author named Brian Flynn and comes at these issues from an experiential angle.
Sandra, I understand your frustration with Whyte, but he is deceived and deluded and bought into this whole postmodern gamut of weirdness, and he speaks as his mentors in the movement do, riddles and parables and things that are so ridiculous that we cannot even try to begin to wrap our minds around their twisted reasonings. You cannot talk to these people, they absolutely believe they have been enlightened to the true meaning of the scripture and know for sure what Jesus ‘really’ teaches…Amazing isn’t it, that a postmodern mind can ‘know’ what Jesus actually means, they have an exact interpretation of His teachings. He is unable to discern truth, he is blinded and only the Lord can reveal the truth to him…He is only going to continue to defend himself. He doesn’t know what he talking about, yet firmly defends it with ridiculous views. He really needs prayer and to listen to the wisdom of the folks that post here..He is not here to learn and get wisdom, he is here to make everyone crazy with postmodern madness…
Sandra, I appreciate how seriously you take the Scripture. I do too.
For the sake of the position you are taking,take a little more time to look at what you are writing and quoting.
You said, “We are not the Light.”
But the Son of God himself said, in the well-known Sermon on the Mount, “You are the light of the world” (Matthew 5:14).
Nearly everything you quoted from the Matthew Henry Commentary supports my understanding of Paul’s statement that,
“You show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts” (II Corinthians 3:3).
1) First, the commentary is a bit off center when it characterizes this living epistle as “Paul’s letter.” The Bible says, “you are a letter from Christ.”
2) “The letter is permanent - written in our hearts.” So, the writing Christ did in our hearts is permanent. In Mark 13:31 the Son of God said, “My word shall not pass away.” What is “permanent” “shall not pass away.”
3) The commentary says that this epistle from Christ, that is, Believers, is “public – known and read of all men.” Just like the Bible is “public – known and read of all men,” so are Christians.
4) The commentary reads, “The genuineness of the Corinthians as an epistle of Christ (ASV) is authenticated (1) by their ministry . . . (2) by their supernatural origin - with the Spirit of the living God; (3) by their internal testimony - in fleshy tables of the heart.” The commentary says this of the Believers, and all of it also accurately describes “genuineness” of the Bible. The Bible’s “ministry” (“My word does not go forth void”), the Bible’s “supernatural origin,” and the Bible’s internal testimony.
5) Even the Scripture passages the commentary cites (Jer 24:7; 31:33; 32:39; Ezek 11:19; 36:26) support my interpretation. (I actually had some lengthy interactions in “The Logic of Postmodernism” thread about Jeremiah 31:31ff.) I rely a lot on Jeremiah’s description of the New Covenant for my beliefs on this topic.
Nothing from the section of the Matthew Henry commentary you quoted contradicted any part of what I wrote.
Sandra, you opened your reply with these words: “I’ve noted that whenever I ask you where you get your ideas, you only come back as your own authoritative source, interesting. There isn’t a single good reason I can think of to take your personal interpretation over the cumulative, scholarly, historical, orthodox work of traditional commentators.”
When I replied to your question, “Where do you get this stuff?” I cited the Scripture in two different translations. I believe that what the Scripture says about us being “epistles from Christ” is clear enough, at least grammatically, word-wise. I don’t know how quoting the Scripture is the same as me being my “own authoritative source.”
(Some people characterize this as, “God said it, I believe it, and that settles it for me.”)
* * * * * * *
A Really Short Parable
Once upon Jesus went to a dinner and ate with some Pharisees. After a long discussion, one Pharisee turned to Jesus and said, “There isn’t a single good reason I can think of to take your personal interpretation over the cumulative, scholarly, historical, orthodox work of traditional commentators.”
Sandra, his response to you only proves my point. Twisting, tweaking, distorting, interpreting scripture in a relativistic, subjective sort of way, adjusting it just right to make sure it fits ME just right. Quote scripture passages authoratiatively here and there add a bit of sarcasm and voila, you have made your very own personal designer suit…
Seriously Mr. Stone, the people here have apparantly been very gracious to you and have tried to dialog with you, and most in a gracious way. They have been trying to lead you to a more accurate, better, more trustworthy view of the Word of God. Apollos listened to Priscilla and Aquila as they informed him of the way more accurately, he listened to them, he only had a partial understanding of the truth. You should really listen to Dr. MacArthur, and Phil and others here that God has gifted to be Pastors, Prophets, Leaders, Teachers of His Word to the Sheep. It takes humility from all of us. I would rather be corrected of error and misinterpretation, then hold stubbornly to my empty, subjective, experiencial premises for doctrinal understanding. Your foundation for understanding truth is faulty.
Dear Karie,
You wrote quite a bit about me to Sandra, and I would like to make a few comments, and perhaps ask for some clarification.
“You cannot talk to these people, they absolutely believe they have been enlightened to the true meaning of the scripture and know for sure what Jesus ‘really’ teaches.”
Assuming this is so (and I am not sure it is), then many of us are tarred with the same brush. Anyone who insists that “Absolute Truth” is knowable (like many of the posters here, including Rev. MacArthur himself) could be responded to the way you have responded to me.
For example, let me paraphrase you just slightly. “You cannot talk to these (Reformed Calvinists, fundamentalists, Evangelicals, Dispensationalists, etc.), they absolutely believe they *KNOW* the Absolute Truth of the Scripture and know for sure what Jesus ‘really’ teaches.”
Is that a fair application?
Karie, you accuse me of being “unable to discern the truth,” that I am “blinded,” that I don’t know what I am talking about, etc. I use the Scripture as my starting point for any Christian beliefs or practices.
I have lived by this command of Scripture for decades: “Be diligent to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, and who correctly handles the word of truth” (II Timothy 2:15).
I have entered the conversations in these threads, using the *Scriptures*, going into as much detail for interpreting them as is appropriate here.
Karie, please take this in the spirit in which it is intended.
1) I have no “mentors in the movement.” I haven’t read a single thing written by McLaren or any of the ECM leaders mentioned by MacArthur.
2) Please show me where I am deceived and deluded. If I have built on an interpretation of the Bible that is incorrect, please show me.
3) Please show me where I am “blinded” and “unable to discern the truth.”
4) You have undoubtedly been criticized by non-Believers for having “ridiculous views” and believing things that are “ridiculous.” But these things are based on the Bible, right?
Karie, all my adult life I have attempted to simply let the Bible say what it says, and not try to explain it away when it disturbed things.
You told Sandra, “he is here to make everyone crazy with postmodern madness.” Actually, I feel I am here to discuss the Bible and the people’s theology, and bring up Scriptures that may have been ignored or neglected by people. Just because something Jesus or Paul or Jeremiah said or wrote simply *sounds* like postmodernism isn’t a reason to ignore what they said or wrote.
Let’s stick with the Bible.
BTW, thank you for asking Sandra to pray for me. Goodness knows I need it.
Karie, I have based every comment and response in my posts squarely on the Scriptures. I honestly don’t see the truth in what you just wrote:
“Your foundation for understanding truth is faulty.”
Please explain what you mean. I am listening.
Mr. Stonne, I don’t believe you are listening..Therefore, if you are not considering the responses of those more qualified then I, you will just get me lost in your maze of reasoning. I honestly hope and pray you will come to a knowledge of the truth. Have a blessed Christmas…
And you have a happy Christmas, too.
Karie, yes, I know what he’s doing….thank you.
* * * * * * *
A Really Short Parable
Once upon Jesus went to a dinner and ate with some Pharisees. After a long discussion, one Pharisee turned to Jesus and said, “There isn’t a single good reason I can think of to take your personal interpretation over the cumulative, scholarly, historical, orthodox work of traditional commentators.”
* * * * * * *
Whyte, There is still no reason for me to take your view as authoritative. Here’s an even shorter parable for you:
Whyte, what you mistake is that you are not Jesus.
I’m sorry if I left you with the impression that my *view* is “authoritative.”
I know that many around here believe that all authority rests in the Scripture, and not in themselves.
I do assume that when I am talking with people who esteem the Scriptures, that when I base my comments and beliefs on those very Scriptures, that those Scriptures will be taken seriously.
I have attempted to reason from the plain meaning of the Scriptures, assuming their clarity and perspicuity.
What are the limits of such discussions of Scripture?
I appreciate the normally gracious acceptance of my participation here. And I have been, I think, equally gracious.
I urge you to be like the Bereans, who went to Scripture to see if these things are true.
Don’t take my word for it.
Dear Karie,
I responded to Sandra’s reply to me thusly.
First, she wrote that “we are not the light.”
In response I quoted something Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount, “You are the light of the world.”
And you describe this as “Twisting, tweaking, distorting, interpreting scripture in a relativistic, subjective sort of way, adjusting it just right to make sure it fits ME just right.”
Yes, I was attempting to respond to what Sandra actually wrote. In that, I did attempt to make sure it was a genuine response, “just right to make sure it fit [Sandra] just right.”
That seems appropriate. My response was to what Sandra wrote to me.
[I know you value the Bible as a foundation for truth since you once challenged me with “What Biblical authority are you relying on Whyte for your interpretation of ’sarcasm’?” (Some people think Paul was also being “sarcastic” when he called some of the Corinthians “pneumatikoi.” It’s nice to have examples of Biblical sarcasm when we like the sarcastic style ourselves.)]
Karie, you wrote to me “you will just get me lost in your maze of reasoning.” And you told Sandra that “he is here to make everyone crazy.”
This is what I do when I read a verse or a passage which doesn’t fit into any of the normal categories (salvation, justice, sanctification, prayer, evengelism, holiness, etc.). I mark it and leave it. I wait for additional insight or knowledge that will give me insight.
I don’t run to commentaries (sorry Sandra) to find out what it means.
And I certainly don’t explain it away just because I don’t like what it seems to imply, or like “what it would lead to,” etc.
There is no reason to question the clarity of what Paul wrote:
“You show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.”
You wait for additional insight or knowledge you said.
Where are you waiting for it to come from? Maybe the insight and knowledge is coming from these people who are trying to get through to you. Salvation? Exactly what insight or answer are you waiting for? And on the subject of commentaries: some of us use our commentaries AFTER we have come up with some sort of answer to see what men and women gifted by God and wiser than us have to say…Many times we are surprised and quite happy to find that we were not far off than they, but they articulate it in a more understandable way, they clarify it. I think you just want to go on and on and be right. If you are genuine and looking for someone to validate your views, you are probably in the wrong place. Or, if you are genuinly “waiting” for insight keep looking to men like MacArthur and listen to the counsel of those here who are very kindly tolerating your unreasonable views. If you don’t believe in the authority and inerrancy of scripture you will reach an impasse with everyone here every time. Hey, are you Brian McLarnen incognito? No. seriously..:)
:) No, not Brian McLaren!
Paul wrote:
“You show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.”
I expanded on Paul’s statement with this:
Each of us is like one of the seven letters to the seven churches in Revelation. Each of us is like the New Covenant in that the writing is not done with ink but with the Holy Spirit of God, and the epistles are not in stone, but in our hearts.
So far, so good?
Jesus said, “As my Father hath sent me, even so I send you.”
If we are correct in calling the Bible “the Word of God,” and much of the Word of God is comprised of “epistles,” then I conclude from II Cor. 3:3 that you and I are epistles from God, and, as epistles of God, we are, together with Christ and the Scriptures, the Word of God.
We are in the world as Christ was in the world, the living Word of God. This is so because of what Christ said, and though our Union with Christ.
Let me invite you to turn to Jeremiah 31:31-34 and draw a box around it. Then turn to II Corinthians 3:3-5 and draw a box around it. Then just open to them from time to time and read them.
Please don’t think that I have concocted some new doctrine based on a handful of verses taken out of context. As I wrote to Sandra, the Matthew Henry commentary totally supported my conclusions.
Whyte: “I don’t run to commentaries (sorry Sandra) to find out what it means.”
Actually, Karie’s statement is the truth. Obviously, you believe you are sufficient in yourself to have no need of anything but your own thoughts. So with your thoughts, go on.
Scott, thanks for your expression of empathy when you write, “I know that you have faced assaults on many fronts, and I admire your gracious words toward me and so many of your other debaters in this last post.”
My wife was initially glad to see me enjoying myself blogging in this site (she noted how I had been looking depressed), but as the criticisms mounted I told her how I was feeling, and she asked me why I bothered. (She doesn’t like debate.) I told her that people were asking questions, some to trap me, and some genuinely looking for an explanation [of my off-the-beaten-path beliefs], if only to understand how someone could believe the weird stuff I believe.
But I believe in the power of the Word of God, that it does not go forth void.
You quoted me correctly: “And I have also used Scripture to draw attention to the fact that in two places, propositional truth has at least been augmented (if not replaced), by a covenant written on our hearts and by Jesus, ‘the truth’.”
And you also noticed a word I used for the first time in these discussions, the word “augmented.” “There is a huge difference between ‘augmented’ and ‘replaced.’ It seems to me that this needs to be nailed down. This is important because it has a direct bearing on what you observe to be divisive quarrels.”
Scott, I am enjoying these threads, and I do want to address the “divisive quarrels” you mention, in particular homosexuality.
I’m sure it will not surprise you that I am not in agreement with the dominant sentiment regarding homosexuality in “Brian McLaren and the Clarity of Scripture (Part 2)” where Rev. MacArthur’s major application of “clarity” is actually the issue of homosexuality.
I’m also sure that it will not surprise you to find that I support my “dissenting view” totally from Scripture, and discredit as thoroughly as possible the “conservative” use of Scripture to condemn gays and lesbians, discredit it by means of what Scripture itself says.
I am not encouraged by knowing that a lot of name-calling and empty rhetoric will be sent my way. But I need to listen to what God said to Jeremiah:
“If you have raced with men on foot and they have worn you out, How can you compete with horses?” (Jer.12:5)
Having said that, I do need to take a short break.
Scott, let me begin with these two propositional statements:
The Bible makes no distinction between a so-called Moral Law and a so-called Ceremonial Law.
The Apostle Paul makes no distinction between a so-called Moral Law and a so-called Ceremonial Law.
Third propositional statement:
Any person who argues for a distinction between an alleged “Moral Law” and an alleged “Ceremonial Law” is doing so for extra-Biblical, or non-Biblical, reasons.
If this third propositional statement is untrue, please demonstrate this supposed difference from the Scripture.
This issue of the alleged distinction between a so-called Moral Law and a so-called Ceremonial Law is important because it it at the center of what we’re doing when we quote Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, which is what Paul refers to when talking about the Law.
How silly of me, Whyte, you’re one of those dialectic group facilitators. I should have seen it earlier (sorry) but I did think at first you were just mistaken.
Sandra, are you sure you are correct (or wise) in giving me the benefit of the doubt?!
Could I be mistaken, serious, and having fun simultaneously?
But thank you. Being called a dialectic group facilitator feels better than some other things I’ve been called *chuckle*.
I’ve been thinking over the “dialectic” part of your description.
I begin with a statement or belief put forward by a Christian, I bring some Scripture to bear which put the original statement into question, and see what happens.
And here is a possible explanation for my intransigence (stubbornness): I believe you have to really *feel* the contradiction before you can come to a meaningful “resolution.”
I still deny that there is a difference between the “Moral Law” and the “Ceremonial Law.”
Sandra, thank you so much for your response. It means a lot to me.
Whyte:
Okay, I’ll bite. I hear you questioning the validity of the Ceremonial/Moral law dichotomy. You also used this as your segue to discuss the issue of homosexuality. Please continue…
By the way, I’m sorry that you’re having to deal with sarcastic attacks in these threads.
Whyte:
I won’t argue for the validity of the Ceremonial/Moral law dichotomy. However, Jesus did talk of weightier matters of the law (Matthew 23:23), and there are commands that are given in the New Testament that are also in the Law. With this in mind, I don’t think we need to discuss whether or not the OT Law is still binding on believers.
Scott, I assume you understand why I brought up the Moral Law/Ceremonial Law invention. And I also assume you are familiar with the debate surrounding the applicability of the Torah today.
My point, we could spend hours debating the relationship between the Law and the Christian life.
You may also know about the “gotcha” trap Paul laid in Romans 1:28–2:3, where he says that the sins of the “depraved mind” are worse than the either “sinful desires” or “shameful lusts.”
(The downward progression goes from “sinful desires” to “shameful lusts” to the “depraved mind.”
Here are some of the things that are even worse than homosexuality according to Paul, since they flow out of a depraved mind: envy, strife, deceit, malice. These people are gossips, slanderers, insolent, arrogant and boastful.
We can discuss either the utility of the OT Law in a discussion of homosexuality, or the place of Romans 1 and 2 in condemning homosexuality. There is certainly ample material to debate and argue over.
But that is my point. MacArthur says the “issue is clear cut in Scripture,” yet cites passages (e.g. Gen. 19; Lev. 18:22; Rom. 1:26–27) which are NOT clear-cut at at all.
He asserts clarity where there is complexity, where godly reasonable men may disagree. I am inclined to suggest reasons for why he insists on clarity regarding this particular issue where there is none.
But who am I “to judge another man’s servant?” I could quote “by your own words ye shall be judged,” and justify further criticisms of Rev. MacArthur by his own example of criticisms of McLaren. But I won’t.
Merry Christmas; I hope you have good times with your family. You know, meditating on how we can model our lives on the Incarnation is pretty fruitful.
Scott, before I get into what Galatians and Romans says about the Law, I want to explain why I think it is important. I’ll be referring back to some previous posts I’ve written.
You may remember what I wrote about Jeremiah 31:31ff, how it he said that the New Covenant would not be like the Old Covenant, that it would be written on our hearts and minds directly by God.
I concluded that the page in my Bible marked “The New Testament” was a lie, and that I have torn it out.
Then I go to II Corinthians 3:6, where Paul writes that “He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant–not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills but the Spirit gives life.”
In Romans Paul builds on this: “By dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we may serve in the new way in the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code,” or “the oldness of the letter” (Romans 7:6).
Jeremiah prophesied that the New Covenant would be written directly in our minds and hearts. Calling the Greek Scriptures “the New Testament” contradicts the clear statement of Jeremiah about the actual nature of the New Testament, or New Covenant (which words mean the same thing).
I believe we have turned the Greek Scriptures into a new Law, the Christian Torah, to which our leaders have almost universally bound us. We still serve “in the old way of the written code.” We have changed codes, but we still “justify” our doctrines and structures by referring to the Letter of the Christian Torah, the “New Testament.”
Now someone will undoubtedly remind me that I am arguing from Scripture, being myself “bound” to conform my thoughts and beliefs to the “Christian Torah” I seem so dead-set agains.
Let me reply that “All Scripture is inspired by God, and profitable for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.”
Ultimately, I am responsible for how I use Scripture. I could “prove” a great many things from Scripture, even some contradictory things. I have no guarantee that the use I am making of Scripture is correct, or loving, or anything else. But I am myself responsible for what I write and teach.
The fact that I fall into some “tradition,” like the Anabaptist tradition, or the Free Church tradition, or the Mystical tradition, does not guarantee me anything. It does not guarantee holiness, or love, or a hold on truth. (The Truth, Christ, holds me!) It may comfort me to know that I am not unique in my understanding of Scripture, but it guarantees nothing.
Likewise, the fact that someone here falls into the Calvinist or Presbyterian tradition does not guarantee anything, not holiness, nor love, nor a hold on truth. It is undoubtedly encouraging to know that so many clear-thinking, logically consistent men have been in your ranks (I say that without sarcasm or irony), but it guarantees nothing.
I am responsible for the use I make of Scripture. And I feel “bound” to “rightly handle the Word of Truth,” knowing that the “Word of Truth” can encompass three things (Jesus Christ, the living Word; the Scriptures; and the living Epistles I know and fellowship with).
But I digress.
(Stay tuned, I’ll be back very soon)
I believe most Christians have turned the “New Testament” into a new Law, and serve in “the old way of the written code.” I also know that when Paul
The ministry of the Law is death and condemnation. Period.
“For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God” (Gal 2:19). (There’s a case of the law undermining its own applicability or usefulness. I maintained elsewhere that the Bible undermines its own written authority in favor of the new covenant of the Spirit.)
“I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law [a written code], Christ died for nothing!” (Gal 2:21) I cannot please God through adhering to a written code without setting aside the grace of God.
“Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? After beginning in the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?” (Gal 3:2,3) Notice the emphasis on the Spirit of God and its opposites, the written code and human effort.
“All who rely on observing the law [a written code] are under a curse, for it is written: ‘Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law’” (Gal 3:10).
And there’s plenty more in that fiery book.
We already know from II Corinthians 3 that the covenant of the letter brings condemnation. But according to Paul,
“All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law” (Rom 2:12).
“Law brings wrath. Where there is no law there is no transgression” (Rom 4:15). No transgression.
“Before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin was not taken into account when there is no law” (Rom 5:13). Sin is not taken into account.
“Apart from law, sin is dead” (Rom 7:8).
* * * * * * * *
Yet many Christians are loath to relinquish the black-and-white prohibitions of the Torah. They insist on retaining the Ten Commandments to hold over our heads (and their own) like a threatening sword.
They dismiss dietary laws and laws of cleanliness as part of something they call the “Ceremonial Law,” while they cling to the so-called “Moral Law” as still in effect, to which we are still accountable, and by which we must measure ourselves and others.
They include in the “Moral Law” the prohibitions against a man lying with a man as with a woman, and a woman lying with a woman as with a man.
Yet Paul calls this being “justified by observing the law” (Gal 2:16). Paul rebuked Peter publicly, saying, “You area Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?” (Gal 2:14).
In context, the Jewish “customs” seem to me to be equivalent to the Jewish “law.”
The distinction between the so-called Moral and Ceremonial Law