The enemy within the gate

"It has always been the case that the church has had to struggle with aberrant views in its midst. Indeed, the apostle Paul goes so far as to say that 'there must be factions [heresies] among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized' (1 Cor. 11:19).

What is so different, when compared with our more recent history, is that these aberrant views on matters so central and fundamental are not outside the evangelical church but inside it. Not only so, but today these views are masquerading as something they are not. They are offered in all innocence as Christian orthodoxy, whereas, in fact, they come out of a different universe.

What we have is church practice that obliterates the underlying understanding of truth, a methodology for success without too many references to any truth, and a sense that what was once so important in the life of the church can be left behind, unexplored, unappropriated, and without consequences."

David F. Wells, from the foreword in Gary L. W. Johnson & Guy P. Waters, By Faith Alone: Answering the Challenges to the Doctrine of Justification, p. 19

They speak with forked tongues you know

Great quote from the puritan William Gurnall posted by Jim Bublitz at Old Truth.com:

"Since Satan comes as a serpent concealed in false teachers and tries to deceive us with error posing as truth, every Christian needs an established judgment in the truths of Christ."

Global Heresy

This month has seen visits to this blog from 29 countries.

So what are the major heresies and false teachings troubling the church where you live?

I'll leave it to you to choose errors that are a clear and present danger arising from within, and those entering from without, the church (Acts 20:29-30):

I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them.

If the comments are slow moving I'll quickly move on to some quotes from David Wells and Al Mohler...

Snaking all over the road

Engaging in theological debate means that you have to have your wits about you. I think that is true whether the debate happens in conversation or on paper. When you are pressing an opponents point always pay attention to whether in defending it he doesn't shift to another point altogether. It is a diversionary tactic that when done well means that you never really get to the real issues. So when you see an argument snake all over the road don't follow it, just point out its snakiness.

The Atonement: Mechanics, Meaning and Misrepresentation

It is not uncommon when discussing the atonement for someone to bring up the ugly, inappropriate, phrase "the mechanics of the atonement." Generally this is done to protest, either mildly or strongly, against the necessity of knowing the framework of beliefs that sees the atonement as a work of self-giving on the part of the triune God whereby the Son voluntarily agrees to bear the sin of his people by taking their place and bearing their condemnation.

I have never understood that when discussing something so personal as the Father not sparing his own Son but giving him up for us all (Rom. 8:32) or the Son being delivered up for our trespasses, it could ever be thought appropriate to refer to this as the "mechanics of the atonement." The very phrase jars with the profound, personal, God-ward, depths of the meaning of the Cross. In its worst form that phrase is used to obvert attention from this explanation of the atonement (penal substitution) to another. But in doing so, let us be clear, a phrase is being used that creates prejudice and misrepresentation against substitutionary atonement.

It is strangely reassuring to know that Gresham Machen was having to deal with the same prejudice in his own day. Please not how he aims to uncover heart issues in the avoidance of the Bible's teaching about the Cross:

According to Christian belief, Jesus is our Saviour, not by virtue of what he said, not even by virtue of what he was, but by what he did. He is our Saviour, not because he inspired us to live the same kind of life that he lived, but because he took upon himself the dreadful guilt of our sins and bore it instead of us on the cross. Such is the Christian conception of the Cross of Christ. It is ridiculed as being a "subtle theory of the atonement." In reality, it is the plain teaching of the word of God; we know absolutely nothing about an atonement that is not a vicarious atonement, for that is the only atonement of which the New Testament speaks. And this Bible doctrine is not intricate or subtle.
On the contrary, though it involves mysteries, it is itself so simple that a child can understand it. "We deserved eternal death, but the Lord Jesus, because he loved us, died instead of us on the cross"--surely there is nothing very intricate about that. It is not the Bible doctrine of the atonement which is difficult to understand--what are really incomprehensible are the elaborate modern efforts to get rid of the Bible doctrine in the interests of human pride.

Modern liberal preachers do indeed sometimes speak of the "atonement." But they speak of it just as seldom as they possibly can, and one can see plainly that their hearts are elsewhere than at the foot of the Cross. Indeed, at this point, as at many others, one has the feeling that traditional language is being strained to become the expression of totally alien ideas.

J. Gresham Machen, Christianity & Liberalism, p. 118-9

The Agony of Deceit: When good teachers go bad

Two perceptive comments on heretics from Vincent of Lerins. The one states the principle, the other supplies an illustration of it:

The reason is clearer than day why Divine Providence sometimes permits certain doctors of the Churches to preach new doctrines--"That the Lord your God may try you;" he says. And assuredly it is a great trial when one whom thou believest to be a prophet, a disciple of prophets, a doctor and defender of the truth, whom thou hast folded to thy breast with the utmost veneration and love, when such a one of a sudden secretly and furtively brings in noxious errrors, which thou canst neither quickly detect, being held by the prestige of former authority, nor lightly think it right to condemn, being prevented by affection for thine old master.

For to take first a very recent and very plain case: what sort of trial, think we, was that which the Church had experience of the other day, when that unhappy Nestorius, all at once metamorphosed from a sheep into a wolf, began to make havoc of the flock of Christ, while as yet a large proportion of those whom he was devouring believed him to be a sheep, and consequently were the more exposed to his attacks? For who would readily suppose him to be in error, who was known to have been elected by the high choice of the Emperor, and to be held in the greatest esteem by the priesthood? who would readily suppose him to be in error, who, greatly beloved by the holy brethren, and in high favor with the populace, expounded the Scriptures in public daily, and confuted the pestilent errors both of Jews and Heathens? Who could choose but believe that his teaching was Orthodox, his preaching Orthodox, his belief Orthodox, who, that he might open the way to one heresy of his own, was zealously inveighing against the blasphemies of all heresies? But this was the very thing which Moses says: "The Lord your God doth try you that He may know whether you love Him or not."

Vincent of Lerins, Commonitorium, Extracts from Chapters X & XI

Open to Correction?

Do you find correction hard to take, especially when it is of a theological nature?

Would you be happy arguing a point to the death even when you are losing?

Are you submissive in your handling and reception of Scripture?

Do you rate critics of your position as troublemakers, lacking in intelligence, narrow, harsh, power hungry and bigoted?

Do you see all theology as in flux or are there some truths that are fixed in place and should never be moved?

Do you change your mind on issues often?

When you are persuaded of a new position are you zealous in advocating it (as zealous as you were when you held the opposite view)?

Good questions to ask yourself from time to time.

The Pelagian pelt under the Evangelical fleece

I'd forgotten just how much I appreciated this article on Charles Finney by Phil Johnson until I perused it again today.

The title is A Wolf In Sheep's Clothing: How Charles Finney's Theology Ravaged the Evangelical Movement

He denied the doctrines of original sin, justification by faith alone, and penal substitutionary atonement.

Here's Phil Johnson's conclusion:

Charles Grandison Finney was a heretic. That language is not too strong. Though he excelled at cloaking his opinions in ambiguous language and biblical-sounding expressions, his views were almost pure Pelagianism. The arguments he employed to sustain those views were nearly always rationalistic and philosophical, not biblical. To canonize this man as an evangelical hero is to ignore the facts of what he stood for.

A Heretic chooses to tell lies about the God of the Bible because he doesn't want to tell the truth

ProGnosis

Let me introduce you to a blog by the emerging generation of thinkers in Wales

On "What Lies Beneath"

Heresy is not open unbelief but unbelief hidden under the guise of orthodoxy.

It is the passing off of errors that have originated elsewhere under the form, and at times authority, of biblical truth. That is why it is so deceptive, and why it successfully makes inroads among churches.

The following short extract from Augustine, and the lengthy one from Vincent of Lerins illustrate this point. Vincent's Commonitorium is not a work that I am citing with unqualified approval. But his point in the chapter that I am quoting from (about heresy hiding beneath orthodox words, and happily using the Bible to promote itself) I am in full agreement with.

"For if we think carefully about the meaning of Christ, we shall see that among some of the heretics who wish to be called Christians, the name of Christ is held in honour, but the reality itself is not among them."

Augustine, Enchiridion, p. 7

Here, possibly, some one may ask, do heretics also appeal to Scripture ? They do indeed, and with a vengeance; for you may see them scamper through every single book of Holy Scripture,--through the books of Moses, the books of Kings, the Psalms, the Epistles, the Gospels, the Prophets.

Whether among their own people, or among strangers, in private or in public, in speaking or in writing, at convivial meetings, or in the streets, hardly ever do they bring forward anything of their own which they do not endeavour to shelter under words of Scripture. Read the works of Paul of Samosata, of Priscillian, of Eunomius, of Jovinian, and the rest of those pests, and you will see an infinite heap of instances, hardly a single page, which does not bristle with plausible quotations from the New Testament or the Old.

But the more secretly they conceal themselves under shelter of the Divine Law, so much the more are they to be feared and guarded against. For they know that the evil stench of their doctrine will hardly find acceptance with anyone if it be exhaled pure and simple. They sprinkle it over, therefore, with the perfume of heavenly language, in order that one who would be ready to despise human error, may hesitate to condemn divine words.

They do, in fact, what nurses do when they would prepare some bitter draught for children; they smear the edge of the cup all round with honey, that the unsuspecting child, having first tasted the sweet, may have no fear of the bitter. So too do these act, who disguise poisonous herbs and noxious juices under the names of medicines, so that no one almost, when he reads the label, suspects the poison.

Vincent of Lerins, Commonitorium, Ch XXV

The Invasion of the Body Snatchers

G. P. Fisher on how heresies originate:

"When Christianity is brought into contact with modes of thought and tenets originating elsewhere, either of two effects may follow. It may assimilate them, discarding whatever is at variance with the gospel, or the tables may be turned and the foreign elements may prevail. In the latter case there ensues a perversion of Christianity, an amalgamation with it of ideas discordant with its nature. The product then is a heresy. But to fill out the conception, it seems necessary that error should be aggressive and should give rise to an effort to build up a party, and thus to divide the Church. In the Apostles' use of the term, "heresy" contains a factious element".

B. B. Warfield gave the following comments on this:

"Possibly Dr. Fisher would not himself present it as the formula by which every heresy has been compounded. It obviously fairly describes, however, the origin of most of the greater heresies which have vexed the Church. The early gnostic systems were but varied attempts to baptize oriental pantheistic and dualistic speculations. Each of the christological constructions of the ante- Chalcedonian Church was but an effort to pour the teachings of the Scriptures as to the person of the Redeemer into the molds of some human philosophy. The Pelagian exaltation of human ability and consequent denial of the necessity of the inner work of the Holy Ghost was but (as Hefele says) "the rehabilitation of that heathen view of the world," in accordance with which Cicero declared that men do indeed thank God for gold and lands, but never for their virtues; and Jerome accordingly speaks of it accurately as "the heresy of Pythagoras and Zeno." The subsequent semi-Pelagianism which has stained the thought of the whole Latin Church, and the Arminianism which has sapped the purity of so large a section of Protestant thought, are but less acute forms of the same exaggeration of human rights and powers as over against the sovereign right and absolute power of the Ruler of the universe".

And here's his conclusion:

"We are "orthodox" when we account God's declaration in his Word superior in point of authority to them, their interpreter, and their corrector. We are "heretical" when we make them superior in point of authority to God's Word, its interpreter, and its corrector. By this test we may each of us try our inmost thought and see where we stand-on God's side or on the world's".

Form and Content

Below is an extract from Bavinck's Prolegomena that sums up the story of liberal theology:

"Form and content are never so mechanically and externally related that a total change in one will leave the other unaltered. The conversion of religious 'representations' into philosophical 'concepts' also affects the religious content itself. The history of Hegelian thought soon brought this reality to light. In it virtually nothing remained of the Christian dogma; 'Trinity,' 'incarnation,' 'satisfaction,' though retaining their orthodox names, were interpreted very differently. The facts of Christianity were regarded as its form and considered worthless. In their place came concepts that no longer had any content."

Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics vol. 1 Prolegomena, p. 257

191 posts about heresy...but here's one about the rugby

Wales beat England today at the Millennium Stadium in Cardiff. The final scoreline was 27-18. And the picture (for non-Welsh/UK readers) is of James Hook the 21 year old outside half who was man of the match.

The heresy you are not looking for

"The nature of deceit catches us where we are least looking"

D. A. Carson

The Defence Against the Dark Arts

Theology can never be carried out in the germ free pristine surroundings of an operating theatre. Strictly speaking we would be wrong to think of systematic theologies, those weighty tomes produced by professional theologians, as the product of ivory towered academia. Doubtless some are just that, but not the good ones. No, theology is for the people of God, for their worship, comfort, obedience and thankfulness.

It is also there to help the Church think clearly and rightly about the Triune God and his mighty words and works, that he might be rightly recognised and served, and that false representations of him might be exposed and rejected. But that is not always an easy matter, and it is not a leisurely pursuit. There was something deeply authentic and reassuring about B. B. Warfield being the professor of didactic and polemic theology at Princeton Seminary. Theology is a war time occupation.

Theology is about form as well as content. Or, to put it another way, we ought to pay attention not only to what is being said but to how it is being said.

One strategy for gaining entry with an argument is to "poison the well" against a position before presenting the alternative. This is done, for example, in the Watchtower booklet on the Trinity. Before we are given any passages of Scripture to consider we are told that the doctrine is against common sense, and unlike anything in our experience.

Another example would be to use, and sometimes to pile on, emotive words and phrases that prejudice the mind against an opposing position. So when God's absolute sovereignty is being opposed, the rejection is sometimes spun out by putting that sovereignty in a bad light. God's sovereignty is seen as controlling, aloof, micro managing, despotic. You get the picture.

The Necessity of Labels

Gibbs and Bolger have an interesting section on labels in Emerging Churches. In discussing post-protestant and post-evangelical labels, and having provided evidence of discomfort with the idea of labelling by emerging leaders, they have these two curious questions:

"From a postmodern perspective, the ultimate question is, Why is it important to label oneself as evangelical? Aren't labels simply artificial divisions that make us feel safe or help us to exert control?...What is obvious is that the ecclesiastical or theological label one decides to wear is of far less concern to emerging churches than how one relates to the gospel and culture." (p. 39)

Labels are of course short-hand, often single word, descriptions. We can use them negatively, but that is the use we put them to not their inherent meaning. I may call someone "egalitarian," or "arminian," simply to give an accurate recognisable description of their position. Of course I may whisper that word quietly to someone in a sentence that goes "hey, you know that he is an egalitarian don't you?" (assumption: don't trust his theology). I have no desire to defend the reverse situation where the attention is drawn to the label but with little concern to live up to it.

If Adam was to name the animals I cannot see why it is inappropriate to distinguish ideas and groups by calling them by different names when they are, after all, different things.

I cannot tell from the context if Gibbs and Bolger agree with the second question themselves or if they are merely stating it as the outworking of the postmodern perspective. Either way I bet they feel safe that the contents label on their soft drink corresponds to what it actually contains. Likewise you won't find someone who has issues about theological labels drinking from a bottle with a skull and cross bones on it. It is not true that labels are about exerting control. They can be about that, but again that is a use that they are put to. And even this isn't inherently negative. It seems to me that the New Testament is littered with verbal indicators of the danger of false teachers (wolves, dogs, gangrene etc.). These images convey to us the danger of bad theology.

And, thirdly, once you define the gospel it is inevitable that you will rule out some other views as being non-gospel, another gospel, or a different gospel. We cannot escape labels. Neither for that matter should we want to.

The practical consequences of neglecting doctrine

"Indifferentism about doctrine makes no heroes of the faith."

J. Gresham Machen, Christianity & Liberalism, p. 51

A spoonful of sugar helps the heresy go down...

The way to get people to believe theological lies is to stress their benefits.

"It hath been the constant practice of all persons, in all ages, who have made it their design to beget and propagate a belief of any doctrine contrary to the form of wholesome words, to begin with, and insist mainly upon, those parts of their beloved conception and offspring which seem to be most beautiful and taking, for the turning aside of poor, weak, unlearned, and unstable souls; knowing full well that their judgments and attention being once engaged, such is the frame of men's spirits under delusion, they will choose rather to swallow down all that follows than to discharge themselves of what they have already received."

John Owen, Of the Death of Christ, p. 431

Contending for the Faith is a command

This is a great extract from Owen's preface to Of the Death of Christ, which he wrote in Dublin by way of reply to Richard Baxter.

Please note the origin of what Owen calls the "bitter streams." Note also the role he attributes to Satan in this doctrinal controversy.

Finally note how Owen affirms the necessity of publicly opposing public opposition to the truth. When that happens today the sympathy too often goes with the attacker and the criticism gets levelled at the defender of the truth.

"It was in our hopes and expectations, not many years ago, that the Lord would graciously have turned back all those bitter streams which, issuing from the pride, unthankfulness, and wisdom of the carnal mind, had many ways attempted to overflow the doctrine of the grace of God, that bringeth salvation; but finding now, by experience, that the day of the church's rest from persecution is the day of Satan's main work for seducing and temptation, and that not a few are attempting once more to renew the contest of sinful, guilty, defiled nature, against the sovereign distinguishing love and effectual grace of God, it cannot but be convenient, yea necessary, that the faith once delivered to the saints be contended for and asserted from the word of truth in the like public way wherein it is opposed."

John Owen, Of the Death of Christ, in Works vol. 10, p. 431

The devil is in the details

Precision, clarity and consistency are always important when it comes to discerning the difference between true and false doctrine. It is never enough to accept a view as sound just so long as it is presented with the right words and phrases. The crucial issue is what those words and phrases mean, and whether they are being used in a way that they have been historically and biblically understood.

The question of motives is secondary, but still important. After all a man may be sincerely deceived in the views that he holds, or he may be a deceiver. The primary question is "but what does this teacher mean when he says that he believes in justification by faith alone?" "What does he mean when he says that he believes that God is omniscient?"

The protestation of orthodoxy, and adherence to the confessions, whilst at the same time redefining doctrines smacks of heresy. Departures from the truth are grievous. But departing from the truth by the redefinition and retaining of confessional language is insidious.

Or as Irenaeus of Lyon put it:

"Lest, therefore, through my neglect, some should be carried off, even as sheep are by wolves, while they perceive not the true character of these men--because they outwardly are covered with sheep's clothing (against whom the Lord has enjoined us to be on our guard), and because their language resembles ours, while their sentiments are very different".

No Alarms and No Surprises

There are no surprises when it comes to the existence of heresy. What can take us by surprise is the subtlety of its seductive, deceptive power. It is amazing that someone can be in error but oblivious to it. But then again isn't that what it is like when you are deceived? You end up taking as truth what is, in fact, lies.

Here are two quotes from Tertullian to ponder:

"The character of the times in which we live is such as to call forth from us even this admonition, that we ought not to be astonished at the heresies (which abound) neither ought their existence to surprise us, for it was foretold that they should come to pass; nor the fact that they subvert the faith of some, for their final cause is, by affording a trial to faith, to give it also the opportunity of being "approved." Groundless, therefore, and inconsiderate is the offense of the many who are scandalized by the very fact that heresies prevail to such a degree".

Ch. 1

"But let us rather be mindful of the sayings of the Lord, and of the letters of the apostles; for they have both told us beforehand that there shall be heresies, and have given us, in anticipation, warnings to avoid them; and inasmuch as we are not alarmed because they exist, so we ought not to wonder that they are capable of doing that, on account of which they must be shunned.

The Lord teaches us that many "ravening wolves shall come in sheep's clothing." Now, what are these sheep's clothing's, but the external surface of the Christian profession? Who are the ravening wolves but those deceitful senses and spirits which are lurking within to waste the flock of Christ? Who are the false prophets but deceptive predictors of the future? Who are the false apostles but the preachers of a spurious gospel? Who also are the Antichrists, both now and evermore, but the men who rebel against Christ?

Heresies, at the present time, will no less rend the church by their perversion of doctrine, than will Antichrist persecute her at that day by the cruelty of his attacks, except that persecution makes even martyrs, (but) heresy only apostates. And therefore "heresies must needs be in order that they which are approved might be made manifest, both those who remained steadfast under persecution, and those who did not wander out of their way into heresy".

Tertullian, Prescription Against Heresies, Ch. 4

The Unpaid Debts of the Church

I have never been able to track down the origin of the phrase "heresies are the unpaid debts of the church." The phrase is of course used to account for the existence of theological aberrations and unconventional movements. And with that is the implication that if only the orthodox had done a better job then they would not be faced with such an undesirable situation. Perhaps a little hand wringing should accompany this admission in recognition of such failure. I have certainly been in situations where I have been encouraged, maybe even expected, to accept that the theological position of others, and the visible disunity accompanying it, lay at the feet of conservative evangelicals.

In fairness the phrase is a helpful explanation of what may in fact be the case. It is possible to discern in the developments of movements a reactionary spirit. Without a doubt the establishing of the NAE in 1942 was a self-conscious reaction against the hard-line separatism of fundamentalism. More than one commentator has seen in the Emerging Church Movement a reaction against the seeker sensitive mega church approach. Depending on your viewpoint (whether it is a good or bad thing) the re-installation of church furniture and the interest in the spirituality of the church (before the erecting of the evangelical big top in the late 20th century) is a reaction to the conversion of the church into a shopping mall or country club. It is an unpaid debt.

But as helpful as this phrase may be it does have two negative consequences. Because it lays the blame at the feet of one group it cannot but help give the impression that the reactionaries are the victims in all of this. Are they or are they not responsible for their own theology and practice? Can they pin the blame, like self-absorbed and badly behaved teenagers, on their theological parents. There is more than a whiff of this spirit among emergents. Just think of how many who gravitate toward the emergent approach are in fact dissatisfied ex-evangelicals in recovery. But it is the background influence of a victim culture that fixes the blame upon the home. Frankly it is embarrassing to hear grown men who left such churches long ago harping on about the damage that it has done to them. Yet one gets the impression that deep down they just want a different theology altogether.

The second negative consequence is far more insidious. If the "victim-in-recovery" posture is taken as the total, or dominant, explanation for theological approaches of dubious orthodoxy, then other explanations and factors are underplayed. Let me elaborate on them:

1. The New Testament links heresies with the influence of the devil. Ultimately the spread of destructive error is attributed to him. That at least is the apostolic interpretation of the matter. In the realm of theological confusion he is not on holiday. The devil persists in questioning God's Word and in offering alternative interpretations of it.

2. Since heresy is a matter of choice we ought to ask questions about what governs our choices. Do we sincerely desire to be in glad submission to God's Word or are we working with a basis of authority that would filter God's revelation through our own spiritual and moral criteria? Will I believe things because they are true, even when they are emotionally hard to take? Or will I let what is acceptable to me personally be the test that doctrines must pass? What we are dealing with here is the orientation of the heart and mind to God's revelation to us in Scripture.

What I am arguing is that even if there were no "unpaid debts" that would not eliminate theological aberrations. Even when the whole counsel of God has been proclaimed the choice to follow a different way will still be made.

Whether or not it looks like heresy depends on where you are standing

Heresy looks like truth until you stand in the right place and see it for what it really is.

The apostle Paul makes this point as he warns the Colossians about false teaching. He switches back and forth so that the Colossians get a good look at the appearance of false teaching and then see the reality of it.

Watch how he does it...

Appearance:

"plausible arguments" (2:4)

Reality:

"See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ." (2:8)

Appearance:

"Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath." (2:16)

Reality:

"These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ". (2:17)

Appearance:

"Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind." (2:18)

Reality:

"He has lost connection with the Head." (2:19, NIV)

Appearance:

"If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations--"Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch" (referring to things that all perish as they are used)--according to human precepts and teachings? These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body." (2:20-23a)

Reality:

"but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh". (2:23b)

So where can you stand to see clearly the difference between the two?

There is only one place and it is right here:

"the knowledge of God's mystery, which is Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge". (2:2b-3)

"Therefore, as you received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in him, rooted and built up in him and established in the faith, just as you were taught, abounding in thanksgiving." (2:6-7)

"in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority". (2:9-10)

Colossians Redux

As strange as it may seem I came across the following snippet about the influence of the ministry of a church here in North Wales:

"...small groups of Christians are now moving into Festival and Sabbath practice as a result of what The Lord is doing through this revelation."

Isn't this what Paul warns against in Colossians 2:16-17?

"Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ".

By Sabbath practice it means that they meet as a church on a Saturday evening.

I wonder how they respond to a "no thanks I'd rather have Christ than those shadows."

How to protect yourself from error

Paul's approach to false teaching in Colossians appears to be a little different to that found in some of his other letters (Galatians, Titus). This may well be because the false teachers were yet to infiltrate the church. But, since they have dogged his steps wherever he has gone, Paul gets his retaliation in first. And in doing so he presents the Colossians with an awesome description of the person of Christ and his cross-work. By making much of Christ Paul aims to show up these errors for what they really are.

Now, let us be clear, compared to Christ this alternative teaching and practice appears hollow, shallow, and pretentious. It makes much of religious behaviour, ritual and mysticism. Or in other words it makes much of human performance and appearance. And it is put back into the shadows by the majesty of Christ made fully known in the apostolic gospel.

Dick Lucas captures Paul's pastoral method in dealing with the error that threatened the Colossian church:

"This positive instruction, once its implications have been grasped in terms of the sufficiency of Christ, will be the Colossians' best protection against error."

So, how can you protect yourself against error? By following Paul's prescription in 2:6-7:

"Therefore, as you received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in him, rooted and built up in him and established in the faith, just as you were taught, abounding in thanksgiving."

James Buchanan summed up this pastoral approach in his classic work on justification:

"It has long been my firm conviction, that the only effective refutation of error is the establishment of truth. Truth is one, error is multiform; and truth, once firmly established, overthrows all the errors that either have been, or may yet be, opposed to it. He who exposes and expels an error, does well; but it will only return in another form, unless the truth has been so lodged in the heart as to shut it out for ever."

James Buchanan, The Doctrine of Justification, p. 15

See to it that no one takes you captive

On Sunday evenings I am preaching through Colossians. Following a section thick with metaphor (2:6-7) Paul issues this warning in verse 8:

"See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ".

So the metaphors continue. The Colossians must be wary of false teaching since the alternative teaching, which is a deceptive and empty Christ-less philosophy, will enslave and imprison them. It will take them captive.

Peter O'Brien in his commentary writes that:

"...the word is used figuratively of carrying someone away from the truth into the slavery of error. The term is a vivid one and shows how seriously Paul regarded the evil designs of those trying to influence the congregation."

O' Brien, Word Biblical Commentary: Colossians, Philemon, p. 109

But whilst Paul considers this philosophy to be hollow and deceptive that is certainly not how it is going to be presented to the church. From the standpoint of the apostolic gospel concerning the person and work of Christ it is empty deceit and human tradition. But from the perspective of how it will seek to gain entry and acceptance among the Colossians it will appear as "plausible arguments" that have the capacity to delude believers (2:4).

This is worth reflecting on. Dick Lucas makes a helpful observation on the plausibility of error in his Bible Speaks Today commentary on Colossians:

"We do not learn from error if we are content merely to expose its follies. The new teaching had an immediate appeal just because it spoke to a real need."

R. C. Lucas, The Message of Colossians & Philemon, p. 86

This is the reason why error gains entry. Part of the process is the appeal that it makes. It is plausible and attractive, not necessarily obviously wrong and harmful. With a spoon full of sugar the heresy goes down.

Evangelicalism & Liberalism

"I shall never forget reading nearly forty years ago the opening sentence in a book on the subject of Protestantism. The first sentence reads thus: 'Every institution tends to produce its opposite.'"

So wrote Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones in the opening address on "What is an evangelical?" that he gave at IFES conference at Schloss Mittersill, Austria, in 1971.

That quotation has left me with two thought provoking questions:

1. Will the 20th century form of evangelicalism give way in content, but not in name, to a new 21st century form of liberalism?

The relationship of church to culture, the doctrine of the atonement, and the doctrine of Scripture seem to indicate that this is happening. New advances among evangelicals are really "back to liberalism" (but of course without capitulating to the anti-supernaturalism of modernism).

2. Once a change of nature, but not name, has taken place is recovery impossible?

Will there always be a need to start over again with, for example, a new Westminster seminary? Will the testimony of reformers always be "we will keep the faith, you can keep the furniture."

If you recognise the picture you will see the point I'm making.

Errors have pastoral consequences

The following quotation is taken from Hywel Jones' chapter "Preaching sola fide Better," in Covenant, Justification and Pastoral Ministry (ed. R. Scott Clark).

"Only a fraction of the present body of confessing Christians are solidly appropriating the justifying work of Christ in their lives. Many have so light an apprehension of God's holiness and of the extent and guilt for their sin that consciously they see little need for justification, although below the surface they are deeply guilt ridden and insecure.

Many others have a theoretical commitment to this doctrine, but in their day to day existence they rely on their sanctification for justification drawing their assurance of acceptance with God from their sincerity, their past experience of conversion, their recent religious performance or the relative infrequency of their conscious, willful disobedience.

Few know enough to start each day with a thoroughgoing stand on Luther's platform; you are accepted, looking outward in faith and claiming the wholly alien righteousness of Christ as the only ground for acceptance, relaxing in the quality of trust which will produce increasing sanctification as faith is active in love and gratitude."

Richard Lovelace, cited in CJPM, p. 310-11

I suspect that this description, anecdotal and general rather than scientific, is pretty accurate. The cause of it may well be ignorance and lack of teaching, rather than willful resistance to the truth of justification by faith alone. Or it may be a failure of applying the truth of justification by faith alone (which in itself highlights a deficient grasp of the doctrine). Nonetheless there is always a price to pay when error fills the space that truth is meant to fill. And error is never a merely intellectual matter. Error does damage to our capacity to live before God and others as he wills that we should.

Pierced for our transgressions

I heard that this was coming and am very glad to see Dave Bish heralding its arrival.

Table of contents, endorsements, and foreword (by John Piper) can be found here

Here is the blurb from the home page:

"The doctrine of penal substitution states that God gave himself in the person of his Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin.

Although this is the historic Christian view, it has recently come under attack. Controversy has raged since 2003 when Steve Chalke, founder of the Oasis Trust, likened the doctrine to ‘a form of cosmic child abuse’.

Pierced for our Transgressions offers a fresh affirmation of penal substitution, engaging with exegetical, theological, pastoral and historical perspectives. It is designed to be useful for pastors, theological students, and all thinking Christians."

It is a sad fact that scholars and popular preachers within evangelicalism have in recent years breathed life into the dead, and deadening, theology of the 16th and 17th century Socinians. Claiming to be the authentic good news this denial of Christ's penal substitutionary work has been passing itself off as theologically acceptable. And of course it will do that if churches are ignorant of what the Bible teaches and what orthodox churches clearly rejected on biblical grounds in the past.

It is so good to see this book.

A Surgical Mentality

I did an interview with Guy Davies, the exiled preacher, that is available here

Guy's blog is well worth frequenting.

The title of this post is an allusion to Martyn Lloyd-Jones conversation with T. T. Shields (an Englishman who ministered in Toronto and became known as the "Canadian Spurgeon").

Lloyd-Jones met Shields during a summer visit to Toronto in the early 1930s. The incident is recorded by DML-J in his Preaching and Preachers, and also by Iain Murray in the first volume of his outstanding biography of the Doctor.

Lloyd-Jones felt that the older man had ruined his ministry by becoming excessively negative and obsessed with polemics. It would not be unkind to say that temperamentally it was T. T. Shields contra mundum.

The conversation was summed up by three incisive remarks by Lloyd-Jones. In reply to the comment that the circulation of his writings went up when he dealt with polemical matters Lloyd-Jones said that two dogs fighting in the street will always draw a crowd.

Shields responded with two remarks. There was biblical precedent for his actions in Paul's denouncing of Peter. Lloyd-Jones countered this by saying that the effect of Paul's rebuke was the winning of Peter. That could not necessarily be said by Shields in his attack on opponents. Shields appealed to Lloyd-Jones' medical background. As a doctor he would see the need for radical surgery. Of course, Lloyd-Jones agreed, but there is such a thing as a "surgical mentality."

In this exchange the Welshman made a telling remark that "you can make mincemeat of the liberals and still be in trouble in your own soul".

A few reflections:

1. How can you avoid a preoccupation with error? I mean the kind of preoccupation that leads to an excessively negative ministry. What are the warning signs? Or are such men so bound by their own perspective that they are happy to justify their calcified ministry. Lloyd-Jones discerned this kind of unhelpful development in Shields. So how can you keep yourself from a "surgical mentality"?

2. Why is it that older ministers generally go in two directions? Some seem to become hardened and increasingly negative. Others become increasingly soft and indulgent.

The Cure and Keeping of Souls

This is an old post that I am putting up again for comment and consideration...

John "Rabbi" Duncan was a minister in Scotland and professor of Hebrew at New College, Edinburgh, in the 19th Century. There is an interesting anecdote about a conversation he had with Dr. Muir of Glasgow. They discussed the appropriateness of the title "Theotokos", Mother of God, for Mary. Duncan was in favour of it, Muir denounced it as "Popish blasphemy".

Moody Stuart comments that:

"Dr. Muir revered the Bible, but no authority besides, and he must have everything direct and clear, with no mystery about it".

After debating the matter for two hours Muir left. And John Duncan said:

"That man owes much to divine grace; except for grace Dr. Muir would have been a Socinian."

I take it that there was no complaint about having no authority beside the Bible. The problem is with the hidden assumption about how to read and interpret the Bible. In which case it is not really a commitment to sola scriptura at all. The appeal to sola scriptura is masking a mindset that doesn't really take God at his Word but assumes that he must speak and reveal himself in a particular way.

A few years back I gave some seminars on the Trinity at Word Alive. I chatted one afternoon with a student who believed that the Father and Son were both God, and distinct persons, but that the Spirit had no distinct personal nature. When we talked it over it became clear that he expected the Bible to explain God's triune nature in a set way (a bit like the creeds do). When he couldn't find those sorts of statements he wasn't convinced that the doctrine was really there. But he was mistaken. The Bible is a two part covenant book about the effected rescue plan of the triune God. He reveals his identity as he saves us, and in that rescue plan each person works together and distinctly as God in his infinite wisdom has seen fit.

It makes all the difference not only to submit to God's Word but to submit to it as God has given it to us without smuggling in our own assumptions about how he must reveal himself.

Or as the Westminster Confession I:vi puts it:

"The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture"

Evangelicals and Confessionalism

This is a short follow up post to my one entitled Minimus and Maximus on the differing approaches to statements of faith in among the subgroups that make up evangelicalism. Two extracts from Darryl Hart.

"Of course, the aim of evangelicalism was to find a lowest common denominator faith that would take members from diverse denominations and independent congregations and stitch them together in a recognizable quilt."

"...for mere Christianity to survive, wise and constant diligence needs to be directed to as complete a reflection on biblical truth as possible. In other words, to preserve the minimum, you need to defend the maximum. This is logic that those who call themselves evangelical have instinctively avoided."

D. G. Hart, Deconstructing Evangelicalism, p. 30-1

Heresy in the eye of the beholder

Everyone thinks that they are orthodox. No one really thinks that their theology is heretical (unless of course they are seeking to be provocative and attention seeking, but then that is a rhetorical ploy). But there is more to this than simply saying that we all think that our theology is right. Unorthodox theology has every intention of pushing orthodoxy out of its own home as if orthodoxy was the intruder. When it does so it it wages a verbal campaign against true orthodoxy by portraying it as backward, negative, defensive, critical, suspicious, unloving, harsh etc. (in point of fact plenty of this mud, in the 1920s and 30s, was flung in the direction of J. Gresham Machen).

As the following extract shows, open theism presented itself not only as a valid option for evangelicals to hold to, but also as affirming and upholding the doctrine of God's omniscience. The problem with that claim was simply that the open theist doctrine of God's omniscience had never, ever, in two thousand years of church history, ever been an acceptable version of what Christians have meant by omniscience.

"At what point...does an interpreter have a right to say, "I know you SAY you believe in omnipotence and omniscience, and you may even really BELIEVE that you do hold to these attributes, but in fact you do not. You regularly defend positions that directly challenge these terms as they have been understood and used (and isn't meaning in the use?). Even on an etymological rendering, your stated commitments to these divine attributes die the death of a thousand qualifications"?

Mike Horton

From The Nature of Evangelicalism, a dialogue between Michael Horton and Roger Olson, available online here

Why do heresies persist?

Church history tells the story of the battle between truth and error. Heresies arise, gain a following, are opposed and refuted from Scripture, and then the Church moves on and advances in the truth. Because of this we have great statements like the Nicene Creed and the Definition of Chalcedon. But if these errors have been dealt with in the past why do they come back again and again? Why do people today believe old heresies? There are three reasons.

1. The devil still deceives people into believing heresies by using human instruments to promote attractive and plausible teaching. He will continue to do this until Christ returns in glory.

2. The warnings and lessons from history are ignored or unknown. If we are ignorant of the past we will fail to see that heresies that today appear new, innovative and interesting are as old as dirt. Many of the errors finding a home in evangelicalism today were tried and found wanting by our great-great-grandfathers in the faith at the bar of Scripture.

3. Throughout history those who deny the truth and choose a different gospel are limited in the options available to them. In his study of heresies Harold Brown concluded that “over and over again, in widely separated cultures, in different centuries, the same basic misunderstandings and misinterpretations of the person and work of Christ and his message reappear. The persistence of the same stimulus, so to speak, repeatedly produces the same or similar reactions.”

What are the effects of heresy?

Heresy brings confusion for unbelievers since they hear several different and contradictory voices all claiming to be telling them the authentic good news.

Heresy also brings trouble for the Church. Unless false teachers are silenced, as Paul tells Titus that they should be, they will ruin households and upset the faith of some (Titus 1:11). Genuine believers can be unsettled by the teaching of these men (2 Tim. 2:18). In addition to this damage, false teachers also drain the time, energy, and resources of churches when they are not dealt with. Drawn out conflicts with false teachers can divert and distract gospel churches from evangelism and the planting and nurturing of new congregations.

Heresy places those who embrace it, and refuse to be corrected, in danger of eternal condemnation. At the very least the salvation of those who are deceived by gospel denying error cannot be affirmed. There is hope that God may grant such people repentance. But the apostles did not shrink back from spelling out the danger of turning to a “different gospel.” Paul makes it clear that whether the “false brothers,” an angel from heaven, or even the apostles themselves preached another gospel than the one that Paul had preached then they should be accursed (Gal. 1:6-9).

Harold Brown summed up the consequences of truth and error by saying that “just as there are doctrines that are true, and that can bring salvation, there are those that are false, so false that they can spell eternal damnation for those who have the misfortune to be entrapped by them.”