23 July 2005







"Night, Night . . . "

22 July 2005





Hello Mr. Camera!

Francis A. Schaeffer



Francis A. Schaeffer (1912 - 1984)
__________________________
Francis Schaeffer was a Presbyterian minister with an ability to see how the questions of meaning, morals, and value being dealt with by philosophy, were the same questions that the Bible dealt with, only in different language. Once an agnostic, Schaeffer came to the conclusion that Biblical Christianity not only gave sufficient answers to the big questions, but that they were the only answers that were both self-consistent and livable. With this conviction he became a man of conversation.
Schaeffer taught that God is really there and He is not silent. He had spoken to man in the Bible as and a result we could have "true truth" about God and man. Knowing the dignity of man created in God's image, he placed a high value on creativity as an expression of that image. He opened his Swiss home to travelers to discuss these things. Later he began lecturing in universities and writing a number of books.
[the photographs and biographical sketch above were taken from "The Shelter," a Francis A. Schaeffer site]

S.T.S. 1.5 [Closing Comments]


As I bring this issue to a close, I’d like to plug a new book that should eventually find its way into the hands of every Believer. Allow me to preface this particular promotion by saying that the featured resources that I connect you to each month deserve your attention (even if you take just five minutes to click the provided link for a quick browse). It is an important objective of mine to provide you with needed access to Biblical, theologically-sound, intellectually-stimulating & clear-headed items (be they books, articles, ministry web-sites, etc.) amidst a growing sea of choices.

Ah, we have been truly impacted by our pluralistic society. Many of these choices are, unfortunately, a waste of your time due to their basis in teachings that have no firm root in the Scriptures (as studied in their context). Many times, not only are these items a waste of your limited time, but they are even dangerous to your development as a disciple of our Lord. In any event, my point is that I seek to do my very best in providing you with many quality resources that are worthy of your time and attention. Remember . . . promoting truth and exposing error wasn’t my idea – it’s the design & decree of our God. As such, I think we would do well to think on that truth rather soberly.

Alright . . . on to the referenced resource of the month!! In this issue, I have provided you with a link to a site covering Nancy Pearcey’s latest work – “Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from its Cultural Captivity.” Let me say a quick word about the author of this fine work – Nancy Pearcey (if you’d like to see a more exhaustive piece on Nancy, just check out the linked site and click on the “About the Author” tab). In the 1970’s, Pearcey traveled to Switzerland to embark on an in-depth exploration of the Biblical Worldview under the late Francis Schaeffer at L’Abri Fellowship – a profound Christian ministry with a focus on reaching out to intellectuals, skeptics, atheists, etc. Throughout the pages of “Total Truth,” Pearcey demonstrates the fruits of her days with Schaeffer. Moreover, the striking relevancy and incisiveness of the late Schaeffer’s thinking in our post-modern day occupies every page of this masterpiece.

You would do well to get your hands on this book. Furthermore, check out http://www.half.com/ or http://www.ebay.com/ for opportunities to purchase the various works of Francis Schaeffer, a God-given intellectual to the Body of Christ. I believe that you’ll find the works of Schaeffer shocking and stimulating, as they were written in a day which found itself less-saturated in relativistic thinking. In modern times, there seems to be as much relativism and postmodernism inside church walls as without. In the final analysis, bad thinking, whether explicitly secular or “baptized” in pop.-Christian lingo in a small group, must be exposed and eradicated.

[taken from The MacArthur Study Bible & provided as a supplement to the main articles of S.T.S. 1.4 – 1.5]

I. Evidences That Neither Prove Nor Disprove One’s Faith:


A. Visible Morality [Matt. 19:16-21; 23:27]
B. Intellectual Knowledge [Rom. 1:21; 2:17ff]
C. Religious Involvement [Matt. 25:1-10]
D. Active Ministry [Matt. 7:21-24]
E. Conviction of Sin [Acts 24:25]
F. Assurance [Matt. 23]
G. Time of Decision [Luke 8:13,14]



II. The Fruit/Proofs of Authentic/True Christianity:


A. Love for God [Ps. 42:1ff., 73:25; Luke 10:27; Rom. 8:7]
B. Repentance from Sin [Ps. 32:5; Prov. 28:13; Rom. 7:14ff.; 2 Cor. 7:10; 1 John 1:8-10]
C. Genuine Humility [Ps. 51:17; Matt. 5:1-12; James 4:6,9ff.]
D. Devotion to God’s Glory [Ps. 105:3; 115:1; Is. 43:7, 48:10ff.; Jer. 9:23,24; 1 Cor. 10:31]
E. Continual Prayer [Luke 18:1; Eph. 6:18ff.; Phil. 4:6ff.; 1 Tim. 2:1-4; James 5:16-18]
F. Selfless Love [1 John 2:9ff., 3:14, 4:7ff.]
G. Separation from the World [1 Cor. 2:12; James 4:4ff.; 1 John 2:15-17, 5:5]
H. Spiritual Growth [Luke 8:15; John 15:1-6; Eph. 4:12-16]
I. Obedient Living [Matt. 7:21; John 15:14ff.; Rom. 16:26; 1 Pet. 1:2,22; 1 John 2:3-5]


If List I is true of a person and List II is false, there is cause to question the validity of one’s profession of faith. Yet if List II is true, then the top list will be also!

S.T.S. 1.5 [Things that Make Ya Go Hmmm . . . ]


Qualifier:

I’d like to preface the following thought by saying that none of the comments below should be taken to mean that smoking should be legalized for those under 18 years of age. We all know that 2 wrongs have never made a right, right?? Right!! Rather, the point of the scenario below is to give a practical example of present-day double-talk and cheap thinking. It’s ironic to me (not really) how different sets of rules (that being NO rules) seem to apply to the many politically correct, hot-button issues of our time. To see what I mean, have a read below.

In a recent “Reflections” entry on the website of Stand to Reason, Christian Apologist/Philosopher Greg Koukl offered the following thought:

“If a woman – even a teenager – even a minor – even without her parents’ consent – has an inalienable right to have an abortion (at least according to modern-day secular humanists), then how does one argue that she cannot do something less violent to her body than such a medical procedure (can we even call it that??), and less violent to the body of another human being – the unborn child – like smoking, for instance?? For the sake of consistency, how does one argue that this is no longer an acceptable choice??? If the government is willing to say that something as extreme as abortion is a private, personal choice (so much so that even the real father of the girl seeking the abortion can’t interfere), then how do they justify their own ‘paternalism’ by taking a cigarette out of the hand of a teenager because she just isn’t old enough to decide for herself?”

As a Christian, I am quickly reminded of the following passage of Scripture which we find in Isaiah 5:20-21 [NIV]: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter. Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight.” I can’t speak for you, but the inconsistency and arbitrariness which constitutes the bulk of modern-day “thinking” and “reasoning” ought to be coming into sharp focus, especially during the hour of moral chaos in which we find ourselves living. Well . . . what a message, huh??

Hey kids . . . have an abortion – but not a smoke!?!? Go figure!!

S.T.S. 1.5 [Main Article]


“ . . . On the Nature of True Saving Faith" [pt. 2]
(the truth about “falling from grace”)


I’d like to begin this follow-up edition with a question that many of us have probably wrestled with . . . “What about those ‘Christians’ who have completely abandoned their faith? Surely they won’t inherit the Kingdom of God, will they? How can they still call themselves ‘saved’?” This could also take another form (among others) . . . “Those constantly rebellious teenagers who were killed last week ‘walked the aisle’ and said ‘the prayer’ (10 years ago in V.B.S.), so they’re certainly headed for Heaven. They’re going to have a lot of growing to do when they get there, however, as they showed no signs of their salvation here in this life.” Were you able to see the same core assumptions involved above, although the peripheral matters were altered slightly?

My brothers and sisters, there is an extremely faulty, though commonplace, assumption lurking within the very questions themselves; this being the idea that anyone who professes to be a Christian must be a true Christian indeed (period . . . no questions asked). After all, “the aisle” has been walked and “the prayer” has been prayed! Shouldn’t those things do the trick?? I mean, if we could just get them to pray this simple prayer, regardless of whether there is a recognition of God’s holiness, man’s depravity/inadequacy, God’s provision in Christ the God-man, and man’s need to be rescued from his plight, then we’re good to go; the end justifies the means, right?? Absolutely not!! Where in the Scriptures did we come up with such nonsense?

Oh, that we would “rediscover the Book of the Law,” as did Hilkiah during the days of King Josiah (2 Kings 22-23). We would do well to pray God’s mercy on us for neglecting the whole counsel of his Word, particularly whereas the doctrine of salvation is concerned. May the Lord forgive us for seeking to placate our associations with extravagant numbers as we frantically seek to keep up with a “baptized” version of the Jones’s while Christianized bait & switch methodologies are employed and rewarded. In our day of pragmatism, please learn this lesson: “means,” not merely “ends,” will be tested on that Day according to their conformity to the Scriptures. There is no excuse for the enormous lack of Biblical knowledge that pervades the Body of Christ today. Lack of this knowledge has hindered, and even destroyed, the testimony of the people of God in times past, and can also do so once again.

In short, the answer to the scenarios at the top is that we can only conclude that the subjects described were never saved to begin with. The right question, therefore, is not whether someone can “lose” their salvation, but whether they were ever truly saved at all. When it comes to the issue of eternal security/perseverance of the saints (or the “preservation of the saints by the Father through the Savior,” as I like to call it), the overwhelming testimony of the Bible on this aspect of salvation is clear -- those who have been saved will never be lost. Read that last sentence once more. Although Jesus saves completely (Hebrews 7:25) and has made perfect forever (Hebrews 10:13) those who hear His word with faith, the author of the letter to the Hebrews exhorts the readers to prove the faith they profess by their perseverance. Christ Himself first pointed this out so beautifully when He, referring to true Believers, stated: “I give them eternal life, and they shall NEVER perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand . . .” [John 10:28]. Therefore, it should be very apparent - Jesus declared that no one who has ever received eternal life will ever lose it. Once again, read that last sentence very closely.

In a moment, I’d like to tackle an oft’-used “proof-text,” used many times by those who would take issue with what I’m now teaching. Before doing so, however, a few words regarding Biblical hermeneutics (the field of sound interpretation) would be most helpful to the subject matter at hand. When seeking to rightly interpret and/or exegete any passage of Scripture, the following general principles should be applied:

(1.) The Contextual Principle – What do the surrounding verses contribute to the
understanding of this text?

(2.) The Historical Principle – What is the history of the book and its subjects?

(3.) The Canonical Principle – What does the rest of the Bible have to say on this
subject; that is, what does the whole counsel of Scripture contribute to the
discussion?

(4.) The “Cloudy-Clear” Principle - Always interpret the “cloudy” in light of the
“clear” (or the “unknown” within the shadow of the “known”); & . . .

(5.) The “Read-More” Principle - Never read a Bible verse!!! You actually heard
me correctly! When dealing with questionable/seemingly ambiguous passages
(or any passage, for that matter), we need to read a paragraph at least . . . &
probably more. On an important note related to this principle, don’t ever
memorize a verse apart from its larger context. Doing so will always come
back to haunt you at a time when “haunting” is the last thing that you need.
Please note that I did not say that you had to actually memorize paragraphs
(though certainly plausible), but just that you should be familiar with the text
of the memorized verse.

Remember . . . context – context – context!! Oh yes, did I mention context?!?!
If you would seek to understand and exercise these basic principles on a regular basis, you would build your spiritual muscle and discernment capacity like nobody’s business (and you would prove yourself to be a rare gem in today’s dense rough). It is essential that serious students of the Scriptures develop at least these basic skills. Otherwise, you leave yourself with no firm root to establish you and anchor you when the various winds of doctrine blow in your direction (and they are many these days). Aren’t you sick and tired of being blown here and there by every wind of doctrine? Most Christians don’t seem to be, at least if their actions have anything to contribute to that question.

Before us now lies a great opportunity to put some of these skills to work as we sort out the difficult meaning of a hard passage. Many times, Hebrews 6:4-6 is confidently quoted as a proof-text to provide Biblical justification to a true believer losing his or her salvation. As we will see in a moment, to use this passage in this manner will lead to major problems in the cohesiveness of Scripture. Admittedly, however, these are some of the hardest verses to understand in the entire Bible. With that said, let’s dive right in. For your convenience, I’ve included the referenced-passage below:



Hebrews 6:4-6 (E.S.V.)

[4] For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, [5] and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, [6] if they then fall away, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.



For starters, many Scripture passages make it unmistakably clear that “true” salvation is eternal [cf. John 10:27-29; Rom. 8:28-30; Phil. 1:6; & 1 Pet. 1:4-5]. The Holy Scriptures are rife with references to the believer being “preserved,” “kept,” “sealed,” “hid,” etc. The new life that we have in Christ Jesus is indeed “everlasting.” I ask you to recall hermeneutical principles 3 & 4 above in light of the preceding statements. Moreover, those believers (though truly sincere) who want to make these verses mean that believers can truly lose their salvation will have to admit it would then also say that one could never get it back again. To see what I mean by that, read our passage again very carefully. On the contrary, these verses more likely refer to “Christianized” (yet still unregenerate) Jews who were apt to “tuck tail and run” when the fires of persecution were fanned. Other synonyms that could be substituted for these folks are “tares” (see Matthew 13:26-30; 36-43), “religious-but-lost” church members (and they aren’t few), “apostates,” etc., etc. For these “professed” Christians who absolutely refuse to progress in the faith, there are some woeful and troubling consequences, as well as a distinct prognosis of their true spiritual condition.



To whom is the writer speaking??? Surely these are genuine believers, right? Not necessarily so!



Hebrews (a masterpiece on the “Superiority of Christ”) offers a fair amount of information about the original recipients and their situation. Confusion abounds as to the subjects to whom the writer of Hebrews is writing: whether saved or lost, particularly Jew or Gentile, carnal or spiritual, and whether the situation presented is literal or hypothetical. The original readers look to have been familiar with certain concepts and imagery drawn from the Old Testament (i.e., they were interested in the Old Testament sanctuary, sacrificial system, and priesthood). They had not heard the Gospel (Good News) directly from Jesus, but from apostles (2:3), had faced previous persecution (10:32-34), and were facing present persecution, including expulsion from “familiar” Jewish institutions (13:12,13). They were in danger of falling away, perhaps fearing death (2:14-18), although their faith had not yet led to martyrdom (12:4). Drawing these features together, we can surmise that the recipients were professing Jewish Christians of the Dispersion (the scattering of Jews outside Palestine). Apparently the temple was still standing and its sacrificial rituals were being performed (10:2,3,11). Perhaps the situation is that of the persecutions under Nero (c. A.D. 64). In that case, the suffering mentioned in 10:32-34 could have been caused by the edict of Claudius, which expelled Jews from Rome in A.D. 49 (Acts 18:2). Subject to suffering and shame for their confession of Jesus, stripped of the familiar and visible institutions of organized Jewish religion, and confused by the hidden character of Jesus’ glory (veiled in suffering when He was on earth and now hidden in Heaven), the readers are tempted to turn away from the faith (10:38,39), to fall into unbelief and so to give up their pilgrimage towards God’s rest and God’s city (4:1,2,11; 11:10, 14-16; 13:14).

The highly regarded New Commentary on the Whole Bible by Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown, along with some miscellaneous commentary notes from pastor-teacher John MacArthur, will help to guide us through these deep theological waters. Please keep reading . . .


“A proper interpretation of this epistle requires the recognition that it addresses 3 distinct groups of “Jewish” people: (1) Believers; (2) unbelievers who were intellectually convinced of the Gospel; and (3) unbelievers who were attracted by the Gospel and the person of Christ but who had reached no final conviction about Him. Failure to acknowledge these groups leads to interpretations inconsistent with the rest of Scripture (and “the Scriptures cannot be broken,” according to our Master). The primary group addressed was Hebrew Christians who suffered rejection and persecution by fellow Jews (10:32-34), although none had yet been martyred (12:4). The letter was written to give them encouragement and confidence in Christ, a far superior (spotless/unblemished) High-Priest and sacrifice. They were likely an immature group of Believers who were tempted to hold on to the symbolic, but spiritually powerless, rituals and traditions of Judaism. The second group addressed was Jewish unbelievers who were convinced of the Gospel’s truth but who had not placed their faith in Jesus Christ as their own Savior and Lord. They were intellectually persuaded yet spiritually uncommitted. These folks are addressed in such passages as 2:1-3; 6:4-6; 10:26-29; and 12:15-17. The third group addressed was Jewish unbelievers who were not convinced of the Gospel’s truth but had some exposure to it. Chapter 9 is largely devoted to them.”

From the “Introduction to Hebrews”, pp. 1895-1896
The MacArthur Study Bible
Word Publishing, 1997



“These verses are difficult to interpret because it is not fully clear who the writer is speaking of and what it means to renew them again unto repentance. Some say the people are Jewish Christians who, desiring to return to Judaism (in light of an increasingly hostile atmosphere), would lose their salvation. Still others say that the people are ‘professing’ Christians who ‘apostatize’ from the faith (again, in light of growing persecution) and thus show that they were never really believers (see 1 John 2:19 and the case of Simon Magus in Acts 8). Those who apostatize (fall away) from the faith do so willfully; it is therefore impossible for these people to repent (Morris) – which, of course, means that it is impossible for these people to obtain salvation. Lindsell said, ‘Whatever view is taken about the state of an apostate prior to his apostasy, the outcome is the same. Whoever openly and consciously rejects Jesus Christ is unregenerate even if he seemed to have been saved earlier. The Arminian would say he had lost his salvation; the Calvinist that he never had it. Either way, the result is identical.”

New Commentary on the Whole Bible
Jamieson, Fausset and Brown



Now, let’s unpack this suitcase piece by piece . . .


Once Enlightened – This speaks of increased awareness brought about by the truth of the Gospel; by the light of Christ. This, by sheer necessity, is inevitably accompanied by some degree of intellectual perception (but not “reception,” per se). We should not prematurely equate “enlightenment” with salvation (see John 1:9).

Tasted of the Heavenly Gift – This indicates at least an initial, surface-level experience of or exposure to God’s gift in Christ (see John 4:10). Many Jews during the Lord’s earthly ministry experienced the blessings of Heaven that He brought – healings, deliverance from demons, eating the food He created miraculously (John 6), etc. Again, however, experience should not be viewed as the equivalent of salvation in the final analysis.

Partakers of the Holy Spirit – “Shared in the Holy Spirit” (NIV); without faith, however, proximity to God in the fellowship of His covenant people is no blessing; rather, it subjects apostates to more severe judgment . . . be so very careful as to what you expose yourselves to, for further exposure creates further accountability/responsibility. The concept of partaking is used in 3:1; 3:14; & 12:8 of a relationship which believers have; however, the context must be the final determining factor. If I said: “Boy, that was a gay affair,” what would I be conveying? Remember . . . context – context – context!

Tasted the Good Word of God – They were repeating the sins of those who died in the wilderness [after seeing] the miracles of God performed through Moses and Aaron and [after hearing] the voice of God at Sinai. If you’ll recall, these Israelites were supposed to go into the Promised Land, but then refused to enter. This should tell us something big about lost people; namely, that the lack of evidence isn’t as problematic in the life of the unregenerate man so much as the suppression of evidence. The previous comment should not be taken to mean that there is no “evidence” for the Christian faith or that the study or presentation of “evidence” is futile or sinful. There is an appropriate place for those endeavors, but a detailed explanation of that place is not the purpose of this issue. The New Commentary on the Whole Bible goes on to say that “a person can experience many of the same blessings as genuine Christians do and then later reject the faith. Such rejection is called apostasy.” Like Simon Magus (Acts 8:9-24) or Judas Iscariot, these Hebrews had not yet been regenerated in spite of all they had heard and seen (cf. Matthew 13:3-9; John 6:60-66).

The Powers of the World to Come – Most obviously, the signs and wonders that accompanied the introduction of the Gospel. We should take note here that these folks are not described with any terms that the Scriptures apply only to Believers (holy, born again, righteous, or saints).

[It’s Impossible] If They “Fall Away,” to Renew Them Again Unto Repentance – If those who toy with Christianity become unsettled and decide against Christ, they are no longer undecided, and their personalities will likely crystallize around that decision. After crossing this point of no return, it can be said that they would not repent (and one could see why). Those who sinned against Christ in such a way had (and still have) no hope of restoration or forgiveness (cf. 2:2,3: 10:26,27; 12:25). The reason is that they rejected Him with full knowledge of what they were doing. With full revelation they rejected the truth, concluding the opposite of the truth about Christ, and thus had no hope of ever being saved. They could never have had more knowledge than they had when they rejected it. To reiterate an earlier point, those who want to make this verse mean that Believers can lose salvation will have to admit that it would then also say that one could never get it back again . . . “twice lost – always lost.”

They Crucify to Themselves the Son of God Afresh – By their final decision, they join the side of those who put Him to death; that is, by renouncing their faith in Christ, they (by default) declare that Christ’s cross is not a holy (justified/valid) sacrifice for other’s sins, but rather the deserved execution of a guilty criminal (10:29). They have concluded that Jesus should have been crucified, and they stand with His enemies. When the work of Christ is consciously rejected and spurned, what other sacrifice/remedy is left for sins (see John 14:6 and Acts 4:12).




IS THE SITUATION IN VERSE 6 HYPOTHETICAL OR LITERAL???



Only after finally realizing – in light of the larger testimony of Scripture – that the situation of verse 6 is presented in the context of apostasy did I settle on the literal interpretation. The hypothetical is simply not clear, making that rendering even more suspect. Upon much reflection, I can say that these verses are literally talking about people who are “tares” (see Matthew 13:26-30, 36-43). In other words, they look like Christians on the outside, but have never been born again on the inside. This thoroughly Biblical theme makes the religious-but-lost concept even more critical. If the falling from grace crowd would ever fully realize and accept the extent of the religious-but-lost problem, it could potentially solve this debate. They would see the multitudes of apostates not as having lost their salvation, but having never had it in the first place. At the risk of sounding repetitive, the subjects of Hebrews 6:4-6 were unbelievers who had been exposed to God’s redemptive truth, and perhaps had even made a profession of faith, but had not exercised genuine saving faith. As in Hebrews 10:26, the reference once again is to apostates (“tares” who apostatized/fell away during tough times), not to genuine Believers who are often incorrectly thought to lose their salvation because of their sins.

In conclusion, the false doctrine often labeled “falling from grace” comes in large part from a misunderstanding of this text (although there are more) and that is very unfortunate. The teaching of eternal security has strong Biblical justification; as such, it is not merely a “denominational darling,” per se, invented to make excuses for licentious living or to soothe our lives as some sort of “fire-insurance policy” alone. This is not simply a narrow-minded Baptist or Presbyterian dogma that we blindly hold-on to for the sake of tradition . . . God help us if that’s the case!! Since I am an “equal opportunity picker” (I stole that one from my Pastor), there is much modification that needs to be made on the parts of both your avg. Baptist (weak/carnal version of preservation called “once saved, always saved”) and those who take a position against a valid/clear Biblical teaching. I have abandoned the frequently heard statement, “once saved, always saved” (as it can be sorely misleading) in honor of a more sound Biblical theology and phraseology. If there was even a possibility that a true Christian’s salvation could abruptly end, the Word itself is fatally flawed and the hope of living forever in Christ is conditional on the works of humanity (our ship would be “sunk” every week if that were the case). Brethren, as you struggle with and handle the revealed Word of our Lord with much fear and trembling when you rise up, when you lie down, and when you walk in the way, I pray the Lord would be your Guide.

In the August 2005 issue of Scratching the Surface, my great friend and accountability partner, Daniel Copeland, will come on board to do a little “surface scratching,” as he tackles the issue of rightly handling the Word of truth in greater detail than I have here. I’ve seen the bulk of that article already and am thankfully excited for what our Lord has in store for you all in S.T.S. 1.6. To God be the glory, great things He has done!



You’re bound to slip “on-board,” but you won‘t fall “over-board!”

S.T.S. 1.4 [Closing Comments]


I bring this issue to a close by offering some thoughts on how certain aspects of American culture (as it now stands) have contributed to the "fragmented spirituality" practiced by many "professing" Believers.

Here in America, we have grown accustomed to a way of life that basically tends to separate who we are (beliefs & values) from what we do in a sense (actions-behavior-conduct). If you don’t believe that, just open your ears during election season!! This mindset, in turn, has slowly crept into American Evangelicalism.
In America, we so over-compartmentalize our lives that the only consistency in us is the fact that there is none. If there ever were such a thing as a walking, breathing "oxy-moron," it would have to be the run-of-the-mill American whose thinking has been taken captive by the prevailing ideas and notions of popular culture. Unfortunately, this is all-too-commonplace in many Churches. I’m willing to bet (not really) that this is an underlying principle in the following scenarios which I’ve devised to make the point:

1. Your co-worker claims to be a born-again Christian, but he sees no correlation between his
"beliefs" and his work ethic. Better yet, he sees no problem hitting the local pub after work to
have a drink with the crew. I mean, after all, who are we to judge? "I’m not the role model
Christian," he affirms, "but at least I am a good ol’ boy." (all the while, he never sees the
inconsistency)

2. Your friend (not being the beacon of personal integrity) believes her personal, private lifestyle has no bearing on her professionalism at work. She facilitates classes on leadership skills while
on the job, but is a loser with her husband/kids at home. "What I do behind closed doors
doesn’t affect anyone but me," she says every now and then.

3. A nameless Senator (running for President) claims that his personal belief is that life is a gift
of God that begins at conception. Unfortunately, this type of belief (since it wreaks of
Christianity) has no place in this candidate’s contradictory public policy ideas. "I have to
uphold the U.S. Constitution, which calls for a strict separation of Church & State," he whines.
(No, John, it doesn’t . . . read it again – this time in context, please sir!)

4. Multitudes of professing "Christians" believe that they have their "fire-insurance" (after all,
they have walked an aisle . . .). "Whether we choose to ever live for Christ is entirely another
matter," they say. (Maybe I’m missing something, but what about passages such as Matthew
7 & 13:24-30; 36-43/John 3:36/2 Corinthians 5:17 & 13:5/Ephesians 2:10/ and James 2:14-
26? Also be sure to re-read this month’s quote, which sums things up nicely.)

I think there may be a common denominator running through the very heart of the 4 common scenarios above. What about you?

Until next month’s issue . . . . . . . don’t be ashamed to peel back those Surfaces in order to see what’s worth holding on to. Some will thank you for doing so, while many others (Christians included) will seek to marginalize you for it. When everything is said and done, however, at least you can say that you escaped the shackles of a mere day-to-day existence in order to get outside of the box. I want to warmly wish you a Merry Christmas & Happy New Year!!

S.T.S. 1.4 [Q&A 101]


[Subject – Cults!!]


Question:
"What is a ‘cult?’ More specifically, what differentiates a cult from simply another ‘denomination?’ "

Answer:
Simply put, a "cult" (as it pertains to the Christian faith), is a group that claims to be Christian in nature but that deviates from the ESSENTIAL doctrines of classical Christianity. That is, members of Christian cults such as the Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) or the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society (Jehovah’s Witnesses) fall outside of the "pale of orthodoxy." Some doctrines that are in view here are the authority of Scripture, Person & work of Jesus Christ, the nature of God (monotheistic or polytheistic), the Trinity, sin, the resurrection, the way of the cross (Jesus as the ONLY Way to the Father), state/condition of the human heart, etc.Remember this -- in ESSENTIALS . . . Unity; in NONESSENTIALS . . . Liberty . . . and in ALL THINGS . . . Charity!! Denominations do not exist due to deviations/variances on ESSENTIAL Biblical teaching, but rather deal more with certain NONESSENTIAL concerns. Items in this category could range from one’s view on baptism (i.e., immersion, sprinkling, or pouring), to a person’s take on capital punishment, to an individual’s stance on "last days" or "end times" chronology, etc. By the way, neither the essential nor the nonessential lists above are completely exhaustive (specifically the latter list of nonessentials).

In that light, the various denominations that fall under the larger umbrella of Christianity are inevitable when you consider many dynamics. In essence, two Christians can take opposing sides on a "secondary" issue and still be Christians all the while in good fellowship with one another. Remember, secondary doesn’t mean unimportant!!On this note, we need to be able to disagree without being disagreeable. This is not to say that truth cannot be discerned on these nonessential issues; furthermore, I never want to give the slightest impression that those who disagree on secondary concerns should never flesh these things out with one another. In fact, I would encourage believers to dialogue about "secondary differences" in light of Biblical & historical context, "age" of the particular stance relative to Christian history, etc. On the other hand, however, we must be careful not to become embittered against brothers and sisters who differ with us on the non-essentials. When we begin to lean in that direction, we become very legalistic very quickly; this is something that we need to guard against. On these issues . . . may the best idea win!!


To explore this very issue a bit further and in more depth, I refer you to the following helpful articles:

1. What Is Christianity?http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/theology/whatis.htm

2. The Essentials of Christianityhttp://www.equip.org/free/CP0701.htm

S.T.S. 1.4 [Main Article]


. . . On the Nature of True Saving Faith . . .[pt. 1]
("Faith ALONE saves, but the faith that saves IS NEVER ALONE!")

I don’t know about you, but I truly believe that American Evangelicals have missed the boat entirely whereas the nature of true Biblical salvation is concerned. As far as I can see, this issue rests (at least in part) upon an overemphasis on a questionable teaching that we will call "Carnal Christianity." By "Carnal Christianity," I am referring to the popular and appealing (but historically recent – say 50-60 years) notion that one can be truly regenerate/"saved" and not show the slightest hint of that throughout their lifetimes . . . & still get heaven upon departing this life. This is false, at least in my estimation.

The foundational problem is our understanding of "conversion" as a mere human decision (on this view, one could choose not to grow or, better yet, to remove themselves from the saving grip of God) instead of a supernatural working of God whereby the very NATURE of the individual is changed.Make no mistake about it – one becomes a child of God through the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit! The "heart of stone" (which is unresponsive to God) is removed and replaced with a "heart of flesh" (that responds to God). Before conversion, one is inclined to the things of the flesh and sin. After conversion, one is given to the things of the Spirit and holiness. The notion that we have any sort of freedom apart from the governance of God is not a Biblical concept, for it is in Him that we live, move, and have our being. We do not simply adopt a new set of rules and force ourselves to live by them, but rather we become a "new creature" that DESIRES a new set of rules according to the very nature, character, and will of God.


The references to "carnality" are to be explained in their context:

1. It should never be denied that: [a] all new believers must grow from carnality and immaturity into a spiritual and mature walk with Christ; [b] even mature believers may act carnally and immaturely.

2. What is to be denied is that a truly "regenerated" person can live in a constant state of carnality without growth to maturity and the bearing of fruit – this is the popular (but Biblically absent) doctrine of the "Carnal Christian" that has done so much damage to the Church (especially in the U.S.A.).

3. Many of the "Christians" in Corinth were indeed acting in the flesh. Paul attacks this problem in 2 ways: [a] 1st, he admonishes them that believers are not to act in such a way; [b] 2nd, he warns them that if they CONTINUE in the flesh WITHOUT REPENTANCE, it could very well be the evidence that many of them are still "unregenerate" (2 Corinthians 13:5).

4. Many true Believers are indeed delayed in the process; & not all progress at the same rate or pass away at the exact same mark (we know this from the rewards system in heaven) . . . but, a huge distinction must be made between delayed growth & no growth at all.

The teaching of the Scriptures is clear – the genuine Christian will walk in the way of the Lord or on the "narrow path" (Matthew 7), not because of his greater will or discipline, but because God has made that person into a new creation for His glory. John Piper once stated that "the Christian disciple serves Christ Jesus in the power with which he or she is served BY Christ Jesus"; furthermore, Christ is not the lucky beneficiary of His trusted Christian benefactors. Christ Jesus is the Initiator and He thus gets ALL of the glory, for from Him and through Him and to Him are all things forever and ever, amen. When the true Believer steps off the "path," he is "convicted" and even "disciplined" by a loving/caring Father (Hebrews 12:5-11) until he returns. If a "professing" Christian steps off the path and begins to bear the fruit of the unbeliever, he can have no assurance of ever being saved/rescued. If he returns to the path, then this is a confirmation of his salvation and the foundation of his assurance. If he does not return to the path, it is a great evidence of his "unregenerate state."To say that a true Believer's life can be consistently characterized by an unrepentant, happy-as-you-sin-regardless pattern is foreign to the testimony of much Scripture.

Therefore, based upon this very testimony, I must take the position that the teaching of co-called "Carnal Christianity" (again, not Christians who can act carnally) is shaky, weak, & Biblically unfounded. If you are truly justified (in right standing with God [positionally]), the Scriptures declare that you shall be truly sanctified (progressively set apart) & truly glorified (our ultimate redemption, to which we should look forward with eagerness). It has been rightly said that "I'm not what I want to be (sanctification); I'm not what I'm gonna be (glorification); but thank God I'm not what I used to be (justification)!"

Once again - to say that one can be justified & not sanctified is just not good theology. It is God who saves, God who preserves us, God who works through us, and God who will raise us up on that that glorious day . . . with that said – Glory to God in the highest!! All of us must think soberly on these truths in this day when our substance (not our style) seems to have more in common with the fluctuating ideas of pop-culture than it does with the principles of Christ.

S.T.S. 1.3 [Concluding Remarks]


Concluding Remarks:


In the process of doing some background work in preparation for this month’s issue, I came across a great piece that summarizes my basic rationale throughout the feature article. In closing, I’d like to share it with you here:

"In May, 1994, Congress passed a law making it a federal offense to block an abortion clinic. Pamela Maraldo, President of Planned Parenthood at the time commented to the press, ‘This law goes to show that no one can force their viewpoint on someone else.’ The self-contradiction ought to be obvious: All laws force someone’s viewpoint."(Gregory Koukl, Christian Apologist, Stand To Reason)

No, Ms. Maraldo, a particular brand of "morality" was legislated in May ’94, one that doesn’t conflict with your worldview (hence, your satisfaction with the decision). Again . . . see what I mean? I encourage you to listen closely to what people say, for many times, the devil is right there in the details!

Legislating Morality! It's not 'IF' or 'WHETHER,' but 'WHOSE!'


Legislating Morality -- The REAL Issue . . .
(it’s not "IF" or "WHETHER," but "WHOSE")


"Please remember this . . . all law/legislation is someone else’s view of right/wrong that is imposed on another!! America has legislated morality since her beginnings, and rightly so, for we would have chaos and anarchy if that were not the case. However, this brand of politically-correct rhetoric should clearly show us that much of the thinking within America (& within Christendom) is about a mile wide and an inch deep." (Scott, 10/2004)


. . . and since then: [Presidential Debate #2 Excerpt]

GIBSON:
"Going to go to the final two questions now, and the first one will be for Senator Kerry. And this comes from Sarah Degenhart."

DEGENHART:
"Senator Kerry, suppose you are speaking with a voter who believed abortion is murder and the voter asked for reassurance that his or her tax dollars would not go to support abortion, what would you say to that person?"

KERRY:
"I would say to that person exactly what I will say to you right now. First of all, I cannot tell you how deeply I respect the belief about life and when it begins. I'm a Catholic, raised a Catholic. I was an altar boy. Religion has been a huge part of my life. It helped lead me through a war, leads me today. But I can't take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it on someone who doesn't share that article of faith, whether they be agnostic, atheist, Jew, Protestant, whatever. I can't do that. But I can counsel people. I can talk reasonably about life and about responsibility. I can talk to people, as my wife Teresa does, about making other choices, and about abstinence, and about all these other things that we ought to do as a responsible society. But as a president, I have to represent all the people in the nation. And I have to make that judgment. Now, I believe that you can take that position and not be pro- abortion, but you have to afford people their constitutional rights . . . that's why I think it's important for the United States, for instance, not to have this rigid ideological restriction on helping families around the world to be able to make a smart decision about family planning. . . . you'll help prevent unwanted children, unwanted pregnancies. You'll actually do a better job, I think, of passing on the moral responsibility that is expressed in your question. And I truly respect it."

___________________________________________________________________


Wow! It’s an interesting place we’ve come to here, wouldn’t you say? On the one hand, we Evangelical Christians strongly esteem and place super-high value upon life due to the fact that mankind is created in the very image of God. This truth inevitably and naturally impacts our views and/or voting habits on issues pertaining to life, be they issues of abortion, embryonic stem-sell research, euthanasia, etc. On the other hand, however, we’re constantly told by the liberal elite that it’s simply inappropriate to "legislate" or "impose" such beliefs on those Americans who would disagree for various reasons. If you don’t see this starting to happen, I’ve only got one thing to say . . . disarm the "SNOOZE BUTTON" feature on your cultural alarm clock, because you seem to have a habit of hitting it during times like these.

From here on out, I’ll refer to this popular, albeit erroneous/flawed, line of reasoning as the "No-Moral-Legislation Fallacy." This particular mindset, which has saturated our thinking for decades, can be restated in the following ways:


As long as I don’t hurt anyone the government should leave me alone . . .

No one should force their morals on anyone else . . .

You can’t make people be good . . .

Legislating morality violates the "separation of church & state" . . .

"Big Brother" has absolutely no business in my bedroom . . .


Do you see the common thread woven throughout the preceding lines of argumentation? Namely, that it is wrong to legislate/impose "morality" on the people, specifically those who disagree with a particular moral stance. While I’ll readily grant the notion that the preceding philosophy has good rhetorical force (i.e., if one isn’t familiar with this type of rhetoric, he or she will most likely be caught off guard), it is desperately lacking in terms of strength and substance.


Why is this the case?


Allow me to offer a couple of theories on this:


1. For decades, this brand of jargon has been "spoon-fed" to us through a plethora of avenues (i.e., Hollywood, the media, activist court rulings, misguided politicians, etc.). Interestingly enough, if you were to take a certain saying, belief, argument, etc., and pound it over and over again into the thinking of a highly susceptible, non-thinking culture, you’d be amazed at the things that would become acceptable. Unfortunately, we tend to accept that which is ingrained into our thinking when we don’t think through the practical ramifications of a particular thought. Remember that ideas have legit consequences.

2. On top of the previous theory, it has "populist" appeal, in that it strongly identifies with the mindset of radical independence that has swept over our land. That is, we humans (especially Americans) don’t like being told what to do (I mean, after all, we’re depraved, capable, and know what’s best, right?) . . . HA! We could certainly camp out here for a while, but that’s for another time. In sum, Americans value what seems fair rather than what is true. Honestly, the same could probably be said of the American Church!!


As for the "No-Moral-Legislation Fallacy" lacking in terms of strength/substance, take a look at the following simplified exchange (in conversational form) which will serve to expose the basic problem:

Mike "Mustlegislatemorals":
I think it’s awesome that we have the most pro-life president in history (i.e., signing into law the Born Alive Infants Act, Partial Birth Abortion Ban, and Laci & Connor Peterson’s Law)! On that note, we have the opportunity this year to impact legislation whereas the issue of abortion is concerned; more specifically, we, the people, get to decide on the parental notification of a minor’s termination of pregnancy. I can’t believe this is even an issue, but if my child has to have my permission to take an aspirin at school, I will be made aware of a situation like this. My voice, through my vote, will be heard this year! You know, maybe abortion should be outlawed altogether.

Charlie "Cannotlegislatemorals":
Mike, you certainly have the right to believe whatever you want to believe, but the fact of the matter is that things have changed and we’ve made a lot of progress as a society. In fact, it has been well-said that America is going through "collective puberty." Besides, it’s common knowledge these days that moral imposition is off-limits, especially whereas the government is concerned. We cannot impose or legislate morality . . . it’s simply wrong . . .

Mike "Mustlegislatemorals":
Is that, then, your "morality?" In other words, is your belief that you cannot impose morality "your morality?"

Charlie "Cannotlegislatemorals":
Well . . . ummm . . . I’ve never really looked at it that way, but if that’s what you want to call it, then fine . . .

Mike "Mustlegislatemorals":
Since that is "your morality," whether you’d like to admit to it or not, then why are you "imposing" it on me (and the others who dissent)? Why will you be seeking to "impose" your brand of morality on those who disagree with you by "your vote" on the issue?

Charlie "Cannotlegislatemorals":
Huh???


Do you more clearly see the basic problem?


It’s not a matter of whether morality can be legislated, but WHOSE morality will be legislated. Don’t ever forget that!! In fact, if you get nothing else from this month’s issue, make sure you grasp the preceding point. ALL law/legislation is someone’s view of right and wrong that is imposed on another. Much like the man who says there are no absolutes (which would have to be "absolute" in order to be "true"), people who hold to the "No Moral Legislation Fallacy" are walking contradictions. In other words, you can’t get away from the legislation of morality, no matter whose brand of moral principles is eventually imposed.

Therefore, after taking more of a rational look at this issue, I must conclude that if we abandon the legislation of morality (which is inherently impossible), we must, in turn, abandon the rule of law itself. If you’d like to see a recipe of disaster for societal stability, just take a stroll down that street.


In closing, I’d like to alter the Q&A piece from presidential debate #2 to even better illustrate the inherent weakness of the "No-Moral-Legislation Fallacy." As you’ll quickly notice, I’ve made two alterations [for illustration purposes ONLY]: (1) The subject of Degenhart’s question is a pro-choice voter; & (2) Kerry is a CONSISTENT pro-life politician (i.e., if a thing is wrong personally, then it should follow that it is wrong whereas public policy is concerned).
Buckle up and watch what happens here . . .

GIBSON:
"Going to go to the final two questions now, and the first one will be for Senator Kerry. And this comes from Sarah Degenhart."


DEGENHART:
"Senator Kerry, suppose you are speaking with a voter who believed abortion is the sole right/choice of a woman and the voter asked for reassurance that his or her tax dollars would be able to support that very right, what would you say to that person?"


KERRY:
"I would say to that person exactly what I will say to you right now. First of all, I cannot tell you how deeply I respect your right to believe what you want to believe even though I strongly disagree with your stance. As for me, I'm a Catholic, and I was raised a Catholic. I was even an altar boy (can you believe that . . . me, an altar boy?). Religion has been a huge part of my life. It helped lead me through a war, and it leads me today (because I want the votes of a certain constituency). But I can't take what is an article of belief for you personally and legislate it on someone who doesn't share that belief, be they unborn child, pro-lifer, whatever. I can't do that. But I can still be your President and have this difference of belief with you. As a president, however, I have to represent all the people in the nation, including the unborn children who have no voice but us. And I have to make that judgment. Now, I believe that you can take that position and not be pro-life, but you have to afford people their constitutional rights . . . that's why I think it's important for the United States, for instance, not to have this rigid ideological restriction on helping the unborn child, politically correct or not."


Beloved, the same principle that was at work in the true account of that exchange was at work in the above illustration, even though it was admittedly modified to make the point. Kerry’s philosophy that he is personally against abortion, but wouldn’t legislate his views on others who disagree, was completely erroneous. In the first place, by refusing to display the principled discipline to stand up against his pro-abortion constituency and defend the unborn, he was essentially imposing his views on others – the babies – by default!!! Do not forget that, my friend!! In one sense they are the only innocent ones in this situation. Secondly, as previously stated, we do (and must) legislate morality. Our entire system of criminal law and much of our civil law is based on our moral beliefs, from larceny to rape to pre-meditated murder.


As has also been said here, if we don’t legislate morality, we forfeit the rule of law, societal stability, and ordered liberty all together. Think, right now, about other moral issues that we legislate on but which are not necessarily hot-button issues at the moment . . . murder – rape – assault & battery – petit theft . . . etc. Are you seeing what’s happening? I want you to think through these things!!


When someone gives you a variation of the "No-Moral-Legislation Fallacy," ask them one question . . . do you vote?? If they vote, they begin to engage in self-refutation, and that is something that we need to point out more often in our day. When you do get the chance to pull back the curtains, be sure to expose the error in a loving manner. More specifically, do so with a question rather than a statement (i.e., Maybe I’m missing something, but …). This is just a point of tactical wisdom that tends to disarm a tension-filled situation, even if you and your friend vehemently disagree on the issue.


By the way, would you like to know who else argued against "moral legislation?" You’re going to need to buckle up for this one - - - - - - - American slave owners during the time period of the civil war! That’s right! I’d encourage you to think about that one on your drive home today.


Remember: it’s not IF, but WHOSE . . .

21 July 2005

A Counseling Tip

During a counseling session (regardless of the setting/comtext), and specifically during the initial session, it is always better to do more listening than speaking. Think with me for a moment (and forgive me for not producing a more tactful illustration) – you tell me what’s more rational . . . (1) to digest information before it is properly ingested; or (2) to ingest/gain the information and then digest that information appropriately? I hope that you chose option #2, as I did.

I distinctively recall Dr. Jerry M. Windsor telling us in class that for some odd reason, he found in his counseling experience that it was usually the 3rd issue (given by the counseled in the initial session) that turned out to be the real problem. Let’s create an imaginary scenario in order to better grasp this point. You (& your spouse) are the counselors – Suzie, the subtle (yet rebellious) varsity cheerleader has asked you if she could meet with you ASAP. Let’s say that the presenting problem is an issue of acceptance/rejection . . . or a parental issue . . . check it out – if you too hastily begin to unload whereas the “presenting” problem is concerned, you may never discover that Suzie is carrying the child of the all-star athlete!! While that is indeed a radical illustration, I believe it makes the point. In these situations, take your time, listen, and learn to discern the difference between that which is symptomatic and that which is problematic. There is a difference!

CD Burning

Question: "My friends and I like to share music. Is it wrong to burn CDs or download music for free online? And if burning whole CDs is stealing, what about making mixed CDs (with a bunch of favorite songs) for friends?"

Answer: Click on the following link to discover what Mark Matlock has to say on this pressing topic (I agree with him here):

http://www.christianitytoday.com/cl/2004/004/11.30.html

--

Not bad for 'Christianity Astray,' huh?? ;~)

Short Quotes to Toss About in Your Mind

"When it comes to truth, ‘tolerance’ is a travesty; when it comes to personal relationships, it’s a virtue." –Hank Hanegraaff

"Controversy for the sake of controversy is sin; controversy for the sake of truth is a Divine command." -Walter Martin

"Faith alone saves, but the faith that saves is never alone!!" -John Calvin

“When the plough man and the garage attendant know the Bible as well as the theologian does, and know it better than some contemporary theologians, then the desired awakening shall have already occurred." -Gordon H. Clark

"He who claims to be a skeptic of one set of beliefs is actually a true believer in another set of beliefs." -Phillip E. Johnson

"What is today a matter of academic speculation begins tomorrow to move armies and pull-down empires." -J. Gresham Machen (1881-1936)

"There is nothing so likely to lead to error or heresy than to begin with the parts rather than the whole." -Dr. D. Martyn Lloyed-Jones

"To avoid criticism, do nothing, say nothing, be nothing." -Elbert Hubbard

"Most people value themselves, but mostly for the wrong reasons." -Daniel Copeland

A Note on Teaching

I would venture to say that much learning is “self-generated.” That is to say, the majority of stuff that ends up in our “gray-matter” will indeed be placed there by us!! No kidding! From a personal standpoint, I have learned much more in the field of my major since graduating than I did while I was there. Ultimately, however, this says more about me than it does regarding my alma mater (I truly appreciate my time there). Therefore, as teachers, we must teach the basics and teach them well so that our students are properly positioned to go on to self-directed, advanced learning.

It is better to master all of a little rather than none of a lot. Too many of us, whether teachers or students, seem to work from the opposite end of the spectrum; that is, we ingest too much from too many places in too brief of a time-period. The fall-out from this is that many teachers and students alike end up becoming a mile-wide and an inch deep. When you master the little bit that you are presently working with, then move on to the next piece of the puzzle. Students, it's the same with you, just from a perspective of learning. All of us would do well to master the basics (a rifle-approach) rather than surveying the whole landscape (a shotgun approach).