Remember the children of Israel. While entering Canaan, God commanded His people to keep their sons from taking local wives, so as not to become like the people God was taking Canaan land from. However, marriage was a key means of diplomacy. And attraction to seek peace with at least one neighbor was great, in light of 40 years of wandering into rebellion, bloody battles, and vipers. A marriage to the right family could ensure a bright future and strong alliances meant a growing kingdom. The Israelites did take wives from among God's enemies, and as God promised, their sons worshipped the gods of their pagan brides.
If Evangelicals want to keep from becoming like the world they wish to evangelize, it would profit them greatly to keep their sons from taking brides from among ungodly doctrines. Ecumenicalism does not actually bread what it promises. The bright future of a strong alliance is actually nothing more than an addition of idolatry. When you put aside the teachings of the Bible to embrace a new brother, you actually are leaving The God who wrote the teachings for the sake of that new brother.
I am excited for The Gospel Coalition's leadership within the Evangelicalism. They have rallied Baptists, Presbyterians, Anglicans, and charismatic nondenominationals around the Evangel. But I do believe that the next step is not just coming to an agreement on what the Gospel is and how it affects the Christian's life. The next step is Universal Church discipline. And it begins when Evangelical leaders review doctrines worth breaking fellowship over. Like Israelites of old, we mustn't tire of taking and defending the promise land given to us by the grace of God.
Robust gospel church discipline calls individual congregates to repentance, and warns Christians everywhere of church leaders who have made a shipwreck of their faith. It is ironic, but I believe the goal of ecumenicalism would actually be possible with the success of church discipline. As the church draws doctrinal lines, the churches on the biblical side would be strengthened as we've seen within The Gospel Coalition.
Case+Point:
Immediately, I want to see Evangelicals apply robust gospel centered discipline to John Stott, N.T. Wright, and Mike Bickle. John Stott is still spoken of well, despite his submission to annihilationist ["Annihilation" means no eternity of torture, but instead simply ceasing to exist] view of Hell. N.T. Wright, apart from all his slippery NPP and Exile Homecoming=Justification rhetoric is doing nothing more than denying the Inspiration of scripture. We don't have to know all his teaching to see the error (as I've come to realize). Mike Bickle is among the tail end of the Latter Rain movement. But unlike many other blue hairs, Bickle is attracting many young people--the future of the Church. If understanding is not brought to bare on this "prophet's" "Word Faith" and "Mystic" practices, the church will have to deal with another millennium of monasticism.
7 comments:
Ouch, no one is safe. I think striving for purity of doctrine is extremely important...for oneself and one's own. But, absolute purity of doctrine is impossible on this side of glory. If discipline is demanded for a man (Stott) who has preached the Gospel faithfully and studied the Word diligently for decades...then woe is me, I am undone! Maybe Tim Keller (allegorical view of the creation account), Mark Driscoll (speech and view on spiritual warfare) and Bruce Ware (view on the scope of the atonement) should be next. Let's not mention those stubborn cessationists. And are Arminians and Pentecostals even saved (lol)? Did you know that great Puritan Richard Baxter adhered to the view that the atonement was vicarious, not substitutionary? And he was a staunch Amyraldian...yet very few revivals have been seen like the one God used him for in Kidderminster. Rally around the Gospel, supremacy of Christ, and doctrinal overflow (Tit. 2:1-10) bro, it'll take your whole life to patrol the miles of fencing you're setting...and it will be excessively lonely. Hope you're well buddy. I'm glad you're still thinking.
Clint: "one's self and one's own."
What do you mean by that? Are we not each others'? "Has Christ been divided?" Paul asks in 1st Cor. 1:13. The reason he does is to take the emphasis off the teachers and preachers and put it back on Christ. The theological truth he makes is essentially: disunity among God's people wrongfully portrays Jesus to the world. It ruins our witness.
The truth of God's Word-the 1st tier issues-worthy parting company over, are not divided either. Christ's word does not contradict itself. So when many who fly the colors of Christianity oppose each other, we are left with a few options. We could forget our convictions and say their both right. We could try to take a little of both 'em and say, "everything in moderation" or "chew the meat and spit out the bone." We could choose sides like those in the Corinthian church. Or we could rally around the Gospel. This seems like choosing a side like the Corinthians, but I think it is different. Choosing sides in Corinth had to do with the speaker. But choosing sides on actual issues is a discerning act, the Bible calls us to do.
Perhaps I am too harsh on Stott. But no one is untouchable because our faith is not in them. It is in Christ. And the great truth within "The Cross of Christ" (my copy is still floating around) is not firstly Stott's. It is God's truth. So if someone quoted out of Stott, it is not Stott they quote, but God's wisdom. Referring back to the Corinthian church, "What then is Apollos? And what is Paul?" And what is Stott. "Servants through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave opportunity to each one." In the Galations text, Paul says, "even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what you received , he is to be accursed!" If Paul can bring himself and his fellow apostles before the Galations for examination, then we can do the same for Piper, Baxter, Lewis, Driscoll, Brent, and Stott--because "not many of you should become teachers... incur a stricter judgement."
Within the church one hears the popular question, "if I was baptised by someone who later made a wreck of their faith, does my baptism count?" Of course it does, because the source of the baptismal act is not the baptizer. It is the Holy Spirit. In the same way, if we have a touter like John Stott and learned great things, but later listened to false teaching from him, it would call into question everything we learned from him until we found another source to the same truth.
Being used by God is not the same thing as being saved by God. God is able to use even a donkey to speak to us. He also used Stott in a big way in my life and He is glorious for it.
Please write back Clint. Do I still err? You have me curious.
I think you miss my point--not everything is a 1st tier issue. That was my point. Some things should be cast to God to sort out. Do I think Stott is wrong on his view of hell...hell yes! But, if Galatians 1:8 directly applies to Stott then so does 2 John 10-11:
"If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works."
Reading his books and gleaning from his teaching could be one of the most foolish things you have ever done in your life. If he is truly a false teacher, then you have taken part in his wicked works and have unashamedly felt as though reading his material for spiritual benefit is harmless (I won't even ask if you've read C.S. Lewis)--which would be contrary to what God teaches--which would make your view a false view. If you have recommended any material to people from Stott or his likes, then you have not only taken part in their wicked works, but you have promoted them. Am I warranted then to call you accursed?
Or should we rejoice that God's grace is evident in an imperfect man with an imperfect knowledge of Scripture who ruthlessly holds to and teaches the Gospel of Jesus Christ? "For the one who is not against us is for us." (Mark 9:40)
Christ is a clear spring in the desert. You don't have to put up miles of fencing--just lead the sheep to the spring. Let's have gracious fellowship with imperfect people who do that and let the puddle-pointers be damned.
By the way, you should check out a couple of older posts I wrote where I blasted Billy Graham and implied that CS Lewis was not even saved. Your post about Stott (and others) was exceedingly more gracious and godly.
Clint, thank you for writing back. Sometimes it may appear like I am a reckless backwoods independent Baptist. But I want to assure you, I remain in fellowship and under authority of your local church body in Dallas, Tx. I'm happy to be in conversation with you. And I know you care a great deal for my development as a younger Christian thinker. Thank you for dealing humbly and patiently with me. I just want you to know that I value your time and your energy.
On Lewis: I have not read Lewis beyond his Narnia allegories. I have only heard some name calling (Naturalist, Universalist, etc.). After that I really haven't cared enough to investigate.
On 2nd John: I don't know of a difference between "taking part" and "promoting." No, you aren't to warrant me, "accursed." I do not teach to false things I've read. At least the ones we are addressing here, I am not aware of any false teaching I myself am multiplying. "Participating in his evil deeds" says nothing of a damning effect. It instead should sober us to a place where we realize to severity of our actions. No Christian has perfect doctrine. And imperfection hinders the gospel. So moral of the story: locate blind spots and improve doctrine.
On Stott: I no longer recommend The Cross of Christ to people. After discovering his error, I have only talked about Stott's book with those who have already read it. I can't remember if Stott is still living. I think I once looked him up and found he was. Anyhow, more than anything, I would like Stott's contemporaries to address him in person on this extremely important part of the Gospel. If Hell is not eternal, the wages of sin is not that big of a deal. Sin is not so eternally offensive to God. And most importantly, the Bible lies. The very Gospel he preaches in the Cross of Christ is at stake when he makes peace with annihilationism. After face to face addressing happens, l want to see serious Biblical scholarship done on Annihilationism. After that I want to hear from the leaders in the Church today, whether or not we should count him among the teachers of the Church or whether we should thank God for using only as a momentary tool discredit him completely.
On false teachers: We know the NT talks a lot about false teachers. We may casually say there is a "office of the false teacher." I cannot speak for all, but at least in the case of Hymenaeus and Alexander, we see an example of wolves among the ranks of Ephesian elders. Not wolves in the mosque or coffee shop next door, but within the household of God--the Church. Hymenaeus and Alexander may have been installed by Paul's hands himself. And these very elders may have been present when Paul prophesied the internal perversion of the Ephesian eldership. Did Paul know who would betray the Ephesians? I don't think so. Bottom line: until the public discipline of the two elders, they were seen as elders who met the Paul's qualifications of an elder, which is another way of saying, they taught correct doctrine. The Church in Ephesus was helped and matured through the work of these men.
Note: I know I take way too much space to say so little. Please forgive me. I don't know how to write another way.
Just please don't go Hyper-Cal on me bro. There are plenty of people with an under-developed view of various teachings of the Bible who cling to that which is of first importance (1 Cor 15:3-4). If salvation was by grace through flawless doctrinal articulation, then no one would be saved. But, if salvation is by grace through faith in what Jesus has done, then there are plenty of messy people in the kingdom...most of them are not Calvinists...and may never be.
Post a Comment