Everybody Draws Lines (It Really Is All About Why)

One of the area evangelical churches, which has a rock band, had someone spontaneously begin taking his music to a different level with his behavior.  He was jumping up and down and spinning and generally making the people attending feel uncomfortable.  Leadership didn't allow him to continue.  They couldn't agree to disagree.  They wouldn't allow for Christian liberty.  They judged him in what one would have thought was, for them, a doubtful disputation.  According to some's evaluation, the leaders that cut him off must have been weaker brothers with more scruples than he.  They shut down his act with no verses to stop it.  People didn't like it.  It was their preference.  They drew a line.

Everybody draws lines.  Everyone has a dress code.  Everyone has a music standard.  Everybody has an entertainment standard.  The truth is that everybody just draws their lines at different places.  That's why I asked recently what was wrong with VSM? (here and here)  Most of the people who draw lines say that you can't judge, and then they proceed to judge, like the evangelical church above.   It's not that they don't judge, just that they judge according to a different line drawn.   That church knew someone had crossed a line.  The line was mainly about a level of comfort being violated.  If people had to continue putting up with the zany behavior of a worship leader, not what they would judge to be a violation of any written text of scripture, the church would have started shrinking.  Maybe they could have put up with the wild and crazy 'worship,' but they couldn't have endured the complaints that they were receiving about his participation.  At some point everyone thinks that someone is going too far, and it is, again, just a matter of degree.

The above church again would say that they are majoring on the majors, that they are caring about the things that matter the most -- men's souls (I know this to be their justification, because we've talked to them directly).  It's true that they put thousands of dollars into the lights, the staging, the sheet music, the instruments, the lessons, the leaders, the sound equipment, the computers, the training, as well as hours and hours into the practice, but it isn't that important, even though Rick Warren in Purpose Driven Church said 'what kind of music' is the single most important decision in a church plant.  It doesn't matter about like my neighbor isn't crazy who wears two eggs over easy in each of his arm pits.  It matters.  It's a big deal.  It's a big enough deal to stop a Tasmanian Devil impersonation from continuing.

There has to be a law or two concerning line drawing.  I believe the following would be one.

The more people excluded by a line drawn, the less popular that line will be.

This is how line drawing relates to church growth.  That evangelical church drew a line on one man's behavior that made only one person unhappy -- him.  A key in church growth, and I'm talking about numerical growth, size of church, is to find the sweet spot to draw your line:  the perfect mixture of minimal doctrine and worldly lust.  The evangelical church found it.  If it did not draw it to exclude this man, they would have lost other people.  There didn't need to be a biblical reason for that, because 'anyone would know that losing people is wrong.'  They were perfectly willing to sacrifice his small demographic, not receive a man in a doubtful disputation, in order satisfy the preferences of the larger group.  If you're going to make an omelet, you have to break a few eggs.

Our church draws the music and worship line in a more exclusive place than that evangelical church.  I know that isn't acceptable to that church in a very personal way.  They don't like us judging them.  They think we're wrong.  They warn their church about us and our types.  They call us names.  And they say we can't prove our point scripturally, even if we present a basis from scripture (here's a good essay about that).

Interestingly enough, that church doesn't think our music is wrong.  They don't think our dress is wrong.  What we do isn't wrong, but that church and others think that where we draw our line is the reason why our church is much smaller than theirs.  What's wrong is judging them to be wrong.  That's where we're in trouble.

So where we draw our lines excludes more people.  That line results in us having a smaller crowd on Sunday.  We sacrifice for where we draw that line.  We don't draw it because we think it makes us superior to others.  We draw it based on our belief that it is right.   But we are smaller because of where we draw lines.  And yet, that evangelical church thinks and even says that we shouldn't judge their church for where they draw their lines.  They're bigger because of it, even by their own assessment.  Shouldn't that be enough for them?  But they don't want to be thought to be wrong either.  They don't want us making that judgment.  If we have suffered a smaller congregation, a smaller group of people, because of where we draw the line, why would we judge that whole other church to be acceptable, when it isn't acceptable in our church?  If it was only a preference, we wouldn't draw the line where we do.  They are the ones who drew it on a solely preferential basis in the case of the man they stopped from worshiping as he felt was acceptable.  They're doing something even worse -- it's just a preference with them and they exclude him.  Why can't they understand?

I like to bring up the example of the soldier watching and guarding the tomb of the unknowns in Washington, D.C.  Many people are excluded from that opportunity based on lines that are drawn that no one complains about.  I've never heard of one person complaining about the discipline and the dress and the comportment and the training of the soldier guarding that tomb.  After all, that's about dead American soldiers, people who gave their lives.  That deserves such lines being drawn.  People will still visit that tomb, watch his movements for long periods of time -- thousands and thousands visit to see that happen.  What about giving a little slack to the soldiers and allowing them some freedom, some shorts, a tank-top, and flip flops?  Why not letting them carry some small snack foods to eat at different moments?  Or at least not iron and press their clothes to such an extent?  The code for the soldier limits the number of participants in his group.  People don't get too bent out of shape about that -- it's a worthy cause.  Should we say, unlike the church?

Our church draws a line, for instance, on modesty in swimming.  We don't practice the modernistic mixed swimming.  Other churches have their youth activities at a water park.  Which do you think will be more popular?  We don't accept where they draw that line.  They gain people from having those activities.  We lose people by not having those same activities.  And yet those same people will say that they think that we should not allow this to cause disunity between our churches, that it is even some kind of heresy that we don't.  By allowing that line to cause us not to get along, they would say, we're flattening the gospel to the level of other less important doctrines, we're not practicing the body of Christ, and we're making too much out of something that should just be a preference.  They draw a line where they're bigger, so they don't suffer that loss, but they also have to be accepted by those who don't draw the same line as they do.  They want to have it both ways.  They can't have it both ways.

On music, I will tell our people that rock music is wrong.  I tell them rock music is false worship.  I tell them that we will not fellowship with churches that use rock music.  If we're going to exclude rock music, why would it seem odd that we would also exclude those who use rock music?  That above evangelical church excluded someone who went to an extreme further than what they did.

Everyone is practicing line drawing.  I am contending that the line drawing is not mainly about what God wants or what will honor Him, but about numbers, numerical growth, and people's comfort.  I don't know and probably can't know for sure, but my opinion is that they get upset when we talk about where they draw their lines because they know their line is wrong.  It doesn't feel comfortable to be judged. Some are past feeling bad about it, but some still do.  And some get very angry defending their more inclusive line drawn.

When people say they don't want to be judged for where they draw their line, they are really looking to find a certain sweet spot that will allow them to have what they want and what God wants -- both.  They draw lines that allow people things they like from the world and at the same time being able to obey and honor God.  It doesn't actually work that way.  You can't have it both ways, and they are deceiving people by giving them that impression.  

I don't like where others draw their lines, because they're wrong.  I write about it, because I believe it matters.  I want there to be some place still online where people like us can come to read a decent explanation or defense.  Those who are more inclusive won't like it.  I know that.  I wish it wasn't the case, but it must be that way.  There will be divisions like Paul talked about in 1 Corinthians 11.  You can't judge without differences.  Two things that are different can't be the same.  When they're not the same, people should know the reason.  The reason matters.

Did you think that church growth comes from preaching the gospel?  It does.  But bigger numbers come from excluding less people by drawing your lines in more comfortable places.  If the churches of the gospel-centered actually grew from the gospel, then where they drew their lines wouldn't matter.  How could more modesty stop a church built on the gospel from growing?  It couldn't.  How could more reverent music stop a church built on the gospel from growing?  It couldn't.  And yet where the lines are drawn affects numbers.  Everyone knows this.  True church growth, biblical church growth, is supernatural.  And yet these churches know that they're bigger, not because they preach the gospel more, but because of where they draw the lines on cultural issues.  They know that their numbers aren't because of the gospel.  It is because they know that people like rock music and casual and immodest dress.  They've drawn their lines in accordance with what it takes to get and stay big.  How do you know?  People who are really saved, that the gospel has saved, wouldn't have a problem with more modesty or more reverent music. They would like it. They would be attracted by it.  But the people of these churches are not.  They react with great anger at those prospects.  And then they don't want to be judged.  That sounds kind of like flattening the gospel or just not depending on the gospel, which might be cratering the gospel, something worse than flattening it.

The gospel-centered churches are not built on the gospel.  They're built on a confluence of worldly lust and the assurance of salvation.  There's a sweet spot there, which is perfect to build and maintain numbers.  They talk about the gospel, because they've figured out that is the best way to justify what they do.   You want to know why we get to dress and play and act and talk this way?  It's grace.  So you're both honoring God and getting what you want.  It's a floor wax and a dessert topping.  People want to be saved.  Yes.  They don't want to go to Hell.  And they don't want to feel guilty.  The gospel takes care of that, but it also allows you to have a certain comfortable degree of worldliness.  That's where the sweet spot is.

The sweet spot, by the way, is moving further to the left.  It's like the Hyles church over the long haul. Kids through the years have needed more to bribe them to get on a church bus.  By the time they get into junior high, a lot of the stuff doesn't work any more and so there is a major turnover at that point.  So the Hyles churches, to keep that method working, have had to get even more innovative.  Some of them moved on from that and went to the full Hybels type of mode or created some Hyles/Hybels hybrid.  These gospel-centered churches on cultural issues will keep moving further and further, since it's all relative anyway, until they'll be explaining why it's OK to have homosexuals in the church. Some of them are there already.

One of the critiques of this type of post is that I write it because I'm jealous, because I think I'm better than other people, or in other words, a whole lot of extra-scriptural judgment (you read these same judgments, identical, of Paul in 2 Corinthians).  They don't draw the line on judging me that way.  They are very tight in their ability to perceive these types of motives, and draw the line very much on total assurance of their mind-reading abilities.  They are very exclusive.  It is one of the ways they protect their inclusiveness -- by attempting to intimidate anyone who might judge them for what they're doing.  It's hypocrisy.  If you can tolerate a wide range of possibilities, then tolerate our possibility, since that's all it is anyway, just another possibility.  They can't judge music or dress, but they can judge people with a more exclusive line than they draw, even though they are drawing lines too.  Hypocrisy.

Everybody draws lines.

Are You Obeying the Ninth Commandment in the Blogosphere?

When blogging, as in all of life, we need to consider the inspired dictates about the tongue recorded in James 3:1-12:

My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation. For in many things we offend all. If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man, and able also to bridle the whole body. Behold, we put bits in the horses’ mouths, that they may obey us; and we turn about their whole body. Behold also the ships, which though they be so great, and are driven of fierce winds, yet are they turned about with a very small helm, whithersoever the governor listeth. Even so the tongue is a little member, and boasteth great things. Behold, how great a matter a little fire kindleth! And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity: so is the tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell. For every kind of beasts, and of birds, and of serpents, and of things in the sea, is tamed, and hath been tamed of mankind: But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison. Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God. Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be.

 Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter? Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear olive berries? either a vine, figs? so can no fountain both yield salt water and fresh.

Whatever we post online is available to the entire world, and often is permanent and irrevocably made available.  Let us be sure in our blogging and commenting, as in all the rest of our lives, that we are glorifying God with our tongues, and only stating what would honor Him.

The fact that we need to speak in a Christ-like way does not mean that we are not to publicly expose or rebuke sin or compromise;  consider, for instance, the context of what is involved in the second greatest commandment:

Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him. Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD. (Lev 19:17-18)

Thus, rebuking those who sin is very loving--it is loving one's neighbor as oneself.  Godly speech does not mean that we are to spinelessly or weakly tolerate sin or compromise.  On the other hand, let us make sure that we are not excusing an unholy rudeness, brashness, and evil speaking under the cloak of godly reproof.  We are to earnestly contend for all of the faith--including that portion of it that forbids rudeness, brashness, and evil speaking.

On this matter of the use of our tongue, the Westminster Larger Catechism has stated very well some things worthy of our careful thought.  Let us prayerfully meditate upon the truths and the texts referenced below, and let them affect our blogging and commenting for God's glory, the good of fellow brethren in Christ, and the benefit of unconverted sinners.

Question 143. Which is the ninth commandment?

Answer. The ninth commandment is, Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. [Exod 20:16]

Question 144. What are the duties required in the ninth commandment?

Answer. The duties required in the ninth commandment are, the preserving and promoting of truth between man and man, [Zech 8:16] and the good name of our neighbour, as well as our own; [3 John 12] appearing and standing for the truth; [Prov 31:8-9] and from the heart, [Ps 15:2] sincerely, [2 Chron 19:9] freely, [1 Sam 19:4-5] clearly, [Josh 7:19] and fully, [2 Sam 14:18-20] speaking the truth, and only the truth, in matters of judgment and justice, [Lev 19:15; Prov 14:5,25] and in all other things whatsoever; [2 Cor 1:17-18; Eph 4:25] a charitable esteem of our neighbours; [Heb 6:9; 1 Cor 13:7] loving, desiring, and rejoicing in their good name; [Rom 1:8; 2 John 4; 3 John 3-4] sorrowing for, [2 Cor 2:4; 2 Cor 12:21] and covering of their infirmities; [Prov 17:9; 1 Pet 4:8] freely acknowledging of their gifts and graces, [1 Cor 1:4-5,7; 2 Tim 1:4-5] defending their innocency; [1 Sam 22:14] a ready receiving of a good report, [1 Cor 13:6-7] and unwillingness to admit of an evil report, [Ps 15:3] concerning them; discouraging tale-bearers, [Prov 25:23] flatterers, [Prov 26:24-25] and slanderers; [Ps 101:5] love and care of our own good name, and defending it when need requireth; [Prov 22:1; John 8:49] keeping of lawful promises; [Ps 15:4] studying and practicing of whatsoever things are true, honest, lovely, and of good report. [Phil 4:8]

Question 145. What are the sins forbidden in the ninth commandment?

Answer. The sins forbidden in the ninth commandment are, all prejudicing the truth, and the good name of our neighbours, as well as our own, [1 Sam 17:28; 2 Sam 16:3; 2 Sam 1:9-10; 2 Sam 1:15-16] especially in public judicature; [Lev 19:15; Hab 1:4] giving false evidence, [Prov 19:5; Prov 6:16,19] suborning false witnesses, [Acts 6:13] wittingly appearing and pleading for an evil cause, outfacing and overbearing the truth; [Jer 9:3,5; Acts 24:2,5; Ps 12:3-4; Ps 52:1-4] passing unjust sentence, [Prov 17:15; 1 Kings 21:9-14] calling evil good, and good evil; rewarding the wicked according to the work of the righteous, and the righteous according to the work of the wicked; [Isa 5:23] forgery, [Ps 119:69; Luke 19:8; Luke 16:5-7] concealing the truth, undue silence in a just cause, [Lev 5:1; Deut 13:8; Acts 5:3; Acts 5:8-9; 2 Tim 4:6] and holding our peace when iniquity calleth for either a reproof from ourselves, [1 Kings 1:6; Lev 19:17] or complaint to others; [Isa 59:4] speaking the truth unseasonably, [Prov 29:11] or maliciously to a wrong end, [1 Sam 22:9-10; Ps 52:1-5] or perverting it to a wrong meaning, [Ps 56:5; John 2:19; Matt 26:60-61] or in doubtful and equivocal expressions, to the prejudice of truth or justice; [Gen 3:5; Gen 26:7,9] speaking untruth, [Isa 59:13] lying, [Lev 19:11; Col 3:9] slandering, [Ps 50:20] backbiting, [Ps 15:3] detracting, [James 4:11; Jer 38:4] tale bearing, [Lev 19:16] whispering, [Rom 1:29-30] scoffing, [Gen 21:9; Gal 4:29] reviling, [1 Cor 6:10] rash, [Matt 7:1] harsh, [Acts 28:4] and partial censuring; [Gen 38:24; Rom 2:1] misconstructing intentions, words, and actions; [Neh 6:6-8; Rom 3:8; Ps 69:10; 1 Sam 1:13-15; 2 Sam 10:3] flattering, [Ps 12:2-3] vain-glorious boasting; [2 Tim 3:2] thinking or speaking too highly or too meanly of ourselves or others; [Luke 18:9,11; Rom 12:16; 1 Cor 4:6; Acts 12:22; Exod 4:10-14] denying the gifts and graces of God; [Job 27:5-6; Job 4:6] aggravating smaller faults; [Matt 7:3-5] hiding, excusing, or extenuating of sins, when called to a free confession; [Prov 28:13; Prov 30:20; Gen 3:12-13; Jer 2:35; 2 Kings 5:25; Gen 4:9] unnecessary discovering of infirmities; [Gen 9:22; Prov 25:9-10] raising false rumors, [Exod 23:1] receiving and countenancing evil reports, [Prov 29:12] and stopping our ears against just defense; [Acts 7:56-57; Job 31:13-14] evil suspicion; [1 Cor 13:5; 1 Tim 6:4] envying or grieving at the deserved credit of any, [Num 11:29; Matt 21:15] endeavoring or desiring to impair it, [Ezra 4:12-13] rejoicing in their disgrace and infamy; [Jer 48:27] scornful contempt, [Ps 35:15-16,21; Matt 27:28-29] fond admiration; [Jude 16; Acts 12:22] breach of lawful promises; [Rom 1:31; 2 Tim 3:3] neglecting such things as are of good report, [1 Sam 2:24] and practicing, or not avoiding ourselves, or not hindering what we can in others, such things as procure an ill name. [2 Sam 13:12-13; Prov 5:8-9; Prov 6:33]

--TDR

The Sovereignty People: Actual Trusting in God's Sovereignty and Not Lipservice

God doesn't accept lipservice, people who say they're something when they're not or who say they believe something when they don't.   If someone says he believes in the sovereignty of God, then he would believe what God said about His own sovereignty.  God is sovereign, so He's sovereign over His sovereignty too.  His sovereignty is what He says it is.  Turning God's sovereignty into something that we say it is, and that He doesn't, acts as though we're sovereign over Him.

The people who believe in sovereignty as God reveals it in His Word, I'm going to call The Sovereignty People.  They are the ones who really believe it.  Others might have a name that they associate with believing in sovereignty that's only a name, because they just give sovereignty lipservice.  The Sovereignty People actually trust in the sovereignty of God, over which God is sovereign.  If you don't trust in the sovereignty of God, you are not one of The Sovereignty People.

The following are some examples, not in any order of priority, that I ask you to consider.  Again, people claim God's sovereignty but don't actually trust it.  They like to talk it, but manifest in obvious ways that they don't trust it everywhere.

The Church

I was reading a decent article on church versus parachurch.  I say "decent" because it had much good content, but wasn't right on.  It did a masterful job of ticking off many of the problems that arise, but ultimately left room for the parachurch organization.  There were a couple of tell-tale statements (emphasis mine):

Can anyone see a parachurch organization in the NT? If not, I still wouldn't conclude that there's no place for them, any more than I would for organs or guitars or pews.

A kid's at a secular college for some time, and a parachurch organization provides some on-campus fellowship, encouragement, instruction, camaraderie. I completely get that.

Why does someone conclude that there is a place for them or get why they are needed?  The reason why they cause many problems and why they suck energy from churches is because there is no place for them and they're not needed.  They're not.  They don't serve the church.  Jesus didn't start parachurch.  He didn't promise anything for them.  There's nothing to guide them.  They're sheer human innovation, saying that what God designed wasn't good enough.

So what does this have to do with the sovereignty issue?  Well, these people would claim to be sovereignty people.   But here God isn't sovereign to them.  They can't just trust what God said.  What He said was sufficient.  He didn't start parachurch, didn't mention it.  Is His way not good enough?  Did He not equip the church with enough to do what He wanted?   These additions are a faithless lack of trust in God.  They are the equivalent of David's ox-cart.  It isn't like using a computer instead of a typewriter, but like Caan's vegetables instead of an animal sacrifice.

God is glorified by what He said.  When we invent something to "help" what He said, He isn't glorified.  When we don't trust what He said, we're just giving His sovereignty lipservice.  God said what He said, and we should operate within that framework and then just allow Him to work how He works.  When it isn't like we think it should be, we shouldn't be starting something to supplement what He said because what He said doesn't work.  We should wait on Him.  That is trusting in His sovereignty.

The idea of parachurch is a supplement to the church in some way that church is insufficient.   The advocates usually say, "Churches just can't...."   God is omniscient.  He sees and knows what we can't see or know.  He foreknows.  If He didn't include something, He knew it wasn't necessary.  And even if it were necessary, He wants to be trusted.  He wants His way to be used.  He wants the credit for how it was done.  That is someone who actually trusts in the sovereignty of God.

The Bible

We might not feel saved, but we believe God is sovereign over His salvation, from which we get assurance.  People who say they believe in sovereignty might say that they believe in His sovereignty over salvation.  They talk about that again and again.  Saints persevere because God preserves the soul.  His Word says it, so they believe it.  Fine.  God knows His Word.  He knows what He inspired.  Every word.  And He promised to preserve every one of His Words.  Will we believe that?  Do we believe He is sovereign over His Word?  Most don't today.  They only give it lipservice.  What they really believe is that man is sovereign over God's Word through textual criticism.  Man determines what the Words are by "recovering" them through archaeology and then criticism.  This was another innovation to make up for something God didn't do.  I would say God couldn't do, but they'll say, "No, we haven't said, He couldn't, just that He didn't."  But He said that He would.  And now those preservation texts are being challenged to fit the presuppositions.

Men talk about the "version issue" or the King James Onlyism.   Generally, those two are red herrings.  We're talking about the doctrine of God's preservation of His Words.  In the past, men who claimed to believe in sovereignty also believed He was sovereign over His Word, and so they also believed in the perfect preservation of Scripture.  It's not a matter of a preference for a translation or a particular translation philosophy, but whether we can know what His Words are.  Christians once believed we could and did know, and this was even before the publication of the King James Version.  It's not a version issue, because we mean the original language words.

The big issue here is the existence of textual variants.  I believe that the soteriological equivalent are man's sins.  Can or does God not keep man's soul because of sins?  Yes.  Does God not keep His Word because of textual variants?  No.   See the inconsistency.   Sins are less of a problem than variants.  Why?  It isn't because of the power or wisdom of God, but because of the unbelief of men.  They say it's evidence.  No, it's faithlessness.  We believe either one of these because God promises them in His Word.  Whether we believe God is sovereign is whether we believe He has followed through on what He said.

Methods for Church Growth

The worship wars may not in fact be about worship.  They're instead about church growth.  How does a church grow or at least sustain its own numbers?  You would think that those who believe in God's sovereignty would say through biblical methods, but that is most often not what you hear from them.  You hear that a particular church is dead because of a music style that it uses.  If you believe God is sovereign, you also believe that His methods of church growth in scripture are sufficient. There are thick manuals on church growth authored by those who say they believe in God's sovereignty, and what they present is not solely what God said in His Word.  The Bible isn't enough.  You also need some marketing strategy and social programs.  These are people who are not OK with God being in charge.  There's got to be more to it to them.

There are many more examples than these., but what I am seeing is that people do not in fact believe in the sovereignty of God, because if they did, it would be more than just lipservice to them.

Uncertainty Now Considered Supreme Form of Christianity

We live in a new era where absolute certainty is reserved for a movie review or the quality of your creme brulee.  Our faith no longer has such a resting place.  If we land anywhere in the state of Nevada, we're close enough.

Scripture smacks of certainty.  From a child, you can know what it teaches.  It's more sure than eyewitness testimony.

What's the benefit of an unsure word?  Scoffers walk after their own lust.  The benefit, if you could call it that, is lust.  Men have their desires and the Bible conflicts with them.  There is a sweet spot where enough uncertainty in scripture will harmonize a church with the world, now considered a supreme form of Christianity.

Is it that the Bible really is uncertain, or is it that the Bible's gotta be uncertain?  A biblical certainty is no longer acceptable.  FDR said the only fear is fear itself.   Now the only toleration is toleration itself.

How could uncertainty reign?  Doubt allows.  If you can't be sure, you can't enforce.  And by now it's had decades to develop its arguments.

One, humility.  If you know, you're proud.  You think you're better than everyone else.  When you point out error, you're  scorner.   The superior uncertainty is being called epistemological humility.  Nothing better than telling someone you're not sure, even if you are, just to make the point that you don't know. At least, I think.  I can't be sure.

Two, certainty caused postmodernism.  That's what I've been told.  Certainty is more responsible for chasing men into postmodernism than any other single cause.  The postmodern emergent gatherings are full of Christians disabused of certainty.  This is the counsel of Daniel Wallace.  You want to ratchet down your thoughts about inerrancy to spare from shipwreck when you hear the errors we actually know of.  Did I say "know of"?  We're uncertain of truth, but know error.

Three, uncertainty is catholic.  True catholicity disregards unanimity for unity around a limited number of doctrines.

Four, certainty flattens doctrine.  If you're sure about almost anything beyond the gospel, you've devalued the gospel.  You're sure about the gospel and almost anything else is negotiable.  More than that and you've relegated the gospel to a lesser place, and it requires first importance.

Five, most application of scripture is above that is written.  That means most application of scripture can't be dogmatic.  By being uncertain about application, you elevate what is written.

Six, isolationism.  A high degree of certainty will isolate you.  And there's no verse, but doesn't it seem obvious that isolation from a majority of churches is wrong?

Seven, pragmatism.  Uncertainty is pragmatic.  It works.  The less certainty, the more welcoming.  Little is excluded when much is doubtful.

Eight, mockery.  False accusations, ridicule, and marginalization are most effective.  They work the best.  They don't prove anything, but those listening to you will see their future in the treatment they see you experience.  2 Peter 2 talks about the self-willed speaking evil of dignities.

Nine, freedom.  I recently heard that your freedom might be license, but it's better to know license than to stay in bondage, as long as it means you will experience freedom.  Certainty erects barriers that box you in.  Jesus sets free and here's freedom.  They've got to be cousins, at least.

Ten, grace.  As Chuck Swindoll wrote, 'Why can't you see God in a pair of bermuda shorts?"  This isn't grace, but it is a version of grace used as an argument.  It's essentially the proverbial get-out-of-jail-free card.

Lust and uncertainty are not strange bedfellows.  They aren't strange.  They are bosom buddies.  For people to be in charge and stay in charge, God can't be.  Nothing will unseat God more in men's minds and actions than uncertainty, the now supreme form of Christianity.

“The just shall live by faith”— A Study of the Relationship of Faith to Salvation in its Justifying, Sanctifying, and Glorifying Fulness, part 12

The synoptic Gospels indicate that believing has an important role in the Christian life as a response to specific revelation from God and as an instrument for the receipt of specific blessings from God, particularly the receipt of answers to prayer.  The disciple who disbelieves specific revealed truths or acts of God is blameworthy,[i] while disbelieving a counterfeit of the Word as proclaimed by false prophets is commanded.[ii] On the other hand, answers to prayer are given to believers[iii] who, recognizing the ability of God in Christ to meet their needs, petition and trust in Him to do so[iv] and remain stedfast in faith,[v] as enabled by the Holy Spirit, although God in His mercy can answer the sincere prayer offered by one who groans under the burden of felt unbelief.[vi]  Thus, while God preserves perpetually a root of faith in all those to whom He has given it at the moment of their regeneration and conversion, faith is sometimes a grace that pertains to the believer’s particular acts of trust for specific situations.[vii]  A believer who wants certainty that God will answer his prayers must, enabled by grace, “have faith, and doubt not,” and then “whatsoever [h]e shall ask in prayer, believing, [h]e shall receive.”[viii]  Such answers to prayer are related to the genuineness, rather than the quantity, of the believer’s faith (Matthew 17:20);  one either is trusting the Lord for an answer to prayer, or is lacking in faith (Luke 17:6).[ix]  Faith is consequently required in prayer for healing.[x]  Likewise, one who lacks wisdom is commanded to “ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.  But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.  For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord” (James 1:5-7).  Those who doubt in a particular situation, such as trusting God for safety and consequently being free from fear in a storm (Psalm 46:1-3; Isaiah 43:2), and are consequently wavering like the waves of the sea, have, in that particular situation “no faith,”[xi] instead of having a steadfast faith (Colossians 2:7).  For specific blessings, Christians must with assurance and confidence trust the Lord to meet specific needs, and, in prayer, ask with unwavering faith, for then God has promised to answer them.

As a grace[xii] that pertains to the believer’s continual, lifelong level of entrusting himself to the Lord, some disciples have weak faith, some have strong faith, and faith can become weaker or grow stronger.  When “the apostles said unto the Lord, Increase[xiii] our faith” (Luke 17:5), they asked for something very proper.[xiv]  As regenerate persons, the Apostles already possessed faith, but they wished for their already extant faith to grow.  They did not ask for a new type of faith, but for an increase and growth in what they already had from the time of their conversion—they want “furtherance . . . of faith,” faith progressing and passing into an ever more advanced state.[xv]  Faith does not experience a qualitative alteration from mistrust into trust, but in progressive sanctification it does undergo a quantitative increase and a qualitative increase in stedfastness and decrease in mutability.[xvi]  Furthermore, faith is not an autonomous product of the human will, but a supernaturally imparted gift given by Christ.  Indeed, God deals to believers different measures of faith, and they should think soberly of themselves and exercise their spiritual gifts in accordance with the measure of faith God has given them[xvii] through Christ by the Spirit.[xviii]  They should not have weak faith,[xix] or “little faith,”[xx] but “great faith”[xxi] and “strong . . . faith.”[xxii]  They are to seek, by means of exercise, to have their faith “increase,”[xxiii] “grow exceedingly,”[xxiv] and “abound,”[xxv] growing towards the goal of having “all faith” (1 Corinthians 13:2), possessing the highest possible quantity and quality of faith, just as they seek the highest degree of diligence, knowledge, and love (2 Corinthians 8:7).  However, as long as indwelling sin remains in the believer, faith has “that which is lacking”[xxvi] in it, and stands in need of being “perfect[ed]” (1 Thessalonians 3:10).  Disciples should not let their faith become weak, but maintain a steadfast and strong faith.[xxvii]  They should fervently pray, night and day, and have others pray also, for the perfecting of that which is lacking in their faith,[xxviii] and become those who are both “full of faith”[xxix] and yet growing ever the more full.  While the New Testament emphasizes faith as either present or absent in regard to receiving spiritual blessings in specific situations, it also presents faith as a spiritual grace that, while present in all the regenerate, has degrees, and is Divinely strengthened, increases, and abounds, as believers exercise it.

--TDR

---

[i] Mark 16:13-14; Luke 1:20 (cf. 1:45); 24:25.

[ii] Matthew 24:23, 26; Mark 13:21.

[iii] In all of the texts where faith is enjoined upon people for answer to prayer those who have exercised saving faith are in view;  the unconverted are never in view.

[iv] Matthew 8:13; Mark 5:36; 9:23-24; Luke 1:45.

[v] Note the present tenses for the state of faith associated with answered prayer in Matthew 9:28 (Pisteu/ete o¢ti du/namai touvto poihvsai; le÷gousin aujtwˆ◊, Nai÷, Ku/rie); 21:22 (pa¿nta o¢sa a·n ai˙th/shte e˙n thØv proseuchØv, pisteu/onteß, lh/yesqe; note the contrast between the aorist ai˙th/shte and the present pisteu/onteß);  Mark 5:36 (Mh\ fobouv, mo/non pi÷steue); 9:23-24 (note both coming to faith and the state of faith in Ei˙ du/nasai pisteuvsai, pa¿nta dunata» twˆ◊ pisteu/onti) 11:23-24 (note again the aorist and present in aÓmh\n ga»r le÷gw uJmi√n o¢ti o§ß a·n ei¶phØ twˆ◊ o¡rei tou/twˆ, ⁄Arqhti, kai« blh/qhti ei˙ß th\n qa¿lassan, kai« mh\ diakriqhØv e˙n thØv kardi÷aˆ aujtouv, aÓlla» pisteu/shØ o¢ti a± le÷gei gi÷netai: e¶stai aujtwˆ◊ o§ e˙a»n ei¶phØ. dia» touvto le÷gw uJmi√n, Pa¿nta o¢sa a·n proseuco/menoi ai˙tei√sqe, pisteu/ete o¢ti lamba¿nete, kai« e¶stai uJmi√n); Luke 8:50 (Mh\ fobouv: mo/non pi÷steue, kai« swqh/setai).

[vi] Mark 9:23-24.

[vii] The texts in the first part of this paragraph employ pisteu/w, while the latter half examines uses of pi÷stiß.  The two are combined because of the similar teaching enforced by the verb and the noun.

[viii] Matthew 21:21-22; Mark 11:22-24.

[ix] The ei˙ ei¶cete pi÷stin . . . a·n of Luke 17:6 (corrupted in the critical text to ei˙ e¶cete), a second class conditional, indicates that no faith was present for the particular prayer request mentioned in the verse.

[x] James 5:15 sets forth the general principle that “the prayer of faith shall save the sick,” while New Testament narrative provides a variety of examples where Christ tells those who have entrusted themselves to Him for salvation, “as thou hast believed” for a particular healing “so be it done unto thee” (Matthew 8:13), “according to your faith be it unto you” (Matthew 9:29; cf. 9:22; 15:28; Mark 5:34; 10:52; Luke 7:9-10; 8:48; 17:19; 18:42; Acts 3:16; 14:9).  Acts 3:16 also agrees with James 5:14-16 in ascribing faith for healing to supernatural grace given by God through Christ (the faith which is by him, hJ pi÷stiß hJ di∆ aujtouv, cf. “the faith which comes through him,” hJ pi÷stiß hJ di∆ aujtouv, Ignatius to the Philadelphians 8:2).

[xi] Mark 4:40; Luke 8:25.  Matthew 8:26 indicates that the disciples had a little faith, but as the storm kept going on, their faith for safety failed, even as Peter had faith for a little while to walk to Christ on stormy water, but then his faith, being only little, failed him as well, and he began to sink (Matthew 14:28-31).

[xii] Thus, faith is a central and abiding quality in the believer comparable to hope and love, 1 Corinthians 13:13.

[xiii] pro/sqeß, from prosti÷qhmi, “to add to something that is already present or exists” (BDAG).

[xiv] A genuine trust in the Lord for a particular request in prayer, such as an ability to forgive those who repeatedly wrong one, is a matter of either the possession of a true confidence in God to answer the request or a lack thereof—even the faith of a mustard seed, if a true confidence, will bring the fulfillment of the prayer (Luke 17:4-6).  On the other hand, the believer’s entrusting of himself to God in Christ, which began at the time of his conversion and never thenceforward departs for the course of his life, can increase in its measure.  As a mustard seed, in the proper conditions of watering and provision, grows into a very large tree, Matthew 13:31-32, so faith grows through the spiritual provision of God.  Indeed, both the continual entrusting of oneself to Christ that marks a Christian and the ability to trust the Lord for a specific answer to prayer are Divinely wrought graces within the soul—neither is a self-production of the human will.

[xv] Philippians 1:25, prokoph\n . . . thvß pi÷stewß.  A “progress, advance . . . frequently of moral progress” (Liddell-Scott) of faith, a “change [of] one’s state for the better by advancing and making progress,” to “advance, to progress, to change for the better, advancement” (Louw-Nida). Compare 1 Timothy 4:15 & TLNT, as well as proko/ptw in Luke 2:52; Galatians 1:14; 2 Timothy 2:16; 3:13.

[xvi] The qualitative continuity and quantitative development of faith is well expressed in the Old London/Philadelphia Baptist Confession of 1689:

1. The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ (2 Corinthians 4:13; Ephesians 2:8) in their hearts, and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the (Romans 10:14, 17) word; by which also, and by the administration of baptism, and the Lord’s supper, prayer, and other means appointed of God, it is increased (Luke 17:5; 1 Peter 2:2; Acts 20:32) and strengthened. 2. By this faith, a Christian believeth to be true (Acts 24:14) whatsoever is revealed in the word, for the authority of God himself; and also apprehendeth an excellency therein (Psalm 19:7, 8, 9, 10; Psalm 119:72) above all other writings, and all things in the world; as it bears forth the glory of God in his attributes, the excellency of Christ in his nature and offices, and the power and fulness of the Holy Spirit in his workings and operations; and so is enabled to (2 Timothy 1:12) cast his soul upon the truth thus believed; and also acteth differently upon that which each particular passage thereof containeth; yielding obedience to the (John 15:14) commands, trembling at the (Isaiah 66:2) threatenings, and embracing the (Hebrews 11:13) promises of God, for this life and that which is to come. But the principal acts of saving faith have immediate relation to Christ, accepting, receiving, and resting upon (John 1:12; Acts 16:31; Galatians 2:20; Acts 15:11) him alone, for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace. 3. This faith, although it be different in degrees, and may be weak (Hebrews 5:13, 14; Matthew 6:30; Romans 4:19, 20), or strong, yet it is in the least degree of it different in the kind, or nature of it (as is all other saving grace) from the faith (2 Peter 1:1) and common grace of temporary believers; and therefore, though it may be many times assailed and weakened, yet it gets (Ephesians 6:16; 1 John 5:4, 5) the victory, growing up in many, to the attainment of a full (Hebrews 6:11, 12; Colossians 2:2) assurance through Christ, who is both the author (Hebrews 12:2) and finisher of our faith. (Chapter 14, “Of Saving Faith.”)

[xvii] Romans 12:3-6.  In Romans 12:3, both meri÷zw, “to make an allotment . . . deal out, assign, apportion” (BDAG), and me÷tron, “the result of measuring, quantity” (BDAG), are clear evidence that faith can increase in its quantity and quality, as is the reference to faith’s aÓnalogi÷a, “proportion” (BDAG; cf. “mathematical proportion,” Liddell-Scott), in Romans 12:6.

[xviii] Ephesians 6:23; 1 Corinthians 12:8-9; Galatians 5:22.

[xix] Romans 14:1; aÓsqene÷w & pi÷stß.

[xx] Matthew 6:30; 8:26; 14:31; 16:8; Luke 12:28, ojligo/pistoß, “pertaining to having relatively little faith—‘of little faith, of insufficient faith’” (Louw-Nida).  ojli÷goß can refer, among other uses, to smallness in amount (1 Timothy 5:23) or duration (Acts 14:28).  Little faith is both small temporally and quantitatively.  Also, while little faith fears (Matthew 8:26), strong faith does not (Hebrews 11:23).

[xxi] Matthew 8:10; Luke 7:9, tosouvtoß pi÷stiß, faith of a “high degree of quantity, so much, so great,” or a “high degree of quality . . . so great/strong” (BDAG).

[xxii] Romans 4:20, e˙nedunamw¿qh thØv pi÷stei, explained in v. 21 as “being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform,” plhroforhqei«ß o¢ti o§ e˙ph/ggeltai, dunato/ß e˙sti kai« poihvsai.

[xxiii] 2 Corinthians 10:5, aujxa¿nw, “to become greater, grow, increase . . . in extent, size, state, or quality” (BDAG).

[xxiv] 2 Thessalonians 1:3, uJperauxa¿nei hJ pi÷stiß, from uJperauxa¿nw, “to increase beyond measure; to grow exceedingly” (Thayer).  Such spectacular growth ought to be a continual process, as it was among the Thessalonians.

[xxv] 2 Corinthians 8:7, perisseu/w, “to exist in abundance” (Louw-Nida).  The verse affirms that faith is a spiritual grace that can grow and abound like other graces, such as love, knowledge, or diligence.

[xxvi] uJste÷rhma, “the lack of what is needed or desirable, frequently in contrast to abundance, need, want, deficiency . . . a defect that must be removed so that perfection can be attained, lack, shortcoming” (BDAG).  The word is usually quantitative in the New Testament;  note the complete list of references:  Luke 21:4; 1 Corinthians 16:17; 2 Corinthians 8:13–14; 9:12; 11:9; Philippians 2:30; Colossians 1:24 (not Christ’s vicarious sufferings, which are never designated with qli√yiß in the New Testament, but Paul’s afflictions for Christ, which have a Divinely ordained full measure); 1 Thessalonians 3:10.  The Christian’s failure to have “all faith” indicates his quantitative lack, which muts be perfected.

[xxvii] Colossians 2:5; Acts 16:5;  stere÷wma, “firmness, steadfastness, strength,” & stereo/w; cf. Acts 3:7, 16.

[xxviii] 1 Thessalonians 3:10, nukto\ß kai« hJme÷raß uJpe«r e˙kperissouv deo/menoi ei˙ß to\ i˙dei√n uJmw◊n to\ pro/swpon, kai« katarti÷sai ta» uJsterh/mata thvß pi÷stewß uJmw◊n.

[xxix] Acts 6:5, 8; 11:24; plh/rhß pi÷stewß.

Is It Gospel Centered to Ignore or Disparage Cultural Applications of Scripture?

The idea of being gospel-centered is new.  It is pseudo-argumentation for new measures with continued popularity with the world in view, which is ironic, because you would think the gospel would be the reason for growth with something gospel-centered.  No.  Instead, it's rock music, casual, androgynous, or immodest dress, entertainment, and recreation.

The trajectory was like the following.  Christian churches were built on the gospel.  Then two things happened.   One, the world became more pagan and Christians more different.  Two, churches started to shrink because people didn't like being different.  Instead of getting smaller, the churches changed how they operated.  The churches that capitulated were criticized by those who didn't.  They came up with gospel-centered to explain their approach.  They weren't going to talk about the cultural issues, because the gospel is what's important.

Question:  What's the purpose of the gospel?

I now want to explore that briefly by considering 2 Corinthians 5:17-21 (I risk being gospel-centered by using the King James Version [don't try to figure that one out]):

Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. ¹⁸ And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; ¹⁹ To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. ²⁰ Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. ²¹ For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

The purpose of the gospel is to reconcile man to God.  Why does man need to be reconciled to God?  So that he can glorify God.  That's what man lost because of sin.  How is man reconciled to God?  Paul explains that in this passage.   Reconciliation occurs through transformation.  Transformation?  Yes.  That's what the passage says.  Verse 17, "all things are become new."  Next verse, "And all things are of God."  What things?  Becoming new is what reconciles us to God.  How are we made new?  We are made new through imputation of our sin to Christ and imputation of His righteousness to us.  Yes.  But it isn't imputation and justification without transformation.  The point, again, is to reconcile us to God.  To God.  God doesn't keep putting up with the old life, the former life, the way we were -- that's not what reconciliation is.

Something gospel-centered is transformational, turning us into something of a divine nature.  Our music and dress and entertainment become honoring to God.  If it doesn't, it isn't the gospel.

So how do they claim gospel centered?  They claim it.  That's just it.  They're not it.  They just claim it and then pose like it's true.  It's a gospel pose.  The gospel changes your dress and your music, so that you are honoring to God in this world.  The gospel doesn't excuse your dress and your music.  The gospel reconciles you to God through transforming you.  Not being transformed isn't gospel.  It's a gospel pose -- that's it.

Here's what happened recently at Northland.  Their numbers were shrinking.  They were laying off faculty and staff.  It's too bad.  They look at the landscape, much like the overall trajectory I described in paragraph two.  The numbers are bigger in evangelicalism by far.  They're not bigger because of the gospel.  They're bigger because people like the world.  They're comfortable with it.  And the evangelicals for awhile have been pushing a gospel that forgives all your sins without changing you.  How you feel when you've been saved is relieved.  You're not going to Hell anymore.  What a great deal!  And now you've got a whole new group of friends too in a new social club called the church.  Math tells you that if you move that direction, you could get a whole new clientele.  The kids like it better.  They'd rather wear casual clothes.  They like rock music.  But you've got to somehow fit all that into your doctrinal statement.  Gospel-centered is what works.  You say that scripture doesn't say anything about whether it's right or wrong to play rock music.  And you've never seen the kids "praise God" with such feeling as they do when they're doing their Joan Baez and Peter, Paul, and Mary impersonations.  It seems so authentic, the euphoria, the ecstasy.  And then you also explain that what was happening before was an immature look at the gospel, because it was all about making rules and regulations, lacking in freedom, attempting to put new wine in old bottles.

In a recent rant of someone who supports the changes at Northland, he said that the old Northland put the emphasis on form, like the Pharisees.  If the old Northland was interested in form, the new Northland is obsessed with form. You're not gospel-centered unless you look just like a sixties rock band with the drummer, the guitarists, and a female folk singer, everybody on his microphone, looking authentic? Where is the harmonica, the saxophone, the jaws harp, and the washboard? If I want to dance with a mad frenzy, spinning like a bull fighter, why am I not free to do that? Why is freedom only looking just like almost everyone in evangelicalism today?

Everybody's free, so now they can burp out loud, smack their lips, show their half-chewed food to everyone else, forget the napkin, and toss the biscuits if someone asks. How do you know you're free? You can grow facial hair in all matter of designs. How do you know you're free? Two words: blue jeans. It is also possible that kids like rock music and casual clothes and it has nothing to do with what God likes. Is all of this the key to the gospel exploding to those who've never heard?

Uh-huh.  Right.

This isn't new care about the gospel and it isn't gospel centered.  I've read that the churches that keep the "old form" are "dead."  By "dead" you mean that they are smaller.  Ya think?  People have a choice to go to The Adventure with the band and the The Jungle for kids with a skate boarder park.  The other place is reverent and serious.  Which do you think will be bigger?  Why do you think Joel Osteen is so big?  The biggest?

It's really a matter of where actual saved people are, if you're going to be about numbers, about numbers like Jack Hyles and the Hyles movement.  The "gospel centered" really are no different than Hyles.  They're using a worldly strategy that will work.  That's what Hyles did.  And he called it the power of God.  Hyles's strategy didn't work everywhere.  If you keep tweaking it though, you can get to something like these new evangelical churches with their big screen TV, movie clips, and undulating bodies during "worship."  They aren't held back by "form."  That's the "freedom" of the "gospel."  They are gospel-centered.

It's all just a posture.  It's not gospel-centered to ignore or disparage cultural applications of scripture.  Reconciliation is transformation unto God.   The imputed righteousness changes your culture.  It doesn't leave you the same.  And if the crowd grows, it grows because of conversions, because of the gospel, which is a miracle of God that defies worldly methods.

The Now Irrelevance of Cultural Relativity

Read parts one and two.

Perhaps you've seen a two year old standing at an open door.  He wants to go outside.  He looks around to see if anyone is watching.  He's not supposed to go outside.  He's been told not to.  He looks around again.  He steps out; just stands there.  Looks around again.  Steps forward a little ways.  Looks around again.  No one is saying anything.  And now he starts to move out to where he wants to go.  No one is stopping him.  Since no one says anything, he's free to do whatever he wants.

What I just described is what is happening today regarding cultural relativity.  The people who once would say anything about music or dress or entertainment aren't saying much to anything anymore.   Let me bullet point what I'm talking about.  Before I do, however, first should be said that things have changed dramatically in this regard.  The standards on cultural issues are very different today.   Some might say, and probably correctly, that this ship has already sailed.   But here's what I'm talking about:

Bob Jones University announces something new on music -- it doesn't separate over music like it did before.  Here is what is new at Bob Jones:

Although the answers will be based on biblical teaching that is valid for all believers at all times, we recognize that these answers involve the application of those teachings to our specific context and institutional mission. Other institutions, congregations and individuals may apply them differently based upon their own earnest efforts to reflect scriptural principles within their respective contexts and in keeping with their unique institutional, congregational or personal missions.

While biblical truth is nonnegotiable, application in specific cultural and institutional contexts may differ.  In particular, since music is such a dominant cultural force in the contemporary West—to a greater degree, apparently, than it has been throughout most of history—application of biblical principles in this area is likely to be controversial, touching strongly held opinions across a spectrum of choices.

Do you understand the change here?  Music, which was nonnegotiable is now negotiable, in their own words.  Graduates of BJU and others in that orbit will get the signal.  You're not in trouble any more over music.   You can walk two steps out, a few more, and then just go wherever you want (like the two year old above).   It's been relegated to something less than biblical truth, a mere application to a particular cultural context.  I'm not saying that Bob Jones has the right music standard.  I'm saying that they had held to a particular one and would separate over it.  The new reality has precipitated this change.

Most were interpreting it as a position stated right at the time when things were moving to the left at Northland, to show strength. For BJU, this isn't a strong statement, but a capitulation on music.

The president/chairman of Religious Affections Ministries teaches at a Southern Baptist Seminary and joins a Southern Baptist church.

Scott Aniol has lost credibility.   His materials are good, but he doesn't separate over worship music, because he is part of the "ministry," which cooperates with what has already waved the white flag on cultural issues.  The cooperative program of the SBC of Texas shares with Baylor University among others.

Mike Harding, a prominent voice in the United States for traditional or conservative music, will not separate from Scott Aniol over his SBC fellowship and recommended that he take that route.  Not only is there the liberalism still harbored in the SBC, but the open position on all forms or types of worship music, even at Aniol's seminary.

The president of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary questions the feasibility of music standards.  He wrote this:

When rock and roll came out, it clearly represented a shift in the culture toward ungodliness, so it was uniformly rejected. Now, after five decades of music variations and three of "Christianized" versions of it, the united front within Fundamentalism seems something less than united. When long hair was the cultural symbol of rebellion, there was a pretty clear consensus that it was not proper to follow the fad. Now, when some of the fads don’t include long hair, defining a worldly hairstyle is far more difficult. I could go on, but I think you can see my point.

Some Fundamentalists are clamping down on these pop culture issues and are making the case for the same applications that worked 40-50 years ago. The net result of this is that they appear to be arguing for an Amish-like response to culture. Their goal seems to be the preservation of a pre-60s Americana, not the production of godliness in the 21st century. Mistakenly arguing that "your standards can’t be too high for God" they keep staking out positions that can hardly be defended biblically. Anything that looks or sounds new is suspect for that very reason. While I agree with the desire to pursue holiness, I have serious questions about the biblical and theological orientation of this wing of Fundamentalism. There is serious confusion about the differences between biblical principles (which are timeless) and contemporary applications (which are time bound). This confusion often leads to division over differences of application, not principle.

That statement says we're not going to do anything about this anymore.  Northland and Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary have given-up the cultural issues.   This statement says they're going to be okay with Dave Doran.

John MacArthur moves the rock band of the Resolved Conference to the "worship" of his Shepherd's Conference.  Youth culture meets the adult pastors.

The explanation was:  "This is a special program for that one conference, the Resolved Conference, which doesn't even exist anymore."  When I watched the live stream of the Shepherd's Conference, I notice that the youth culture is in prime time at the most conservative of the conservative evangelicals.  Many, if not most, maybe all, are all for it.  Whether someone agree or disagrees that it is right, it is a change.  It has happened.

One more, Wayne Van Gelderen Jr., speaks at the Spiritual Leadership Conference in Lancaster, CA and Paul Chappell preaches at the Holiness Conference in Menominee Falls, WI.

I thought the worship and music were more important to the Van Gelderens.  This says that it is relative.  You can move to where Paul Chappell is and you'll be fine.  This is new.  Worship is ranked lower than revivalism.

The acceptance and promotion of rock music at Northland has spurred recent thought about cultural relativity in fundamentalism.  I have heard some comparing Northland to Maranatha on change.  They have exalted Maranatha for staying consistent and strong, when everyone else is changing.  I read that, but if you do not think Maranatha has changed, then consider this picture.  Those are Maranatha girls.  Most evangelicals and fundamentalists think this is cute.  I say it's one of the best arguments for the same-sex marriage supporters, that is, there is no separate male and female role anymore.  By the way, there is no Bible verse that says that women can't play football.

Cultural relativity has become irrelevant.  If churches capitulate, should it surprise us the world is in the condition it's in?

Does it make any difference?  Evangelicalism dropped out on the cultural issues long ago, but certain well-known of them are signaling, as I read it, that they see this now as a problem.  You can  read it in David Well's trilogy.   You hear it from John Piper here (at the 20 minute mark).  He says:

I think that the explosion of...I don't want to just say contemporary worship music and contemporary worship forms, a very rock-oriented...whether or not the ethos generally associated with that on a Sunday morning can sustain the gravitas of the glory of God over the long haul.

Thanks for telling everyone now, John Piper.   He could have said a lot in his final sermon as pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church, but he chose to say the following:

If you entice people with wealth, ... ease, health, chipper, bouncy, light-hearted, playful, superficial banter in your worship service posing as joy in Christ, you will attract people, oh yeah, you can grow a huge church that way. But Christ will not be seen in his glory and the Christian life will not be seen as the calvary road that it is.

Piper isn't alone.  Al Mohler has taken a turn in his understanding of the relationship between beauty, truth, and goodness (read this series and then his interview with Roger Scruton).  Mohler writes:

Roger Scruton, a well-known British philosopher, has suggested that worship is the most important indicator of what persons or groups really believe about God. These are his words: “God is defined in the act of worship far more precisely than he is defined by any theology.” What Scruton is saying is, in essence: “If you want to know what a people really believe about God, don’t spend time reading their theologians, watch them worship. Listen to what they sing. Listen to what they say. Listen to how they pray. Then you will know what they believe about this God whom they worship.”

My haunting thought concerning much evangelical worship is that the God of the Bible would never be known by watching us worship. Instead what we see in so many churches is “McWorship” of a “McDeity.” But what kind of God is that superficial, that weightless, and that insignificant? Would an observer of our worship have any idea of the God of the Bible from our worship? I wonder at times if this is an accidental development, or if it is an intentional evasion.

Beauty is inextricably tied into goodness and truth, and beauty connected the same with worship.  You lose one and you lose the other two.  Mohler has that realization, maybe Piper too.  And fundamentalism has followed the evangelical path of cultural relativity.  Once that train has left the station is there a possibility of return?

“The just shall live by faith”— A Study of the Relationship of Faith to Salvation in its Justifying, Sanctifying, and Glorifying Fulness, part 11

As with the verb to believe, the noun faith[i] regularly refers to the faith exercised at the moment of conversion and regeneration, bringing immediate justification and all the blessings of union with Christ.[ii]  As seen with the adjective faithful/believing, Scripture does not draw a sharp distinction in its usage of the noun faith between the faith exercised at the moment of regeneration and the faith continually present in all true Christians—the believer’s continuing entrusting of himself to Christ for justification, sanctification, and eternal life is simply the continuation of the state into which he entered for the first time at the moment of his conversion.[iii]  Thus, all God’s people continually trust in Christ alone for their salvation;[iv]  even those in a state of severe backsliding are preserved from the loss of faith by the intercession of their High Priest (Luke 22:31-34).  Those who receive spiritual and eternal life at the moment of their justification by faith never have their faith or spiritual life entirely eliminated.  Consequently, in all the saints their union with Christ by faith produces visible results, so that their faith is never isolated from spiritual graces and never without works.[v]  Saving faith always results in justification, but not justification only, but also sanctification and its endpoint, glorification, for the exercise of saving faith always results in the “obedience of faith.”[vi]

The specific object of faith is Christ the Mediator, and through Him the Triune God,[vii] to whom one comes with an assured confidence[viii] in His ability and willingness to save, without any additional human requirements of works (Romans 3:27-28), in accordance with His promise, but it also encompasses the entire revelation and body of truth contained in the Word of God, which is “the faith.”[ix]  “The faith in Christ”[x] includes, in addition to the direct act of faith in the Person of the Redeemer, the recognition of other Scriptural truths such as “righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come” (Acts 24:24).  “The faith” includes the gospel (Philippians 1:27), all that Paul preached (Galatians 1:23), and all the propositional and practical affirmations of Christianity (Ephesians 4:5), for it consists of all that has been revealed by Christ,[xi] the entirety of the Scripture, to which each true believer and church are commanded to conform and to which they will attain perfect conformity eschatologically (Ephesians 4:13-14).  Loyalty to Christ and Christianity, to “the faith,” requires both justifying faith and faithfulness.[xii]  Thus, those who are born again are “obedient to the faith” (Acts 6:7)[xiii] while an unconverted man who “turn[s] away . . . from the faith” rejects Christianity and refuses to come to conversion (Acts 13:8).  Those who have Christ in them—which necessarily produces inward and outward holiness—are those who are “in the faith” (2 Corinthians 13:5).  The faith[xiv] includes both doctrinal propositions[xv] and a holy lifestyle, including edifying speech (1 Timothy 1:4), care for one’s needy family members (1 Timothy 5:8), righteousness, godliness, faithfulness, love, patience, and meekness (1 Timothy 6:11), and both the avoidance of a love for money (1 Timothy 6:10) and profane babblings (1 Timothy 6:20-21).  The propositional and practical elements of the faith are inextricably intertwined,[xvi] so that a sound or healthy faith includes both propositional and practical soundness.[xvii]  Scriptural faith and faithfulness includes walking humbly with God.[xviii]  Fighting the “good fight of faith” (1 Timothy 6:12) and earnestly contending for the faith (Jude 3) involves a grace-enabled battle for both the propositional and practical elements of the faith in the church and the world while holding to them oneself;  the believer is to possess and contend for a unhypocritical or unfeigned faith.[xix]  The “faith of God’s elect” includes both “truth” and “godliness” (Titus 1:1);  failure to tenaciously hold to faith and a good conscience leads to doctrinal and practical shipwreck concerning the faith.[xx]  Obedience to Scripture establishes Christians and churches in the faith (Acts 16:5), for those who are reconciled to God “continue in the faith grounded and settled,” and are not “moved away from the hope of the gospel” (Colossians 1:23).[xxi]  Spiritual leaders and disciplers are to train others to faithful steadfastness in all the truths of the Word, acting as spiritual fathers who establish spiritual sons in the faith,[xxii] for sanctification includes being progressively built up upon the foundation of the faith.[xxiii]  Believers commit themselves to “the faith” at the moment of their conversion and grow in their knowledge of, practice of, and ability to practice, defend, and propogate the faith in its propositional and practical entirety in their progressive sanctification.

--TDR

---

[i] pi÷stiß.

[ii] Matthew 8:10-11; 9:2; Mark 2:5; 5:34; 10:52; Luke 5:20; 7:50; 8:48; 17:19; 18:42; Acts 14:27; 15:9; 20:21; 26:18; Romans 3:25-28, 30-31; 4:5, 9, 11-14, 16, 19-20; 5:1-2, 9:30, 32; 10:6, 8, 17; 11:20; Galatians 3:2, 5, 7-9, 11-12, 14, 22-26, 5:5-6, Ephesians 2:8; Colossians 2:12; 2 Thessalonians 2:13.

[iii] An examination of all or at least almost all the passages referenced in the previous footnote will validate this fact.  As Abraham’s faith in his initial conversion began a lifelong entrusting of himself to his Redeemer, so the Christian’s exercise of saving faith leads to his being one who walks in the steps of the faith exercised by Abraham (Romans 4:11-12) for the word of faith includes both righteousness received at the moment of conversion and the confession of Christ before men and life of prayer that springs out of the presence of faith in the heart (Romans 10:6-17);  initial receipt of the Spirit at the moment of faith is united to the presence of faith that leads to the exercise of spiritual gifts (Galatians 3:2, 5), and those who receive righteousness by faith are those in whom faith works by love (Galatians 5:5-6).  A variety of texts speak of the faith present as a mark of all the people of God; cf. 1 Corinthians 15:14, 17 & the texts in the following note.

[iv] Thus, all the people of God have faith, Luke 18:7-8; Romans 1:8, 12; 1 Corinthians 2:5; Galatians 6:10; Colossians 1:4; Philippians 2:17; 1 Thessalonians 3:2, 5-7; 2 Thessalonians 3:2.

[v] James speaks of faith as the present possession of all the saints (James 1:3, 2:1, 5), and the kind of faith that they possess, the “faith of God’s elect” (Titus 1:1), is never without works (James 2:17-26).  Hebrews similarly assumes justifying faith always results in perseverance, even in light of severe difficulties.  Evidence from both James and Hebrews is explicated below.

[vi] uJpakoh\n pi÷stewß, Romans 1:5; 16:26.  These two texts, the first and last references to faith in Romans, both mentioning the “obedience of faith” through which pagan Gentiles are transformed into a‚gioi, holy ones or saints (1:7), illustrate the fact that Romans teaches that the salvation which is received through faith includes not justification only (3-5), but sanctification also (6-8, 12-15).

[vii] In texts such as Romans 3:22; Galatians 2:16, 20; 3:22; Epheisans 3:12; Philippians 3:9 the pi÷stiß Cristouv, “faith of Christ,” and their related phrases are objective genitives, signifying “faith in Christ.”  Compare Romans 5:1-2; Ephesians 2:18; &  pgs. 81-98, Chapter 7, “On the pi÷stiß Cristouv Question,” On Romans:  And Other New Testament Essays, C. E. B. Cranfield.  Edinburgh:  T & T Clark, 1998.  Carson & Beale note:

[P]rior to the 1970s the construction pistis Iēsou Christou was almost universally understood to mean “faith in Jesus Christ” (the so-called objective genitive), but in recent decades many scholars have argued that it should be rendered “the faith/faithfulness of Jesus Christ” (subjective genitive). . . . [T]he arguments usually advanced against the traditional interpretation are either irrelevant (e.g., some scholars point to the absence of pistis + objective genitive of a person in classical literature, but this absence is precisely what one would expect in documents that do not otherwise speak about the need for believing in a person) or based on an inadequate understanding of the objective genitive (e.g., that it is not natural, or that it does not apply in this case because pisteuō is construed with the dative or with a prepositional phrase). The ambiguity inherent in genitival constructions can be resolved only by examining unambiguous constructions in the immediate and broader contexts, preferably if they use the same or cognate terms. The NT as a whole, and Paul in particular, regularly and indisputably use both pistis and pisteuō of the individual’s faith in God or Christ, but they never make unambiguous statements such as episteusen Iēsous (“Jesus believed”) or pistos estin Iēsous (“Jesus is believing/faithful”). These and other considerations explain why the early fathers who spoke Greek as their native tongue never seem to have entertained the idea that this genitival construction has Jesus Christ as the subject of the implied action (pgs. 789-790, Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, G. K. Beale & D. A. Carson.  Grand Rapids, MI:  Baker Academic, 2007).

Similarly, Warfield noted:

[The] object [of] pi÷stiß is most frequently joined to [it] as an objective genitive, a construction occurring some seventeen times, twelve of which fall in the writings of Paul. In four of them the genitive is that of the thing, namely in Philippians 1:27 the gospel, in 2 Thessalonians 2:13 the saving truth, in Colossians 2:12 the almighty working of God, and in Acts 3:16 the name of Jesus. In one of them it is God (Mark 11:22). The certainty that the genitive is that of object in these cases is decisive with reference to its nature in the remaining cases, in which Jesus Christ is set forth as the object on which faith rests (Romans 3:22, 26; Galatians 2:16 [2x], 20; 3:22; Ephesians 3:12; 4:13; Philippians 3:9; James 2:1; Revelation 2:13; 14:12). (“The Biblical Doctrine of Faith,” Warfield, in Biblical Doctrines, vol. 2 of Works.)

Compare the many pisteu/w + ei˙ß contructions with Christ as their object (Matthew 18:6; Mark 9:42; John 1:12; 2:11; 3:15-18, etc.), although such faith directed toward Christ includes faith in that God who sent Him as well (John 5:24; 1 Thessalonians 1:8; 1 Peter 1:21).

[viii] Acts 17:31; Romans 4:21.  While personal assurance of salvation is not of the essence, but is of the well-being, of faith, faith does necessarily involve certainty about the ability and willingness of God to save in accordance with His gospel promises.

[ix] In Galatians 3:23, 25, “the faith” refers to the fuller revelation in the New Testament, as set in contrast with the Mosaic dispensation, that Jesus Christ of Nazareth is the promised Messiah;  saving faith now involves trusting that the son of Mary is the crucified and risen Redeemer.

[x] thvß ei˙ß Cristo\n pi÷stewß.

[xi] Revelation 2:13; 14:12.  “The faith” is “the faith of Jesus” (th\n pi÷stin ∆Ihsouv), who calls it “my faith” (th\n pi÷stin mou), because it is revelation from Him and about Him, a body of truth that pertains to Him and, being possessed by Him, is communicated to, received by, and practiced by His people.

[xii] Revelation 2:19; 13:10, etc.  It is very clear that pi÷stiß refers, at times, to faithfulness, rather than to the subjective act of faith;  see, e. g., Romans 3:3; Titus 2:10.

[xiii] uJph/kouon thØv pi÷stei.  The imperfect uJph/kouon includes more than just obedience to the Divine summons to pardon and justification.

[xiv] All the references to pi÷stiß in in the pastoral epistles relate to the faith as a body of truth, while some to faithfulness also, and to the subjective exercise of faith in sanctification, with one or the other side of pi÷stiß emphasized to different degrees in the various passages;  see 1 Timothy 1:2, 4–5, 14, 19; 2:7, 15; 3:9, 13; 4:1, 6, 12; 5:8, 12; 6:10–12, 21; 2 Timothy 1:5, 13; 2:18, 22; 3:8, 10, 15; 4:7; Titus 1:1, 4, 13; 2:2, 10; 3:15.  The study entitled “The pi÷stiß word-group in the Pastoral Epistles” (pgs. 213-217, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, I. H. Marshall & P. H. Towner.  London:  T & T Clark, 2004) has some value, despite various errors, including those derived from rationalism.

[xv] 1 Timothy 4:1, 6; 6:20-21; 2 Timothy 1:13; 2:18.

[xvi] 2 Timothy 3:8-16; 4:1-7.

[xvii] Titus 1:10-16; 2:1-10; Jude 3-20; Revelation 2:13-16; cf. the results of coming to “the unity of the faith” in knowledge of and likeness to the Son of God in purity of doctrine and of life (Ephesians 4:14-16), in love for God with all the mind and all the heart and soul.

[xviii] Matthew 23:23, referencing Micah 6:8.  Micah’s “to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God” (:ÔKy`RhølTa_MIo tRk™Rl Ao¶EnVxAh◊w dRs$Rj tAbSh∞Aa◊w ‹fDÚpVvIm twôøcSo) is referenced in Matthew as “judgment, mercy, and faith” (th\n kri÷sin kai« to\n e¶leon kai« th\n pi÷stin).  Compare also Zechariah 7:9.

[xix] A pi÷stiß that is aÓnupo/kritoß; 1 Timothy 1:5; 2 Timothy 1:5.  The believer, and especially the spiritual leader, must not be a fake or be disingenuous in his doctrinal profession or his lifestyle.

[xx] 1 Timothy 1:19; cf. 3:9.

[xxi] The “if,” ei¶ge, of Colossians 1:23 introduces a first class, not a third class conditional clause;  Paul assumes that the Colossians will continue in the faith.

[xxii] 1 Timothy 1:2; Titus 1:4.

[xxiii] Jude 20.  Jude opens and closes his epistle with a reference to “the faith” (Jude 3, 20), so “building up yourselves on your most holy faith,” thØv aJgiwta¿thØ uJmw◊n pi÷stei e˙poikodomouvnteß e˚autou/ß, refers to individual and corporate Christian edification on the basis of and grounded upon “the faith,” so that in this manner growing spiritually, believers will be protected from apostasy and “keep themselves in the love of God,” e˚autou\ß e˙n aÓga¿phØ Qeouv thrh/sete, Jude 21.