Liberating you from bad ideas about God
We often hear that while works are not required for justification, they are the necessary result of justification and true saving faith. I argue that this makes works a condition of eternal life.
Here is the article so you can read it:
Are Works the Necessary Result of Justification?
See this follow-up article here:
The Relationship Between Faith and Works according to Three Systems of Theology
I am a fundamentalist.
I am NOT a fundamentalist.
So which is it?
It depends on what you mean by “fundamentalist.”
The term “fundamentalist” was coined back in 1910 when the General Assembly of the Presbyterion Church decided to take a stand against encroaching liberal modernism and listed the “five fundamentals” of the faith:
They published booklets defining and defending these five points from Scripture. If you were in agreement with them on these things, you could call yourself a “Fundamentalist.” So, based on this definition, I suppose I am a fundamentalist. I firmly believe and teach all five of these fundamental truths.
But in the last thirty years or so, fundamentalism has come to include lots of other “non-negotiables.” A “fundamentalist” today must hold to certain views of women in ministry, the end times, abortion, creation vs. evolution, the method of baptism, dress code, drinking alcohol, gettting tattoos, style of music, playing cards, smoking, evangelistic methods, political involvement, etc.
So if this is how “fundamentalists” today are defined, I am not a fundamentalist. Sure, I am quite conservative in many of these areas, but in others, I would be considered “liberal” by some modern fundamentalists. So I am not a fundamentalist.
Recently, I have had some personal and online interaction with some of these modern fundamentalists, and have realized that their name is quite descriptive.
First of all, many of them are not much FUN. Sour and dour describes them best. Always frowning. Always criticizing. Always telling you that unless you believe and act the same way they do, you are going to hell. They are not the kind of people who would feel comfortable around Jesus when He goes to parties, drinks, tells potty-humor jokes (yes, Jesus did this! – cf. Mark 7:15), and hangs out with prostitutes and sinners.
A second thing that characterizes modern fundamentalists is their method of argumentation, which is summed up in the word DUH. Modern fundamentalists have already made up their minds about the entire Bible, and when you try to explain that some of their favorite Bible-thumping passages have been ripped out of the cultural and Scriptural context in which they were written, the Fundamentalist acts as if you are the stupidest person on the earth for trying to understand a text this way.
When you ask why your interpretation is wrong, they innundate you with a list of other passages pulled out of context and numerous quotes from authors and pastors who agree with their position. They do not argue from exegesis and proper hermeneutics, but from tradition and citations of other authors.
All of this leads to the conclusion that many of them are MENTAL. They are like people in mental institutions who hold strange beliefs despite all the evidence to the contrary.
Their spittle-spewing rants and tirades are called “holy” because they are “defending God and His Word.” But in reality, they are mindlessly defending their own views and opinions and will not even consider the arguments of any who disagree. No matter how ridiculous their view is, they will not listen to even the most articulate, logical, and gracious arguments.
Are there practices and beliefs in our culture and among Christendom that need to be corrected? Of course, but not with hate, slander, and name-calling, but instead with grace, and speaking the truth in love.
So hold to the fundamentals, but don’t be a fundamentalist.
Thanks goes to ASBO Jesus for this cartoon.
In Luke 15, there are three famous parables: The Lost Sheep, The Lost Coin, and The Lost Son (also known as The Prodigal Son). (Read my post here about the Prodigal Son).
The most common view on these parables in Luke 15 it that the lost sheep, lost coin, and lost son all refers to unbelievers, and Jesus goes out and finds them, and brings them back to Himself. So when people ask about the meaning of Luke 15 and the three parables, the answer that most people get is that unbelievers are becoming Christians.
But is this really what Jesus meant by these stories in Luke 15? I think not.
Upon careful inspection, however, it soon becomes clear that the parables of the Lost Sheep, Lost Coin, and Prodigal Son in Luke 15 are not about unbelievers becoming Christians, but about straying Christians repenting and being restored back into fellowship with God.
For example, the Lost sheep already belonged the shepherd. The Lost Coin already belonged to the woman. The Lost Son was already a son of the father. The Shepherd does not get a NEW sheep into his sheep fold, but returns one that was lost and found. The same is true of the Lost Coin and Lost Son.
Furthermore, the Gospel of Luke itself is not an evangelistic book in the Bible, but is a discipleship book. That is, Luke does not say much of anything in his Gospel about how unbelievers can receive eternal life. But he writes a lot about how believers can better follow Jesus and grow in their faithfulness and obedience to Him. The Gospel of John is the only real evangelistic book in the Bible, and it says over and over and over how to receive eternal life (believe in Jesus for it).
So again, the immediate and broader context of Luke 15, we see that the issue is not unbelievers becoming believers, but straying believers being brought back into the care, protection, and provision of God. In light of the context and the terms uses in the passage, this seems to be what Jesus is saying in these parables.
Furthermore, the traditional interpretation of this passage leads to some dangerous theological results.
For example, if these three parables are talking about how Jesus goes out to find unsaved people, and the lost sheep, coins, and sons therefore represent all the people of the world, what is keeping us from a universalist interpretation of this passage, since Jesus doesn’t stop searching until he has gathered all 100 back into his fold?
I recently discussed this online with a person who had come to this exact conclusion. He wrote:
I’m living for the Shepherd who will leave ninety-nine sheep to find the one that is lost. If the entire world was lost, I expect He found every last one.
Certainly, not everyone who holds the view that the lost in these parables in Luke 15 refer to unbelievers are universalists, but this man did arrive at a universalist position partly as a result of viewing the lost sheep, the coins, and the sons as unbelievers.
This truth from Luke 15 is a great encouragement to you and to me. It shows us how much God loves us, and that even if (when!) we stray, God will not shrug His shoulders and say “Good riddance! Buh bye!” No, instead, God will go to every length possible to find you and bring you back into His care. He will search high and low. He will scour every nook and cranny. He will never stop watching, waiting, and looking.
And when He sees you far off in the distance, He will not make you crawl back and beg for forgiveness. No, He will run to you with open arms and throw you a party for your return.
Have you stayed from God? It’s okay. Hopefully you have learned a few things while away. Now, return to Him. He is ready, willing, and waiting to welcome you back.
Want to learn more about the gospel? Take my new course, "The Gospel According to Scripture."
The entire course is free for those who join my online Discipleship group here on RedeemingGod.com. I can't wait to see you inside the course!
I have been finding some interesting videos recently on YouTube and Google Video, and wanted to post them here for your reaction.
In the following Baptism Instruction Video, I wonder if what they present is a good idea or bad idea?
A couple of pastors are explaining the why and how of baptism to a church that is (apparently) filled with new believers who know next to nothing about baptism, why they should get baptized, or what will happen at the baptism.So they created this video and showed it in their worship service.
This is the “Orchard Baptism Instructional Video.”
Let me know what you think.
NOTE: This is an OLD post from 2007, and I no longer agree with everything I have written about church below. To learn my more recent views, read some of my newer posts on the church, or my books on church. Better yet, sign up to take my free online course on the church.
I like fast food, but not always from the same place. I like the hamburgers from Wendy’s, the french fries from Burger King, and a soda from the convenience store ($0.59 for 32 oz!). Occasionally, when I have the time, I will actually eat my lunch this way, driving around to each location to get what I want.
It gets even worse when I’m with my wife and daughters. Wendy won’t eat fast food at all, unless it’s a Deli fresh sandwich and Jamocha shake from Arby’s. Taylor will only eat cheeseburgers from McDonalds. Selah won’t eat fast food at all, and so we have to bring apples and a PBJ for her. We can’t figure out what Kahlea eats.
Needless to say, with such a mix-and-match menu, we don’t do fast food very often.
But this is how many people “attend church.” They go to one church for the awesome music and great children’s program. But the pastor’s preaching there is usually too shallow, so they get their sermons online from John MacArthur, Mark Driscoll, or Rob Bell. The church they attend has small groups, but most are too far away, so they get fellowship on Friday night by going out to dinner with a few friends, most of whom go to different churches. Some of these friends don’t go to church at all, in which case, it’s not “fellowship” but “relationship evangelism.”
Though many churches today try to provide “one stop shopping” most Christians engage Christianity with a “mix and match” mentality.
I have been guilty of this myself quite frequently the past few years, but recently, I have begun to question the legitimacy of it. I have justified such church venue as trying to get the “best of everything” from wherever I can find it. “Besides,” I tell myself, “I’m part of the universal church, and it doesn’t matter where I get the things I need to be healthy, as long as I get them from somewhere.”
But is this true?
In a previous post, I proposed a definition for what the church is and does. After reflection, I think this definition needs some refinement.
Not only must Christians exalt God through a life of worship, edify one another through the use of spiritual gifts, and evangelize the world, I now also believe that all of these things must be done together with the same group of believers.
I get this from Paul’s frequent usage of “body” imagery when talking about the church (cf. Eph 4:11-16; 1 Cor 12). The emphasis in these passages is not only that the various parts have various functions, but that each part must perform it’s particular function with and for the other parts that it receives benefits from.
The body of Christ is a symbiotic relationship. If you have the gift of helps, the person(s) you get your primary Bible teaching from should also be the person(s) you are trying to help (in big churches, you may not actually be helping the teaching pastor, but you can help him indirectly through doing things in the church and for the people of the church). The group you meet with for encouragement and prayer should be the group that goes out with you to develop relationships for evangelism and discipleship. Only in this way can they encourage and pray for you more effectively.
Following the imagery of the body, the people whose spiritual gifts you are spiritually benefiting from, should be the same people who benefit from your spiritual gifts. Otherwise, we’ve got a foot taking nourishment from a mouth and cleaning from a hand, but not helping either one walk where they need to go. It’s a selfish and disjointed way to function.
Does this mean you can’t get good Bible teaching from Alistair Begg or Matt Chandler unless you go their church? Of course not. Just don’t consider that your church teaching. Does this mean you can’t reach out to the community with people from other congregations? I hope you do partner in this way with other churches! But don’t consider this your evangelism unless you are also joining with people from your own body of believers.
I am not trying to be legalistic about all this. I just want you and your church body to be healthy. Besides, you’ll find this approach much more enjoyable and natural than driving all over to get a full meal.
Sometimes, you just need to laugh. Especially with everything that has recently been in the news.
Several years ago, my sister introduced me to the “The Onion” – a newspaper which makes up fictional stories that are so close to reality, they are funny.
Recently I ran across a Christian version called “The Babylon Bee.” I spent a few minutes over my lunch break reading and laughing.
So, need a good laugh? Check out The Babylon Bee. We all need to laugh more.
Here are a few examples of recent headlines:
And if you like Christian satire, I wrote a book which takes a satirical look at Christian evangelism, so if you want a good laugh, try my book, Adventures in Fishing (for Men).
If you were sharing with someone how they can have eternal life, where would you go in Scripture to show them what God says?
Do you have a passage or two picked out?
If so, what are they, and why would you go there?
Let’s hear what you have to say in the comments below.
To learn my thoughts on this topic, check out my online course:
Want to learn more about the gospel? Take my new course, "The Gospel According to Scripture."
The entire course is free for those who join my online Discipleship group here on RedeemingGod.com. I can't wait to see you inside the course!
For several years now, I have been mulling over a nagging question: “What is church?” How do you know the difference between a Bible study and church? Is there a difference?
In Bible College and Seminary, I attended daily chapel services. Nearly every chapel service began with announcements, had a few songs and a prayer time, and finished with a message from a speaker. How is this different than the Sunday church service?
The seminary told us that chapel does not qualify as church. But why not? What is church? The chapels had singing, teaching, and prayer. We even had fellowship groups, and occasionally in chapel, took communion. Why is this not church?
Or, take the recent introduction of the online church. Can you really be involved with and “attend” a church from your computer at work or at home in your pajamas? If not, why not?
And when it comes to church, how many people need to be present? Can one believer in a prison cell in China have their own church service, or does there need to be a minimum of 2 or 3 people gathered together? And what are these 2 or 3 supposed to do, how often, and where? In a recent book by George Barna (Revolution
When it comes to the question of “What is Church?” Here is my preliminary hypothesis:
The church is the universal and spiritual body of believers in Jesus Christ:
So, what do you think? Even before we begin to break this down and look at Biblical passages related to it, are there things you feel I should add or take out? What are the ramifications of such a definition for the way churches are today?
How do you answer the question, “What is Church?” Let us know in the comments below.
Note: This post was written in 2007, and launched me on a study about the church, much of which is found in various other posts on this blog. Some of the results of this study about the church can be found in my eBook, Skeleton Church. In that book, I attempt to answer the question, “What is church?” by providing a bare-bones definition of church.
A while back I was on vacation in Montana and attended a Friday morning men-only Bible study called “The Dirtbags.” As with the Cowboy Church I visited in Plano, The Dirtbags met in a bar.
The study began about 10 years ago with 10 men. Now, they have two meeting times, 6:30 and 8:00 am, with about 60-80 men at each. Most of these men were the rugged, outdoorsy, work with their hands, salt of the earth type men, and here they were, spending 90 minutes with other men, studying the Bible. So don’t tell me men aren’t interested in the Bible! They just need a Bible study without all the frills and “girly-man” stuff.
And there was nothing “girly-man” about this study. The bar decorations themselves were…interesting. In the Plano, TX bar church, there were a hundred neon beer signs. This bar had those also, along with about 20 bikini-girl posters. I had to practice Proverbs 4:25, and keep my gaze fixed on the face of the man leading the study.
The leader of the study was quite a character. I was told he is (or was) on staff with Campus Crusade for Christ. He began the study with a few announcements, followed by some jokes that were e-mailed to him. The jokes were fairly off color, and would have done more than raise a few eyebrows in most churches. The typical pastor would probably get fired for telling jokes like these. However, I will admit that I laughed along with all the other men.
The leader also mentioned that they were going to have a golf tournament, and he wanted every man there to invite a non-Christian friend or co-worker. He begged and pleaded with the men to not invite their “religious” friends since there was probably going to be some bad language and excessive drinking that went on.
He explained that the religious people would be aghast at such behavior taking place at an event sponsored by a men’s Bible study, and would call and complain about how it wasn’t right to hang out with such sinners (cf. Matt 11:19; Luke 7:34). He said he didn’t want to waste his time listening to the complaints of religious people, so the easiest thing was to just not invite them.
He then took prayer requests for about 20 minutes, which surprised me some, since men are notorious for not asking for prayer when they need it. But these men just kept raising one request after another. Maybe men only don’t ask for requests when women are the room…
His Bible study also lasted about 20 minutes. It was helpful, practical, down to earth, and best of all, Biblical. He didn’t have a main text, but went to several texts throughout Scripture. Personally, I think sticking to one text would have been better, but these men didn’t seem to have too much trouble flipping through the pages of Scripture. He used two mild words of profanity in his talk, and nobody batted an eye.
All in all, I think this Bible study shows that men are interested in spiritual things, but they feel most comfortable receiving and talking about them in a manly way. If you haven’t read it yet, you must read Why Men Hate Going to Church by David Murrow to see his findings on this.
On a related note, I recently read a book called Preaching That Speaks to Women
Are bars, bikini-posters, crude jokes, and profanity the way to reach men, especially if the purpose is evangelistic? Is this taking the “meeting them where they are at” concept too far, or is this redemption in action? Practically, what can you and your church do to better reach men in your community?
For years I have been looking for a good alternate acronym to the Calvinistic TULIP to sum up what I believe.
I came across one today at the Unashamed of Grace Blog. It follows the acronym PULPIT instead of TULIP.
Since the key to getting an acronym to stick is wide acceptance and memorablness (is that a word?), go check it out, pass it around, and post a comment about it.
This may be a good acronym to help spread a message different than Calvinism.
