Liberating you from bad ideas about God
Learn what our Secret Weapon is and why it is so important for Spiritual Warfare by listening to my new sermon, The Secret Weapon: Prayer (Ephesians 6:18).
Also, to download these automatically, you may subscribe to the free podcast.
After listening to it, or reading it, post your comments or questions here so I can interact with you on them.
Learn what the Sword of the Spirit is and how to use it for Spiritual Warfare by listening to my new sermon, The Sword of the Spirit (Ephesians 6:17b).
After listening to it, or reading it, post your comments or questions here so I can interact with you on them.
Learn what the Helmet of Salvation is and how to use it in Spiritual Warfare by listening to my new sermon, The Helmet of Salvation (Ephesians 6:17a).
Also, to download these automatically, you may subscribe to the free podcast.
After listening to it, or reading it, post your comments or questions here so I can interact with you on them.
Here is the link for the PDF to my most recent newsletter: Better than Mother Theresa Newsletter (July 2007)
You can read the rest of these newsletters on my Matthew Sermons Page.
We in the Free Grace camp need to think BIG about the future. I am not sure if I mentioned in my post about the Acts 29 conference I went to, but my biggest ache on that day was that all these men were going out to plant churches, and they were all Lordship/Calvinistic.
In my post on Emergent Immersion, Don Reiher made the following comment which I thought was so good, I would post it here:
To be perfectly honest, I cannot stand any of the churches in the area. In the Philadelphia area, there are really no good churches. ALL and I mean ALL the “good” mild lordship Bible believing Baptist churches have gone totally reformed over the last 30 years (yes I was born and raised here). There are a few mild lordship Bible churches, but the vast majority are hardline lordship. Then there are the KJV only, legalistic kind of churches.
I go to one of the “mild” lordship ones (75% of the elders are lordship, the pastor says he is free grace, but still makes me wonder). The music is horrible. I cannot blame people for going to “emergent” churches.
BTW. . . I recently read several books from Dan Kimball on Emergent issues, Emerging Worship
, and The Emerging Church
. I think his material is much better than McLaren’s.
My point, is, my heart aches for the 20s/30s today. When I was that age, there were still some decent churches around. I learned so much doctrine in church, that when I went to Moody in 1979, I already had read most of the books for my classes. It was simply building on what I already knew. Nowadays, I think people are hungry, and will take whatever scraps of food people like Piper throw at them.
People seem to think that you have to throw away all the teaching of the great men of the last century because it doesn’t match with the Westminster Confession. They think they are going back to their roots, by going back to the Reformation, rather than going back to the Bible.
I think we in the Free Grace movement should start putting together some of these big mega-conferences and provide some good worship bands, and dish out a good diet of sound teaching, from a free grace perspective. We need to provide an example of what God is like, and what missions are like, from a NON-Calvinistic, Non-Reformed perspective. In my opinion, their perspective of God is puny compared to what God is really like. Their perspective of the Gospel and missions is a massive confusion, dried up and withered, compared to the clear, fresh streams of water the more Free Grace type folks can provide for them.
I don’t think we could get 20,000 college people, but I bet we could get several thousand. More importantly, I think God would honor it. We in the Free Grace camp need to think big, and think “next generation.
I agree with this 100%. Thank you Don!
I indicated in a previous comment that I would refrain from debating this gospel issue any more because none of us on either side are getting anywhere with the others, and I have better things to do. But in light of what I came across today, I am compelled to begin another post.
Besides, I guess public “debates” like this are not really for the debaters, but for those who are “on the fence” trying to understand and decide between the two positions. Even still, my follow-up comments to this post will be limited.
Following the attempts by some of the commenters (from both sides of the debate) to get simple “yes” and “no” answers from each other to theological questions, I have a REAL LIFE situation to pose to the readers of this blog, and I want you to state with a simple “Yes” or “No” whether you believe the following woman is saved or not.
Certainly, only God knows, but based on how you understand the Bible, the Gospel, how people are justified, and what she says, is the following woman justified, Yes or No?
And just so you know, I am not making this woman up. She is a REAL woman I encountered today. So give her the benefit of the doubt. If she says she really believes something, let’s assume she really does believe it.
And here are the RULES for the comments on this post. YOU MUST, IN YOUR FIRST COMMENT, BEGIN WITH EITHER A “YES” OR A “NO.” Following your one-word answer, you may then explain your answer. Also, in subsequent comments, you do not need to begin those posts with your answer, unless you change you answer.
Obviously, none of us are the true judges of a person’s eternal destiny (Isn’t that a relief?), and the Gospel is not even primarily about where one will spend eternity, but this exercise is for the purpose of helping us think through what the Bible says about how to receive eternal life. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE don’t go around judging people the way we are doing here on this post.
Next to God, the Bible, and the Gospel of grace, one of my great loves is the Church. I’ve been reading and hearing a lot about the “emerging church” recently, so I decided to visit one on Sunday. I went to google and searched for “postmodern emergent church dallas” and eventually found one that looked good.
I had learned from my “Acts 29” experience, so this time, I decided to “dress down.” I wore shorts and a ball cap. I’ve never worn a ball cap to church before, and during the service, I kept wanting to take it off. I probably would have taken it off during prayer time, but they didn’t have a prayer time, so I was able to keep it on. If I really wanted to feel at home, I should have walked in carrying an iPhone in one hand (No, I don’t own one) and Starbucks coffee in the other (No, I don’t like Starbucks).
The service started at 5:10, which seemed kind of odd to me, but made a bit of sense later. When I walked in, my very first reaction was that the church was much smaller than I thought it would be. Maxed out, the room couldn’t sit more than 70 people. The primary lighting in the room was candles, which provided a soft, worshipful “feel.” Some think that candles are bad because they are used by Catholics, Mystics, and cults. Personally, I like candles.
As I wandered around the room trying to decide whether to sit in a couch (yes, they had couches) or a padded pew, I noticed several pieces of art on the wall, and a coffee bar off in the corner. Nobody greeted me or even said “hi.” I guess emergent churches are just as distant toward newcomers as regular churches.
Eventually, as I wandered around, I found a room in the back which was more dimly lit than everywhere else and had some blue glowing birds in the center on a table. I went in to see what they were. On the table with the glowing birds were some mirrors and some instructions that as we enter into prayer, we should clear our mind of all thoughts (or something like this). I was alarmed at this piece of Eastern Mysticism which contradicts commands in the Bible to not clear our minds, but fill our minds (cf. Php 4:8). But I didn’t linger long, because I noticed four or five other tables around the room, and wanted to see what was on them. One had a “finger labyrinth” which the instructions said was like a real life prayer labyrinth, only much, much smaller. Supposedly, as your finger traced its way through the labyrinth, you were supposed to leave the cares of the world outside, and focus on the kingdom of God inside. Okay.
The next table had a big bowl of sand with a smaller bowl of rocks. The instructions told me to pick up a rock and hold it in my hand while writing my sins in the sand. After my sins were written in the sand, I was supposed to wipe them away because Jesus had removed my sins from me. I didn’t understand the rock, and thought maybe it was supposed to help me focus or channel. It was only after I got home and told my wife Wendy about it that she enlightened me. She said, “Well of course. It’s like the woman caught in adultery, and as people gathered around to stone her, Jesus wrote their sins in the sand.” Now that my wife caught the imagery, I think this is a pretty cool idea. I now wonder if the labyrinth and the glowing birds have some biblical imagery that escapes me. Maybe the birds symbolize sparrows (Matt 10:29).
On another table there were prayer candles you could light. This is also a Catholic practice, but I don’t think there is anything inherently wrong about it. The final table held a pitcher, basin, and a towel, which I supposed could be used to wash someone’s feet (John 13), or maybe your own hands as a symbol of neglecting Jesus (Matt 27:24).
The beginning of the service was announced by a funny little video which I won’t try to explain. The welcome was given by a young guy who explained that he was now happy in life again because he got a new iPhone. He was one of the first people in the country to get the iPhone on opening weekend, but the first day he had it, he went swimming with it for 20 minutes, and found out it wasn’t waterproof. So apparently, a week earlier in church he was pretty depressed because he had plunked down $600 for an iPhone and barely even got to show it off. Anyway, he took the phone into an Apple store and told them it was “broken” and they gave him a brand new one, no questions asked. So now life was good again.
The music was well done, and they even admitted to changing the lyrics on a few songs to fit proper theology. I agreed with their changes, which means our theology is somewhat in sync. They sang for about 20 minutes, which is typical for most churches, with a good blend of contemporary songs and hymns.
I wryly noticed during the singing that the pastor’s husband (Did I forget to mention that the pastor is a woman?) didn’t sing a word of any of the songs. He stood there next to his wife and scowled the whole time. She looked a little flustered herself. I’ve been a pastor before, and so I recognize what probably was going on. Most pastor families have big fights right before church. Actually, most families in general have big fights right before church. If you are part of a family, and you go to church, you know this is true. I don’t think this is coincidence. Anyway, I can’t be sure, but I wouldn’t be too surprised to find out that the pastor and her husband had a fight in the car on the way to church.
After the singing, the pastor got up to speak. Apparently, she is preaching through Acts, which pleasantly surprised me since most churches today are turning away from systemmatic, expository preaching. She spoke from a portion of Acts 17, where Paul presents Jesus and the resurrection to the philosophers in Athens. Honestly, it was one of the better sermons I’ve heard in Texas so far. She went through the text verse by verse, reading it, explaining it, and applying it. She did a fantastic job.
One thing I liked, but which was very new to me, was that at any time during her message, people from the congregation could intersperse comments, jokes, or questions. Probably, this is much closer to the way it was in Acts and in the early church (Read some of the sermons by St. John Chrystostom to see what I mean. He too was expository, teaching his way through books of the Bible, and the transcriptions of his sermons are often sprinkled with his response to questions or comments from the crowd). I think that given the setting, the number of people there, and the personality of the pastor, these comments and questions from the congregation really enhanced the message and kept it even more lively and interesting than it already was. Many of the comments were very witty. The pastor’s husband, by the way, scowled all the way through the sermon too. He never laughed or smiled at anyone’s comments. Yes, there was definitively some marital conflict before church.
Let me say for the record that I do not believe that there are any biblical grounds for women being elders or teaching pastors of a church. This doesn’t mean women don’t know how to teach the Bible or don’t have teaching gifts. This woman clearly had a gift of teaching and knew her Bible well. I was impressed. But that doesn’t make it right.
Anyway, she taught for about 35 minutes. She sat on a stool, and used minimal notes. After the message, she explained that they always have a time of response to the Word (which I think is another great idea), and this week, she thought that the best way to respond to what we had learned was to have a time of silence (which I didn’t think was the best idea). It’s not that I don’t like times of silence. I do. I think church services and life in general should have more times of silence. I have an idea for an entire silent sermon I might give someday (the tapes probably won’t sell real well though). I just think there might have been some better ways to respond to this particular text.
After the silence, they took an offering and had some closing announcements. The service ended at 6:10 pm, and they said in continuation of their worship, they would like to invite everyone to join them at Chipotle’s for food and fellowship. This is why they meet at 5:10, so they can all go share a meal together afterwards. Again, I really liked this idea (cf. Acts 2:42), but decided not to go since Wendy was waiting for me at home.
All in all, I don’t see what the big fuss is about. Maybe this church truly isn’t “emerging.” I never did see a doctrinal statement, and one visit doesn’t tell me too much about what they believe. But frankly, most “non emerging” churches I have visited are so stale and dead, they probably need to emerge a bit. Also, most sermons I hear in these other churches are so shallow and empty of content, it would almost be better if there were no sermon at all.
This shallowness and emptiness is one reason why “emergent” churches started. And I think we probably have a lot to learn from them. I’m going to visit this church again, just so I can get a few more questions answered (“What’s the deal with the birds?). And then maybe I will try to find another emerging church to visit. I do know that in a few weeks I am going to visit a “cowboy church.” I’ll report on that as well, but I can tell you one thing: there probably won’t be any candles.
I’ve never done much posting in forums or blogs, so this blog is new territory for me.
And wow, I am amazed at myself. The things I am tempted to write (and maybe occassionally do write) in the posts and comments reveal pride, anger, and an ego that I have never before experienced. Sure, I have some theological disagreements with some of those who make comments, but I don’t think I would get this upset if I were having a face-to-face conversation.
So I apologize. I thought about going back and deleting some of my comments, but then I figured, “Trying to hide my faults is only more pride.” Besides, I do say some good things in some of those comments. (There goes my pride again! Ha ha). So my dirty blog laundry is out for all to see. I have a monster within me, and he sometimes fights to get out.
Another factor of the blog monster I did not consider is the amount of time that blogging can consume. I am too busy to do the things that are already on my plate, let alone taking time to read and write comments.
If those of you who have more experience blogging than I do can give me some me some tips on how to control the blog monster, I would appreciate it. Maybe just more prayer and more time between reading comments and responding to them is all I need.
OK, the cat is out of the bag (I guess it was never in the bag)…The article I referred to in the previous post about the Crossless Gospel is indeed the one by Tom Stegall. But I am also now including Rokser’s “Two Clarifications” from the most recent issue of the “Grace Family Journal.”
It appears from Comments to my previous post that although Stegall is accusing various Free Grace writers and speakers of having a “Crossless Gospel,” what he really means is that we have “Crossless evangelism.” I see these two things as distinctly different since nobody ever shares the entire New Testament gospel when they evangelize. So the issue isn’t whether the cross is part of the gospel or not. Of course the cross is part of the gospel.
Instead, the issue seems to be, “Does a person need to believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ to receive eternal life?”
So to help clarify the debate, I thought it might help to share what I try to do when I evangelize…after all, this is what it is all about, right? Please note that I don’t exactly know what the evangelistic method is of Zane Hodges, Antonio DaRosa, or any of the other Free Grace people accused of teaching a “crossless gospel.” I do, however, know that the evangelistic practice I describe below closely resembles what Bob Wilkin does. I know this, becuase I work with him, and we have talked a lot about it. Even still, I am not speaking for him, but for myself alone.
But before I get to my practice, it is probably best to begin with what Stegall says a person must believe to receive eternal life. If I remember correctly, Stegall has five things he says must be believed if a person is to be born again. These five things were not listed in his article, but I think I heard him list them in a talk he gave at the Annual Fall Conference at Duluth Bible Church. (So my memory may be wrong on these five…).
He says that for a person to be born again, they have to believe in:
Technically, this is more than five, but I’m not going to quibble over that.
My question for Stegall is: “Why these five?”
What if a person believes all these five, but doesn’t believe in the virgin birth and believes that Jesus sinned? What if a person doesn’t believe in the Trinity, and instead is a modalist? What if they believe these five things, but believe that Jesus is “a god” just like the rest of us? What if they believe these five things, but don’t believe in life after death, and “salvation” is only a good life here and now?
Personally, I believe that the virgin birth, the sinlessness of Jesus, and the Trinity are all essential to the gospel, as well as numerous other truths. But do I expect a person to know and believe all of this in order to become a Christian? No. So I don’t have a “crossless gospel.” I have a gospel that includes all five elements Stegall includes, plus a bunch of other Scriptural truths that Stegall does not.
So the real issue is, “What do I share when I evangelize?” Right? Though not directly stated, it seems this is what people want to know. Here is how I evangelize.
I share any truth of the gospel I think is necessary to get a person to believe in Jesus for everlasting life. All of the truths of the gospel either prepare a person to believe in Jesus for everlasting life, or prove that He can make good on His promise.
So, when I evangelize, I always begin with the gospel invitation and tell them that if they believe in Jesus, He guarantees them eternal life.
Then, I allow the convicting and drawing work of the Holy Spirit upon that person and their natural, logical questions to lead me into what other information about the gospel I might share. Most people, I find, already know and believe that Jesus was God, that He died on the cross for their sins, and that He rose again from the dead. Even most unbelievers believe this.
So generally, the conversation centers around how Jesus can guarantee eternal life to those who believe or how it can be only faith without works, or why a good person cannot get into heaven. This is when we get to Stegall’s five truths plus any of the other gospel truths that will convince the person to believe in Jesus for everlasting life.
One time, I actually talked to a person in the United States who didn’t know who Jesus was. I was pretty amazed that they had never heard of Jesus, but went on to explain to them that He was God, who came to earth 2000 years ago, and lived a sinless life, yet died a painful death on a cross for the sins of the whole world. His resurrection three days later proved that His death was acceptable to God as the payment for our sin. We were able to have a long and lively discussion about the gospel and the offer of eternal life. The conversation naturally led to all of Stegall’s five points, plus several others. But even if the conversation is short, I have still expressed the bottom line gospel invitation.
This, it seems, is the most natural and biblical way to evangelize. It’s what Jesus did. It’s what Paul and Peter did. I’m not trying to run through a checklist of ideas, which have no basis anywhere in Scripture, or in actual practice. I can’t find any place in Scripture where a person shares all five of Stegall’s points when evangelizing or defining the basics of the gospel. Even 1 Corinthians 15 and Romans 10 don’t include all five of these truths. And when compared, those two passages don’t even include the same gospel truths. The truth is, I can’t find one Scriptural passage that includes all five of Stegall’s truths. He has to pick and choose from various passages to get his essential gospel truths, and these five seem pretty arbitrary.
He may accuse me of having a crossless gospel (which I don’t), but I can accuse him of having a cherry-picked gospel.
So what do I share?
When I evangelize, I share anything and everything I can in the time I have that I think will get the person to the point where they become persuaded that simply by faith alone in Jesus they have everlasting life.
Once, when I was a pastor in Montana, I was outside by my woodpile (we use wood to heat our houses in Montana) talking with a man about all of this, and he wasn’t persuaded. He said, “I just don’t know if all of this is true. If it is true, I wish God would just hit me over the head with a 2×4. Then I would believe it.”
I almost reached out and grabbed a 2×4 and whacked him on the head with it! If he said “Why did you do that?” I could have responded, “God told me to, and He wants to know if you’ll believe in Jesus for everlasting life now.” If I had done that, I would have called it the “2×4 gospel,” because not only did I share with him about his sin, the deity, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, I also got a 2×4 in there…all in an effort to get him to believe in Jesus for everlasting life.
In light of my previous post on Luther, and my opening post for this blog about being called a heretic, I thought I might comment on some recent articles and books which condemn me (and other speakers and writers) as someone who teaches a crossless gospel.
These books and articles, by pastors, bloggers, and writers who will go unnamed in this post, basically accuse me (and several others) of removing the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ from the biblical gospel. They accuses us of teaching a “crossless gospel.”
Here is my brief response:
Frankly, when I read these books and articles, I was shocked to read what I (supposedly) believed. It was reported that I believed the cross was not central to the gospel.
Yet I have always believed and taught that the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ are central to the gospel. Without the death and resurrection of Jesus, there is no biblical gospel. There is no such thing as a crossless gospel. I believe the cross is central to the gospel.
Without the cross of Jesus, there is no gospel!
The authors quote a few writings of mine as proof that I have ripped the cross out of the gospel, and all I can say is that they should have read the entire article from which they quote, and some of my other writings as well. Anybody can be quoted out of context to get them to say the exact opposite of what they are actually saying. This tactic began in the garden when Satan misquoted God to Eve, and continued when he misquoted Scripture to Jesus. (Not that I am God or Scripture and my opponent is Satan, but the point is that people must be quoted in context.)
If these authors had read the entirety of the article they quote, they would see that I do not believe in a crossless gospel, but believe in the centrality of the cross for the gospel!
And I did some researching into the other writers and scholars these authors quote, and discovered that the same tactic was used against them. In each instance I looked up, the quote was ripped from a context which says the exact opposite of what was quote appeared to be saying. Each of these men the author attacks believes the cross is central to the gospel.
And so now, sadly, the unnamed authors of the accusatory books and articles make themselves look foolish because, for everybody who knows better, the view they are trying to refute doesn’t exist!
Initially, when I read some of these books and articles, I laughed at the way I had been so misrepresented. But now, I just feel bad for those who need to defend their own views and consolidate their own power by misrepresenting the views of others.
I wish that these unnamed authors would have checked with me and a few others that were quoted out of context to see if our views were properly presented. As the books and articles now stand, the only thing they do is reveal a lack of scholarship based on misquotes and straw-man fallacies. They have set up a false gospel of their own making, called it a “crossless gospel,” assigned this so-called “false-gospel” to some innocent bystanders (such as me), and then accused us of holding this gospel of their own making, which of course, we do not.
The worst part about this is that those who read the books and articles of these various teachers might not do their own homework by checking out the baseless claims that they read and hear, and as a result, may be led astray into confusion and the false maligning of godly men.
The bottom line is that whatever these books and articles claim I believe, I think I know better. I’ve said it in my writings and sermons: The cross of Jesus Christ is central to the gospel. Without the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, there would be no biblical gospel, no offer of eternal life, no hope of heaven, and no forgiveness of sins.
So away with this “Tragedy of the Crossless Gospel” travesty. I don’t believe in a crossless gospel, and don’t know anybody who does.
There is no such thing as a crossless gospel, and those who purportedly teach such a gospel do not actually believe there is any such thing. The term “crossless gospel” is a pejorative misnomer.
