Redeeming Theology Archives - Page 71 of 74

This is an old post by Vince Antonucci, who is planting a church in Las Vegas. But though he wrote it several years ago, it is still valid:

I want to take some time to talk about one of the main things that keep Christians and churches from reaching out to lost people. (By the way, recently I suggested reading, “No Perfect People Allowed” by John Burke. Some of the ideas I’m going to express in these next few posts come from his book. He says them so well in there, I can’t really improve on them.)

So one of the seven core values at our church is: “Grace Wholesalers. We love people unconditionally and help them onto the road to healing and wholeness in Christ.” As you know, grace means to get the opposite of what you deserve. It’s unmerited love. A wholesaler (like B.J.’s , Sam’s Club or Costco) is someone who only gives in bulk. The idea is that at Forefront we give grace, love, hope, healing, acceptance, friendship in bulk. In huge quantities – you can’t just get a little.

Why is this one of our core values? Well, first of all, because God is a grace wholesaler. The Bible says that that’s how God treats us, with amazing grace. The reason we have Christ, the reason we’re saved, the reason we grow, the reason we live, the reason we’ll spend eternity in Heaven is because of God’s grace.

Second, Jesus came and exactly represented God the Father while He was on earth, and Jesus was a grace wholesaler. This is why when you read the gospels you find that the people who were drawn to Jesus were the worst of sinners. Why? Because they knew they needed grace. And He’s the one who gave it in bulk. We see Jesus condemn no one (except religious people who felt no need for grace). Jesus was the ultimate grace wholesaler. So why are we grace wholesalers? Because we have no choice! The church is called to be the body of Christ. As Jesus exactly represented God the Father, we are to exactly represent Jesus. And so Christians, Churches must be grace wholesalers.

In fact, this should be the distinctive of Christians and of Churches. I love how an author named Gordon MacDonald put it, “The world can do almost anything as well as or better than the church. You need not be a Christian to build houses, feed the hungry, or heal the sick. There is only one thing the world cannot do. It cannot offer grace.” Grace is what separates Christianity from the world. Grace is also what separates Christianity from other world religions. There are a lot of similarities amongst the world religions, but only Christianity offers grace. Only Christianity says you get the opposite of what you deserve from God. Only Christianity says God wants to offer you unmerited love.

Thanks, Vince!

Let us not be grace misers or withhold grace from people. If God give us an infinite supply of grace, why not spread this grace around as freely as possible?

If you want to learn more about God’s infinite love and grace for you, and how we can liberally share this grace with others, sign up to take my online course, “The Gospel According to Scripture.” You will come to see that there is no limit to the grace of God for you.

Shotgun Hermeneutics is not a Proper Bible Study Method

By Jeremy Myers

43 Comments

There is a tendency in many Christian circles to think that if a particular theological viewpoint can quote a lot of Scripture, it must be right.

For example, in a recent book defending The Five Points of Calvinism (by David Steele and Curtis Thomas), the authors seem to think that if they just quote Scripture, they have proved their point. For each of the five points, they provide a theological explanation for the point, and then “prove” it by citing numerous pages of Scriptural proof-texts, without ever attempting an explanation of any of those texts.

I recently listened to a debate from several years ago between Bob Wilkin and James White. James White used almost his entire opening statement to simply read Bible verses. The implication was that to prove Calvinism, all you have to do is read the Bible, and anybody is not a Calvinist, hasn’t read Scripture.

Shotgun Hermeneutics

I call this shotgun hermeneutics. Those who use this tactic try to “blow you away” by the sheer number of verses they can quote which they feel proves their point.

When you try to explain one or two of them to show that you are aware of these passages but have a different understanding, they will focus on all the other passages they quoted which you did not explain.

A Sample Conversation

In my discussions, the dialogue generally goes like this:

Calvinist: My view is right because of Passages A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and J. If you would simply read and believe the Bible, you would agree with what God said.

Me: I have read and studied the Bible, and am aware of all of those passages you just quoted. I simply understand them in a different way. Let’s take the first one as an example. (I then proceed to explain Passage A.)

Calvinist: Well, that’s certainly a creative way to understand Passage A. But we know your interpretation is wrong, because of Passage B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and J.

Me: I wasn’t trying to explain those passages, but again, I am aware of them, and all of them can be understood in a similar way as Passage A.

Calvinist: No, they can’t, because no one I’ve ever read has ever understood them that way. Here is what Piper, MacArthur, Sproul, and Calvin had to say about those passages. (They then proceed to quote their favorite authors.)

Me: But those are all Calvinistic authors. Of course they will agree with your interpretation.

Calvinist: Are you smarter or more godly than they are?

Me: No, of course not, but I do think…

Calvinist: Then since they all agree on what those passages mean, and there are so many passages that teach Calvinism, Calvinism is the truth. After all, what about Passages K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, and T?

Me: Yep. Those are all in the Bible.

Calvinist: Hah! I knew you would be silenced by the logic of my system and the irrefutable evidence of my many Scriptural proofs. To God be the glory!

Me: Well, I’m not really silenced, nor am I convinced …

Calvinist: That’s because you’re a depraved heretic.

Me: Oookaay … I gotta go. See ya later.

Calvinist: I’ll be praying for your soul that you would repent from your darkness and be brought into the light!

Theology Discussions

If you have ever tried to discuss theology with someone who holds strongly to a particular system of theology, you know that this is how many of these discussions go.

Recently, I have noticed this shotgun hermeneutics tactic being used by some who disagree with me on various other issues.

In their own blogs and in their comments on this blog, they seem to imply that I have not read the Bible, and that if I did, I would see the truth of their position. They argue that when they quote Scripture at me, I am silenced by the weight of Biblical evidence.

Yet when I attempt explanations of one or two passages they quoted, they say that my interpretation cannot be correct because of so many other Biblical passages which say something different, and furthermore, nobody they have ever read holds to my interpretation.

Then I get called a heretic.

A Proposal for Theological Debate

Shotgun hermeneutics and name calling is no way to proceed in theological discussion.

Shotgun hermeneutics isn’t even a proper method of hermeneutics. It’s actually a form of proof texting where dozens of passages are ripped out of context in order to prove a theological point.

So in order to really get somewhere in theological debate, the two sides must agree to discuss one passage at a time, and stick to it, camp upon it, walk around it, and work through it. Hopefully, you can both arrive at two or three possible interpretations of that one passage.

Only then can the two sides go to a second passage.

The same thing is done with passages A-Z.

Only when this entire process is complete can the two sides go back and reconsider all the evidence, in which any contradicting interpretations are discarded, and hopefully, only one possible interpretation remains.

Though this usually doesn’t happen, at least then you will understand each other rather than thinking the other side has never actually read the Bible.

My Exodus from Calvinism

The systematic verse-by-verse approach is what I used about 15 years ago to leave Calvinism.

In the early 1990’s, I was a five-point, hyper-Calvinist, Lordship Salvationist. Then, a good friend challenged my thinking on James 2:14-26. I camped on that passage for a few months. I saw that my friend’s interpretation was one possible understanding. However, I wanted to reject that view because “there are so many other passages that contradicted this understanding of James 2:14-26.”

In our conversations, my friend told me this: “Yes, it might be that my understanding of James 2:14-26 is wrong. That’s one option. Or maybe you are wrong in your understanding not just of James 2:14-26, but also in your understanding of all those others passages as well. How are you going to figure out which view makes the most sense? There is only one way: You need to study each passage individually.”

So that’s what I did. It took me about ten years, at the end of which time, every single point of Calvinism had fallen for me.

However, I still read books and articles by Calvinists and those who disagree with my views. Why? Because if I am wrong in my understanding of a particular passage, I want to know. I hope you do too.

So don’t practice shotgun hermeneutics. Such a practice is not beneficial since all it does is take aim at other people’s heads in an effort to blow them away.

And by the way, if you want to see some of the fruits of my labor from that 10-year study of various Bible passages, I am laying it all out for you in several of my online courses. The first course is done. It is titled “The Gospel According to Scripture.” I’m teaching and recording the second course right now. It is titled “The Gospel Dictionary.” A third course will come later, titled “Tough Texts on the Gospel.”

To take these courses, you need to be part of the RedeemingGod.com discipleship group. Go here to learn more and join us today.

Free Grace Alliance Conference Panel Discussions

By Jeremy Myers

17 Comments

I was a panel member at the Free Grace Alliance National Conference today on the subject of the death and resurrection of Jesus in relation to the gospel.

But before I write about that, let me write about a different panel which I attended. This other panel was on the issues of assurance, eternal security, and justification.

Assurance, Eternal Security, and Justification

The panel which I only attended was related to the issues of assurance, eternal security, and justification. The basic question was “Does a person have to know that what they get from Jesus can never be lost in order to receive it?”

Of the three panelists, I heard one, Tim Nichols, give a clear answer “Yes” and the other two were a little more evasive. This was not really their fault since many of the questions from the audience were not really on topic. Some questions were related to the death and resurrection of Jesus, or the deity of Jesus, and other things.

The last question, however, was very revealing. It was “If you are witnessing to an unsaved person, and you want to tell them how to be saved, what would you say?”

1. Dave Anderson answered first with two words: “Free Grace.” I’m not sure what he meant by that. I doubt the person he was evangelizing would understand it either.

2. George Meisinger said that he tells as much of the gospel as he can to the person in the time he has. If it’s on an airplane, he is able to tell them lots more than if he is sharing with someone on their deathbed.

3. Tim Nichols answered similarly to George Meisinger, but emphasized that the message we share with unbelievers must come from the Gospel of John.

All in all, it was a great conference session.

Death and Resurrection of Jesus and the Gospel

The second panel discussion I attended was the one in which I was a participant. It concerned whether a person had to believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus in order to be born again. The following are terribly poor summaries of the views presented:

(Note that due to comments for clarification, edits have been made to what was originally written. These are the crossed out sections below.)

1. Ken Wilson said, “~~Yes.~~ We don’t believe in Jesus for everlasting life, but we have to believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God who takes away our sins.” I’m not sure who in Christendom (including Catholics) doesn’t believe this, but maybe I misunderstood him.

2. Tim Nichols argued that since nobody would ever dream of not presenting the death and resurrection, the question doesn’t really matter. This is true. Sometimes, Satan’s greatest ploy is to get us talking about theology rather than living out the theology we do know.

3. Larry Moyer said, “Yes, because the death and resurrection is central to the Gospel, and we must always share the Gospel when telling people about Jesus.”

4. Tom Stegall argued similarly to Larry Moyer, but more emphatically.

5. I certainly do believe that the death and resurrection of Jesus are central to the Gospel, and that without the death and resurrection of Jesus, there is no Gospel. All the truths of the Gospel (of which there are dozens-if not hundreds) are for the purpose of getting a person to believe in Jesus and so receive everlasting life. So I always present the death and resurrection of Jesus when I witness to people. So I argued similarly to Tim Nichols–that it’s a moot point.

Some did Believe in Jesus, but not in His Death and Resurrection

However, I did point out that we do have examples of people in Scripture who believed in Jesus and received everlasting life, but did not know about the death and resurrection of Jesus, and even when presented with these truths, did not believe them (cf. Matt 16:31-32; Mark 9:31-32; Luke 9:44-45; 18:31-34; 24:19-26; John 20:9, 24-30). There may be some examples from Acts and the Epistles as well, but it’s almost 2 am, and I’m tired. But just one example: One reason Paul wrote 1 Corinthians 15 is to persuade and convince the Corinthian believers about the resurrection of Jesus. It sounds like some of them had believed in the resurrection, but had turned away from it, but there apparently were others who had heard about the resurrection, but denied it as fiction. Paul is correcting these believers in Corinth about this.

So apparently, there are people who believe in Jesus, and lots of correct things about Him, but don’t have all their theological ducks in a row, but who are still considered by Biblical authors to be regenerate. It is possible to believe many wrong things about Jesus, but still receiver eternal life by believing in Him for it. I think it is possible there are people in the same category today. I may have talked with one a few weeks ago, which I mentioned in a previous post.

Due to the number of panelists, and the limited time, only one question from the audience was asked, and that one had nothing to do with the questions that I had come up with which I hoped to receive answers to. So I still don’t know how Tom Stegall would answer those questions. I refuse to speculate how he might answer them, because if there is anything more dangerous that theological speculation, it is theological speculation about someone else’s theology.

Free Grace Alliance Conference Panel Discussion

By Jeremy Myers

7 Comments

I am on a panel discussion tomorrow night at the National Conference of the Free Grace Alliance. The panel discussion is related to the death and resurrection of Jesus, and whether a person needs to know and believe these historical facts in order to be born again. My invitation to this discussion is due to the so-called Crossless Gospel controversy. People accuse me of teaching a Crossless Gospel, which is exceedingly strange, since I believe the cross is at the very center of the gospel. Without the cross, there is no Gospel.

Anyway, here are some of the issues to be addressed in this Free Grace Alliance panel discussion.

Is Belief in the Death and Resurrection Necessary?

I am presenting the view that while the death and resurrection of Jesus was necessary for justification to be possible, belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus is not what grants a person eternal life. A person simply needs to believe in Jesus for eternal life to be given it by God. I have written on this in the past. Certainly, the death and resurrection of Jesus are central to the Gospel, but since there is so much Biblical information that is part of the Gospel, one does not have to believe the entire Gospel to be justified.

There is a difference between the mechanism of justification (the death and resurrection of Jesus, along with a myriad of other things) and the message of eternal life (believe in Jesus for it). In other words, there is a difference between the Gospel information, and the Gospel invitation.

I agreed to be on this panel for three reasons.

Clarity in Evangelism

First, I want people to be clear in evangelism. If we have a muddled evangelistic message, all we do is erect barriers which keep people from believing in Jesus for eternal life. The death and resurrection of Jesus are definitely part of what we share in evangelism, but we tell them these things to convince and persuade them to believe in Jesus for eternal life, not because they get eternal life by believing in the death and resurrection of Jesus. It’s a nuance, but a very important one. After all, there are many who believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus, but don’t believe in Him for eternal life.

Hear from the Horse’s Mouth

Second, I know there are a lot of people who are trying to understand the various positions on the Gospel, and there are many people accusing me of believing things I don’t believe.

So I hope to let them hear my position from me rather than from those out there who don’t understand my position but continue to write pejorative and negative things about me. It’s always best when researching a matter to go to the source.

To Understand the Other Views

Third, I see no logical or Biblical consistency in the view of those who are taking the opposing view. Clearly, they think their view is logical and Biblical or they wouldn’t hold it. I am not exactly trying to persuade them to my view, but I do want to try to understand their view. Toward that end, here are the questions I hope to have answered:

If a person must believe in the death of resurrection of Jesus, is it sufficient to believe in the historical facts of these events, or does a person also have to believe in substitutionary atonement?
If a person does have to believe in substitutionary atonement, what if that person holds the ransom to Satan view?
If a person must believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus, do they have to believe that it was by the shedding of blood of Jesus on the cross that sins are forgiven, or can they just believe that it was simply His death that was sufficient? In other words, does a person have to understand that their sins are forgiven “by His blood” and not just by His death?
If a person must believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus, must they believe that Jesus rose in a glorified, eternal, incorruptible body, and that He went on to ascend into heaven, or can they believe that He went on to live, grow old, and die again of old age like the others who were resurrected in Scripture?
If a person must believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus, must they believe that the resurrection is a past, historical event, or can they believe that Jesus will rise from the dead in the future?
If a person must believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus, what was the object of faith for OT people and the apostles who did not (as far as we can tell) believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus? Did the object and content of faith change after the death and resurrection of Jesus?
What passages are there in Scripture which teach that a person must believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus in order to receive everlasting life?
If a person believes that Jesus died on the cross for their sins, and rose again from the dead, but don’t believe that by faith in Jesus they have life that can never be lost, are they justified? (E.g., They say things like “Jesus did his 99%, but I must do my 1%” or “I’m saved now, but if I sin later, I won’t be saved any more” or “I accepted the gift of eternal life, but I can give it back if I don’t abide.”)

In all of my study of the other view, I have yet to read an attempt to answer these questions. Others have noticed this same thing, and we receive daily e-mails and phone calls from people saying they are prayerfully supporting Bob Wilkin, myself, and the ministry of Grace Evangelical Society as we continue to present the offer of eternal life to all who believe in Jesus for it.

Email Questions

Here is one such e-mail:

Jeremy,

By way of introduction, we have been with GES almost since its beginning and had been proclaiming the free grace gospel message for 25 years before that. We were instrumental in formatting the first several years of GES Journal articles for the website and have printed and distributed several thousand pages of GES articles to many pastors and Christian leaders in our area. In other words, we support what you are doing.

We have been keeping up with the ongoing issue of what constitutes the gospel message and are grieved about the possible damage to the cause of Christ that might ensue. We also have supported the ministry at Duluth for quite some time and distributed much of their literature.

I believe that your article, “The Gospel Is More Than ‘Faith Alone In Christ Alone,'” was excellent and it even helped me to “connect the dots” in some of my study on the subject. The open letter on the Duluth website refers to, among other things, this article and mentions two points of disagreement. These comments appeared to me to be a bit pejorative as there was no attempt at biblical refutation or even explanation of the context of your statements.

In addition to the significant biblical evidence that you gave for your position (a position which should be either accepted or proved wrong biblically), is one point that has come up in my study and that I have not seen mentioned anywhere.

It is as follows: In 1st Corinthians 15, we find the classic definition of the gospel which includes the death, burial, resurrection of Christ, and probably the contents of the next few verses. Per verse 15 we see that the resurrection is necessary for our justification, but does not say that belief in it is necessary. Verse 12 and following shows that some of the Corinthian believers did not believe in the resurrection and reiterates the deleterious ramifications of this error. This epistle is written to the Church at Corinth (1:2; 1:7 et al).

Did these believers who already have eternal life then lose their salvation? Did the awareness of their lack then show that they were not true believers in the first place? Or were they eternally saved, carnal believers, who needed to know and apply these resurrection facts so that they may be saved in the sanctification sense and enjoy the resurrection life during their earthly pilgrimage? The first two options are not implied in the context and are disqualified by other scripture. Something similar to the last seems to be more on target.

Unless you are already way ahead of me on this it might be beneficial to also develop this point. No reply to this note is expected as I realize that you have a heavy schedule.

We continue to pray. Keep up the good work (1 Cor. 15:58)

This is an excellent observation and should be developed further. I also want to point out that Peter and the apostles did not believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus until after He died and rose again (cf. Matt 16:20-23; Mark 9:31-32; Luke 9:44-45; 18:31-34; 24:19-26; John 20:9, 24-30). Does this then mean that they were not justified until they believed in the death and resurrection?

I’ll give an update on how things went after the conference.

The Missional Imago Dei of Reformissional Glocal Cruciform Cohorts (WHAT??!!)

By Jeremy Myers

5 Comments

Lark News, the Christian satire website, posted this humorous article about Missional churches:

Emergent leaders call for ‘missional re-understanding of Jesus-followership and Christ-focus imbued with passionate creativity and emotional authenticity,’ whatever that means:

CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa — At a recent conference-like “gathering” of emergent church leaders, various factions sparred over competing visions for the future of the movement.

Leaders on one side called for “deepening and continuously beautiful efforts toward emotionally true self-divulgence and confession.” Other leaders countered with a call for “a theological re-purposing of our objective and subjective missionality within a framework of God-love.” Because few in attendance actually understood what either side meant, both ideas were tabled.

The sides did agree that emergent leaders should continue to take every opportunity to make casual, cool cultural references to popular television shows, movies and Internet phenomena to introduce quasi-intellectual spiritual points about the state of the American church.

They also pledged to maintain their reputation for being “more spiritually honest than the millions of people who attend institutionalized churches every week and blindly go along with the programs, sermons and mindset that make American Christianity the colossal failure it is today.”

After toasting themselves with various hyper-cool micro-brews, the audience adjourned to begin 7 and 8-hour theological bull sessions in their hotel rooms and local bars.

Conference organizers say they will meet again to do the same thing next year.

I laughed at this for several reasons.

The Mission of Emerging Leaders is Coining New Terms

I have read (and am reading) a lot of books by emerging church leaders, and it seems that when they don’t have a word to describe what they are trying to say, they just invent one. One term being thrown around today which is not mentioned in the satirical article above is “glocal” which refers to how Christians must be both global and local in their missional mindset.

There was a time about a year ago, when I thought that if I heard the word “missional” one more time, I was going to throw up. Now, I have somewhat resigned myself to the fact that it is a term that is going to stick, and to a large degree, I am trying to live “missionally.”

One term that still gets me queasy, however, is “Imago Dei.” It’s Latin for “Image of God,” which I don’t mind at all. My question is, “Why use Latin, when the English is just fine?” There is only one reason I can think of: “Imago Dei” sounds smarter and cooler.

Emerging Church Isn’t so Relevant After All

The terminology of the Emerging Church brings up the second reason I found the Lark article funny.

One of the criticisms leveled at traditional churches by the “emergent/emerging” crowd is that they use too much technical language, theological terms, and Christian jargon that nobody understands. They say we should root out of our vocabulary words like “justification, sanctification, glorification, dispensationalism, eschatology” and other similar terms.

But ironically, they have gone and created their own vocabulary that nobody understands except those who are “in.” And yet, people who are excited and intrigued by what the emerging/emergent churches are doing are willing to learn the terminology and begin using it themselves.

You know what this means? Getting our message heard is not about weeding out tricky terminology. It’s speaking and writing with a passion and excitement so that others are not only willing to listen, but also to learn and adopt the language.

Look at text messaging as an example. Text messengers have developed their own entire language. I understand very little of it, but those who want to communicate with other cellphone users have learned the language and terms and created their own sub-culture. To see what I mean, check out this list of texting acronyms.

So can you use words like justification and sanctification? Sure! These words are more Biblical than words like “missional,” “emerging,” and “glocal.” But whatever terminology you use, don’t speak and write in a way that is dispassionate and cold toward God, His Word, and all those in the world who are seeking direction (whether believers or unbelievers). While we want to be as clear as possible, if you use terminology that people don’t understand, they will try to learn that terminology if they catch your passion and vision.

In other words, if you cast a vision you are passionate about, people will follow, even if you use words like “glocal,” “imago dei,” “missional,” and “justification.”

And just in case you don’t know what “missional” means, here is some explanation. In a recent article, Brad Brisco shows how impossible this is. Missional is a whole new way of doing church. Here is an excerpt:

Despite the fact that missional language has been in use for at least a quarter of a century, it is being applied today in a wide variety of ways. Unfortunately, many times resulting in confusion. Some view missional as the latest church growth strategy, or a better way of doing church evangelism. Others see missional as a means to mobilize church members to do missions more effectively. While still others believe missional is simply the latest Christian fad that will soon pass when the next trendy topic comes along.

I would argue that those who believe missional is merely an add-on to current church activities, or perhaps even a passing craze prevalent only among church leaders, have simply not fully grasped the magnitude of the missional conversation. While it may sound like hyperbole; the move towards missional involves no less than a complete and thorough recalibration of the form and function of the church of Jesus.

In other words … do you want to be truly “missional”? Great! Just talk like other people and use words that everyone understands. Speak to be clear; not to be cool.

The church needs to be Grace Wholesalers

Shotgun Hermeneutics is not a Proper Bible Study Method

Shotgun Hermeneutics

A Sample Conversation

Theology Discussions

A Proposal for Theological Debate

My Exodus from Calvinism

Free Grace Alliance Conference Panel Discussions

Assurance, Eternal Security, and Justification

Death and Resurrection of Jesus and the Gospel

Some did Believe in Jesus, but not in His Death and Resurrection

Free Grace Alliance Conference Panel Discussion

Is Belief in the Death and Resurrection Necessary?

Clarity in Evangelism

Hear from the Horse’s Mouth

To Understand the Other Views

Email Questions

The Missional Imago Dei of Reformissional Glocal Cruciform Cohorts (WHAT??!!)

The Mission of Emerging Leaders is Coining New Terms

Emerging Church Isn’t so Relevant After All

Theological Study Archives

Bible Study Archives

Advertise or Donate

Search (and you Shall Find)

Get Books by Jeremy Myers

Schedule Jeremy for an interview

Click here to Contact Me!