Home » Search results for 'worship' (Page 39)
Search Results for: worship
Separation and Sectarianism, An Article Review
In the interest of understanding biblical separation, I offer some criticism of an article by Rick Flanders at the Revival Focus blog. I have a narrow focus in my review, dealing only with the separation topic, and not with revival, soteriology, discipleship, nor sanctification. Just because I don’t touch on those doesn’t mean that I believe Flanders is correct on those. With our having just published a book on ecclesiastical separation, A Pure Church, I continue to have an interest in related articles.
Flanders uses Luke 9:49-50 to make a point about separation, a generally good point. We shouldn’t separate from people unnecessarily. The men not following Jesus and yet casting out demons were not opposing Jesus. There was no reason to stop them from casting out demons. Having demons leave people is a good thing. Flanders goes from there to say that we should not separate from other people just because they are not in our particular group.
Maybe some base their fellowship on whoever is in their group or circle or network. He describes this as casting “out like-minded Christians just because they don’t know them very well.” So Flanders is confronting a problem. The only people I have ever seen, who operate like Flanders describes, are fundamentalists. The typical situation is that you don’t send your students to a particular Bible college or university, so you diminish in your favor with that school. In certain instances, only by attending a particular conference or supporting certain missionaries will you people held in enough esteem to include in cooperation. These are fundamentalist politics, wielding influence within fundamentalism by playing these types of games. Flanders is dealing with something he sees and I don’t know if this is it. It’s the place where I see what he’s talking about.
Flanders defines a fundamentalist as someone who “thinks of himself as standing faithfully for the fundamental doctrines of the Gospel.” That statement is loaded with so many qualifiers that make it unhelpful. Are you a fundamentalist if you merely think of yourself as standing faithful to certain doctrines? It would seem that thinking alone wouldn’t cut it. And he narrows it down to the fundamental doctrines of the Gospel, not fundamental doctrines of Scripture, only the doctrines that are fundamental to the Gospel. That really wouldn’t make you any different than a conservative evangelical. He provides no basis for this definition of fundamentalism. The only fundamentals I had every heard, were the ones in the pamphlets, The Fundamentals, and then called “the fundamentals of the faith.” It didn’t dawn on me until I was pastoring for awhile that the reason for having fundamentals was to create a unity that was less than biblical unity. For instance, you could be unified with people who sprinkled babies as long as they believed the fundamentals. Every movement that provides for a unity that reduces the basis of fellowship to arbitrarily chosen fundamentals is a movement to reject. Let God be true and every man a liar.
OK, what motivated me to write this began in about the 8th paragraph, when Flanders wrote: “The truth we mutually understand and follow can be the basis of some Christian cooperation, although disagreements on other things must limit the extent of it.” This is where he takes an application of Luke 9:49-50 too far, if that is in fact the basis of this statement. He doesn’t supply any support for it. He is saying that we can cooperate with one another, that is, fellowship based upon truth we mutually understand. The fellowship, however, is limited by disagreement “on other things.” What other things? Are these the truths we don’t mutually understand and follow? In other words, fellowship can still occur with a degree of false doctrine and practice. The Bible not only doesn’t teach this, but it teaches against it in all the major separation passages.
Let me use Flanders himself as an example. I don’t oppose him in those doctrines and practices that are right. I don’t go out of my way even to deal with those areas. However, different doctrine and practice doesn’t just bring a different degree of fellowship, but it results in not fellowshiping at all. I like Flanders a lot. I would enjoy getting together with him, talking about doctrine, sitting for a cup of coffee. However, I won’t fellowship with him. Why? I don’t believe the same as him. I know this to be true from reading what he is written. I can’t ignore those doctrinal differences to cooperate with him. That doesn’t mean that I don’t appreciate where he is right. I do. I rejoice in it. I would even defend him when he is attacked on the truth. We are not fellowship with those who have a wrong doctrine and practice. We’re talking about a doctrine the Bible teaches. Romans 14 is a passage that relates to those doctrines and practices the Bible doesn’t either forbid or teach, that is, liberty issues. We should not relegate doctrines and practices the Bible teaches to matters of liberty.
A primary thought behind fundamentalism, represented by Flanders’ article, is that we have varying degrees of fellowship based upon varying degrees of doctrinal disagreement. The Bible does not teach that at all. He doesn’t prove it either. Fellowship is cooperation in ministry or worship (2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1). The basis for cooperation is the truth (1-3 John). It’s true that we don’t break fellowship just because someone hasn’t “been in our group.” However, we do break fellowship for more than “fundamentals to the Gospel.” We don’t start fellowshiping based upon a percentage of mutually agreed truths, and fellowship to the degree that we agree. Something the Bible teaches will be left out in that equation, purposefully dismissed solely for getting together.
We fellowship based on everything the Bible teaches, all its doctrines and practices. We break fellowship for unrepentant violations of biblical teachings and deeds. Once we know someone does believe and practice according to God’s Word, we welcome fellowship. This is what John talks about in 2-3 John. It’s not based on camps, on networks, or groups.
It might look like churches that believe and practice the same are a group. It might look like churches that will not fellowship outside of that group are not doing so because they won’t welcome anyone who isn’t in their group. I know that this isn’t true. The churches our church fellowships with today we didn’t even know about until doctrine and practice became our basis of fellowship. When those churches found we believed and practiced like them, they gladly welcomed us. They didn’t shun us just because we weren’t in their “group.”
Doctrines and practices should not be ignored in order to fellowship. We should not be reducing doctrines to mutually agreed upon ones or to those merely fundamentals of the gospel as a criteria of our fellowship. There is no fellowship that is worth ignoring doctrine and practice in order to keep it. If it is called fellowship, and it isn’t based upon all of the truth, then it isn’t fellowship anyway, just a facade of fellowship, a counterfeit. God doesn’t require any group, but that one He started Himself, the church. No group outside of the church is worth cooperating with in order to try to gain some kind of “influence.” It’s not a necessary influence. Purity and truth are necessary, not these influences.
Now I’m going to do something a little different. I’m going to anticipate the biggest disagreements with this post. People will disagree with me and their basis will be my own practice of what I’m writing about there. If they can find me inconsistent, then they have liberty to practice differently than what I’m teaching. They don’t even have to find an inconsistency. Of course, the real basis for disagreement will be ecclesiology. Flanders likely believes in a universal church, so that we must have unity with all believers in some way—that’s how he gets his fundamentals of the gospel idea. If that’s the case, then he will need to find a way to fellowship with all believers, including evangelicals. Others will just call it divisive and heretical, that is, just call it names. I can see Flanders complaining that I misrepresented him or wondering why it is that we can’t just be an encouragement, because he really only wants to help people. Others will just ignore it. If they ignore it, then they are not unifying with me, a believer, and therefore being divisive. Oops. But that will be OK, because no one that believes the way they do can practice either biblical unity or separation and be obedient to God anyway. Ignoring me won’t change that.
Comments on Luther’s 95 Theses
“Reformation Day,” October 31, a celebration of Martin Luther’s posting of the
95 Theses, has just passed, I thought it would be appropriate to post the
following brief study of the Theses.
Theses a presentation of classic Protestant theology? Contrary to widespread public opinion, Luther’s 95 Theses
have nothing to do with justification by faith alone—which is not supported,
but rejected, in them. Nor do they
utter a word of protest against the Catholic Mass, the sacramental system, Mary
worship, the Pope, or numerous other Roman Catholic heresies. They certainly say nothing against
baptismal regeneration, a heresy that Luther clave to his entire life. They do not even condemn the practice
of paying money to get Papal pardons—on the contrary, they anathematize those
who deny Papal indulgences, and they support the existence of Purgatory. The idea that Luther had been born
again, and consequently condemned Roman Catholicism in the 95 Theses, is pure myth.
condemned by the 95 Theses is the abuse of indulgences—and even here, Luther
put his Theses on the door of the Roman Catholic “church” in Latin, so that the
common people could not understand what he wrote. He only intended to debate in Latin certain abuses of
indulgences with other faithful servants of Rome. Indeed, many of Luther’s theses would be heartily endorsed
by the Catholic counter-reformation.
I give a sample of his theses below, with brief comments.
not inward repentance only; nay, there is no inward repentance which does not
outwardly work divers mortifications of the flesh.
that without Catholic mortifications of the body there is no repentance.
guilt to no one whom He does not, at the same time, humble in all things and
bring into subjection to His vicar, the priest.
this?
purgatory it seems necessary that horror should grow less and love increase.
the 95 Theses, Purgatory exists, and souls there increase in love over time.
unproved, either by reason or Scripture, that they are outside the state of
merit, that is to say, of increasing love.
souls are earning merit before God so that they can get into heaven.
which the pope has, in a general way, over purgatory, is just like the power
which any bishop or curate has, in a special way, within his own diocese or
parish.
various powers over people in Purgatory.
whether all the souls in purgatory wish to be bought out of it, as in the
legend of Sts. Severinus and Paschal.
legends have some authority in teaching us about who wants to get out of
Purgatory and who does not.
that his own contrition is sincere; much less that he has attained full
remission.
certain of his own salvation.
“treasures of the Church,” out of which the pope. grants indulgences, are not
sufficiently named or known among the people of Christ.
through which the Pope grants indulgences should be better known.
the merits of Christ and the Saints, for even without the pope, these always
work grace for the inner man, and the cross, death, and hell for the outward
man.
Jesus Christ and of dead Catholic “saints” are a means through which saving
grace is received. Note that
salvation is by sanctification, rather than through justification by faith
alone.
curates are bound to admit the commissaries of apostolic pardons, with all
reverence.
curates are to have all reverence for pardons given by the Pope to people, and
admit those who are carrying them to the territory of their bishoprics in the
Catholic State-Church.
against the truth of apostolic pardons, let him be anathema and accursed!
ability of the Pope to grant indulgences, you will be eternally damned in hell.
justly thunders against those who, by any art, contrive the injury of the
traffic in pardons.
thunder against those who deny, by any means, that one can purchase with money
remission of various penalties.
therefore, pardons were preached according to the spirit and mind of the pope,
all these doubts would be readily resolved; nay, they would not exist.
should be preached in accordance with the mind of the Pope—then all would be
well.
are to be exhorted that they be diligent in following Christ, their Head,
through penalties, deaths, and hell;
confident of entering into heaven rather through many tribulations, than
through the assurance of peace.
do good works and follow Christ in order to be saved, since by such means they
enter into heaven, rather than by having assurance of salvation, for assurance
of salvation is bad.
something to be excited about?
–TDR
What’s Worse? This Kind of Bad or That Kind of Bad, pt. 2
California might have been foreclosure headquarters in the mortgage crisis, at least the region where the prices dropped the steepest at its most severe. If you were shopping for a house, you looked at which one wasn’t trashed the worst. Do I like the one with pot smoke damaged carpet or missing a bathroom sink? The yard like death valley or the termite eaten, water corroded, decaying fascia boards? How bad do I really want my house to be?
In part one of this two part series, I talked about some multiple bad choices offered by evangelicalism and fundamentalism. I suggested none-of-the-above. Today let’s look at another example.
Calvinism has some attractive features to me. Of course, I would say they are the scriptural ones. I read a God-centered approach to evangelism and church growth in scripture. I’ve thought that Calvinism agrees with that, but I’m not so sure. If Calvinists really do believe that God is sovereign in salvation, so that one needs to step out of the way and depend on God, you would think that’s what you’d see from them. Often you don’t. This is where I say that I’m more Calvinist than Calvinists. I practice the scriptural part of Calvinism and especially a part of Calvinism one would see as most Calvinist. It’s like these Calvinists are convenient Calvinists, Calvinistic where they like the Calvinism, and then not Calvinist when it comes to actual practice.
As exhibition number one today, I bring to you Tim Keller, very popular Presbyterian evangelical, who recently wrote Center Church, a church growth manual modeled after his church in New York City (I wrote about Center Church in my “Lure Them In” series). Keller writes on p. 24:
We will show [in this book] that to reach people we must appreciate and adapt to their culture, but we must also challenge and confront it. This is based on the biblical teaching that all cultures have God’s grace and natural revelation in them, yet they are also in rebellious idolatry. If we overadapt to a culture, we have accepted the culture’s idols. If, however, we underadapt to a culture, we may have turned our own culture into an idol, an absolute. If we underadapt to a culture, no one will be changed because no one will listen to us; we will be confusing, offensive, or simply unpersuasive. To the degree a ministry is overadapted or underadapted to a culture, it loses life-changing power.
This paragraph touches on the “centrist” theme that I discussed in my first review—the perfect position being somewhere in a sweet spot between overadapting and underadapting. Adapting to culture has actually been pretty important in Keller’s approach to church growth. Keller continues in a couple of other quotes first on p. 96:
They don’t see any part of how they express or live the gospel to be “Anglo”—it is just the way things are. They feel that any change in how they preach, worship, or minister is somehow a compromise of the gospel. In this they may be doing what Jesus warns against—elevating the “traditions of men” to the same level as biblical truth (Mark 7:8). This happens when one’s cultural approach to time or emotional expressiveness or way to communicate becomes enshrined as the Christian way to act and live.
And then on p. 97:
If they have been moved by a ministry that has forty-five-minute verse-by-verse expository sermons, a particular kind of singing, or a specific order and length to the services, they reproduce it down to the smallest detail. Without realizing it, they become method driven and program driven rather than theologically driven. They are contextualizing their ministry expression to themselves, not to the people they want to reach.
Keller sees adapting the preaching, the worship, and the ministry to the culture as crucial to church growth. If you don’t “adapt,” he says, you’ll even lose “life changing power.” Life changing power comes from adapting to the culture, according to Keller. This, Keller says, is “theologically driven.” And the Calvinist fan boys come out of the woodwork with praise for the book.
This adaptation to people’s felt needs parallels with the Hybels seeker-sensitive church, the Warren purpose-driven church, and even has parts resembling the Hyles Church Manual. These are your kinds of bad to choose from, and people are making the Keller choice, shucking the Hybels and Warren model for the Keller one. None of these are God centered. If they are theologically driven, it isn’t biblical theology. And it surely isn’t Calvinist. It’s more pinning the needle on the far side of Arminianism. It’s pragmatism. It’s “be like’m to win’em.”
Keller argues using bad theology and several straw men. He says his theological basis is that “all cultures have God’s grace and natural revelation in them.” First, all cultures do not have God’s grace “in them.” In them? God’s grace appears to all men, but grace is in a culture that has been converted already, not one that you evangelize because it’s lost. Doesn’t this too contradict the Calvinist doctrine of total depravity? I’m sure it does. It contradicts my view of man’s depravity. Second, he has a false view of natural revelation. Natural or general revelation is understood by all men, that is, it is general in its audience. Everyone is without excuse. There isn’t some unique brand of revelation found in a particular culture. That would not be “general” and, therefore, natural. His view of natural revelation is the modern psychological view that fits with Christian psychology, that general revelation is general in its content and so it is discoverable Revelation is by nature non-discoverable. You can’t study a culture to discover natural revelation there. This false premise buttresses his point. In my opinion, like with Christian psychology, he starts with what he wants to do and then adapts (ironically) his doctrine to fit his successful method. He would say this is how to keep from underadapting, adaptation a fundamental of life-changing power.
A change in how we preach, worship, and minister can and does compromise the gospel. When you are adapting your method as he describes to fit unsaved people, you are compromising the gospel. When you hand out the candy and small toys and adjust your junior church to a near carnival atmosphere, people get a wrong understanding of Jesus and repentance and faith. Do we understand that this isn’t new, what Keller is proposing? This has been around from revivalists for over a century. Finney and generations after him took the carnival style music and a particular preaching style as new measures for the cause of evangelism. There were theological underpinnings to Finney too, as seen in his systematic theology. This is sheer pragmatism through and through.
People will say that Keller is conservative, has a conservative approach, because his church uses classical music on Sunday mornings. I’m in the classical music world. Well done classical music is a draw to a New York City crowd. People in Tennessee might not get that, but it’s true. He’s not adapting to a Nascar audience. The urbane, metrosexual community he targets listens to classical music like Rick Warren’s crowd in Southern California listens to pop and Mark Driscoll’s to grunge. Keller has a jazz Sunday evening service, so he’s not taking a conservative stand. The intellectuals he kowtows for see this as the hoity-toity that they want. “You can come on a Sunday night and get some good jazz at Center Church.” The adaptation is not to the grace of God “in them,” but to their own view of themselves. They like the idea of, “I can be a Christian and fit into the world too.” That’s also how it changes the gospel.
The message of Jesus clashes with culture. It contradicts human nature. Jesus presented Himself as King. If you wanted Jesus, you needed to deny self to follow Him. You had to give up your life. He presented following Him as hating father and mother, having no where to lay your head, and being a slave. Jesus didn’t come to get to our level. He came to bring us to His. What Keller is advocating is another form of bait and switch. If you read him other places, you see that he has a way of dealing with homosexuality that is non-offensive, since not being offensive is part of his template, his adaptation. And evangelicals are bragging on this approach as if it is something somebody missed. A biblical church exploding in New York City surprises me. Keller’s church and churches exploding doesn’t surprise me. He is mixing the broad road with the narrow one. They are actually entirely separate.
Keller is acceptable in, even the leader of, the gospel coalition. This should tell you something about that organization and those in it. But you don’t have to choose between that bad and another bad. Again, you do have none-of-the-above.
A Grab Bag on Goodness
We start by seeing a way of life divide into what is true, is good, and is beautiful. We discuss the second of these, what is good. Let’s assume, for the sake of the discussion, that all goodness is found in Jesus. He said there is none good but one, that is God. Every good and perfect gift comes from above. We return to goodness lost in the Garden in Christ. We are God’s workmanship in Christ Jesus. Therefore, no one gets actual credit for goodness. To God be the glory.
Updated Music Resources at the “Theological Compositions” website
I wanted to make you aware that here, in the “Ecclesiology” section of my website, I have relatively recently added a goodly number of valuable resources relating to godly worship and music. These include:
1.) The Scottish and Genevan Psalters. Do you prefer e-resources, or do you feel like you too poor to pay the $15 or so to purchase a psalter so you can obey the explicit command to sing “psalms” (Ephesians 5:19; James 5:13), and not just hymns alone? You can now download two free, quite literal, historic psalters–with free audio files of the tunes, so any unfamiliar ones can be learned easily. Obey God’s command. Start singing the psalms personally, in your family, and in your church, for the glory of God. As part of our family devotions, we sing a psalm each day, singing the same psalm each day for a week (the psalms are very rich, so you will understand more of what you sing as you sing the same psalm a few times), and then going to the next psalm the next week. In this way, we have sung through the entire psalter as a family. The various PDF files of the 150 psalms in the Genevan psalter would also make great choir numbers. Does your choir sing the inspired songs of God? Hymns are wonderful, but the psalms are perfect–they are inspired! I have also posted all the tunes to the Trinity Baptist hymnal, a hymnal that has at least parts of all 150 of the psalms in it, as well as a lot of rich, Biblical hymns. It is the best hymnal I am aware of.
2.) Two e-videos by David Cloud exposing CCM. They are worth watching, and they are free.
3.) A link to Music Education Ministries, which has tremendous DVD material on music, put together by the pastor of a Baptist church in Australia that, before his conversion, was an accomplished secular musician. Do you want to know exactly what makes some music worldly, and other music acceptable, in its beat pattern, style, etc.? What exactly are the features that make CCM sound different from every single hymn in a classic Baptist or Protestant hymnal? Learn the details with these DVD presentations. The pastor is also an adjunct professor working with the music curriculum at the Sydney Baptist Bible College.
Are you excited that these works are all available free? Does it make you merry? “Is any merry? Let him sing psalms” (James 5:13). How can you do that? Download a free psalter in the “Ecclesiology” section, right now, here.
-TDR
Ambiguity and Utility: Fundamentals of Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism
To keep evangelical and fundamentalist alliances, beliefs must be rendered ambiguous. In the consideration of what is certain, decisions are made based on utilitarian means. Ambiguity and utility are new doctrines. Scripture doesn’t teach them. You won’t find them in the history of Christian doctrine, but today they have become necessities.
The Bible reveals certainty and surety. Faith is sure. We practice based on conviction, not what will work or feels the best. No utilitarian test applies to what God said. We just do it, and even if He slays us, as Job said, we still trust Him.
Ambiguity and utility aren’t in God’s Word, but they have become chief virtues of fundamentalism and evangelicalism. Ambiguity means humility, what is called epistemological humility. No one likes a know it all. Then utility means you’re smart, you’re wise. It doesn’t really. But now it does. Utility means fruitfulness. It worked, therefore, you’re fruitful. Not really, but now it does mean that. Ambiguity means that I can’t know, therefore, I can’t expect everyone to be just like me, so I overlook differences in belief. This is supposedly humble.
Utility relates to what will work for me. Theologically, it means going to heaven. That’s most important, because it’s the most important thing for me personally, so it is the indispensable doctrine. Practically, it means what will make for an easier life, one in which you can still go to heaven, and yet you get along with the world (you don’t stick out too much), plus you grow numerically (you’re popular) because you dropped the things that the world especially doesn’t like. Again, you’re smart. People who don’t do this must be stupid. They won’t be popular, will not get as big, and will have a more difficult life. Anyone who goes ahead and does that, who doesn’t really have to, must be stupid.
So I present to you the evangelical and fundamental doctrines of ambiguity and utility: fundamentals of the faith. You won’t find these doctrines in history and they are still being developed, argued for, in contemporary theology.
Scripture and historical theology teach a perfect Bible, the preservation of the same words and letters in the original languages as the original manuscripts. And now that is actually an acceptable position to believe, as long as several other positions are also acceptable. You can take a perfect preservation position, if you are willing to tolerate several other positions: critical text, eclectic text, majority text etc. In other words, your position must allow ambiguity, whatever it is. If you do, you’re fine. Utility comes in here as well. Men want a bible that is easier to read with a contemporary flavor and tone, and not just one of them, but several. They necessitate multiple versions, any of which are acceptable, to choose for whatever context one needs one of them. The more versions allowable, the bigger the coalition—this is also the utility. And then there is the utility of scholarship, providing greater opportunity among more and diverse academic settings. The intolerable position is one position. Scripture and historical theology say one Bible in fitting with one God and that is the one position that is unacceptable today in evangelicalism and fundamentalism. You’re not just wrong if you believe this—you’re a joke to them. Ambiguity and utility reign.
If the source of authority for every doctrine becomes ambiguous, then it is no wonder that the doctrines derived from that source will also be ambiguous. In almost every doctrine, several options must be accepted. Even some of the so-called fundamentals of the faith welcome nuance. Finally we get a Jesus, who is adaptable to your worship, your lifestyle, your aesthetics, and your preferences. He becomes the canvass on which you can project the Jesus appropriate to your needs.
Ambiguity and utility are welcome and friendly, seldom hostile and exclusive, with the rare exception of intolerance. Intolerance will anger ambiguity and utility. The fundamental is being violated. The biggest reaction is reserved for an occasion of clarity and conviction. Ambiguity and utility must be preserved.
Fundamentalism, Separation, Charismatics, and Northland
Before we get into the post, I want to do some housecleaning here. Four things. First, our book, A Pure Church, is to the printer, final proofs approved now for over a week. You can still get a pre-publication price here (less for multiple copies). It’s a good book, worth reading and owning. Second, we have the Word of Truth Conference, our fourth annual, and we will be starting a new topic or issue and a new book. The title is I-Magination: The God of Truth Replaced in a Day of Apostasy. We’ve got some excellent material coming together. It is November 7-11 this year, Wednesday to Sunday. Why not give it a shot? More details will be coming for you. It’s beautiful in Northern California that time of the year. Let us know in advance if you’re going to come. And then third, we’ve just downloaded more sermons on our church website with series on 1 Corinthians, Luke, 2 Kings, and Exodus (Dave Sutton). Four, before the election, I will do a multi-part series talking about the candidates and how I’m going to vote, and why, so stay tuned for that. Now for the post.
Northland International University in Dunbar, WI is a self-professing fundamentalist Christian organization, that was once Northland Baptist Bible College, supported by many fundamentalist churches, where is Northland Camp and Conference Center and their annual Heart Conference, where the speakers and attendees are almost exclusively fundamentalists. The president of Northland is Bob Jones University graduate, Matt Olson. Recently Matt Olson visited a Sovereign Grace Church (SGC) in Philadelphia that he reported in glowing terms at his blog. This particular article and the activity of Olson was dissected at the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship blog, Proclaim and Defend, by Don Johnson in light of Northland’s statement of doctrine and practice. The Johnson post was answered by Olson, and a huge discussion ensued at SharperIron (here and here). If you were to read everything to which I linked (which will likely not want to do–it will take a very long time), you would be up on what has happened. The Johnson post does the best to present what occurred.
What this whole incident shows me is how messed up fundamentalism is. There is no way to be a fundamentalist and be obedient to Scripture. No way. That should be the concern here. They can’t be consistent with what the Bible teaches. This is not to say, however, that you should be an evangelical—they are even worse. You can be an independent, Bible-believing church, and have plenty of fellowship both in and outside of the church, without being either a fundamentalist or evangelical.
This Northland situation shows where fundamentalist “unity,” separation, and politics will get you. Sovereign Grace Churches are Charismatic (Johnson quotes from their doctrinal statement). Olson says he was there to fellowship with this Sovereign Grace church, and that they had what matters most. He said, “They get what matters most” and “they focus on Christ in all they do.” There are so many problems with Olson’s attempt on how we get along and how we separate that it would take 5 or 6 posts to deal with them, he is so far off (read A Pure Church for a clear, biblical presentation). I wanted you to see how things were and where they are headed with fundamentalism. They now fellowship with Charismatics. They are on their way to being like evangelicals on this.
What Johnson is pointing out is true, but it becomes difficult for the FBFI (Fundamental Baptist Fellowship International) because of their former president’s appearance with Jack Schaap at Clarence Sexton’s Baptist Friends conference. A lot of fundamentalists are heavily under the influence of the SGC song writers. The trap of Charismatic influence and the SGC come from the acceptance in Together for the Gospel and John MacArthur, both who fellowship and promote C. J. Mahaney. Bob Kauflin of SGC leads the singing at the Together for the Gospel conference that major fundamentalist leaders attend.
I think that fundamentalist leaders see that this is where everything is headed and that nothing that they teach can combat fundamentalism from arriving where evangelicals are. Some are moving there already. I expect others to join.
Repentance Defended Against Antinomian Heresy: A Brief Defense of the Indubitable Biblical Fact that Repentance is a Change of Mind that Always Results in a Change of Action, part 3
of the RNC (the view that repentance
does not always result in a change of action), in light of the overwhelming
case against them from the lexica and from the uses of metanoeo and metanoia in the New Testament, make several arguments for their position that
they hope will overturn the crushing weight of Biblical usage. First, they argue that the RAC (the view that repentance always results in a change
of action) is an affirmation of justification by works. Only on the RNC position is salvation allegedly by faith alone. Faith is affirmed to be an absolute
synonym with repentance, and faith is said to exclude any trust in Jesus Christ
to make one different; one trusts
Christ only to escape from hell, not to get a new heart and life. Christ is divided; He is not received as the Mediator who
is at once Prophet, Priest, and King, one undivided Person who is both Savior
and Lord. Rather, faith allegedly
picks and chooses among Christ’s offices and roles and receives only those of
them that promise escape from hell, not those that promise freedom from the
dominion of sin. However, such a RNC argument is nonsense. The RAC does
not affirm that the sinner is justified through the instrumentality of a
“repentance” that is actually some sort of process of doing good deeds. On the contrary, the RAC affirms that repentance is not good works, but that
repentance results in good works.
The RAC recognizes the
Biblical fact that repentance and faith take place at the same moment in time,
so that a sinner cannot savingly repent without repenting of his sin of
unbelief, and a sinner cannot believe in Jesus Christ without trusting Christ
for both deliverance from hell and a new heart. The New Covenant or Testament promises both the forgiveness
of sin and freedom from sin’s dominion:
“I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and
I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: and they shall not
teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord:
for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful
to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember
no more” (Hebrews 8:10-12). The
New Covenant privilege of forgiveness of sins and the New Covenant privilege of
having God’s laws in one’s mind and heart are indissolubly connected. Justification is certainly by faith
alone (Romans 3:20-28), but saving faith will always lead to a change of heart
and action (James 2:14-26). The RAC is salvation by works only if Paul taught salvation
by works when he included Ephesians 2:10 after Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:8 after
Titus 3:5-7, Romans 6-8 after Romans 3-5, or 2 Timothy 1:9a before 2 Timothy
1:9b. The RNC must not only ignore the New Testament usage of metanoeo and metanoia but also cut out of the Bible the context of many of the precious
declarations in the New Testament that salvation is not based on works. Indeed, the RNC even needs to purge the very promises of the New
Covenant itself (Hebrews 8:10-12).
The RAC is not salvation
by works, but a glorious salvation by faith alone that does not leave the
sinner in his sin but actually saves the sinner from sin by shattering sin’s
dominion. On the other hand, the RNC actually is antinomianism.
the RNC points out that the word repentance does not appear in the gospel of John. Since, the RNC affirms, John promises salvation simply to belief, and belief does not involve trusting in Christ for deliverance from the dominion
of sin, but only for freedom from hell, the RAC must be an erroneous definition of repentance, all
the lexical and Biblical evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. However, John’s gospel is filled with
evidence that saving faith always results in a changed life. For example, the classic presentation
of salvation by faith in John 3:1-3:21 indicates both that salvation is by
faith alone (3:15-18) and that saving faith and regeneration lead to a changed
life (John 3:8, 19-21). When Christ
won to Himself the Samaritan woman (John 4:4-42), He explained to her that
salvation leads one to true worship of the Father (John 4:23-24). Her life also became strikingly
different, as evidenced by her actions (John 4:28-29). In chapter five, John recorded Christ’s
preaching both “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and
believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into
condemnation; but is passed from death unto life” (John 5:24) and “Marvel not
at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall
hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the
resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of
damnation” (John 5:28-29), almost in the same breath. In John six, Christ preached: “This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he
hath sent. . . . Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath
everlasting life” (6:29, 47), and the chapter concludes with the fact that
those who go back and turn away from Christ (6:66) are people who have not
really believed (6:64, 69). One
could go through practically every chapter and discourse of Christ in John’s
gospel and see both the fact that eternal life is received by the
instrumentality of faith alone and the fact that faith receives Christ both for
salvation from sin’s penalty and salvation from sin’s power, that Christ is
received as a Savior both from sin’s eternal consequences and sin’s inward
corruption. The gospel of John is
filled with the doctrine of the RAC,
and contains no evidence whatsoever for the RNC.
the RNC advocate will mention that
various Biblical texts speak of God’s repentance (e. g., Genesis 6:6). Since God is sinless and does not need
to turn from sin, the RNC avers,
the RAC view is an error and
repentance is simply a change of mind that may not result in any change of
action. However, the fact is that
just as God has no sin to turn from, so He never changes His mind; He is immutable (Malachi 3:6; 1 Samuel
15:29). Texts that speak of God’s
repentance are examples of the many verses where anthropomorphic language, or
other similar sorts of language from the created order, are employed to
figuratively describe God. When
the prayer of a believer enters into God’s ears (Psalm 18:6), Scripture means
that God hears the prayer of His own, just like a man hears when sounds enter
into his ears. When a believer is
hidden under the shadow of God’s wings (Psalm 17:8; 36:7), the believer is
protected by God, just as baby birds are protected under the wings of a mother
bird. When God rides upon a cherub to deliver His people (Psalm 18:10), he
provides help for His own like a man or an army that ride upon horses to come
to the aid of their friends. When
God is said to repent, He does not cease being immutable, literally change His
mind, or turn from sin, but He people are treated differently as a result of
His repentance—His figurative change of mind results in people experiencing His
acting differently towards them, just as a man who repents acts differently as
a result. When God repented of
making the human race, He changed His gracious ways towards humanity and
destroyed mankind with a flood (Genesis 6:6-7). When the Lord repented of the bondage to foreign powers He
had laid upon Israel for the nation’s sins, He delivered Israel by raising up
judges (Judges 2:18-19). When God
repented of making Saul king, He changed His actions toward Saul, deposed him,
and set up David (1 Samuel 15:35-16:1).
There are no examples in Scripture where God repented and nothing
changed. The anthropomorphic
language predicating repentance in God supports the RAC, not the RNC.
theological, non-grammatical and non-lexical arguments for the RNC are entirely unconvincing. Indeed, they actually provide further support for the RAC. The
overwhelming grammatical and lexical evidence for the RAC remains untouched, and is actually strongly
supplemented by theological support from invalid RNC argumentation.
of the RNC also frequently abuse or
misuse Greek lexica to support their heresy on repentance.[i] The kind of shallow abuse of lexica
that is sadly characteristic of “Baptist” advocates of the RNC heresy could appear were a RNC to note BDAG definition 1 for metanoeo, “change one’s mind,” and the fact that, while metanoia is defined as “repentance, turning about,
conversion,” the words “primarily a change of mind” are also present in the
lexicon. The RNC, assuming that the lexical definition of the word as
“change of mind” proves that the word means only a change of mind, and a particular kind of change of
mind, one that may result in nothing, could then pretend to have support from
BDAG for the RNC position. Such a conclusion represents an extreme
misreading of the lexicon, for:
1.) The lexicon places none—not a single one—of the 34 New Testament
uses of metanoeo underneath the
definition in question. It gives
no indication that this is a use that is found in the New Testament at
all. 2.) References listed under
definition #1 in BDAG in extrabiblical Greek, whether to the Shepherd
of Hermas, Diodorus Siculus, Appian,
Josephus, and so on, actually refer to a change of mind that results in a
change of action—the RAC
position—as is evident if one actually looks at the passages. The RNC needs to demonstrate that at least one of the texts
referenced in BDAG actually is a clear instance of its doctrine—which has not
been done.
RNC could also appeal to the
Liddell-Scott lexicon of classical or pre-Koiné Greek for alleged evidence,
noting the definition in the lexicon of “perceive afterwards or too late.” Here again the entire lack of any
evidence for this meaning in the New Testament must be ignored. It is also noteworthy that, with one
exception, the listed examples of this definition are from the Greek of the 5th
century B. C. (Epicharmus, Democritus).
Similarly, the examples for “change one’s mind or purpose,” which, in
any case, suit the RAC position,
as one who changes his purpose will actually act differently, are all from the
5th or 4th century B. C., while the definition “repent,”
which the lexicon presents as that of the “NT,” and which includes a good
number of examples from Koiné Greek that is contemporary with the New
Testament, is certainly an affirmation of the RAC position.
Liddell-Scott defines metanoia as “change of mind or heart, repentance, regret,” placing the New
Testament examples in this category, and categorizing the meaning
“afterthought, correction” as one restricted to rhetoric and cited as present
only in an extrabiblical rhetorical treatise. The history of the development of metanoeo and metanoia is traced in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Kittel;
cf. also Metanoeo and metamelei in Greek Literature until 100
A. D., Including Discussion of Their Cognates and of their Hebrew Equivalents, Effie Freeman Thompson, pgs. 358-377 of Historical
and Linguistic Studies in Literature Related to the New Testament Issued Under
the Direction of the Department of Biblical and Patristic Greek, 2nd series, vol. 1. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago, 1908. Thompson, who made a “[d]iligent search . . . for all the
instances of the words under consideration, with a view to including all the
works of all the known authors in each period” (pg. 353), noted that metanoeo and metanoia moved away from a purely intellectual sense that was present, although
not exclusively so, in early Greek.
In relation to Greek that is contemporary with the New Testament, he
notes: “[In] non-Jewish
post-Aristotelian writers to about 100 A. D. . . . passages continaing metanoeo show that . . . there is no instance of . . . purely
intellectual action. The change is that of feeling or will . . . In the Old
Testament Apocrypha and other Jewish writings to about 100 A. D. . . . metanoia means change of purpose . . . this change is (a)
moral; (b) from worse to better; (c) internal; (d) necessarily accompanied by
change of conduct” (pgs. 362, 368-9).
Philo is cited as affirming:
“[T]he man has lost his reason who, by speaking falsely of the truth,
says that he has changed his purpose
(metanenohkenai [a form of metanoeo,
“to repent,” in this tense and sentence, “says that he has repented”] when he
is still doing wrong” (pg. 369)—the RAC exactly. In contemporary
“Palestinian writers, there is no instance of the intellectual simply; but
there are abundant instances of both the emotional and volitional action” (pg.
375). Coming to the New Testament
usage, Thompson writes: “An
examination of the instances of metanoeo shows that . . . the verb is always used of a change of purpose which
the context clearly indicates to be moral . . . this change is from evil to
good purpose . . . is never used when the reference is to change of opinion
merely . . . is always internal, and . . . results in external conduct . . . metanoia reveal[s] a meaning analogous to that of the verb .
. . metanoia does not strictly
include outward conduct or reform of life . . . [but] this is the product of metanoia . . . lupe [sorrow] is not inherent in metanoia, but . . . it produces the latter[.] . . . The New
Testament writers in no instance employ [repentance] to express the action
solely of either the intellect or of the sensibility, but use it exclusively to
indicate the action of the will” (pgs. 372-373). Thompson concludes:
“In the New Testament, metanoeo and metanoia . . . are
never used to indicate merely intellectual action. . . . [T]hey are always used
to express volitional action . . . the change of purpose . . . from evil to
good. . . . [T]hey always express internal change . . . [and] they require
change in the outward expression of life as a necessary consequent . . . [t]he
fullest content [is] found in the . . . radical change in the primary choice by
which the whole soul is turned away from evil to good” (pgs. 376-377). The RAC is obviously validated by a historical study of the
development of the meaning of metanoeo and metanoia, while the RNC is obliterated.
Bible clearly teaches that repentance is a change of mind that always results
in a change of action (the RAC
position). The idea that
repentance is a change of mind that may or may not result in a change of
action, the RNC position, is
totally unbiblical. The RNC is a very serious, very dangerous, and Satanic
corruption of the saving gospel of Jesus Christ. Its advocates should consider the warning of Galatians
1:8-9, and tremble: “But though
we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which
we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any
man preach any other gospel unto you than
that ye have received, let him be accursed.” Anyone who seeks to bring the RNC heresy into one of Christ’s churches should be
immediately confronted. Believers
should not give place to such false teachers, “no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might
continue” (Galatians 2:5).
Christians who are being led astray and confused by attacks on the gospel
such as the RNC should be
immediately confronted, and those who are making room for such error by their
teaching should be immediately, specifically, strongly, pointedly, publicly,
and directly confronted by name (Galatians 2:4-14; Acts 15:1-2). True churches must warn against
assaults on the gospel such as the RNC and maintain strict and total ecclesiastical separation from its
advocates (Romans 16:17; Ephesians 5:11; Titus 3:10; 2 John 7-11). They must also boldly preach repentance
and faith to every creature, so that they not only negatively oppose error, but
by their true doctrine and practice adorn the truth (Matthew 28:18-20; Mark
16:15; Luke 24:47).
The
following paragraph appeared in a footnote in part #1 of this series, but it
was important enough to reproduce in the text here.
Lure Them In, pt. 5
Gospel-centeredness and my “lure them in” series dovetailed in my mind on Tuesday this week after my Monday post. The gospel is the power of God unto salvation, not a means to lure. So how could the gospel relate to luring them in? The popular discussion concerns whether you’re center bound (gospel centered) or boundary driven. I may have just lost you.
Recently, the center bound in the discussion seems to be led by D. A. Carson, one of the heads of The Gospel Coalition. He also argues that the gospel is diminished by those who might separate over other biblical doctrine and practice other than the gospel. Carson essentially says that it is the gospel that binds us together and the other beliefs are not essential for fellowship. That opens pandoras box for methodology.
I would be boundary driven, the boundary being the truth, which we can know, it is certain, and all of it is important. Others seem to be dabbling with boundary driven, seeing it as the only acceptable explanation, two recent representatives being Phil Johnson and Kevin Bauder. From my observation, these two, and their like-minded thinkers, swing back and forth between center bound and boundary driven, because they can’t find a way to bridge the gap between scriptural separation and unity, almost entirely due to their ecclesiology. Bauder and Johnson look at the boundary differently, sees the lines drawn in different places. It isn’t the truth that is the boundary, but the essentials or the fundamentals, the important things, and coming to some kind of consensus about what those are. They have no biblical basis for this practice, but it makes the best sense, given their predicaments. How can you have unity with all believers and yet separate over doctrine? And which doctrines should we separate over? That discussion continues ad infinitum (the answer is in our book A Pure Church, for those who have not bought it, barely still in pre-publication—buy here).
Ultimately, however, being center bound is a church methodology to lure in more people to an evangelical or fundamentalist church. The gospel is ‘about’ the only entrance requirement, and people know that, so they are more comfortable with that church. I’ve said that there are new words coined to describe this methodology, but one of them is “contextualization.” A church can have a wide range of stances on the cultural issues. This all fits with the church of the postmodern age. It does sort of cement down the one doctrine of salvation (although that isn’t even fully settled—for instance, will Lordship of Christ be emphasized or not, or does it matter?), but there is a large emphasis on freedom that is attractive to the flesh. People get to have eternity settled, while still getting most of their pick of the world. Whatever kind of music you want or like now sounds like a doctrine—it’s gospel boundedness. You’re better than everyone else when you get what you want. What a deal!
The people attending these gospel or center bound churches know the benefits. They might not be able to explain the attraction for them, but they know they have a difference from the boundary driven churches. This is the lure. It’s all very sophisticated, and purposefully so. Look at our Congress, which knows the benefit of 7000 pages in order to get their way to pass.
From what I’ve written so far, you may think that gospel or center bound and boundary driven are the only two ways. Like about everything else today, there is a third way. You can google “the third way,” and get a lot. Before I even typed “the third way,” I assumed there was a wikipedia article on it, and there was! It’s the “centrist position.” We’ve arrived at centrist in the theological world. I recently saw this way represented in the writings of the very popular evangelical, Tim Keller.
Keller has written a book to talk about his success in New York City at Redeemer Presbyterian Church, called Center Church. Interesting, huh? Center. Definitely a play on words. He succeeds, like Bill Clinton thought he did, by finding the center. It’s not like center is a new concept. It’s dialecticism. You have a thesis (center bound) and a antithesis (boundary driven) and from that comes an synthesis (the third way, Keller’s way). I say it’s a play on words, because Keller is also in the center of the city, and the goal here with Keller, is to make his church the center of the culture of New York City. Many other churches there haven’t succeeded (gotten big), so people really do want to know “how he did it!” Why would they even think “he did it?” After all, Jesus did it, didn’t He? Ooops. Maybe not. Nobody needs an explanation if Jesus did it. That would be in the Bible. You would just need to read it. But since there’s something he’s doing that is different, we need a book to explain it (a big one, 400 large pages). And he lets you know that his success really did come from going to a lot of different sources to get it figured out. He shares them with us.
If any of you have seen Martin Bashir on MSNBC (I don’t have cable or TV, but see clips of him at Real Clear Politics), you would wonder about his closeness with Tim Keller. My biblical belief and practice would clash big time with a Martin Bashir, disabling any possibility of coexistence. Biblical Christianity and the things that Martin Bashir says and stands for could not harmonize with the Bible. And yet Tim Keller and him get along fine (as much as I can know, I believe Bashir attends Keller’s church). Keller’s church growth philosophy will help you understand a Bashir and Keller relationship.
Those reading, those who like to read here, but won’t comment, comment very infrequently, or anonymously, might be upset about how I’m reading Keller’s “Center Church.” He doesn’t mean centrist! He means center-bound! I read his introduction and the tenth chapter, those offered free. From the top, he tells you that this is a third way, a middle position. It’s either a play on words or a pretty big coincidence. He gives two ways on the spectrum of church growth—success on the left and faithfulness on the right. His way is the third way, fruitfulness in the center. This ought to be heavily criticized by Phil Johnson, at least as he describes what “fruitfulness” means and how it is being redefined or perhaps dumbed down by the new Calvinists and other church growth advocates.
Keller unveils in his book the “secrets” to Redeemer’s fruitfulness. Perhaps you didn’t know that it was a secret after 2000 years. Here’s a secret: it’s not a secret. The Bible is plain. Church growth, how it is to occur is clear. If it’s a secret, then it can’t be what the Bible teaches. This isn’t one of the mysteries of godliness or of the church or of the gospel. It’s no mystery.
One mystery to me is how that a Presbyterian, who has this so-called strong view of the sovereignty of God, has 400 pages for us to show how churches can grow. You need a manual with much more material than the Bible to know what you should do, to understand what new measures you must take for church growth. Others have obviously not gotten it. Like so many others, Keller uses Spurgeon to justify it, as if Spurgeon were around today he would consider jazz to be an acceptable and preferable alternative for worship on an evening Lord’s Day (that’s Redeemer’s jazz time—the two evening sessions), homosexuality to be a subject to avoid preaching against in a regular service in highly homosexual New York City, and Martin Bashir to be great pals with.
My take on Keller’s book is that it is the Hyles Church Manual for the new Calvinist. It is the Rick Warren Purpose Driven Church for the new Calvinist. It’s essentially Church Growth for Geeks (no offense intended). Church Growth for Smarties (in contrast to Dummies).
At risk of my being respectable to a segment of my readership (to remind them why it is that they don’t like to have their name in the comment section), which is likely already shot, evangelicalism and now fundamentalism has already been rife with “third way” thinking. Their Bible is the product of the third way. You’ve got the traditional text, the text received by the churches, accepted by those who believe in a biblical doctrine of preservation, conservative and historic bibliology, and then you’ve got secular and “scientific” textual criticism, so you come to a third way. The latter represents respectable thinking. The former represents Bible teaching, albeit unacceptable to keep believing wholesale. So you find a third way. We’ve done this with our Bible. We’ve also got old earth creationism. That’s a third way. The third way is the way to acceptability in the world, supposedly without giving up the faith. Today we’ve got the third way position on inerrancy, represented by those like Daniel Wallace. The third way is everywhere.
One “pastor” came to Keller and said, “I’ve tried the Willow Creek model. I’m ready to try the Redeemer model.” Keller doesn’t dispute that. He’s got a model to follow. He’s got the secret to lure them in.
Repentance Defended Against Antinomian Heresy: A Brief Defense of the Indubitable Biblical Fact that Repentance is a Change of Mind that Always Results in a Change of Action, part 2
Testament usage provides crystal-clear evidence for repentance as a change of
mind that results in a change of action.
Consider the following representative texts with metanoeo:
shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they
repented at the preaching of Jonas;
and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.
in Jonah 3:5-10:
a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them even to the least of
them. For word came unto the king of Nineveh, and he arose from his throne, and
he laid his robe from him, and covered him with sackcloth, and sat in ashes. And he caused it to be proclaimed and published through Nineveh by the
decree of the king and his nobles, saying, Let neither man nor beast, herd nor
flock, taste any thing: let them not feed, nor drink water: but let man and
beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God: yea, let them turn
every one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands. Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his
fierce anger, that we perish not? And God saw their works, that they turned
from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he
would do unto them; and he did it
not.
the kind that took place at Nineveh, when the Ninevites “believed God . . . and
. . . turn[ed] every one from his evil way,” where “their works” were evidence
that they had “turned.” Christ’s
doctrine of repentance was the RAC (the
view that Repentance Always results in Change), not the RNC (the view that Repentance may Not result in Change).
be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance. . . . Likewise, I say unto you, there is joy in
the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth.
the single parable (Luke 15:3) of Luke 15, Christ illustrates the conversion of
publicans and sinners (15:1-2) by the restoration of a lost sheep, coin, and
son, while the unconverted and self-righteous Pharisees who thought they did
not need to repent (Luke 15:2; cf. 5:31-32; 19:7-10) are illustrated by another
son (cf. Exodus 4:22; Hosea 11:1; Romans 9:4) who was not willing to enter his
father’s house but greatly dishonored his father because of his perceived
superiority to the restored lost son (15:25-32). When Christ spoke of repentance, he spoke of the attitude
expressed by the words of the son that was lost but then found: “I have sinned against heaven, and
before thee, and am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy
hired servants” (Luke 15:18-19).
Such an attitude expresses the RAC
doctrine of repentance.
them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea,
and then to the Gentiles, that they
should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance [metanoia].
the Apostles preached repentance, they preached that repentance results in
“works meet for repentance.” They
also connected repentance with turning
or being converted; cf. Acts 3:19, “Repent ye therefore,
and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out.” To turn or be converted is to “change direction, turn around . . . to change
belief or course of conduct . . . to change one’s mind or course of action . .
. turn, return.”[i] Paul explains what takes place when men
repent, are converted, and are born again: “For they themselves shew of us what manner of entering in
we had unto you, and how ye turned to God from idols to serve the living and
true God; and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come” (1
Thessalonians 1:9-10). Conversion
is to turn to God and to turn away from idolatry and other sins. It is to turn to God from sin with the
purpose of serving the living and true God and waiting for the return of His
Son. Such a doctrine is plainly
the RAC.
from whence thou art fallen, and repent,
and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove
thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.
Apostle John recorded Christ’s message that when one repented he would “do . .
. works” as a result. Christ
commanded that one “repent of her fornication” (Revelation 2:21) and warned
that those who do not “repent of their deeds” would enter “into great
tribulation” (Revelation 2:22).
That is, those unsaved people who do not “repent of their deeds” will
miss the Rapture and enter into the “great tribulation” (Revelation 7:14;
Matthew 24:21) with the rest of the unsaved, those who “repented not of the
works of their hands, that they should not worship devils, and idols of gold,
and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood: which neither can see, nor hear,
nor walk: neither repented they of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor
of their fornication, nor of their thefts” (Revelation 9:20-21), those who
“blasphemed the name of God . . . and . . . repented not to give him glory. . .
. blasphemed the God of heaven . . . and repented not of their deeds”
(Revelation 16:9, 11). The Apostle
John taught, through the inspiration of Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit, the RAC position on repentance, not the RNC.
noun metanoia likewise provides clear
evidence for the RAC. Matthew 3:1-12 records the preaching of
John the Baptist on repentance:
preaching in the wilderness of Judaea,
2 And saying, Repent [metanoeo] ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. 3 For this is he that was spoken of by
the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare
ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. 4 And the same John had his raiment of camel’s hair, and a
leathern girdle about his loins; and his meat was locusts and wild honey. 5 Then went out to him Jerusalem, and
all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan, 6 And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.
7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his
baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee
from the wrath to come? 8 Bring
forth therefore fruits meet for repentance [metanoia]: 9 And think not to say within
yourselves, We have Abraham to our
father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up
children unto Abraham. 10 And now
also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which
bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 11 I indeed baptize you with water unto
repentance [metanoia]: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I,
whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost,
and with fire: 12 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor,
and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with
unquenchable fire.
that repentance resulted in visible “fruit” (v. 8) without which there was no
evidence that conversion had taken place and therefore without which baptism
should not be administered, as baptism was on account of (eis, “unto”) repentance (v. 10). Repentance results in “mak[ing] straight
paths for your feet . . . [and] follow[ing] . . . holiness, without which no
man shall see the Lord” (Hebrews 12:13-14; Matthew 3:3; Isaiah 35:8;
40:1-3). Repentance results in
fruit, because everyone that has not repented and received a new heart so that
he is a good tree that brings forth good fruit will be cast into hell fire (v.
10). Such teaching was the
repentance preached by the first Baptist and also by Christ (Matthew 3:2;
4:17), and all Baptists today should preach—indeed, are commanded to preach
(Luke 24:47), the same message as Christ and John—the RAC doctrine.
Apostle Paul wrote:
ye sorrowed to repentance [metanoia] for ye were made sorry after a godly manner, that ye
might receive damage by us in nothing.
10 For godly sorrow worketh repentance [metanoia]
to salvation not to be repented[ii]
of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death. 11 For behold this selfsame thing, that ye sorrowed after a
godly sort, what carefulness it wrought in you, yea, what clearing of yourselves, yea, what indignation, yea, what fear, yea, what vehement desire, yea, what
zeal, yea, what revenge! In all
things ye have approved yourselves to
be clear in this matter.
result of godly sorrow over sin, leads to people being careful to avoid sin,
clearing themselves from it, having indignation against it, being afraid of it,
being indignant against it, being afraid to commit it, having vehement desire
to avoid it, being zealous for righteousness, and a desire to revenge
themselves upon it.[iii] Paul clearly taught that repentance
leads to a change of action—the RAC
position.
texts with metanoeo and metanoia in the New Testament fit the RAC position.
Thus, the burden of proof is on the RNC position to prove that one can repent without a
change of action following.
However, not a single text in the New Testament speaks of a “repentance”
that does not result in a change of action.[iv] The RNC position is completely absent from the pages of the
New Testament.
Epistrepho, in A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament
and other early Christian Literature
(3rd ed.), W. Arndt, F. Danker, & W. Bauer. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press, 2000. The complete
list of epistrepho texts is: Matt
9:22; 10:13; 12:44; 13:15; 24:18; Mark 4:12; 5:30; 8:33; 13:16; Luke 1:16–17;
2:20, 39; 8:55; 17:4, 31; 22:32; John 12:40; 21:20; Acts 3:19; 9:35, 40; 11:21;
14:15; 15:19, 36; 16:18; 26:18, 20; 28:27; 2 Cor 3:16; Gal 4:9; 1 Th 1:9; James
5:19–20; 1 Pet 2:25; 2 Pet 2:21–22; Rev 1:12.
The
adjective ametameletos, related to
the verb metamelomai (not metanoeo) for repentance in the sense of regret or remorse; cf. 2 Corinthians 7:7, where
“repent” is metamelomai.
The
context is the individual who was under church discipline for immorality; the desires to oppose sin mentioned in
the passage are connected to the concrete manifestations of sin in persons
involved in it.
Note the
complete list of metanoeo texts: Matt
3:2; 4:17; 11:20–21; 12:41; Mark 1:15; 6:12; Luke 10:13; 11:32; 13:3, 5; 15:7,
10; 16:30; 17:3–4; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 8:22; 17:30; 26:20; 2 Cor 12:21; Rev 2:5,
16, 21–22; 3:3, 19; 9:20–21; 16:9, 11.
Also note the complete list of metanoia texts: Matt
3:8, 11; 9:13; Mark 1:4; 2:17; Luke 3:3, 8; 5:32; 15:7; 24:47; Acts 5:31;
11:18; 13:24; 19:4; 20:21; 26:20; Rom 2:4; 2 Cor 7:9–10; 2 Tim 2:25; Heb 6:1,
6; 12:17; 2 Pet 3:9.
Recent Comments