Home » Search results for 'worship' (Page 8)
Search Results for: worship
Shaping a Jesus In Your Own Image and then Believing in Him for Salvation
Contrasting Christianity
Have you talked in public to an evangelical woman with a cross hanging down into her revealed cleavage? You see the cross juxtapositioned with the other as a backdrop. Not a fit, is it? Maybe you, like me, wonder about the vast differences in professing Christianity. They both claim to believe in Jesus Christ. What’s going on?
One church you attend uses superficial, short preaching that centers on men’s felt needs. They do series on self-interest topics that will attract people. They keep it short with lots of humor. The other opens the Bible and explains and applies exactly what it says, word for word.
Some churches use rock or pop music and call it praise. Others use sacred music, saying that God rejects and hates rock or pop music and doesn’t want to hear it. The former accepts worldly and even sinful dress or apparel. The latter preaches against that in a practical way.
A church that calls itself Christian uses world amusements that target every demographic with alluring activities. The other does exactly what the Bible presents as an obedient practice.
I could go on and on with varied descriptions of these two extremes, both calling themselves Christian. Both of them say they believe in Jesus. The modern or postmodern form of a professing Christian church wants toleration from the church with strict conformity to scripture. When the biblical church, a true one, rejects the belief and practice of the false one, the false one calls this unloving, even unChristian.
Similar Doctrinal Statement, But….
Very often I’ve said that two indistinguishable churches have a very similar doctrinal statement. The drastic incongruence between the two does not relate to their doctrinal statement. The contradiction relates to a true or false or a beautiful or ugly imagination of God. One fashions a god made after lust and the other after reverence. God and all associated with Him stays sacred in a true church. That church turns off a lot of people, not the aesthetic or feeling many professing Christians want.
Changing the God in the imagination changes everything about believing in Him, obeying Him, and worshiping Him. It distorts everything. Let me give you a simple illustration.
Scripture commands not to use corrupt communication. It does not say what that is. What was corrupt at one time and with the different imagination of God becomes uncorrupt. It’s fine now. Are you using corrupt communication? No, because the meaning changed. You have a different God that allows for that communication, so it’s fine.
The Beauty of Holiness
Psalm 96:9 says, “Worship the LORD in the beauty of holiness.” That’s a command that one might obey or disobey. Let’s say someone does something he calls worship and it is not in the beauty of holiness. That isn’t worship. Here is a person claiming to worship, but not worshiping and in reality disobeying God. People also do not know who God is because of the false portrayal of God presented.
The false god in the imagination that might have a pretty good doctrinal statement still completely misses. This is how two professing Christianities portray such vast difference between the other. The true presents something according to true churches through most of history. The false presents a counterfeit, calling itself authentic or genuine.
Most of the false Christianity deemphasizes repentance. Some of it will hold to repentance as an entrance unto salvation in Christ. However, it’s just the word repentance used. It isn’t repentance, because it doesn’t turn from these worldly things that dishonor God. It hangs on to them.
False Repentance
What does the false repentance turn from? It can be the superficial turning of not believing to believing. However, at the same time holding to an impostor belief. A person still has not turned from unbelief, because he distorts belief too. Other forms of false repentance occur. The Apostle Paul showed how that people replace true repentance with something short of it in 2 Corinthians 7.
I don’t think what I’m writing is beyond comprehension for people. They know that two things that are different are not the same. Only one of these turns from the belief and practice of historic Christianity. That’s the false one.
Many, many people have shaped Jesus into their own image and then received the false one. They read their chosen version of the Bible, which says, believe in Jesus. They do. Now they think they’re saved. He must be Jesus. If He isn’t, they haven’t believed in Him. They are lost.
What’s different about those believing in the false Jesus? Jesus is immanent. He comes down and close in His manner as described in scripture. He’s also transcendent. 1 Peter 1:16 says, “Be ye holy; for I am holy.” Jesus is holy. Their Jesus is not. He isn’t sacred and He does not require holiness like Peter says.
An Alcohol Story
A Man Questions Me about Alcohol
Restaurant Wants to Serve Alcohol
Our church meets in a small town right across the street from a new and popular Mexican restaurant. My wife and I moved to Southern Indiana on February 23, 2023 to evangelize a twenty five minute radius with 70,000 people. We want to build up a true church for its future perpetuation, starting with six attending members who are all fifty-nine and over. The Mexican restaurant opened in September, six months before we arrived.
On our first official time of door-to-door evangelism, my wife and I went together and knocked on the front door of someone right next to our meeting place. A man opened and after I introduced ourselves, before anything else he said to us, “So you are the church that won’t let the Mexican restaurant serve alcohol? Why are you keeping us from having a nice beer with our dinner?”
Indiana State Law
I told him that I didn’t know what he was talking about. Actually someone had mentioned alcohol and a restaurant to me, but I didn’t make the connection to this situation. I didn’t apologize to this neighbor for anything anyone did. Instead, I explained ours was a biblical position on alcohol. Shouldn’t churches follow the Bible in their belief and practice? Also, I knew it was Indiana law. The state of Indiana regulated this use of alcohol. If he wanted the law to change, he should take his complaint to his state legislator, not me. The regulation is the following (Ind. Code § 7.1-3-21-11):
[T]he commission may not issue a permit for a premises or approve a designated refreshment area if . . . the following appl[ies]: (1) A wall of a school or church is situated within two hundred (200) feet . . . . This section does not apply to the premises . . . if . . . the commission receives a written statement from the authorized representative of the church or school stating expressly that the church or school does not object to the issuance of the permit for the premises or approval of the designated refreshment area.
One godly member of the original six of the church earlier told the restaurant he would not write that letter. I would not write the letter either. He couldn’t. I couldn’t. Even if I believed in it, I wouldn’t do it and offend this member. Most of all, I wouldn’t write it because it would violate scripture. Our church would not do a thing that would disobey the Bible.
Habakkuk 2:15
I saw writing a letter giving permission to serve alcohol to violate Habakkuk 2:15:
Woe unto him that giveth his neighbour drink, that puttest thy bottle to him, and makest him drunken also.
God Himself is giving this “Woe.” God says, “Woe!” People in town might pressure me or us to capitulate, but I have a responsibility to God. When I weigh God versus alcohol drinkers or alcohol servers in town, I go with God. It’s one thing to break one of God’s laws. We all do. It’s totally another to support the breaking of the laws of God and encourage their transgression. That is not worshiping the Lord.
The Consequences of Alcohol Use
107,081 fentanyl deaths occurred in 2022 in the United States. Much of that moves across our porous Southern border. It is estimated that China produces 90% of that fentanyl in the United States. The fentanyl usage I’m describing is illegal. Let that sink into your head. As it does, consider the following about a legal substance in the United States: alcohol.
Alcohol is known to directly kill. Alcohol contributes to over three million deaths per year worldwide and over 140,000 a year in the United States. About forty percent of convicted murderers used alcohol before or during the crime. Alcohol related to about two-thirds of violent acts on current or former spouses or partners. In 2021,13,384 people died in alcohol-impaired driving traffic deaths. Offenders under the influence of alcohol commit 37% of sexual assaults and rapes. Four out of ten violent victimizations involve alcohol use.
Alcohol dependence very often leads to a devastating downward financial spiral. It causes eviction notices, delinquent bills, excessive court fees, diminished credit scores, and lost jobs. Many lose their family and custody of their children. Even if it doesn’t effect financial ruin, it very often brings financial strain and risk.
I’ve been to many social events that served alcohol. Alcohol caused bad behavior every time. Not once did it not make it a worse event. I found that drinkers expect teetotalers to tolerate their offensive actions. Most of the time, they don’t know how it makes them act. Drinking alcohol damages relationships. When I compare the harmful effects of illegal drugs and legal alcohol, I think hypocrisy and double standard.
Whose Fault?
Indiana state government passed the above law. This owner decided to open a restaurant less than 200 feet of our church building. To serve alcohol, the owner should follow the law of opening something further than 200 feet from where we meet. I’m not for more alcohol drinking and I’m not going to write a letter to encourage it. Our church did not invite the restaurant to open next to our building.
Our church didn’t write the law. Indiana did. If the law didn’t exist, the restaurant would serve alcohol. My conscience also registers all of what I wrote in the four paragraphs of the previous section. It would violate my conscience to write any such letter to the state for the service of alcohol.
I don’t think I’m better than other people because I don’t drink or serve alcohol. Neither do I believe that drinking alcohol in some unique way sends someone to Hell. Everyone sins. That doesn’t mean I should write a letter supporting the service of alcohol. I won’t do it.
Another Two Challenges
The Owner
The alcohol issue went off my radar again until a short while later a person showed up to our house, who was the owner of the Mexican restaurant. The owner asked if I would write the letter that would permit the restaurant to serve alcohol. I gave a brief scriptural presentation (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5), including what I said above. Also, I encouraged the owner, saying that maybe the success of the restaurant came from not serving alcohol. Perhaps the restaurant could trust God in the matter.
The owner told me that customers asked for alcohol and put pressure to serve it. When these customers asked why not, the owner pointed to our church as to why the restaurant could not get the permit. That’s why I got that challenge on the very first door. The owner blamed it on our church. I told the owner, no, the state of Indiana made the law, not the church. I would not write the letter, because I couldn’t. The owner understood the reason. It was a very peaceful, agreeable conversation.
Another Customer
Zoom forward to last week. Again, I’m going door-to-door in evangelism. While talking to a man at the door, his wife interrupted him, saying she wanted to ask me some questions. She did. The last one she asked was why we stopped the Mexican restaurant from getting a permit. I explained to her what I wrote above. She appreciated the answer, understood it. I told her I did not see our position as harmful to our church or our evangelism.
Tongue-in-cheek the wife said she thought we might get more visitors to our service because of our position. She heard customers threaten in mass to “visit” our church service to pressure us to stop hindering the alcohol service of the restaurant. The restaurant encouraged this reaction by continuing to blame us for no alcohol on the menu. The wife wondered if some compromise could be made. The state requires a support or permission letter from me. My convictions and conscience won’t allow me to write one.
This alcohol situation turned into a light form of religious persecution, precipitated by a hypocritical secular culture. It now occurs in previously known as “the Bible belt.” If I wanted, I could push back against the false accusations of the restaurant. Honesty would require an explanation of a regulation passed by the state of Indiana, not our church. My wife and I go to the restaurant. It serves good food. We pay for our meals and tip the waiters. I still won’t write a letter giving permission to serve alcohol.
The Expectations of the Apostle Paul for the Visit of an Unbeliever to a Meeting of the Lord’s Church
Seeker Sensitive?
Maybe out of spiritual sensitivity someone seeks to visit a church meeting. Such seeking happens though in far less frequency today. A tension exists about the issue of seeking.
On the one hand, the Apostle Paul writes in Romans 3:11, “There is none that seeketh after God.” That must be true. God said it.
Yet, on the other hand, twenty-nine times scripture says “Seek (ye) the Lord.” As if someone can seek the Lord when scripture says not. A classic location for this is Isaiah 55:6. It reads: “Seek ye the LORD while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near.”
One might ask, “How could God command someone to seek Him, when none can seek Him?” Although by nature dead to God, He enables men to seek Him through His revelation. When man seeks God, God caused that. He wants man to find Him.
The Grace of God and Seeking
With the grace of God that appears to all men, men can seek God. Without that grace, they would not. A good overall understanding of this truth, the Apostle John writes in 1 John 4:19, “We love him, because He first loved us.”
Seeking based on the grace of God begins not with a worldly temptation to attend a church service. That seeking is not seeking God. That person follows his lust to a meeting, because a church drew him with it. The worldly or fleshly enticement is not God’s love. God doesn’t allure or entice.
The attraction of God is either God Himself or the things of God. Those surpass any worldly or fleshly allure. Yet, unbelievers still seek worldly or fleshly allure. Church leaders know this. To increase attendance, they use other attractions besides God and the Word of God. Those don’t seek God.
Unbeliever Visits a Church
1 Corinthians 14:24-25
If an unbeliever sought after God and went to a church as a part of his search, what would he find? The Apostle Paul writes what he should find in 1 Corinthians 14:24-25:
24 But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all: 25 And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth.
Carl Trueman wrote about this in World magazine:
Second, the church is not called to mimic the world. Far from it. There is only one description in the New Testament of how an outsider should react when he blunders by accident into a church service. It is in 1 Corinthians 14:24–25. Paul tells us that such a person will be convicted and fall on his face, knowing that God is there.
Presumably, this is because he finds himself in the presence of a holy God and is overwhelmed by his own sense of unworthiness. Turning worship into a comedy skit seems unlikely to produce the same result. In fact, far from being sensitive to the needs of any seeker, it sends a clear signal that the gospel is unworthy of attention by any serious-minded person, believer or unbeliever.
The Apostle Paul describes the random visit of an unbeliever to a church. Trueman calls it, blundering by accident into a church service. Paul’s description of a church meeting provides authority for what should characterize one. These verses open a window into the worship of the first generation church.
Psalm 40:3
1 Corinthians 14:24-25 remind me of what David wrote in Psalm 40:3, depicting the worship of God’s people:
And he hath put a new song in my mouth, even praise unto our God: many shall see it, and fear, and shall trust in the LORD.
In this one verse, unbelievers witness the distinctive or new song of believers. They see their praise and what? Fear and then trust in the LORD. These unbelievers aren’t excited, entertained, enchanted, or mesmerized when they join a meeting of God’s people. Instead, they are shaken by “seeing” this praise from the mouths of a believing congregation.
Experience of Visitors with True Worship
When unbelievers choose to join a church meeting, 1 Corinthians 14:25 says the experience includes secrets of the heart made manifest. Gill writes that these visitors are shown “the naughtiness of” their hearts,
discovering the lusts that are in it, detecting the errors of the mind, and filling the conscience with a sense of guilt, and a consciousness of deserved punishment; so that the person looks upon himself as particularly spoken to.
He falls on his face, speaking of a visitor’s shame over sin. It also humbles him. The first experience of a true seeker is “worship.” God seeks for true worshipers (John 4:23-24), which is why they can seek Him. The first act of true worship means the offering of a soul to God. He converts or restores the soul of the one who offers it by faith. Jesus called this, losing one’s life for His sake.
Contrast with Contemporary Evangelical Experience
Qualities of 1 Corinthians 14:24-25 and Psalm 40:3 do not depict what most evangelicals offer an unbelieving visitor. These churches or “communities” long ago departed from the true nature of a New Testament church. They know their so-called “seekers” aren’t seeking those biblical, holy qualities. Instead they give them something else more to their liking or better, lusting. Then when they get a crowd of “seekers,” they attribute that to God working, which is a lie. It is nothing like the work of God.
Trivialization of Worship
Trueman continues his rebuke:
Such trivialization of worship rests ultimately upon a trivialization of God Himself. It is a function of the same culture where sports stars refer to the Lord as “the big man upstairs,” as if God was just one of their drinking buddies . . . . one more example of a world that does not take the holiness and transcendence of God seriously.
It raises the fundamental question of whether some pastors even understand what the nature of worship is and why the church exists. When worship is turned into a clown show with a religious patina, Christianity and Christians are infantilized and God is mocked.
Our God, our New Testament God, is a consuming fire and to be approached with awe and reverence, as the book of Hebrews teaches. And those incapable of acting in accordance with that have no place in the pastoral ministry.
Finding a Sweet Spot
Some churches are very good at the “clown show with a religious patina.” Other aren’t, but they still use the same strategy, only a lesser version. Sometimes, they modify the show to avoid the extreme. They attempt to find a sweet spot between reverence and lust. In either case, it’s a show. Sometimes it’s a show led by a natural showman. He just can’t help himself. He offers a show in the name of God. It’s still a show though.
In John 12:25, Jesus said:
He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.
If someone wants life eternal, he hates and loses this life. A true seeker, who hates this life will stop seeking someplace to satisfy his lust. A true church will stop providing a show to attract seekers by lustful allurements.
Paul Stands Against Peter and the Subject of Authority
Galatians 2 and Paul Withstanding Peter
Apostleship
In Galatians 2:11 the Apostle Paul writes:
But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
One could say at that point in church history, Peter was the greatest apostle. Peter saw Jesus’ glory on the Mount of Transfiguration. Peter was the first to the empty tomb. Jesus said directly to Peter, Feed my sheep. Peter preached the great sermons in the first half of Acts. God saved at least three thousand at Peter’s preaching on the Day of Pentecost. He got the vision from God in Acts 10, overturning Old Testament restrictions. The Jerusalem church sent Peter to Antioch to assess what happened there. Yet, Paul withstood Peter to the face.
In the context of Galatians 2, Paul defends his apostleship against false teachers. They attacked Paul because they opposed the gospel he preached. These false teachers at least added circumcision to Christ in their false gospel. Paul deals with that in Galatians but also spends almost two chapters showing his authority to preach the true gospel.
The false teachers attacking Paul in Galatian churches said Paul didn’t have the authority of the original twelve. In addition to many other arguments for his own authority, Paul wrote that he withstood Peter to his face. On his own, he could challenge Peter. This showed Paul’s direct authority received from Jesus Christ Himself (Galatians 1:12, 16).
Withstanding
“Withstood” comes from a compound verb, composed of the two words, “against” and “stand.” Paul stood against Peter. Paul explains why. Peter ate with Gentiles in Antioch until a faction claiming association with James came to visit. Because of their presence, Peter stopped eating with Gentiles. Paul regarded this as a type of gospel perversion by Peter. Through Peter’s dissembling, he confused the lost about the gospel.
Paul stood against Peter because of a possible gospel corruption. He did not confront him to show his authority. He opposed Peter with authority, not over authority. Paul wasn’t showing Peter who was boss.
The authority of Paul rose to challenge corruption of the gospel. That issue motivated the authority of Paul. Paul explains this intention in Galatians 2:5: “that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.” Paul wanted the truth of the gospel to continue with churches.
The Gospel the Bedrock Issue for Authority
The gospel is the bedrock issue of the church, even as Jesus said in Matthew 16:16-18. Peter’s salvation confession of Matthew 16:16 was the rock upon which Jesus built the Jerusalem church. The gospel calls out the saints that make up a church. It is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes it.
Issues other than the gospel do confront church leaders. However, gospel ones raised the altercation of Paul with Peter. The continuance of the gospel brought contention between Jerusalem and Antioch churches in Acts 15. Nevertheless, the churches stayed unified, because they paused to address their dispute between one another.
During the Acts 15 controversy, not one man made himself chieftain over the existing churches. Church leaders settled their discord together. A doctrinal issue did not become a personal one, rival factions vying for greatest positions. It could have gone that direction.
Teaching of Jesus about Vying for Authority
Close to his death, the disciples asked (Matthew 18:1), “Who is the greatest in the kingdom?” Jesus answered, “The one who speaks with the most authoritative voice and acts the big shot.” No, He didn’t. He said in essence, “The one who will humble himself like a little child.” Not long after, the mother of James and John told Jesus (Matthew 20:21):
Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom.
Jesus answered in essence, “You don’t know what you’re asking, because it’s going to be someone who will drink the cup that I will drink from.” That cup, of course, was His suffering.
When the other ten heard the request for John and James, “they were moved to indignation” against them (Matthew 20:24). Jesus said to all of them (verses 25-28):
25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. 26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; 27 And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: 28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
Some had in mind that they that are great “exercise dominion over” other people. Jesus said, “But it shall not be so among you.” True believers do not covet authority. They won’t grasp after it. They have other priorities than who gets the final say in matters.
Diotrephes
Again, division and contention may and should arise for more than the gospel. Jesus cleansed the temple over desecration of true worship, probably a gospel issue. However, should men turn on each other over the issue of authority itself? In 3 John 1:9-10, the Apostle John writes:
9 I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not. 10 Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church.
Diotrephes was an authority-for-his-authority-sake person. He saw himself at the top of the pecking order, the biggest rooster in the coop. No doctrinal issue manifests itself in verses 9-10 except for the doctrine of authority. Why did he cast people out of the church? To make a point that he was in charge, which is not a good enough reason.
Don’t get me wrong. I believe in authority. God gave authority to the church. Churches send people. Members fit into Christ’s body. God sits at the top of the entire flow chart, so “Peter and the other apostles” said, “We ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). Whatever little seats of authority God gives men on earth, He still sits at the top. It’s not about “whosoever will be chief among you” in your little pond.
Not As Lords Over God’s Heritage
In mid to late 2021 my wife and I joined another church, one other than the one God used us to start. We enjoyed our year there very much. Shortly thereafter, another pastor called my pastor to pressure him to prevent me from continuing “What Is Truth.” He saw my writing here as a violation of authority. I understand if you think you see some irony there. Since I wasn’t in authority, he tried to use authority to stop me from writing this blog.
I heard from someone when I was young, “If the mortar’s thin, you must fling it hard.” Without a good scriptural foundation, people might rely on force of personality. I know intimidation can work. If he’s not stopped, the biggest kid in the nursery will always have his favorite toy.
Before I started pastoring and early in that office, I committed to Peter’s teaching (1 Peter 5:2-3): “taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; Neither as being lords over God’s heritage.” The point of pastoring was not having people do what I told them to do. Christ is Lord. Every pastor should willingly back down from what he wants to stop offending someone else or to keep unity in the church.
Every church should stand on the teaching of scripture. Pastors have authority. However, churches don’t stand on the authority of a pastor. Jesus is the Head of the church. Pastors should not rule a church with their authority, they should rule it behind the authority of the Word of God. That means very often giving liberty when it comes to their own opinions.
More to Come
Done. Yes, But…. (Part Two)
Part One [Also a Previous Post I Forgot I Wrote]
Two Religions in the World?
A common modern aphorism, very catchy, you will read from many sources: “There are only two religions in the world.” Men say they are “do” and “done.” That’s what Cary Schmidt says in his book, Done. He’s not the only one or even the first one to say it.
I googled “only two religions in the world” and got 41,900 hits. Then I searched google books and the first find was a book in 1884, The Life of John Calvin, by T. Lawson. Lawson indicates the division between eighteen your old Calvin and his cousin, Olivetan. This takes this language at least to the 16th century. Lawson writes:
“There are two religions in the world,” we hear Olivetan saying. “In the one class invented by men, man saves himself by ceremonies and good works: the other is that one religion which is revealed in the Bible, and which teaches men to look for salvation solely from the free grace of God.”
At the start of the next chapter, Lawson distinguishes the two religions as “Human Authority or Divine Revelation.” That’s different than “Do” and “Done” and is a little broader, if one would divide everything into two categories only.
More Than Two Religions
I disagree with the two religion adage. Someone could divide into “do” and “done,” but not two religions. Free gracers would agree with Olivetan and Schmidt. Jude called their false gospel (Jude 1:4), “turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.” This turns religions into at least three different categories, instead of two.
Someone might slot Schmidt into a third category. A person may say it’s just a lacking or wrong definition of “done.” Schmidt would say he is “done.” Someone taking his identical position might agree that he’s done too. According to scripture it’s only done, however, if a person repents and believes in Jesus Christ. If not, it isn’t done yet. He’s not doing for salvation, but neither is he done.
Dividing all religious categories into “human invention” and “divine revelation,” I can agree with that. That’s not how men like Schmidt and others categorize it though. It’s just “do” and “done.” I get the problem between do and done: human effort versus divine grace. Those two contradict each other. But people then also pervert or corrupt grace. They turn grace into something less than saving grace.
Excluding Repentance and Lordship of Christ
Schmidt in his book excludes repentance and lordship of Christ. I would contend that Schmidt’s faith isn’t even true faith. He constructs different prerequisites for salvation, putting the emphasis on a prayer, asking for salvation. This falls short of saving faith. It’s either intellectual or emotional, fitting into a stony ground type of faith (Matthew 13:5-6). It almost might be worldly, where the world swallows up a shallow faith (Matthew 13:7-8).
Part of the attraction of Schmidt’s idea of “done,” which I would call human invention, is someone doesn’t count the cost or give up anything. He can go on his sweet way. Sure, God does everything. A person doesn’t even really believe in Jesus Christ and God still does everything. This really is the broad road that Jesus talks about in Matthew 7:13-14.
No-repentance goes very nicely with American revivalism and evangelicalism. I especially say American, because it relies heavily on fleshly allure and marketing. Barnum and Bailey style. Even the very tidy, Done, goes along with that sentiment. It markets “done” especially to a people that want to keep going the same direction, yet receiving heaven in the end. It’s a very short book for an easy or even easier believism.
Spreading Around the World
The densely marketed Christianity from America reverses truths of scripture. It makes worship palatable and pleasurable to the worshiper. It orchestrates feelings and entertains. The purveyors calculate almost every aspect of the church experience for the attendee. In that way, this is “doing.” The professionals “do” church for those attending, starting with a fleshly or mystical reason to come. So much of everything is a show for churches like these.
In many locations around the globe, this other false religion which I address in this post generates a greater bad influence than the “do” religion. It blinds people especially in a more affluent world. They want a stimulating and thrilling religion that is done for them. Its advocates get the life they want on earth plus eternal life. They really also form or envision a Jesus of their own choosing.
We don’t have two religions in the world. More than two exist. More than three do too. I don’t know how many there are, but “do” and “done” aren’t all of them.
The Watershed Moment in the Decline of the American Church: Distinction Between the Sexes
The Beginning of the Bible
When you open your Bible to the first chapter of Genesis, you read in verse 27:
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
As if that mattered, God repeats this in Genesis 5:1-2:
1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; 2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
Male and female. That’s it. God created male and female, two different sexes. When I read scripture I notice also two different genders for mankind, communicated by he, him, his and she, her, and hers. “It” never refers to a member of mankind, only the masculine or feminine genders.
God Designed
Furthermore, God designed distinction between the sexes. He gave each a distinct kind or type of body and emotional make-up. God also differentiated a separate, distinct role for each sex. Each role complements the other. According to this truth, God forbade same sex coital activity and marriage.
God also mandated the preservation or keeping of the designed distinctions between male and female. He banned or outlawed masculinity for women and effeminacy for men. God never rescinded any of that. He repeated the regulation in both the Old and New Testaments. God also instructed on it with varied statements intended for compliant application.
The fall of mankind in Genesis 3 resulted from abrogation of the male and female roles. The curse of sin on mankind then instructs also in Genesis 3 concerning the future disorientation of sexual roles. God prohibits men and women from changing or exchanging roles. He also requires them to preserve clear symbols or marks of distinction in appearance.
Rebellion
The rebellion against God starts with the man abrogating headship. It continues with the woman usurping male authority. Mankind perverts the God designed and created hierarchy.
Mankind follows role rebellion with role and then sex confusion. A person becomes his sex at conception. God ordains parents to train the conceived and then born male to continue a man in every way; likewise the female to be a woman in all manners.
The animus between male and female in Genesis 3 continues. People must support God’s design. They must also oppose all manner of role confusion. God especially demands this of true churches.
Long ago churches began relinquishing their responsibility to distinguish between sexes. The world started this decline, but churches followed. Churches accommodate role rebellion now in numbers of ways. Some churches take some stand against the decline, but nearly every church capitulates in some manner out of fear, convenience, or pragmatism.
Rick Warren and Southern Baptist Convention
In a very obvious, public way, the Southern Baptist Convention battles right now who can lead their churches. Will they be men or men and women? So-called “America’s pastor,” Rick Warren, fights for the egalitarian, role confusion in the Convention. He threatens the departure of thousands of “purpose-driven” churches from the convention over the issue.
Transgenderism, surgical sex changes, and gender neutral bathrooms make the headlines. This ship started sailing long ago. Conservative evangelical John MacArthur preached a standard exposition of Ephesian 5 on the two distinct marriage roles. Women in mass rose and left the auditorium in protest.
Sixty to seventy years ago, every woman wore a dress or skirt in church, let alone at home. Of course, every man wore pants. This was (and still is) the only symbol of sexual distinction. It’s why transgender “women” wear dresses like Kaitlyn Jenner. It’s also why transgender “men” wear short hair and pants.
Anecdotal
In the first month after my wife and I moved to Indiana, I went to a junior boys basketball game at the elementary school. A blue jean wearing woman coached the boys team. She stomped and yelled like Bobby Knight on the sideline. No one flinched at her antics. Just another day in rural, red-state Indiana. This, my friends, is the new normal.
The next night my wife and I went to an ice cream place and started up a conversation with some professing Christians there. We continued in pleasant interaction. Then I told the story of the junior boys game, its four overtimes, ending with sudden death. I described the coach something like in the previous paragraph. They met my story with no response. They went mute silent with pained expressions on their faces. After an awkward moment of hearing the crickets in the background and feet shuffling, subject changed.
For the Future of Churches and America
Maybe at one time in the United States, leadership fires a woman for behaving like a man. Today, leadership, maybe even female leadership, fires a man for criticizing the woman. This fits into the contemporary battle of first amendment rights. According to the Declaration of Independence, these inalienable rights come from God. The country banishes God from public conversation. Government and society in general prevent speech from and about God.
If you visit a business promoting transgenderism today, you could say the following. “I will be back when you stop pushing your left wing religion on me.” It is a very dogmatic religion established by the state today.
Churches will die with concession on sexual distinction. The Democrats famously booed including the name of God in their political platform in 2012. Will churches boo sexual distinction? Have we reached a moment when this is even an unwelcome subject matter?
To stop American decline, judgment must begin in the house of God. Churches must stand on the designed distinctions between male and female. They may say they support supernaturalism and young earth creationism. Will they worship and serve the creature rather than the Creator? If creation means anything in a practical way, it means male and female created He them.
Evangelistic Christian T-Shirts, Collared Shirts, Car Magnet
God the Father, Son, and Spirit are seeking for true worshippers (John 4:23); nobody can truly worship the Father through Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit without being born again (John 3:3). Have you thought about whether you should have some evangelistic clothing that offers people the gospel, or whether your car can preach the gospel? In the Millennium even the bells on the horses will be holy to Jehovah (Zechariah 14:20). Why not make your mode of transportation clearly identified with the risen Christ now?
I created a few designs at Zazzle of evangelistic T-shirts, collared shirts, bumper stickers, and a car magnet with Bible verses that point people to faithsaves.net with its evangelistic material. (It is almost always best to click through a portal to save a bit extra whenever shopping on the Internet.)
The evangelistic shirt I am wearing in the pic below is one of those I designed. My wife and I were hiking in God’s creation to the top of a place called Bald Mountain in the Bay Area. (It is near the town of Ross. I feel very welcome there-it’s a nice place, for sure.) I usually wear this neon shirt when I am biking back and forth to work. That way I am not just visible on my bike, but everyone who goes by can have access to the gospel. Furthermore, when I am at work I basically need to have someone else initiate the conversation if I am going to talk about the gospel, but if coworkers see the shirt I am wearing when I bike in they know I am a Christian and also know how to find out more about the gospel without me having to say anything, as well as knowing that if they want to learn more about their Creator they have someone to ask about it. So that is very good.
By the way, we actually hiked to the planet Saturn on the same walk up Bald Mountain-here are pictures to prove it.
So now you know–a What is Truth? exclusive–now you know that all that stuff about Saturn being a gas planet and it being very far away from the sun and very cold is not true. You can actually hike to Saturn from Marin County near San Francisco, California, and the temperature on Saturn is remarkably temperate. Maybe the Seventh-Day Adventist prophetess Ellen White was actually right when she counted the moons of Jupiter and Saturn and said that “the inhabitants are a tall, majestic people.” I’m pretty tall, and at least my wife thinks I can be majestic. And here I was, hiking to the planet Saturn. Thanks, Mrs. White!
Fake news you can trust, eh?
This shirt comes in a variety of sizes and colors (you don’t need neon if you don’t want that color.) My wife Heather also has a nice shirt that says “Ye must be born again” and has the faithsaves.net website on it.
The evangelistic car magnets are also great. (We have had the bumper stickers for a while already.) It is a blessing that if we are in the parking lot at the grocery store, or are stuck in traffic, it means that the people next to us have a chance to come to know the true God and receive eternal life instead of spending eternity in hell. Why should a zillion companies advertise their products on their cars, but believers not evangelize with their cars?
Obviously, God has given us a great deal of liberty within His guidelines of modesty and gender distinction about what we should wear, as long as we do it for His glory (1 Corinthians 10:31). I would encourage you to consider using that liberty to confess Christ and offer the gospel with evangelistic clothing and evangelistic transportation in this desperately needy, hell-bound world.
–TDR
John MacArthur and Evangelical Agnosticism About or Over the Biblical Doctrine of Separation
I write on ecclesiastical separation here because the Bible teaches separation in every book and in some, much more than others. Since separation is inherent in God’s attribute of holiness, I see it as a major doctrine. I also believe it is one of the marks of a true church. For this reason, several years ago now Pillarandground Publishing produced A Pure Church: A Biblical Theology of Perfect Preservation, which exegetes key passages on the doctrine. I have found that evangelicals ignore the doctrine of separation despite its prevalence in God’s Word.
Agnosticism about separation is more than not knowing about it. It is staying ignorant on the scriptural teaching of separation. Evangelicals in general do not talk about separation at all. They act like it doesn’t exist as a doctrine of scripture.
John MacArthur Talks About Separation
Seminary Student Asks about Unity and Separation
In a recent Q and A in a Master’s Seminary chapel, John MacArthur answered a question about separation. Here is the question (at 32:18 in the video, goes to 39:07):
My question specifically is on church unity. I’m interested in partnership in ministry. I was wondering from your example specifically with pastors who would agree on the essentials but not necessarily on important doctrines that aren’t essential. What are some biblical passages or references or biblical principles that have helped you navigate that issue in your ministry well?
Alienating People in the Kingdom?
MacArthur answered:
Well, I think the simple one — that’s a good question — the simple one, is, is the person a true believer? And if the person is a true believer, then the Lord allowed him into the kingdom. And if you’re in the Kingdom, I have to figure out a way to work with you. I mean that’s, that is the simple answer.
I don’t want to alienate people who are in the Kingdom, so if they’re, if you’re a heretic, you deny the Trinity or the deity of Christ or you have some heresy of some kind, or your life is, ya know, got some stains of sin and all that, I don’t want to cooperate with somebody like that.
But I basically am bound. I am already one in Christ with everybody else who’s in the Kingdom. He that is joined to the Lord as one Spirit. We’re all one, so we have to figure out how can I minister with, how can I minister to the people of God. It’s, um, I as a pastor; I would never say to a lay person, “Well your theology is bad; you need to go to another church.” So why would I say that to a Bible teacher or a pastor?
Yoking Together
MacArthur continued:
Years ago I decided I wasn’t going to preach only to the people who already believe everything I believe. What’s the point? So, um, I was criticized, because you know I would be at a conference with someone who believed differently about certain things. I mean, they gave me trouble when I started going to Ligonier conferences over baby baptism and covenant theology and all that. Um, but but again, if they’re going to give me a platform, I’ll take it.
And you know RC actually allowed me to have a debate with him on infant baptism, and it’s available. You can listen to it, and I told him: “You shouldn’t do that RC. You have no chance. There’s not, you can’t find a verse in the Bible about infant baptism. So he said, ‘No I think it’ll be great.’ I said, ‘okay I’m gonna go first because I don’t, I don’t want to have to use the Bible to answer a non-biblical argument.”
So I think what is most important is that you establish your own fidelity to the degree that people don’t question your associations. I mean if I if I’m at Ligonier nobody thinks I abandoned what I believe. If I went over to Jack Hayford’s church and did a pastor’s Conference of Foursquare and Charismatics, nobody felt that I had abandoned my non-charismatic view I’ve got too much in print on that. Um, so if there’s not, and he wanted me to speak on the authority of scripture because he thought that was the weakest part of the ministry of these hundreds of pastors.
Lines He Can’t Cross
Furthermore, MacArthur said,
So again I just think you have to make judgments, but you always want to be gracious and loving and unifying and helpful to others who are in the Kingdom. Now there’s a line at which you can’t cross because someone is blatantly disobedient to scripture that would be, you won’t see me on a panoply of speakers that includes women because that is a total violation of scripture when you have men and women preachers. I can’t do that because I, uh, you know your reputation at that point becomes very muddy. So, um, you know that would be, there would be, other aspects of that too.
Um, somebody who’s so tapped into the culture, that, um, they’re viewed as, um, a problem outside tolerable convictions, I wouldn’t be a part of that. I wouldn’t speak on the same place as Bill Hybels or Joel Osteen. I don’t know about him. I don’t know if he’s a Christian or not, but even if I did, nobody would think I had compromised, because they would know by reputation that I’m going to be faithful to the truth, and they would say, “Why did he have MacArthur?”
An Example
MacArthur finished:
So if you establish your fidelity to scripture it puts you in a position where you can be in a lot of places. If you compromise along the way then, and people are questioning you. I had that conversation with James McDonald one day. It was not a happy one, but I said you just betrayed all the people who have been listening to you for years, but what you did you basically, said to them, “I’m not who you think I am.”
You don’t live long enough to fix that. You don’t get to go back to square one. You don’t hit a reset button. You didn’t like that but it was true so you you get one life at and one shot at this and you don’t want to try to hit a reset button down the road, so it, you have to be very diligent in maintaining your integrity.
Analysis of the Answer
Incoherence
That was pretty much verbatim what MacArthur answered to that question. It was a question about unity and really about separation. Every question about separation or unity is also about the other, unity or separation. The young male seminary student wanted MacArthur to give scriptural support. He did allude to scripture, but he in no way gave a scriptural answer. The answer really sounded like MacArthur had no clue on what the Bible taught about separation.
The only guidance from scripture I heard was the allusion to, a loose paraphrase of, the short sentence in 1 Corinthians 6:17, which says, “But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.” I don’t think that’s a good verse to use. It’s in the context of sexual sin, and Paul is saying that fornicators are bringing God into the activity. Since they are one with God, joined unto Him, their sin associates Him with whatever the sin is or worse. Should John MacArthur bring God to the Charismatic strange fire location? This is a separation passage that shows that we should keep God out of situations. We bring Him when we go.
When MacArthur was done answering, I can’t think that the young man knew what he said. It was incoherent and contradictory as an answer. If I was to interpret it, it was something like, play it by ear with little to no objective standard. Evangelicals cannot, will not, and do not answer questions on separation. The instinct is, don’t separate. Stay together. Look to keep working together, even with doctrinal differences. If MacArthur’s answer was an answer, I don’t think it could stand as legitimate because it was so meandering.
Excuses
I know what MacArthur believes. He’s public on it. That doesn’t give him a pass to associate with and work with whoever He wants. By doing so, He is accommodating someone else’s false teaching. Even if it doesn’t have anything to do with MacArthur, it does have something to do with the one with whom he fellowships. That’s the message of 2 Thessalonians 3:14, “And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.” That is a command to separate from a professing believer. MacArthur doesn’t mention it.
MacArthur excuses not separating by saying there is no point to preaching to people who believe just like you do. Where he preaches the most, his church, believes just like he does. Everyone should preach to people who don’t believe like them. They should do it in evangelism and in doing spiritual warfare with professing Christians. Discipleship requires this. This is entirely different than fellowship with a disobedient brother or yoking together with unbelievers for a common work, like Billy Graham did in his crusades.
Strange Fire
Not long ago, MacArthur said that Charismatics offered strange fire to the Lord. That means they are false worshipers, who imagine a false god. In this answer, MacArthur says, you can go and work with Jack Hayford, the Charismatic, as long as people know who you are. You can speak on a specific topic that Hayford wants and give Hayford authentication while you’re at it. God seeks for true worshipers. That offense to God isn’t enough for MacArthur.
Why is infant sprinkling a lesser deal than women preachers? How much less obvious is infant sprinkling than women preachers? MacArthur says, women preachers, that’s “blatantly disobedient.” He can’t cross that line. Yet, he can cross the line of infant sprinkling. Is it because that’s not blatantly disobedient? Where did infant sprinkling come from? I’m using that as an example. I would be scratching my head if I were a woman preacher.
Not About You
From his answer, John MacArthur sounds like separating is about you, about how well you’ll do in life. In his case, it’s about him. If he associates with someone, will it taint him in some way, so that he will lose effectiveness or opportunity as a servant of God? Separation is not mainly about you. It is first and foremost about God.
Does what God says about separation apply to John MacArthur? God teaches on it. In part two, I’m going to come back and take scripture and apply it to John MacArthur’s terrible answer about unity and separation.
More to Come
Roman Catholicism Versus Protestantism: Candace Owens Show (part three)
Worship, Roman Catholic or Protestant
Differences
Roman Catholic George Farmer debated Protestant Allie Beth Stuckey on the Candace Owens Show. Picking up midway of part two, Owens challenged Stuckey about the silliness in evangelical worship. I see this as a legitimate criticism of evangelicalism, not however a legitimate promotion of Roman Catholicism.
Everything about Protestantism does not not translate to modern evangelicalism. Worship and church growth philosophy are two of these. These relate more to the decaying culture of Western civilization and its effect on the church.
I imagine far less change in the formal tradition of Roman Catholic liturgy than what occurred to Western evangelicalism as an offshoot of Protestantism. Built into the formal liturgy of Roman Catholicism is a dogma of a transcendent imagination of God. Cavernous cathedrals, stained glass windows, robes, huge wood carved lecterns, sacraments, and pipe organs, even removed from sincerity and true spiritual reality, communicate reverence and seriousness more than evangelical practices today. Both are false, just like Judaistic and Samaritan worship had become in Jesus’ time.
Perversions in True Worship
Stuckey could not give a coherent answer to Owen’s criticism of evangelical worship. She doesn’t show understanding of the problem from a biblical or theological perspective. Stuckey made some good points about seeker-sensitive church growth philosophy and its effects on worship. It’s true that when churches become man-centered through strategies of church growth, it corrupts worship. She didn’t seem concerned about the issue, which is normal for evangelicals. Very few care that God isn’t worshiped by their worldly, irreverent, intemperate, lustful music and atmosphere. This shapes a false view of God that undermines true evangelism and biblical sanctification.
God calls on us to worship Him in the beauty of His holiness (Psalm 96:9). Beauty is objective. It is defined by God and His nature and the perfections of His attributes. Modernism, which includes modern evangelicalism, ejects from objective beauty and, thus, true worship of God. This changes the true God in the imagination of the worshipers to a false God. This corrupts worship in a significant way akin to the corruption authored by Roman Catholicism.
The Gospel
John 3:5
Allie Beth Stuckey then asks George Farmer what the gospel is. He starts by talking about baptism and the eucharist, first quoting John 3:5. Farmer says that this verse is explicit for baptism as a necessity for salvation. It reads:
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Farmer points to baptismal regeneration as sola scriptura, using John 3:5 and saying he depends on scripture for his doctrine of salvation. He argues this is salvation by grace, because the child can do nothing. At the moment of baptism, we do nothing, so that must be grace. He says the early church agreed with that argument, and I’m assuming he refers to the patristic testimony for it. Farmer follows the infant sprinkling as a means of salvation by speaking of the avoidance of mortal sin to stay saved. He doesn’t explain that, but that clarifies his view.
Ephesians 2:8-9 and James 2
Stuckey quotes Ephesians 2:8-9 from the ESV. She says his description of salvation is grace plus works, bringing merit or works to it. Stuckey explains the Catholic view of grace as an ability to earn the salvation. She continues with a mention of 2 Corinthians 5:21, that we become the righteousness of God in Christ.
Farmer rebuts Stuckey by saying that the Roman Catholic Church does not believe salvation by works. He compares infant sprinkling to irresistible grace. The child can’t resist. He says that as long as someone doesn’t commit a mortal sin from that point, he will go to heaven. Then Farmer brings in James 2, that God inscribes a person with grace and through works he receives more grace. He interprets James 2 as, you are not saved through faith alone.
Stuckey makes two arguments. She references election, that we’re chosen before the foundation of the world. Then she reinforces Ephesians 2:8-9 again. When Owens pushes back, she explains James 2. It is works that accompany faith, as seen in the context of the New Testament, all the clear passages for faith alone and grace alone.
Baptism and the Lord’s Table
The conversation comes back to baptism for Farmer. He says the person receives grace through baptism, so it is grace by which someone is saved. He quotes Chesterton to say that it is more than a symbol. This was the issue for Farmer for turning Catholic from Protestant. He sees baptism and the eucharist as more than symbols.
Stuckey had good things to say to Farmer, but it did not seem that she participated much in evangelism or apologetics with Roman Catholics. She needed refutations for the proof texts Farmer gave her. She also needed more verses on the contrast between grace and faith and works. Actually, Roman Catholics will almost never argue like Farmer. I can count with one hand out of thousands of Catholics, those who try to defend their beliefs. However, Church of Christ, Christian Church, and others will argue like Farmer or harder. They keep you sharp on the issues of the debate.
Farmer continued later with an explanation of the real presence of Christ in the elements. He said this is the earliest Christian teaching, found again and again in Christian writing. He taught baptism and the Lord’s Table as crucial to his becoming Roman Catholic. It is important to show that Roman Catholic history is not the history of true Christianity. False doctrine and practice already corrupted the church by earlier than the third century.
Final Comments
John 3:5
I don’t know what Stuckey thought about John 3:5. Farmer used it first and she said nothing about it. Many Protestants think “water” in John 3:5 is baptism. Martin Luther and John Calvin thought so, so maybe that’s why Stuckey wouldn’t touch it. Thomas Ross and I both believe it is natural birth, the water being amniotic fluid. In answering Nicodemus, Jesus described the second birth, born first of water and then second of the Spirit. He explains the new birth or being born again. A second birth is necessary, a spiritual one after a physical one. This reads clear to me and a quick exposition of this text would have been better.
James 2 and Romans 4
Stuckey should have dealt with justification, which is a good place to answer James 2. Abraham was justified by faith before God, as seen in Genesis 15:6 and Romans 4:1-6, the latter a good place to explain, also including Romans 3:20. Paul doesn’t mention baptism in Romans 3 through 5. In James 2, works justified Abraham before men, which means they “vindicated” him, another meaning of “justified.” A man shows his faith by his works. James explains this.
Galatians and Hebrews
I also think someone must go to Galatians and Hebrews to talk to a Roman Catholic, especially Galatians 2, 3, and 5, and then Hebrews 9 and 10. A good question to ask a Roman Catholic is if he believes he has full forgiveness of sins throughout all eternity. He should explicate four verses in Hebrews 9-10: 9:27-28, 10:10, 14. Through the one offering of Christ someone is forever perfected and sanctified. These are perfect tense verbs, completed action with ongoing results.
I like Galatians 5 to show that even adding one work to grace nullifies grace. Stuckey could have quoted Romans 11:6, which says if it’s grace it is no more works and if it is works, it is no more grace. Grace and works are mutually exclusive.
Preparation
This encounter between the three participants shows a need for regular evangelism. Stuckey seemed uncomfortable with boldness. She might not be able to be friends with the other two. And then maybe she doesn’t get the kind of show or podcast that she has. I don’t know.
Someone who does not in a regular way confront the lost over their false gospel or false religion may stay unprepared for a difficult occasion. It is hard to keep good arguments in your head if you don’t use them a lot through constant practice. Hopefully, as you listened to this conversation with these three, you were ready to give an answer for the glory of God.
Addenda
I wanted to add one more thing, which I thought about driving somewhere this afternoon. Farmer brought in infant sprinkling as salvation by grace. He said this was scriptural. Stuckey also should have pushed back against infant sprinkling. It’s not in the Bible anywhere. She could have gone to a number of places on this.
Obviously, Farmer could just bring the authority of the Roman Catholic Church, the Pope, and tradition. When you can make it up as you go along, you can believe anything. Not only is infant sprinkling not in the Bible anywhere, but it is refuted by several places. I think of the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts 8, what doth hinder me from being baptized? Philip said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ.” Infants can’t believe in Jesus, so they are still hindered from being baptized. Every example of baptism is believer’s baptism.
Roman Catholicism Versus Protestantism: Candace Owens Show (part two)
Why criticize in particular a debate between George Farmer, Candace Owens’ (Farmer’s?) husband, and Allie Beth Stuckey? On the other hand, why not find better representatives for a debate between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism? I say, George and Allie bring a teaching moment in this controversy. They deal with the issues on more a popular level, something the Daily Wire might appreciate.
Overall Part Two and a Little More Sola Scriptura
I decided this morning to write on part two of the debate because Stuckey’s inadequacy at unmasking false doctrine espoused by George for his Roman Catholicism. By George! Trigger alert. Women should not debate men, but Allie’s unwillingness to fight, to do necessary warfare, hurt the cause. I’m glad for her feminine instinct not to push in an authoritative way over a man. It explains a poor job with a commendable reason.
Overall, Allie Stuckey in the end parked on the two verses: Ephesians 2:8-9. This rescued her contribution with this brief, rare reference to scripture. Someone believing sola scriptura, however, should have reeled off incessant verses, pounding with the hammer of God’s Word. From watching her, one might think her positions don’t have much biblical support. Yet, they do. She just didn’t or couldn’t recall verses to use with Farmer. I saw Owens growing more Roman Catholic by the moment.
Owens started part two of the debate by informing that she got over sola scriptura easily because she couldn’t find it in the Bible. This might relieve her husband and their future relationship. Stuckey then compared the biblical support for sola scriptura to that of the Trinity, that it’s not explicit. This is utterly false. Scripture is explicit that the Bible is the only infallible authority or the ultimate authority for faith and practice. When Stuckey loses on this point, she really does lose the debate, because all the extra-scriptural writing comes into play for Farmer. He then uses this source material for the rest of his defense of Roman Catholic doctrine.
Mary, Mother of God?
Danger with Historical Theology
On the first subject after ending the sola scriptura conversation, Farmer shows the danger of perversion in one’s use of historical theology. He is crafty. He asks Stuckey if she believes Mary is the mother of God? It’s a tricky question. I’m sure the wheels were turning in her head: “Is Jesus God? Yes. Is Mary Jesus’ mother? Yes. So is Mary God’s mother?” It seems like, Yes, might be the right answer. It is a gotcha question.
Farmer said that the Protestants do not reject the Council of Ephesus. Why would Stuckey then do that if she is Protestant? The Council of Ephesus concluded Mary the mother of God. Yes, Reformers have supported the language, “mother of God.” That does not then mean that they receive Catholic teaching on Mary. They go as far as the reception of the hypostatic union of the Divine and human natures in Jesus, the view rejected by Nestorius. The Council then excommunicated Nestorius for heresy.
Excommunication?
As an aside, what gives a council authority to excommunicate someone? Jesus taught that an individual assembly only practiced church discipline, removing someone from that church (Matthew 18:15-17). The council of Ephesus isn’t a church. It was an unbiblical institution with no authority, not following the teaching of Jesus in church discipline.
Nestorianism and Two Natures?
Mr. Farmer teaches error when he says that Christ was one nature. Furthermore, he said, “You don’t want to split the natures of Christ.” Stuckey sat and nodded, yes, to this error. The error of Nestorius was that of “two persons,” that Christ was two persons sharing one body (prosopon), not two natures (hypostasis). Christ had two natures: divine and human. This is not Nestorianism. Christ was one Person with two natures. The hypostatic union is the mysterious joining of two natures in one Person.
Jesus was a Divine Person. When He died on the cross, He was not a finite Person but an infinite One Who could pay for infinite sins for all eternity. He needed to be God to die for all of mankind. By calling Mary the mother of Jesus, they thought they would be undermining the true incarnational teaching of Jesus, so they called her the “mother of God.”
Mother of God Ideas
“Mother of God” emphasized the divinity of Jesus, but it did nothing to extrapolate a divine nature to Mary, an immaculate conception of her, or veneration of her. Even if Reformers and some Protestants today agree with “mother of God” terminology in refutation of Nestorianism, they reject the pendulum swing away from scripture by Roman Catholicism about Mary.
A good book that traces the source of the Catholic version of Mary teaching is The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop. Much Roman Catholic teaching is neo-Platonic and proto-Babylonian. Worship of Mary takes a trajectory from Venus and Astarte, goddesses of Babylonianism.
John Owen and Scripture
The post-Reformation reformed John Owen, no relation to Candace Owens, did not approve of the terminology, “mother of God.” He wished the Council of Ephesus had “forborne it.” He spoke of the miraculous creation of the body of Christ by the Holy Spirit, which was a “fit habitation for His holy soul.” Owen called the Holy Spirit the “active, efficient cause” and Mary the “passive, material cause.” The “material cause” aspect of Jesus’ physical body traces to verses such as Galatians 4:4, “made of a woman,” and “made of the seed of David according to the flesh” (Romans 1:3).
Mary calls Jesus, “God my Savior” (Luke 1:46), and described herself as “the servant of the Lord” (Luke 1:38). This contradicts “mother of God.” True Baptists and New Testament Christianity reject both Catholic and Protestant teaching. Baptists may quote church councils for their history of doctrine, but they reject the notion of church councils. Pope Pius IX took mother of God to a further corrupt extreme when he called Mary sinless in his Ineffabilis Deus in 1854.
Saints and Intercessory Prayer
Saints
Farmer uses the term “saints” in an unscriptural manner. In Ephesians 1:1, Paul writes to the “saints at Ephesus” and he defines “saints” there as “faithful in Christ Jesus,” literally “believing in Christ Jesus.” Anyone with saving faith in Christ Jesus is a saint. This is the famous Granville Sharp rule. “Holy” (adjective, “holy ones”) and “faithful” (adjective) are connected by one definite article (tois). That means “saints” and “believing” (faithful) are the same people. All those in Christ are saints, not some special caste of characters designated such by a state church.
Praying to Saints or Mary
Next, Farmer moves to praying to saints and Mary as a kind of intercessory prayer. These “saints’ and Mary have been given a kind of veneration below that for God, but veneration high enough that Christians should pray to them. I won’t deal with the scripture he adduces in the debate to support this. Scripture does not evince this.
Farmer’s argument is praying to saints equals intercessory prayer. Nowhere in the Bible do we see praying to dead people. The best argument might be the faithless, perverse intercession of King Saul in a seance with the witch of Endor. I’m glad he didn’t use that one though.
I’ve never heard Stuckey’s view of intercession. She spoke of intercession as interceding with a fellow believer for prayer. Intercessory prayer is another believer praying to God on our behalf, not for himself. The intercession is not the asking for prayer. I understand the intercession of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit in prayer. Scripture teaches both of those. On the other hand, the veneration of dead saints and Mary, I see this as blasphemous.
Stuckey does right to quote 1 Timothy 2:5, that Jesus is the one Mediator between God and man. Not only is scripture silent on the mediation of Mary and “saints,” but the Timothy verse repudiates it. Believers, true saints, can pray for one another, but there is no doctrine of earthly ones praying to heavenly ones for them in turn to pray for the earthly ones. I’m sure there is a long explanation for this false doctrine somewhere, but I’ve never read it. I don’t find Roman Catholics usually who can name their seven sacraments, let alone break down why they pray to saints. They stray from scripture a lot, because it isn’t their only authority.
Evangelicals and Modernity Versus Roman Catholics
Candace Owens takes the conversation to the differences between Catholics and evangelicals in their modernity and trendiness. This took off of a little riff by her husband, when he used timelessness as an argument for praying to saints. Owens does not like the direction of the style (what I would call aesthetics) of Protestant evangelicals.
I don’t think Stuckey does great in dealing with the loss of beauty in evangelicalism and why. She doesn’t seem to get it. In my next post, I will come back to this. For awhile, I’ve seen this as one legitimate allure of Roman Catholicism. With all the faults of Roman Catholicism, they emphasize the transcendence of God more than evangelicals. Evangelicals feel proud of their worldliness. The nature of Roman Catholicism keeps a serious nature in line with scriptural worship. Catholics do not worship in truth, a requirement, but they come closer very often in beauty than evangelicals. I know some people who went back to Catholicism for this exact reason.
More to Come
Recent Comments