Galatians 3:6-7 Receive the Promise through Faith, For Abraham Did Likewise

Galatians 3:6-7 Even so Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to Him as righteousness. Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham.

“They are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants” (Romans 9:6-7). The children and heirs of God’s promise to Abraham are those who are of the faith of Abraham. Though most of Israel has rejected the Messiah until this day, the True Israel, those who are the true “sons of Abraham,” have not; for they walk by faith as Abraham did. As Paul makes clear, the true children of Abraham are receive the promise in the same way he did, by faith, not by keeping the Law.

As Paul made clear earlier, nobody will be justified by keeping the Law (Galatians 2:16). This is because the Law was given to make sin obvious to us. The Law was not given to clear us of the sins we commit or the sinful nature which causes us to sin. The Law condemns us, therefore, it does not justify us. This is why the promise to Abraham, as to all who receive the promise given to Abraham, is on the basis of faith in God through Christ, not the Law. So I urge you, dear friend, do not attempt to be counted righteous before God upon your own merits and the keeping of the Law. Rather, accept Christ’s life and sacrifice as your justification and righteousness. This is the only way to please God. Abraham was counted righteous because He trusted in God, the justifier of the ungodly. So it is with all who stand righteous before God. This is the only way to receive the promise given to Abraham.

The promise is that all nations shall be blessed through Abraham (Genesis 18:18). The promise is that the LORD will be the God of Abraham and His descendents; the promise is that they will know God (Genesis 17:8). It is that we will be counted righteous in Christ on the basis of our faith in Him (cf. Romans 4:3-4, 2 Corinthians 5:21). This is the fairest of all promises. There is no greater reward than to know God, for He is the delight of the soul—only He offers infinite blessedness (Psalm 16:11).

But why faith? How is this greater than works? Because God is most glorified in being the giver, not the receiver. That is why Christ offered Himself as the Bread of Life to all who are hungry (John 6:35); the giver of living water to all who thirst (John 4:10; 6:35, 55-56); and the servant of all who will be served (Matthew 20:28). God needs nothing, so He is glorified when He is shown to be all sufficient. That is why He justifies those who trust in Him—because he gets the glory. Do you say that is unfair? What is unfair is how you go on trying to serve the One who needs nothing, how you reject His free offer. Friend, repent of your attempts to justify yourself by the Law, and trust in the God who justifies freely and gives to all who will freely take.

Read more »

Galatians 3:3-5 Since You Received the Spirit through Faith, Continue in Faith

Galatians 3:3-5 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? So then, does He who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?

It is irrational (foolish) to conceive that the Law is a more perfect way than the Spirit; that the Law is a step up from the way of the Spirit. Yet this is the mistake that the Galatians were making. They were stepping back under the Law, though they had begun in the Spirit. For those of you who are computer savvy, they have stepped down from Windows XP to a DOS based operating system (sorry, that was the illustration that came to mind). They were attempting to keep the Law in their flesh—their sinful flesh, rather than walking by the Spirit.

The Galatians knew they had begun their Christian walk by faith, not by keeping the Law. With these two ways in conflict, Paul is making it clear to them that they must choose one or the other. They must either walk by faith in Christ or they must seek to uphold the Law. It is the same way with you, brothers and sisters. If you are a child of God then you started by faith in Christ. You must continue in faith. Do not seek to step back under the Law. Do not be deceived by those who will seek to make you follow a certain system (a lifestyle/ministry, not a doctrinal system, for proper doctrine is essential). You have been justified by faith and so continue in faith—do not attempt to be justified by keeping the Law/religious piety.

As you walk with Christ, you face all sorts of hardships and victories along the way. Through these, God shows Himself to be faithful and merciful to you. It may be good to write these times down in a journal. Take note of these times, for in your times of trouble you may be required to bring them to memory. I know that when I am low spiritually I need to remember God’s faithfulness and providence toward me individually, and through Christ toward mankind. Paul, here in Galatians, seeks to draw forth the remembrances of God’s goodness through the lifetime of faith experienced by the Galatian believers. By bringing God’s acts of faithfulness, especially His works of miracles among the Galatians and the indwelling of the Spirit, Paul hopes to make clear to the Galatians that the life of faith is the only way that God honors.

The Spirit is given by “hearing with faith.” Those who have believed “were sealed in [Christ] with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is given as a pledge of our inheritance” (Ephesians 1:13-14). The Spirit is our pledge from God of our final inheritance and our Comforter now, that we may know God and enjoy Him. Since we have received the Spirit by faith, not by keeping the Law, let us continue in faith, by the grace of God and the help of the Spirit, so that we may continue to know and worship God.

Read more »

Galatians 3:1-2 You Have Received the Spirit, Because You Heard and Believed

Galatians 3:1-2 You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified? This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?

The Galatians had been clearly taught that Jesus Christ had been crucified, and surely they had sufficient evidence. If salvation comes by works of the Law rather than the grace of God, then Christ died needlessly. Thus it is an irrational argument that salvation comes through works of the Law. The Galatians were being foolish; they had been utterly deceived in their thinking. They were not foolish, in that they were unable to know the truth. They were foolish in that they were not flexing their mental/spiritual abilities to discern the truth of the gospel; and thus they gave in to teachings that clearly contradict what they already knew to be true.

Many today live this hypocritical life. They know that Christ died for sins and yet they continue seeking to be justified by their deeds. They believe that being a “good person” is enough to merit God’s favor, and so they neglect to trust in Christ and to follow Him. Do not get sucked into this way of thinking, friend. Christ’s death is the only thing sufficient for meriting God’s favor. Trust Him and follow Him and claim Him to be sufficient.

The only way that we receive the Spirit is by “hearing with faith” in Christ. We do not receive the Spirit by performing the works of the Law. Rather, we live in obedience to God’s Law because we are filled with the Holy Spirit through our faith in Christ. We are regenerated by the Spirit unto belief, and we are indwelt by the Spirit to do the works of God, for which we have been saved (Ephesians 2:10). Paul appeals to this fact with the Galatians. Surely they would remember that they received the Spirit not by keeping the Law, but when they believed in Christ.

It is the same way with you, Christian. Be filled with the Holy Spirit that you might do the works of God. If you mix up the order of this you will become a legalist. You must acknowledge your total dependence upon grace and your need to be filled with the Spirit to act in righteousness. God will not share His glory. If you claim to or attempt to perform the deeds of the Law without acknowledging the Spirit’s work, you rob God of the glory that only He deserves, and you are found a sinner. Trust in Christ, be filled with the Spirit, that you may do the righteous deeds of God.

Read more »

Marriage and the Kingdom of God

Will there be marriage in the resurrection Kingdom of God? Will people who are married (or were married) here on earth be married in heaven? The answer to this is a resounding 'no.'
When asked by the Sadducees (who did not believe in the resurrection of the dead), "'If a man dies having no children, his brother as next of kin shall marry his wife and raise up children for his brother.' Now there were seven brotehrs with us; and the first married and died, and having no children left his wife to his brother; so also the second, and the third, down to the seventh. Last of all, the woman died. In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had married her" (Matthew 22:23-28).
While the direct question is not whether there is marriage in heaven, Jesus answers that question. "In the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven" (Matthew 22:30). While at least gender will, I'd imagine, still exist in heaven, we will be without mates, as the angels are. For those of you who are married (perhaps myself one day), you will not be married to one another in heaven. Think about it, if one of you were to die and the other to remarry, who would be married to whom in heaven? Jesus answers that by saying there is not that state in heaven. We will have perfect communion with one another in the resurrected state--it will be far greater than the communion between married couples today. Though you will probably remember that such and such was your wife/husband, you will not have a special relationship together. Rememberyour vows, it is until death parts you. The only reason we would desire to be married in heaven is because we misunderstand and fail to comprehend just how much greater the communion will be in heaven in our resurrected state with all the saints.
In our resurrected state, we will be like Christ (1 John 3:2). Christ is the last Adam. He was unmarried, and we are created in Him, as we were created in Adam. We will be like Christ in this regard (though Christ is married to the Church, His Bride--thus making us married to Christ, as members of His Bride).
So why marriage here on earth? Well, because it is not good for man to be alone (Genesis 2:18). Men need helpers in this life--women. Only those who are celebate really don't need a personal helper; and yet they still need both female and male companionship. Adam existed in what must have been a less perfect state than we shall be in our resurrected state (for we will reflect Christ, not Adam).
Marriage was given because God had ordained (not caused) the fall. Marriage was given as a mysterious symbol of what was to come--Christ and the Church; which marriage reflects (Ephesians 5:31-32). Marriage is a witness to unbelievers (and to believers as well) of Christ's love and relationship with the Church. It is evangelistic and edificatory. That is why God created the marriage bond. Let no one separate it, for Christ and the Church cannot be separated. To separate a married couple is to go against God's divine purpose and witness.
Marriage is a this-life thing. Though do not fail to see that it is extremely good. Humans are sexual creatures, and I'd imagine in some way (I will not conjecture for it would be foolish as to how) we will continue to be in our resurrected state. Praise be to God!

Read more »

Galatians 2:21 Do not Nullify the Grace of God, For Righteousness Comes Only Through Jesus Christ

Galatians 2:21 I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.

Is it not insulting when you help someone and they offer to pay you for your services? Does it not feel like a price has been put upon your kindness, mercy, or favor? It is like paying someone for sex; there is no love in the act; it is shallow and ignoble. It is the same way if we seek to earn our salvation and to merit God’s favor and our own justification. God gives freely of His grace. He is always the benefactor, we are always the beneficiary. This is the case in every aspect of life; and it is especially clear when it comes to salvation. It is an affront to God when we seek to earn His favor rather than receive His gift freely. This is the grounds upon which Paul makes his case against the legalists who have deceived his beloved Galatians.

God had sent Christ to die so that man could stand justified before Him. Righteousness does not come on the basis of the Law, for all are sinners in need of grace. Righteousness is rather imputed to all who believe in Christ, as Paul elucidates here. If righteousness came through obedience to the Law Christ would not have needed to die, for man could be justified before God upon His own merits. So to claim that Christ’s merits, death, and resurrection are not enough, or that they have no part to play in justification (such as governmental atonement teaches)[1] is abhorrent to God, for in the gospel of Jesus Christ “Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God” (1 Peter 3:18, also see Galatians 3:13). If righteousness can be attained by the Law, God’s predestined plan in sending Christ was stupid. God would be a fool and should be mocked for His lack of foresight and ill-conceived plan. He went way overboard. Christ did not have to die.

This is not the case, however. Man is given Christ’s righteousness upon faith in Christ, for it cannot be attained through the Law. God’s plan was, is, and always will be perfect. Paul is clear in this. If he, or you, or anyone else should seek to add to Christ or to be justified by the Law, then he/she is nullifying God’s grace in his/her life. Take this to heart, Christian. Do not seek to earn God’s favor. I know that we all fail at this, but there is forgiveness in Christ for our belittling of grace. Yet if you continue in this sin unrepentantly, then you will nullify God’s grace in your life. You will give God a vote of ‘no confidence’ and He will not grant you grace. You will prove that your faith was in vain. Those who preach something other than this gospel, righteousness imputed by Christ, not earned by keeping the Law, preach another gospel, as Paul makes clear in Galatians 1:6-9. They are accursed.

Brothers and sisters, do not glaze over this verse or take it lightly. There are many today who claim that they will be justified by good deeds. Such thinking often creeps into our own hearts and seeks to strangle our trust in grace alone. I urge you to repent of this God-denigrating sin. Live out your faith, but know and put your hope in God’s answer to your need for justification: the righteousness of Christ.

---

[1] Charles Finney’s views of the atonement: http://www.gospeltruth.net/1856OE/560730_the_atonement.htm

A definition of governmental atonement: http://www.tulipedia.org/Governmental_Theory_of_the_Atonement

Read more »

Governmental Atonement

This morning in Church, Dr. Schreiner went over Isaiah 52:13-53:12, one of Isaiah's 'Servant Songs.' While looking at this passage, I was really burnt-up inside on an issue that I had recently looked at again: the theory of the governmental atonement of Christ. Governmental Atonement, made popular by Charles Finney, the revivalist, teaches that Christ was not a substitutionary sacrifice for sin, but a representative of the race in perfect obedience to God's moral law and he must "bear the curse of the law--not the literal penalty, but a vast amount of suffering, sufficient, in view of his relations to God and the universe, to make the needed demonstration of God's displeasure against sin, and yet of his love for both the sinner and all his moral subjects," according to Finney.

This teaching is Christ dishonoring and cross belittling. In my opinion, this is an entirely different gospel than that which the apostles preached, which the Church preached and preaches, and which I preach. Isaiah 53:4-6 is one of the clearest passages in Scripture on the atonement. It says,

Surely our griefs He Himself bore, and our sorrows He carried; yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; the chastening for our wellbeing fell upon Him, and by His scourging we are healed. All of us like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; but the LORD has caused the inquity of us all to fall on Him.

This could not more clearly and explicitly convey substitutionary atonement. Christ took the penalty for our sins. He took our iniquity on Himself. Though this may go against logic, that an innocent man, especially God's anointed, could take the punishment due to the one who committed the crime, that is God's way; that is God's wisdom. In doing it this way, God has made the wisdom of the wise foolishness. He has hidden these things from the wise and revealed them to mere infants (see Matthew 11:25-27 and 1 Corinthians 1:18-31). Finney was a worldly-wise lawyer, not a childlike exegete, believing God at His word. Governmental atonement is philosophically sound, not Biblically/theologically sound.

In fact, governmental atonement flies in-the-face of the Old Testament sacrificial system, with scape goats, bulls, and sheep being sacrificied for the sins of the people (though they could not actually propitiate (appease God's wrath and make atonement for sins), they were a fore-picture of the Lamb to come (Hebrews 10:3-4)).

Christ came, and He is worthy, as God's creatures proclaim, because He was "slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation. You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God; and they will reign upon the earth" (Revelation 5:9-10). Christ effectually saved for Himself a people by shedding His blood. "He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and nor for ours only, but also for those of the whole world" (1 John 2:2). As Caiaphas prophesied, "Jesus was going to die for the nation [of Israel], and not for the nation only, but in order that He might also gather together into one the children of God who are scattered abroad" (John 11:51-53).

Christ is "a stone of stubling and a rock of offense" to Governmental Atonement (1 Peter 2:8). Yet He is the chief cornerstone for those who trust in His substitutionary sacrifice (1 Peter 2:7). Christ "Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed" (1 Peter 2:24). There is clear substitutionary purpose in this verse. Our wounds and sins are paid for in Christ. Further Peter says, "For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit" (1 Peter 3:18). The just suffered in the place of the unjust.

The writer of Hebrews says Christ "made purification of sins" (Hebrews 1:3). Christ offered Himself as a sacrifice once for sin, as a perfect High Priest (7:26-28). His death took place "for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed" (9:15). This is because "all tings are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness" (22). He did not need to continually suffer and die, but "He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment, so to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him" (26-27). "We have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all" (10:10). "He... offered one sacrifice for sins for all time.... For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified....Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin" (Hebrews 10:12, 14, 18).

"God made [Christ] who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him" (2 Corinthians 5:21). I heard Billy Graham, a far more Biblical evangelist than Finney, preach on the substitutionary nature of Christ's atonement just last night on television. The doctrine of substitutionary atonement is absolutely clear and irrefutable from Scripture. Governmental Atonement degrades Christ and exults the sinner. It flows from an extreme freewill perspective that "[nullifies] the grace of God" (Galatians 2:21). Christ became "a curse for us," or on our behalf (Galatians 3:13). Only by taking our sin upon Himself do we receive the promise of blessing given to Abraham. Governmental Atonement fails to recognize and teach this, incurring upon itself and its preachers "a stricter judgment" (James 3:1), for this "gospel" is anathema (Galatians 1:6-9).

Read more »

TULIP: The Deadly Flower

For years I have believed in the doctrine of Predestination. It seemed obvious as I read the Bible. I really started to develop in my beliefs and understanding of how the doctrines of grace were interrelated a couple years ago as I studied the necessity of the submission to the Lordship of Christ. Yet, in the past year or so, I have seen no other doctrines that are truly God centered and promote the putting to death of the sinful desires as Biblical "Calvinism." In my friends and in myself, it is these doctrines that uphold the possibility and necessity of submission to Christ, making it clear how it is by grace through faith and yet a working out of our own salvation that saves us (Philippians 2:12-13). These doctrines keep emerging behind all that is Biblical in fighting sin and growing in godliness. I guess those who are opposed to Calvinism are correct: TULIP really is the deadly flower; it roots out and kills sin.

Read more »

Hey Santa...

HEY SANTA! the Wilson Phillips song exclaims. In this song the main character waits for her "baby" to make it home by Christmas as he had promised to do. She wishes with all her might that Santa might just give her husband? a ride on his sleigh back to her, so that he might make it home in time for Christmas. Is that what Christmas is about? Is it just about being with those you love (or lust after?) If so, I have failed to the uttermost. If that is my hope, to be with my family, or especially with that special someone, I am to pitied far more than those couples who are merely unable to get together this Christmas.
Working at Dick's I got to hear all the latest Christmas (or maybe I should call it lack of "Christ" mas) songs. Most of the songs were pretty bad, musically, and yet we listened to them each about once every two hours (or about 4-5 times each in a work day). I don't think there was an employee who actually liked the music to which we were listening; nor was there an employee who didn't have every song memorized. And I cannot remember one single song that was played that had anything to do with Christ (though Wal-Mart's Christmas music all dealt with Christ).
And I can never forget, there is Brittany Spears' song, "Santa Can You Hear Me?" In this song Spears asks the omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent man in the red suit to provide her with a lover because she seems to be the only one without a special someone (well, she's not, I personally don't even have a single prospective someone). Yet Santa cannot provide that. Even if Santa did exist, he's not all knowing, all powerful, or able to be present everywhere to meet everyone's needs and desires. Not to mention that if we truly understood the meaning of good and bad, or naughty and nice, we would realize that their is none who has lived through this year worthy of gifts. Not even Brittany Spears has been good enough.
Or how about Mariah Carey with her song, "All I Want For Christmas?" She's not concerned about presents under the tree or toys in her stocking. As she sings to her "baby" "I just want you for my own, more than you could ever know," and this would make her wish come true. I don't doubt that is the case (if the song were true, but it is just a made up song). However, Christmas in these songs (and all the others; especially "Santa Baby," which was strangely sung by a man) leaves something to be desired. Ah, it's missing a greedy desire for gifts...which most Americans have, but know that they are never satisfied when they receive the gifts anyway (and there were plenty of songs about getting gifts).
Is this what Christmas has come to? Will tons of gifts satisfy us? Is it all about having that special someone by your side? Absolutely not! While I'll be the first to admit how nice that would be, that is not at all what Christmas is about. Rather, Christmas is about the King of Israel, born circa 2000 years ago. This King was born to live a righteous life and die for the sins of all who would follow Him.
You don't believe in the miraculous virgin birth? You do not believe in God incarnate? Where's your evidence against it? I've read the worst blasts against Christianity and the claims about Christ...and I've found they do not measure up. Christian apologetics obliterates the arguments against the Christan gospel. Just seek, and you will find. I'm not saying that we should not give each other gifts, but let us separate that from Christ. Let us celebrate Christ and the giving of the Spirit--the gift of God.

Read more »

Galatians 2:20 You Have Died to the Law, For Christ Lives in You

Galatians 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.

Christian, you are no longer alive to the Law for one reason: you “have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer [you] who live, but Christ lives in [you].” As a wife is not bound to her husband upon his death, so we are not bound to the Law (Romans 7:2-6), for we have died in Christ; we have been crucified to the world and to the condemnation and restraints of the Law. “Do you not know, brethren (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives?” (Romans 7:1) You are to now serve in the newness and liberty of the Holy Spirit, not the oldness of the letter of the Law (for the Law is written upon your heart) (Romans 7:6).

Do not again submit yourself to the Law. You have died with Christ and as such a one you now have liberty in the Spirit. Do not submit yourself to rules such as “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!” (Colossians 2:20-21) Outward restraints do nothing to change the heart—in fact, they usually serve only to provoke our sinful nature (in unbelievers, sinful flesh in Christians) to push the limits and restraints. Such outward rules appear pious, they have “the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body” (2:22-23). However, they have no benefit, because they merely affect our outer-person “but are of no value against fleshly indulgence” in the heart, which is what God judges (23). They only serve to make those who practice them “white-washed tombs.” The only way to fight sin is to set your mind constantly upon heavenly things; upon Christ, and to live out what you truly are: a called child of God (3:1-4).

Because you have died with Christ, you will be raised with Christ (Romans 6:8). Your body and your life is no longer your own (1 Corinthians 6:19-20), but Christ’s, for you have laid it down (Matthew 16:25). Because your life belongs to Christ and it is Christ who lives in you, submit to His desires for your life. In fact, the Christian will ultimately live a life of submission to Christ, for he/she cannot live another way, for the Christian lives by faith in the Son of God, and Christ is living in and through the Christian. A lack of submission in a Christian is clear sign that something is not right—the lifestyle of self-lordship shows a person that he/she is not truly saved. There is no way around this clear Biblical truth.

Rest in this truth, dear child of God: Christ loved you and gave Himself up for you. He has atoned for your sins. In fact, He has atoned for the sins of all your fellow brothers and sisters throughout the whole world (1 John 2:2). Because He has loved you, so love Him and allow Him to live through you without grieving the Spirit. Submit yourself to the Word of God and your conscience as the Spirit leads you (which will never be contrary to the Word of God, if it is the Spirit that is speaking to you). Do not be restrained by what people think of you or of what you should do. Submit yourself fully to God; the love of Christ compels you.

Read more »

Not Rain, Not Sleet, Not Snow...

..lNothing can stop my God. Driving home from work at around 11 (okay, 11:00-11:30--of what is normally a 10 minute drive home), with the roads covered with snow and ice (seriously, snow in-between two layers of ice), i made it all the way to the road outside of the seminary with minor fish-tailing down the road. Turning onto the road that accesses the seminary my car got stuck, like seriously stuck. We weren't going anywhere. So I got out and tried to rock my car to get it some traction...that didn't work much. So I got in, prayed that God would somehow get me going, I put it in first and gunned the engine (my speedometer was reading 35 in first gear, and we weren't moving.) All of a sudden the wheels caught and I started moving, or fish-tailing--either way, we were going somewhere. Disregarding all stop signs I proceeded to turn into the seminary and made it into a parking spot, all the while singing the halleluia chorus. God beats the mailman any day!

Read more »

Galatians 2:19 You Have Died to the Law, So Live in Christ for God

Galatians 2:19 For through the Law I died to the Law, so that I might live to God.

Since the Mosaic covenant under the written Law was imperfect, why would a perfect God give this Law? The Law “was added because of transgressions,” until the fullness of the time when Christ was to come (3:19). The Law was the tutor for those predestined of God for salvation (3:24). It was given to reveal mankind’s sinfulness and to lead them to repentance and ultimately to Christ, the only mediator between sinful man and God (1 Timothy 2:5). The Law itself “is perfect, restoring the soul” unto God (Psalm 19:7). It is mankind that is imperfect. God’s covenant through the Law is not to blame, but mankind in their sinfulness who are unable to keep the Law and so be justified before God by keeping the Law.

As Paul says in Romans chapter seven, sinful passions are aroused by the Law (Romans 7:5). The Law brought to light our covetous hearts and caused them to covet and to sin all the more (Romans 7:7-2). The Law showed sin for what it really is; it showed sin at its ugliest (Romans 7:13). That is why the Law was given. The Law was given so that we might see and comprehend our sinfulness and turn from it.

However, the Law also shows us that we cannot keep the Law, and so need a mediator. The Law itself shows us that sin rules in us and that that sin keeps us from obeying the just demands of the Law. Since we cannot keep the Law, we realize that we must not attempt to be justified by the Law. Thus, through the Law we die to the Law. If we were to attempt to live under the Law we could not be alive to God; for we would not be accepted His mediator, Christ Jesus the Lord. God gave us the Law so that we might see our true condition and see that our righteousness is as filthy rags (Isaiah 64:6) and that we need to be justified by the righteousness of another: Christ Jesus.

Yet in Romans chapter seven, Paul says “you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God” (4). Does this not contradict what Paul says in Galatians, that the “through the Law I died to the Law?” Absolutely not. The Law showed me my sinfulness, it is Christ who opened my eyes. It is through Christ that I died to the Law. Only by Christ’s death was I able to actually die to the Law; otherwise I would still be alive to sin and under the condemnation of the Law. The Law showed me I needed to die; Christ plunged me through His death into my death to the Law and into my life in Him. In Christ I bear fruit and live a life of praise before God; the great end toward which both the Law and Christ strived to affect in me (“so that I might live to God,” and “in order that we might bear fruit for God” (Galatians 2:19b and Romans 7:4b respectively).

So to those of you who are still alive to the condemnation of the Law; who have not yet trusted Christ for the forgiveness of your sins and who do not live for God because you are not in Christ, compare yourself to the Law. Be honest with yourself. You have surely dishonored your parents, coveted, lied, hated others, stolen something, done work on the Sabbath day of rest, and actually broken every single Law. Thus you will stand condemned before the holy Judge of the universe. Repent from seeking to be acquitted by the Law and turn to Christ alone for your justification.

For those of you who are trusting in Christ, remember that you are not under the Law any longer, but are being conformed to the image of Christ. Do not live in sin any longer and prove yourself to be an enemy of Christ. Rather, seek to uphold the Law, as it is written upon your heart. You are not under the condemnation of the Law and its rituals. Live a life of freedom in Christ and pursue righteousness in all you do.

Read more »

Galatians 2:17-18 Those Who are Justified by Faith will Walk in Righteousness, For Christ is not a Minister of Sin

Galatians 2:17-18 But if, while seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have also been found sinners, is Christ then a minister of sin? May it never be! For if I rebuild what I have once destroyed, I prove myself to be a transgressor.

Paul has just made clear that both Jews and Gentiles are justified by faith in Christ apart from the works of the Law. Does this not open wide the flood gates for those who are seeking to be justified by faith to sin? Does not his way of justification lead to antinomianism and people who act in accordance to whatever they desire? And since this way of life has been inaugurated by Christ, is He not the author and founder of both the transgressions and the sinfulness?

Paul’s answer to these objections is a forthright “no!” First, those who are justified by faith in Christ are dead to the world and are no longer enslaved to the desires of the sinful nature. Being saved through faith, believers are now God’s “workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them” (Ephesians 2:10). The believer has new affections as he/she has been reborn of God, regenerated by the Holy Spirit unto life. For now, this will have to answer my questions since I will cover this more in depth in the next couple of days.

Second, those who are justified in Christ will not, in fact cannot, live an antinomian lifestyle. This is absolutely contradictory to the covenant in which they live. In Christ the new covenant between God and His people is realized (Luke 22:20, 1 Corinthians 11:25). God’s promise in this covenant is that He “will put My law within them and on their heart I will write them; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people” (Jeremiah 31:33). Believers in Christ have God’s holy standards written upon their hearts that they may not transgress them any longer. The Holy Spirit teams with their consciences so that they will know what is right and pleasing to God. Thus “‘they will not teach again each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,’ declares the LORD” (Jeremiahs 31:34). This is a far greater covenant than the last, as this form of the Law (written upon the heart) is greater than the Law being written upon tablets and scrolls.

Because they have been forgiven by God (Jeremiah 31:34), those in Christ are “a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come” (2 Corinthians 5:17). These new things are a new heart that is both blameless before God and is upright—or repentant. Believers have liberty in Christ by the work of the Holy Spirit (2 Corinthians 3:17). This liberty given by the Spirit does not, however, lead to sinfulness. Rather, this liberty is from the sinful restraints of disobedience to God and the condemnation incurred under the Law. They now see Christ “with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord” (2 Corinthians 3:18). Beholding Christ gives them liberty and also conforms them to the image of Christ, as they are “transformed into the same image [of Christ] from glory to glory,” by the work of the Holy Spirit (3:18). Thus, Romans 8:29 is fulfilled in believers, not destructed, as they “become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;” and this is the way that God planned it, and it is good.

Finally, if people claim Christ and continue in sinfulness, and if/when believers do transgress the law, Christ is not responsible. Those who claim Christ but do not live in conformity to the Law only prove that the Law is not written upon their hearts. They claim sin has been destroyed in them but then they rebuild what they claim is gone; it is their own fault, it is not Christ’s way of justification that is to be blamed. They have proven themselves not to be partakers in Christ and have shown themselves not to be regenerate, not to have the Holy Spirit, and not to be members of the New Covenant Community.

Christians who transgress will be forgiven (1 John 1:9), for they have an advocate with the Father (1 John 2:1). However, they have rebuilt that which has truly been destroyed within them. That which they have rebuilt upon the foundation of Christ that is sinful will be burned-up on the Day of Judgment (cf. 1 Corinthians 3:10-15). They will suffer loss but will be saved. Christ will not be blamed for their transgressions, as they were not abiding in Him (not in a John 15 sense) and so transgressed against His holy Law. Christ is the author of faith, not of sin (Hebrews 12:2). So I warn you, brothers and sisters in Christ, do not sin, but store up for yourselves treasures in heaven. Walk in holiness so that you may not suffer loss. If you sin, Christ is not to blame, you are. Do not attempt to blame Christ for your evil actions. Because sin has been destroyed in your life, live out what you are: you are one who has been called out by God and sealed for holiness. As for you who merely claim Christ but see no fruit of a repentant lifestyle and the work of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23), do not keep deceiving yourself. God will not be mocked. You will be judged in accordance with your deeds (Galatians 6:7-10). Turn from your wicked ways to Christ and believe upon Him as Lord and Savior; for many will be cast from before the gates of heaven into everlasting pain and darkness because they were workers of iniquity (Matthew 7:21-23).

Read more »

Galatians 2:16 You Are Justified by Faith, So Exclude No One but Love One Another in Christ

Galatians 2:16 “nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.

Continuing his indictment of Peter’s actions, Paul reminds Peter of how both the Jews and the Gentiles were justified: in Christ. The Jews, being under sin (cf. Romans 3:9), were under the condemnation of God and could not be justified by the works of the Law. In fact, “by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.” Peter had made the mistake of favoring the Jews over the Gentiles, probably due to their piety in regard to the Law. Because of this mistake Paul was forced to correct Peter and to remind him that both he and Paul were justified by believing in Christ, not by their keeping of the Law.

Since all are justified “by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law,” nobody has any room to boast; whether Jew or Gentile. We are now one building in Christ Jesus (Ephesians 2:21-22). We must therefore seek to edify one another and the whole Church, for that is to our benefit. We are equal as heirs in Christ, standing on the same foundation of faith in Christ. This is what makes us Christians: faith, not works. If any were justified by works then they would have room for boasting. However, since none are justified by works, no one has the right to boast or to exclude another believer from fellowship.

Let this confidence be in you today, brothers and sisters: that you have been justified by your faith in Christ, not by keeping the Law. You are not able to be justified by keeping the Law for “cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the Law, to perform them” (Galatians 3:10). Remind yourself of this daily, so that you do not become pompous before God and feel that you have any room for boasting before Him. You have been saved by an act of His free grace through the faith that He has given you; and both of these are His gift to you in Christ Jesus (Ephesians 2:8-10). Now that is a Christmas gift!

Let this also guard and rule your relationships with others. Since you have been justified and forgiven before God, your Creator who owes you nothing out of His love for you, so be merciful and forgiving toward others. This especially goes for husbands and wives. When you live with someone, you do not have to look very far to find faults in them. However, as God has overlooked your faults and has actually justified you in Christ, so forgive your spouse and love him/her as God has shown love to you. Do not boast before them of your strengths to emphasize their weaknesses; for remember, you have no room to boast before the ultimate judge. If Christ’s sacrifice was enough to justify you before God, it should be enough in your mind/heart to justify your loved ones.

Read more »

Galatians 2:14-15 Do Not Burden Other Believers, For We Have Liberty in Christ

Galatians 2:14-15 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, “If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews. We are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles;”

Paul had a great concern for the purity of the gospel; his own presentation of it and that of all other evangelists. So when Peter (Cephas) and the other Jews with him failed to present the gospel completely accurate, he confronted their flag-bearer, Peter. Paul knew the necessity of a pure gospel. If the gospel were not presented correctly, it would not come with the power and conviction of the Holy Spirit and would fall dormant upon deaf ears, or would lead only to death as people sought to establish their own righteousness based upon their keeping of the Law.

We can make a vital theological assertion here: the apostles were not infallible in themselves. Rather, the apostles were only infallible when they were writing Scripture, as it is Scripture which comes with the authority of God (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Now, if the apostles (the pillars and foundations of the church—cf. Ephesians 2:20) were not infallible in and of themselves, we should not consider the words of any person, no matter what their prestige and character, an infallible source. This goes for everyone from the Pope to Benny Hinn. We must weigh the words of man against Scripture to find if they line up.

To make his point clear to Peter, Paul turns sarcastic. By nature Paul and Peter are Jews, and so they have the Law. They are not like the Gentiles, living in sin. Rather, they are perfect.[1] So, that being the case, they should not be putting the same conditions upon the sinful Gentiles that they themselves are able to bear because the Gentiles, being sinful, will in no way be able to live by those demands.

As a Jew, however, Peter was not even living by those standards. He was walking in the freedom he received in Christ. This liberty belonged to Peter only in Christ, not under the Law. Peter, as well as all Jews, are condemned as sinners under the Law just as the Gentiles are (cf. Galatians 2:16, Romans 3:9). Paul’s caustic indictment of Peter was sure to lead him to realize that he was saved by grace, not by works, just as the Gentiles. Jews could not keep the Law, so how could they expect the Gentiles to do so? So for Peter, or anyone else to put such burdens upon the Gentile Christians was an outrage to the gospel of Jesus Christ. The Gentiles were given the same freedoms as the Jews.

Let this rule your conduct and speech, brothers and sisters. Do not burden others, especially those less mature in the faith, with things that are not essential to spiritual life and godliness. Teach them the foundations of the faith and how to live a godly life. Remember from where you came (sinfulness) and to where you are heading (everlasting life). Let this be your guide on how you instruct and admonish those of whom you are overseers of whatever degree; whether children, wife, church, or business.

---

[1] It is clear that Paul is being sarcastic about the Jews being without sin because this clearly conflicts with his theology and teaching everywhere else. Cf. Romans chapter 3.

Read more »

Galatians 2:11-13 RejectA Self-Righteous Attitude, For Such Is Opposed to the Gospel

Galatians 2:11-13 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy; it comes in many forms. No one is immune to it, and everyone does it at one time or another to varying degrees. One way in which this occurs is that a person feels superior to others and/or wants to impress others and to be part of some “in group,” and so this person, even after socializing and being part of the non-“in group” for a while will change social habits. To impress the “in group,” such a person may stop interacting with their old friends, they may seek for their old friends to change, or they may act differently toward them, especially when around their new found “friends.” The apostle Peter was doing this, making demands upon the Gentiles, even ones by which he was not willing to live (2:14), and neglecting the Gentile believers, probably due to their lack of status.

Watch yourselves, brothers and sisters, for it is easy to get a self-righteous and pompous head upon your shoulders; especially when seeking to impress others. You cannot seek the honor from God and men (cf. John 5:44). If Peter was not above such sin, then neither are you. Look to the example of Jesus, who humbled Himself and become identified with sinners, even to death upon the cross (Philippians 2:5-11). Jesus was identified with tax collectors, women, and sinners in general; three groups of people who were not popular in first century culture. However, Jesus did not leave them to their sinful ways, but revealed to them the way of Life: Himself (John 14:6). He constantly told them of their need of repentance and sincere faith. This is how you must act, dear child of God. Be willing to be identified with those who are not the most popular (this especially goes for those who are still not yet high school graduates, but affects all of us). This may mean the homeless, addicts, homosexuals, or even adulterers. Be in the world, but do not join in with their wicked ways. This is how you can be light and salt.

Further, consider this. Your sinful ways may, and most likely will, cause others to stumble into sin; especially those who are less mature in the faith. Peter’s example of rejecting and dejecting the Gentile believers led to all the Jewish believers, and even Barnabas’ sin against the Gentiles. Do not think that your sin of self-righteousness will go unnoticed and will not affect others and give them a stumbling block. That is not the case. Many will take notice, and like the example that Paul gives us, they will follow your lead and the Body of Christ, the Church, will grow divided.

Let us not look at Peter’s failure here only, however. Let us look at Paul’s example. When Paul noticed Peter in sin, he rebuked him. And notice how he rebuked Peter: to his face. Paul went to Peter, he did not make a big scene and a big fuss over it. He approached him, no doubt in love, and confronted Peter’s error and called him to repentance. Take this as your example of how to approach and confront a brother or sister in sin (see Matthew 18:15-17 for proper discipline tactics). Openly rebuke him/her (Proverbs 27:5), but in a one on one fashion. Do this for his/her benefit and for the benefit of the Body. Correct them in gentleness and a prayerful attitude. Let love rule you. And always remember, you are doing this for God’s glory alone and for the benefit of the Body of Christ.

Read more »

Practical Atheism

This morning (Wednesday, December 15, 2004) I was contemplating the song by Filter, Hey Man Nice Shot,[1] and its meaning and relevance. This song is about R. Budd Dwyer, the Pennsylvania Treasurer who after being caught and found guilty on 11 Federal charges of receiving $300,000 in bribes, committed suicide on live television. Dwyer had pulled a .357 magnum from a manila envelope and warned those in the room, I would assume mostly the press, to stay away so that they would not get hurt. After doing so, he put the gun to his mouth and committed suicide.[2] He did all of this for $300,000 which he did not really get to enjoy.

I do not know what sentence Dwyer would have faced, but was that really worth the $300,000; was $300,000 worth his life? Sin (greed) had corrupted this man. His sinful flesh (and possibly demonic powers) lied to Dwyer and convinced him that he had to have the money. While I cannot pass judgment upon Mr. Dwyer, I can say that his actions were ones that are a clear case of practical atheism: or living in actions as if there is no God.

Jesus addressed this issue straight forward.[3] Here are Jesus words to the lost and to all who desire eternal life:

And He summoned the crowd with His disciples, and said to them, “If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel’s will save it. For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and forfeit his soul? For what will a man give in exchange for his soul?” (Mark 8:34-37)

Let us notice a few things here, because, as is evident, practical atheism is far too common among those who claim to be “Christians,” especially in the United States.

First, Jesus was addressing two groups of people here: the crowd and His disciples. This command of Jesus then clearly applies to two groups of people: the lost, or those without Christ (the crowd), and those who are following Jesus and are saved (the disciples). There is absolutely no way around this without committing an exegetical fallacy; in other words, Lordship Salvation is clearly taught in this text. The demands of what Jesus is saying apply to those who are first hearing the gospel and desire to believe upon hearing it, and to those who have been walking with Christ. This text clearly teaches a one level view of Christianity, not a “Catholic,” or two level view of Christianity (there is no varsity and junior varsity Christianity; there is no moral demand for those who want to be “merely saved,” and a higher demand for those who wish to live a higher, more blessed level of Christianity.)

Second, all must die to themselves and their desires, or “take up his cross and follow Me,” Jesus says. This means counting all our own righteousness (Philippians 3:4-11) and all our own covetous, self-seeking desires as loss. We must submit to Christ as Lord; that is the only real outcome of faith (cf. James 2:17 Ephesians 2:10). Faith, by necessity, produces works (the kind of faith you have determines the kind of works you will produce—cf. Matthew 7:15-20).

Third, Jesus gives a reason why people are to submit to His Lordship: there is no real gain if we choose to follow our own ways. If we do not follow Christ, we will be judged and cast into hell; losing everything we ever worked for anyway. We are all going to die, so we will leave earthly possessions here, and we will face eternal punishment for our galactic treason. As Jesus says, “He who loves his life loses it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it to life eternal. If anyone serves Me, he must follow Me; and where I am, there My servant will be also; if anyone serves Me, the Father will honor him” (John 12:25-26). The Father only honors (with eternal life; a.k.a. knowing God) those who follow the Son and are identified with Him. It would not benefit someone to deny the Son and to lose his soul, even if he gained the whole world and everything in it. You cannot make a trade with God. You cannot trade money and riches, or even your own righteousness to God for eternal life.

So how does this relate to practical atheism? Well, those who deny Christ with their actions are still denying Him. They are trying to save this life, not considering eternity and the coming judgment. They are living for themselves, and like Budd Dwyer, do not fear the consequences of their actions. They seek momentary comfort at the loss of everlasting blessings. This is why a gospel and a life that does not commit itself to the Lordship of Jesus Christ absolutely fails. Such is another gospel than that of Jesus Christ (Galatians 1:6-9).

Those who are living as practical atheists, whether they claim Christ nominally or not, still fear man, not God. They say in their hearts, even if they will not say it openly, “there is no God,” as their deeds prove they believe (Psalm 14:1). This is absolutely an epidemic in America. Practical atheism is as despicable, if not more, than nominal atheism. At least nominal atheists are not complete hypocrites (they act in accord with what they claim). Thus my warning to you, brothers and sisters, out of complete love for you, is to submit to Jesus Christ as Lord, and seek to do so every moment, and to preach the Gospel of the Kingdom of God (a.k.a. the Lordship of Christ). If you live as a practical atheist, you will face the consequences, so I urge you, I implore you with all my heart, repent and believe the gospel!

---

[1] http://www.lyricsfreak.com/f/filter/53577.html

[2] http://www.petdance.com/actionpark/rapeman/budd/

[3] I was going to put in “point blank,” but I felt that might be construed as a crude pun.

Read more »

What Makes Evangelical Theology "Evangelical"?

What makes evangelical theology “evangelical”? More basically, what is “evangelicalism”? Is it important to know what makes evangelical theology “evangelical”? If theology is of any real value to evangelicalism, what should it look like? Is theology itself important?

Though Alister McGrath contends that evangelicalism today is concerned with theological purity,[1] it seems that R. Albert Mohler and David Wells’ diagnoses that evangelical theology is ill-defined and fringe is probably correct:

It is not that the elements of the evangelical credo have vanished; they have not. The fact that they are professed, however, does not necessarily mean that the structure of the historic protestant faith is still intact. The reason, quite simply, is that while these items of belief are professed, they are increasingly being removed from the center of evangelical life where they defined what that life was, and they are now being relegated to the periphery where their power to define what evangelical life should be is lost.[2]

Despite the disagreement upon evangelicalisms current state, the consensus of scholars agree upon the importance of theology. However, none puts it quite as well as David F. Wells:

We all have our theologies, for we all have a way of putting things together in our own minds that, if we are Christian, has a shape that arises from our knowledge of God and his Word. We might not be conscious of the process. Indeed, we frequently are not. But at the very least we will organize our perceptions into some sort of pattern that seems to make sense to us. The question at issue, then, is not whether we will have a theology but whether it will be a good or bad one, whether we will become conscious of our thinking processes or not, and, more particularly, whether we will learn to bring all of our thoughts into obedience to Christ or not.[3]

Understanding the nature of evangelical theology is important primarily because evangelicalism is a movement within Christendom, not a specific denomination defined by creeds. Those within evangelicalism must understand what they believe and therefore what makes them evangelical. If they fail to comprehend this, evangelicalism as a movement will be void. Since those known as evangelicals are some of the main proponents of the furtherance of the gospel of Jesus Christ, if evangelicalism loses its purpose and self understanding major setbacks could occur in the proselytization of all the peoples of the world.

When seeking to understand what makes evangelical theology “evangelical,” one is faced with endless views and differing understandings of the history and origins of evangelicalism. Understanding the history and origin of the movement is what leads to the final conclusions drawn by each party. As Gregory Boyd and Paul Eddy comment, “There is, of course, no universally accepted definition of ‘evangelicalism.’ Evangelicals themselves express strong disagreements over this matter.”[4] They are correct in saying this. Here a will mention three understandings of what the basis is for developing evangelical theology.

One view, advocated by J.I. Packer and Thomas Oden, sees there to be a good deal of consensus among evangelicals. In their view, evangelicalism is defined as follows: evangelicalism is the body within Christianity that agrees that God has given the Gospel, which has always been His eternal plan and has come with His power. This has been revealed in The Bible, the sixty-six books that compose the Old and New Testaments, which is divinely inspired and comes with God’s authority, is the completed revelation of God, is sufficient, inerrant, and infallible, and is Christocentric. [5] Francis Schaeffer claims that belief in inerrancy of Scripture and claiming to be Christian necessarily went together until recently.[6]

Evangelicals are those who believe in the unity, distinction, and equality of the Triune God, and believe that He is sovereign over all, creator of all, infinite, uncreated, loving, and the judge of all. They believe humans are created both male and female in God’s image, yet are

sinful and face the wages of sin, death and separation from God. Humans are rebellious and lost in a depraved state of sin in which they are unable to please God, and they under God’s condemnation. In this state of sinfulness, humankind transgresses God’s holy standard.[7]

They also hold that evangelicals believe in the full deity and humanity of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and His unity and perfection in these natures. Christ gave His life as a sacrificial/substitutionary death to save all who trust in Him alone. He rose from the dead physically, in a glorified body and has ascended to the right hand of God the Father where He makes intercession for His own until He returns to judge the earth and fully establish His kingdom. Those who trust in Christ are saved by grace alone through faith alone, as Christ takes the penalty of their sins and they receive Christ’s righteousness. They are those who are reborn, who repent of sin, and receive the release from the bondage of sin and the adoption as heirs of God. Those who trust in Christ are saved past, present, and future from sin and death. Christ is the one way to heaven and the only mediator between God and man.[8]

Evangelicals believe that the Holy Spirit is coequally God and applies the work of Christ. The Spirit indwells believers and gives them new life and is their assuring witness that they are Christ’s. Through the Holy Spirit Christians are in a process of continual sanctification through their lives, as they are called to live holy lives. The Spirit imparts gifts to all believers and gives them the ability to overcome the enemy.[9]

Believers are to fellowship corporately in the unity of the Gospel as the Church, the body and bride of Christ, to worship and observe His ordinances. Believers are to be socially responsible and to tell all the peoples of the world about salvation and judgment. They await the return of Christ and the hope that is to come at His return, when the dead will be resurrected, the believers unto eternal life and the unbelievers to eternal damnation.[10] At the least, evangelical theology is rooted in the Protestant Reformation and is marked by the five solas: “sola Scriptura, which means ‘Scripture alone’; solus Christus, which means “Christ alone”; sola gratia, which means ‘grace alone’; sola fide, which means ‘faith alone’; and soli Deo Gloria, which means ‘glory to God alone.’”[11] Thus, evangelical theology is any theology that is in line with these doctrinal tenets.

Another view is one that takes a more minimal approach to who is defined as evangelical. In this view, the evangelical audience holds that Scripture is the final arbitrator of theological truth, though not necessarily the inspired, authoritative, inerrant word of God. However, evangelicals can have disagreements on God’s providence and foreknowledge, whether Christ relinquished His divine prerogatives when He became human, whether hell is unending torment or annihilation, and on the atonement of Christ (penal substitution, the destruction of Satan and his work, or moral government atonement).[12]

This view appears to stem out of the National Association of Evangelicals’ attempt to facilitate unity among conservative Protestants. It seems to work merely off of Carl F. H. Henry’s simplistic view that evangelicalism consists of all those who believe the gospel consists of “an acknowledgement of human sin, redemption through Christ, and the need for conversion.”[13] Under this view of evangelicalism, any view that falls within these loose parameters, from Open Theism, N.T. Wright’s views on Paul’s theology of justification, and Charles Finney’s rejection of original sin[14] to Calvinism and Lordship Salvation, is considered to be in the realm of evangelical theology.

A third view is that of Karl Barth. Barth recognized evangelical theology as coming out of both the New Testament and the Protestant Reformation. However, evangelical theology is “primarily and decisively” Biblical. “Such theology intends to apprehend, to understand, and to speak of the God of the Gospel.” [15] “Evangelical theology is modest theology, because it is determined to be so by its object [God], that is, by him who is its subject.” Such theology cannot boast that it is the only correct theology. Rather, it is dependent upon human existence, faith, and reason. It is seeking to know God through His deeds in history, though He is not an “absolute” God. This God “exists neither next to man nor merely above him, but rather with him, by him, and most important of all, for him.” “It is concerned with God as the God of man, but just for this reason, also with man as God’s man.”[16]

As has been demonstrated above, it is extremely hard to develop a clear definition of evangelicalism for a number of reasons. One reason is that there is no consensus among leading scholars as to what issues are important for evangelicalism to define and require for membership. A second reason it is so hard to clearly identify evangelicalism is that there is no official membership that makes a person or a group evangelical. Though there are many groups within the bounds of evangelicalism, such as the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals and the Evangelical Theological Society that meet to discuss issues facing modern Christianity, there is no unifying governing body that decides and enforces the standard for evangelicalism.[17] Rather, evangelicalism is a movement, a “coalition”[18] of people, groups, and denominations that claim to be conservative Christian. Since it is a movement, as Roger Olson says, evangelicalism should be defined by its core, not its boundaries.[19]

Because evangelicalism is not a denomination held together by creed, but a movement, a multi-denominational/interdenominational fellowship held together as a loose confederacy, evangelicalism is not concerned with issues of church polity, how the sacraments are observed, the role of women in ministry, eschatology, or traditional Arminian and Calvinist topics. Rather, in accordance with what seems to be the modern usage of the word “evangelical” by pollsters, [20] I have concluded, on the basis of the many views of evangelicalism (rejecting Karl Barth’s views) that the definition of what binds evangelicalism together and gives a standard by which evangelical theology is to be measured is as follows. Evangelical theology is theology that sees the Bible as being inspired by God and the final arbiter for faith and practice. Evangelicals believe in the Triune God, and that Jesus is God incarnate and the only way for salvation. They believe that man is sinful and that salvation from sin comes only by God’s grace through a conversion experience that brings them into Christ. In light of this, evangelicals view evangelism and missions as necessary to bring people to salvation.

How one defines evangelicalism comes out of two presuppositions. The first is what is considered to be the accepted history of evangelicalism. The second is how we should view evangelicalism today, or what etymological evolution has occurred. According to Michael Horton, “evangelicalism has traditionally had pretty wide boundaries,” as it came out of the reformation and accepted both Wesley and Finney.[21] If this is accepted, and today evangelicalism responds in the same way by keeping its boundaries wide, then this minimal theological consensus is rightly sufficient.

I however, believe that evangelicalism needs to be defined further if it is to be a movement that has any theological thrust behind it and is not merely superficially cohesive. There is much debate and disagreement today in evangelicalism about issues such as open theism. Issues such as this could cause great divisions in evangelicalism that could keep evangelicals from supporting one another when it comes to proselytizing. If such occurred, evangelicalism would fail to be “evangelical,” since the movement was developed for the purpose of defending and propagating “the essential truths of the Bible.”[22]

It seems to me that evangelicalism needs to be defined by the view held by Packer, Oden, and Boice outlined above. Evangelicalism needs to reform its theology if it is to continue with its task. It needs to not only make merely converts to Christianity, but rather disciples, “teaching them to observe all” that Jesus has commanded and taught them (Matthew 28:19-20). People in the movement could be confused by the doctrinal dissensions and differing views and the splits that occur because of them; especially with issues such as open theism. For this reason, those who take the orthodox views on God’s sovereignty and immutability and on justification need to further define evangelicalism to exclude the views that diverge from classical orthodoxy, or they need to separate from evangelicalism and take on another name and establish a more clearly defined movement.

Objections:

The first objection is that Alister McGrath, a proponent of this view, “suggests that correct evangelical theology can only be found in the Reformation and consequently, it is this theology that will preserve evangelicalism.”[23] However, such a view would force many evangelicals to denounce their theologies or to no longer be included as evangelical. “The assertion that evangelicalism is tied to the Reformation suggests that all evangelicals everywhere should share the same convictions.”[24] “McGrath’s version of evangelical identity would include among the core commitments a Reformed accent that stands in some tension with… transdenominationalism (which really seems to mean “transconfessionalism”).”[25] This view would make it difficult, if not impossible for there to be any significant diversity within evangelicalism.

A second objection is that if evangelicalism is to survive postmodernism, according to Stanley Grenz, it must leave its “epistemological foundationalism” views. Grenz defines foundationalism as “the acknowledgment of the seemingly obvious observation that not all beliefs (or assertions) are on the same level; some beliefs (or assertions) anchor others.” Foundationalist theology conceives human knowledge as being built upon a foundation and built up like a building.[26] In Grenz’s view, an evangelical theology that is based upon foundationalism, such as the theology of the reformation, should be rejected. Citing William James, Grenz claims “truth is made, just as health, wealth and strength are made, in the course of experience.” This is because there is no “universal human reason,” reason is “person specific” and “situation specific.”[27]

In Grenz’s view, there are three determining factors which evangelicalism must use to develop its theology: the community, Jesus Christ and the Triune God, and eschatology. Theology must be developed within the community of believers because theology is a conversation. “Not only is theology a conversation, it is a specific conversation. Viewed from the conversational perspective, theology is the ongoing process whereby participants in the faith community together seek to articulate what ought to be the Christian belief-mosaic.” The Church must decide together what the Christian meaning of the text is for the community. The central interest of Christian theology is God: “the Father and creation; the Son and reconciliation; and the Spirit, redemption, and consummation.” This must all be worked together in the final motif: eschatology. Christian theology “speaks of the God who is bringing creation to its divinely intended goal.”[28]

A third objection is raised by D.G. Hart, as he responds to the evangelical theological dilemma with this solution: “Instead of trying to fix evangelicalism, born-again Protestants would be better off if they abandoned the category [of evangelicalism] altogether.” He asserts that “evangelicalism is largely a constructed ideal without any real substance.” [29] He claims it is merely “an abstraction created to bring together a variety of different Protestants for certain religious and social ends.” According to Hart, “evangelicalism as a religious identity is at best vague and at worst hollow.” If evangelicalism was abandoned as a religious label, there “might be a better recognition of the fullness of Christian teaching.” [30]

Hart’s view seems to coincide with that of William Abraham who says evangelicalism is an “essentially contested tradition.” Abraham notes that it is the common practice in evangelicalism “to define evangelicalism by drawing ‘up a list of essentials or fundamentals that are the essence or heart of the tradition.’” According to Henry Knight, “This approach is not so much wrong as superficial. It fails to recognize within the evangelical tradition an ‘intense debate and contest about how best to develop and explain its essential ingredients.’”[31] If Knight is correct, and this is merely superficial, then perhaps Hart is correct in deconstructing and advising his readers to throw out the label “evangelical” rather than seeking reform.

Defense:

In reply to the first objection, “The assertion that evangelicalism is tied to the Reformation suggests that all evangelicals everywhere should share the same convictions. This assertion simply cannot be supported since the Reformation was a response to the context of its time. Simply rooting evangelicalism in the Reformation negates the fact that evangelicals share the same history as the rest of Christendom.”[32] By rooting evangelicalism in the Reformation, it is given a strong foundation upon solid, classical orthodox Christian beliefs. The Calvinistic assertions of the Reformation do not have to be criteria for defining evangelicalism, as Packer’s and Oden’s assertions do not consider such issues as how far God’s sovereignty in salvation extends.

Evangelicalism needs a solid Biblical framework from which to grow and mature. As Alister McGrath himself says, “Christian theology is under an obligation to pay respectful and obedient attention to the biblical testimony and allow itself to be shaped and reshaped by what it finds expressed there. Theology therefore has both catechetical and apologetic facets, just as it has immense relevance to spirituality and ethics.”[33] The theological precepts that have been put forward above by Packer, Oden, and Boice set up a feasible basis in which evangelicals can confidently work toward these ends.

This basis for evangelicalism gives a good framework in which evangelicals can converse about theological issues with a clear understanding of what is acceptable and unacceptable. Such conversation could help both sides of doctrinal issues to get a better rounded view and to gain a holistic Biblical theology. As Ronald Mayers asserts, “Orthodoxy, has usually been, and should always be, determined by the balance that the Bible indicates in the various doctrinal issues that the church must explain and elucidate to her members. This has not always been the case in American evangelicalism and fundamentalism.”[34] This lack of balance and theological arrogance, when a lack of balance is such, shows the flaw in the sinful conversants, not the theological framework.

In response to objection three, the movement of evangelicalism is not really the problem. Evangelicalism is “rooted in Reformational theology, Puritan-type pietism, and eighteenth- and nineteenth-century ideals of evangelistic outreach,”[35] to which it needs to return.

It seems that R. Albert Mohler is correct when he states that “evangelicalism in the 1990s [and the twenty-first century for that matter,] is an amalgam of diverse and often theologically ill-defined groups, institutions, and traditions. The older evangelical concern for individual religious experience has often been asserted at the expense of theological clarity.” “Although early evangelicalism was never monolithic, its essential core was well established.” “Evangelical integrity is essentially tied to evangelical conviction.”[36]

It seems that Wells, Mohler, and Boice are correct that evangelicalism has let down its “theological defenses,”[37] theological concern has disappeared in modern evangelicalism and “has been dislodged from its center,”[38] and the void that has formed is being filled by everything from postmodern thought to feminism. Evangelicalism needs to be well defined, not eliminated. It needs to allow for imaginative theology, [39] but it does not need to be held captive by ill-definition and heresies.

“Evangelicals have always been ‘Bible people.’ Evangelicalism typically has championed excellent preaching, personal Bible study, general biblical literacy—all in the name of the unique authority of the Bible for our belief and practice.”[40] For evangelicalism to continue in this great tradition, it needs to have a well defined theological framework. Evangelicals need to be clear and in agreement with one another on central issues dealing with God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, Salvation, and the role of the Church. However, as J.I. Packer asserts, “It is vital to realize that truth is for people, and therefore, the pastoral function of theology is ultimately primary [for evangelicalism].”[41] That is what makes evangelical theology truly “evangelical.”

---

[1] Alister McGrath, “Evangelical Theological Method: The State of the Art,” in Evangelical Futures: A Conversation on Theological Method, ed. John G. Stackhouse, Jr., (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000), 17-20.

[2] David F. Wells, No Place for Truth: Or Whatever Happened to Evangelical Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1993), 108.

[3] Ibid, 3.

[4] Gregory A. Boyd and Paul R. Eddy, Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002), 7.

[5] James I. Packer and Thomas C. Oden, One Faith: The Evangelical Consensus, (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2004), 35-57.

[6] Francis Schaeffer, The Great Evangelical Disaster (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1984), 45.

[7] Packer and Oden, 58-70.

[8]ibid. 71-92, 130-146

[9] ibid. 93-110

[10] ibid. 111-129, 147-159

[11] James Montgomery Boice, What Makes a Church Evangelical? (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1999), 17.

[12] Body and Eddy, 3-4, 7.

[13] D. G. Hart, Deconstructing Evangelicalism: Conservative Protestantism in the Age of Billy Graham (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2004), 24-25.

[14] John H. Armstrong, True Revival: What Happens When God’s Spirit Moves? (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2001), 185.

[15] Karl Barth, Evangelical Theology: An Introduction (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963), 5.

[16] Ibid. 6-12.

[17] D.G. Hart, 177.

[18] Ibid. 186.

[19] Modern Reformation Magazine, “The Nature & Future of Evangelicalism: A Dialogue Between Michael Horton and Roger Olson,” (2003), section 4 [on-line]; accessed 9 November 2004 available from http://www.modernreformation.org; Internet.

[20] Hart, 176.

[21] [21] Modern Reformation Magazine, section 3.

[22] Hart, 30

[23] Michael Cooper, . “What Is, and Who Defines, Evangelical Christianity?”, (2003), Alister McGrath [on-line]; accessed 9 November 2004; available from http://www.opensourcetheology.net; Internet.

[24] ibid., Weaknesses of an Evangelical Identity Based Upon the Reformation.

[25] Roger E. Olson, “Reforming Evangelical Theology, in Evangelical Futures: A Conversation on Theological Method,” ed. John G. Stackhouse, Jr. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000), 204.

[26] Stanley J. Grenz, . “Articulating the Christian Belief-Mosaic: Theological Method after the Demise of Foundationalism,” in Evangelical Futures: A Conversation on Theological Method, ed. John G. Stackhouse, Jr., 107-136, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000), 110.

[27] Ibid., 115-120.

[28] Ibid., 120-121, 130, 134.

[29] Hart, 16-17.

[30] Ibid. 187-88.

[31] Henry H. Knight III, Future for Truth: Evangelical Theology in a Postmodern World, (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1997), 17.

[32] Cooper, Weaknesses of an Evangelical Identity Based Upon the Reformation

[33] Alister McGrath, “Engaging the Great Tradition: Evangelical Theology and the Role of Tradition,” in Evangelical Futures: A Conversation on Theological Method, ed. John G. Stackhouse, Jr., (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000), 139.

[34] Ronald B. Mayers, Evangelical Perspectives: Toward a Biblical Balance, (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, Inc., 1987), 1

[35] James I. Packer, “Maintaining Evangelical Theology,” in Evangelical Futures: A Conversation on Theological Method, ed. John G. Stackhouse, Jr., (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000), 183.

[36] R. Albert Mohler Jr., ““Evangelical”: What’s in a Name?” in The Coming Evangelical Crisis: Current Challenges to the Authority of Scripture and the Gospel, ed. John Armstrong (Chicago: Moody Press, 1996), 31-32, 36.

[37] Ibid. 36

[38] Wells, 106

[39] Trevor Hart, “Imagining Evangelical Theology,” in Evangelical Futures: A Conversation on Theological Method, ed. John G. Stackhouse, Jr., (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000), 192-200.

[40] John G. Stackhouse Jr., “Evangelical Theology Should Be Evangelical,” in Evangelical Futures: A Conversation on Theological Method, ed. John G. Stackhouse, Jr., (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000), 46.

[41] James I. Packer, “Maintaining Evangelical Theology”, 184.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS

Armstrong, John H. True Revival: What Happens When God’s Spirit Moves? Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2001.

Barth, Karl. Evangelical Theology: An Introduction. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963.

Boice, James Montgomery. What Makes a Church Evangelical? Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1999.

Boyd, Gregory A. and Paul R Eddy. Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002.

Grenz, Stanley E. “Articulating the Christian Belief-Mosaic: Theological Method after the Demise of Foundationalism.” In Evangelical Futures: A Conversation on Theological Method, ed. John G. Stackhouse, Jr., 107-136. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000.

Hart, D. G. Deconstructing Evangelicalism: Conservative Protestantism in the Age of Billy Graham. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2004.

Hart, Trevor. “Imagining Evangelical Theology.” In Evangelical Futures: A Conversation on Theological Method, ed. John G. Stackhouse, Jr., 191-200. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000.

Knight, Henry H. III. Future for Truth: Evangelical Theology in a Postmodern World. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1997.

Mayers, Ronald B. Evangelical Perspectives: Toward a Biblical Balance. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, Inc., 1987.

McGrath, Alister E. “Evangelical Theological Method: The State of the Art.” In Evangelical Futures: A Conversation on Theological Method, ed. John G. Stackhouse, Jr., (15-37). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000.

McGrath, Alister E. “Engaging the Great Tradition: Evangelical Theology and the Role of Tradition.” In Evangelical Futures: A Conversation on Theological Method, ed. John G. Stackhouse, Jr., 139-158. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000.

Mohler, R. Albert, Jr. ““Evangelical”: What’s in a Name?” In The Coming Evangelical Crisis: Current Challenges to the Authority of Scripture and the Gospel, ed. John Armstrong, 23-44. Chicago: Moody Press, 1996.

Olson, Roger E. “Reforming Evangelical Theology.” In Evangelical Futures: A Conversation on Theological Method, ed. John G. Stackhouse, Jr., 201-207. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000.

Packer, James I.. “Maintaining Evangelical Theology.” In Evangelical Futures: A Conversation on Theological Method, ed. John G. Stackhouse, Jr., 181-189. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000.

Packer, James I. and Thomas C. Oden. One Faith: The Evangelical Consensus. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2004.

Schaeffer, Francis. The Great Evangelical Disaster. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1984.

Stackhouse, John G., Jr.. “Evangelical Theology Should Be Evangelical.” In Evangelical Futures: A Conversation on Theological Method, ed. John G. Stackhouse, Jr., 39-58. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000.

Wells, David F. No Place for Truth: Or Whatever Happened to Evangelical Theology? Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1993.

INTERNET

Cooper, Michael. 2003. “What Is, and Who Defines, Evangelical Christianity?” Retrieved 9 November 2004 from http://www.opensourcetheology.net/node/72?PHPSESSID=5dda853f35a58ea8322d502 3b31e432f; Internet.

Modern Reformation Magazine, 2003. “The Nature & Future of Evangelicalism: A Dialogue Between Michael Horton and Roger Olson.” Retrieved 9 November 2004 from http://www.modernreformation.org/mhro03dialog.htm; Internet.

Read more »