Your life hangs on how you relate these two statements:
Do you experience the first one weakening the second?
Or do you experience the first one joyfully empowering the second?
Your life hangs on your answer.
– by John Piper , via Missio Dei Suburbia
by Douglas Wilson
We join a conservation in progress; it is between a young theological questioner who grew up in a typical Evangelical church, and an older pastor from a more historical theological tradition.
“Look,” I said, “I have heard you mention that many Christians don’t study their Bibles. Were you saying that anyone who disagrees with you on this question of God’s sovereignty hasn’t done his homework?”
Pastor Spenser shook his head. “No, I’m not saying that at all. I’m saying that, in my experience, most of them have not.”
“But you would agree that there are fine Bible scholars who differ with you on this?”
“That depends on what you mean.”
“What do you mean?”
“There are men who are fine Christians who do not understand this truth. There are men who are fine scholars who differ with it. But when they dispute this truth, in certain key passages, there is an unfortunate lapse of their scholarship.”
“May I play the devil’s advocate?”
“Certainly.”
“Who are you to say what the correct interpretation is? Isn’t it arrogant of you to say that you are right and all the others are wrong?”
“It is not a question of whether I am right. It is a question of whether God revealed this truth in his Word, or not.”
“I don’t get your point.”
“We must not, as Christians, determine whether or not God has revealed something by how many men acknowledge the revelation. The content of the revelation is determined by the careful and laborious study of the text. It is not determined by counting noses. Not even scholarly noses.”
“Are you saying that you cannot make a mistake when you go to the text?”
“No, certainly not. I have made many mistakes. But I may only acknowledge my error when someone shows me the mistake from the text.”
“Now how does this relate to the question of God’s exhaustive sovereignty?”
“I have had many Christians tell me I am wrong about all this predestination business. But only a handful of them have ever endeavored to demonstrate the error I am supposed to be making from the text.”
“What do the rest of them do?”
“They break down into two basic categories. The first group talks just long enough to establish where the disagreement lies; after that, they avoid any discussion of the issue. Thinking about it discomfits them. The second group will talk about it; indeed, many times they enjoy talking about it. But the authority to which they appeal makes any resolution of the question impossible. Their authority, their court of appeals, is reason, common sense, and armchair philosophy. They will say that reason requires us to acknowledge that we have ‘free will’. Otherwise, how could God blame us? For who resists His will? This group acknowledges the authority of the Bible – on paper – but does not submit to the arbitration of Scripture.”
“Why do you think this is?”
“I cannot say; I merely see the results of it. Only God sees the heart. I am not competent to say what obstacles may exist in their hearts, although I do not doubt they are there. It is my business to see to it that there is no obstacle to their understanding in my heart.”
“What do you mean?”
“I mean any kind of pride, haughtiness, impatience…whatever. If there is any of this on my part, it may well be used by God to keep fellow Christians from these wonderful truths. In the providence of God, matters are arranged in the church in such a way that it is possible to stumble your brother.”
“Can you give me an example of this from Scripture?”
“Sure. In 2 Timothy 2:25, it assumes that God is the Giver of repentance. When a man repents, he is the recipient of a gift.”
I had looked the passage up. “Well, it sure looks that way.”
“Now many Christians deny that repentance is a gift of God. In a discussion with such a person, what do you think the temptation is?”
I grinned. “To beat them over the head with this verse?”
“Exactly. Now back up and read the previous verse, this verse, and the verse after.”
I glanced up again. “But isn’t this talking about a debate with a non-Christian?”
“Yes, it is. And if we ought to correct unbelievers with such humility, what should our demeanor be toward brothers?”
“Got it.” I said.
“Now notice that the behavior of the one who knows the truth is connected with the possible change of heart of the one listening, if God is gracious and so wills it.”
“So how do you tie this in with our discussion? If all this is so clear in the Scriptures, why do Christians deny what you say the Bible teaches?”
“I would suggest that the problem is not with those who don’t believe it, but with those who do.”
“How so?”
“Some Christians deny God’s exhaustive sovereignty, and they live in a manner consistent with that denial. Other Christians affirm it, but then go on to deny it with their lives. The second group has more to answer for.”
“You can’t be saying that the church is in this sad condition because this is the way God has willed it?”
“Well, yes, I am. If God controls everything, then He certainly controls this.”
“But why? That seems so contrary to everything I have ever learned about God and His relationship to the church.”
“I don’t know why either. I am not sure a creature could understand why. But I do know that I am not going to water down clear statements of Scripture just because I want to worship a God who meets with my approval!”
“Is there any passage of Scripture that teaches that God controls backslidings?”
“Yes. Isaiah 63:17. `O Lord, why have You made us stray from Your ways, and hardened our heart from Your fear? Return for Your servants’ sake, the tribes of Your inheritance.’”
“So you are also saying that the reason so many Christians deny this truth is…”
“…is that God has willed it. Yes. He has hardened our hearts. And, anticipating the question, it does not lessen our responsibility in the slightest.”
“Is it wrong to ask why God does this?”
“No. Isaiah asks why. I believe that when Christians acknowledge that God has done this, and begin tearfully asking why He has done it, we will be on the edge of true revival. True revival is something He gives.”
I was shaking my head. “I don’t know…”
Pastor Spenser went on. “The modern evangelical church is drowning in an ocean of theological stupidity. Here and there are handfuls of the `orthodox’ clinging to the wreckage of what was once a great ship. In such a condition, it is impertinent to even be tempted to pride.”
“But why would God do that to His own ship?”
“He has done it, and He is God. That is enough. By all that Scripture teaches, His reasons were good, just, and holy. And when we consider the glorious future that is promised for the gospel in the world, we should take courage as we pray for revival. It will be clear to us later.”
“And in the meantime…?”
“In the meantime, those Christians who have been given an understanding of this should not puff themselves up. We know that what Job says in Job 42:2 is true. `I know that You can do everything, and that no purpose of Yours can be withheld from you.’ But they must also respond to this truth the way Job did in vv. 5-6. `I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees You. Therefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.’”
“How are you applying this?”
“It is one thing to hear truth, and agree with it. Many have come to believe these things simply because they are attracted to a system which is logically consistent. Or perhaps they are repelled by the shallowness of so much of our preaching and teaching today. Or they are the studious type, and like to read books by the Puritans.”
Pastor Spenser went on. “But it is quite another thing to be given a vision of the glory of God and to be, like Job, undone by it.”
“Are you saying it is bad to be studious, or systematic?”
“No, not at all. Hard study is required by God, as well as to compare carefully one portion of Scripture with another. Over many years, many people have told me that I study too much, but the Holy Spirit convicts me regularly that I study too little.”
“What are you saying then?”
“Hard study can be compared to chopping wood, assembling the kindling, and putting all the wood together for the fire. There are churches that have a good idea of where the wood should go, but they have forgotten there is supposed to be a fire.”
“And others…?”
“Others, theologically shallow, know there is supposed to be a fire. But they use grass, thorns, paper, and a lot of lighter fluid.”
“How do you see your work?”
“I have chopped a lot of good wood – although less than I should have – and I have assembled it. Now I am waiting, and praying to God.”
“Praying for what?” Pastor Spenser thought for a moment.
“Praying for the fire to fall.”
This is Part 6 in a series of 6.
I’m not sure many people are even aware that we feel this way. We know our theology well enough, and so we remind ourselves of the truth of the Gospel: That we are declared righteous in Christ. This is a wonderful truth. But sometimes we don’t really live in the light of this truth. This is the difference between our confessional theology and our functional theology.
In other words there is sometimes (often?) a gap between what we know to be the facts and the way we allow those facts to impact our heart and emotions. Put mathmatically, the difference between our confessional theology and our functional theology equals frustration. (F – C = Frus)
A few months ago I posted an excellent article by Paula Rinehart, that had originally been written for The Navigators’ Discipleship Journal. Because I know the tendency we have toward wandering onto what Jerry Bridges calls a Performance Treadmill, I wanted to post it again.
If you ever find yourself tired of trying to measure up, or know others around you who seem to fall into that trap, you will appreciate:
by Douglas Wilson
We join a conservation in progress; it is between a young theological questioner who grew up in a typical Evangelical church, and an older pastor from a historical theological tradition.
*****
“But… What difference does it all make?” I asked.
Pastor Spenser took a sip of his coffee, and answered the question with a question. “What kind of difference do you mean? For the individual Christian, or for the Church, or both?”
“Well, I first came to visit you because the difference it makes to me was obvious. The doctrine I held before did little more than torment me. I was constantly in fear over the possibility of losing my salvation.”
“But I have friends who hold to those same doctrines with enthusiastic cheerfulness. Are these teachings something which I needed to hear for my Christian life, but which are not necessary for the Church at large?”
Pastor Spenser nodded. “I see what you are asking. Even if all this is true, is it something the Church needs to believe? Is the Church hindered in her work if these doctrines are neglected or rejected?”
“Right. If some Christians seem to get along just fine without it, why can’t the Church as a whole?”
“Because ideas have consequences, and because the Church is made up of individuals.”
“OK. Explain.”
“Ideas have consequences, not because each individual is consistent, but because groups of people are consistent over time.”
“What do you mean by that?”
“Let’s take a clear example from outside the faith. Have you ever known an atheist who was a decent, law-abiding citizen?”
I nodded. “Yes.”
“Now was he being consistent with the basic premises of his worldview?”
I laughed, “No. And we had many discussions about it. He treated me with respect, but given his worldview, I was nothing more than a mass of protoplasm.”
Pastor Spenser continued. “Now my point is this. Individual atheists can frequently be inconsistent like this. Atheistic societies never are.”
“Never are inconsistent, you mean?”
“Right. Over time, the beliefs of individuals will be consistently applied by the group, even if many of the individuals who brought this about did not apply them.”
“Apply this to the Church, then.”
“The basic issue we have been discussing all these weeks has been the difference between man-centered religion, and God-centered religion.”
“I follow that.”
“Now, have you ever known any Christian whose beliefs, or doctrines, were what we have been calling ‘man-centered’, but whose life was clearly God-centered?” I nodded again. “Yes.” “And we would call that inconsistent?”
“Yes.”
“And if you wind up changing churches, you will very quickly encounter Christians whose doctrines are ‘God-centered’, but whose life is man-centered. This is also inconsistent.”
“Well, this brings us back to my first question. If this is the case, what difference does it all make?”
“It is quite simple. The Church, being an assembly of people, will eventually live in a manner consistent with her doctrine. If the doctrine is man-centered, then there will come a time when the lifestyle, morals, ceremonies, teaching, etc. are also man-centered.”
“So even though an individual is inconsistent with his false doctrine, the Church at large will eventually be consistent with it.”
“Correct. This explains why certain beliefs can be held by pious Christians, while those same beliefs go on to corrupt and defile the piety of the Church.”
“Can you give me an example from church history?”
“Certainly. Consider revival. What does that term mean?”
I grinned. “A week of nightly meetings?”
“That is what it has come to mean. Arrange for a speaker, print the flyers, gather the troops, and work up a revival. From start to finish, it is the work of man.”
“What did revival mean before?”
“It referred to a time when the sovereign Holy Spirit moved in a congregation in such a way as to reveal the glory of Jesus Christ. From start to finish, it was the work of God.”
“What is a true revival like?”
I was surprised to see Pastor Spenser’s eyes well up. “I don’t know,” he said. “All the knowledge of true revival today is second-hand – through books. The last healthy revival was in the mid-nineteenth century.”
“What happened?”
“Revival, which is a gift of God, was, through theological confusion, turned into a work of man. The result is revivalism, not revival.”
“What is the difference?”
“Well, there are two kinds of revivalism. One is where a denomination has a long tradition of having these meetings, everyone is used to it, they go and listen, and then go home. It is little more than a religious seminar. And, as seminars go, some of them might be worthwhile.”
“And the other?”
“The other is the result of taking the whole idea of revival more seriously. The people expect fireworks, so they see to it there are fireworks. It is nothing more than religious enthusiasm and fanaticism.”
“But weren’t some of the great revival preachers of the past – men you respect – accused of religious fanaticism too?”
“They certainly were. And if God is merciful to us and sends true revival again, the charges of fanaticism will be heard again.”
“But…”
“I know. Couldn’t a Christian make the point that the whole distinction between revival and revivalism is a false one, and that all such events are fanatical to some degree or another?”
“Right.”
Pastor Spenser nodded. “It is a legitimate concern. First, can we agree that there is such a thing as true fanaticism?”
“Sure. I don’t believe anyone would disagree there. Religious fanatics have always been around.”
“Now, the next question is this: Does the Bible teach anything which, if applied, would result in the one applying it to be accused of fanaticism?”
I smiled. “You tell me.”
“How about 1 Peter 1:8? ‘Though now you do not see Him, yet believing, you rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory.’ Or Ephesians 3:17-19? ‘…that you…may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the width and length and depth and height – to know the love of Christ which passes knowledge.’ I don’t know. A little extreme, don’t you think?”
I sat for a moment, thinking. Pastor Spenser spoke again.
“Christians get used to such passages. There it is, safe on the page. But there is no way for a Christian to be filled with inexpressible joy without it affecting his demeanor and behavior. And when it does, he will be accused of fanaticism. Many Christians, in their concern over religious fanaticism, have gotten rid of not only the fanaticism, but also the religion.”
“So what are the characteristics of true revival, over against revivalism?”
“We have been talking about God-centeredness versus man-centeredness. The distinction follows us into our discussion of the criteria by which everything is to be evaluated; teaching and lifestyle, or, put another way, doctrine and morals.”
“OK. Let’s start with doctrine.”
“In a true revival, doctrine is the emphasis, and the doctrine is God-centered. In revivalism, because man is the center, feelings are emphasized. In revival, truth overwhelms the mind, resulting in an emotional response – inexpressible joy. In revivalism, the emotions are excited directly, and any number of teachings, true or false, can do that.”
“What about morality?”
“In a true revival, the change in the moral behavior of those blessed is significant and lasting. With revivalism, very little is done to teach the people to restrain their passions. In fact, because the ‘revival’ encourages a lack of restraint in the church, it is not long before a lack of restraint is evident elsewhere, usually in the area of sexual morality.”
“Are you saying that in order to have a true revival, a belief in God’s exhaustive sovereignty is necessary?”
“Yes.”
“But didn’t men like Charles Finney deny this particular truth? And wasn’t he part of the revivals of the nineteenth century?”
“Yes, he did deny it, and he was certainly a participant in ‘revivals.’ But he was one of those who effectively introduced the man-centered doctrines and practices which were the death of true revivals in this country.”
“You know,” I said, “I thought I had gotten used to the strange things you say from time to time. But this takes the cake! I have some friends who are really into revival, and they read books by Finney all the time.”
Pastor Spenser was shaking his head. “I know, I know. It is ironic. When Christians periodically despair of the current state of the church, and come to think, correctly, that the only thing which will help us is revival, they then turn to one of the men who was a major part of the problem.”
“So how would you summarize all this?”
“I would say that God is over all, and through all, and in all. Anyone who denies this, in any measure, is a hindrance to true heaven-sent revival.”
****
This is Part 5 in a series of 6 titled Easy Chairs & Hard Words.
GRACE & PEACE 