Mohler on Pope Benedict XVI

I just read an article by Dr. Albert Mohler (president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY) on Pope Benedict XVI's present visit to the US. You can access the article by clicking here. Mohler is thoroughly biblical and has, in this (short) article, concisely given his take on the pope and his present and future involvement in Christianity as a whole. At the end of the day, although Mohler applauds the Pope in his steadfast conviction, he does not foresee the Roman Catholic Church, under Benedict's leadership, making the changes that we Protestants feel convicted are necessary.

Here is a little blurb from the article:

"Perhaps the most clarifying moment since his election came last July when the Vatican released the document known as "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church" – a document that reasserted the claim that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church.

The secular press and a good many non-Catholic church leaders expressed outrage and offense at the Pope's comments – assuming that such teachings were simply out of place in the modern world. But Benedict was restating the tradition and teaching of his church – and he did so because he cared for those he believes are outside the blessings of grace he is certain are given to those in the communion of his church – and to that communion alone.

I actually appreciated the Pope's concern. If he is right, we are endangering our souls and the souls of our church members. Yet, I am convinced that he is not right -- not right on the papacy, not right on the sacraments, not right on the priesthood, not right on the Gospel, not right in understanding the church."

I am not a Catholic-hater or anything like that (in fact, I have Catholic friends), but I can say that the Scriptures lambaste any doctrine which teaches that people are saved (or disqualified from being saved) for any reason other than faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ. Pope Benedict clearly teaches that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church. He expresses concern for anyone who rejects the authority of the Roman Catholic Church. Well, I guess I fall in that boat. With Luther I cry out my allegiance to Christ and his word. I affirm the Catholic Church in so far as they have faithfully interpreted and applied the Scriptures, but I knowingly separate ties where they part ways with the Scriptures.

I am not one of those who says that you cannot possibly be a Christian if you are a part of the Catholic Church, however I can say that you cannot possibly be a Christian if your hope (confidence) of salvation lies anywhere but in Christ and what he has won for you on the cross.

Cliche- "I have a personal relationship with God" Part 3

In the past few posts we have been the looking at the popular Christian cliche which says, "I have a personal relationship with God." At the stake of looking like an unspiritual doubter, I have been testing this cliche to see whether it is biblical or not. The Goal of a Christian should not be to uphold tradition, but rather to be conformed to the Scriptures.

I will briefly list the conclusions of our study thus far.

1. The most commonly quoted verses from the Psalms used to support the idea that we are to have a personal relationship with God do not directly teach this. We looked at Psalm 42; 63; and 16. Two other popular verses used to support this idea that I did not address are Psalm 37 (especially vs. 4) and Psalm 34 (especially vs. 8). In all of these Psalms the Psalmists desires the presence of God for the sake of protection, longevity, provision, or physical prosperity. He does not desire the presence of God just cause, or for the sake of being near to the heart of God (whatever that means). As stated before, just because these verses do not directly teach that we are to pursue a dynamic relationship with God, they also do not teach against this. The Bible surely does teach that we are to have a personal relationship with God. But Biblical truth does not determine the meaning of a passage, context does. We then form our idea of Biblical truth from what context conveys.

2. Modern day Christians treat popular cliches in much the same way as the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) treats church tradition--they interpret the Scriptures in light of it.

3. Any doctrine, including this one, can be very dangerous when emphasized to the point of excluding other pertinent aspects of Christian theology.

Outside of Jesus and the Apostles Martin Luther is, in the opinion of many, the most influential and transitional figure in the history of Christianity. The more I learn about who Luther was, what he did, and what he taught, the more I begin to appreciate him. Luther was, to put it lightly, a genius.

As stated in an earlier post, Luther lived and taught when the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) was ruling the roost. Luther is the greatest example of what it looks like when someone is dedicated to Sola Scriptura.

He grew up under the influence of Roman Catholic (RC) teaching. The seminary he attended was RC as well. Luther did not have access to the Bible upon his arrival at seminary. He was indoctrinated by the false teachings of the RCC. Therefore, when Luther finally got access to the Bible he was full of RC presuppositions and biases. He was just as thoroughly effected by RC teaching than we are by today's popular Christian cliches. Yet when Luther sat down with the Bible he laid his theological convictions aside and tested them by the Scriptures. When he did this he was able to discern the false teachings that he had believed his whole life.

One of the problems prevalent in the RCC confronted by Luther was the way the leadership of the RCC abused their authoritative power. The RCC made it illegal in Germany for lay people to have a Bible. They did this out of fear that lay people might use the Bible to fight against the teachings of the church. They were also afraid of the church splitting into a thousand different pieces (which was one of the results of Luther's reform).

The RCC also taught that an individual Christian could not pray to God directly, rather they had to go through a priest. As Luther began testing these teachings in light of the Scriptures he began to see how unbiblical they were. He realized that the New Testament (NT) teaches that every believer, upon conversion, is indwelt by the Holy Spirit. He realized that Jesus Christ is the sole mediator between God and men. He also became convinced that every believer should have access to the Word of God. He translated the Bible into German for the sake of the common man.

Everyone reading this post right now ought to take a few minutes and thank the Lord for Luther's influence. Without Luther it is likely that we would not have the Bible in our native tongue. Without the influence and boldness of Luther it is likely that we would still be praying to God through a bunch of dead Saints. Without the influence of Luther it is likely that God would still be seen as a far, overly distant, cold deity who delights in judgement.

If it were not for Luther it is likely that we would hear nothing about what it means to have a personal relationship with God. Luther discovered that the Bible had quite a bit to say about individuals and their ability to relate with God on their own apart from the structure of the church. This is not to say that Luther was against formalized church government structures, rather he was against the great chasm that existed between the clergy and the laity (and especially in regard to how they related with God).

Now I do not want to take away from the things that Luther said, but it is important to remember that Luther, almost all by himself, was fighting against the beliefs of the whole continent of Europe. Therefore, it was of necessity that he argue in extremes. This does not mean that you cannot trust what Luther said, but it does mean that you must understand the situation that Luther was confronting. Many of Luther's followers failed to realize this, and they took his ideas too far.

Luther was very much against those who took his teachings too far. One of the things Luther spent much time talking about was the appropriate way to respond to those with whom you disagree. Luther warned against the tendency to over react against false teaching. He used an illustration with a man and his horse. The man approaches his horse to go for a ride and in attempt to get on the horse he flips his leg up and over the horse, but doesn't quite kick hard enough. The man then takes a step back to set up his approach. He nears the horse again to attempt a remount, but this time, to avoid another failed attempt, kicks with all of his might. But the man kicks so hard that he falls off the other side of the horse.

The obvious purpose of the illustration was to show that over reacting against a false teaching actually produces just as much error as the original false teaching. Luther did not desire to make non-Catholic Christians. He desired to make Biblical Christians. It should not be the desire of a pastor to make his people Non-Charismatic Christians, or Non-Calvinistic Christians, or Non-Arminian Christians, or anything like this. A pastors desire should be to make his people Biblical Christians. God is not all that impressed if you can pick out the flaws in modern evangelistic methods, rather He is impressed when you are able to do evangelism Biblically.

It can be argued that modern Christian Culture's over emphasis on the "personal" dimension of a Christian's relationship with God is the result of taking Luther's teachings too far. Although the Protestant Reformation has effected us primarily for the good, it also has had it's negative effects, and this is one of them. This negative effect can be seen in Luther and Calvin. It can be seen in the Puritans and yes, even in John Wesley. It can be seen in Tozer, Lloyd-Jones, Ravenhill,and Pink. It can also be seen in Piper and nearly every other popular Christian author today. It is the tendency to individualize all of Scripture. It is the tendency to take verses referring to churches and groups and to apply them to individuals.

Let me give just one example from the NT.

Romans 12:1-2 "Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship. And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may be able to prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect."

This verse is usually applied to individuals. Something similar to this is said, "In light of the Gospel. In light of what God has done for you (as an individual), you need to present your body as a living sacrifice. You need to expend yourself (time, talents, money, gifts, strength etc.) for the kingdom of God and this is the correct response to God for what He has done for you in Christ."

This sounds nice and all, but there is a much more accurate way of approaching this passage. It begins with an examination of the context. Paul wrote to the Romans because they were having troubles getting along. Racism was rampant in Rome. The Jews were looking down on the Gentiles because they were not descended from Abraham, and because they were uncircumcised etc. The Gentiles were ticked off at the Jews because of how they were oppressing them. The Gentiles also struggled with pride because it was becoming apparent that God had turned to them.

The tensions in Rome were great. The Jews and Gentiles were nearly at each other's throats. How on earth could anyone step in and calm things down? How could this situation be diffused? Well, the Apostle Paul decided to write the Romans a letter to diffuse the problem. He starts his letter telling them that they are all (both Jews and Gentiles) under sin. Paul went to great lengths in the first three chapters to prove that no one is exempt from this reality. Why did he go to such great lengths? Because he wanted to show the Jews that they have nothing over the Gentiles, because they were just as sinful as the Gentiles before God justified them. He also wanted to show the Gentiles that they were no better than the self righteous Jews because they were in the same boat before God justified them as well.

In Romans 3:19-5:21 Paul informed the Romans that they were all saved in the same way--By grace through faith. He did this to show the Jews that they did nothing to merit their own salvation. Their salvation was the work of God alone, therefore they have no reason to think that they are better than the Gentiles. "Salvation is a thing of grace therefore don't think that you are so hot Jews" (my little twist).

Then in Chapters 6-8 Paul sets forth to speak of the new life that the Jews and the Gentiles now share together in Christ.

Romans 8:15 says that they (Jews and Gentiles) "have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, 'Abba! Father!'" Notice that they cry out "Abba! Father!" Is "Father" a Greek word? Of course not! How then do you think it would be read in the Greek? The Greek word for "Father" is Pater. What does Abba mean? Abba is the Arabic word for "Father." Therefore the Greek literally reads, "we cry out 'Abba! Pater!'" What an amazing reality! The Gentiles spoke Aramaic and so they called their father Abba. The Hebrews (Jews) spoke Greek and so they called their father Pater. What is Paul getting at here? He is saying that both Jews and Greeks are adopted. They are adopted into the same family, therefore they have the same Father. There is no difference between Jews and Gentiles in the sight of God other than the Language they use to address Him as "Father." The Jews and Gentiles address God as "Father" together, in unison, in their own unique languages. (The majority of commentators take "Abba, Father" to be personal reference to God, emphasizing a believers close relationship to God through the Spirit. But with the words, Abba and Pater, and with the Jew/Gentile theme throughout Romans, what I am saying seems to be much more faithful to context).

We then see many wonderful things in Romans 9-11. Paul writes Chapter 9 to show that being a descendant of Abraham does not help ones case before the judgement seat of Christ. How then are people saved if not on the basis of race? They are saved on the basis of God's predestining them unto salvation. Therefore, the Gentiles can be saved even though they are not descended from Abraham. Tis far better to be a child of the promise than to be a physical descendant of Abraham.

Then, before the Gentiles get too big headed, in Chapter 11, Paul humbles them by reminding them that they have been graciously grafted into the olive tree. He reminds them that the Jews were the natural branches which have been lopped off because of disobedience. Then he says, "Do not be conceited (O Gentiles), but fear; for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you either. Behold the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God's kindness, IF you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off." Paul then ends chapter 11 informing the Romans that God is not finished with the Jews. In fact, there is going to be a mass conversion of the Jews at the end of the age.

Finally we get to Romans 12:1, "Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God." In light of everything that Paul has said thus far he is going to direct them to some sort of action. Thus far he has stressed the fact that Jews and Gentiles have been in the same boat since the get-go. He has stressed 4 main things.

1. Jews and Gentiles alike were equally sinful.
2. Jews and Gentiles alike can take no ownership of their salvation.
3. Jews and Gentiles were raised up together and adopted into the same family.
4. Jews and Gentiles alike had better not think they are better than each other.

Pay attention here.

"Therefore, I urge you (this "you" is plural in Greek), brethren (this is plural in Greek), by the mercies of God, to present your bodies (this is plural in Greek) a living and holy sacrifice (this is singular in Greek), which is your spiritual service of worship."

How are those in the Roman Church to respond to what has been said up to this point? They are to present their BODIES (plural) as a living and holy sacrifice (Singular). Do you see the plural "bodies" and the singular "sacrifice." What then is the appropriate response to what has been said up to this point? UNITY! What is their "spiritual service of worship?" Unity in the body of Christ. What is one of the most crucial and God glorying aspects of worship? Unity! Forgiving one another from the heart!

Paul goes on and says, "And do not be conformed to the pattern of this world." What is the "pattern of this world?" Racism! The Jews hated the Gentiles and the Gentiles hated the Jews. This is life in 1st Century Rome. Paul is calling them away from this in light of the mercies of God.

Ok, so he wants to call them away from the "pattern of this world," but for what? So that they might "prove what the will of God is." Well, what is the "will of God" in this context? I can tell you one thing, it is not some super spiritual subjective leading of the Holy Spirit. How do I know this? Because he explains in the very next verse what the will of God is. Take a look at Romans 12:3-15:33. This is the will of God. What does this section of Romans talk about? Unity! Getting along with those in the body of Christ! Paul was calling them to unity. Romans 12:1-2 has very little to do with an individuals response to God. It has everything to do with corporate life. It has everything to do with getting along with those who are a part of the family of God, regardless of racial distinctions, social class distinctions, or any other type of distinction.

This, according to Romans, is the proper way to respond to what God has done for us in Christ. So many today totally miss this verse and what it means because they are not leaning on context. Granted, following context is not all that easy. I am not saying that all modern day pastors are lazy and stupid. Rather, I am saying that we, as Christians, ought to be putting all of our energy into context. We need to put all of our eggs in the basket of context. Context determines meaning.

There are many other passages that we mis-read because of our over emphasis on the "personal" dimension of a believer's relationship with God. I will not go through any more verses in this post. But I will say that the majority of NT texts used today to support this "personal" dimension of the Christian life are taken out of context. The majority of the NT is written to Churches confronting corporate problems (whether they be relational or doctrinal).

The great majority of the NT is not written to individuals to help them understand how to have a more dynamic personal relationship with God. The majority of the NT teaches believers to get their eyes off of themselves and on to others. The majority of the NT focuses on evangelism and living in community. Yes there is a personal dimension to the Christian life, and yes the NT does address this (John 17 for example), but this is not the emphasis in the NT.

The majority of Christians in today's culture will chaff at what I am saying here, but I am not saying this for the sake of being picky. I am saying these things because I desire to see Biblical Christianity. I am not, in any way, teaching that we should not seek a personal relationship with God, but I am saying that this certain aspect of Christianity should not be emphasized more than the Bible emphasizes it.

Now more than ever, Christianity needs to recapture the Bibles emphasis on corporate life. Christianity today is a mess. Churches are splitting left and right. It is not uncommon to have people in the same church hating one another! What sin! What awful grotesque rebellion! Bitterness! Greed! Covetousness! American Christianity could be characterized more by middle school type squabbles than by the grace and love of our Savior. HEY! But at least we are doing our devotionals! At least we have all of our Christian life verses memorized. Devotionals don't mean all that much when you live in friction with a fellow brother or sister in Christ. We need unity! Unity based on truth and grace!

Pastors are running to and fro throughout the land trying to find the remedy to the unity problems in their churches. Let me fill you in on something: The answers to your church unity problems are in the Bible. Read it in context and you will see. Drop your individualistic agenda and read the Bible in context.

In the next post, Lord willing, I will discuss what it means to have a personal relationship with God, according to the Scriptures read in context.

Cliche- "I have a personal relationship with God" Part 2

"I have a personal relationship with God." We have been considering this popular Christian cliche. In the last post we looked at the most popular texts in the OT used to support this idea. The conclusion we came to is that these verses do not teach that the Psalmist had a personal relationship with God per se, but they also do not teach against the idea that the Psalmist had a personal relationship with God. These popular verses teach that David had a love for God and a desire for His presence. The Psalmist did not desire the presence of God because of the warm fuzzies it brought to His soul. He did not desire the presence of God for the sake of having some sort of fulfilling devotional. He desired the presence of God because he was about to be slaughtered by his enemies. God was his only protection.

Therefore, "as the deer pants for the waters so my soul longeth after Thee O God," because as long as You are not near I have no protection.

I am not attempting to do away with the idea that we are to have a personal relationship with God, rather I am showing that context determines meaning. Cliches are only helpful when used correctly. When they are used as the unquestionable determiner of any given passage then they not only unhelpful, but even dangerous.

Someone at this point may say, "Aren't you being kind of picky. You yourself agree that this idea of having a personal relationship with God is a Biblical idea. I understand that many misinterpret certain verses because they lean too heavily on this concept, but at least they are not going away with some totally heretical teaching. How then can it be so bad?"

How can you know if something is Biblical or not unless if you test it in light of Scripture? It is impossible to test something in light of Scripture if you come to the Scripture using it as the determiner (i.e. the foundation of interpretation) of what Scripture means. When context is the foundation of interpretation then everything is put in a place where it may be tested. Remember, this is why Luther got so angry at the Roman Catholic Church (RCC). Because they were interpreting Scripture in light of church tradition. Church tradition was the RCC's interpretational foundation. They were never able to see their error because they were treating church tradition in much the same way that American Christian's treat popular cliche's. They used church tradition as the unquestionable foundation of interpreting Scripture. Church tradition was never put into question because it became the basis used by the RCC to determine what Scripture meant. Many today are using cliche's in the same way. Cliches are never questioned or limited because they have become the basis used by contemporary Christians to question everything else, including Scripture and what it means.

Luther stood under the text and began testing Church Tradition by the Scriptures. When he did this he began to see how in need of testing Church tradition was. American Christianity needs to do the same thing in regard to her beloved cliches. They need to test them in light of Scripture and discard the ones that do not line up. Luther was not afraid to publicly reject the most beloved teachings of the Catholic Church if they could not be found in the Scriptures. We need to be ready to do the same. We need to be ready to reject even the most fundamental ideas of modern day Christian culture if they do not line up with the Scriptures.

How would you react if I told you that the Bible did not teach that every individual Christian has a relationship with God? What would be your response? Would you start quoting Scripture correctly interpreted to me, or would you just get frustrated and call me a heretic? This is what I am trying to expose here. I am trying to show you that you are (most likely) more protective of your popular cliches than you are of the Scriptures read in context.

Learn to be a doubter! "What? A doubter?" YES! A DOUBTER! Doubt the things that you have been taught your whole life until they are either affirmed or rejected by the Scriptures read in context. There is one thing you must not doubt though and that is Sola Scriptura itself. Do not doubt that God has spoken in His Holy Word. Lean on it, rely on it. Let it be what informs you of what is right and wrong.

What exactly then is at stake when you do not let context be the sole influencer of your interpretation?

1. That which guides your interpretation may be heretical. This, of course, will lead to a heretical interpretation. For example, the Jehovah's Witnesses (JW's) use their other inspired writings to guide their interpretation. These writings teach that Jesus is not God. Therefore, when they go to Col. 1:15-20, for example, which clearly teaches that Jesus is God, they twist it. JW's say that Col. 1:15-20 teaches that Jesus is only human. They get it completely wrong. Why? Because that which is informing their interpretation is completely wrong.

What is at stake if you are leaning on something other than context to determine meaning? You will not be able to detect the most heretical doctrines. It may be a matter of heaven or hell. No one who rejects the deity of Christ is going to Heaven. The Book of John makes this very clear.

At this point you may say, "I get the point. But, I am not a JW. I don't believe anything that far out. Popular Christian cliches are much more faithful to the Bible than the heretical teachings of the JW movement."

How do you know that you are not that "far out?" The only way to discern if the cliches you hold to are not heretical is if you test them in light of Scripture. And so long as your cliches are informing the way you interpret the Bible, you will never be able to test them in light of Scripture.

2. Heretical teaching is not the only negative consequence of not leaning upon context for meaning. Another result of letting cliches determine the meaning of a text is bondage. "Bondage?" Yes! Bondage!

Let me illustrate by using the cliche that says, "I have a personal relationship with God." This idea has spread through Christianity like wildfire. As stated before, I do believe the Bible teaches this. You may say, "Then what is your problem?" Just because something is Biblical does not mean that it cannot be used wrongly. For example, the JW's teach that Jesus is human. Is this Biblical? Of course it is. But they abuse this teaching by emphasizing to the exclusion of the deity of Christ. They forsake the parts of Scripture that talk about the deity of Christ for the sake of those passages which talk about the humanity of Christ.

Whenever you emphasize some aspect or teaching of scripture to the exclusion of other teachings of Scripture you will be effected negatively. I personally, have been affected in a negative way by Christianity's over emphasis on having a personal relationship with God. About three years ago I got all fed up with myself. I got sick of telling everyone that Jesus is my best friend when it wasn't really true. I felt compelled to speak like this though because it was the way we gauged our spirituality.

I remember arguing with myself about my personal relationship with God. My arguments would go like such:

"Ok, God is real. God is immanent. God is near."

"But where is He? I can't see Him. I surely can talk to Him, but I never hear His voice. How can I call Him my best friend when it is such a one sided relationship. I do all the talking. How can I call someone who is invisible my best friend? How can I call someone who is invisible and mute my best friend?"

"Ok, I am going to go pray now. Prayer is exciting, because this is where God and I hang out. Prayer is to be the place where it is me, God, and no one else. This is going to be great."

"Prayer is like big fat stinky fart to me right now. I really don't want to be here. How can I call God my best friend when I would rather be playing in traffic than praying? There is something wrong with me. There has got to be something wrong with me. All the other Christians I know who love God talk about their exciting prayer times and mine are as dull as a broken glow worm. What is wrong with me? Is there some sin in my life that I do not know about? I know that I have spent the past week going through my life trying to figure this out, but there has to be something blocking my relationship with God. Am I even a Christian? If I call God my friend, yea, my best friend, how is it that I hate praying? I really would rather hang out with a bum right now than be here in prayer. Bums are much more interesting than prayer. Sure they smell a little funny, but at least they talk back. Is God really present with me while I pray? I don't feel His presence at all. All of the godly people at church say that they feel God's presence when they pray. When I pray sometimes I get excited or emotional. Sometimes I am more aware of spiritual things, but I have never felt His presence before. Heck, what does it even mean to feel the Presence of God. What is wrong with me."

Does this sound all too familiar to anyone out there? I hate to break it to you, but exciting devotionals are not the evidence of great spirituality. Feeling like you are best friends with God is also not the greatest evidence of spirituality. What does it mean to have a personal relationship with God?

I went through a long bout with this. I was in bondage to this personal relationship with God idea. I really thought I was doing something wrong. I questioned my salvation. I was so focused on having exciting devotionals that I forgot about all the other important things in Scripture. You know, things like evangelism, serving others, loving my enemies etc.

What is more important according to the Bible, having a dynamic and exciting prayer life or prayerfully evangelizing? Which of the two is the better gauge of Spirituality: Fulfilling devotionals or prayerfully serving the Saints? Jesus did not have great things to say about the over introspective Pharisees. Surely Jesus did often times go off by His lonesome. What were his prayers like? Were they lively? Did He feel God's presence when He went off to pray? When Jesus was in the wilderness for such a long period of time, did He have a great time? When Jesus was in the wilderness did He get distracted by the cluster of ants by the big rock to His left or was He so spiritual that he experienced nothing but a closeness to God and big fat warm fuzzy in His heart of hearts?

Agreed, Jesus is a unique figure. Jesus was closer to God than any other human, because he descended from the very court room of God. But Jesus was also human. God was still invisible to Him.

What about Paul? Were his prayers always full of reality and passion? Were he and God best buddies? Did he feel the presence of God moving in his prayers? Was God his best friend? Are you more spiritual than Paul? Are you more spiritual than me because of your dynamic prayer life?

Guess what? The Scriptures don't speak to these things. Most Christians live a lie. They say that Jesus is their best friend, but in their heart they know that He is not. They try and try and try to make him to be so, but they know that it cannot be done. How can someone invisible and silent be a best friend.

Or maybe He is their best friend, but in a different way.

Is God my best friend? I really don't know if I can answer that. What do you mean by best friend? Yes God is my friend. I love God. I desire to know God more and more. If you are going to call God your best friend then you need to be able to define what this means by the Bible. I am not saying that you are wrong if you say that Jesus is your best friend. But an invisible/silent individual cannot be a best friend in the same sense that a visible/audible individual can.

One of the greatest problems with Christians today is that we desire to be all too spiritual. We say all these spiritual things without knowing what they really mean. This is not spirituality, it is pride. We want to talk the talk in front of the holy ones. Do you think that you are more spiritual than I because I am questioning whether or not Jesus can be a best friend? If so, then where do you get your spirituality-o-meter? From the Bible? Or from Popular Christianity?

We will continue our discussion about what it means to have a personal relationship with God in the next post. Don't get all depressed that I ruined your idea of Christianity. In the next post I will explain what I mean when I say "I have a personal relationship with God." While you may think that I stealing from you your most prized possession just wait. In the next post you will see how much more wild your relationship with God can be when you base it on Scripture.

I hope this post has been liberating for some people. When I got honest with myself about what God being my best friend, it liberated me. It meant that I didn't have to play the game of spirituality anymore. This didn't mean that I stopped praying. But it did mean that I stopped trying to make my prayers something they were never going to be.

Sola Scriptura--The Prey of Cultural Influence--Part II

As discussed before, the goal of these next few posts is to expose those things which most often hinder our ability to have unbiased interpretation (of the Bible). The last post was aimed at those who interpret scripture in light of culture. This post will have the same purpose, however it will be aimed at those who let culture interpret scripture in ways that are not quite so obvious.

Many may say to me at this point, "Jimmy, do you have a chip on your shoulder or something? I mean, you seem to be knocking on everyone. Give us a break, no one is perfect. Do you expect everyone to be COMPLETELY unbiased in their interpretation?"

Of course I do not expect everyone to be completely unbiased, even I am full of bias. What I desire to see is a Christianity that desires to be rid of their biases so that they might be shaped and formed solely by the word of God. The more we rid ourselves of those things which keep us from correctly interpreting Scripture, the more formed by Scripture we will become. The problem is that most Christians today are being formed more by their culture than they are by the Bible. This is not even necessarily because they are not reading their Bibles, but rather because when they do read their Bibles, they are throwing their cultural biases on the text.

My goal is that I will become completely free of bias when reading the Bible. That should be everyone's goal. We should all desire that our desires, thoughts, beliefs, fears, joys etc. be conformed by the Scritpures alone. This is the call of Sola Scriptura. This is what Luther was fighting for (don't be conformed by church tradition, but rather be conformed by the Word of God).

This is for my fellow Evangelical Fundamentalist Bigoted Christian Brothers and Sisters: How much do you fall prey to the influences and norms of our culture? How much do you allow these influences and norms to effect your interpretation? Let me just expose one area of cultural bias that can be found even in my own circle of fellow believers.

Where do you stand on the issue of divorce and remarriage (yes, I do realize that I am opening a huge can of worms)? I am not here pushing for any of the views. In fact, I will not make known where I stand on this issue. Now, What drove you to come to your position? Was it the result of struggling with the texts as they are presented in context? Is your position the result of unbiased interpretation?

One of the hardest things to get over when studying divorce and remarriage is cultural bias. How many (Christians) would ever consider the thought that those who have been divorced can never remarry (at least until their divorced spouse has died), even if they were the innocent party? Most Christian's already have their minds made up before they even start looking at the pertinent Scriptures. AFTER their minds have been made up, then they go to the Bible and lay their preconceived-culturally-shaped ideas upon the Bible.

Here are some commonly held objections to the view of divorce and remarriage I just laid forth, "Are you going to tell me that a 19 year old girl who was just wrongfully divorced cannot remarry until her X is dead?" I am not going to stand here and make it sound better than what it is, but if that is what the Bible teaches... then we must submit to it. Do you like the sound of Hell? Of course not, then why not reject that doctrine? Because it is in the Bible.

"I cannot believe in a God who would not allow the innocent party of a divorce to never remarry until his/her guilty X dies." Well, I never would have believed in a God who destroys sinners in hell for an eternity unless I was leaning upon the Bible. In fact, I would not believe much of what I now believe if my beliefs were not shaped by the Bible.

"What are you going to do with the great majority of those in our churches who have been divorced? Are you going to tell them that they sinned when they remarried?" Well, what are you going to tell the even greater majority of Christians whose lives are marked by gluttony? Why are you going to tell them that they are sinning? Because the BIBLE says they are.

These three objections certainly are important and need to be addressed, but these objections mean nothing if the Bible teaches this certain view of remarriage.

I am not pushing for this view of remarriage (or am I?). I am exposing the reality of how shaped we all are by our culture, yea, our Christian Culture. If you disagree with this view of remarriage than that is fine (or is it--if it is in accord with the Bible it isn't). BUT if you are going to disagree with this view of remarriage then you answer had better be, "I disagree because I have searched the Scriptures in context and have heavily considered each view in light of Scripture. I have come to a different position because the Bible teaches a different position and the Bible is what shapes my idea of divorce and remarriage."

Most Christians are very Catholic on this issue. Rather than coming to the Bible to be told what to believe about divorce and remarriage, we come to the Bible with our minds made up. We come to the Bible with our ideas being shaped by the culture and then we lay this already discovered truth on the Bible. We need to have a Bible bias and let it (the Bible read in context) solely shape our understanding of remarriage. Rather than having our understanding of divorce and remarriage shaped by Church Tradition (as the Catholics) we are having our understanding of divorce shaped by the Christian Culture. Both are just as bad, because neither of them are leaning solely upon the word of God. Do you see how much even we Baptists are much like the Catholic Church. We need to heed the call of Sola Scriptura. We need the Bible to inform us of what is right. We need the Bible to be that which informs our idea of divorce and remarriage. Not our culture. Not are already held theology. Not Church Tradition, but the Bible.

Sola Scriptura--The Prey of Cultural Influence

As said before, these next few entries will be aimed at exposing those things that most often hinder our ability to read the Bible in context. They will hopefully shed much light on how we often force the Bible to say what it is not saying.

The first barrier to correct interpretation that I want to talk about is cultural influence. This may take two or three entries. Christianity has been effected in a great way by the culture in which it exists. Some of it's effects have been wonderful and some of it's effects have been awful. Each culture brings both good and bad to the table.

One of the great new movements that is sweeping across the country is the Emergent Church movement. This movement is way too large and diverse to make any general characterizations, but a few things can be said for sure. The Emergent type churches see the need for Christians to engage their culture in greater and more profound ways. The culture has changed much over the past few decades, and therefore our approach to the people in our culture ought to be different than it was before. For example, you would approach evangelism much different if you were in China than you would in America, because China's culture is much different than America's.

I am not part of an Emergent Church, but I do see the value of much of what they are pushing for. I also see many (at least) potential problems with this movement. I recently read Velvet Elvis by Rob Bell and was not overly impressed (Not all Emergent types are like Bell). Bell had many positive things to say, but many of His statements were informed more by culture than by Scripture. In fact, it appeared that his view of Christianity has been shaped, in a great way, by culture.

It appears that culture has so influenced Bell that he looks more to what culture is saying, than he does to Scripture, to judge what is best and most important for 21st Cent Christianity.
For example, on pg 167 Bell informs us that if we have an agenda, when talking to non-believers, then we cannot truly love them. He says, "we have to surrender our agendas." Bell could not be further from Biblical truth. The 21st Cent culture teaches that love (go ahead and give it [love] your own definition) is to be the only agenda. The Bible teaches that the Gospel is to be the agenda. The Gospel then produces love. Paul, in Col 4 tells us to "make the most of every opportunity." We are to let our speech be seasoned with salt and grace so that we might be able to know how to answer every man. You are disobedient if you are agendaless. Culture has so shaped Bell's ideals and practices that he has missed the primary role of the community of faith, which is intentional evangelism.

Bell's problem is much like the RCC's (Roman Catholic Church). The RCC interpreted the Bible in light of Church tradition. Bell interprets scripture in light of 21st Century Postmodern Cultural influences.

This Catholic tendency in much of the Emergent Church has caused them to go so far that many (not all) of them question whether or not Homosexuality is a sin. Mclaren even questions the Penal Substitutionary Atonement, which is the heart of the Gospel. Why does he reject the Biblical view of the atonement? Well, why do the Catholics believe in purgatory (something that cannot be found in scripture)? Because they are not heeding the call of Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone).

Now,

Christians of all sorts: Doctrinal types, Practical types, Charismatic types, Arminian types, Calvinst types, Denominational types, Introspective types, Emergent types, Emerging types, Democratic types, and yes even Republican types, see the need for change to occur in modern day Christianity. All agree that Christianity is in need of change. What we cannot find agreement on is what needs to be changed, and how that change needs to be brought about.

One obvious question is raised in light of this observation; How are we going to discern that which is most in need of change for Christianity here and now? In answering this question it is most important to start with what the Word of God has to say. Only after the Bible has been consulted can we then look elsewhere to find help. Our search for what needs to be changed must begin with the Word of God so that we may have a sufficient rule by which to discern those changes which would be helpful for Christianity, and those which would be destructive.

For example, suppose we were to seek to change the face of Christianity for the sake of reaching those in a culture which hated absolute truth (which is true of much of our radical postmodern culture). If we were to start our search for change by first consulting the culture, which says that absolute truth is bad, then the Bible would become useless (since it is full of absolute truths). Is there a problem in this? Of course there is. Why? Because the Bible is the very Word of God given to us by God and is profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteous (1 Tim 3:16). And because the Word of God is the revelation of who God is and what He expects of us. God’s will is revealed in the Bible, not in the culture. Therefore, if one were to set out to change Christianity to better reach a certain culture, it must first start with the Bible so that it may discern those aspects of the culture which are not right.

What would be the purpose of reaching the culture in the first place but to change that which is bad about the people and make it good. But if we use the culture, which has many areas of weakness, of discerning what is bad in the culture, will we be able to discern what is in need of change? Of course not, because we will be using the flawed culture as a standard to decide what is flawed about the culture so that it can be changed. The reason why the Bible must be the starting point is because it is the only perfect standard. The Bible does not need to be changed, but the culture does. If the standard we use to decide if something is flawed is flawed in and of itself then we can have no assurance that our standard will be able to accurately detect that which is flawed in the thing being tested. If a perfect standard is used however then anything that does not agree with that perfect standard can immediately be seen for what it is–a flaw that needs to be changed. The reason the Bible is the standard is because the Bible is not in need of change, therefore the agenda’s set forth by the Bible (i.e. intentional evangelism, seeing homosexuality as a sin, upholding Penal Subsubstitutionary Atonement etc.) are to be that which we use to discern what is good and bad about culture.

All changes, therefore, must be grounded first and foremost on the Bible. The problem with much of the American church is that it does not begin with the word of God, but rather with the culture. Therefore it morphs Christianity to look just like the culture since the rule and standard is not the Word of God, but the culture itself. Christianity then begins to be tested by the truth claims of the culture and there you have it, Christians begin to speak more about the changes that need to take place within the church than they do about the changes that need to take place within the culture. I do not deny that Churches are always in need of becoming more conformed to the Bible. But the NT emphasizes the fact that Christians are to go out and effect and change the culture more than the culture is to come in and effect the church. The goal of the church becomes to look more like the culture rather than more like the NT church. Much of the church therefore adopts the agenda’s of postmodern culture rather than the agenda’s of scripture, which are to be what informs us of what agenda’s are most important. Culture cannot inform us of what is most important, only the Bible can do that.

These misunderstanding of how to assess the problems of Christianity, at the outset, may not seem like all that big of a deal. Many conservative fundamentalist Christians find it hard to speak out against the average church in America because they have not completely rejected the Bible. No, the majority of churches have not rejected the Bible, but they have distorted the Bible, because they force the Bible to cater to the agenda’s and slogans of
post modern culture, in much the same way that the RCC has distorted the Bible because they force it to cater to the agenda's and slogans of Church Tradition.

It is of utmost importance that Christians do what they can to find ways to cater to the needs of the culture in which they are presenting the Gospel, but it is also of utmost importance that these same Christians do not learn more from their culture than they do from the Word of God. Christians are to inform the culture of what is most important, the culture is not to inform Christian’s as to what is most important. Christians are to go forth and do what they can to meet the felt needs of their culture, but this is never to take precedence over what is most important. Meeting the felt needs of a certain culture is to be the platform upon which the Christian works to meet that cultures true needs–those needs which are revealed in the Bible.

I have much more to say about cultural influence. The next post will be more geared toward how culture influence hinders even non-emergent types to not heed the call of Sola Scriptura.

Let us Cry With Luther--Sola Scriptura! Sola Scriptura!

The Protestant Reformation in the 16th Century was the result of a hot-headed monk (Martin Luther) who got a hold of Erasmus' translation of the Greek NT. Erasmus' translation was full of many naughty footnotes which exposed a few of the major scriptural abuses misuses of the Roman Catholic Church (RCC). No one challenged Erasmus because he, being what we would call a chicken, left the controversial information in the footnotes. The more Luther began devoting his life to reading the Bible (in its original languages... hmm...) the more he began to see how the RCC was reading the Bible in light of church tradition. The Bible, according to the RCC, could only be correctly interpreted when seen through the lens of Church Tradition. Church tradition was not to be considered wrong whenever it contradicted scripture, rather scripture was to yield to church tradition.

Many wrongly assume that Luther's problem with the RCC was how they were oppressing and misleading the poor and uninformed. The movie "Luther" very accurately portrays the circumstances of the reformation, however one could go away from that movie with a wrong impression. Luther was fighting against the RCC's abuses of the poor and uniformed, but there was much more to it than that. You see, if SCRIPTURE taught that one could buy their family members out of purgatory then Luther would have had no problem with this practice of the RCC. In fact, he would have plead with utmost passion for the poor and uniformed to give more of what little they had for the sake of their family members. Luther did and said many many offensive things that caused many people a lot of pain and depression (one of the most depressing things a person can hear is that they are going to Hell). So you see, Luther's battle with the RCC was not so much about how they abused and talked to ordinary common folk, rather his battle with them was how they abused and misused Scripture. The result of their misuse of Scripture was how they wrongly approached the poor and uniformed.

Luther's most influential and foundational plea was SOLA SCRIPTURA SOLA SCRIPTURA (SCRIPTURE ALONE SCRIPTURE ALONE). Without the plea of Sola Scriptura there would have been no reformation. Soli Deo Gloria (The Glory of God Alone) was the result of Sola Scriptura. If scripture would have taught any thing other other than Soli Deo Gloria then Luther would not have included it in the five Sola(s).

Sola Scriptura is what drove the Protestant Reformation. The RCC rejected Sola Scriptura by placing Church tradition on par with Scripture. Luther was convinced that all things were to be tested by the Scriptures. Nothing was to stand above the Scriptures. Only those ideas, doctrines, and practices which conform to Scripture were to be considered right, true, and good. Those ideas, doctrines, and practices which could not be aligned with Scripture were to be considered as false, misleading, and dangerous.

What things do we put on par with Scripture? What informs your ideas, desires, practices, and values? What is it that informs your interpretation? The RCC interpreted Scripture in light of Church tradition. What helps you interpret Scripture? It may not be church tradition, but does that necessarily mean that you are not prone to error. Church tradition is not the only thing that can skew ones interpretation. Do you interpret scripture in light of your experiences, feelings, desires? Do your experiences, feelings, and values hold more weight than does Scripture read in context? Does culture inform your interpretation of Scripture? I don't know how many people I have heard say, "I can't believe that! It goes against everything I have been taught my whole life." Does what you have been taught your whole life effect the way you interpret Scripture. O, be careful my friends. We are not to force our ideas on the Bible, rather the bible is to form our ideas. How many times have you heard something similar to this, "The Bible cannot mean this or that because this or that goes against what I have experienced." This statement reeks of Catholicism. The only difference is that experience rather than church tradition is that which is being put on par with the Bible.

Lord willing, in the next few entries, I will be writing about those things that most commonly hinder our ability to heed the call of Sola Scriptura.

Sola Scriptura, Sola Scriptura, Sola Scriptura. The Scriptures, The Scriptures, The Scriptures. We do not worship the Bible, but we trust the Bible to be the only infallible reliable way of coming to truth. The Bible is the word of God. Heed the reformation cry of Sola Scriptura. Reject your Catholic tendencies. Throw them to the wind and be conformed to what God has said in His word.