I must follow, if I can

I am a fundamentalist.  Do you still love me?

Now, before you freak out, please understand what this means, not in terms of the "hot-button" association this word has with bigotry and intolerance.  By definition, Fundamentalists believe:

1. In the infallibility of Scripture.  By infallibility, we mean that it is the Word of God, and you can count on it.  The literary consistency and reliability of the Bible as a document is so far beyond any other document ever in existance, so it's not only a legitimate document, but the words are actually from God.  It was men who penned the letters on the page using ink and papyrus, but they were directly inspired by the Holy Spirit while they were writing, in a way that no other writer has ever been inspired since.  When the canon of Scripture was closed, the Holy Spirit didn't stop inspiring people, but no writer after that ever had the authority of saying his words were God's.  (Contrast this to the supposed "infallibilty" of the popes in Catholic dogma, when we all know they are sinful men who cannot be trusted.)

2.  We believe in the diety of Christ and his virgin birth.  This means that Jesus is God.  Not just a hippie peasant with product in his hair who was really nice and said some cool stuff and taught that we should all be nice, too.  Yes, Jesus was a man as well.  He was both God and man.  But he set his godhood aside while he became incarnate and "took the form of a servant".  Closely linked to this is the doctrine of the Trinity, that God is at one time Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and that these are three distinct persons yet one God at the same time.  Unlike all men since Adam, he didn't have a sinful nature.  Mary was a virgin.  Jesus' father was God, not Joseph.  The doctrine of Original Sin and its cancellation through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus on the cross for our sins require both the diety of Christ and the virgin birth.  If you don't believe this, you don't have Jesus.

3.  When Jesus died on the cross, it wasn't just because everybody hated him and wanted him dead for his "revolutionary" teachings.  His death was the point of his incarnation.  He died for your sins.  This is what we call the "substitutionary atonement" of his death on the cross.  The Jewish Law demanded sacrifice for sins, but once you made your sacrifice and left the temple, you naturally went out and started sinning again, due to your sinful nature, thanks to great-great-[...]great-grandfather Adam.  The prophets and the psalmists saw the futility in this, that even if you could do one bull or goat for every sin you committed, it's going to require a lot of blood, and you might eventually run out of bulls and goats.  "Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten-thousands of rivers of oil?" (Micah 6:7a, ESV)  No, he will not.  The point is whole-hearted obedience and devotion, and we are incabable of that on our own, due to Original Sin, and sacrifices cannot help in that regards.  "For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins" (Hebrews 10:4, ESV)  So God ordained to send His Son into the world as a sacrifice for our sins.  Because Jesus was so infinitely perfect, his one sacrifice was sufficient for all.  "...when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet.  For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified" (Hebrews 10: 12-14, ESV).

4. We believe in his literal resurrection from the dead.  This is not all there is.  There is life after death, and some people are going to heaven, and some people are going to hell. Forever.

5. We believe in his literal return at the Second Coming.  This is not all there is.  He's coming back, and he's going to be angry with some people.  Revelation says he will be on a white horse, wearing a blood-spattered robe, with a double-edged sword coming out of his mouth, and tattoos on his leg.  And he's going to be "trampling down the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored".  The subsequent verses in Revelation 19 carry a very graphic portrayal of the feast that there will be for the carrion vultures due to all the enemies of God being slain.  Try to reconcile this with your Swedish hippie Jesus.  The Jesus of the Gospels is the same as the Jesus of Revelation, and you need to know him both as incarnate and exalted.

I have a lot of friends who are part of a church where these truths have always been affirmed.  But a subordinate ministry of this church that's geared towards young adults is now taking part in "conversations" using source material in which these truths are no longer affirmed.  Heretical teachings are being promoted, which come from authors who may say that they personally agree with the doctrines of the Trinity and the Virgin Birth, but they do not consider these doctrines as necessary, merely as helpful.  Like a trampoline where you can remove one or two springs from around the edge, but the thing will still work.  My friends are promoting books by authors who do not believe in the infallibility of scripture, who teach that truth is relative and that you can pick and choose what you like, and that the Bible is "open-ended", more of a narrative rather than timeless truth.  Who teach the Pelagian heresy that you have the power to follow God's commands in and of yourself, without the need for grace.  If my friends believe the things that are said in this book, then they have stopped being Fundamentalists.  And this makes me very sad.  This is a church that tries to be a "middle-road" church.  Recently this church kicked out all the Calvinists and removed all books by Calvinist authors from their bookstore, because of this middle-roadedness.  I will be curious to see what they do with this. The Pelagian-sounding teachings of the books these guys are reading are so much further off course on the other side.

Have you heard the Johnny Cash song, "God's Gonna Cut You Down?"  Please, return to the height from which you have fallen, before it's too late.  I love you.

Here is an excellent article by John Piper, with personal testimony about how God still speaks to us today.  It might not be what you're expecting.  I highly recommend it.

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. (2 Timothy 3:16-4:4, ESV)

You may have noticed a recent blog post, and you may or may not be surprised that it upset a few people. And, although I softened a couple harsh phrases, I never took it down.

I posted it in reaction to a friend of mine reading a chapter out of a book by Rob Bell called Velvet Elvis, at a midweek Bible study full of young people who might not have the discernment or wherewithal to see the dangers of it for themselves. And apparently there is a decent-sized group of young people in the same circle who are really into the book. I have heard testimony from people who have seen groups of them in coffee shops around town, gathered together to read this book. I have also heard testimony from those who have seen young people from the same circle in the bookstore purchasing Rob Bell's new book, curiously titled Sex God.

I'm not going to touch that one with a ten-foot pole.

But as for the first book, The Velvet Elvis, I knew that it was a load of crap right away, from hearing just the one chapter. So I went home and got on "The Google". I read some blogs by people who were tearing it apart, but I presumed that they were misquoting and taking things out of context, which turned out to be the case in at least one instance. But they were probably justified in their exaggeration. (Why would Bell tear apart a core tenet of historic orthodox Christianity and then say, "I didn't mean to tear it apart, I believe in it, after all?")

Now that I have read the whole thing for myself, I can start blogging about it more specifically. I will be taking direct quotes from the book, Lord-willing, not out of context, and counter Rob Bell's words with Scripture and historic Christian doctrinal creeds. But first, I want to lay a foundation about the dangers of the Emergent church movement in general.

It may be that my friends are quite over that book and are no longer advocating the reading of it, and if so, then praise God! But the book is still out there, available to all, and the Emergent church movement is still alive and well.

The Emergent church is harmful because it breeds doubt and embraces doubt. I was listening to John MacArthur, who describes it as

bashing the truth, shredding the truth without having to put anything in its place, being cute and clever and novel and shocking and all of that, and leaving people stunned, but with nothing else. This is the worst kind of stuff because it sows seeds of doubt in the most fragile. This is the stuff that victimizes the children who are 'tossed to and fro and carried about by every wind of doctrine.' [...] And then to elevate that [tossing, doubt] as if that's real spiritual nobility is sad. ("What's So Dangerous About the Emerging Church?", Grace To You, Audio CD)

I feel very concerned for the "children tossed to and fro" (Eph. 4:14). I have friends who are deeply heartbroken over someone they know who suffers in this way, to the point of hysterics, sinking in shifting sands rather than grounded on the solid rock of Christ. I have another friend who has been battling doubt herself, and, although she is an independent thinker, I am certain that this doubt is the fruit of the environment around her which is embracing the Emergent movement, because the Emergent movement embraces doubt as if it's a good thing!

Emergents may or may not believe in absolute truth, but they do not believe it is possible for you to know the truth, if it exists. This makes tolerance the absolute rule and kind of does away with preaching altogether.

The book of Jude urges us to "contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints" (verse 3). Jude talks about how harmful it is to allow heresy in the midst of the church, saying,

These are blemishes on your love feasts, as they feast with you without fear, looking after themselves; waterless clouds, swept along by winds; fruitless trees in late autumn, twice dead, uprooted; wild waves of the sea, casting up the foam of their own shame; wandering stars, for whom the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved forever. (vv. 12-13, ESV)

The Bible is very explicit that truth is to be defended and that heresy is not to be tolerated. But in the postmodern culture and in the Emergent circles, it seems intolerance is the only sin that cannot be tolerated! But this is where we must separate our public lives from our spiritual lives. We can tolerate all kinds of things civilly, deal with all kinds of wickedness in the culture around us or even in the workplace. But such things cannot be tolerated in the church!

Jude says there are three ways to handle heretics and those who listen to them. "And have mercy on those who doubt; save others by snatching them out of the fire; to others show mercy with fear, hating even the garment stained by the flesh." (vv. 22-23) Some you will be able to reason with through counseling, others you will have to be aggressive in your approach in order to keep them from the fires of hell, and others you have to treat like a disease, like clothes contaminated with leprosy that will infect all who come near them, that you must completely remove all association with such and protect your flock from them, because of the malignancy of their infection!

I must, in conclusion, point out that Jude ends his epistle by giving glory to the sovereign God who is able to sustain and preserve his children though they may be surrounded by all kinds of doctrinal error. Jude recognizes that God's going to take care of the ones who are truly his. They will never fall away.

Now to him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you blameless before the presence of his glory with great joy, to the only God, our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen. (Jude 24-25, ESV)

This is a blog.

In an Article on 9Marks, Mike McKinley observes, “...the consensus among those concerned about the future of the church is that we must adapt or perish.”

Why do we use illustrations from evolution when talking about the church?

This is a poignant point that he's making, and I mean about the fact of this consensus. I disagree with the consensus itself, because it is based on evolutionary thought, not biblical thought. Evolutionary thought believes in the survival of the fittest. The smartest animals adapt in the most effective ways and therefore survive to live another year. Biblical thought believes in the survival of the obedient. Through purges such as a global flood (Genesis 7:1), famine (Genesis 45:7), persecutions (1 Kings 19:18), war (2 Kings 19:4), and exiles (Ezra 9:8), God had always preserved a remnant, by his own hand. It wasn't their smartness or chameleonic conforming to the culture around them that allowed them to survive. In fact, the thing it seems God gets most angry about throughout scripture is conformity to the culture around us rather than being faithful to him and living as he commands us to in his Word.

What's interesting about this evolutionary imagery is that it also relates to the emergent discussion.

Origins

“Emerging” as a movement has been happening for some time. Some guys wrote a book called The Emerging Church in 1970, and I believe their point was that the church is never in this life going to fully grow into the Bride of Christ it's supposed to be, to a point where it can say, “Okay, we're done now, leave us alone.” I have not read this book, and I don’t even know whether it's still in print, though you can get it on eBay for $1.95. The mission of the emerging church is primarily a missiological, building bridges and reaching out to the culture around it.

Distinct from the emerging church, there is a particular ecumenical organization called the Emergent Village, and from that has come a particular strain within the emerging movement than is described as “emergent”.

Emerging is the gerund form of a verb we might use regularly when we talk about a swamp monster, or gas, or even a beautiful morning. But emergent we probably won't use as much. Which kind of makes its definition much more particular, as well as its use in the discussion of these movements. The terms are very similar, but when we hear one we don’t necessarily need to associate it with the other. Although some emerging-types are emergent, and some emergent-types are emerging, neither necessitates the other. This means we also need to make a distinction when we look at where their names come from.

I thought this post from Mars Hill Church Shoreline was especially poignant.

Where would we be today if God had not sovereignly chosen John Calvin to be a light in the darkness and help lead the Protestant Reformation?

James White has a tribute and a quote from the Institutes on the Alpha and Omega Ministries website.

These are my thoughts on Mark Driscoll's so-called "banned church planting video" which I saw three months ago. I haven't played WOW since.

Here is the link to the video on The Resurgence along with a blog about why it was banned.

Here is the link for the new podcast feed for the Sunday night Bible study in 1 Peter. Sorry, we're already half-way through chapter 3! Also, the computer somehow stopped recording about 10 seconds before "in Jesus name, amen," so Pat's closing prayer is cut short.

Subscribe with iTunes

For those who don't have iTunes, here's a direct link to the xml file.

Sovereign Joy Christian Fellowship meets at the Dorothy Johnson Center in Chapmantown, 775 E 16th Street, at 10 AM beginning tomorrow, August 26. Patrick Mathers will be beginning a series of messages on the gospel of Matthew.

If you are not already plugged in to a Bible-believing church, or if you are but are still free to come support us with your presence on our first Sunday, we would love to have you.

So, what's Sovereign Joy all about? Our mission statement is, "to worship God in all of his glory, enjoy him in all of his fullness, spread a passion for his truth to all peoples, that Jesus might be praised forever." And we commonly follow the mission statement with this comment: "To this end, we are committed to proclaiming the whole counsel of God contained in the Old and New Testaments of the Holy Bible."

We don't seek to "compete" with other churches, or to promote the special "thing" about us that sets us apart or makes us different from them. We desire to preach the gospel of God's grace overcoming sin in the death of Christ on the cross. And all churches should do this.

Okay, now where does the name come from?

Augustine's Confessions, Book IX, Chapter 1:

"Who am I, and what is my nature? What evil is there not in me and my deeds; or if not in my deeds, my words; or if not in my words, my will? But thou, O Lord, art good and merciful, and they right hand didst reach into the depth of my death and didst empty out the abyss of corruption from the bottom of my heart. And this was the result: now I did not will to do what I willed, and began to will to do what thou didst will.