N.T. Wright: Just Another Liberal

Sounds like Bishop Wright has been tutored in the Rodney King school of politics:

"What I wish we could say to terrorists and others: Look, we take our religion seriously, too, and it leads us to different conclusions from you. We might be wrong; so might you; but in the name of whichever god you invoke, would it not be a better thing for us all to talk together about the issues at the heart of our respective faiths than to try to achieve dominance by violence?"

In other words, "Why can't we all just get along?"

Bishop Wright is just another liberal trying to tell us with slick academic doubletalk that no, you dear unsophisticated rabble, the Bible really does not mean what it says. There, now. Don't you feel better?

Martin Luther on Sola Fide

For those who doubt that Martin Luther "got it right" about salvation by faith alone (sola fide), let us hear what he has to say in his own words and search the Scriptures, like the noble Bereans, to see if these things are so:

"Whilst a man is persuaded that he has it in his power to contribute anything, be it ever so little, to his salvation, he remains in carnal self-confidence; he is not a self-despairer, and therefore is not duly humbled before God, he believes he may lend a helping hand in his salvation, but on the contrary, whoever is truly convinced that the whole work depends singly on the will of God, such a person renounces his own will and strength; he waits and prays for the operation of God, nor waits and prays in vain . . ."

Martin Luther did not believe that human works can in any way contribute anything to the salvation of the believer. N.T. Wright and the New Perspective crowd think Luther got Paul all wrong, but there is no doubt about where Luther stood on the subject.

More Questions for Dr. Armstrong

Dr. Armstrong,

Your friend Doug Pagitt, one of the leaders of the emerging church, recently said the following about John MacArthur:

"I'm not sure you'd be interested in this, but I have just finished a book somewhat on this topic. I think it might give you a more full understanding of the gospel than the one perverted by the likes of John MacArthur. I do not say "perverted" lightly, either. I really think what he communicates is so distant from the message of the Bible that it is dangerously harmful to people. If you heard the interview and his comments about a God who is "above us," I certainly hope you would see this."

I have two questions for you:

1. Do you agree with Doug Pagitt? and

2. Since Doug Pagitt admits his gospel is different from the one preached by John MacArthur, then according to Galatians 1:8-9 one of these two gospels is "a different gospel" and the one who preaches it is accursed.

In your opinion, which gospel deserves to be accursed?

Only Slightly Dead

After a thorough examination by Arminian church officials, Bob was found to be only "slightly dead" in trespasses and sins.

(HT -- Sacred Sandwich)

Just Enough of God's Truth to Deceive the Unwary

"It is because so many untaught men, unregenerate men, now occupy the pulpits that "another gospel" (Gal. 1:6) is being so widely and generally disseminated. Multitudes who have neither "tasted that the Lord is gracious" nor have "the fear of the Lord" in them have, from various motives and considerations, invaded the sacred calling of the ministry, and out of the abundance of their corrupt hearts they speak.

Being blind themselves, they lead the blind into the ditch. Having no love for the Shepherd they have none for the sheep, being but "hirelings." They are themselves "of the world" and therefore "the world heareth them" (1 John 4:5), for they preach that which is acceptable unto fallen human nature, and as like attracts like, they gather around themselves a company of admirers who flatter and support them. They will bring in just enough of God’s Truth to deceive the unwary and give the appearance of orthodoxy to their message, but not sufficient of the Truth, especially the searching portions thereof, to render their hearers uncomfortable by destroying their false peace. They will name Christ but not preach Him, mention the Gospel but not expound it".

AW Pink

Sound like anyone you know?

"I Believe in Jesus, Not Doctrine"

For Dr. Armstrong and all those who claim to believe in Jesus, but don't want to talk about doctrine:

You cannot separate what a man believes from what he is. For this reason doctrine is vitally important. Certain people say ignorantly, "I do not believe in doctrine; I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ; I am saved, I am a Christian, and nothing else matters". To speak in that way is to court disaster, and for this reason, the New Testament itself warns us against this very danger. We are to guard ourselves against being "tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine", for if your doctrine goes astray your life will soon suffer as well.

-- Martyn Lloyd-Jones (HT Old Truth.com)

Humpty Dumpty: The Perfect Mascot for PoMos

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, " it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all."

John Armstrong's "Last Word," and Mine

Since I have now apparently been banned from posting on John Armstrong's blog, I will post his "last word" and mine here. The remainder of our exchange is under his August 17, 2007 post titled, "'Propositional Truth,' 'Objective Truth' and the Debate Over What We Know and How We Know It."

Dr. Armstrong's "last word" appears first:


Jeff,

This will be my last response! You are determined to "pull me out of the thicket" as you put it. This assumes I am in danger of losing my soul and yet you do not even know me pesonally. The hubris of this theological conclusion is quite staggering really. Many readers will follow this and make up their own mind as they read. God will decide the truth of the matter and thus we will each stand or fall to our own Master. I am grateful for your obvious concern. I reject, however, your arguments and really have nothing much else to add. I am also profoundly grateful that God is my final judge and that his mercy is more gracious and reliable than your human judgments and logic. If a man who relies on Christ alone---his death, burial and resurrection---to save him from his own acknowledged and confessed sin is a Christian then I am one.

If I opposed Christ and his kingdom then your concluding comments might be appropriate. I suggest you rather spend your time trying to win people for our Lord who actually deny Christ and do not believe in saving faith which is granted by the Holy Spirit alone. That is my own calling as a minister of the gospel thus I have nothing else to add to this back and forth form of commenting on this blog spot.

Grace and peace to you my brother!

Here is my "last word:"

Dr. Armstrong:

Since you have given your "last word" on this subject, I will give mine.

First, you claim I am guilty of "hubris" because I do not know you. How do you know that we are not acquainted? Isn't it hubris to assume that we are not?

Second, the "human judgments and logic" you claim I rely upon are only human if you assume that Scripture is a merely human interpretation. That is why I asked (and you declined to answer) whether you affirm the doctrine of the verbal inspiration of Scripture. Scripture (i.e., the very words of God) is most emphatically not merely human and not mere logic -- it is "the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes." (Romans 1:16) That is where your beliefs and orthodox Biblical Christianity diverge -- at least, you have given no reason for the reader to think otherwise in any of your responses to my questions.

Third, you appeal to God to "decide the matter" and to be your "final judge." How can you be so certain that He has not already decided? If God has spoken with truth and finality through His holy and inspired Word (and He has), then if your beliefs (or mine or anyone's) diverge from the truth set forth in His Word we are in error, and nothing remains to be determined.

Finally, every Christian should indeed try to win people for the Lord. Every Christian is also commanded: "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world." (1 John 4:1)

If the Christ you or I rely upon and proclaim is not the true Christ of Scripture, then we are in danger of losing our souls, and it does not matter whether you or I spend our time trying to win people to the Lord, what our calling is, what our epistemology is, or whatever else we may believe.

I will remain in prayer for your soul.

Willing to Believe Anything -- Except The Bible

The incomparable Charles Spurgeon (he of the dead white preachers) hits the nail squarely on the head in discussing the unbelief of our postmodern friends, as it was given expression in Spurgeon's day:

The [post]moderns are able to believe anything except their Bibles. They credulously receive any statement, so long as it is not in the Scriptures; but if it is founded on Scripture, they are, of course, prepared to doubt and quibble and cavil straight away.

Hmmm. Sounds familiar. Same old unbelief, just different words.