Lines In The Sand--Necessary Barriers and Where to Draw Them Part III

As I noted on Tuesday and Wednesday, we all have places in our lives where we might draw a “line in the sand” so to speak.  The problem comes, sometimes, in identifying where those lines need to be drawn.  Regarding theological matters, we need to be able to articulate those with whom we could cooperate with as Christians or at least affirm them as fellow believers and those who we would regard as being so out of bounds theologically that we could not affirm them as fellow believers.  For me, that decision comes down to three simple questions, or more particularly, how they answer those questions.  In order to affirm someone as a fellow believer, I would want them to answer “Who is God?”, “Who is Jesus?”, and “What is the Gospel?”

What is the Gospel?

Finally, because the gospel has been redefined by heretics who actually deny the gospel taught in the Bible (a la Rob Bell, those who preach a “social gospel”, etc), I would have to ask what that person believes the gospel is. For me to understand a person to be preaching the gospel that the apostles preached, they would have to recognize the complete holiness and perfection of God. Further, they would have to recognize mankind as sinful to the core and incapable of doing anything to justify themselves before a holy God. Mankind, then, stands before God justly condemned for their sins. God, out of His great love, chose to send Christ to die on the cross as the atoning sacrifice for sin, bearing God’s wrath on the cross. Therefore, any person who repents of their sin and trusts Christ to save them will be saved. They must consciously trust Christ—hence the urgency for those of us who believe to be about the task of proclaiming the gospel because people who worship other faiths (Muslim, Hindu, etc) are lost and bound for hell outside of a conscious faith in Christ Jesus in this lifetime. In other words, inclusivism is something that Paul referred to in Galatians as “another gospel” and those who preach it are accursed.

Well, there it is—quite short, simple, and to the point. Given these three questions we've considered, there is room for someone to be a paedobaptist or a credobaptist, charismatic or cessationist, young earth and old earth, Calvinist or non-Calvinist and still be a Christian as far as I'm concerned.  I mean, let's face it--no one with an ounce of sense would suggest, for instance, that Calvinists were false teachers.  That would be a statement only a moron would make.  Well, a moron or someone who quotes Wikipedia as an authoritative source.  Haa haa.  The same would be said for someone who would call a young earth creationist or old earth creationist a false teacher.  Those positions simply don't fall into the catagory of heresy.

I don't think I'm in anyway narrowminded. Now, I personally could not go church planting with a paedobaptist, but I can affirm them as Christians.  It is important, I think, to only draw "lines in the sand" in places where failure to do so would compromise the gospel because, as Paul says in Romans, the gospel is the power of God unto salvation for everybody who believes.

Lines In The Sand--Necessary Barriers and Where to Draw Them Part II

As I said in my post yesterday, we all have places in our lives where we might draw a “line in the sand” so to speak. The problem comes, sometimes, in identifying where those lines need to be drawn. Regarding theological matters, we need to be able to articulate those with whom we could cooperate with as Christians or at least affirm them as fellow believers and those who we would regard as being so out of bounds theologically that we could not affirm them as fellow believers. For me, that decision comes down to three simple questions, or more particularly, how they answer those questions. In order to affirm someone as a fellow believer, I would want them to answer “Who is God?”, “Who is Jesus?”,and “What is the Gospel?”


Who is Jesus?

The next point I would examine is this—who does this person say Jesus is? Again, space is limited so I will hit the high pints of what I consider paramount issues regarding Christology. A person would have to affirm that Christ is the 2nd person of the Trinity, and that He is just as much God as the 1st or 3rd persons of the Trinity are. In other words, He has always existed as God. However, when He came to earth, He became the Incarnate God—the God-man. They would have to affirm His virgin birth. They would also have to affirm His literal, physical resurrection. They would have to acknowledge the miracles He performed as well. They would have to affirm that His death on the cross paid the price for sins and it is only by a person consciously trusting in Him and repenting of those sins that they can be saved. I would also consider it foundational that they acknowledge His ascension to the right hand of God the Father in heaven. In short, they would have to acknowledge Him as being Who He said He was, doing what He said He did, and going where He said He was going.

Tomorrow, I will examine my answer to the last, and possibly most important, question--What is the gospel?

Lines In The Sand--Necessary Barriers And Where to Draw Them

We all have places in our lives where we might draw a “line in the sand” so to speak.  The problem comes, sometimes, in identifying where those lines need to be drawn.  Regarding theological matters, we need to be able to articulate those with whom we could cooperate with as Christians or at least affirm them as fellow believers and those who we would regard as being so out of bounds theologically that we could not affirm them as fellow believers.  For me, that decision comes down to three simple questions, or more particularly, how they answer those questions.  In order to affirm someone as a fellow believer, I would want them to answer “Who is God?”, “Who is Jesus?”, and “What is the Gospel?”

Who is God?

For me to consider someone a Christian, I would want to know first of all who they think God is. Is God just some mysterious force a la George Lucas? Is He the “god of our many understandings” as Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson said? Do Muslims worship the same god as Christians or is the God Christians worship distinct from Allah, making Allah a false god?

For me to be willing to cooperate with someone in gospel ministry or to at least affirm them as a fellow Christian, they would have to acknowledge God as a Trinity—one God, three distinct but co-equal, co-substantial, and co-eternal beings who are all equally God. Further, they would have to recognize God as the One who spoke the world into existence out of nothingness, therefore being the Creator of the universe. That creation would also include the special creation of the first two human beings on the planet—Adam and Eve. I would also add that they must recognize His holiness—His total separation from sin. In addition, they would also have to recognize Him as a truth-telling God meaning that when He spoke He spoke truth. In other words, the Bible totally is inerrant and inspired (the Chicago Statement does a good job of giving the singular definition of inerrancy, what it is, and what it is not). In short, someone who could not affirm verbal, plenary inspiration and the inerrancy of scripture including all miracles and the historicity of all events recorded is basically calling God a liar. They would be outside the brick wall.

Obviously, there is no way to adequately define a doctrine of God in a short blog post. However, those points above hit the major highlights of what I would consider non-negotiable items. If a person were to deny any one of those, I could not regard them as Christians or fellowship with them as such.

Tomorrow and Thursday I will post my answers to the other two questions.

Habakkuk 2:1-5 The Character of the Wicked and the Character of the Righteous Part I

In His Sermon on the Mount, our Lord Jesus Christ said “Blessed are the poor in Spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven”.  That verse, as well as anything else that I can think of, encapsulates the mindset of someone who recognizes their need for the gospel.  In order to desire the righteousness of God through faith in Christ, a person has to recognize their spiritual bankruptcy.  They have to have come to the end of themselves and be willing to throw away all of their pride and self righteousness.  In lovingly and sovereignly answering Habakkuk’s 2^nd complaint in chapter 1 (“God, how can you use the wicked Babylonians to punish your people?), God also teaches Habakkuk and us about the humility of righteous and the pride of the wicked. 

We should observe first of all where this is happening in Habakkuk’s conversation with God.  Habakkuk has questioned God’s apparent non-judgment of the wicked.  God counters that He will most certainly judge the wicked in Israel and that He will use the Babylonians to do it.  Habakkuk then does his best Gary Coleman impression (“What you talking about, Jehovah?”).  Now, Habakkuk, in spite of not having all the answers, comes to a place that we all have to face when God doesn’t make sense.  When the hurt, confusion, and pain are too much, you and I that worship God have to decide to trust God in the midst of and in spite of those circumstances.  Notice, in Habakkuk 2:1, that is exactly what the prophet does.  He says, basically, “I will stand and wait on God”.  Now, depending on the version of the Bible you read, the text either says:

(ESV)  I will take my stand at my watchpost and station myself on the tower, and look out to see what he will say to me, and what I will answer concerning my complaint.

(NKJV) I will stand my watch And set myself on the rampart, And watch to see what He will say to me, And what I will answer when I am corrected.

(NLT)  I will climb up to my watchtower and stand at my guardpost. There I will wait to see what the LORD says and how he will answer my complaint.

Neo-Orthodoxy was neither "new" nor "orthodox".  Dicuss.

Reading the textual footnotes in my ESV and various commentaries and word studies on this verse leads me to this very definitive statement on this verse and the underlying Hebrew text—I have absolutely no idea what is different or why some translators translate it differently.  I know enough Greek to be dangerous, but my knowledge of Hebrew is limited to what I picked up from Mike Myers playing Linda Richman on Saturday Night Live’s “Coffee Talk” (“I’m getting verklempt.  Talk amongst yourselves.  I’ll give you a topic.”).  So, I think the simplest explanation here is the best—Habakkuk, in spite of his doubts and questions, chose to wait on God because he trusted Him.

Now, God chooses to answer Habakkuk’s complaint—not because He has to do so.  He is not obligated to explain Himself to us.  We are creatures.  He is the uncreated One.  But because God is so merciful, kind, and loving, He chose to answer Habakkuk with some very encouraging words and then to inspire him to record these words in Holy Scripture.  As we read to the end of the chapter, we see that God will in fact judge and punish the Babylonians who are going to be used as the instruments of judgment against Israel.  He begins here to lay out that truth for Habakkuk.  This truth, that God will judge sin, is a truth that should be “made plain” and we can be sure that “it will surely come—it will not delay”.  So, while we look at a world that routinely snubs its collective nose at God and finds new and more audacious ways to sin, we can know that we serve a God who will vindicate Himself and His righteousness someday.  We can praise Him and thank Him that He is just and will perfectly execute justice in His own time.  Like Habakkuk, we can be assured that “If it [God’s judgment] seems slow [we should patiently] wait for it.”

We will look next time as to how God is going to judge.  What is the criteria He will use to determine if someone is righteous or not?  I will go ahead and give you a spoiler waring—it is what it has always been:  faith.