Should Doctrinal Deviations Be Dismissed?
Dear Guests:
This is the final installment of my Heart to Heart series. I may post a follow up article later.
We live in a day of confusion and deception over several vital doctrines. The Gospel is under assault today just as it has been since the first century. It is, therefore, crucial that men of God, called by God to the ministry, declare God’s Word and resist assaults on the truth of God’s Word.
It is foolish to dismiss doctrinal deviation simply because its source is a previously trusted friend, fellowship, or institution. Fidelity to biblical truth is the greatest expression of love. When a man’s doctrine is brought into question and that question is based on published statements he has made, is it unreasonable to ask that man to clarify his doctrine and expect a clear, unvarnished answer? Is it unreasonable to search the Scriptures to determine the soundness of a man’s theological position?
The teaching of the “Crossless” gospel cannot be ignored. Even for those who have personal friendships at stake, fidelity to the Word of God must take precedence. The Psalmist wrote, “I am a companion of all them that fear thee, and of them that keep thy precepts,” (Psalm 119:63).
The Apostle Paul wrote, “And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed,” (2 Thessalonians 3:14).
The Bible plainly teaches that we are not to keep company with those who do not keep the Word of God.
What If You Have Been Wrong?
You may be an individual who has already adopted the teaching of the “Crossless” gospel. You may be on the fence about the issue. It is possible that after having read various articles at this blog you may feel that you made a mistake, or are about to make a mistake in regard to the “Crossless” interpretation of the Gospel.
It is my hope and prayer that if you are having reservations about the “Crossless” gospel, if you are having doubts about what you have been exposed to, you will take it before the Lord and search the Scriptures once again. Can a gospel message that eliminates the need for a lost man to believe in the finished work of Christ be the Gospel? Can a gospel message that strips the Lord’s titles (“the Christ” & “Son of God”) of their Deity be the Gospel of Jesus Christ?
Admitting you were wrong on a particular doctrine is one of the hardest things for a believer to do. It takes a high measure of belt-tightening and swallowing of pride to make an admission like that, but it is a sign of genuine character. It shows a teachable, humble spirit, and demonstrates your loyalty to Scripture. Christians who genuinely love and care for you will rally to your side and appreciate your candor and humility.
LM
Please proceed to the final part in the series, Aftermath: Heart to Heart Series.
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means---electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or otherwise--without the prior written permission of the author or the publisher, with the exception of brief excerpts in magazine articles and/or reviews.
I'm not tooting my own horn here, just spouting a testimony that I hope encourages people to weigh their views against scripture and change THEIR view when the two don't match.
ReplyDeleteBack in June, when Wilkin visited our church, I would have claimed without batting an eye that I was on the Lordship side of the aisle. The truth is that I have come to realize that I wouldn't have had any real idea what I was talking about back then. As I've researched Wilkin one thing I've become convinced of is that I am NOT Lordship in terms of soteriology. I probably do have what could be called Lordship tendency's in regards to sanctification however but am reconsidering even that.
I also have Calvinist tendencies, though a 4-pointer (Limited atonement seems decidedly incorrect) and what I've recently learned is called the Amyraldian view. It wasn't until I read a debate between Kerry Gilyard and Bob Wilkin that I became aware of the debated issue of regeneration before justification. I'm weighing all of this and am reconsidering my fundamental views for the first time in years. One thing is certain, and I read elsewhere that these are Lou's main issues with Calvinism, is that 1) I am not fatalistic and believe we should absolutely preach the gospel to everyone. 2) I only became aware of the idea of regeneration before justification very recently so I don't have a stand one way or the other at this point. At this time I do believe man cannot come to God completely on his own, he must be drawn by God, but I also believe man has a bona fide ability, and thus personal responsibility, to respond. Some would argue this is logically inconsistent but the simple truth is I see both sovereignty and free will in scripture and accept them as compatible in the mind of God.
Hi Knet:
ReplyDeleteI'll have some thoughts for you later. Busy on other projects at the moment.
For now, you wrote, "Some would argue this is logically inconsistent but the simple truth is I see both sovereignty and free will in scripture and accept them as compatible in the mind of God."
You are correct. I have written on the twin truths of God's Sovereignty and the Free Will/Responsibility of man.
Both are truths, they are NOT competing truths.
Lou
Some serious flaws in theology.
ReplyDeleteI am very serious, these are incredibly valid points that people make God out to be and do.
Knowing that the Lamb was slain(the atonement) from before the foundation of the world(Rev 13:8).
Some people make this to be only for a chosen few(the Elect), where God is not ALL Loving and very finite in grace; Creating men that are the non-chosen few. These must be hated creations, for the very purpose of being destroyed in hell, which is contrary to reality.
Some people are claiming that man can not even do what is required to be right with God which is to repent and put his faith in/on Christ.
Some people claim that one must be "regenerated" first before he can even attempt to repent and put his faith in/on Christ.
This puts the blame on God for them not obeying the command of repenting and putting his faith in/on Christ.
The blame is on Him because one is excused from a command until one is able.
Example:
A family has a law that all members must take turns mowing the lawn.
Along comes Junior, a day old infant.
Is Junior included in the law to maw the lawn, or is he excluded until the ability is come?
This is a fact of reality and can not be discounted just because it is about God.
Some people's theology has God literally condemning Junior to hell for not mowing the lawn by not giving him the ability first and letting him willingly choose to disobey.
If a father did this in reality, he would be deemed a sadistic, devilish tyrant. Why isn't God the same if this is true?
Or, to put this analogy to reality, You have man with no ability to do what is required to be right with God which is to repent and put his faith in/on Christ.
Some people's theology has God condemning man to hell for not doing that which they can no do.
This theology makes God wrathful and hating man from the result of His own doing.
This theology makes God wrathful and hating man because He Himself made them blind.
This theology makes God wrathful and hating man because He Himself would not let them obey by not regenerating them.
This theology makes God wrathful and hating man because He Himself made the law of "Federal Headship of Adam" so that all mankind would be condemned in Adam before any one was born(Psalm 51:5).
This theology makes God wrathful and hating man because He Himself made the very nature of man to be sin by the law of "Federal Headship of Adam" which HE Himself instituted. This nature causes all mankind to sin and go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies.(Psalm 58:3).
Anyone
Please explain How God is Justified in doing all this with out saying, "God is God and I am not, so I have no right to think any thing that lines up with reality and compare it to GOD."
Or
"He is god, he can do what he wants even though it goes against all that is correct, and who am I anyway to question God."
This theology does not line up with reality, How can God do what is not real?
Again, I am serious, Please explain this theology with out the above excuses.
This is the God this theology presents:
(note: I do not agree to the this specific usage of the Psalms here)
God could have made a world with no sin when it is evident that HE didn't, means that He chose the world that has sin over the one that didn't. This, in turn, means that He wanted sin to exist.
He then made Adam to sin by His sovereignty(the ultimate cause of everything and ultimate control of everything); the reasoning behind this is if Adam did sin against God's will, that would mean that Adams will is greater than God's.
God made the law of "Federal Headship of Adam" so that all mankind would be condemned in Adam before any one was born(Psalm 51:5). This causes the very nature of man to be sin, hence the "sin nature". This nature causes all mankind to sin and go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies.(Psalm 58:3).
(I do not agree to the usage of these Psalms here)
God commands all mankind to do the impossible and condemns man for not obeying. Man is condemned for that which is unavoidable. Therefore, man is doing that which he was created to do, that is to sin.
Those who are pre-selected to hell in contra-position to the Elect, can not ever repent because God refuses to give them the ability and condemns for it.
Hi Darin:
ReplyDeleteI see you have expressed concern with some of the points of Calvinism. I also have concerns in that area.
I am especially troubled by their regeneration before faith position.
There is a site I link to that addresses this issue. Click on The Dangers of Reformed Theology link in my Recommended Sites section in the left column.
That is all I have time for right now.
Thanks for stopping by.
Lou
Hey Lou, and other men,
ReplyDeleteI've been deep in discussion with a couple 5 Point Calvinists about "total inability" and the resulting Calvinist conclusion that Regeneration (being Born Again) must happen prior to Salvation.
It's been a great conversation so far. I wish it would make sense to reproduce it here.. I would like to post a full article on it at my blog at some point.
Gen 3:22, Rom 1:18-24, Eph 2:5 all point clearly to the fact that being dead in sin doesn't mean we are "unable" to respond.
The conversation has really boiled down to that those with a false understanding of Repentance really MUST force regeneration to be prior to salvation in order not to violate the statement of Salvation being by faith without works. Because they have made Repentance a work instead of a "change of mind". http://onmywalk.blogspot.com/2007/10/short-definition-of-repentance.html
This conversation has helped me to figure out why the 5 Pointer must believe in Total Inability and Regeneration prior to salvation.
We all really need to guard our minds against reading our presuppositions into Scripture. I know that's an impossible task, but I hope we can all look at the dangers of it and do our best not to let it happen.
Kev
Kev:
ReplyDeleteThanks for posting this and the link.
I have written a fair amount on Calvinism's Total Inability that leads to the regeneration before faith position.
It is a position derived from reliance on human reasoning over the revelation of Scripture.
Lou