Churchless Christianity, as defined by Kevin DeYoung in Why We Love the Church, is a form of Christianity that believes “Christians don’t need to belong to a visible church.  By virtue of the Spirit and faith in Jesus, every Christian will belong to the invisible church, but identifying with a local expression of Christ’s body is simply not necessary, and in some cases may be detrimental to the faith” (pg. 160).

From my unscientific observations, I would say this belief is readily embraced and espoused by many in America, especially those within my age demographic (29).

Although I disagree with this position and will relate several points from DeYoung’s book on why it falls short, I don’t believe it can be wholly discarded as just another liberal movement.  Why?  Well, there is a lot of legitimacy to what people are saying and have experienced in the local church.

But, regardless of our personal experiences, we don’t have the right to divorce the local church and live a churchless Christianity.  In working from a foundation established by Timothy Tennent, here are several reasons why churchless Christianity just doesn’t work (Disclaimer: Some of these arguments have more merit than others.  Quite frankly, some of them I wouldn’t have even added to the list.  I wonder if you can figure out which one’s those are?)

One Catholic Church

“First, Tennent mentiones the Nicene Creed and its confession, ‘I believe in one, holy, catholic , apostolic church.’  Catholic reminds us of the universality of the church, that despite all our differences there is still one Lord, one faith, and one Baptist (Eph. 4.5).  If Christians are not baptized in the triune name and are not willing to identify with the visible Christian community, what happens to the orthodox confession in one catholic church?” (pg. 162).

Church History

“Second, we have the record of church history.  ‘From a historical perspective, the existence of unbaptized believers in Christ who are not under the authority of the church is not accepted as normative ecclesiology” (pg. 162).

The Meaning of Ekklesia (church)

“Third, Tennent notes that the very word ekklesia means ‘public assembly’ and speaks to the necessity of our Christian commitment being made visible” (pg. 162).

We Shouldn’t Divorce the Church Over Personal Preference

“Argument four: We don’t need to choose between no church and a thoroughly Westernized church.  Or to put it in our context, we don’t need to reject the church outright just because we don’t like organs, praise bands, or big buildings” (pg. 162).

No Local Church = No Discipline

“Argument five: Without church membership there’s no place for the important role of church discipline” (pg. 162)

Whole Church Robbed of Variety

“And finally, if Christians, especially those in other parts of the world, refuse to identify with the visible church, the whole church will be robbed of the insights and beauty that come from multivaried expressions of our common faith” (pg. 162).

Though Invisible, the Church is Visible

“Part of the confusion lies with the familiar [minimalistic] distinction between the visible and invisible church…” (pg. 163)

“The invisible church can also refer to the church hidden, and the visible church to the church manifest.  That is, the invisible church is the church we believe in by faith, the church in communion with God, the church that partakes in all Christ’s benefits, the gloriouis church yet to be fully revealed.  By contrast, must of this glory is hidden in the visible church.  Instead of beauty, we see imperfection.  We see a community often unlike Christ.  We see the church with little ‘already’ and a lot of ‘not yet’” (pg. 163).

“The church is unique.  Though individual believers are indwelt with the Holy Spirit as temples of God, only the church constitutes the body of Christ.  One church-leaver argues that many of the premises of institutional Christianity are suspect ‘given this one cold, hard fact: Christ indiscriminately, fully, and equally establishes his presence and life within every believer.’  While it is true that Christ establishes life in every believer, the church alone is ‘the fullness of him who fills all in all’ (Eph. 1.23).  Churchless Christianity makes about as much sense as a Christless church, and has just as much biblical warrant.  Johhn Stott’s assessment of evangelism in the book of Acts is right: The Lord ‘didn’t add them to the church without saving them, and he didn’t save them without adding them to the church.  Salvation and church membership went together; they still do’”(pg. 164).

Being the Church is More Than Relationships

“…All you need are two or more Christians in the same place at the same time being spiritual together.

The problem with this minimalist ecclesiology is that it confuses definition and function…But to say the church is the people of God is not the same as saying that wherever the people of God are there you have a church.  The problem with the previous sentence is that ‘church’ is used in two different ways.

At the beginning of the sentence, ‘the church’ refers to the universal, organic fellowship of Christians.  So, of course, the church is the people of God.  The two are almost synonymous.

But in the second half of the sentence, ‘a church’ suggests a local, concrete expression of the universal, organic fellowship.  The church manifests itself in churches.  And churches do certain things and are marked by certain characteristics.  So as a definition, the church may be the people of God, but for God’s people gathered to be a church they must function in a certain way” (pg. pg. 166)

Enjoy this post?  Consider sharing it with your friends with the Share/Shave below or Tweet above and subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS

10. You’re too structured for Charismatics, too loosey-goosey for Anglicans

9. Assumed to be a liberal until you’ve quoted Tim Keller

8. Assumed to be a liberal until you’ve qualified that although you’ve quoted Tim Keller, you also don’t want to change the Book of Church Order

7. You knew that July 10 was John Calvin’s 501st birthday

6. You’ll always add a Latin phrase to your sentences, Deo Volente.

5. You know the Five Solas were not a doo-wop group from Bayonne, New Jersey

4. You hope Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses knock on your door

3. Your idea of decorating a room is adding another bookshelf

2. Your iTunes playlist is all Michael Card, Indelible Grace, and Derik Webb – nothing currently playing on K-Love

1. You not only know all things work to the good, you rely upon it

Enjoy this post?  Consider sharing it with your friends with the Share/Shave below or Tweet above and subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS

In a recent interview, John Piper was asked:

Would there be any cautions that you would have for the New Reformed/New Calvinist Movement you referenced earlier?

In responding to this question, Piper had two remarks.  On one hand, he said:

John Piper

Yes.

My caution concerns making theology God instead of God God. Loving doing theology rather than loving God.

Sam Crabtree said to me once, “The danger of the contemporary worship awakening is that we love loving God more than we love God.” That was very profound. And you might love thinking about God more than you love God. Or arguing for God more than you love God. Or defending God more than you love God. Or writing about God more than you love God. Or preaching more than you love God. Or evangelizing more than you love God.

On the other hand, Piper goes on to say:

The danger on the other side is to say, “All that intellectual stuff, no, no, no. Doctrine, no. Intellect, no. Study, no. Experience, yes!” People who do this wind up worshipping a God of their own imagination. It feels so right, so free, and so humble because they are not getting involved in all those debates. But it isn’t. It is losing a grip on reality. So we are compelled to think hard about God and the Bible.

Hanging on with the danger I am speaking of is pride—a certain species of pride. There are many species of pride, and this is just one of them. You can call it intellectualism. There is also emotionalism, but that isn’t the danger we are talking about right now. Intellectualism is a species of pride, because we begin to prize our abilities to interpret the Bible over the God of the Bible or the Bible itself.

For the entire interview, click here.  For the audio, click here.  Finally, for the video, click here (FYI: I would have just embedded the video, but for some reason or other I did something behind the scenes to mess-up my embedding capabilities). 

[HT: Justin Taylor]

If you liked this, You may also be interested in “New” Calvinism Resources: A Collection of Articles, Audio Messages, and Books.

Enjoy this post?  Consider sharing it with your friends with the Share/Shave below or Tweet above and subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS

The more I write and interact with others about their beliefs, the more I realize that importance of holding a high view of Scripture.  If I were to engage in an extended conversation with someone else about a particular position, I would first attempt to determine what their position is on the Bible.  Depending upon someone’s belief on the reliability and authority of the Bible will determine their conclusions. 

With this in mind I wanted to being defining terms like infallible and inerrant as well as provide different arguments in favor of the authority of the Bible. 

The Classical Method in defense of Scriptural authority is one that relies upon both external and internal evidence.  In other words, it begins with the premise that the Bible, as a piece of literature, is a reliable document.  From this foundation this method builds upon the authority and teaching of Jesus Christ as a way of determining the authority and trustworthiness of the Bible.

Recommendation:  If you’re in a position to defend the authority and the trustworthiness of the Bible, then I would recommend memorizing this as a way to do so.  Make sure that you focus on Premise A before tackling the following Premises.  If the first premise is faulty, the rest of the premises cannot stand.     

The following is from R.C. Sproul Scripture Alone (72-73):

Premise A: The Bible is basically reliable and trustworthy document

Premise B: On the basis of this reliable document we have sufficient evidence to believe confidently that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Premise C: Jesus Christ being the Son of God is an infallible authority.

Premise D: Jesus Christ teaches that the Bible is more than generally trustworthy: it is the very Word of God.

Premise E: That the word, in that it comes from God, is utterly trustworthy because God is utterly trustworthy.

Conclusion: On the basis of the infallible authority of Jesus Christ, the Church believes the Bible to be utterly trustworthy, i.e., infallible.

Enjoy this post?  Consider sharing it with your friends with the Share/Shave below or Tweet above and subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS

After reading Arthur Brooks The Battle: How the Fight Between Free Enterprise and Big Government Will Shape America’s Future, I wanted to share some hard-hitting facts that I was previously unaware of in regards to the new healthcare reform being touted by President Obama and the Democratic Majority that is objected by the majority of the country.  Some of this I was already familiar with, but Brook’s take on healthcare companies being required to accept customers with preexisting conditions is alarming.  Read through the following and let me know what you think.

[The following is excerpted from pages 95-96.  The material does not appear in the following form.  I merely bracketed categories by underlining them].

Obamacare Will Raise the Cost for Some and Lower it For Others

The proposed health care legislation represents a massive government intrusion into the lives of Americans.  It will raise the cost of care for some Americans and lower it (even to zero) for others.  According to most economists, under Obamacare average Americans will have to pay more for, at least, the heath care they currently enjoy. Their increased health dollars will be redistributed through taxes and subsidies to those who were currently uninsured or, in the view of government officials, insufficiently insured.

Obamacare Will Diminish Healthcare Choices

Obamacare…will diminish their [Americans] sense of control by taking health choices away from citizens and handing them over to bureaucrats.  The plan will effectively limit choice across the entire spectrum of health care: what kind of health insurance citizens can buy, what kind of doctors they can see, what kind of procedures their doctors will perform, what kind of drugs they can take, and what treatment options they may have.

Obamacare Will Limit Ability to Choose Affordable Insurance

Meanwhile, Obamacare will limit the ability of people to choose affordable insurance coverage through less comprehensive, consumer-driven insurance…

Obamacare Will Reward Bad Behavior

…Reminiscent of the president’s attitude toward mortgage defaulters, his health plan will reward bad behavior in a way that seems unfair to Americans. Consider, for example, the promise to provide health insurance to nearly all, regardless of preexisting conditions.  This at first seems appealing.  But think about it:

If people don’t have to worry about taking out insurance until they need it, many won’t buy it.

 

And this is unfair to the rest of us, who carry insurance in good times and bad and will subsidize those who do not…

Obamacare Will Lead to a Declined in People Insured

It’s possible that Obamacare might even lead to a declined in the number of people with insurance. This is the view of economist Martin Feldstein, who calls it Obamacare’s “nasty surprise.”

His reasoning goes like this:

If you can’t be turned down for a preexisting condition, then why not drop your coverage, save the premiums, and only take out a policy if you have a serious illness? Feldstein’s research shows that it is cost-effective for people to go uninsured, thereby placing their health costs onto the rest of us.

To me – and probably to you – this cannot be understood as “fair.”

Enjoy this post?  Consider sharing it with your friends with the Share/Shave below or Tweet above and subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS

Sometime ago while working as the Director of Family and Youth at an Evangelical Presbyterian Church, I had the opportunity to dwell upon a seemingly unimportant question, “Are we not allowing our kids grow up?” 

At first glance this question may seem as if it is posed only to parents and guardians.  However, this question is much deeper than that and has many more implications than just for the family.  The answer to this question concerns teachers, church leaders, youth workers, public and private schools, YMCAs, Boys and Girls Clubs, and churches to name a few. 

What do you think?  Are we not allowing our kids to grow up?  Are we creating an environment that encourages their maturation, independence, and productivity or are we creating an environment that further extends their childhood years of dependency, leisure, and laziness to the point that many believe they will earn a living as a professional Middle School student?

Some argue, such as Robert Esptein, that:

“For the first time in human history, we have artificially extended childhood well past puberty.  Simply stated, we are not letting our young people grow up” (The Case Against Adolescence: Rediscovering the Adult in Every Teen, 5).

Why is this the case?  Why has our American culture extended childhood past puberty and discouraged young people from growing up?  Could it possibly be the Myth of Adolescence ?  Has our culture built such a house upon the foundation of adolescence that we are now seeing the house shift, crack, and fall apart because the foundation was faulty? 

What is adolescence and how could it possibly be one of the foundational culprits in creating millions of young people who are expected to mature no further than their preschooler counterparts? 

Attempting to Define Adolesence

Adolescence has been defined as a person in turmoil (Epstein, pg. 13). The Encarta Dictionary provides us with slightly more insight by defining adolescence as the time preceding adulthood.  Is it just me or are these definitions slightly “generic?” 

What is adulthood?  When does that happen?  At 18?  At High School Graduation?  Maybe it’s 21?  Oh, maybe after College graduation at 23?  Wait, I know, maybe its 30?  Ah yes, here it is, we are officially adults when we have a wife, 1.5 kids, a cat that sheds on everything, a dog that chews the furniture, a mortgage, expensive imported cars that we can’t afford, and a pile of credit card debt?  That sounds like adulthood to me. 

Regardless how adolescence is technically defined, adolescence has not been adhered to historically or by other cultures.  Adolescence is a recent advent that was created by G. Stanley Hall within the past century and furthered by many others since him (For additional information on its history, I recommend Robert Epstein’s The Case Against Adolescence)

How could such a recent phenomenon have such a cataclysmic impact upon our culture, especially upon our young people? 

How has Adolescence Affected Youth Culture?

To best understand how the notion of adolescence has had such an impact upon our culture and young, I hope the following analogy bests illustrates this psychological influence (For the following analogy, I am indebted to Alex and Brett Harris, founders of The Rebeleution) 

These large animals can grow to stand 10 feet tall and weigh up to 5 tons.  In India elephants are trained to do a wide variety of tasks.  From transportation to hauling heavy loads elephants help Indians with everyday life.

Amazingly enough, these large animals are restrained by their owners with nothing more than a piece a rope tied around their ankles that is connected to nothing more than a small branch in the ground, they comfortably go to sleep each night with the reassurance that their elephants will be parked exactly where they left them.

But how can this be?  How could such a large and powerful elephant be so easily restrained by something of incomparable strength as a rope and tree branch?  To help answer these questions, it would be best to know how elephants are trained. 

At a very early age, trainers keep elephants from running away at night by tying their ankle to a large immovable object.  What happens over time after continually failing to get away is that these elephants grow-up defeated without hope. 

Consequently, when these young elephants grow-up into large adults, all that a trainer has to do is tie one of their ankles with a rope to a small object, such as a tree branch, and they won’t even try to get away because they believe it is impossible to do so. 

This is how adolescence has affected the young people of yesterday and today. 

By growing-up within a culture that does not encourage a young person’s maturation, independence, and productivity, young people grow-up with a proverbially rope around their ankle that extends their childhood years of dependency, leisure, and laziness to the point that they’re convinced that they can earn a living as a professional Middle School student.  Many of these youth live with a sense of entitlement to privileges without responsibility.   

But this has not always been the case.  If we were to look back into history, and a few select cases today, we would discover that “young people often accomplished great things” (Epstein, pg. 13).  In my opinion, young people are still capable of doing so today. 

Check back later for a brief look into 1 Timothy 4.12 and the call of God’s Word to both young adults, parents, and the community.

Enjoy this post?  Consider sharing it with your friends with the Share/Shave below or Tweet above and subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS

Enjoy this post?  Consider sharing it with your friends with the Share/Shave below or Tweet above and subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS

Relativism (rel-a-tiv-ism) is “a theory…that conceptions of truth and moral values are not absolute but are relative to the persons or groups holding them” 

Today I’m not going to focus on refuting relativism, but rather relate it’s flaws and consequences.

7 Fatal Flaws of Relativism

From Francis Beckwith and Gregory Koukl’s Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air, we discover the Seven Fatal Flaws of Relativism:

Relativists can’t accuse others of wrongdoing

Relativists can’t complain about the problem of evil

Relativists can’t place blame or accept praise

Relativists can’t make charges of unfairness or injustice

Relativists can’t improve their morality

Relativists can’t hold meaningful moral discussions

Relativists can’t promote the obligation of tolerance

Consequences of Relativism

Generally speaking, it can be argued that moral relativism has seeped into the very fabric of people’s beliefs, especially those 30 and under.  Now, if we follow the trajectory of this belief in our country to its logical conclusion, it’s hard not to imagine that in the future we will be living in a country where:

….nothing is wrong-nothing is considered evil or good, nothing worthy of praise or blame.  It would be a world in which justice and fairness are meaningless concepts, in which there would be no accountability, no possibility of moral improvement, no moral discourse.  And it would be a world in which there is no tolerance.  Moral relativism produces this kind of world.  The late Dr. Francis Schaeffer’s remark could well apply to relativists, who “…have both feet firmly planted in mid-air” (69)

Enjoy this post?  Consider sharing it with your friends with the Share/Shave below or Tweet above and subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS

This is part of an ongoing series on Romans 9.1-13 where I’m contending that individual election and salvation is taught by the Apostle Paul, not the historical destiny of nations or corporate election.  To ensure that you get every post on this topic (Estimate 15-20); I encourage you to subscribe via RSS or E-mail below.

What was just explained by Paul (9.6b) is further explained in Romans 9.7, which reads,  

 Neither are they all children, because they are the seed of Abraham, but – “Through Isaac your seed will be called.”

Here Paul is reaffirming that not all of Israel are Israel, since they are the “seed,” the natural offspring of Abraham alone. 

Moreover, Paul, in quoting Gen 21.12 from the LXX (The Septuagint, which is the Greek translation of the Old Testament), states “but –Through Isaac your seed will be called.”  In observing this text, James D.G. Dunn rightly observes its meaning, saying,

Israelites should not need reminding that the line of covenant promise is not the same as the line of natural descent.  They themselves would not claim that Ishmael was within the covenant, despite his having been the circumcised by Abraham (Gen 17.23-27).  So, clearly, the beneficiaries of the covenanted blessings (vv 4-5), even on Jewish presuppositions, cannot be identified simply in terms of blood relationship and natural kinship… (547)

We can observe that not all of the Israelites will benefit from the divine privileges given (9.4-5) on the basis of their physical descent from Abraham, which has obviously been the case for them in this passage of Scripture (9.3).  Consequently, we can conclude, with John Piper, that “Something more must be true about a physical descendant if he is to be an heir of the covenant” (42). 

What we see here is this; just because someone was born into a Jewish family is not enough to ensure that they will inherit the covenantal promises of eternal life.  The same can also be said of people born into Christian families.   Just because your family is Christian does not mean you will automatically inherit eternal life. 

Is Paul Emphasizing Individual Election or the Historical Destiny of Nations?

Now that this has been settled, there are varying opinions between Reformers and non-Reformers alike as to the meaning of Romans 9.7.  The one main difference revolves around the following question:

Is Paul emphasizing individual election or the historical destinies of nations by including the Old Testament narrative? 

For example, Cranfield agrees that the “the word of God” (9.4-6a) is not based upon physical descent alone.  Conversely, he offers the following point as well,

But it is to be carefully noted that the Genesis narrative indicates explicitly god’s care for Ishmael (see Gen 21.13, 17-21: also 16.10-14; 17.20).  So we must not read into Paul’s argument any suggestion that Ishmael because he is not chosen to play a positive part in the accomplishment of God’s special purpose, is therefore excluded from the embrace of God’s mercy (229).

Is Cranfield right?  Is Ishmael to be included in the embrace of God’s mercy since he was not chosen?  The following 4 reasons are why I believe this is not the case.

4 Reasons Why I Think Cranfield Gets it Wrong   

The following 4 reasons explain why I disagree with Cranfield in that Ishmael is to not be excluded from the mercies of God. 

1. It is apparent that Cranfield has placed more emphasis upon the Old Testament narrative, rather than the train of thought presented by Paul.
2. It is written in the latter portion of Romans 9, mainly Rom. 9.14-18, that God is not obligated to express mercy to all, but rather exercises His freedom in granting mercy to whom He desires, as well as hardening whom He desires.
3. Paul’s focus is God’s choice of Isaac, in validating that physical descent alone does not benefit one to experience the redemptive privileges of Israel individual (Rom. 9.3-6a) (John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 10). 
4. Even though God promised to make Ishmael a great nation (Gen 16.10; 21.13, 18), it can be further observed that Ishmael was never promised that God would be His God and that Ishmael would be given the land of his sojourning as Isaac was(Gen 17.7,8) (John Piper, The Justification of God, 42). 

It is for these reasons listed above that I believe we cannot thrust the conclusion reached by Cranfield above.   The question of individual election and historical identities will be picked-up later as we look further into Romans 9.8.

Enjoy this post?  Consider sharing it with your friends with the Share/Shave below or Tweet above and subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS

Writing in response to the objection that man doesn’t have free-will, since God is the first cause of everything, Thomas Aquinas said,

Free-will is the cause of its own movement, because by his free-will man moves himself to act.

This response was explained by the editor of A Shorter Summa, Peter Kreeft, who said:

If God’s being the first cause of the nature of dogs makes dogs doggy and not un-doggy, then God’s being the first cause of human freedom makes freedom free, not un-free.  Grace establishes nature rather than removing it (112-113).

On the surface this position is appealing in attempting to solve the problem of God’s sovereignty and free-will, especially for self-made Americans.  However, I have one main contention with this position:  If our will is completely neutral, what causes it to act at all?

This question poses a litany of problems and I believe it cannot be adequately explained without giving way to some form of causation.  In the end, here are just two reasons why I believe this position fails on two fronts: (1) First Law of Motion; and (2) Myth of Moral Neutrality

The First Law of Motion

Sir Isaac Newton’s First Law of Motion states, “Every body will persist in its state of rest or of uniform motion (constant velocity) in a straight line unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed on it.”

In other words, if an object is stationary, it will remain in this stationary position unless a force is impressed upon it to the point that it begins to move.  Just like a stationary object, our wills will remain in a stationary position unless compelled to do otherwise.

To say that our wills are free from any influence in making a decision fails to answer how our wills ever move from a neutral, stationary position to making a choice.

Myth of Moral Neutrality

If the decisions we make are free from any influence and are the result of random choices, then is anyone held accountable for their actions since they are not actually rooted in a persons character?  In answering this question, R.K. McGregor Wright said:

If acts of the will are not caused in such a way as to be actually manifestations of the character, how can they be my actions any more than the result of tossing a coin?  The simple fact is that we cannot be held responsible for a chance event, simply because we exert no causal influence.  I can be held responsible for tossing a coin, since I caused it to be tossed, but I cannot be held responsible for how it comes down.  In other words, the very idea of responsibility depends on causation.  Therefore, the freewill theory destroys responsibility rather than supporting (No Place for Sovereignty, 48).

The Bible paints a picture that mankind is not morally neutral, but people are either moving in faith towards God or away from Him in disbelief (Rom. 14.2; Heb. 11.6) (ibid.,. 49-50).

Enjoy this post?  Consider sharing it with your friends with the Share/Shave below or Tweet above and subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS