One for All, or All for Naught? Limited Atonement

The next installment of our little TULIP series on Calvinism is the big L.

This is the boogieman doctrine of Limited Atonement. What is the debate? The issues is usually phrased this way:  “For whom did Christ die, the whole world, or specifically for those who would believe?”

If option A, the whole world, then why are some people in Hell? if option B, only believers, what about the verses that talk about Jesus loving the world? You can see what even some Calvinists disavow this letter, leaving them as diminutive “four-pointers” whose gardens bloom with tu_ips.

Put another way, “Did Jesus die to potentially save everyone or did he die to actually save some?”

John Calvin articulated that the Bible teaches clearly that Christ’s death effectually accomplishes salvation for those he chose to save. His sparring partner Jacobus Arminius said Christ’s death potentially provides salvation for everyone, but not effectually for anyone. If you were to illustrate this on a napkin for someone you might try this…    Continue at Clint Archer

Despicable Me? The Doctrine of Total Depravity

Hamlet is William Shakespeare’s psychological tour de force, which deals with some of the deepest philosophical and anthropological questions in life. What is man? Are we innately good, or evil? What drives us? What curbs us? What is the reason for us to be or not to be? These are the questions the pensive Danish prince Hamlet muses about throughout the haunting story.

The play touches on one of the enduring debates in psychology—whether humans are born with a good nature or an evil one.

Many popular Oprah-esque paradigms today surmise that the reason people do bad things– the reason for the crime rate, the genocide, the atrocities we see on the pages of history– is because people have been infected with evil by their environment. In fact, they warn that viewing yourself as innately evil is harmful to your self-esteem.

The solutions proffered to cleanse the human stain of violence and wickedness, is a concoction of better education systems, a more stable economy, improved healthcare and welfare for the poor, etc.   Continue at Clint Archer

William Carey’s (history changing) question to Andrew Fuller

William Carey is widely regarded the father of Modern Missions. There are several critical moments on the timeline that mark progress from his modest career as a cobbler, to the revolutionary impact he would have on the way we do missions. Before Carey, it was unheard of for multiple small churches to band together and pool support for the purpose of permanently transplanting  a volunteer to the foreign field. Missionaries were Christians who used to go on short-term journeys, or otherwise were passengers of the Catholic armada that accompanied British Colonial conquests. Carey pioneered this profound shift. One of the lesser known turning points was after the second attempt he’d made to have his minister’s fraternal establish a missions committee.

William Carey turned the tide of history with a simple, pleading question he posed to Andrew Fuller, his like-minded friend and fellow member of the Baptist fraternal of ministers who met at Nottingham in 1792. It was the meeting at which Carey had preached his renowned “Deathless sermon” which challenged the ministers to “Expect great things of God, attempt great things for God.”

The seventeen delegates were about to close the business of the day without any resolution in favor of initiating a mission to the lost. This would be the second time Carey was disappointed by their sluggish lassitude. Ecclesiastical wheels grind slowly at the best of times, but it was Carey’s passion that lubricated the mechanism that historic day.    Continue at Clint Archer

How to Spot a Liberal Seminary

Airport security seems to have surrendered common sense as a weapon in the war against terror. In a desperate attempt to appear politically correct and unbiased toward Arab Muslims, the TSA eschews profiling techniques. Profiling is when a person is singled out based on certain traits that they have in common with previous terrorist attacks. For example, the 9/11 bombers were all young, single, Arab, Muslim, males. 

The lack of profiling begets some silly scenarios, as when a soldier traveling with his platoon in full uniform had his nail clippers confiscated…but not his gun. Or, the case in February 2011, when Alaska State Representative, Sharon Cissna refused to allow the TSA to inspect the scars of her mastectomy surgery. She was barred from boarding the plane because common sense might look like bias, even though it is an undisputed fact that no lady’s prosthetic breast (or nail clippers for that matter) have ever been used in any assault on land, air, or sea.

On the other hand, if profiling had been allowed, perhaps they would have prevented what happened on Northwest Airlines flight 253 on Christmas Eve 2010 when Umar Farouk Abdul-mutal-lab, a 23 year told, single, Muslim  male, who paid cash for a one-way ticket, and checked no luggage, cruised through airport security without any hassles. But when the plane was in flight, he promptly activated the explosives stashed in his underwear. Fortunately, instead of exploding, his underwear just caught on fire. Three passengers incapacitated him (while, as I imagine, children nearby chanted “Liar, liar…”).   Continue at Clint Archer

Is the Pope Christian?

Last week Pope Francis ventured above his his pay grade with a fallible gaff of historic proportions. In his Wednesday public homily, which usually includes unscripted comments, the Pope announced for the first time in Catholic history, that even atheists can go to heaven by doing good works.

Admittedly, this pontification wasn’t pronounced ex cathedra, meaning he wasn’t sitting in his “I’m infallible, so this is God’s truth even if it contradicts the Bible” seat, but still, one would expect the leader of a religion to preach a message congruent with the most elementary tenets of his own faith.

I understand that in Catholic doctrine the Pope holds the keys to the kingdom and that whatever he binds on earth is bound in heaven. But contemplate the implications for a moment. On Wednesday (May 22, 2013), heaven suddenly got bound into admitting entry to atheists. Historically, not even Baptists got into heaven, but apparently now God is obligated to let any do-gooder in, even those who don’t acknowledge Jesus at all. How ironic that he declared this on the Feast of St Rita (the patron saint of impossible things).

Here’s a quote from his sermon…    Continue at Clint Archer

Raising Bubble Babies

The fascinating case of young David Vetter, makes for a vivid illustration. Vetter was born in 1971 with a condition ominiously called Severe Combined Immunodeficiency. What that meant was that his little body had no natural ability to fight off any disease. The mildest form of any germ could result in his death. Doctors attempted to protect him by placing him in a sterile plastic environment. The media, with uncharacteristic discreetness, never revealed his name while he was alive, but dubbed him affectionately as “The Bubble Boy.”

Vetter’s medical team sought to provide him with as normal a life as possible. The boy was educated, watched TV, and had a playroom area—but all within the confines of the sterile bubble.

In an attempt at curing the child, a bone marrow transplant was done from his sister through intravenous tubes running into the bubble. What pre-screening tests could not reveal was that the donor’s blood contained dormant traces of a virus. With no immune system, the virus rapidly spread and killed David Vetter at age twelve.

That sad story has a parallel in the spiritual world. 

Many parents treat the souls of their children as if they possessed an incurable immune deficiency. Anxious about infecting their young ones with worldly philosophy, they keep them in a sterile environment. Some parents never allow their children to play with other kids, or venture outside the home. All their education and entertainment comes directly from their parents. This certainly does preserve the children from worldly, unbiblical influences, and is highly appropriate in the very young years [emphasis added after some commenters missed my support of protecting little kids.] But at some point, if the child has any hope of surviving independently outside the home, he or she will need to have been educated about what is out there. In other words, temptation is not only conquered by avoidance, but also by pre-emptive education of how to identify the lure and consequences of the temptation, as in what the father does for his son in Prov 7.    Continue at Clint Archer

Pizza and Coke for Communion?

After my post on children taking communion (Kiddies Menu: Children at the Lord’s Table) I received some great questions. I wanted to address them more fully than in a crammed comment cage.

Have you ever thought of these provocative variables in the form and substance of the Lord’s Supper:

• Should we not emulate the NT church’s practice of sharing an entire, sit-down meal?
• Must the bread be unleavened?
• Must the wine be alcoholic?
• Must the wine be red or can we use Champagne instead?
• Where does one draw the line? For example, can pizza and Coke count as communion? I.e. can the bread be sweetened, or have a topping? What about milk and cookies?

Makes the blood boil a bit, doesn’t it? You may have got stuck on the milk & cookies on, and you would probably say: “Obviously not, don’t be dumb.” And you’d be right to say that…but why?

Here are some principles by which we can make these decisions.

   1. Jesus instituted a practice of breaking and sharing bread and wine, therefore the substance of the meal must correlate with his intention.

Thus breaking bread is essential, as it represents the breaking of Christ’s body.

The bread represents the body. It was the symbol Jesus selected, perhaps because he also called himself the Bread of Life (John 6:35).

This is why he said “Do this in remembrance of me” as he broke the bread. He clearly meant “Break bread.” Not, break a cookie, or cut some pepperoni pizza slices.  Continue at Clint Archer

Kiddies Menu: Children at the Lord’s Supper

If you are a young, single, seminoid dude who loves theoretical theological debates on blogs, I’d like to share a tidbit of coaching corner sagacity a mentor of mine graciously offered me: It’s ok to have the topic of pedo-communion on your radar screen, just don’t follow it off course. Focus your energy on completing your education, getting a job, staying pure, and finding a godly lady who will consent to marry you. At some point after that God will give you nine months’ warning to sort out your views on which age children can partake in the Lord’s Supper. Til then, get back to work.

But for parents of precocious pre-pubescent Protestants, your church will expect you to have given this some forethought before letting your kid’s appetite near the Lord’s Table.

Footnote: Protestants call it a table, not an altar, we call it the supper, not the Mass, an ordinance, not a sacrament, and the bread, not the eucharist. Why this distinction? Because we are not re-sacrificing anyone. Anyway, I digress.

First, some churches practice “closed communion” which means that only members can take communion. In this case it is simple: according to the church’s membership process and definition, is the child a member or not? Case closed.

Other churches practice “open communion” which means that anyone who professes to be a believer in good standing with their local church may participate in communion with your church.

Verses used to support this include 1 Corinthians 11:28-29 where Paul adjured each one to examine himself and determine his own worthiness to partake of the Lord’s Supper. Well and good, but when it comes to children, are we really to leave it up to the individual child to determine his/her spiritual fitness?  Continue at Clint Archer

Tattoos and Skin Deep Hermeneutics

It used to be easy for Christians to formulate an opinion about tattoos. Sailors had them. And some prisoners. Other than corpsmen and convicts the only ink you saw in church was on the page.

This is not a pointed tirade against tattoos, nor a defense of them; it’s a jab at bad hermeneutics. I have found that some like to decorate their arguments with Bible verses that have no place in the debate.

These are the three usual suspects…

1. Thou shalt not tattoo thyself.

Leviticus 19:28 ”You shall not make any cuts on your body for the dead or tattoo yourselves: I am the Lord.”

This one is the biggie. It is literally the only verse in the Bible to actually employ the word ‘tattoo.’ So if you can’t get this one to play for your team, you don’t have a team.

The immediate North & South context of the verse should provide a clear indication that an understanding of Leviticus’ place in the canon of Scripture is going to be a key. The verse below says don’t make your daughter a prostitute. I sure hope that still applies. But the verse above says you can’t trim your beard or the hair next to your ears. Ever been to an orthodox synagogue? The gents who congregate there (and keep the whole Mosaic Law—kudos for consistency) look a little different from those who attend the men’s breakfast at your church, right? If Christians don’t need to apply verse  27, then why do we have to obey vs 28 of the same chapter?  Continue at Clint Archer

What Nazis & the Bible Agree is the Worst Resolution You Can Make

I plant my flag firmly on the side of those who believe Christians may make resolutions. As a tadpole seminoid I was inspired by the audacity and convictions of Jonathan Edwards’ famed 70 Resolutions. My heart thumps in time with over-the-top commitments like #22:

“Resolved: to endeavor to obtain for myself as much happiness, in the other world, as I possibly can, with all the power, might, vigor, and vehemence, yea violence, I am capable of, or can bring myself to exert, in any way that can be thought of.”

But there is something I have learned from the Bible, history, research, and experience: the absolute worst resolution you could ever make at any time in your life.  It’s a truth the Nazis and the Bible agree on. And the sting in the tail is that it is probably the resolution you made this very New Year’s Day.

The only resolution you should never make is one that you won’t keep.

Let’s call resolutions what the Bible calls them: vows. And if there is one thing we know from the Bible about vows is they aren’t to be taken lightly. Just ask Jephthah’s daughter. Solomon’s ominous wisdom hangs over New Year’s day: Keep Reading >>>

Why Lie to Your Kids about Santa?

I’m no Scrooge. I lodge no objections to celebrating Christmas or singing inane jingles, like Jingle Bells. My family understands that, pagan roots aside, the plastic conifer in our living room is not a subtle mark of our allegiance to the forces of darkness. It’s a tree (model).

We do, however, prefer singing “Hark the Herald Angel Sings” over the misdirected praise of “Oh Christmas Tree,” though I’m not even fanatic about enforcing that.

We tolerate the poetic inaccuracy of “We three kings of Orient are” because it rolls off the tongue better than “We indeterminable number of Gentile scholars of Persia are.”

But… I am nervous about the potential confusion which may cloud a 4 year old’s faith in my honesty. 

Angels on high, a pregnant virgin, God in a manger, a guiding star… are impossibilities. Yet, “all things are possible with God.” [Yes, you need to believe in the virgin birth to be a Christian] We ask our children to trust us on these claims with their lives. Then we add a fictitious, omniscient fat guy with a red-nosed reindeer to the mix. At a certain age we matter-of-factly disclose that we were just kidding about the chimney intrusion, the Elven workshop, and the works-based naughty-or-nice judgment. “Those parts are make-believe, the rest is gospel truth. Trust me, son.”

Misinformation has a way of taking root in our memories. Do you picture the stable with oxen lowing on a silent night? Were the angels actually singing? Was there a villainous inn keeper? These details are not found in Scripture.  Keep Reading >>>

Vatican II Reformation Reminders

With Reformation  Day looming, it behooves us to ask WWLD today? If Luther were alive right now, would he still be agitated enough to post 95 Thesis on a blog? I’ve encountered a sentiment among modern Protestants that of course the Reformation was necessary, since the Catholic Church of Martin Luther’s day has degenerated into a false religion. But today Catholics don’t believe all those erstwhile wacky “coin in the coffer” things that Tetsel was on about. From October 1962 until December 1965, the Second Vatican Council was held to address the Catholic Church’s relationship to the Modern world (read: update God’s revelation to deal with the Pill, etc.) The authority of the documents published by this council—known in Catholic shorthand as “Vatican II”—are considered to be on par with Scripture. This would have been an ideal time to rectify some of the issues Luther had with his mother church. To help you decide if Protestantism is pertinacious or passé, I offer a few passages from the horse’s own vocal chords for your consideration.

Exhibit A: The section titled, “Apostolic Constitutions on the Revision of Indulgences” was dated 1 January 1967. This would be the most opportune place to denounce the crass practice of indulgences (manmade ways of expiating sin) which was addressed by Luther’s first thesis. Instead Pope Paul VI subtitles the first chapter “Indulgence are Founded in Divine Revelation” and writes, “If we wish to understand exactly the doctrine of indulgences and its benefits in practice, we must remember truths which the whole Church, enlightened by God’s word, has always believed. These truths have been taught by the bishops, who are the successors of the apostles…throughout the centuries to this day.” (Sect 6, chapt 1, para 1).   Keep Reading...

Holy Cow: The Holiness of Hindu Herds by Clint Archer

The apogee of Hinduism extends far beyond the borders of India. And though Hindus do not proselytize (most believe you need to be born Indian to be Hindu), the religion is exported with the emigration of its adherents. Our church is nestled near the epicenter of the largest population of Indians outside of India—Durban, South Africa. Hinduism is not monolithic, it is a chaotically diverse kaleidoscope of beliefs, attitudes, and practices. It is mystical and enigmatic, but it does contain certain threads of commonality woven throughout its diversity. These threads reveal a religion that is fundamentally flawed as a deadly trap of false hope, with tragic results in this life and the life to come. I wanted to share one tenant which makes this religion harmful to its adherents, namely the famishing fetish they have with the sacred cow.

Most Westerners can hardly tell the difference between any old cow and the sacred cow of India. This ignorance is excusable when one considers how ordinary the holy cow seems. It grazes, chews the cud, and after allowing for the masticated mess to move through the seven sacred stomachs, it fertilizes the field just as any other cow would. If one were tramping through that field—or were a pedestrian in Delhi—and happened to plant your foot in that freshly fertilized spot, you might fail to appreciate the privilege of encountering a holy cow pie. And every report I’ve heard from visitors to India include a special mention for the ubiquitous postprandial packages strewn all over the city streets. So holiness is often in the eye of the beholder. To a Hindu Indian the cow represents something wholly different than it does to, say the average MacDonald’s customer.    Keep Reading...

Adam’s Apple: Preaching from an iPad

Yes, I preach from an iPad. I could say it’s to save trees. Twelve half-sheets per sermon add up over a planned 40 year career of 2 sermons per Sunday. I could say I appreciate the convenience of having an arsenal of dozens of sermons, an ESV Bible, and a library of commentaries with me when I travel. Or I could even say that I only own it because one was given as a gift. But the naked truth is that I simply love preaching from my iPad. Specifically the simple, silent swipe of the page, the use of variegated font colors, and the safeguard against getting my notes out of order or blown away by wind or a poorly positioned fan (yes, I have forgiven that deacon). I realize these are tiny, inconsequential luxuries which no one needs. But like Paul, I have learned to be content in plenty and in want.

I’m the guy word-of-mouth viral marketing campaigns rely on. If I eat at a great restaurant, I tell everyone I know they MUST try it.  If I relish an insightful book, I Tweet it. When I find an audio trove of expository gold, like the vein of ore at calvarybiblechurch.org (see how I did that), I upload a gig of Jack Hughes sermons onto my friends’ Nanos, often without their consent. What can I say, I like to share. Unlike King David’s quip to Arunah, I have no conscience pangs when giving away that which cost me nothing.

So naturally when I spot a fellow iPadian at a pastors conference, I sidle up to them and ask, “Hey, what apps do you run for preaching?” If they have a system better than mine, I poach it. But if their MO is a few keystrokes more cumbersome than my honed routine, I graciously take them under my wing.    Keep Reading...

Sin Makes You Stupid

Another “unsophisticated” robbery allowed Detroit detectives to ferret out the villain almost instantaneously. This green hornet apparently believed strongly enough in recycling to write his demand note on the back of a used envelope he had received. No, he didn’t remember to tear off the part inscribed with his name and residential address.   Keep Reading...

According to the FBI, most bank robberies are “Unsophisticated and unprofessional” crimes. Despite the ubiquity of all-seeing surveillance cameras, 76% of robbers don’t bother with a disguise, and 95% have no plan to conceal their spoils.

Case in point, Jack Shreiner. This criminal mastermind handed a New York City bank teller a note demanding money. She surrendered $7,791 in cash. After four days, our evil genius then decided the best place to stash his loot was in a savings account. The enigmatic

part of his brilliant plan is that he selected the very bank he had just robbed.

Perhaps he thought the teller had Alzheimer’s?   

  

Would You Want a ‘Generous’ Orthodontist?

Brian McLaren could comfortably wear the moniker Granddaddy of the Emergent Church, and not just because of his grey whiskers and genial disposition. His books are seminal, pioneering works, kinda like when Thomas Midgley (d. 1944) pioneered adding lead to gasoline and later, putting CFCs into all things aerosol. It was a generation before anyone realized that one man had bequeathed two of history’s most devastating contributions to environmental calamity, namely perforating our Ozone layer, and poisoning a civilization. Thanks Tom.

Similarly, Brian McLaren is deconstructing orthodoxy with all the vigor and verve of a punctured canister of bug-spray. McLaren’s bailiwick is ambiguity, which makes him a poster boy for all Postmodernist emergent types. The emergencia’s unorthodox angle on orthodoxy is “articulated,” as clearly as a slippery tongue can, in A Generous Orthodoxy. Here’s a tidbit of the movement’s signature obfuscation: “I have gone out of my way to be provocative, mischievous, and unclear, reflecting my belief that clarity is sometimes overrated, and that shock, obscurity, playfulness, and intrigue (carefully articulated) often stimulate more thought than clarity” (p. 27).   Keep Reading...

Evangelical Hagiolatry: Is there a Cure for Christian Celebrity Culture?

What Justin Bieber is to a bevy of giddy schoolgirls, John Piper is to star-struck seminoids. My first meeting with Piper was a brutal guerrilla ambush. He was taking a tour of the seminary library where I worked, unaware that he was being stalked like paparazzi prey. As he entered the elevator I stealthily shot up the emergency staircase and was waiting for him when the doors opened. His experienced entourage was no match for my shamelessness. Before they could wriggle him out of my request, I had him. So Piper, in the hallway, with one sprained finger in a splint (I kid you not), leaning on the back of his bent-over assistant, patiently autographed the proffered copy of Desiring God before retreating. I felt dirty. I had treated a man I deeply respect like a rubber stamp. And I vowed that my next meeting would be infused with a modicum of dignity. [A goal I almost accomplished. See next week’s post “The Day John Piper Touched My Chin.”]