The Huge Difference Between a Christian and a Christ-Follower

One of the greatest errors that I heard at the Reveal Conference was presented in the final session. The speaker was John Ortberg of Menlo Park Presbyterian Church and the name of his lecture was, "Are You Making Better Christians or More Disciples?"

This lecture is one of the best examples of the fundamental problem with American Evangelicalism. That problem is that it has wandered into a form of Neo-Pietism that openly attacks Biblical Christianity and Salvation by Grace Alone through Faith Alone by Christ's Work Alone.

If you think that the term "Christ-Follower" is synonymous with the word Christian then you are gravely mistaken and these two segments of the Fighting for the Faith radio program will be eye-opening to say the least.

Comments

[Todd Hickling]

This whole argument seems to be rooted in the aspect of sanctification, or how does a person grow and change. I believe Chris is pointing out that a person grows, not by legalistically putting on a biblical lifestyle, i.e., devotions every morning, praying every day, etc., but by applying the truth of Scripture to one's life. AS an example, the Bible calls us to Reckon ourselves dead to Sin. This is done through renewing our mind. Thinking of ourselves biblically. As Christians, this is accomplished through the working of the HOly Spirit. and by their fruits, you will know them. (in context, that was talking about the bad fruits of false prophets.)
th

[Miriam J. Nard]

To put things in fresh perspective, REVEAL is not so much about how people are saved as it is about how people grow spiritually. An interpretation of John Ortberg's remarks in context yields a more truthful perception of what he was trying to say.

Since the vast majority of people on this discussion thread appear ignorant of the actual contents of REVEAL, here are a few key components of the findings to date:

The two most important spiritual growth catalysts [for the exploring segment] are beliefs: salvation by grace and the Trinity. (Follow Me, p.59)

This intermediate level [growing in Christ] of spiritual growth is characterized by an increasingly personal relationship with Jesus Christ. (Follow Me, p. 67)

The top catalysts that influence growth from close to Christ to Christ-centered are complete yieldedness to Christ and the absolute authority of His Word, coupled with diligent reading/study of the Bible. (Follow Me, p. 75)

Reflection on Scripture is the most powerful catalyst for spiritual growth. (Follow Me, p. 105)

We know God-and God alone-changes a human life. As we're taught in Philippians 2:13, "for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to His good purpose." (Reveal, p. 12)

If one thinks rationally about the major findings of REVEAL, what Willow is proposing to do about it, in the context of a profession of belief in Philippians 2:13, it is difficult to understand why anyone doubts the presence of the Holy Spirit at Willow.

[Eugene Roberts]

Todd said: "This whole argument seems to be rooted in the aspect of sanctification, or how does a person grow and change. I believe Chris is pointing out that a person grows, not by legalistically putting on a biblical lifestyle, i.e., devotions every morning, praying every day, etc., but by applying the truth of Scripture to one's life. AS an example, the Bible calls us to Reckon ourselves dead to Sin. This is done through renewing our mind. Thinking of ourselves biblically. As Christians, this is accomplished through the working of the HOly Spirit. and by their fruits, you will know them."

This sounds very similar to what Dallas Willard says in Renovation of the Heart. Here is one quote from the book (Chapter 4)"But Christlikeness in the inner being is not a human attainment. It is, finally, a gift of grace. Spiritual formation is the way of rest for the weary and overloaded, of the easy yoke and light burden (see Matthew 11:28-30), of cleaning the inside of the cup and dish (see Matthew 23:26), of the good tree that cannot bear bad fruit (see Luke 6:43). And it is the path along which God's commandments are found not to be heavy or burdensome (see 1 John 5:3)"

[akira Kurosawa]

Todd, funny thing...

"Chris is pointing out that a person grows, not by legalistically putting on a biblical lifestyle, i.e., devotions every morning, praying every day, etc., but by applying the truth of Scripture to one's life."

I heard Ortberg say that we needed to do both (except without the legalism part), and I have to agree with him. In fact what I heard him to say was that the first, "devotions every morning, praying every day, etc." would bring about the second "applying the truth of Scripture to one's life."

[Todd Hickling]

So, to clarify, you, and Ortberg, are saying that our efforts (pietism), bring forth Scriptural understanding?

I would suggest, that if it were not for the Grace of God, revealing to our minds, an understanding of HIs Word, that affects change in our hearts, we would never progressively become sanctified. AS an example, I"m sure we have all experienced the case where we read a passage, or a letter of the Apostle Pauls, or JOhns, and it is darkness to our mind. Then, a couple years later, we read the passage or book again, and BOOM.! We GET IT! That is God, in His perfect timing, revealing His Truth to Us.

This view of God and HIs Word, teaches us to Wait on HIm, Praying Expectantly, and abiding peacfully in HIs care.

th

[akira Kurosawa]

Todd, I am not sure which post you are referring to, but no one has mentioned accomplishing anything through our own efforts. We have been discussing that God's Word, prayers, daily devotions, etc, through the Holy Spirit would work in our life, to make us "fruity" (bear fruit).

To quote Miriam's quote of the REVEAL conference.
"We know God-and God alone-changes a human life. As we're taught in Philippians 2:13, "for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to His good purpose."" (or does that get triple quotes, since it's a quote of a quoted quote? bah, I don't know)

You keep trying to make a case for Ortberg and the REVEAL conference being a bunch of pietists. They are not, so stop trying to make the connection.

[Chris Rosebrough]

Akira,

I have a question for you. I was reading your question about a believer whose life doesn't "change" after they've become a Christian.

I'm curious about this question and I don't want to you to think I am trying to entrap you, however I'm curious how much change do you think is necessary in one's life for someone to legitimately claim to be a Christian in your view?

A secondary follow-up question along those lines is has there been enough change in your own life for you maintain your claim to being a Christian?

Nothing personal but I know for a fact that you sin on a daily basis. I know this because you're a descendant of Adam and you're still breathing. What do you do with your sin problem? Seriously, have you changed enough and how do we know when enough life change has occurred for us to 'be in the clear' regarding salvation?

[Peter Hamm]

Chris,

I'll let Akira answer for himself, but what you're looking for is one of "us" to say there are clear-cut "legalistic" measurements for such a thing. There isn't. Makes it hard, eh?

There is no change necessary in my life to prove my claim to be a Christian, but the change in my life demonstrates that I have God's Spirit living in me.

[akira Kurosawa]

I think, Chris, that you are asking a rhetorical question, which really doesn't require an answer, so I think I will just leave it at that. I also think you are asking a question that you already have answered in your own post, so not sure why you are asking me.

And since you already have decided on an answer and therefore are not really interested in what I have to say, I am not going to reply.

I think also you are confusing sinning with bearing fruit and making them mutually exclusive from each other, and you know that Holy Spirit works to bear fruit in sinners (which is all Christians) all the time.

So, Chris, do you track worship attendance of individual church members at your church? Why or Why not?

[Chris Rosebrough]

Peter,

You and I have some common ground. I agree with the Apostle James when he writes "Just as the body that is not breathing is dead so faith without works is dead."

Luther said that "Faith Alone Saves but Saving Faith is NEVER Alone."

I think that the scriptures teach that good works show our NEIGHBOR that faith is alive. But, I do not think that our good works necessarily show us as individuals that our faith is alive.

James put it this way:

"But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I WILL SHOW YOU my faith by my works. " - James 2:18

One of our Lutheran Hymn writers put it this way:

Faith clings to Jesus’ cross alone
And rests in him unceasing;
And by its fruits true faith is known,
With love and hope increasing.
For faith alone can justify;
Works serve our neighbor and supply
The proof that faith is living.

As for works showing an individual that he or she has faith that is a very dangerous road to walk. The reason for that is because even my VERY BEST good works are still tainted by sin.

Isaiah puts it this way:

Is. 64:6 We have all become like one who is unclean,
and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment.

As a Christian I am painfully aware of this fact in my own life.

The other problem is that the more I study, read, mark and inward meditate on God's word and his holy and perfect law the MORE aware of my sin and unrighteousness I become. I'm sure that in my 40 years of faith I have morally improved. The problem is that my moral improvement is also set against a growing depth of understanding of what it is that God expects and demands from me in His Holy and Perfect Law. Any small moral victories I may experience from time to time do not even come close to keeping pace with the growing awareness of just how sinful and wretched I am. (and I don't think my experience in this matter is exclusive to me). Therefore, if I were to look to my fruit and moral improvement as proof that my faith is living then I would have to conclude that I am not a Christian and am not saved because my experience tells me that I am not.

This is why we need to look outside of ourselves to objective Biblical truths that are not subject to our whims and passing moods.

Ortberg, may or may not believe in Salvation by grace ALONE through faith ALONE by Christ's work ALONE. However, by pointing us inward to a standard of sanctification based upon "my intentions to obey and follow Christ", Ortberg is actually undermining people's faith because NONE OF US (me and you included) obeys Christ perfectly and none of us can say that even our best works are not tainted and stained by sin.

I believe that his intentions are good but his message doesn't actually jive with scriptures because it confuses law and gospel and has us looking inward for the answer to whether we have a faith that is alive. This will ultimately cause many to despair and 'lose faith' because their struggle with their own sin will be seen as proof in their own minds that they don't have faith.

[Chris Rosebrough]

Akira,

I was not asking rhetorical questions at all? I expect answer to the questions that I posed to you. Your answers are VERY important and cogent to this discussion.

[Miriam J. Nard]

God is the only One who sees the heart. Beyond that, the only humans who have sufficient insight into the hearts of other Christians are those who know them well and personally.

For this reason, I have trouble with anyone who presumes to make judgments that are not informed by personal knowledge.

So much of what is perpetuated on the internet is based in opinion, not fact, lacks scholarly and journalistic rigor, and is tainted by egregious bias that prevents objective conclusions. I am constantly shocked by the judgments made by Christians about total strangers about which they have zero personal knowledge.

It's obvious that Chris went to the conference with a pre-conceived mindset about the spiritual state of the presenters at Reveal, so why are we shocked at the conclusions to which he is coming?

What's more shocking to me is how thinking, rational Christians accept as truth the trash that is being spewed by sites like this.

Even more importantly, why are we bothering to debate someone who is so obviously wrong, and who is so obviously not going to change his mind?

This adversarial environment cannot be pleasing to Christ.

I'm out, I'm taking my hits elsewhere, to sites that are more edifying.

[akira Kurosawa]

Okay, Chris. I'll bite then.

I think God is the one who measures our faith, but my faith should manifest outward signs of the Holy Spirit's work. How much? I think I will worry about the log in my eye before I worry about the splinter in my brother's. God can handle the measuring part without my help.

What do I do about my sin problem? Nothing, Christ took care of that long ago, and by grace through faith I have taken hold of that truth.

Okay, Chris we both already knew the answers to those questions. I have mentioned those answers in posts earlier, why are you asking again? (Rhetorical question)

The answer is, you are hoping that I will say something in a way that you can pounce upon and prove that I am a pietist, legalist, or some other -ist.

Chris, your last post reads alot into Ortberg's words. I just don't hear the same things in his sermon. Probably because I am seeing it from a different perspective.

You said:
"The other problem is that the more I study, read, mark and inward meditate on God's word and his holy and perfect law the MORE aware of my sin and unrighteousness I become. I'm sure that in my 40 years of faith I have morally improved. The problem is that my moral improvement is also set against a growing depth of understanding of what it is that God expects and demands from me in His Holy and Perfect Law. "

Chris, that's all you see? You don't see a perfect and boundless love of an all powerful God, who could have destroyed me for my transgressions, but instead redeemed me with His son and then sent the Holy Spirit to help me. I think I am beginning to understand your perspective now.

[Peter Hamm]

Chris,

I am in full and complete agreement with you when you say [I think that the scriptures teach that good works show our NEIGHBOR that faith is alive. But, I do not think that our good works necessarily show us as individuals that our faith is alive.] Another way of saying it is perhaps that our good works certainly demonstrate our faith, and don't prove it. But if we have nothing to point to, perhaps our faith needs re-examined.

Here's an analogy, albeit a flawed one (so please don't pick it apart too much). Let's say I love the piano, I love everything about it, I have a piano and lots of piano music, so I call myself a piano player. But, I take no lessons, don't open the books, in fact, I never open the piano and actually play it. I may call myself a piano player, but my works do not demonstrate that I am one. In Ortberg's "parlance", my public conviction is that I play the piano, my private conviction may or may not be that I play the piano, but my core conviction clearly is that I am not a piano player. I would caution anyone who says they truly trust in Jesus but has not one single shred of evidence of that in their lives (this is metaphorically speaking, I know no one like this) to "examine themselves to see if they are in the faith".

You write [However, by pointing us inward to a standard of sanctification based upon "my intentions to obey and follow Christ", Ortberg is actually undermining people's faith because NONE OF US (me and you included) obeys Christ perfectly and none of us can say that even our best works are not tainted and stained by sin.] I have heard Ortberg speak a number of times and have read several of his books. I do not believe that he is trying to do this at all (I don't think I heard anything close to it in his talk, which brings us back to the original point), and I think he would agree with your statement above fully, too.

I confess I expected you to perhaps twist my words more, and you didn't. You continue to be gracious and polite. Thanks. Not everybody who runs sites such as yours are quite so genteel.

Blessings on you!

Now, I'll be on your "side" for a moment, as Akira writes [Chris, that's all you see? You don't see a perfect and boundless love of an all powerful God, who could have destroyed me for my transgressions, but instead redeemed me with His son and then sent the Holy Spirit to help me. I think I am beginning to understand your perspective now.] Akira, I don't think you (or I) appreciate when someone like Chris puts words in your mouth, and yet I think that's what you did here. I'll bet that Chris truly appreciates all that very much. I doubt he would spend all the time he does on this site if he didn't, and I'm sure he wouldn't put up with people like me if he didn't.

Blessings on you ALL!

[John]

You know everyone . . . . I'm just not sure that Jesus EVER meant it to be all this hard - sheeez!

And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, “Which commandment is the most important of all?” Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these"

[Steve Newell]

When I hear Jesus' command to love God and my neighbor at this level, I am know that I don't and I cannot. The standard is perfection. Either you love God 100% and your neighbor 100% or you do not. Jesus meant this to be that hard. As Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount, "Be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect." God doesn't grade on the curve. If God looks at our hearts, he will only see sin. We cannot do any this on our own. Our motivation, our actions are all affected by sin.

The only reason that I can love God and love my neighbor is that Christ first loved me and gave me the ability to love.

[Peter Hamm]

Steve,

Sounds almost exactly what Dallas Willard says in "The Divine Conspiracy".

;-)

[Steve Newell]

Peter,

Luther had a great way of expressing our condition is that we are both Saint and Sinner at the same time. By God's grace I am a saint but I still remain a sinner. This is one of the paradoxes of the Christian faith.

I wrote a posting on this in Extreme Theology.

[John Yeazel]

Wow, talk about a bunch of conflicting ideas being presented. I am on the side of Chris because I went through a lot of different Christian movements in my life. I went through the Christian Shepherding and Discipleship movement of the New Wine magazine variety, I went through a stage of reading Charles Finney, I went through a Charismatic phase, and I went through a Christian Reconstruction phase. During all this time I was reading
Francis Schaeffer and other reformational Christians like R.C. Sproul, John Calvin and Martin Luther. I also went to Willow Creek on and off for many years. I even took a few of John Ortberg's classes while he was at Willow (his eschatology series and Old Testament Survey series). John Ortberg was well loved by everyone at Willow Creek. He is a very engaging speaker and a very nice guy. I also lived in Grand Rapids for awhile and went to Rob Bells Mars Hill Church. He also is a very engaging speaker and nice guy. However, sitting under the ministries of these people I never felt like I was measuring up to what I was supposed to be and I finally said screw it I cannot do it. I was in a very difficult marriage at the time and finally had to get a divorce. Believe me, I went through utter turmoil in my life because of this decision (I have 5 kids) and did not get much help from other Christians.I carried around a huge burden of guilt for many years. The only help I found was in reading reformational Christian literature. Michael Horton's "Putting Amazing Back into Grace" saved my Christian life. I have found that reformational Christianity is more true to what the Bible teaches us. Now obviously this gets tricky because many people have interpreted it wrongly. But we cannot just throw up our hands and say well that is just your interpretation- I interpret it differently. Someone is interpreting it better than someone else. We cannot give up our search for what is true. Christianity is based on truth and God wants to communicate that truth to us so we can rely on it. If we cannot rely on the doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone on the account of Christ alone then what can we rely on? What if we have a big fall into sin in our Christian lives- do we give up? And what if we struggle and still persist in doing it even when we know it is killing us? (see Romans chapter 7 please). Most Christians will not have anything to do with you. That is not true with reformational Christians. As Luther stated, this doctrine of grace is the doctrine on which the Church stands or falls. Are we committed to a doctrine of grace or a doctrine of our own glory. If this is not the central thrust of all that we believe and teach then the Church has gone astray. To center the Church around anything else is a Church that has strayed from Christ and replaced it with what we think is more appropriate and relevant. Are we being guided by what the Scriptures teach us or are we being more guided by what we think we should be doing because of the surrounding culture? That is the main issue here. Willow Creek has been seduced by the surrounding culture to use other means then the preached Word of God to accomplish God's purposes. Luther relied on the active nature of the Word of God to accomplish God's will. Listen to this quote and then compare it with what is going on at Willow Creek. This is a quote by Luther: "Preach the Word, he told himself and other preachers, and leave the results to God. The abandon with which Luther applied this principle is illustrated in his second Wittenberg sermon- "I simply taught, preached and wrote God's Word; otherwise I did nothing. And while I slept, or drank Wittenberg beer with my friends Phillip and Amsdorf, the Word so greatly weakened the papacy (or mainstream evangelicalism and postmodern gnostic spirituality-to make it relevant to today) that no prince or emperor (or postmodern spiritual shaman) ever inflicted such loses upon it. I did nothing, the Word did everything." When we replace what we do with what the Word of God can do we lose what God can do with much greater ability than we can. This is an affront to God's glory and ability to work out his purposes in his way. His Word and His Gospel (accurately taught) is what energizes us to accomplish his purposes in the culture (mostly through our vocational callings). Also, let me add that Christians will only be unified by true doctrine. The leadership at Willow Creek and the emergent movement leaders have rejected doctrine as the main means of unity. They are rebel movements and doing things like Frank Sinatra (he did it his way) This is worse than falling into egregious sin. God can forgive us of our sins- he cannot do anything when we reject his means of accomplishing his purposes except judge us severely.

[Josh]

Wow!, I am sorry that I came across your blog and your radio show.
I am a Christ follower. I love Jesus.
I wish that you would spend all of this energy that your are currently using to fight, bash, argue, and put down Christians and go out and love someone. Find a person who is hurting and love them.

If we as Christians would stop fighting with each other and start loving people we would change the face of this planet.
Please, Please stop.

[Diana Lovegrove]

Chris, I want to thank you so much for the comments you have made on this blog. I have been battling with the issues you have raised here all my christian life, especially your comment "The other problem is that the more I study, read, mark and inward meditate on God's word and his holy and perfect law the MORE aware of my sin and unrighteousness I become." - this is exactly my experience. Which has then led me to wonder if I am truly a Christian - if I am a Christian I should love God with all my heart soul and mind, so why don't I?

Your comments about Matthew 25, and the parable of the sheep and the goats - that they are separated on the basis of what they are (sheep and goats) and not on what they did (feeding, clothing or not), and also that the sheep themselves are unaware of what they have done, and our good works are there as evidence for our neighbour rather than for ourselves - as I have thought about this, it has provided me with so much comfort on a personal level.

I know my heart is deceitful, and I am not in a position to be able to look at my "good works" and assess them, that is God's job. All I can do is praise God that what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakend by the sinful nature, God has DONE through Jesus, and live a life of gratitude in response to that.

Any time I focus on the life I am living, I get torn up inside. Once I change my focus to Jesus and who He is, and what He has done, I get lifted inside.

God bless you Chris, and thank you once again.

Diana.

[John Yeazel]

I want to respond to Josh- although he probably is not tuning in to this site anymore. I am sure Josh is a very nice guy and is probably living an admirable and decent life but the attitude he has conveyed is what makes reformational Christianity on a collision course with mainstream evangelicalism (the type of Christianity which is taught at Willow Creek and the emergent Church movement). Reformational Christianty is counterintuitive to our natures. Our hearts and minds are wired for the Law subjectively (it is what comes natural to us)- the Gospel is an announcement and proclamation from outside of us. It is not something we can think up on our own- it is written down for us in a book. It is God proclaiming to us His plan of redemption. It is God telling us what reality is, what our natures are, why we are like we are and then giving us the solution to our problem. The scriptures nullify what our subjective minds tells us reality is, what our natures are, why we are like we are and what the solution to our problem is. We always have a conflict between what our subjective minds tell us and what the scriptures tell us. The point of doctrine is to bring clarity into this ongoing conflict we have going on. It is not to beat people over the head with but we do have to believe that our final answers come from its pages and we all do not interpret it properly. The role of Pastors in our lives is to expound the scriptures to us accurately. Because we are fallen we are not going to do this perfectly but we have to seek to get it right. Granted, we may have to argue and disagree. This is a reality we cannot escape. We have to be able to discern the difference between the Law and the Gospel and we have to use our minds to do it. We are prone to do this badly.

The book of Romans reveals to us that we are far worse then we think we are. Our subjective minds will not tell us what the book of Romans tells us. Because God put his law into our consciences we are always trying to hush and suppress this law in our inner minds. We also know that what the law tells us is right and we should be acting and behaving in accordance with this Law. It is so painful to us that we learn how to suppress it and lower the demands it places on our lives. Some, by their own will power and a variety of other reasons, are able to not suppress these demands so deeply and actually live them out better then others. This is what Romans chapter 2 tells us. However, Romans chapter 3 puts us in our place. None are righteous- no not one; none seeks for God all have turned astray. Romans 4 then tells us that while we were yet wicked Christ died for us. Even while we suppress the truth about ourselves about not obeying the Law properly God provides the solution for us in Christ.

The point of what I am trying to say is that we need to be reminded of the distinction between the Law and Gospel on a regular basis. Each Sunday as a matter of fact. This is not a given that we just talk about once and then go our merry ways. We are prone to confuse this over and over again. We stray from the understanding of the Gospel quite easily. We want to replace it with what we have to do.

The reformers were constantly clarifying doctrine to their congregations. In fact, Luther stated on one occasion that "I went after their doctrine- Erasmus went after their appetites (or sins)."
This is the difference between mainstream evangelicalism and reformational Christianity. Mainstream evangelicalism (Willow Creek, the emerging movement, the Word/Faith movement, the Charismatic movement and Rick Warren and the Purpose Driven Life type Church's)has chosen the way of Erasmus which is more intuitive to our natures. They are moral reformers- we want deeds not creeds. Reformational Christianity seeks to get the objective Word right and therefore emphasizes creeds not deeds. It is a very different approach and the Churches of two diverging movements emphasize very different things. Can they be reconciled?- that is the question. Do we put a lot of effort in trying to reconcile them? Luther and the Reformers spent a lot of time arguing with those who disagreed with them. We cannot get around constructive debate. We have divergent views of what Christianity is. We can do it in a civilized manner, get nasty about it or just ignore it. Hopefully, we can learn to do it in a civilized manner because we all should want to know what the truth is. Many have come to the conclusion that we cannot know the truth. This is not what Christ told us- He told us "He is the way, the truth and the life- no one comes to the Father except through me." Getting at the truth can be difficult and complicated at times but we cannot give up hope in trying to find it. The creeds, confessions and catechisms of the historical Church were written to help us understand the main themes written in the scriptures. They come from many years of reflection on the pages of scripture. They have withstood the test of time and others trying to critique them. Mainstream evangelicalism has rejected these historical documents of the historical Church and think they know better. If you analyze what theologians the leaders of mainstream evangelicalism draw from you would be appalled. They often do not tell this to the congregations they are leading. If I was going to one of those Church's again that is the first thing I would ask my Pastor. They are leading you down a slippery slope with no doctrinal direction except to do everything new. They want to rethink the way they "do Church." The only thing we have to rethink is how to present the Gospel in a way in which the culture will understand it more clearly. It is my contention that much of mainstream evangelicalism is presenting a different Gospel then what is expressed in the pages of scripture.

[John Yeazel]

I just read my comment and did not really answer Josh's objection so I want to add a bit to what I said. Reformational Christians will not stop arguing and trying to clarify doctrine. We can probably all learn to do it in a more gracious manner but we will never stop doing it. Chris has been very gracious in the manner in which he presented his objections about what John Ortberg was talking about. And he was gracious to those who disagreed in their comments. Luther often times was very vitriolic in his arguing with those who disagreed with him. Sometimes you have to be. When people are espousing deep errors and leading people away from what Christianity really is then sometimes one has to turn up the heat. We have to accept the fact that we may be carrying around inside our heads ideas that are contrary to sound doctrine. We should be learning how to be grateful to those who correct us rather than just ignoring them. We can present our cases too but we have to accept the fact that we may be wrong and someone else is right. I have had to accept this fact on many occasions in my life. This type of discussion is very worthwhile if done properly and we handle it right. And if we are all seeking for the truth together.

We can still go out and love others and help those who are hurting. This is not an either/or situation. In fact, this is exactly what we should be doing in our vocations away from Church. We should be loving and serving those who do not share our beliefs. We do not have to shove the Gospel down their throats. They will not listen to us anyways unless we have developed some kind of trust with them. At Church though, we should be seeking to get the Law, Gospel and doctrine right. The Church really is not the main forum for evangelism. Evangelism should be done outside of Church's although the Gospel needs to be constantly reinforced in our lives at Church. Church should also be training us on how to go about dealing with people in our vocations. How to love them and serve them better.

When other Churches and movements are being led astray by false teaching it is the duty of those within the Church to confront these wayward movements. Christians can only be unified by doctrine. Read the book of first Corinthians where divisions and rifts abounded. Paul states the following to the Christians there who were fighting with each other: "I appeal to you, brothers.......that all of you agree with one another so that there be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought." May this be the goal of that we do and work towards within the Church.

[Josh]

John- I understand what your getting at in a round about way. I agree that there does need to be dialogue among Christians. We should be able to talk theology and doctrine and be do so in a way that we may not always agree with each other. I do not think this is bad, in fact it can be very healthy at times.
My problem comes when ones energy is used totally in opposing Christians views and fighting against Christians about doctrine. Let's keep in mind that we are all ultimately on the same side. We are all in need of grace that only comes from God. We are all in agreement that Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
Tell me, do you think that when I die and stand in front of the Lord that I will be denied eternity with my maker because I had a misunderstanding about doctrine. When I may not have understood "perfect" doctrine, but I fully understand that I am saved by faith through the suffering of Jesus on the cross. I once was lost, but now I am found. I need Jesus, his love, and grace. Will I be denied?
We must now focus our energies to spread the good news of a God who cares for his creation so much. We must bring the gospel to friends, family, and strangers alike.
I was saddened when I first heard a podcast about how Rob Bell is a heretic and how he should have never been scene in the presence of the Dalai Llama or other people of other faiths. Those people were created by God, regardless of their current beliefs, they were created by God. So we must be careful of how we talk about God's creation. I believe that Chris, despite his possible good intentions, is creating a place for Christians to get together and nag about other Christians. The problem is that non-believers are not listening to this stuff. The only people on this site are Christians.

Let's be the church, and share what God has done in our lives and what God wants to do in the lives of the people who do not yet know Yahweh.

Can you agree with any of that?

[Diana Lovegrove]

Josh - I don't see this site as a place to get together and nag about other Christians. Through this site, and especially this discussion, I am finally starting to get my head clear on what the gospel message is, and am able to deal with the baggage of "guilt" which results from a performance-based Christianity.

If through the discussion here some of us can be released into a fuller understanding of the gospel and as a result experience more joy in our Christian life than be eaten up with guilt that we're not obeying Christ enough, then I think this site is serving its purpose.

When I first started to listen to Chris's analysis of the John Ortberg talk, I did think isn't he making too much of this, isn't it a minor point? But the more I think about it, the more I think it is of vital importance, if we don't really understand the gospel message, everything goes off from that point on.

God bless,
Diana.

[John Yeazel]

Thank you Josh for responding back. Sorry if I was not clear and stating what I was trying to say in a "round about way." I have been on both sides of the great Church divide. It took me a long time to finally start seeing the differences between Reformational Christianity and what I call mainstream evangelicalism. You are receiving doctrine from the Church you attend and the books that you read whether that is what you call it or not. Do I believe that our doctrine has to be pure without any error in it to be accepted into heaven- good gracious no. What we do have to believe though is that we have no hope in a eternal relationship with God trusting in our own righteousness rather than Christ's. Christ is God's redemptive plan for humanity and God tolerates no other plan of redemption. I am not trying to make that sound harsh it is just the truth. That is the main doctrine we are fighting for. That is ground zero and what Luther called the doctrine on which the Church stands or falls. This gets easily confused in the emphasis in the Church's we attend and the theological literature we read. We want some credit for ourselves and have no hope in this regard. This keeps us all from pride and comparing ourselves with how much progress each other is making. This is the testimony of what the scriptures clearly and plainly tell us. The only thing we can do is trust in Christ's righteousness and then make diligent use of the means of grace (growing in our understanding of the scriptures, attending Church with fellow strugglers in the faith and getting encouragement and exhortation from them, participating in the Lord's Supper on a regular basis which is what really energizes our faith and makes it grow and then taking this forgiveness and grace and with empty hands offering Christ to the world). What happens when this gets lost and not the top priority in the Church is that it gets confused and shoots off into a million different directions. And if you read the history of what happens to Church's when doctrine losses its priority in the life of the Church you will see that it gets replaced by a variety of different activities. The biggest activity usually becomes political activism and the Church getting heavily involved in political causes and such. This is exactly what is happening to Brian McLaren and many other Emergent leaders. It is also happening to Rick Warren. There are a million other things I could talk about.

It is not the Church's job to take over the culture. Christ said his kingdom was not of this world. Some may get involved in politics as a vocation but to preach to the Church these huge political agenda's like Brian McLaren does is leading the Church astray. It is not our place to shove theological agenda's onto the world and the realm of politics. Most mainstream evangelicals do not get two-kingdom theology. This is a reformational concept. The left-hand kingdom is the realm of our vocations where reason and natural law are king with God of course Providentially guiding and directing it. The right-hand kingdom is the spiritual kingdom of the Church. It is here where the Gospel is king. Christ is king over both kingdoms but He governs them differently. The left-hand kingdom is the kingdom of law and the right hand kingdom is the kingdom of the Gospel. We have to learn how to distinguish the two and function in each. Mainstream evangelicalism does not possess this understanding. They confuse the two kingdoms along with the Law and the Gospel all the time. Are you beginning to see how radically different these approaches to the faith are?

What the Emergent movement and Willow Creek are seeing clearly though is that the Church cannot retreat from the world and our responsibility to serve and love others who do not share our beliefs. I agree whole heartedly with you in that regard. It is how we go about doing it that is causing the problems. Mainstream evangelicalism is more prone to compromise the basic beliefs of the Gospel when reaching out. Reformational Christians will not do this.

Personally, I have sat under both John Ortberg's teaching and Rob Bell. Both have very attractive and charismatic personalities, are very smart and are very engaging speakers. I like both of them but I disagree with what they teach. They both are being heavily influenced by the New Perspective on Paul theologians. I have heard them lamblast reformational Christians so do not think this is just a one way street. This is causing huge problems in the Church.

I will stop there Josh- sorry if I got a bit long winded. I hope I was able to clarify to you some of the issues which are causing all the heat to be generated. We reformational Christians want to reach out to the world just as much as you do. Do not be so arrogant to presume that you know more than we do what types of questions non-Christians are asking. I have many non-christian friends and seek to gain their trust in the hopes that I can offer the Gospel to them. Only God can open their eyes to their need though. I just want to be their to explain it to them as clearly as I know how. What is the Gospel we are offering these people? Reformational Christians and mainstream evangelicals are offering a different Gospel. We have more concern in getting that aspect right.

[John Yeazel]

Right on Diana- I know exactly where you are coming from. A huge burden of guilt was lifted from me when I began to really "get" Reformational Christianity. We no longer have to play games and put on a show of our own deep walk with Christ. We can then become more real and honest about our failures and sins. Even though people at these performance based Church's (which you so aptly put it) talk about authenticity and all that you really become less authentic when all the burden is on your performance. This will burn you out, turn you into a Pharisee, or cause you to quit the Christian religion all together.

[Blogsy]

Response to ‘John’ who posted on October 21. NO brother, Jesus NEVER meant it to be so hard. “For my yoke is EASY and my burden is light”. We have become very skilled at complicating simple truths. It is perhaps the serpentine influence that Paul warned the Corinthians about… “lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the SIMPLICITY that is in Christ”

The evolution of cyber communications and blogposts has revealed who has too much time on their hands. I’d like to know what most of these bloggers do for a living. Do they actually have an income producing activity that benefits the economy in a meaningful way?

I wonder when we go to glory if there will be some special quarters reserved for the spiritual aristocracy that blogs on this website. The sophisticatedly biblical literati and intelligentsia that has fined tuned doctrine to a tee. The distant descendants of the Pharisaic scholars who “tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them”.

It is so much easier to debate truth than to live it!

That’s exactly what Jesus would do if he was on earth today. He would be spending 90% of his time blogging relentlessly and debating the gospel on an academic level.

I wonder what type of fruit all this exquisite and insightful knowledge produces in the life of these perpetual bloggers. Does it move them to show more compassion to their fellow man? What goes through their mind when they walk past a homeless person? Does their doctrinal insight motivate them to buy the homeless guy a burger?

I wonder what would happen if most of these keen and dedicated truth warriors tithed their blogging time. If they devoted 10% of their blogging time to perhaps volunteer in a local inner city shelter, or rape victims hospice, or offer to mow the lawn for the elderly lady who lives two doors down the street, or fix the leaking tap of the single mother’s house next door.

To show the love of God in practical ways so that “they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven” To tell people how to escape the coming wrath and “save themselves from this corrupt generation”. To help “snatch others from the fire and save them” from the grip of Satan’s addictions and their sins. To show enough patience with them when they oppose us so “God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will”

If they perhaps took that colleague to lunch who is about to squander his money on legal bills, hell bent to fight his bitter divorce. I wonder if perhaps they shared the gospel of peace with him to save him from financial ruin now and eternal damnation later.

But then again we don’t wanna turn this into a ‘social gospel’ do we? It might be more beneficial to start another online forum to debate Dispensationalism or the pros of Calvinism versus the cons of Arminianism and throw Premellinianism in the mix for good measure. This ought to be more pleasing to God, surely! James was probably being too simplistic when he said “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world” Hmmm….

Now let’s get one thing straight. “Contending earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” is much needed today amidst the orgy of false doctrines that is rampant in Christendom. Paul obviously felt very strongly about tampering with the truth that he invoked a curse on anyone who messes with it (Gal 1:8). Naming and shaming false teachers and frauds is totally biblical, Paul did it all the time. Jesus obviously hates truth tampering and gave a sombre warning regarding the book of Revelation (22:18).

But guys…..GET A LIFE! Do you ever allow yourselves any ‘free time’ to practice what you know? Keep it in balance. Your impassioned pleas to protect the truth are admirable, but it’s a two edged sword that cuts both ways. Your superior knowledge over those ‘less attuned’ than you, resembles Paul’s warning to those who debated idol sacrifice food. “Now about food sacrificed to idols: We know that we all possess knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know. But the man who loves God is known by God.”

There comes a point where over-debating crosses to the other side and becomes sinful, let alone you may end up idolizing your ‘knowledge’ like the Pharisees. In closing I’d like to leave you with some of Paul’s warnings.

“Don't have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels”.

“But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless”.

“Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen”.

[Blogsy]

One more brotherly caution as an afterthought for those theologically sensitive holy bloggers. Over the weekend you can perhaps ask yourselves this question. Why are you doing all this intense cyber-debating? Are you doing it out of LOVE for the lost, the wider body of Christ, the Lord, the reputation of the gospel…or….out of love for your own opinion?

Paul challenged the fervent Corinthians with this food for thought: “If I …..can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge….but have not love, I am nothing” (1 Cor 13:2).

If all our knowledge goes only as far as exchanging opinions in cyber space and no further, we may me like those James speaks of. “Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like a man who looks at his face in a mirror and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like” (James 1:23-24)

NOW THAT YOU KNOW THESE THINGS, YOU WILL BE BLESSED IF YOU DO THEM. - Jesus

[Steve Newell]

Blogsy,

Bad doctrine kills. It is deadly since it can lead to eternal separation for God.

It is the highest example of love to point out bad doctrine and call for those for follow it and teach it to repent.

Since most American "evangelical" churches no longer teach doctrine as the core of their preaching and teaching, most Christians do not have sound understanding of the doctrine of the Christian faith. That is way we see so many errors coming into the Church today.

[jon]

So, is it "grace alone" that allows you to steal copywrited content and publish it on your blog? So either you should be "doing something" to help you overcome the sin in your life or there is no sin and therefore what's the point of anything? Or, you must not be a true "Christian" because you are still sinning. So, which is it? Is ongoing sin ok? Is there no longer sin if you are "saved." Why did God bother with the rest of the NT after the resurrection?

[jon]

hi steve, you say bad doctrine kills. but, if we are saying everything is on God - to call me, save me, help me grow - then bad doctrine can't kill me. God will save me regardless of what bad doctine does. so, blogsy is actually right. why all the energy and venom against someone trying to interpret scripture as the balance of faith and works. even if they are wrong, according to this blog, it won't matter...

[catransplant48]

Chris, you missed the point of Matthew 25. Read the whole parable.

The "sheep" (blessed; righteous) asked the Lord in genuine surprise, "When did we do this for you?" because they served in humility without a thought for themselves. The "goats", on the other hand, were indignant. They were furious that their motive to do good works was questioned and that their efforts to serve the Lord were summarily dismissed. Read verse 45. Their response was, "When did we see you.....and did not take care of You?"

Humble servants are usually surprised when accolades are given to them for their service. In sharp contrast, those who serve in order to earn "points with God" or serve with a mindset of self-promotion or manipulation are usually the first to cry "foul" when their motives are challenged....or discovered.

That's the point God is making here, and one a lot of people miss: "What is your motive for service?"

[Heidi Sue]

Okay, I'm normally not one to go into polemics mode, and I'm really going to try to keep things as tactful and calm as possible, but Blogsy's posts are easily THE MOST OFFENSIVE posts I have read online, including many of the secular, anti-Christian blogsites I've been interacting with. (Yes, for the purpose of getting out there and "practicing what I know"!)

First, has anyone else noticed the particular brand of hypocrisy Blogsy exhibits here? (I think John's the only one with longer posts!) What is Blogsy doing wasting his/her time here--shouldn't he/she be spending better time elsewhere instead of trolling for arguments with these trite "objections" that have been addressed so many times in so many other places and yes, in so many other blogs?

Like it or not, blogging has become a major means of communication and (quasi-)personal connection in a severely messed-up and disconnected world. People come to blogs in droves to look for truth--therefore this is the place to protect truth!

As for "what those bloggers do for a living", how about university professors? How about Starbucks baristas? How about seminary students? How about gas station attendants? How about college students in the middle of these battles for truth? These and more are the type of folk I run into on these sites. These sites do not reveal who has too much time on their hands, but rather they reveal who gives up the latest episode of "CSI: Dubuque" to find out what other people in the world are thinking outside of their 2-square-mile bubble.

I wonder when we go to glory if there will be some special quarters reserved for the spiritual aristocracy that rips on people who blog on this and other websites? The proudly unsophisticated, dedicated illiterati who are completely unequipped to hash it out with very thoughtful, insightful, troubled atheists who attack Christianity on these very issues.

It is so much easier to live "truth" when you don't have to say what it is!

I AM GETTING TIRED of the either-or mentality of people like Blogsy who do not, cannot, or choose not to see the relation between doctrine and practice.

I AM GETTING TIRED of the people like Blogsy who say you must EITHER be spending your time blogging OR buying the homeless guy a burger.

I AM GETTING TIRED of the people like Blogsy who assume that "dedicated truth warriors" do not volunteer in a local inner-city shelter (I am one!) or offer to mow the lawn down the street.

See, the truth is, all these good things to do for other people quite literally don't matter a DAMN if they throw salvation 100% by grace through faith in Christ Jesus out the window. Might as well become Buddhist or Hindu, or just a nice atheist (directions taken by many on these "useless" blogs who see Christianity as just a moral code that people more often than not screw up!).

At least Blogsy does admit that "'Contending earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints' is much needed today amidst the orgy of false doctrines that is rampant in Christendom," but then those who are doing exactly that are supposed to GET A LIFE!!

Blogsy, STOP THE EITHER-OR THINKING!!

And a couple cautions as afterthoughts from one of those theologically sensitive holy bloggers:
Check out a few other translations than whatever one (or ones) you're reading. The "SIMPLICITY" you're talking about in 2 Corinthians 11.3 is not in most of the reliable translations, comes from απλότης (aplotes), "simplicity, sincerity, frankness, sincere concern of people who give ungrudgingly", and bears the connotation of single-mindedness. Guess what that single-mindedness is? Here's a hint: nothing to do with yokes, light or otherwise. Rather, immediately following verse 3, Paul defines that απλότης by defining the deception: "For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough." This single-mindedness, then, is the single-mindedness with which Paul proclaimed "as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve" (1Co 15.3). It is the same single-mindedness with which he "decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and HIM CRUCIFIED" (1Co 2.2).
THAT is the "simplicity" of which Paul spoke, not Jesus Christ and him as the greatest moral model (although that is certainly a part of the story); not Jesus Christ and him as physical healer (although that is certainly part of the story). The central, simple part of Christianity is Christ died and risen to redeem us--nothing else.

Also, all those quotes about quarreling at the end are talking about useless quarrels over things that don't matter. What is debated on these blogs is the heart of the Gospel itself: "Do I need to see good works in my life (do I need to do good works) to know that I am saved?" Not exactly something that doesn't matter.

As for why am I doing this intense cyber-debating? Out of LOVE for the lost who see the message of Christianity as one seriously messed-up moral code as presented by mainstream religion... out of LOVE for the pure, saving Gospel that we so easily distort even if we mean well by pointing it toward the "Whatcha gotta do now" instead of toward Christ. (And yes, that's an either-or, but it's one of those Biblical ones--you know, that whole Galations 1.6 thing...)

[Becky]

Thank you, Heidi Sue. What little time I do have to come keep up with Chris's reports, is used up merely reading. For those who are posting to defend or determine the truth of all things, I am grateful. Other posters just want to get in the way.

[Blogsy]

To Steve Newell, response to post of Oct 24, 04:03AM

You said - ‘It is the HIGHEST EXAMPLE OF LOVE to point out bad doctrine and call for those for follow it and teach it to repent’

Jesus would disagree with you on that one brother, because according to Him….“Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13)

I don’t disagree with you AT ALL that ‘bad doctrine kills’ and I didn’t write a single line in my post that suggested otherwise. If this is the only thing you could read into what I said, I obviously did a very poor job in stating my opinion.

Of course we should point out error and promote repentance from it. False teaching/teachers should be pointed out, named, shamed, and weeded out. There are too many politically correct and sincerely misguided/biblically illiterate Christians who hide behind the ‘we shouldn’t judge’ curtain.

ALL I’m trying to point out is, let’s keep a balance between talking and walking. Bottom line: we don’t disagree on the effects of bad doctrine.

[John Yeazel]

I had to take a hiatus from blogging in order "to do" some things that took me away from my computer. I see that a couple of more blogs have been posted. I do have a life that I have to do but truth seeking guides and prioritizes my practice of the faith. Without clear doctrine guiding my life I would shoot off into a million different directions.

I crunch numbers all day at my computer in my job so blogging is a pleasant diversion from number crunching. I blog during my breaks, at lunch time and at night. I sometimes have to admit that I let my blogging go a little overtime in my breaks and at lunch. But know this blogsy I have repented of this serious error. My brother (who is a very active member at Willow Creek) and I own a family business together. I am kind of passionate about this debate because my brother and I butt heads on a regular basis. Although we have come to a reconciliation at work for the good of the company and the families that are dependent on work here.

Let me start off by saying great blog Heidi Sue. You should go into your polemical mode more often. You have a talent for it. I thought I was reading B.B. Warfield for a while there. Willow Creekers and the Emergent movement types have been seriously challenged by some leading Protestant theologians (R.C. Sproul, D.A. Carson, David Wells, the writers at Modern Reformation magazine- Michael Horton, Kim Riddlebarger, Rod Rosenbladt, etc.). Trust me behind closed doors they are very angry at this challenge because it is causing problems with members in their Church's. They often talk in a condescending tone about the "frozen chosen" types who go to reformational Church's. They also think that what motivates us to challenge their doctrine is a jealousy because of the financial success and large member congregations. Perhaps this is true in some cases but for the legitimate protestant reformational leadership nothing could be further from the truth. They have a passion for the unity of the Church and Jesus and Paul both plainly taught that it is sound doctrine around the person and work of Christ that unifies us. Church's do not have to rethink the way they do Church. They have to go back to a deep searching of the Scriptures and trust the Word and Sacrament to accomplish God's purposes.

Even a cursory reading of the Old Testament makes it plain that God is very concerned about doing things in His way. He is the means because He is the creator of it all and demands us to take his Words seriously. I will continue this blog tomorrow- I am being interupted by something I have to do. I have a cynical and sarcastic bent towards mainstream evangelicals.

[Blogsy]

To John Yeazel. Sarcasm is the lowest form of whit, but I'm equally guilty. If you are calling me a "mainstream evangelical" I'll take that as a compliment!

[Blogsy]

Dear Heidi Sue (I’ll call you HS). I must have hit a raw nerve there somewhere! Was your keyboard smoking when you were typing this post?

It takes a man of great moral fortitude to ignore your post and not respond, but I confess I am not one of them (working on it by the grace of God, but way to go yet). I confess to being new in the blogosphere, but I would have thought despite our differences we could at least agree with Hebrews 10:24 “And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds” (there goes those ‘good deeds’ again) Instead this is a cyber mud-slinging. Paul’s warning may be timely here: “If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other” (Gal 5:15) As your post is dripping with emotion, it would be impossible to respond to you without the risk of offending you further.

I’m guessing you saw red in the first few lines of my post and you took a single slant from there on. Past that point, your emotions ran ahead of your understanding, you made a series of biased assumptions, missed the crux of what I was saying and made it personal. If I was to hazard a further guess, I would say that you sincerely love the Lord and want to please Him, you are educated, articulate, intelligent and biblically literate. But unfortunately, when you reply ‘in the heat of the moment’ you tend to miss some facts…just a tad (yours truly also guilty of this one).

Having said all that, I would much rather be challenged by someone feisty ANY DAY than some lukewarm, froth-and-bubble, low-calorie, biblically illiterate believer who thinks the apostle Peter wrote the book of Deuteronomy. People like you make me want to be a better Christian! (I know this last sentence wreaks of sarcasm, but it’s honest believe it or not)

I will avail myself of the opportunity to state my case once again, but I don’t want to be a clogger-blogger and take up too much space on a single post. I will respond separately tomorrow and I’ll try not to make it tit-for-tat. Plus, it’s getting really late now…

[John Yeazel]

Alright Blogsy, I'll bite- explain to me the higher forms of wit. Is it kind of like climbing up the ladder of spiritual growth and reaching those higher levels by what we do? This is exactly where us Reformational types have problems with Willow Creekers and the Emerging types. We can take no glory for ourselves. This is all the Holy Spirit applying the benefits of Christ to our lives by our diligent use of the means of grace. We would all wander away from the faith if it wasn't for God working his means of grace into our lives. To trust fallen humanity to accomplish God's purposes is a fools errand. God will do it in His way and in His timing through the preaching of the Word and the sacraments strengthening us and applying the Gospel to our souls.

Behind all the rhetoric of this debate is kind of a latent narcissism which presumes we are not as fallen as the scriptures make us out to be. We take ourselves and our abilities much too seriously. Also, many emergent types have a misunderstanding of Sola Scriptura or have rejected Sola Scriptura all together. I have not heard the position on Sola Scriptura coming out of Willow Creek- I have heard emergents state their positions on this most important of Christian doctrines and they have rejected the classical Reformational understanding of this doctrine. You guys are treading on dangerous grounds and people like you Blogsy are a bit too big for their britches. So, you are going to take on John Calvin, Martin Luther, the great Princeton theologians when Princeton theological seminary was in its heyday of biblical belief and all giants of our great reformational heritage whose shoulders we are standing on today. Good luck- you will get crushed by these protectors of the wonderful doctrines of grace (the good news of the Gospel) which gives hope to us helpless sinners. That is the bottom line of the Gospel and it is what the great theologians were protecting the Church from. Emergents have an aversion to discussing doctrinal issues. They avoid it like a plague. They have chosen to ignore the warnings of the leadership in the Reformational wing of the Church. As Gamillia (that is probably spelled wrong) said in the book of Acts let them go their way and see what happens to their movement. If it is of God it will last, if not it will burn out quickly and die. I will put my trust in the Reformational type of Christianity- you guys have rejected this way.

[John Yeazel]

Blogsy,

One more point- you keep using scriptures out of context. That reference you made to the verse in Galatians about biting and devouring one another- that is in reference to those who were wanting to add things we had to do in order to complete our redemption. Paul wanted the Galatians to be of one mind on the matter. You should read Luther's commentary on Galatians.

[Blogsy]

Dear John Y. I forgive you for confusing me with Willow Creekers and the Emergents. Please note for the record I have no interest or admiration for any seeker-sensitive groups. However, I beg to differ that preaching alone is sufficient. Good preaching and expositional teaching are meant to produce a change in the heart and equip us for the WORK (that means doing to me) of the ministry, not just theorizing. If you want to play safe and keep all the knowledge in your head and this blog, go ahead. I have a sneaking suspicion though that Jesus MAY be expecting you to do a bit more with it.

Also your fascination with famous theologians may become idolatrous if not kept in check and is a form of carnality. “for you are still carnal. For where there are envy, strife, and divisions among you, are you not carnal and behaving like mere men? For when one says, “I am of Paul,” and another, “I am of Apollos,” are you not carnal?” (1 Cor 3:3-4)

You can’t believe in Sola Scriptura if you feel the need to espouse those theologians’ views. I guess if someone is saved in a part of the world where they never heard of these guys, they must be doomed. Relying on the Lord’s Spirit to open our mind so we can understand the Scriptures (Luke 24:45) is obviously not enough. I wonder how the early Christians survived before professional theologians came into existence.

And yes, thank God for Calvin’s exposition on the ‘good news’ of the gospel, who taught that God creates people doomed for hell from their womb and they never have any hope of getting saved. That would include babies who die as infants and once ‘God elected you for salvation’ obviously nothing you can do will affect it. You can sin, but if once saved, always saved. Keep these great news close to your chest.

I’m running out of time here, but one more…..It is a cheap excuse to say that we ‘are fallen creatures’ and we shouldn’t pay attention to works and be lazy. Why is God’s Spirit regenerating you then? How exactly are you meant to be ‘the salt of the earth,….’ the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden’ and to ‘let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven’? Did Jesus not know that we are ‘fallen creatures’ when he taught this?

[Blogsy]

John Y. So it must be ok to bite and devoure each other then, providing it's not to do with adding things we had to do in order to complete our redemption.

[Ken]

Just wanted to give you another example.

“Historically, there has been a tremendous emphasis on sin,” he said. “Crystal Cathedral was largely responsible for developing self-esteem among the faithful. This church has taken the Gospel in a positive light and spread that positive message around the world.” Robert Schuller. This quote was in the OC Register (online version 10/28/08).

Who needs Christ when you have self-esteem?

[Blogsy]

Response to Heidi Sue (HS) Part Two. (Warning: This is long winded as it is my last, so you might want to skip to shorter blogs)

The reason why I’m ‘wasting my time here’ is because I entered the debate for the first time. The only other post I put up was on Oct 16 @ 5:08PM as a two-liner observation. If these ‘trite objections’ have been answered on other blogs, I apologize. I confess once again to being a novice to the blog world.

Ironically you and a couple of others have made this into an EITHER OR debate, and we end up on a faith vs works duel as is common. Let me prove to you (and people who think likewise) why you are biased:

You wrote: “It is so much easier to live "truth" when you don't have to say what it is!”
You also wrote: “See, the truth is, all these good things to do for other people quite literally don't matter a DAMN if they throw salvation 100% by grace through faith in Christ Jesus out the window”.

You categorically assume that if one is keen to live out the truth, it follows that they DON’T tell anyone about it, they must be crypto-Christians. You also assume that for anyone who genuinely desires ‘to do good things to do for other people’ they MUST somehow believe in a watered down gospel. It is beyond comprehension for someone with your thinking that SOME Christians actually EXIST on this planet who are keen on both works AND sound doctrine. Why is it a default assumption that you can only follow one at the expense of the other?

That is my whole argument. WE NEED BOTH. Debating endlessly until the cows come home, without lifting a finger to help someone in need, is NOT what our faith is about. What I’m arguing against IS NOT the effort to defend the truth but THE EXCESSIVE AMOUNT OF TIME devoted to it. At some point, there has to be a threshold, a cut-off point of where we need to start practicing what we preach. We need to BALANCE talking with walking.

YES WE KNOW we don’t get saved by works, faith comes first, BUT AFTER we get saved there has to be some action surely! If you want to water down the importance of works, good for you, you may want to tell Jesus that to his face when you meet him, but I am not so game.

Let’s take stock for a moment: When I last read my New Testament here’s some things that I found:
• Jesus will be separating the sheep from the goats, because the sheep fed him when he was hungry, gave him something to drink when he was thirsty, invited him in when he was a stranger, clothed him when he needed clothes, looked after him when he was sick and visited him in prison. (Matt 25). Any of the above have to do with works maybe, or was he using figures of speech and we need some creative hermeneutics to decipher what he really meant?
• In the same chapter the guy who got rebuked (talent parable) was the one that did nothing with what he was given. He was called lazy. Is it possible that we are expected to actually ‘do’ something? Or, are the hermeneutically challenged believers like me too naïve to realize that perpetual debating is the best form of ‘doing’?
• Jesus didn’t have a problem with the Pharisees’ doctrine but their lack of practice. “So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach” (Matt 23:3)
• He said “But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand” (Matt 7:26)
• Cornelius’ charitable works certainly didn’t earn his salvation, he had to take the proper steps like everyone else, but they sure got God’s attention. “Your prayers and gifts to the poor have come up as a memorial offering before God” (Acts 10:4) If only he had his doctrine right!
• James’ oversimplistic definition of religion “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world” (1:27)
• “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad” (2 Cor 5:10) Is this any indication of how Jesus feels about our actions that may be related to our works maybe?
• How are the attributes mentioned in the fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5) and Peter’s “add to your faith” list in the first chapter of his 2nd epistle relevant, unless we interact with people outside out blog bubble?
• Let alone the great commission to go and make disciples. God’s wrath will soon manifest against the world’s wickedness and we are the only ones who know the escape plan.

If I understood correctly you volunteer in an inner city shelter. That’s great! But there’s a few out there who use their endless theological debates as an excuse for laziness not to do anything (or very little) of practical value.

It’s easy to blog anonymously from the comfort of your air-conditioned study or well heated living room on your laptop. But you might need to get out of your comfort zone to go down the supermarket and buy a bag of groceries for that family who are sitting on their front lawn watching the Sheriff change the locks at their house as the bank foreclosed on them. Buying the homeless guy a burger? There’s a chance he might stink since he hasn’t showered for months and may dribble on your Nike’s. These ‘random acts of kindness’ (dirty words as they have become to some), require some effort and sacrifice (sometimes money, sometimes time, travel, patience, resources). We don’t all have to run orphanages and rehab programs but we don’t need a ‘gift of helps’ or special ‘anointing’ to pick up the phone and talk to that friend whose husband walked out on her and she’s trying to make sense of the emotional chaos she’s in. There’s a chance though she ‘might have a lot of baggage’ and we need patience listening to her.

Now SOME of the posts are ‘the heart of the Gospel’ as you described, but if you follow the thread from day one you’ll see things like October 19’s post of the Affirmative Theses of STATUS CONTROVERSIAE The Epitome of the Formula of Concord of the Lutheran confessions. I have no reason to doubt the best intentions of Bill who posted it, but is this the kind of homiletical swamp that Jude had in mind when he urged his readers to “contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints”? Is debating the Christian faith meant to be a mental ascent to such Oxfordian elitism that you need a Doctorate of Divinity to understand it? Alas! Unsophisticated folk like me have no hope of ever comprehending doctrine!

Other posts are a contest of verbal table tennis and some others all puff and no pastry. Is the intention to treat these forums as catwalks to show off knowledge?

And finally with all due respect, your exegesis on the word ‘simplicity’ of 2 Cor 11:3 is more of an eisegesis (‘bears the connotation of…’). What you mentioned are valid peripheral meanings but the core meaning of the word is…simplicity. Let’s not intellectualize this one too shall we? One does not need a PhD in nuclear physics to understand that ‘simplicity in Christ’ is a broad statement. It’s everything about Christ, the entire gospel. If the ‘yokes’ are part of the gospel message then they must fall in that category too.

[John Yeazel]

Blogsy,

You have put us all in our place. Perhaps you are the new Messiah- you are too good to be true. Do you struggle with sin in your life at all?

We are not saying that you do not have to balance doctrine and practice. You have already made it clear now that you do not agree doctrinally with us Reformational types. I am not making an idol of Calvin and Luther- what I am saying is that they were both very careful to say exactly the same thing as the Apostle Paul was saying. Paul was pretty clear on predestination in the book of Ephesians and the book of Romans. Lutherans and Calvinists do disagree on once saved always saved. The only way you lose your salvation according to the Lutherans though is if you no longer trust Christ and his imputed righteousness into your life.

You can shame all of us because no one is ever going to live up to your standards Blogsy. What theological perspective do you come from? You are right, I was assuming you were either a Willow Creeker or an Emergent. You are an Arminian of some sort. Perhaps you are into Charles Finney and are a complete Pelagian (oops I threw out another academic word). You're a trip Blogsy- good luck not pissing people off the rest of your life. You are the only one who is righteous on these pages.

You might be more of a Pharisee than you think you are. You are still confusing the Law and the Gospel by your reference to those scripture passages. How do handle the passage of scripture about the publican and the Pharisee? The Pharisee was bragging about his own righteousness while the publican fell on his face and plead for mercy. We are not heaping guilt on people- we are trying to release people from their guilt so they can be free to serve others and offer the good news of the Gospel to them.

[John Yeazel]

Another point- Lutherans and Calvinists understand predestination differently also. Lutherans do not believe in double predestination like you were talking about. You do not have a very good understanding of the doctrine by the remarks you made. Anyways, we can disagree on that and still believe in justification by grace alone through faith alone on the account of Christ alone. These are not just academic exercises we waste our time on. They are a matter of life and death and worth fighting for.

[akira Kurosawa]

John, if you took blogsy as bragging then I think you are misunderstanding his meaning. As I posted before too many Christians are willing to stay on the sidelines and "watch" the Lord work because we are:

a) fallen and our works are dirty rags
b) the Holy Spirit doesn't need our help (and he doesn't but come on, that's not what we are talking about really)
c) content to passively be worked on by the Holy Spirit, and so we pull up to the feeding trough on Sunday mornings, allow our pastors to digest the Bible and regurgitate it all over us as doctrine. (that's a pretty image isn't it)

What all of those excuse boil down to is laziness. Look at the New Testament, it is full of the works of the Christians, but none of them thought that they were saved by works, they just could not sit still when they found out about what Christ had done for them. Their faith bore fruit.

And as far as balancing doctrine and practice, I believe you get it, but did you listen to Chris's radio program? I think Ortberg gets the balance also. Chris, however, thinks that Ortberg id preaching salvation by works or we have to produce works to stay saved.

And as far as Blogsy setting standards...didn't read any standards in his post, but if you interpret his post the same way you interpret scripture, I see where there might be a misunderstanding.

(and that was sarcasm, see how low it is...)

[Blogsy]

Akira thank you.

John Y. Here’s my parting comments so we don’t monopolize this blog any further. By now I’m turning into a blogaholic myself! Isn’t it typical that if someone pushes a little further with some Scriptures and a different point of view, he must be a self-righteous Pharisee? God forbid anyone take a firm position on an issue with pure motives. Why bother attacking the message? It's more delicious attacking the messenger!

I am neither a Calvinist nor Arminian nor into Charles Finney (the little I read about him he sounds like a heretic), nor do I feel the need to be pigeon-holed one way or another to please either faction. I am a Bible believing, forgiven and redeemed sinner washed by the blood of Jesus with the need to crucify the flesh daily. I cannot make it through the day without God’s grace, and yes I struggle with sin like other Christians do. My failures are immeasurable but thankfully none that God can’t forgive.

I have never, nor will I ever assume to know it all, but neither do the sources you quote own the copyright to divine revelation. They all had great things to say but they were also wrong in some points. They are not the Holy Spirit. I don't feel obliged to declare complete allegiance to any of them. I chew on their meat and throw away their bones. They undoubtedly had a great intellect and theological acuity, but I refuse to ascribe celebrity status to any of them. Outside the biblical authors, they are just opinions. On things where the Scriptures are not black-and-white, we have the freedom to disagree. And matters on which the Bible is silent, are not binding.

Nevertheless, I am sure on that day the Lord will prove many of us wrong. “Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly. We all stumble in many ways. If anyone is never at fault in what he says, he is a perfect man, able to keep his whole body in check.” But I do trust that the following promise is true and “And if on some point you think differently, that too God will make clear to you”

I am hoping that you will be one of the workers in the Lord’s harvest in these last days. The corporate world that you work in (like me), is a great mission field with an opportunity to show the ungodly what it’s like to run a business and do commerce in a Christlike fashion. What a great opportunity to glorify God and reinforce the good report / reputation of the gospel. Those of us in the corporate world who are battling daily with morally problematic decisions, policies, biased legislation, contracts and business ethics, need all the godly wisdom we can get to do things in ways that honor the Lord. We don’t want ‘God’s name blasphemed among the Gentiles because of us’.(Rom 2:24).

My apologies to Chris for my blog lengths. Thank you for the opportunity to have a say. Verbal economy is now long overdue!

[John Yeazel]

Okay Akira- glad you are back in the conversation. I think you are close to saying the same thing we are saying. However, why are you so worried about what other Christians are doing and trying to compare your performance with theirs? Are we suppossed to not do this? Paul exhorted the Christians in one of his letters not to compare ourselves with others- did he not? The reformers were more concerned about what other Christians were thinking than what they were doing. If we really get what Christ did for us we would naturally do things out of our gratitude for what he has done for us. That is why we harp on doctrine. We do need to sit at the feeding troughs on Sunday morning to be fed by those called by Christ to do this very thing. We are never to be self-feeders which is the conclusion that the leadership at Willow came to by the research they did. Christ called his leadership in the Church to feed his sheep. Look what he said to Peter at the end of the Gospel of John. Christ wants to do this for us so we do not burn out by all of our activity. We always will struggle with the fact that we are not doing enough for Christ and His kingdom. Part of the Christian life is passively receiving the benefits of Christ's work on our behalf. This is done by the preaching of the Gospel and partaking of the Lord's supper. This is the wind in our sails which drive us to accomplish God's purposes in the world. This is how Christ feeds his Church. In that respect we are all Christ users but that is what he wants us to do. We are not called to be hero's we are called to proclaim the good news of the Gospel to the world and serve others in our vocational callings. I think you are probably already doing this Akira but again why are you so worried about what other Christians are doing. Christians need to be released from their guilt not scolded for their laziness. Part of the laziness may be due to the fact that they feel so unworthy when they compare themselves with others. Sometimes perhaps we do need to be scolded for our laziness however I think we often get overwhelmed by the guilt of our ongoing battle with sin in our lives and have a tendency to give up. The Holy Spirit through constantly pointing out the benefits of Christ on our behalf moves us in the direction he wants us to go.

That is the best I can do. You probably will still not agree with me but I am convinced the reformers were explaining the Gospel better than what I saw going on at Willow Creek and what the emergents are teaching these days.