From Stephen Prothero:

New Year’s Eve is usually truce time in the culture wars — a moment to reflect and hope and forget your troubles (and the world’s). Not so on Saturday night, when Cee Lo Green changed the lyrics to John Lennon’s “Imagine” while performing the song on live television in New York’s Time Square.

Instead of “Nothing to kill or die for, and no religion too,” Green sang, “Nothing to kill or die for, and all religion’s true.”

This change has performed something of a minor miracle: bringing atheists and evangelicals together in common cause. Atheists are outraged that Green is messing with what they see as an anthem for their cause, while evangelicals object to his view that all religions are true.

This was not some minor cut Cee Lo Green did to the song on New Year’s Eve. It was major surgery on Lennon’s “one world” vision.

One final quibble, this time about “all religion’s true.” Huh? What does that even mean?

If one religion says there is one god, another says there are millions of gods, and another says there are no gods, can they all be true? Perhaps in some mystical sense. But on some theological questions, at least, the logical laws of contradiction still obtain.

Read the rest.

h/t: Andrew

I came across this quote by Horatius Bonar this week while doing some sermon research.  Bonar warns against a kind of “soft and effeminate Christianity.”  The crux of the issue for him are Christians who are too afraid to fight for what is right and to protest against what is wrong and what that does to the faith.

See what you think:

For there is some danger of falling into a soft and effeminate Christianity, under the plea of a lofty and ethereal theology. Christianity was born for endurance…It walks with firm step and erect frame; it is kindly, but firm; it is gentle, but honest; it is calm, but not facile; obliging, but not imbecile; decided, but not churlish. It does not fear to speak the stern word of condemnation against error, nor to raise its voice against surrounding evils, under the pretext that it is not of this world.

It does not shrink from giving honest reproof lest it come under the charge of displaying an unchristian spirit. It calls sin ‘sin,’ on whomsoever it is found, and would rather risk the accusation of being actuated by a bad spirit than not discharge an explicit duty. Let us not misjudge strong words used in honest controversy. Out of the heat a viper may come forth; but we shake it off and feel no harm.

The religion of both Old and New Testaments is marked by fervent outspoken testimonies against evil. To speak smooth things in such a case may be sentimentalism, but it is not Christianity. It is a betrayal of the cause of truth and righteousness. If anyone should be frank, manly, honest, cheerful (I do not say blunt or rude, for a Christian must be courteous and polite), it is he who has tasted that the Lord is gracious, and is looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God.

I know that charity covereth a multitude of sins; but it does not call evil good, because a good man has done it; it does not excuse inconsistencies, because the inconsistent brother has a high name and a fervent spirit. Crookedness and worldliness are still crookedness and worldliness, though exhibited in one who seems to have reached no common height of attainment.

Ran across this excellent article in prep for this week’s sermon:

Packer writes:

The terrorist demolition of the World Trade Center on the morning of September 11, 2001, has led many to speak of it, with good reason, as a day that changed the world. But there was another day that changed the world, in a much deeper and more far-reaching way: that was Pentecost morning in the year 30 or thereabouts, when shortly before nine o’clock Jesus of Nazareth, God’s glorified and enthroned Christ and the world’s cosmic Lord, poured out the Holy Spirit on his disciples gathered in Jerusalem (Acts 2:1–41). For it was then that the new covenant ministry of the divine Spirit was initiated, and that ministry—maybe I should say, the Church in the power of that ministry—has done more to change the world than any other force since history began.

Read the rest.

Great article from the guys over at The Cripplegate – I especially love the title, “Freedom of the Will and the Five Finger Death Punch of Theology.”  In it they highlight one of my generally held assumptions – based on years of observation – that most people have no idea what they mean when they talk about free will.  Even amongst clergy I find gross misunderstanding.

I’ll be curious to know what you think about the article.  Here’s a taster:

At some point in nearly every debate about “who does what” in salvation a certain phrase is dropped which strikes fear into the heart of all involved. “I believe men have free will.” Like a triple dog dare issued on a schoolyard, people back up to give the concept space. The discussion of free will is an intensely polarizing subject. It’s more often put forward as a theological trump card against Calvinism than any other concept. “More moderate” theological constructs may take refuge within its walls. For many it is the final and insurmountable fall back defense against the logical minions of Reformed theology. Free will is the mother of all theological comebacks.

When that moment comes – and people are expecting you to hand over your doctrinal pink slip – simply say the following: “No one believes in free will. Not even you. You simply haven’t thought about what you’re saying.” Then sit back and enjoy the look on your friend’s face as you move the goal posts of the debate to an undisclosed location. He won’t see it coming. I love that moment. I realize this sounds presumptuous and arrogant (How can I possibly know what someone is thinking?), but it’s true. Those who refer to freewill in such context usually haven’t thought through the concept. If they understood it properly, they would not offer it in such ways. There is no basket of puppies. There is no steamroller. It’s a false dilemma.

Read the rest.

A great video:

Perhaps by now you’ve read that the Episcopal Diocese of Atlanta has had a resolution placed before it to consider the rehabilitation and positive contributions of Pelagius?  The pending resolution is a nice opportunity to add to the theological vocabulary section of this blog and we consider who is Pelagius and what did he teach?

Pelagius was a monk from Britain, whose reputation and theology came into prominence sometime after he went to Rome in the late 4th Century A.D.

Pelagius believed that the consequences of Adam and Eve’s sin (the Fall) were restricted to themselves only; and thereby denied the belief that original sin was passed on (imputed) to the children of Adam and thus to the human race. For Pelagius, Adam’s sin merely “set a bad example” for his descendants and Jesus “set a good example” for mankind (thus counteracting Adam’s bad example). Pelagianism teaches that human beings are born in a state of innocence with a nature that is as pure as that which Adam was given at his creation.

As a result of his basic assumption, Pelagius taught that man has an unimpaired moral ability to choose that which is spiritually good and possesses the free will, ability, and capacity to do that which is spiritually good. This resulted in a gospel of salvation based on human works. Man could choose to follow the precepts of God and then follow those precepts because he had the power within himself to do so.

The controversy came to a head when Pelagian teaching came into contact with Augustine, Bishop of Hippo. Augustine did not deny that man had a will and that he could make choices. But, Augustine recognized that man did not have a free will in moral issues related to God, asserting that the effects original sin were passed to the children of Adam and Eve and that mankind’s nature was thereby corrupted. Man could choose what he desired, but those desires were influenced by his sinful nature and he was unable to refrain from sinning.

Pelagianism is overwhelmingly incompatible with the Bible and was condemned as a heresy at the Council of Carthage in 418 A.D. The Council of Ephesus in 431 A.D., again condemned Pelagian doctrine, however, Pelagius teachings continued to hold sway in some churches in Britain and Gaul.

As time passed Pelagian teaching was replaced with Semi-Pelagianism (a term for another day) which sought a middle ground between Pelagianism and Augustinianism, but it too was condemned at the Second Synod of Orange in 529 A.D. However, like Pelagianism, elements of Semi-Pelagianism continued in the Western church, emerging again after the Reformation in modified form in Arminianism (again, a term to be defined in a later posting)

By ignoring the universal consequence of the Fall, Pelagianism leads to a diminishment of the multifaceted work of Christ.  In His ministry Jesus not only bore our sins on the cross, but lived a perfect life in obedience to the Father through the power of the Holy Spirit (the life that Adam failed to live) in order to restore fallen humans to their original state of grace.  It is not only through the grace of God that individuals are initially saved but also through this grace that they are sustained. As Augustine wrote, God “guards the weak so that by His gift the saints unfailingly choose the good and unfailingly refuse to abandon it”(On Rebuke and Grace, 38).  Without a biblical and proper understanding of the magnitude of sin and the plight of humanity, the gracious work of Christ Jesus for us and our salvation is made superfluous. 1 Peter 1:18-19 says: “You were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ.”

Kendall Harmon has said you can tell the health of the church by the heresies it produces.  Extrapolating from that thesis, the pulpit presence – and popularity – of Joel Osteen says quite a bit, I think, of the pathetic state of the American Church and the Christian theological mind.

From Albert Mohler:

Speaking to the newspaper on Monday, Osteen said, “I see faith in America at an all-time high.” His comments came just as a major research project detailed a significant loss of vitality in America’s Christian congregations. That loss of vitality can be traced, among other things, to a loss of theological and biblical conviction. Joel, of course, is proof positive that you can build a crowd without building a church. He is not inclined to deal in much theological conviction.

Read the rest.

Last night in a conversation with some folks they asked what I meant when I used the word “monergistic.”  Great question and good reminder.  I had made an assumption.  Out of that conversation came a request to add a feature to the blog in which I periodically define important terms.  So, today we begin.

Monergism (Greek mono meaning “one” and ergon meaning “work”) is a term for the belief that the Holy Spirit is the only agent who effects regeneration of Christians. This view, held by Reformed and Calvinistic groups, sees salvation as the work of God alone, from first to last. He has chosen in eternity past whom He will save out of lost humanity, and in His timing He will bring the elect to faith through the work of the Spirit for the sake of the Son, and save them forever to the praise of His glorious grace (Romans 8:29f). This is opposed to the synergistic view as held by Arminianism and its theological predecessor Semi-Pelagianism where salvation is seen as a cooperative effort between God and man.

Quoting John Hendryx, “Monergism simply means that it is God who gives ears to hear and eyes to see. It is God alone who gives illumination and understanding of His word that we might believe; It is God who raises us from the dead, who circumcises the heart; unplugs our ears; It is God alone who can give us a new sense that we may, at last, have the moral capacity to behold His beauty and unsurpassed excellency.” - A Simple Explanation of Monergism

I ran across this fictional interplay between a Christian pastor and a TV interviewer by Trevin Wax.  I liked his thinking.  See what you think.

Just once, I’d like to see a TV interview go more like this:

Host: You are a Christian pastor, and you say you believe the Bible, which means you are supposed to love all people.

Pastor: That’s right.

Host: But it appears to me that you and your church take a rather unloving position when it comes to gay people. Are homosexuals welcome to come to your church?

Pastor: Of course. We believe that the gospel is a message relevant for every person on the planet, and we want everyone to hear the gospel and find salvation in Jesus Christ. So at our church, our arms are outstretched to people from every background, every race, every ethnicity and culture. We’re a place for all kinds of sinners and people with all kinds of problems.

Read the rest.