“Not Everyone Agrees” – A Bad Argument

There’s an argument that I hear or read more often than not. It’s used typically by people who have a theological view that differs from the predominant view. A discussion will arise about some point regarding the predominant view and someone will step in with a view that disagrees with the predominant view. After a couple of arguments or explanations are bandied back and forth, if the person lobbying the opposing view senses that the argument is going badly for them, then they make this argument to give some sense of legitimacy to their position.

Now they don’t typically state the argument as a dry proposition.  Usually it will be worded something like this:

“All I’m trying to say is that there are people who disagree that this biblical passage means what you say that it means.”

Or:

“My point is that not everyone agrees on this theological issue.”

The argument that is insinuated is that the case for the legitimacy of a position is made by trading on the fact that people don’t agree. This argument assumes that the disagreement doesn’t include heresy. It also fails to make the observation that only one mutually exclusive truth is possible. Therefore, only one view can actually be true.

Now there are areas of theological disagreement that are legitimately subject to uncertainty based on different hermeneutical presuppositional structures. That’s a mouthful for most of you so I’ll break it down. Hermeneutics is the area of theological discovery that applies principles for understanding written text. This is where you investigate the writer and the audience, the sentence structures, the cultural context, figures of speech and idiomatic expressions, etc. When using these kinds of principles you often find a variety of possible meanings depending on how you apply the principles. Some passages are simply clearer than others. In order to understand more difficult passages, it helps to use facts learned in clearer passages to shed light on which meaning is most possible. As the Bible is studied and various facts understood, it helps to arrange these facts in logical associations to see the larger truth. Some facts depend on other facts and ultimately a small set of related facts will form that foundational truth for how you understand the rest of the Bible. This is your presuppositional structure.

Ideally, a presuppositional structure is formed by hermeneutical principles consistently applied to the scriptures. Unfortunately, most people will have a set of ideas already in place as their initial presuppositional structure and they will apply hermeneutical principles in such a way as to reinforce it rather than to change their presuppositional structure as consistently applied hermeneutical principles contradict their presuppositional structure. So where one presuppositional structure is suggested by the Bible, many people end up with different presuppositional structures.

Let me pick one of the less-controversial conflicts to use as an example. The Bible doesn’t say that the pets we have here in this world will be resurrected in the next. In fact, as far as the Bible is concerned only humans will be resurrected. That doesn’t mean that there won’t be animals of some sort in the hereafter. The Bible simply doesn’t focus on this. It’s not important. This is a consistent way of approaching the Bible. I’m looking at what the Bible views as important. I have pets that I enjoy as companions but I don’t expect to have them with me for all time and it’s not important to me because it’s not important in the Bible.

However, it is important to some people. They are particularly attached to their pets. Instead of letting the Bible guide their thinking on this, they import ideas that are foundational to understanding the Bible so that the Bible ends up meaning what the Bible never teaches. These ideas are things like, “God just wants me to be happy,” “Fluffy and Fido make me happy,” and “God gave me Fluffy and Fido to make me happy.” Therefore, they conclude, “God will give me Fluffy and Fido in heaven to make me happy.” So they read the Bible with this logic in mind as to how they should apply hermeneutical principles to understand the Bible. Since they don’t see a passage that specifically says that pets won’t be in heaven, they dismiss the passages that when taken together logically won’t allow that conclusion.

So let’s say there’s a discussion about animals in heaven. These passages are brought up. But the person who holds the pet-friendly hermeneutic is upset because people are saying that pets we have today like Fluffy and Fido won’t join us in the resurrection and be our companions for all time. They jump in with a contention against this. When the consistent hermeneutic is explained, they retreat to the argument I spelled out in the beginning of this article.

Believing that Fluffy and Fido will be resurrected isn’t specifically a heretical idea. It’s a bad one and an erroneous one, but we know that we have some church members who insist on these kinds of errors for their own reasons.

But there are people who espouse heresy who resort to that same argument. That’s why it’s important to point out that it’s a bad argument. Just because people disagree within the realm of orthodox Christianity doesn’t mean that both are true. Only one is true. The other is in error although not in a bad way. Dr. Al Mohler has developed his theological triage and wrote about it 8 years ago. It’s an extremely helpful tool for analyzing theological error.

Just because people can disagree on one level that carries some legitimate uncertainty doesn’t mean that people can disagree on another level with the same legitimate uncertainty. If the Bible is clear about a matter, it’s not open for debate within orthodox circles. It’s clear heresy. Today orthodox Christians have the sensibility that no one is going to be killed for being a heretic. That unfortunate historical approach in itself should be considered heretical. However, it is academically and pastorally necessary to point out mistaken beliefs among people who profess to be Christians. That includes pointing out the error in this kind of an argument.

Is Love Powerful?

In watching a video of Ken Meyers delivering a keynote address at Hope College, he quotes literary and social critic, Marion Montgomery, as saying, “The opposite of love is not hate. The opposite of love is power.” (HT: Justin Taylor)

Quotes like this in their brevity require a bit of interpretation. On the surface, this idea seems curious. What did Marion Montgomery mean by this? I’m not very familiar with Marion Montgomery. Is he a Christian? A quick glance at Wikipedia indicates that he was perhaps Roman Catholic. How faithful he was to that is anyone’s guess. I suspect that most people who would read this don’t have a clue.

So we first contemplate the most reasonable possible meaning of this statement by asking the question: In what ways is power antithetical to love? Perhaps Montgomery was thinking about the tendency of people to seek power over other people in the ordering of lives for the sake of enhancing the quality of their own life at the expense of the quality of another’s life. Given the Montgomery was a social critic, this makes sense. Perhaps one could draw some distinction between this kind of power-seeking and hatred, although the two overlap in some ways.

Does this make sense theologically? Jesus told the disciples in Mark 10:42ff that rulers of the Gentiles lord it over people, but that it should not be so among them. The idea of power-hunger is in some significant way not the way leadership should be carried out among Christians. This seems reasonable.

Now there are Christians who think this way fundamentally. If we love God, we should submit to him. That is, our love for God is to give up power over ourselves. But they apply the same thinking to God. Since god loves us, he’s a “gentleman”. That is, he doesn’t try to control us. If the opposite of love is power, then God cannot be both loving and all-powerful.

The problem is that this is not what the Bible teaches. Not only is God loving and all-powerful, he is love and power.

Now the observation that people who are hungry for power are sinfully hateful in doing so does not negate that power used righteously is loving. Think of a person who lacks the ability to care for himself. It is loving for someone who is able to exert power over that person in order to seek the best interest of the one who is incapable.

This concept plays into the debate over Reformed theology. Those who oppose it say that man is capable of choosing Christ on his own. Therefore, it is not loving for God to exhibit power over men. Those who are Reformed in their thinking say that man in incapable of choosing Christ on his own. Therefore, it is loving for God to use his power to give him the ability to make that choice.

There are more refined nuances that I won’t go into regarding different strains of Reformed thinking. However, I will note that if Montgomery were steeped in Catholic thinking, this would comport with the idea that power is the opposite of love.

We all have some power over other people. Just by saying hello or ignoring someone on the street has some effect on the people we encounter. Actions that are truly loving in nature are powerful. My fellow Christians, let us conduct ourselves in such a way as to convey the love of Christ that people will be warmed to his message. That we can give the gift of the Holy Spirit who raised Christ from the dead and can resurrect the souls of those we meet.

That’s the power of love.

God’s Calling To Ministry

Dr. Al Mohler has reposted an article online regarding discerning a call to ministry. His focus is geared particularly to preaching. However, he opens up the call at the end of the article to other servants.

My first response is always that my heart leaps at this kind of message. On some deep level I personally would love to be a pastor. I never turn down an opportunity to preach if I’m available to do so.

My second response is content resignation that I’m not called to be pastor. I recognize a deficiency in my gifting at present that would make me a substandard pastor. If called upon to serve, I would probably prayerfully accept. However, I would be utterly dependent on God for carrying me through the task of ministering to the spiritual condition of a body of believers. Dr. Mohler indicates an outward call. It’s likely that my weaknesses are evident enough that there is little confirmation from others that this is something I’m called to.

I’m not bad as a preacher. On the other hand, I’m not that great either. I need a lot more practice. I have a heart for teaching, but preaching, while relying on a good part of teaching, is geared toward a supernatural persuasiveness that reconciles people with God, sanctifies believers and unifies them under a common ideology and purpose that we know as the gospel and the great commission. I’ve experienced the moving of the Holy Spirit in the pulpit to accomplish what I cannot on my own, particularly at times on the mission field. What most strikes me at the times when I have entered the pulpit is a chilling sense of imminent danger for the people before me. No matter what expectations they have, they must encounter the living God and I am responsible if I succumb to some temptation to teach what isn’t true. It is incumbent on whoever stands before the Body of Christ and presumes to preach to faithfully convey what has been given to us to know from the Bible and nothing else. Lives hang in the balance and there is a spiritual battle for them.

Although I’m not called at present to be a pastor, I am nonetheless a Christian. If you truly trust the work of Christ on the cross, you are a Christian also. As part of the Body of Christ we are all charged with ministry. The Pastor is only one of many kinds of workers in the Kingdom of God. While I think Dr. Mohler is primarily focused on the call to full-time ministry, all of us are ministers. The call to be a pastor seems rather clear and I envy those who have such a clear call. For most of us, I think we don’t have a call to a particular function with such clarity. It can be frustrating to want to minister to people so badly it hurts and simply don’t know what to do. Nevertheless, we must diligently seek to apply what gifts we have.

Finding True Love In Your Marriage

Mike Leake graciously asked if I would write a guest article to be posted on his site, which I was more than happy to do. The article is entitled "Love in the Trinity" and introduces the basis for a lesson I plan to teach at Equipping University Wednesday night at 6:30 at Western Avenue Baptist Church. That lesson will be entitled "Finding True Love In Your Marriage". If you are looking for true love in your marriage and are in the vicinity of Statesville, NC, come in and learn what it's all about.

Consider Your Witness

There is a good discussion on Presuppositional versus Evidential Apologetics on a recent Unbelievable podcast. You can listen to it here. (HT: AOMin)

Kurt Jaros speaks on the evidential position and Scott Oliphant speaks on the presuppositional position. They discuss alternate terms for the positions and sometimes use them. The alternate term for Evidential Apologetics is “Natural Theology”. The Alternate term for Presuppositonal Apologetics is “Covenant Apologetics”. I mention that so you won’t be thrown off if you dive into the middle of it without listening to the whole thing.

One thing I wanted to point out: At just past the 1 hour mark, 1:03:00 Jaros asks, “How do we know?” He’s asking the epistemological question about how we convey with certainty the assertions regarding our Christian theology over and against other beliefs. The argument Jaros is making is that presuppositonal apologists still need to provide evidence to back up their assertions.

Oliphant’s response is that God can use all kinds of things, but that doesn’t make those things true or epistemologically revealing. Evidential apologetics are still constrained to probability. Jaros understood the response well enough, but I wanted to unpack this briefly.

Neither Evidential nor Presuppositional apologetics are convincing unless the Holy Spirit opens someone to the truth of the gospel. Now, my non-Reformed friends will disagree with this. That’s what makes evidential apologetics more appealing to the non-Reformed.

But in either case, the most convincing presentation isn’t evidential in the classical sense, it’s testimonial in the legal sense. That’s why our witness is of the utmost importance. Those of us who have the Holy Spirit can testify as to his work in our lives. We can testify as to the living work of Christ through the Holy Spirit today.

It’s not like a science experiment where we can say that this is most likely to be true, but like a court case where we take the stand as eyewitness testimony to the living God. Yet we do not make our case to the jury as it were. We call out fellow witnesses to recognize their own testimony of the work of God in their lives. That is the truth that Presuppositional Apologetics upholds. Consider, therefore, your witness.

SBC Calvinism Committee Report

Last year Frank Page, the President of the Southern Baptist Convention Executive Committee, called together a committee to study the issue of Calvinism in the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). Calvinism has been debated passionately in recent years and the debate has threatened the unity of the SBC.

Last month the committee released its report. The report has been well received by both Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike. A multitude of helpful blog articles were immediately written you can Google it and see all the material that has been written on it. At the convention last week in Houston, the new tone of the debate seemed to be in play and everyone is happy. I’m certainly glad.

The response I have to this is an observation that I hope someone picks up on, thinks about, and acts on. I don’t have any authority in the SBC or recognized qualification to develop something that will be widely accepted. So the best I can do is point out the issue I see in a couple of venues and hope someone recognizes the value of it and puts something together.

The observation I have goes back to the history of the five points of Calvinism. These five points are the points of contention. I won’t go into detail about the five points here because that’s a distraction from the point that I’m trying make about them. As far as being the point of contention, the debate came to a head when a group of non-Calvinists got together to puttogether a reaction against each of the five points and to label their position the “traditional” Baptist position. Like it or not, they have taken the label “Traditionalist” for their own position against Baptists who are Calvinist although the founders of the SBC were largely Calvinists.

They have ten articles, five of which answer the five points of Calvinism. The rest are an additional five more points of contention against Calvinism. But the five points of Calvinism themselves aren’t a full treatment of Calvinistic soteriology*. The five points were a summary of the Canons of Dort that were a response to the five points of contention Jacobus Arminius developed against John Calvin’s Reformed theology.

So the five points of Calvinism are not a summary of Calvinistic soteriology. They are not even a helpful system of categorizing anyone’s soteriology*. It’s a system of contention. Likewise, the original five points of Arminianism as well as the Traditionalist statement are systems of contention.

But the statement issued recently by the Calvinism committee includes a summary of areas where we all agree. Where we agree is far greater than where we disagree. So this statement is a great start for what I propose.

I think that there is a system of categorization that would help frame the differences in terms of our agreements. I wrote an article recently about free will that illustrates what I mean by this. This kind of system could also clear up the tendency many have of misrepresenting what the other side believes. It doesn’t help the debate when anyone misrepresents the opposing position.

So this is my challenge to SBC theologians. Develop this kind of system that demonstrates the strength of our agreement and places on a friendly foundation the areas where we disagree so that healthy debate is fostered. I’ll work on it myself and you may see more articles in the future as a system of categorization becomes clearer to me. But I don’t have the influence to do anything. If someone of influence sees that this pursuit has value, then I welcome any movement they do even if it duplicates anything I’ve done.

*soteriology is the area of theology that talks about how we are saved.

Does Going to Church Make You a Christian?

There’s a common adage among evangelicals that states, “Going to church doesn’t make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.” A thoughtful article written by a Lutheran addresses the subtle mistake in this:

It it true that your action of going to church does not turn you into a Christian.  No work of ours gives us our identity as Christians.

But it is precisely in going to church that one is made a Christian.  First at the font.  Then in the assembly.  Later at the table.  God does his work of making and keeping us Christians in his Church.  It is why the phrase “I believe in the Holy Spirit” is followed quickly by talk of the Holy Christian Church in the Creed.  As Luther says, “the Holy Spirit calls us by the Gospel, enlightens us with His gifts,sanctifies and keeps us in the true faith.  We are only made Christians by the Gospel and Gifts of God.  And those are given out in the church.  So in this sense, it is precisely by going to church that you are made a Christian and remain one.

As a Baptist who was once a Lutheran and still ministers among Lutherans on a regular basis, I’m going to temper the ecclesiology that Baptists disagree with in my analysis. Namely, Baptists do not believe that Baptism does anything particular for the believer aside from serve as an expression of the faith he or she already possesses. Baptists also do not agree that the presence of Christ is somehow mystically in the elements of the Lord ’s Table.

However, we Baptists do hold to the priesthood of all believers. We do believe that the gospel must be preached and that the normal way for people to come to faith is because Christians as members of all believers reach out to them with gospel ministry in one form or fashion.

There are a few Lutherans who believe that being baptized actually saves someone. However, most Lutheran’s who I have discussed this with acknowledge that just because someone is baptized as an infant doesn’t mean that they are automatically going to heaven. Likewise, partaking of the Eucharist doesn’t save anyone. Someone can grow up in church being baptized and attending every Sunday, being confirmed, etc. and still possess the wrong motives thereby losing all at the final judgement. So I appreciate the opening statements in my quote from the article.

But rarely is anyone saved outside of the actions of the church. There are exceptions we hear of from countries that are closed to the gospel where Christ has appeared to individuals or groups of people and called them to faith in similar manner as he did with Paul on the road to Damascus.

However, people make a good point when they ask about the native in deepest Africa who has never heard the gospel. It’s why we do missions. Our goal is to proclaim the gospel so all people hear it and have the opportunity to respond in faith. It doesn’t happen unless the church goes. Perhaps, therefore, it is better stated that “Going to church doesn’t make you a Christian, but it sure helps when the Church goes to you.”

Christians, go and proclaim.