I finished reading Debating Calvinism: Five Points, Two Views a couple of months ago. Found it to be a valuable addition to my modest library. That being said, I think that the Arminian position, or rather opposition, could have been better represented, more clearly articulated, though. Dave Hunt seemed to be a bit unfocused at times and often ventured into the realm of ad hominem arguments. I think, too, Hunt perhaps misunderstands that which he opposes and finds himself fighting against an errant mixture of hyper-Calvinism and some weak caricature of Calvinism, a strawman of sorts. Also, my limited experience in these exchanges leads me to the conclusion that most, but not all, of the opposition to the doctrines of grace is founded more on an emotional response to the doctrine of election than a wholly biblical argument, an opposition often evidenced by the common ‘God does not want robots to worship/love Him’ refrain.

For further thought, here is video I found at New Demonstration in a post titled He is Not a Weak Beggar, He is a Powerful Saviour. The speaker is James White from Alpha and Omega Ministries who represented the counter-point to Dave Hunt in the aforementioned book.

I received a gift card to Books-A-Million recently. Looked around for quite a while in the ‘religion aisles”, picked up a few books with intention to purchase, but upon further reflection, I placed them back to where I found them. Many choices, not many very good. Saw a title that intrigued me, a book on the rapture from a less popular perspective.. Skimming through the pages, though, I found nothing that really challenged my current disposition on the subject, and quite frankly, it seemed a bit too universalist in its overarching theme. Though it seem to have some good insights, it erred, from what I picked up in skimming through the booked, in looking to a returning Lamb rather than a returning King. Not even sure if the author looked to a physical return of Christ more than a metaphorical event.

There was also a table set up with the usual titles by Joel Osteen, copies of The Shack, stacks of books with T.D. Jakes face on the cover. Also, I saw a number of titles by Marcus Borg, Dom Crossan, and Bart Ehrman……erudite and apostate. Almost giving up on finding something worthwhile to read, two titles that I had overlooked earlier, and I had skimmed through the selection a number of times, suddenly stood out. One was The Sovereignty of God by A. W. Pink and the other was What Is Reformed Theology by R.C. Sproul.

I purchased both and had about two dollars left on the gift card. As per the previous post, I had been reading Alister Mcgrath’s Christianity’s Dangerous Idea, but honestly, my interest began to wane as I waded through the late 16th century. Skipped through a couple of chapters to get to the 19th century in America. Good reading. However, having started on the A.W. Pink book, I cannot put it down. I will, however, go back and finish Christianity’s Dangerous Idea. By the way, that dangerous idea refers to the Protestant affirmation of the priesthood of all believers, that an individual believer can read and interpret scripture without it being filtered through the Roman Catholic Church. As an aside, I have a few books that I have never finished reading. Used to feel guilty about it, being so fickle about replacing an unfinished book with a new one that seems more interesting.

So far, A.W. Pink’s book is quite good, quite readable, and I think it would challenge the understanding of the Triune God’s omniscience, His sovereignty, of broad swaths of the evangelical American church. Along with an inadequate grasp of the depravity of man, the nature of sin, I think many sitting in the pews have an ill-undefined concept of God’s absolute reign over the created order. I have heard far too many preachers place God’s will into a place subservient to man’s. I have heard too many times God being referred to by pastors as a ‘gentleman’ who would never do anything to subvert our free will. I will not bow to such a god, a god whose will mine can thwart. That is not the God of the Bible. Don’t ever say God tries. Understood is that there are difficult tensions between man’s responsibility and accountability and God’s sovereignty, but such tensions are not contradictions and do not diminish God’s absolute rule over all…. nor is our accountability over our actions nullified by God’s sovereignty. In His meticulous sovereignty, there is no injustice to be found in Him; He is absolutely holy and without sin.

Our will is free within constraints. We are free to act according to our nature. Our nature is one, in its unregenerate state, in rebellion to God. We are free to sin, but even so we are restrained by common grace from being as depraved as we might be. No one, on their own, chooses God. They may choose a god of their imagination, they may desire the gifts of God, but unregenerate man, apart from the work of the Holy Spirit, does not choose God.

OK, I see I am going off on a tangent and a rant, but here I go. Going back to that inadequate understanding of the depravity of man, I have heard sin described from the pulpit too many times as a ‘mess-ups’ and as ‘mistakes.’ Far too often the effects of sin are understood only as they effect the sinner. Sometimes in contemporary American evangelicalism, we are inferred to be damaged by our sin, our ‘mistakes.’ We fail to rise to our potential because of our ‘mess-ups.’ I remember one sermon two or three years ago where the pastor had two cars on stage, on one side an an old but serviceable automobile, on the other side of the stage, a Ferrari. The pastor in talked about sin euphemistically as our mess-ups and mistakes and in the process of talking about them, he hits the beater car again and again with a sledge hammer to illustrate the effects of our ’sin’ , our mistakes. The headlights end up broken as well as the windows. There are now dents all over the car. It ends up ugly and broken. On the other side is, again, the red Ferrari. By accepting Christ, by admitting our mistakes, we become this Ferrari. I also remember being encouraged on occasion to try Jesus because He was the best deal going.

Is there anything wrong with this well-intentioned presentation of the Gospel? On whom is it centered? Who is the sin an affront to? Who is sinned against in this analogy? It is, it seems, ourselves. Sin is now diminished to something that needs a therapeutic fix offered by Christ. It is all man-centered. By accepting Christ, we were told, we can now rise to our God-given potential. Is such anything but a tenuous shadow of the Gospel? We start off not as an old, but serviceable beater, we start off dead, in a junkyard and rotted with rust. Our sin is not an affront to our potential, it is an affront to a holy, righteous, and majestic Triune God. I am sure the pastor would agree to that previous statement, but why is the Gospel all-to-often presented as something light, something therapeutic? In another sermon, a pastor used the description of someone trying to text on their cell phone while driving and hitting a mailbox in the process as an analogy for sin. Sin is not dings and dents incurred from mistakes we make, but such is how it is presented by much of the church.

Many pastors state the the problem with the church is one of too much creeds and not enough deeds. They say we know too much but do too little. But if their creed, their understanding of the sovereignty of God is reduced to Him being a ‘gentleman’ who would not thwart our ‘free will’ and their definition of sin is mess-up or mistake that prevents us from reaching our God-given potential, then I would have to say they have misdiagnosed the ills that beset much of the church and do the sheep a great disservice.

In a closing and perhaps parenthetical thought, is the selection of books found in the religion section reflective of something important?

As an addendum of 6-11-09, I want to say that I thnk the aforementioned pastor has, in the last couple of years, become more focused and clear on the Gospel.

…Alister Mcgrath’s Christianity’s Dangerous Idea. Having in the last year or two developed an interest in church history, I find this book to be altogether engaging. It is frustrating to have only fifteen to thiry minutes a day or so to work through the book, but with a long Memorial Day weekend to look forward to, maybe I will find time, even though only about eighty pages through it now, to finsih book and share some associated thoughts.

…Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of God by Keith A. Mathison. On Tuesday evenings, a group of men from a church I have been attending gather to read various books on things of faith and discuss them in light of Scripture. We began reading through the book last Tuesday though my copy did not arrive till the following Saturday. I finished it on Monday.

Before I continue with my thoughts on this book, let me give you a bit of my back-story. I never spent very much time in church growing up, but I did manage to pick up a bit of the ‘culture’ through reading popular books on eschatology (Late, Great Planet Earth, etc), by occasionally listening to teachers/preachers on the radio and television, and by engaging conversations over the years on some of the the issues addressed in Mathison’s book. I came away from these influences with a bit of confusion over eschatology, with an ill-defined understanding that God had a different agenda for the church and the people of Israel (and with a strong leaning towards Christian Zionism), and a with tendency to interpret certain Biblical texts in light of current events rather than by the intent those passages had for the original audience.

I am under the impression that there has been a consensus in the American church, almost monolithic I think, of dispensationalism, a term I really could not clearly define for myself until recently. Also, I affirm that there are many, many godly men and women who affirm this theological grid, so any engagement of dialog must be entered into with grace, humility, and respect. What is in question here is not the character of the adherents of dispensationalism, but the correctness, the Biblical truth of the claims of this theological framework. Also, I affirm that what one thinks about dispensational theology should not be a litmus test for fellowship, for overarching orthodoxy. It is, I think, a subject that one can be in error over, but still affirm the core doctrines of Christianity. However and with that being said, the subject is not without import because to varying degree, I think all major doctrines are interrelated. Perhaps how one thinks about ecclesiology can effect how one thinks about eschatology; perhaps how one thinks about eschatology can effect how one thinks about soteriology. Doctrine matters, especially in a season where so many adhere to a ephemeral, insubstantial ‘deeds, not creeds’ mentality. I hope that in the final analysis we all  measure our thoughts on things doctrinal  by Scripture as the final authority.

What I appreciated about this book is it’s clarity.  It cuts to the chase in  it’s defining and characterization of dispensationalism;  it is primarily the dividing of the people of God into two groups: Israel and the church.  The church is considered a parenthesis, a mystery, a sideline in the Triune God’s plan of redemption.  Further, this theology is relatively new, less than two hundred years old.  One questions how this grid went without notice by 1800 years of church history.  Though dispensationalists define themselves by and strive to adhere to a literal hermeneutic, they are not, in the final analysis, able to be completely consistent in such when interpreting prophetic passages.

Take my meanderings for what they are worth, but my growing understanding of dispensationalism leads me to believe that it interjects discontinuities  in the redemptive narrative  that unfolds in the Bible.  It may, though unintentionally,  present God as One who reacts, rather than One Who is absolutely sovereign.  Also, and though not directly addressed in the book, I see dispensational thought as introducing two of some things where there only need be one.  There are, within the dispensational framework,  two (or more accurately, 1.5) returns of Christ, two peoples of God, two fulfillments of much of prophecy, two resurrections, two judgments, and sometimes in hyper-dispensationalism as represented by teachers such as John Hagee , two redemptive paths to God, one for the Jews and one for the gentiles.  Though growing increasingly contra-dispensational, I was impressed with the irenic tone of the book.  The book is also very clear in presenting the doctrines of grace.  All that being said, I will continue to be edified by men like John MacAuthur and Charles Swindoll, both dispensationist. I could ramble on for hours on my thoughts on this book, and perhaps I will do a part two of this review at some point in the future.

Also, this is a rather quickly composed post, so please forgive any errors in grammer, etc.

…by John Piper to arrive at my doorstep in 3 to 21 days. Hope its closer to 3 than 21. Started reading Portraits of Christ in Genesis by Dr. DeHann, hidden away and unread in my modest library, a few days ago, a title written circa 1965 if memory serves. Don’t know much about this guy, but so far, the book is quite engaging and, not surprisingly as per the title, Christ-centric. His exegesis on Adam’s partaking of the forbidden fruit as an act of sacrificial love towards now fallen Eve, an act portrayed as an archetype, a protevangelium, of Christ’s redemptive love for His bride, His church, is an ‘interesting’ and honestly quite lovely take on the third chapter of Genesis. To tightly encapsulate, Dehann sees that Eve, after being deceived by the snake and partaking of the forbidden fruit, is now lost, under the sentence of death while Adam, at the time, is still a son of God (Luke 3:38) Adam, in his profound love for her, sees that Eve’s only hope is to “lower himself to her level, assume her guilt, become partaker of her sin and condemnation, and then, the separation between them being removed, he could become the father of her seed.” Later, he states that Adam, while not being deceived (1TIm. 2:14), “stooped to her level in order to save her by becoming the only one who could bring forth the seed of the woman – the Redeemer” As interesting as this interpretation of Adams act of rebellion as the federal representative of mankind towards God may be, does your eyebrow raise a bit at this unpacking of Genesis 3? Need to think about this a bit more…I’ve never seen the text as an allegory of Christ’s sacrificial love for His bride before. Not saying it’s correct or in error, just something new to me… and I am curious to know what others think of this view of Adam’s rebellion, if they have heard this interpretation of the text. I would really like to hear some comments on this… (addendum on 6:28:09 – further elaboration on this issue found in this post)

As an aside, a friend of mine asked me what I thought of The Shack. She had just finished reading the book and quite enjoyed it. Never read it, but have read reviews of the book written by people whose judgment I trust. I did not go into any great detail about my reservations about The Shack (not the time and place…busy day at work), but I did later print out for her Tim Challies excellent review of the book. Let me tell you, Christian bookstores can be a potential minefield for the unwary.

In light of the previous assertion, I have really grown to appreciate Westminster and Monergism bookstores.

Having just finished the book Christless Christianity, I intended to begin reading  God of Promise: Introducing Covenant Theology, also by Michael Horton, but I opted instead to start on The Prodigal God by Tim Keller.  I am not finished with the book yet, but I read almost half of it in one sitting.  Haven’t had time to read in the last day or two but hope to pick it up again this evening.  Got to say it is an absolutely stellar read…so rich in  unfolding the reckless grace, the heart of the Father’s forgiveness found in Christ’s parable of the prodigal son, a parable perhaps more accurately referred to as the parable of the two sons.  Keller explores the parable with more a focus on the elder son yet without ignoring the nature of the prodigal son.  He expounds on the prodigal nature of God’s grace, available to both sons, by using the more precise definition of the word ‘prodigal’ – recklessly extravagant, having spent everything.  Too, his explaining of the historical context of the patriarchal nature of the ancient near east makes this parable even more profound.  Nuff said for now.

Almost immediately after writing it, I am struck by the irony of the title of this post.  Usually, I compose the content of a post, then come up with a supposedly catchy, provocative title

Today, I started with the title. The initial purpose of the title of this post was to declare that I have finished reading Christless Christianity: The Alternative Gospel of the American Church by Michael Horton thereby setting the stage for the content of the post, my thoughts on said book.  The secondary purpose, though at first unintended, informs that I have seen, experienced much of what Horton describes.

I ran through this book rather quickly and will probably read it again sooner rather than later.  From this first quick read, here are a few things I take away: Horton diagnoses certain  ills that infect the body of the American church, and two main themes seem to dominate. First, there is a strong element of Pelagianism that permeates much of the church.  Secondly, there is a strain of Gnosticism that parallels the Pelagianism.  This Pelagianism often takes on the form of a ‘legalism lite’ while the Gnosticism arrives in the form of the subtle primacy of subjective religious, emotional,self-focused experience over the objective authority of Scripture.   His diagnosis is not unique to either of the broad, polar extremes of ecclesiology, the liberal and conservative branches; there is an overarching  human-centricity that permeates both.  He also points out the ironic commonality of the ‘deeds, not creeds’ mindset that has been so firmly ensconced in liberal Christianity and now boldly infects much of the church growth movement as well as the neo-liberal Emergents. Before continuing, Horton does not argue that the church, as a whole, has necessarily arrived at a Christless Christianity, but that signs are evident that the church is well on its way to that state.  He argues that what is being engaged is not so much heresy, but more silliness, lightness, and self-focus.  Almost gone are the days where the flock comes to church to be ministered to and taught, fed,  truths of Scripture and have the sacraments administered.  Some pastors no longer see their role as being one who feeds the flock and regularly administers the sacraments, but rather view church as the place where they cast vision and give marching orders to the flock.  These marching orders can range from calls to engage those Joel Osteenesque steps to having a better life now to an exhortation to the flock to get out there and ‘be the Gospel’ without ever really and carefully explaining what the Gospel is, the proclamation of Good News given and offered to us more than something we ‘do’ or ‘are’.  Think again on that ‘deeds, not creeds’ mentality previously mentioned.

Horton, with much clarity, traces the pragmatic methods of Charles Finney, quite frankly Pelagian in his theology, to the formulas used by contemporary church growth experts today.  The fallout from this pragmaticism is often an unintended devaluing of the supremacy of Christ in both corporate worship and evangelism.  Rather, church is to be an entertaining event to draw crowds wherein the Gospel (hopefully)  may be found on a table filled with personal anecdotes and calls to moralism by self-effort without a clear expounding of the absolutely astounding nature of grace through faith found in Christ, God incarnate, in light of our sin nature, our total depravity. We end up, sadly, with a de-clawed  Gospel,  that  ‘therapeutic, moralistic deism’ mentioned in a quote in the book.  Even more sad, so many are content with just that.  What is often engaged in that often  ill-defined call to a personal relationship with Jesus, is a narcissism, a salvation solely focused on self rather than one lived out in covenant community.  I have been guilty…

All in all, a sobering read, clear and concise. Another good book in the same vein is The Courage to Be Protestant: Truth-lovers, Marketers, and Emergents in the Postmodern World by David Wells. Next on the list to read, God of Promise: Introducing Covenant Theology, also by Horton.

Hey! It dawns on me…this is my first book review ever.  It dawns on me, too, how hard it is to be objective when you are close to the subject matter of the book being reviewed.

Ordered some books from Westminster Bookstore this evening:

Probably the only books I will buy for the year and will perhaps take to the end of the year, if not longer, to read. Especially looking forward to reading the Horton books, Christless Christianity and God of Promise: Introducing Covenant Theology.

]]> http://ronclick.wordpress.com/2009/01/14/much-reading/feed/ 2 ronclick exegetical church-horton cov-horton prod-god http://ronclick.wordpress.com/2008/09/24/tctbp/ http://ronclick.wordpress.com/2008/09/24/tctbp/#comments Wed, 24 Sep 2008 12:24:49 +0000 Ron http://ronclick.wordpress.com/?p=835 ]]>

by David Wells:

Across much of evangelicalism, but especially in the market-driven churches, one therefore sees a new kind of leadership among pastors now. Gone is the older model of the scholar-saint, one who was as comfortable with books and learning as with the aches of the soul. This was the shepherd who knew the flock, knew how to tend it, and Sunday by Sunday took that flock into the treasures of God’s Word. This has changed. In its placed is the new ‘celebrity’ style. What we typically see now, Nancy Pearcey suggests, is the leader who works by manipulating the feelings of the audience, enhancing his own image with personal anecdotes, modeling himself after the CEO, and adopting a domineering management style. He (usually) is completely results-oriented, pragmatic, happy to employ and technique from the secular world that will produce the desired results. And this leader has to be magnetic, entertaining, and light on the screen up front. (pg. 40)

I am so thankful for the pastors, the scholar-saints, the under-shephards, that remain faithful to the Biblical mandate and calling to feed the sheep.

Perhaps now, after so many posts on ecclesiastic issues, I will move to and graze in other topical pastures in this ‘blogging’ venture…..

….from Amazon. “The Courage to Be Protestant: Truth-lovers, Marketers, and Emergents in the Postmodern World ” is the title. I read an insightful review on this book from Challies Dot Com and am quite looking forward to it’s arrival. Other reviewers think highly of the title, too. A while back, the Pyro’s hosted an interesting comparison/”smackdown” between Well’s book and Tim Stevens’, of Granger Community Church, “Pop Goes the Church,” an interesting study in contrasts. As an aside, one of Granger’s ‘alumni’ is a pastor and “chief strategic officer” at a church I once attended.

Also, I recently finished reading “Essential Truths of the Christian Faith” by R.C. Sproul, perhaps a very good adjunct or introduction to more comprehensive systematic theology themes and tomes.

I often find myself starting a book while half-way through another. While reading the aforementioned title, I was also began reading “Chosen By God” by R. C. Sproul. Again, a very worthy read but I honestly liked “Chosen for Life” by Sam Storms a bit more. Both are quite good primers to the daunting doctrine of predestination, but I found Sproul to be a bit more philosophical and Storm to be a bit more exegetical in approaching the topic of election.