Speaking of Hermenuetics

There's a great post on Sola Scriptura over at the Pilgrim People blog by Michael Brown (HT: R. Scott Clark). One of the struggles I've had is how to approach the Scriptures recognizing both that the Holy Spirit is my greatest teacher, but that there is a rich history of His having taught others. I think to divorce ourselves from 2000 years of Church history is a categorical mistake.

If we make this mistake, we will pay a steep price. Brown notes:

Oddly enough, this kind of dismissal of historic theology actually does violence to Christ’s promise to his Apostles that the Holy Spirit would guide them into all truth (Jn 16.13) and bring to their remembrance all things (Jn 14.26) in order that Scripture would be preserved for the instruction of the church until the end of the age (Mt 24.35; 28.20). The early-American biblicists seemed to give no credit at all to the Holy Spirit’s work in history of gifting Christ’s church with pastors and teachers; rather, the early-American biblicists see the Spirit’s true work in ministry being that of immediate revelation and privatized religion. Ironically, the biblicists’ seeking of direct revelation and a “tabula rasa” illumination compromises their claim of “no creed but the Bible,” as one's personal experience is inevitably elevated to the place of Scripture.

Tragically, however, things have not changed for the better. As Hatch chillingly points out, “Americans continue to maintain their right to shape their own faith and to submit to leaders they have chosen.” The result of eighteenth and nineteenth century biblicism has been a church that increasingly looks less like New Testament Christianity and more like the egalitarian culture in which she lives. Populist hermeneutics and privatized, experiential religion has continuously had wide appeal to the American individualistic ethos. The “chronological arrogance,” to borrow C.S. Lewis’ maxim, of disparaging tradition and centuries of theologizing persists with cavalier vigor.

Hebrews 11 reminds us that we stand in a long line of those who have walked with God. That line does not stop with the closing of the canon but continues on even today. The Bible makes it clear that none of these are without fault, and therefore are not the primary resource. But they are faithful men who have passed truth on to other faithful men, eventually down to us. So while the Bible is always the final authority, my interpretation is not. I must always check my own biases by testing my interpretation against those who have come before and are contemporary with me.

What say you?

Loving God with Our Mind

In the previous post, I started addressing some issues raised (in my mind at least) by the post Letter about Those Pesky Calvinists on Jesus Creed. One of the things I hear from some of the commentors to this post is the old idea of simply following Jesus and not debating. One of the more recent comments states something along the lines of "let's just follow Jesus' two important commands."

In one sense, I have to acknowledge agreement with this type of sentiment. I once heard Dr. S. Lewis Johnson state that just because you win an argument doesn't make you right. Also, I know from my own heart that arguments sometimes don't influence me except to make me more strident in my own views. But what is interesting about Jesus' two important commands is that one piece of the great commandment is to love God with our minds.

So we have a responsibility to be intellectually engaged in our faith. This does not necessarily mean debate or argument, but it does imply that we have reasoned discussions about the truth. It may also mean that at times we are strident. Paul indicates in Galatians that he wishes bodily harm to those who are teaching falsehood. Even worse, he pronounces divine judgment on those who teach a different gospel.

There are points that could be made about this from larger sections of Scripture, like Paul beginning most of his letters with extended doctrinal reflection (in the case of Romans chapters 1-11). But I'm going to provide some verses for reflection (I would encourage reflecting on them in context).

Acts 20:26-27
Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all of you, for I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God.
ESV

Hosea 4:6
My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge; because you have rejected knowledge, I reject you from being a priest to me. And since you have forgotten the law of your God, I also will forget your children.
ESV

Hebrews 5:11-13
About this we have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food, for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, since he is a child.
ESV

1 Peter 3:14-16
But even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, but in your hearts regard Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.
ESV

In all this, Peter's point about gentleness and respect should not be lost. But the Bible is clear that we are expected to grow in knowledge and understanding. In this regard Paul tells the Ephesian elders he shared "the whole counsel" of God, not just two basic commands. The author of Hebrews is clearly disappointed that his readers had not progressed to a place where he felt confident they would understand Jesus' relationship to Melchizedek.

Prophetic from the Center

Some time back I wrote a post about a message given by Dr. D. A. Carson at the 2007 Gospel Coalition conference. In that post was a lengthy quote from Dr. Carson, including the following statement: "It is easy to sound prophetic from the margins. What is urgently needed is to be prophetic from the center." I have been thinking about this statement and what it means to be "prophetic from the center."

If you read the entire quote, I think it is obvious what is meant by "from the center" versus "from the margins." The margins are those peripheral issues, on both the left and the right, that engross so many people. These are issues like environmentalism, social justice, gay marriage, prayer in schools, music styles in worship, etc. The center are those issues that are essential to Christian faith, including the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the atonement, the resurrection, i.e. what "takes Christians from lostness, condemnation, alienation from God all the way through conversion, and discipleship, to the consummation, to resurrection bodies and the new heaven and the new earth."

The question, I think, is what does it mean to be "prophetic?" What it does not mean is that Christians should join the Jeane Dixon fan club. Biblical prophets sometimes made predictions about the future, like:

Micah 5:2
But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah,
who are too little to be among the clans of Judah,
from you shall come forth for me
one who is to be ruler in Israel,
whose origin is from of old,
from ancient days.
ESV

Micah here prophesies that the Messiah will come from Bethlehem. Clearly this is "predictive" and is one of the things prophets did in the Bible. But prophets did at least two other things in the Bible, both of which were more common than prediction.

One was that the prophets pointed out the sinful condition of the people. For example:

Micah 7:2-3
The godly has perished from the earth,
and there is no one upright among mankind;
they all lie in wait for blood,
and each hunts the other with a net.
Their hands are on what is evil, to do it well;
the prince and the judge ask for a bribe,
and the great man utters the evil desire of his soul;
thus they weave it together.
ESV

When we are prophetic in this sense from the margins, it is easy because it most often takes the form of condemnation. It is a means to lift ourselves above those on whom we pronounce judgment. This is the Pharisees - clean on the outside but full of death on the inside. Our condemnation falls on any who have not cleaned the outside, regardless of the state of their heart.

We carry picket signs that say, "God hates fags" without acknowledging that God also hates the self-righteous. We maintain our ritual, but have forgotten love, forgiveness, and mercy. Jesus in contrast does not put out the smoking flax or break the bruised reed. How do we behave around those of weak faith who are struggling? If we are prophetic from the margins, most often we will shun them.

To be prophetic from the center is much harder in no small part because it requires humility. John the Baptist called the Pharisess a brood of vipers, but also said he was not fit to tie the sandal of the Messiah. He proclaimed that Jesus must increase while he (John) decreased.

To be prophetic from the center means we have to first acknowledge that we need the gospel as much as anyone else even now. It means that we have to acknowledge that we do not live up to God's standard even now. Like Paul we need to be truthful that we have not attained, but that we are pressing on. To be prophetic from the center requires a balance of boldness and humility.
But prophets in the Bible also proclaimed God's mercy and lovingkindness, like:

Micah 7:18-19
Who is a God like you, pardoning iniquity
and passing over transgression
for the remnant of his inheritance?
He does not retain his anger forever,
because he delights in steadfast love.
He will again have compassion on us;
he will tread our iniquities under foot.
You will cast all our sins
into the depths of the sea.
ESV

To be prophetic in this sense from the margins is the prosperity gospel. God wants you to have your best life now. God wants you to be healthy and have a two car garage. God does not want you to suffer, for you are more than conquerors in Christ. You need to claim your healing, money, possessions and have faith that God will deliver.

Less extreme is to say that while things may not always go your way, you will always sense the presence of God. If you are faithful to follow God's plan for your life, you will always have a smile on your face. Both of these are easy because people will respond.

But being prophetic from the center is to say your best life is not yet here. The kingdom breaks into this age, but is not fully realized yet. We still have struggles and difficulties. Like Jesus we continue on for the joy set before us. Per Paul we recognize that death as the last enemy has not yet been destroyed, but will be. Love we are told bears, believes, hopes and endures. All of these indicate an element of tension, struggle, and difficulty.

This message is not as immediately attractive. Telling people to hold onto a Savior who will deliver some day is not as appealling as telling them God is like Santa Claus bestowing gifts on those who are nice. But it is real and many people who have been through difficulty will find in the gospel the truth. Yes, this life is hard, but even so God is good.

This is why Paul says we are to be pitied if the resurrection is not true, because our hope, our joy, our anchor is on what is to come, not on the now. We live now and we show the kingdom now and we try to make things better now. Believers before Jesus stood with their arm stretched out pointing to the future.

We now stand with both arms outstretched pointed to the past (the cross) and the future (the resurrection). We do so also to die figuratively and literally for the cause of Christ. Some being prophetic from the margins will condemn us as compromising with the world, calling us gluttons and winos. Some being prophetic from the margins will say we are from some hick town and not sophisticated or educated. Some being prophetic from the margins will say that we could deliver ourselves from suffering if we had more faith.

We are to love them all, and pray for them to be forgiven even as they stone us. Who knows who will be holding their coats as we die.

Calvinism and Arminianism

As I mentioned in the previous post, we do not wade in the shallows when we think about election (or the Trinity or how Jesus can be fully man and fully divine). So if we go out into deep waters, how should that affect our relationships with those that disagree with us. For example, how should a "Calvinist" relate to an "Arminian"?

First, let's acknowledge that there is a danger in being in deep water. One risk is that we become overly rigid and exclusionary. This, it seems to me, is especially true about those who have just discovered these truths. The danger of becoming too exclusionary is present in part because some of these truths are exclusionary. Christians are the only theists who believe in the Trinity. It has been a dividing line between us and Jews and Muslims for centuries. Therefore it is not always easy to know what truths are worth dividing over. The other risk, which seems common in our day, is that the depth of the water makes us despair of being able to know anything.

But I believe that deeper studies, especially if done prayerfully and always with a dependence on the Scriptures, are corrective to each of these risks. Why? Because we will come, with Paul, to understand that we cannot fully grasp who God is or what He has done. We are left with only doxology about how great God is. I am finite and fallen, so I can never comprehend the infinite, holy God fully. But through these studies we will also see that God has revealed Himself, so there are truths about God that we can know and understand.

Second, let us realize we are not called to a war to eradicate Arminianism. Do I think election is important? Definitely. Do I think the Reformed understanding of election as outlined by Luther, Calvin, and the men who follow in their footsteps is the correct understanding? Definitely. Do I think Arminians are lesser Christians? Definitely not. Charles Spurgeon, a far more capable proponent of election than I, noted that two men he held in highest esteem were George Whitefield, a Calvinist, and John Wesley, an Arminian.

Most atrocious things have been spoken about the character and spiritual condition of John Wesley, the modern prince of Arminians. I can only say concerning him that, while I detest many of the doctrines which he preached, yet for the man himself I have a reverence second to no Wesleyan; and if there were wanted two apostles to be added to the number of the twelve, I do not believe that there could be found two men more fit to be so added than George Whitefield and John Wesley. C. H. Spurgeon "A Defense of Calvinism" (middle of 3rd paragraph from the bottom)

For a similar perspective on this topic, I would commend to you a post by Mark Dever on the Together for the Gospel blog. In part he writes (emphasis his):

The real front line is not between Calvinist evangelicals and Arminian evangelicals. It is between those who are lost in their sins and those who have been saved by God's sheer grace in Christ.

Third, this doesn't mean we don't discuss, debate, and contend for our beliefs. But it is the kind of contention that allowed George Whitefield to rebuke John Wesley for Wesley's Arminianism, but then say that he did not expect to see Wesley in heaven because Wesley would be so much closer to the throne of God than Whitefield that Whitefield would not be able to see him.

Election is neither an essential doctrine, like justification by faith alone, nor is it a personal conviction issue, like whether Christians are allowed to partake of alcohol in moderation. Election and other doctrines which fall into this middle ground are doctrines which should be discussed. Therefore, the (admittedly difficult) task is to contend for our understanding of truth with a humble, irenic spirit.

Beyond Wading

I'm not really an "art appreciation" kind of guy. Which is not to say I don't like paintings, and I even wish I could paint. I've watched the guy on PBS who can create a nature scene in 30 minutes and he makes it look easy. I still don't think I could do that.

Several years ago a group from the church I was attending in Dallas decided to spend a Saturday afternoon at the Dallas Museum of Art (the DMA). In the late '80s (referenced because I have not idea how the museums have changed in the last 20 years) I generally preferred the museum's in Fort Worth. They frequently had a more western theme. The DMA focused more on "modern" art and, I'm not looking for a lecture on art appreciation, I don't get it. For me, whether it is art, music, or literature, accessibility does not imply that the piece is less worthy, but that's a discussion for another time and place, perhaps.

Why I bring up the trip to the DMA is one painting had a significant impact on me. It was a large painting of a what I assumed to be the throne room for a great king. The room was in disarray, with the king slumped on his throne. At his feet on the stairs leading up to the throne was a woman with her head on his lap. Emotion radiated from the painting, and questions were raised.

What tragedy had befallen the king? Was it personal, or had the whole of the kingdom been affected? Was the woman the queen? I sympathized for the king and wanted to know more about what had occurred. Art, be it paintings, sculptures, stories, music, or otherwise, is at its best for me when it invokes a sense of wonder and stimulates a desire to know more.

At the end of Romans 9-11, after considering election, calling (both God calling us through the preached word and us responding by calling out to God for salvation by confession), and the relationship between Israel and Gentiles, Paul gets lost in doxology, expressing his sense of wonder at who God is. That doxology begins with:

Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!

By saying God's judgments are unsearchable and that God's ways are inscrutable, I do not think Paul is telling us to not try to understand God. Yes, he is saying we will fail if our goal is to understand God fully. There are depths in those oceans that we will never plumb fully, even in eternity.

But that doesn't mean we should stay out of the water. In fact, I think Paul is encouraging us to get in the water and see just how magnificent our God is. Why spend more time talking about election? Because the Bible to me paints a wonder filled picture of who God is when the topic is discussed, and I want to know more. Election and the Trinity are both topics on which I dwell frequently because they are subjects that draw me into deeper waters and stir my soul to join Paul in doxology.

Doxology is fueled by theology and theology is made more potent by diving into the depths of revealed truth. In fact, I think to be all that we were made to be, we must grow in that revealed truth. A few passages I would encourage you to dwell on in this regard are Deuteronomy 29:29; Hosea 4:6; and Hebrews 5:11-6:2.

Paradoxical Teachers

Why, if as I proposed in the last post, if all real spiritual knowledge only comes from being taught by God, did I even bother posting the last post? In fact, doesn't the Bible tell us that there are those gifted by the Holy Spirit to be teachers, which would mean my previous post falls flat on its face?

I don't think so. I have to acknowledge that if pushed to an extreme, my last post would essentially lead one into a hyper-Calvinistic stance. Contrary to some popular opinion, a hyper-Calvinist is not simply someone who believes in predestination (that's ordinary Calvinism, and does not require that one deny the necessity of evangelism). A hyper-Calvinist believes so strongly that only God can "teach" us in a way that brings us to salvation, that man should not preach the gospel in a manner that calls the lost to be saved.

I want to affirm here the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF), which states (3.1):

God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: (Eph. 1:11, Rom. 11:33, Heb. 6:17, Rom. 9:15,18) yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, (James 1:13,17, 1 John 1:5) nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established. (Acts 2:23, Matt. 17:12, Acts 4:27–28, John 19:11, Prov. 16:33)

God's sovereignty over all things is exercised in such a way that the necessity of the actions of others is required. [Let me restate that with connections to the WCF: God's sovereignty over all things (whatsoever comes to pass) is exercised in such a way that the necessity (contingency) of the actions of others (second causes) is required (established).]

In relationship to the topic at hand of teachers, they are frequently the agents of God's act of revealing Himself to us. The primary tool that God uses to reveal Himself is the Scriptures, and we can learn from God by studying the Scriptures on our own. But God has gifted some to be teachers of the Scriptures so that through them we might learn more about Him.

God Draws

In a recent posts over at Craver's blog (see link on the right) he has been discussing T.U.L.I.P. and election. [TULIP is an acrostic for Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, and Perseverance of the saints. Otherwise commonly known as the five points of Calvinism.] In comments over there I made mention of John 6:44-45. I want to take a little time here to have a deeper look at John 6 and how it relates to a Reformed understanding of salvation.

As background, when I talk about salvation, while I think we are saved from many things by Jesus, I am primarily referring to being saved from the wrath of God. Some don't like to see salvation in terms of the wrath of God, but Paul says it is God's wrath that is coming on the sons of disobedience (Ephesians 5:6) and it is God's wrath from which he says Jesus delivers us (1 Thessalonians 1:10 - see also 2:16). I believe, therefore, that the Bible is clear that we all deserve the wrath of God. We do not deserve and we cannot earn salvation. God is obligated to save no one and would be perfectly just to condemn everyone to Hell. That He does save anyone is completely undeserved mercy. So if God chooses to save none, one, ten, a hundred, a great multitude, or all, He could do so and still be righteous.

Context

John 6 begins with John's account of the feeding of the 5000. The result of this is that the crowd wants to force Jesus to become king, so He slips away. The disciples enter a boat and begin to cross the Sea of Galilee, and Jesus walks across the water to meet them. The crowd therefor has to search to find Him the next day, and when they do Jesus rebukes them for seeking Him only for the food he provided (there's a message in this for many evangelical Christians, including me).

As part of this rebuke, Jesus tells the crowd that He is the bread from Heaven (the true manna). Then in v. 37 He makes the following pronouncement:

All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.

Briefly, three of the five points in T.U.L.I.P. can be seen in this verse, if not completely established - (1) the Father gives is an expression of election; (2) that these will come is an expression of effectual calling (irresistible grace); and (3) that Jesus will never cast out is an expression of eternal security (perseverance of the saints). The last point receives additional support from the verses that follow.

Central Passage

The crowd is stirred up by what Jesus has said about being the bread of life. In response to the crowd's unrest, Jesus utters the following (John 6:43-45):

43Jesus answered them, “Do not grumble among yourselves. 44No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. 45It is written in the Prophets, ‘And they will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me—

After commanding the crowd not to grumble at what He had said, Jesus then adds four things:

(1) No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.
(2) And I will raise him up on the last day.
(3) It is written in the Prophets, ‘And they will all be taught by God.’
(4) Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me

Let's consider each statement.

(1) Jesus tells the crowd that not only is it true that those that the Father gives come to Him (v. 37), but that no one comes apart from the drawing of the Father. This is the other boundary to v.37. All that the Father gives come, and none come that the Father does not give.

Some would disagree with that and interpret drawing here as the Father "wooing" us. They would claim that this is reference to a general call that goes out to everyone. In other words, the Father draws everyone, but not everyone comes. But the word draw here that John uses is the picture of water being drawn from a well. If you have never had the pleasure of drinking water drawn fresh from a well, fresh, cold water from a deep well is a great pleasure; but the water has no participation in being drawn and cannot refuse to be drawn. It is the work of the drawer which makes the water come.

Leon Morris in his commentary on John writes of the word "draw":

“There is not one example in the New Testament of the use of this verb where the resistance is successful. Always the drawing power is triumphant, as here.”

Those uses include John 18:10; 21:6-11; and Acts 16:19.

(2) Also, Jesus is clear that one who is drawn is saved. The evidence is in the assurance that they will be resurrected. So being drawn is not a momentary attraction to Jesus; it does not refer to those who may follow Him for a time and then leave - as many in this crowd and throughout the centuries have done (1 John 2:19) - but to those who are truly saved. None can come according to (1) apart from the Father's drawing, but those who do come are raised. Jesus is restating v. 37 to say that not only is it certain that all those given will come, but it is only the ones given who come.

(3) Jesus now turns to the Scriptures and quotes Isaiah. In the context of Isaiah this is a promise to the the Suffering Servant (Jesus) that every one of His children will be taught by God. Jesus is saying that Isaiah's prophecy is being fulfilled in Him, and therefore the Father teaches those who are truly disciples.

(4) And as all the children are taught by the Father according to (3), so, Jesus says, everyone who hears and learns comes to Him. James Boice says this about this verse in his commentary on John:

Why is it that you and I can present the gospel to some people and never seem to get anywhere, even when the circumstances seem entirely favorable? And why is it that others with maximum problems and limited understanding believe? The only answer is that God has taught the one person and has not taught the other. Moreover, all whom God has taught do come to Jesus.

Think about it this way. There are two boys who grow up together and have largely the same experiences. Both of them hear the gospel proclaimed and one responds and becomes a Christian while the other one rejects the gospel. Why? Why does one receive the good news when the other one rejects the good news?

You have two basic options. Either Jesus is saying here that only one is taught by God and therefore only one comes to faith, or He is saying that both are taught by God and only one hears and learns though God attempted to teach both. But if the latter is true, then there is something in the one that receives the gospel that allows him to be able to hear and makes him a better learner. So either salvation is all of God, or the one boy received the gospel because of something in himself - he contributed to his salvation.

Pulling It Together

Notice that in v. 37 and 44 the singular activity of people is coming to Jesus. All other activities are done (or not done) by Jesus or the Father. The Father gives, the Son does not cast out. The Father draws and the Son raises. The emphasis is on what God does. God is the primary actor in salvation.

But are there not some that are drawn but do not come? Does not the Bible say that many are called, but few chosen? Sure, some hear the gospel call and do not respond. But Jesus is not talking about the call that is given in evangelism. That call is an activity of man. Jesus is speaking about the work of the Father.

All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.

Not some that the Father gives, but all that the Father gives come. And none can come apart from the Father drawing them to Jesus. How is this drawing done? The parallel in v.45 says that those who come are those who learn from the Father. What do we learn? Much, but especially that we are sinners under His wrath who only find safety by hiding in Jesus and His righteousness.

A Word of Application for Young (and Some Old) Calvinists

It is frequently charged that Reformed Christians are arrogant and prideful. Too often this has been true. I have seen it in myself and others. Once my eyes were open to see election in the Scriptures, I could not understand why others did not see it. I was sure with the enough time and preparation, I could teach them.

But if we grasp what Jesus says here (that salvation is all of God and election is marked by learning from God), then I have no grounds for any boasting. Let us assume for a moment that regardless of how well I have defended the doctrine of election, that it is the truth. Then what I know I know not because I'm smarter, more spiritual, or better in any way than any one else. I know whatever I truly know about Jesus and my salvation because the Father has chosen to teach me about Jesus and my salvation. In spiritual matters, we are all terrible students. But God is a great teacher, and can overcome even my learning disability.

This does not mean we are not to study and think (I have other posts around here that deal with that, I think). But it means our study should be saturated in prayer and it means our knowledge should be wrapped in humility. For apart from God revealing Himself to us, we could know nothing.

Praise be to Him who has shown the light of the gospel into our darkened hearts.

PCA SBC

I was going to post some more extended thoughts on election spurred by Craver's post (see link in previous post), but I want to pause for a moment and reflect on the significance of this day. Two major conservative denominations (yes, I know the SBC does not consider itself a denomination - phhhhht) had major days today. The Presbyterian Church in America and the Southern Baptist Convention are both in the middle of annual meetings.

The SBC today rejected to even consider Tom Ascol's motion on Integrity in Church Membership. If you are interested in the details you can check Tom's post, but I think it sad that the SBC is not even willing to discuss the issue. The reports that are coming out of the annual convention this year are not encouraging that the divisions from last year's convention are healing.

The big news out of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) General Assembly today was the adoption of the report on the New Perspective on Paul and Federal Vision (NPP/FV). Justin Taylor provides some links to information on the report. What this will mean for the PCA remains to be seen, but it is unlikely the end of the controversy over these issues.

We should pray for both denominations. Doctrinal error must be confronted, but as "evangelicals" we already have a bad reputation in our culture. How we handle these internal disputes can easily reinforce current perceptions. We would do well to heed the admonition of Tom Wells on how to deal with controversy. In the linked article, he quotes J. C. Ryle:

Controversy in religion is a hateful thing.
It is hard enough to fight the devil,
the world, and the flesh,
without private differences in our own camp—
But there is one thing
which is even worse than controversy,
and that is false doctrine tolerated,
allowed, and permitted without
protest or molestation ...
Three things there are which men
never ought to trifle with:
a little poison,
a little false doctrine,
and a little sin.

May God bring peace and unity to His people around the truth of His word.

Easter Truth

"Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but usually manages to pick himself up, walk over or around it, and carry on." Winston S. Churchill

Churchill knew this about as well as anyone in recent history, seeing the west deny what Hitler was really trying to accomplish until it was almost too late despite his persistent warnings. I don't know Churchill's religious convictions, but as we approach Good Friday and Easter, I'm reminded that Jesus told us that He is "the way, the truth, and the life." Because of our sin, as a result of the fall, we stumble over Him, but too often pick ourselves up and carry on as if nothing at all happened. Again, the Spirit knew we would, and inspired the Biblical writers to tell us that Jesus would be "a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense."

This Easter weekend, there is one question that matters - did Jesus rise from the grave? Is the resurrection a literal, physical reality, or just the imaginations of some men roughly 2000 years ago. If it is the latter, then Paul the Apostle says Christians are of all men the most to be pitied.

But if it is real, then Jesus the Christ has conquered death and is putting all enemies under His feet. If it is real, then there is a life and a kingdom beyond this world that has broken into this world. If it is real, then we can suffer and endure tribulation in this life because, as Bob Benson said, we are going to a celebration. Instead of eating, drinking, and being merry in this life, we have a joy and a peace that passes all understanding, because we will feast (whatever that may mean for perfected saints) eternally when the Bridegroom returns for His bride.

The resurrection is God's promise to us that Jesus' sacrifice was sufficient to cover our sins. It is the new rainbow. When the Father looks at the Son seated at His right hand there is an eternal reminder that sin's debt has been paid, that sin's penalty has been meted out. Easter reminds us that Jesus is the first fruit from the dead, and one day death itself will be destroyed.

Happy Easter!