Today in Blogworld 03.17.15

Mike Leake

Man Does Not Live by Man Skills Alone

If anyone can tell us that manliness isn’t just about having a cool mustache it’s Paul Tripp who has reached the zenith of mustachioed brilliance.

These “Rebels” Get It

I see myself in almost everyone of these photos. This is my type of rebellion.

9 Marks of an Unhealthy Church

You’ve heard of Dever’s 9 Marks of a Healthy Church, here Kevin DeYoung looks at a few marks of unhealthy churches.

Are You Playing “Prevent Defense” in Marriage?

This is a wonderfully helpful analogy.

This is what I thought the Gospel Project was going to do from the beginning—excited to see they are going this direction:

If God’s Word is Clear, Then Why So Many Denominations?

Mike Leake 2 Comments

One of the hallmarks of a Protestant view of the Bible is that God’s Word is clear. We readily acknowledge that there are some places in Scripture which are more clear than others—

…yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them. (WCF 1.7)

This doctrine is what drove William Tyndale to labor to get the Bible in the native of tongue of every person. We do not believe we need a magisterium to lay down the authentic teaching of the Church. We believe the Scripture is clear enough to be interpreted by even the unlearned.

But the legion of Protestant denominations doesn’t bode well for the doctrine of the clarity of Scripture. If God’s Word is clear then why are there so many different denominations?

A common, though in my opinion unsatisfactory, answer is to say that there are so many different denominations because everyone except my particular church or denomination is wrong. In this view, if people would simply believe the way that I do then we wouldn’t have all these denominations.

While I believe there is truth in this, I don’t believe it is the whole truth. Yes, there are certain denominations that I would never be part of because I believe they are fundamentally mistaken in their interpretation of Scripture. But there is another reason why we disagree; namely, we are “seeking to make affirmations where Scripture itself is silent” (Grudem, 109)

In other words, we’ve drawn lines in the sand where Scripture hasn’t. Some of these lines might be necessary for practical reasons. Others are foolish.

Foolish Lines in the Sand

There are many questions—even important questions–which God has determined not to clearly answer in this age. In these matters I believe the counsel of Calvin is correct:

…the moment we go beyond the bounds of the word we are out of the course, in darkness, and must every now and then stumble, go astray, and fall. Let it, therefore, be our first principle that to desire any other knowledge of predestination than that which is expounded by the word of God, is no less infatuated than to walk where there is no path, or to seek light in darkness. Let us not be ashamed to be ignorant in a matter in which ignorance is learning. Rather let us willingly abstain from the search after knowledge, to which it is both foolish as well as perilous, and even fatal to aspire…There is good reason to dread a presumption which can only plunge us headlong into ruin. (From Institutes, 830)

I think of churches splitting in the Puritan era over lapsarian views. Silliness. Or even today churches which split over such things as views on the timing and manner of the Lord’s return. God has not made these clear.

There are some issues which are not even overtly doctrinal which churches split over: ways to do ministry, preaching styles, where to spend money, Bible translations, church structure, etc.

When things are not clearly propounded in Scripture and we start drawing lines in the sand we are being foolish. We are like a team of sumo wrestlers river dancing on thin ice. You might get a few moves in but eventually they’ll plunge themselves headlong into ruin. But not all division is of the foolish sort.

Practical Lines in the Sand

There are some secondary issues (like views on baptism and the Lord’s Supper) which are not “so clearly propounded”. Because of the practicality of it we cannot in good conscience be members in the same local body.

Consider infant baptism for example. I have a ton of respect for Kevin DeYoung. He’s far wiser than I am. I’d trust him to teach folks in our church on about anything. But I believe he is incorrect in his view of infant baptism. I understand his views, believe he articulates them well, but at the end of the day remain a committed Baptist.

Because of our views on baptism we could not in good conscience serve in the same local church. But I believe I’ll be worshipping with him in glory.

This is not discouraging to me because baptism and the Lord’s Supper are secondary (though still very important issues). I believe in God’s wisdom he has allowed our differences on doctrinal issues to continue for the good of the kingdom. He is building something beautiful that we won’t fully appreciate until glory.

This means I can pray for, learn from, and be encouraged by brothers and sisters in any denomination so long as they are faithfully teaching and preaching on the things which God has clearly propounded. In fact, even though we likely couldn’t worship in the same church (because of the practical issues related to our views of Baptism) I consider myself in fundamental unity with folks like Kevin DeYoung.

Conclusion

There are many different reasons for the multitude of denominations. Some because of human sin. Others because of the limits of our human understanding. And still other reasons have more to do with things like locale than even anything doctrinal.

Yet, regardless of the reasons the number of denominations does nothing to harm our doctrine of the clarity of Scripture. Scripture is clear—even to the unlearned.

So take heart and dig in.

Today in Blogworld 03.16.15

Mike Leake

Leave It to Beaver, Sex and the City, and a Woman’s Happiness

I think Mary Kassian asks an important question here.

9 Thoughts on Church Splits

Number 1 scares me because I am serving in a church that suffered a mass exodus about 10-15 years ago. Is there a difference between a split and losing half your members?

4 Ways Inerrantists Undermine the Bible

David Murray reflects on one thing he felt was missing from the Inerrancy Summit.

6 Reasons Why Sexual Predators Target Churches

This is sad. But true.

I really hope this was staged…

A Good Mentor Points Out the Cliffs

Mike Leake 1 Comment


Faithful theology has been likened to standing atop a mesa. A mesa, if you remember, is an isolated flat-topped hill with steep sides. There are many true things that one can affirm on the flat-top. But go too far in one direction and you’ll wind up plummeting off a cliff.

It’s not a perfect analogy but it is helpful. The safest place (or perhaps I should say most true and faithful) is to be right in the center. Varying theologies tip-toe towards the cliffs but maintain orthodoxy.

But human nature is not such that we are drawn to the middle. Human nature, like a foolish lemming, wants to throw itself off a cliff. Given to ourselves we’ll take a truth and push it so far that we end up careening off the flat-top and into the jagged rocks below.

This is why we need mentors. We need people who have felt the pull of the plummet. We need those who have tasted the lustrous fruit and found it empty—men and women who know where the edge of the cliff is to be found.

John Newton was this to John Ryland, Jr. The latter, I believe, felt the pull of a Calvinism which got a bit close to the edge. A Calvinism which for some actually pushed them over the edge into the unorthodoxy of Hyper-Calvinism.

Ryland had been reading Solomon Stoddard and it looks as if he was drawn to his teaching. It sounded quite orthodox but Newton looked through it as a pastor. Newton acknowledge that “some things he advances are worthy of attention” but cautioned Ryland that his teaching are “more likely to affright a soul from the Lord than to guide it to him”. (119)

Do you hear the warning? CLIFF AHEAD!

Newton went on to say this:

I think if Mr. Stoddard had been at Philippi, and the jailer had sprung trembling in to him (instead of Paul or Silas) with the same question he would have afforded him but cold comfort, and would have made him wait a few weeks or months to see how the prepartory work went on before he would have encouraged him to believe in Jesus. (Wise Counsel, 120)

Newton sees Ryland inching towards a cliff and he has the boldness to encourage him to run away. He saw in men like Stoddard (and many following him) a propensity to “confine the Holy Spirit to a system”.

He would rather Ryland, “read the Scripture and your own heart attentively” by doing so “you will have greatly the advantage of those who puzzle themselves by too closely copying the rules [you] find in other books”. (121)

—

I am a seminary student but not your traditional sort. I live about an hour and a half away and so I feel kind of like an outsider. I believe this disadvantages me on one hand, but gives me a leg up in another regard. I’m distanced enough to see some dangers.

We all need those like John Newton. Those who take the things we are learning and put them on the ground—those who help us see where the cliffs are. Good theology wrongly applied can lead you off a cliff just as quickly as bad theology.

Every believer needs someone like Newton to point out our inconsistency and to keep us from jumping off into unfaithfulness. Likewise, we should also be growing in our faith in such a way that we can be a Newton for someone else.