Real Theology and the Fall of Man

"Remember, real theology takes the real fall really seriously. If you have a defective understanding of the depravity of man then it is easier to believe that man can, by acts of his unaided obedience and will, both seek after God and do that which pleases Him. The Bible flatly and emphatically denies this."

-Tony Hayling (Source)

Believe what God says about man's sinfulness, and you'll find you desperately need a cross, and a gracious God who sends His Son to die upon it, and then raises Him from the dead. Orthodox theology begins to leave the building when we stop taking seriously what God says about our sin and His holiness.

Brian McLaren has recently written a book in which he describes the fall as "a coming-of age story” which gives us “the first stage of ascent as human beings progress from the life of hunter-gatherers to the life of agriculturalists and beyond.” Well, that's a different sort of twist than Moses (or God) ever had in mind, I'm sure. This would explain McLaren's complete abandonment of any belief in the Gospel of grace. There's no need for grace if the fall was a step "up." McLaren declares that the orthodox answers aren't satisfying or sufficient, and then he offers us this as a better alternative?

On a more encouraging note, you may find Bob Gonzales' new book, Where Sin Abounds, to be refreshing. Gonzales uses a series of exegetical cameos to trace the spread of sin in the book of Genesis. You can read a review of the book here.


Friends, let us take the real fall really seriously, and let us cling to the cross as we sense the effect of that fall on our own hearts and minds.


Romans 5:20-21 The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Recovering Orthodox Epistemology - An Open Letter to Conservative Evangelicals

Following the well-worn path taken by so many heretics of the past, the Emergent church has over-emphasized certain truths at the expense of others, even to the point of foolishly imagining that Truth itself is relatively irrelevant. Many conservative, Bible-believing Christians have rightly taken a stand against this absurdity. We have pointed out the errors of men like Brian McLaren, Doug Pagitt and Rob Bell, to name a few. But are we ourselves in danger of over-emphasizing certain truths to the neglect of their balancing counterparts?

I recently asked Phil Johnson a few pointed questions about the mysteries and paradoxes of the Bible:

"Don't we have to admit . . . that there are some things revealed in the Bible which man's creaturely and fallen mind can't quite comprehend? That is to say, in at least some cases, the logic which reconciles two apparently contradictory truths is with God alone? Who's to say God has given us ALL of His logical tools? . . . can't there be aspects of logic that remain incomprehensible to us?"

Phil responded:

"Yes, of course. But in light of what neo-orthodoxy and postmodernism have done with statements like those, it behooves us to be clearer than ever about what we affirm and what we deny regarding the inscrutability of God." (the rest of Phil's answer is here)

While I can appreciate this kind of caution, I want to be sure I don't surrender one drop of God's actual incomprehensibility, one finely braided strand of real paradox, or one iota of genuine mystery, by way of over reaction.

There is a real danger that our response to postmodern heresy might result in the loss of precious theology and a repeat of the tragic mistakes made by the rigid fundamentalism which stood as a reaction to the rampant liberalism of the early 20th century. If we really believe Truth is absolute, shouldn't we be striving for the pure balance of that Truth, rather than reacting against heterodox fallacies? Shouldn't theology be based more on the Word of God than on our zeal to quash the errors of heretics? The Word of God by itself, taken in balance and taught with conviction, will effectively destroy heresy.

That's why Paul, after writing one of the New Testament's most soteriologically comprehensive and Gospel-saturated passages, penned these words:

Titus 3:8-9 This is a trustworthy statement; and concerning these things I want you to speak confidently, so that those who have believed God will be careful to engage in good deeds. These things are good and profitable for men. But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are unprofitable and worthless.

It's essential that we reiterate and properly define not only the central truths of the Gospel, but also the more delicate theological concepts that have been co-opted by the Emergents - the garnishes, if you will - and refuse to allow them to rob us of anything God has revealed about Himself. Rather than running from the concepts they over-emphasize, we should demolish their false ideas by recovering orthodox, Biblical perspectives on those very issues, and serve them up with the steam still rising from the plate.

 
Many of us are rightly affirming the absolute nature of Truth, the validity of logic, the meaningful use of language and the certainty we can have. That's good. But the balances to these important realities must also be affirmed, or we may find that we have rolled up one side of the hill and then down the other side. Consider the following Biblical concepts which have been accepted by orthodox theologians throughout the centuries . . .

1. Divine Incomprehensibility - God is knowable only as far as He as revealed Himself, and He is immensely infinite beyond our imagination. The unrevealed aspects are consistent with the revealed, because God is eternally consistent with Himself. So, we can KNOW GOD and KNOW ABOUT Him, but not comprehensively.

2. Mystery - The unrevealed aspects of God's ways are unknowable apart from revelation and leave us with unanswered (and unanswerable) questions. These questions do not NEED to be answered, or God would have answered them. We do still believe in the virgin birth, correct?

3. Paradox (or what some insist on calling "antinomy" - thank you, Dr. Packer) - At whatever point the Bible appears undeniably to teach two or more opposing propositions, we must accept all of them entirely, even in cases where no mortal has ever succeeded in reconciling them. Especially in those cases. Scripture teaches us that Christ is fully human, and it also teaches us that Christ is fully divine. Is this not an apparent contradiction which we must nonetheless embrace? We must view even the most apparently irreconcilable contradictions as resolvable using information contained within the realm of genuine mystery. Hence, nothing can be paradoxical to God, Who is omniscient. If we had sufficient information, we would have no paradoxes.

4. The Necessity and Limitation of Logic - Logic is the God-ordained ground of communication between God and human beings, and the format by which He conveys propositions. In God, logic is perfect and infinite. In man, it is marred and error prone. Truth is coherent, but we're not coherent enough to fully receive it. Rather than making logic invalid, these facts call us to ground more certainty in revelation than in our logic, and more faith in God's Word than in our own thoughts, and to stake our very lives on His Word.

The Emergents confuse incomprehensibility with agnosticism, while they make mystery into an excuse for doubting divinely revealed propositions, and they pervert paradox by denying the very ground on which it is created: an a priori commitment to absolute, logically consistent Truth. Their doubting is not any kind of "epistemological humility"- it's intellectual (and spiritual) suicide. Finally, Emergents repudiate logic while simultaneously angling the conclusions of their own humanistic reason against the Scriptures. It's an epistemological potluck on the village green, complete with half-baked chicken, stale heresy-crackers and the moldy rolls of relativism. I've also heard the salad isn't too fresh.

Theological problems are only one side of the threat posed by the Emerging Church. The other is a matter of lifestyle. Emergents are more winsome than we are, less rigid, less prone to legalism, better at speaking the language of people in today's Western culture, less likely to be mired in man-made religious traditions, and they're probably more active in works of mercy and acts of kindness than most traditional Evangelicals. Heresy with a sense of charity is always more attractive than a frosty-frozen orthodoxy which portrays itself as eminently righteous - and righteously indifferent. If we're not living the Christian life, we're partly responsible for the success of liberalism.

Titus 3:14 Our people must also learn to engage in good deeds to meet pressing needs, so that they will not be unfruitful.

Ultimately, however, the emergence and success of postmodern philosophy is part of a horrific judgment which God has unleashed, as He gives a sinful world over to its own cravings and allows it to suppress the priceless Truth in unrighteousness. As this progresses, let us not be outdone when it comes to practicing the New Testament ethics of compassion, grace, generosity and good works. And let us not be outmaneuvered in the battle for a Biblically faithful, balanced epistemology that is glorious enough to include difficult paradoxes, unanswered questions, and a God big enough to be mysterious - and infinitely greater in wisdom than His most ingenious creatures. In short, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Friends, I plead with you not to surrender one tiny inch of ground to the Emerging church, theologically or morally. Let's love God and neighbor, glory in His mysterious mercy, and prove by our example that the Gospel is true!

Titus 3:3-7 For we also once were foolish ourselves, disobedient, deceived, enslaved to various lusts and pleasures, spending our life in malice and envy, hateful, hating one another. But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

More on McLaren

One of my favorite blog buddies, Arnold at Balance and Paradox, delivered his own short critique of Brian McLaren's theology right around the time I published mine in the previous post.

Arnold says of McLaren: "... he has somehow become the Splenda of faux Christianity...his words may taste sweet, but they're not real sugar."

By the way, that stuff can make you really sick. And I hear Splenda's not good for you, either.

If you haven't discovered Arnold's site yet, it's worth checking out. Balance and Paradox offers insightful commentary with a focus on current events and diverse subjects including politics, literature, philosophy and theology. The posts are always thoughtful, sometimes edgy, frequently humorous, and often witty - and they're offered from the perspective of a seasoned Christian who doesn't fall for any postmodern quackery. Best of all, the word "Paradox" is in the blog title, which is always a plus (well, not always - in fact, not even usually - but in this case it is a plus because Arnold knows what a paradox is).

Emerging Postmodern Evangelical Liberalism

For some reason, I've been in a "prophetic and polemic" mode lately. This is not my normal M.O., but I'm going to run with it. Meekness is not weakness, and grace is not a sloppy overlooking of all that is wrong. Grace and truth work together, as truth calls a spade a spade, and then calls for a change of heart which only grace can accomplish. Nothing in grace ever departs from TRUTH in the least bit. Rather, grace deepens our hold on the truth, and truth continually drives us back to grace as we see our need afresh. In recent years, as God's grace in the Gospel has become more precious to my soul, distortions and perversions of grace have become increasingly troubling. As Paul said . . .

Galatians 1:6-10 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed! For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ.

I wouldn't want to make a career out of exposing all the things that [I think] are wrong in the modern church. That doesn't tend to be fruitful or helpful in the long run, and my natural self-righteousness would lead me to beat up on people who disagree. That's not the point here. What follows is offered, I hope, in a spirit of love and with a sharp eye on my own multiplied shortcomings. We must endeavor to stay focused intently on the Gospel, but we can't ignore error altogether. So, in the interest of better understanding the times in which we live, the modern threats to orthodox Christianity, and with the goal of tying our hearts more tightly to the Gospel, I offer these thoughts on one of today's great heretics . . .

I recently read an interview in which postmodern poster child Brian McLaren was asked why Evangelicals "dislike" him. His answer was both telling and terrifying. He said, "large numbers of Evangelicals love what I'm doing and are highly supportive," and then he went on to name three groups (including high Calvinists) who are "completely and vocally unhappy with my work." High Calvinists should take that as a huge compliment. I'd like to let Mr. McLaren know that Gospel-centered moderate Calvinists are equally disturbed by his radical departure from the Biblical message.

As a follow up to the interview and for the sake of curiosity, I listened through about two hours of material from McLaren. Among the material was this interview from the University of California's Youtube channel and this "sermon" delivered to students at Anderson University in Indiana.

I have to admit that I was impressed as I observed this iconic leader of the Emerging Church. It was obvious that he is a very gracious and gentle person. He is thoughtful about the sensitivities of others and careful not to offend. He is eminently considerate in his approach, which is a good thing. He's also matter-of-fact and realistic about his critics and the controversy he's created. This gives an appearance of humility that is engaging and heart warming.

Beneath all of this sweet personality lies something deeply troubling: unmitigated floods of bad theology. In classic liberal style, rather than building on the rock solid truth of Scriptural precepts, McLaren proposes his unbelief in the form of subtle questions which imply that orthodox Christianity has completely missed the point of the teachings of Christ. But these "questions" are nothing less than denials of what is taught in Scripture, and they are based on reasoning that resonates with fallen humanity's natural way of thinking - not with the Word of God. Orthodoxy insists on the hard Biblical doctrines, like wrath and hell and judgment - things which are hard to reconcile with the reality of God's infinite love. But they are nonetheless taught by Jesus Christ and the Christian Scriptures. Rather than submitting to Scripture and gaining insight by adjusting his ideas accordingly, McLaren simply avoids the possibility that human ideas of "love" might be off the mark. It must be Christian orthodoxy itself that is misguided, not fallen humanity's thinking about God. In his quest for relevance, McLaren and his Emerging Church friends have jettisoned the Biblical Gospel. They have gone completely off the deep end and leapt headling into heterodoxy - all the while wearing a gentle smile. It's a sad thing to see. Sadder still is the long line of so-called Evangelicals following in their footsteps, sliding gleefully down the slope of unbelief into a powerless, humanistic gospel, heading directly toward the gateway of soul-shredding heresy. The saddest thing is that many will pass through the gate without even realizing it.

McLaren makes no secret of the fact that his real focus is social transformation and the redemption of broken societal institutions - not the salvation of individual souls. Embracing universalistic syncretism, he wants to save "the world." It's the system that's broken and needs to be fixed, moreso than your heart and my heart in abject rebellion against our Creator. After all, says McLaren, "God so loved the world . . ." (Oh, is that what John meant?) Apparently, principles of Biblical interpretation are just another part of the outdated orthodox machinery, so we can throw those out with everything else that stands in the way of the "Kingdom." No more silly notions of conforming ourselves to the Bible. We can mold Scripture into any image we choose, so let's go ahead and make God the way we've always wanted Him to be!

Some folks who are weak on Biblical inerrancy and the sufficiency of Scripture are bolstered and kept straight by an allegiance to solid creeds and traditions. Others, who reject every creed as "man-made", are nonetheless deeply grounded in Biblical truth because they simply love the Scriptures. But men like McLaren have neither a high view of Scripture nor a solid tradition to serve as ballast. They are led astray by every wind of doctrine, and the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming. McLaren has left both the Scriptures and the orthodox creeds behind in his pursuit of a new and improved form of indistinct Christianity.

Here's a catch phrase I've heard McLaren repeat numerous times: statements change your state, but questions put you on a quest. So, leave all your statements of absolute truth behind and launch out on a search for . . . more questions? If there aren't any truthful statements to be found, what's the point in asking all of these questions in the first place?

I suppose McLaren wouldn't get along too well with Jesus Christ. Read the Gospels - they're chock full of statements. If the things Jesus taught about the human heart are true, then what we need more than anything else is a change of state. Our Lord fully intends to change our state AND put us on a quest. Mere questions do not feed needy souls or comfort the hearts of penitent sinners. If Paul warned against doctrines "contrary" to the Gospel, he must have done more than ask questions. He must have made exclusive, definitive statements of TRUTH which had to be sharply separated from other statements that were not TRUE.

But alas, I have questions of my own. I question the relevance of any "church leader" who doesn't believe the Gospel of God. Paul described the Gospel this way: "Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures . . . (I Cor. 15:1ff). McLaren replaces this Biblical definition with his own idea of the Gospel: "The Kingdom of heaven (or at least his version of it) is at hand." This definition is wide enough to park a bus in, and McLaren takes full advantage of the space his definition affords. He reinterprets the approaching kingdom as an indication that God is more interested in large, overarching social movements than He is in the salvation of individuals. Verses, extended passages, and entire pages are falling out of my Bible as I write this! And McLaren is dancing on them with his eyes closed and his heart ablaze with "love." Now we can all smile, write poetry, and talk about a Kingdom of God that just happens to perfectly resemble a one-world utopia.

I have some questions for McLaren: didn't Jesus say, "... the kingdom of heaven is at hand; repent and believe the Gospel." ??? When did He ever say, "The kingdom of heaven is at hand, and this is what I mean by the Gospel." ??? McLaren confuses categories here, and the result is stark error. While liberal Christians are trying fix the irreparably cracked foundations of the kingdom of man, our Lord is commanding everyone to flee from this deteriorating world of sin and enter HIS KINGDOM through belief in the Gospel.

Do I dislike McLaren? No, actually I find him enjoyable and easy to listen to. He seems like he would be a fun guy to hang around with. Some of his criticisms of the modern church are accurate. As a person, there's nothing about him to dislike. He's charming . . . dangerously charming. But I do hate and despise the damnable deceptions he's enthusiastically broadcasting throughout the world in the name of my God. I pray that He may discover the true and living God of grace and truth in the Biblical Gospel.

One final statement: men like this need to stop marketing their books to Christians and start writing for the benefit of agnostics. Those guys have no problems with man-centered, relativistic religion. Genuine disciples of Jesus do, and they will not listen to any voice that contradicts that of their True Shepherd. He alone we will follow. When you realize that Someone died for your sins, you aren't so quick to relinquish your hold on the Gospel of grace. And once you've seen Jesus through the eyes of a forgiven and redeemed and thankful heart, utopia doesn't even warrant a glance.