How Is Theological Liberalism Not Dishonest?

Dear XXXXXXXX,

Eventually, I would like to return to the issue of hermeneutics, especially how you appear not to have grasped the conservative understanding of inspiration (even inerrancy). You are not alone in misapprehending what people like me believe, but it is problematic because you set up a straw man when you think you know what my brethren and I believe and [you] set out to disagree. I hope that what I'm writing about in this e-mail will be more easily grasped. It is really a series of pointed questions, which comes at the end of this e-mail after I have set before you a few things.

You wrote

However, you already know that I would not interpret even the gospel accounts literally in the same way that you do.  I do have questions about whether or not the virgin birth is a literal historical happening [underscore mine--Doc], or as I said in one e-mail, whether the birth of Christ accompanied by an announcing angel and a heavenly choir is descriptive of an actual historical event or not.

<snip>

I agree…God could have arranged the virgin birth, visited the shepherds with angels, as well as flooding the whole earth, and the rest. I consider the possibility that all this could be true. It is simply the substance of my own inner conviction that God does not primarily work in this way.

The Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church contains the doctrinal standards for the [my brother-in-law's] denomination. Rather than merging the Methodist Articles of Religion and the EUB [Evangelical United Brethren] Confession of Faith, the merged church [the United Methodist Church] accepted both statements.

The second article of the Articles of Religion reads as follows:

Article II--Of the Word, or Son of God, Who Was Made Very Man

The Son, who is the Word of the Father, the very and eternal God, of one substance with the Father, took man's nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin [underscore mine--Doc]; so that two whole and perfect natures, that is to say, the Godhead and Manhood, were joined together in one person, never to be divided; whereof is one Christ, very God and very Man, who truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, to reconcile his Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for actual sins of men.

The second article of the Confession of Faith reads as follows:

Article II--Jesus Christ

We believe in Jesus Christ, truly God and truly man, in whom the divine and human natures are perfectly and inseparably united. He is the eternal Word made flesh, the only begotten Son of the Father, born of the Virgin Mary by the power of the Holy Spirit [underscore mine--Doc]. As ministering Servant he lived, suffered and died on the cross. He was buried, rose from the dead and ascended into heaven to be with the Father, from whence he shall return. He is eternal Savior and Mediator, who intercedes for us, and by him all men will be judged.

If you do not believe what your church says it believes and that its members ought to believe, why have you stayed in it? Why have you even more egregiously maintained your ordination credentials? How is harboring doubts about a Christological point that is the standard for your denomination not a serious breach of integrity and a reflection of a dissimulating character? How, in short, is it not dishonest for you to have retained your eldership and membership in the United Methodist Church when you cannot bring yourself to agree with its stated Christology?

Thanks,
Doc

Discovering That I Like Latin Music

The Parable of the Anthill

There was once, in the land of make-believe, a man who loved ants. He had an anthill in his backyard, and every day he would go and spread food for the ants to eat. He gave them sugar and pieces of bread and crumbs from cookies. As the ants came out and took the food to carry back to the anthill, he would yell at them, "Ants, I love you! Ants, I love you!" But the ants never caught the message. How could they? He was a man, and they were ants--two different species that did not speak the same language.

Now back to the recent publication:

In this make-believe story, the man had magical powers. He could turn himself into anything. So he did the obvious thing to do if he wanted to communicate with ants: He turned himself into one of them and went in among them to tell them the good news. "Fellow ants: That huge creature that hovers over you and at times frightens you is a man who loves you. He is the one who provides you with all of the good food you eat. He cares for you day in and day out."

The other ants were curious about how he knew so much about the big creature that had frightened them. So the special ant explained, "I am that creature. I became one of you because it was the only way I could tell you about myself and how much I love you."[1]

Before I was a Christian (and didn't know I wasn't a Christian), that parable made sense. When I came to faith, I started having problems with the parable.

In the parable, the man represents God and the ants represent mankind. Because of this difference, God cannot communicate with men. That's my first problem, saying that there is anything that God cannot do.

Second, in real life, God made us in His image. From the very start, we had the capacity to communicate with God. He communicated with Adam and Eve, and that did not stop after the Fall.

Third, God communicated plenty through His prophets and even directly. To say that God’s communication by His Word through His prophets is like a man trying to communicate with ants is to demean the Old Testament portion of the Word of God! God made Himself clear: we "ants” just didn’t want to hear Him.

A better parable is one the Lord Jesus told:

"There was a landowner who planted a vineyard and put a wall around it and dug a wine press in it, and built a tower, and rented it out to vine-growers and went on a journey. When the harvest time approached, he sent his slaves to the vine-growers to receive his produce. The vine-growers took his slaves and beat one, and killed another, and stoned a third. Again he sent another group of slaves larger than the first; and they did the same thing to them. But afterward he sent his son to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’ But when the vine-growers saw the son, they said among themselves, ‘This is the heir; come, let us kill him and seize his inheritance.’ They took him, and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. Therefore when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those vine-growers?” They said to Him, “He will bring those wretches to a wretched end, and will rent out the vineyard to other vine-growers who will pay him the proceeds at the proper seasons.” --Matthew 21:33-41

The sending of the landowner’s son is a gesture of good will, relying on the tenants not being so impudent as to kill the landowner’s own son…but they do.

The Lord’s point was to illustrate the unfaithfulness of Israel and to foreshadow that He would judge Israel and turn to the Gentiles, just as the landowner “will bring those wretches to a wretched end, and will rent out the vineyard to other vine-growers who will pay him the proceeds at the proper seasons.” His point depends on God (the landowner) sufficiently communicating with men (the tenants), which accurately reflects the power of the Word of God, unlike the parable of the anthill.

Peace,
Doc

Copyright © 2009 by Oh, How I Love Your Word! LLC

Currently Bach: Art of Fugue see related

Was This Why the Early Methodists Were So Methodical?

As I was listening to one of my favorite podcasts, The White Horse Inn, one of the participants in the June 28th episode said that Wesley called the doctrine of the imputation of Christ's righteousness "antinomian." He gave no references, so I did some legwork.

In one of his tracts, "Some Remarks on Mr. Hill's 'Farrago Double-Distilled,'" Wesley argued against the phrase "imputed righteousness of Christ" calling it unbiblical and saying only that faith is imputed as righteousness. He indeed seemed to think the doctrine of Christ's imputed righteousness was antinomian.

Whatever the case, here's what he wrote in that tract (¶ 31):

Yet I believe, (and that without the least self-contradiction,) that final salvation is "by works as a condition." And let any one read over the twenty-fifth chapter of St. Matthew, and deny it if he can.

When I read that the first time, I felt the blood drain from my face.

I posted a blog entry (April 25th) about Wesley's response to some people who came to him desperate to "escape the wrath to come." So here is the URL for it:

http://doc411.xanga.com/700039994/to-escape-the-wrath-to-come/

At the time I posted it, it was a mystery to me that Wesley burdened such miserable souls with greater burdens and--it seemed from the source, the Discipline--without the assurance of salvation. Now it makes sense. He believed that people who have placed their faith in Christ can still hold onto that faith and be cast into hell. It is one thing to be Arminian in one's soteriology (which I am not); it's another thing to say that even holding fast to Christ by faith is not enough to ensure one's "final salvation." That casts a shadow over the rest of Wesley's writings.

I trust now that he has been disabused of the doctrine of salvation by works.

Copyright © 2009 by Oh, How I LoveYour Word! LLC

To Escape the Wrath to Come

In the latter end of the year 1739 eight or ten persons came to Mr. Wesley, in London, who appeared to be deeply convinced of sin, and earnestly groaning for redemption. They desired, as did two or three more the next day, that he would spend some time with them in prayer, and advise them how to flee from the wrath to come, which they saw continually hanging over their heads.

Here these men and women were—ripe for the gospel of Christ. Did he tell them that the work of escaping the wrath to come had already been accomplished by Christ, and that all they needed to do was to believe in who Christ was and what He did by dying as their substitute on the cross and rising from the dead?

No. Instead, he organized them into groups to “work out their salvation.”

I don't know whether Wesley didn't teach them the gospel or whether he did and the writer of this little history just didn't put in the right shibboleths to satisfy me, but in the story, the gospel is nowhere mentioned and works are given as the means to escape God's wrath.  What ever happened to the theology of “And Can It Be?” a famous Wesleyan hymn?

No condemnation now I dread.
Jesus and all in Him is mine.
Alive in Him my living head
And clothed in righteousness divine,
Bold I approach th’eternal throne
And claim the crown, through Christ my own.

Wesley imposed on his suplicants three categories of lists: not doing harm, doing good, and attending upon the ordinances of God. These are things that we might all have agreed to in eighteenth century England as proper for already saved pious people—but not as the means to escape the wrath of God. Wesley ought to have established the power of Christ's cross to purchase and secure his supplicants' salvation, and then and only then should he have organized them to do the good works God had saved them to do. Whatever actually did occur, the fact is that this story does not include the gospel of God's grace in response to desperate pleas to know how to escape the wrath of God.

What sorts of things were members of Wesley's so-called United Societies supposed to do (and for which if they didn't do they could be expelled from these societies)? Here's the list as contained in the Discipline:

First: By doing no harm, by avoiding evil of every kind, especially that which is most generally practiced, such as:

The taking of the name of God in vain.

The profaning the day of the Lord, either by doing ordinary work therein or by buying or selling.

Drunkenness: buying or selling spirituous liquors, or drinking them, unless in cases of extreme necessity.

Slaveholding; buying or selling slaves.

Fighting, quarreling, brawling, brother going to law with brother; returning evil for evil, or railing for railing; the using many words in buying or selling.

The buying or selling goods that have not paid the duty.

The giving or taking things on usury-i.e., unlawful interest.

Uncharitable or unprofitable conversation; particularly speaking evil of magistrates or of ministers.

Doing to others as we would not they should do unto us.

Doing what we know is not for the glory of God, as:

The putting on of gold and costly apparel.

The taking such diversions as cannot be used in the name of the Lord Jesus.

The singing those songs, or reading those books, which do not tend to the knowledge or love of God.

Softness and needless self-indulgence.

Laying up treasure upon earth.

Borrowing without a probability of paying; or taking up goods without a probability of paying for them.

It is expected of all who continue in these societies that they should continue to evidence their desire of salvation,

Secondly: By doing good; by being in every kind merciful after their power;'as they have opportunity, doing good of every possible surt, and, as far as possible, to all men:

To their bodies, of the ability which God giveth, by giving food to the hungry, by clothing the naked, by visiting or helping them that are sick or in prison.

To their souls, by instructing, reproving, or exhorting all we have any intercourse with; trampling under foot that enthusiastic doctrine that "we are not to do good unless our hearts be free to it." [Emphasis in original.]

By doing good, especially to them that are of the household of . faith or groaning so to be; employing them preferably to others; buying one of another, helping each other in business, and so much the more because the world will love its own and them only.

By all possible diligence and frugality, that the gospel be not blamed.

By running with patience the race which is set before them, denying themselves, and taking up their cross daily; submitting to bear the reproach of Christ, to be as the filth and offscouring of the world; and looking that men should say all manner of evil of them falsely, for the Lord's sake.

It is expected of all who desire to continue in these societies that they should continue to evidence their desire of salvation,

Thirdly: By attending upon all the ordinances of God; such are:

The public worship of God.

The ministry of the Word, either read or expounded.

The Supper of the Lord.

Family and private prayer.

Searching the Scriptures.

Fasting or abstinence.

These are the General Rules of our societies; all of which we are taught of God to observe, even in his written Word, which is the only rule, and the sufficient rule, both of our faith and practice. And all these we know his Spirit writes on truly awakened hearts. If there be any among us who observe them not, who habitually break any of them, let it be known unto them who watch over that soul as they who must give an account. We will admonish him of the error of his ways. We will bear with him for a season. But then, if he repent not, he hath no more place among us. We have delivered our own souls.

There is only one condition previously required of those who desire admission into these societies: "a desire to flee from the wrath to come, and to be saved from their sins."

Sadly, in modern United Methodism, this story is included in the Discipline as proper and normative (if somewhat tied to the times). Salvation—escaping the wrath to come—in this part of United Methodism's Book of Discipline is a matter of working out salvation rather than believing in the finished work of Christ.

Copyright © 2009 by Oh, How I LoveYour Word! LLC