Thus says the Lord: "Stand by the roads, and look, and ask for the ancient paths, where the good way is; and walk in it, and find rest for your souls.
But they said, 'We will not walk in it.'" --Jeremiah 6:16

 

11 April, 2006   comments: (0) Postmodernism   The Arrogant Bigotry of The Narrow Way? Some lively discussion has been brewing in the comments of another one of my posts. It's been a clash between old truth certitude and the common postmodern mindset which views doctrinal precision as arrogant and legalistic. And showing an all too common misunderstanding of Jesus' conflict with the religious leaders of His day, the term 'Pharisee' is employed to represent those who hold firm to precise biblical truth. Our conversation has been with someone who I'll identify simply as "John". He's been a guest here on Old Truth before, arguing against biblical inerrancy and against election and predestination as well. John has been scolding me for quoting mere men, in addition to the scriptures that I've been giving him. His last comment said "No more John MacArthur, please. Let's just stick with scripture. In return, I will also refrain from posting any quotes from Thomas Merton, Brian McLaren or Brother Lawrence". I'm afraid I'm going to have to disappoint him here again, as it's always been one of my blog-goals to make the thoughts of other noteworthy men, more prominent than my own. So John, if you are reading, feel free to bring out your best McLaren quotes, and I'm going to continue to do the same - with those who I believe are speaking the truth from past and present. The part of the conversation that I'd like to focus in on, in this post, is the clash between those who hold to doctrinal/biblical precision, and the (common postmodern) attitude against that thinking. John, for example, says: "... some people make every little jot and tittle of their doctrine required for salvation. For example, we must trust in Christ and believe He is the Son of God - that He died for their sins and rose again - that's all the doctrine required for salvation. If you tell me that I must be a calvinist or an armenian or my salvation is incomplete, I disagree. If you tell me I must stop smoking or drinking or dancing, I will disagree. If you tell me that I must understand the trinity the same way you do, I will again disagree. That would be putting more conditions on belief than Christ did." Perhaps we could accuse John of strawman-building with some of that, but I suppose there are actually some out there who salvifically militate over "dancing" etc. At any rate, I aimed at the crux of what John was saying - with this short excerpt from a John MacArthur sermon: "Nobody is a Christian who doesn't believe the true gospel. That's a pretty sweeping statement. You have to believe the true gospel or you're not a Christian. You can't believe a false gospel, like Mormons and people in the Roman Catholic system. You have to believe the true gospel. You can't believe the liberal message of good works and social change. You can't believe some aberrant kind of thing about who Jesus is. You can't be a non-trinitarian and believe in a God who is not a trinity, such as T.D. Jakes and people like that, and be a Christian. Christians believe the truth because, we saw clearly in Colossians 1:12 and 13, we've been delivered out of the domain of darkness into the kingdom of the Son of God's love. We have become saints in light. We've gone out of the darkness of ignorance and error into the light of truth. And I'm being specific with you because I feel like we have to do that. Who is a Christian? Somebody who has been delivered from error to truth. You've come to understand, to believe, to embrace the truth." John responds to MacArthur's remarks by asking for a definition of "the Gospel", which would make for another great topic to post on, in the future. But I would highly recommend MacArthur's own book on the topic; it's called "The Gospel According To Jesus" and it gives a thorough treatment on what the bible has to say about the Gospel. But here's the remarks of our friend John, that I want to highlight, simply because they represent a very common mindset these days: "You've already said TD Jakes isn't a believer. I guess you'd group Warren and McLaren and probably me in that group. In fact, I'm sure you maintain in your mind a big long list of people who are headed straight to hell. I'm glad that you don't really have anything to say about my salvation. I could never be as perfect as you expect people to be. It seems as if you've set yourself up to be judges for who is and who is not saved. You seem in love with being right and chosen and in possession of the "truth" as you see it. That sounds exactly like the pharisees to me." It's amazing to me how these things always seem to get twisted into some sort of "personality flaw" with the believer, rather than simply being viewed as a reflection of the beliefs themselves. It's as if to say "how dare you believe such things! You are arrogant!" I remember something similar a few years ago, in which Al Mohler and others were invited on TV by Phil Donahue, and the show's topic was "Is Jesus The Only Way to Heaven"? Donahue and his audience had the same sort of view point towards people who believe that Jesus is the only way, which I assume John believes as well. What if John would have been a guest on Donahue's show? Would he be viewed, as he is viewing MacArthur and myself, as being a narrow-minded bigot of some sort? How would he respond to a crowd that demands open-mindedness towards other world religions? J.C. Ryle said it well, over a 150 years ago, when he remarked: "we live in an age when men profess to dislike dogmas and creeds, and are filled with a morbid dislike to controversial theology. He who dares to say of one doctrine that 'it is true,' and of another that 'it is false,' must expect to be called narrow-minded and uncharitable, and to lose the praise of men ... The danger is real, great, and unmistakable. Never was it so needful to say, Be not carried about (with divers and strange doctrines)" John also feels that it is wrong that we hold to various doctrines that would exclude others who profess to be Christians. But there's actually a danger to the church in not doing so. Iain Murray - the church historian, had this to say in his book Evangelicalism Divided: The inability of the evangelical church to distinguish between a Christian and a non-Christian is quote: "The greatest failure of professing Christianity in the English-speaking world in the twentieth century," end quote. He goes on to say that "the health of the church has always been in proportion to the extent to which the difference between Christian and non-Christian has been kept sharp and clear." And "Given the great decline in the English- speaking churches of the twentieth century, the chief need again was the reassertion of the meaning of being a Christian." [Read More] Lastly, on more than one occasion, John brings up the term "Pharisee". In the comment above he says "You seem in love with being right and chosen and in possession of the "truth" as you see it. That sounds exactly like the pharisees to me". But is it possible that John might have a misunderstanding of the Pharisee's problem? Here again, MacArthur gives a biblical explanation and definition: "Sometimes the Pharisees are accused of having been overly concerned with orthodoxy. But that was not at all where they went astray. Their error was that they became so wrapped up in their own traditions that they downplayed the truth of Scripture and distorted sound doctrine. Far from being theologically orthodox, they had simply invented their own traditions and used a man-made system to nullify the truth of divinely inspired Scripture (Matt. 15:3-6). It is fashionable today to characterize anyone who is concerned with biblical doctrine as Pharisaical. The biblical condemnation of the Pharisees' legalism has been misread as a denunciation of doctrinal precision. And love of the truth has often been judged inherently legalistic. But love for truth is not the same as legalism. The fact that it has been portrayed that way has sabotaged the very thing the church so desperately needs today. Too many Christians are content to gaze nonchalantly at the surface of scriptural truth without plunging any deeper. They often justify their shallow indifference as a refusal to be legalistic. Conversely, they dismiss as pharisaical narrow-mindedness, any attempt to declare the truth authoritatively. Doctrine divides; therefore any concern for doctrinal matters is commonly seen as unchristian. People concerned with discernment and sound doctrine are often accused of fostering a pharisaical, divisive attitude. But that is exactly backwards! True unity is rooted in truth." [read more] So John, on a personal note, I want you to know that I'm not arrogantly looking down on you, searching for ways to disqualify you, any more than Al Mohler was to Donahue and his audience. I do believe that the road is narrow John, but I also hope that you will be found on that road, on that Great Day. My prayer is that God would use me in any way to help people be on that road. I do not wish to kick people off of it. Related Information and Resources: Listen to a 6 minute audio on Jesus' regard for absolute truth. John MacArthur addresses postmodernism and why we need to be "certain" Read why "playing nice" by postmodern standards is a losing battle Read how some in the Emerging Church speak of "the idolatry of truth" DA Carson's book confronts pluralism: "The Gagging of God" Posted by: Jim B.   Link: http://www.oldtruth.com/blog.cfm/id.2.pid.236   Be the first to post a comment about this article        Home  |   About  |  Videos   |  Calvinism