“Evangelical Calvinism”

There have been some loud squealings going around lately about something called “evangelical Calvinism.” I haven’t the first idea what this term means. Did someone invent it in order to look cool? To throw a big red “S” on their chest? To further separate themselves from those who are merely “evangelical?”

If so, I have a big wooden fraternity paddle that needs to smack some behinds.

But to get to the point, the “loud squealings” I referred to in the first paragraph are coming from those who are non-Calvinists. What a curious thing, said the Deaf Jedi sarcastically. Upon the reading of several articles by some rather obscure Southern Baptists that seem to have found their way into the general Southern Baptist grapevines, I only had to put my head in my hands and say, “Here we go again.” When are we going to start disagreeing with a theological position on the basis of what that position actually teaches? I wanted to smack these people upside the head a few times.

In the interest of heading off any questions and commentary that may reach me in the next few days, I’m going to briefly list several implications that Calvinism has in evangelism. These can be found in my various posts on each point (see The Doctrines of Grace in the sidebar), and I will be adding a couple of implications in this list.

But please remember, these are coming from a guy who is not a Calvinist. In the footsteps of Apostle Paul, I implore my non-Calvinist brethren: in disagreeing with Reformed perspectives, imitate me. Actually learn the stuff first. And now, with no further ado….

Total Depravity.
Total depravity gives us the sure conviction that all of us are going to perish in hell without Christ. This alone ought to convince us that evangelism, hey, might be a really good idea. But it goes a step further by thoroughly grounding us in Christ’s words that no one can come to the Father unless it is through Him. Note that, through Him, not by works. I’m reminded of another verse that says something like, “Not by might, not by power, but by my Spirit, says the Lord.” So I can’t just up and decide some day that I’m gonna follow Jesus. I need the Gospel preached to me before I would ever get the inkling to do so.

Unconditional Election.
Election gives us an incentive to witness. Think about it: only a certain number are going to be saved. This is a surety even if we believe in conditional election. There is no way around this. Not everyone is going to heaven. First of all, this should spur us to get off our lazy behinds and evangelize. Second of all, this should give us an incredible sense of purpose to understand that God is going to use us to bring in those who will be saved. What this adds up to is this: Git-R-Done!

Limited Atonement.
This point, more than any other, is the clincher for me where evangelism is concerned. And I don’t even subscribe to this point! Limited atonement gives us a heart for lost people. If people are going to hell, we ought to be broken and weeping over them! If limited atonement is true, then we know without a shadow of a doubt that there are people DOOMED to hell. We should be brokenhearted over this. And brokenhearted, we witness passionately, hoping to heaven that this person is not doomed.

Irresistible Grace.
Irresistible grace gives us confidence that our efforts will be successful. Why? Because we’re not the ones getting people saved. God is. His Spirit is working to bring those who will believe to Him, and He is working through us. Thus we can witness with full confidence in the ability of the God who has commanded us to the Great Commission.

Perseverance of the Saints.
I know, I’ve not yet finished this one. But this further strengthens our confidence in evangelism. We will not worry about the possibility of those who come to Christ through our efforts falling away. God will preserve them. He may even use us to effect this perseverance and preservation. We can witness in the full assurance that those who believe will truly be transformed into the image of Christ. Our efforts will not be in vain. I think there are more implications to come here, but I will save them for the post.

Now, that is all I have to say about that.

*Waves a hand in front of your face and calls on the Force*
You want to print this out or copy/paste it into an email. You will send this to those of “loud squealings” or those with potential to squeal. You don’t want to sell me death sticks. You want to go home and reevaluate your life.

Oops, that last one was for the creepy guy with bug antennae over my shoulder.

What Is An Evangelical? Conclusion

Well, the long journey has finally ended. I’ve attempted here to briefly (haha) define what exactly an evangelical is and to describe the definition as best as I can. Initially, I described an evangelical as: a person (preacher), church, or denomination that has the Gospel of Jesus Christ, especially the primacy of Christ’s work, as the central article of faith; that believes the spreading of the Gospel and the salvation of souls is the number one duty of the Christian; that believes all moral/spiritual truth is found in the Bible; and that Christians are called to live lives of service before God and fellow man.

I’d like to highlight those points in summary.

The Gospel: the Gospel of Jesus Christ proclaims that before the hands of the watch began to move, before God placed the singularity that caused the Big Bang (”Let There Be Light!”), God knew us. According to His divine and sovereign will, He sent His Son as a ransom, a sacrifice, for our sins, an atonement by which we are made right with God for ever. By His grace we are able to accept the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. “By grace are you saved through faith, and that not of yourselves–it is the gift of God; not by works, so that no one can boast (Ephesians 2:8-9).”

Evangelism: evangelism involves (1)telling people (especially lost people) about Jesus with the express purpose of winning them to Christ; and (2)discipling new converts to Christian maturity, with the goal of equipping them to win and disciple new believers themselves.

Scripture: the “sufficiency of Scripture” refers to the concept that all moral and spiritual truth is contained in the Bible; that the Bible is able to save us by the witness of the Gospel; and that the means of that salvation is our response to the truth contained within its witness by coming to Christ in faith.

Christian Service: Christian service is the acting out of our faith in Christ by putting the needs of others before our own, and filling those needs as a sign of our love for them.

I suppose we can call this the “Holocron’s Notes” version of what an evangelical is. Each of these points embraces or heavily touches on several key doctrines such as atonement, resurrection, sovereignty, salvation, sufficiency of Scripture (in which I’m going to include inspiration and inerrancy), discipleship, missions, and ministry.

Most importantly, as a whole these four characteristics of the evangelical shape and inform the doctrine of the church. By this I do not mean the beliefs of a particular church, though indeed that may be the case, but I mean how we structure our churches. Much as Rick Warren has structured his church around “The Purpose Driven Life,” evangelical churches are structured around these four traits.

If these four traits are indeed what makes an evangelical, then I am proud to identify myself as an evangelical.

What do these traits mean for the modern evangelical movement? I begin to wonder if the culture war going on right now has taken away the focus from what James calls “true religion” (James 1:27) and reduced many evangelicals (those who are outspoken and well-known) to gossip-mongers. I do not level this charge lightly; more and more I see outspoken evangelicals talking loudly and negatively about what this or that person or group did or said and less about the Gospel and winning those people or groups to Jesus through their witness and service.

Please do not misunderstand. I think the culture war is important. If we allow secularism to rule, the people will perish. This is because secularism has no vision, and Scripture says that where there is no vision, the people will perish (Proverbs 29:18). Secularism refuses to condemn immorality. This relativistic, pluralistic worldview will cause many to suffer torment in Hell forever. No vision, indeed. Jesus also said he came not to bring peace, but a sword (Matthew 10:34). the culture war is the wielding of that sword.

But a sword can be used in ways other than offensively. Look at Obi-Wan Kenobi in the Star Wars prequels. He wielded his lightsaber almost purely defensively, and in Revenge of the Sith, now a master of his weapon, was nigh invincible. And the Force was his ally. Similarly, we have God on our side. The Gospel is the most potent weapon we have at our disposal, and we have been brandishing it about like a club instead of the elegant weapon it is. To quote Master Kenobi, how uncivilized.

Instead, we as evangelicals should be trusting the sovereign power of the Holy Spirit to guide our witness and our service, much as it did when I spoke to the young marine at Red Lobster. If we truly believe God is sovereign, we must agree that God will put us in the right place at the right time to plant a seed, water it, or reap the harvest. We cannot just tramp through the fields like we’ve been doing publicly. The culture war, I feel, will be won at the grass roots level and not in the national spotlight.

Notice what I’m saying here. I’m saying we have the most powerful weapon ever at our disposal, and and we should use it like water. Water is probably the most powerful and elegant weapon in nature. Bruce Lee encapsulated what I’m saying beautifully - “Be like water! It is the stuff of life. It surrounds, penetrates, takes on the shape of that which attempts to contain it. Be fluid!” The Gospel is that fluid power. It can surround sin, penetrate it, and take on its shape, making it new and pure and holy as it does so. I think this paragraph alone deserves its own blogpost, and I will make a note to draw one up as soon as possible.

But I am excited about the implications this summary of evangelicalism holds for the future. Already I am seeing rumblings about a move towards the smaller church. Bivocational pastorates are increasingly coming into stark focus. Small local churches are no longer allowing themselves to be ignored. Seminary profs at Southern have for the past few years started to talk about and be about “the local church.” Megachurches have ruined it for them, and it’s time that stopped. True evangelicalism takes place at this level, where the people and their pastors are in such close proximity that the Gospel is lived out day by day, and day by day the Lord adds to His church.

With that, I will close this series. There is much, much more that could be said; more, I fear, than this blog could contain and more than I could ever learn about or than would catch my interest. I am proud to call myself an “evangelical,” and I am excited about what the future may hold for evangelicals and their churches. Wouldn’t you be?

What Is An Evangelical? Part 5: Christian Service.

Finally, we have arrived at the final point in this series!

Let’s recap: an “evangelical” is a person (preacher), church, or denomination that has the Gospel of Jesus Christ, especially the primacy of Christ’s work, as the central article of faith; that believes the spreading of the Gospel and the salvation of souls is the number one duty of the Christian; that believes all moral/spiritual truth is found in the Bible; and that Christians are called to live lives of service before God and fellow man.

The last point is that Christians are called to live lives of service before God and fellow man. I want to focus on primarily on James 2:14-25.

What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe–and shudder! Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”– and he was called a friend of God. You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.

There is a single driving principle here in this passage. Faith is active. Let me write that again.

Faith is active.

Faith is not real faith unless it is responsive. James uses a chilling illustration: even the demons believe there is one God. The demon that possessed the man in the Gospels even believed Jesus was the Son of God. But there is a glaring difference–the demons did not act on that belief in the way faith demands.

I would argue that faith in God–true faith in God–requires glorifying Him. For us, that begins with our acceptance of Jesus as our Savior and continues in serving others. This is James’ “works” as he discusses here. An example by way of illustration is his statement “If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace, be warmed and filled,’ without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that?” If we are truly people of faith, we will act on that faith.

Not only is this the principle, but it is a command from Jesus himself. In Matthew 5:16, Jesus commands, “In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.” This follows his illustration of the light hidden under a bushel.

And again in John 13:34-35 - “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

And once more in Luke 22:25-27 - “Jesus said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves. For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves.”

So we see Jesus has clearly commanded us to serve others as the ultimate expression of our faith in Him.

It is further seen in 1 Peter 4:8-11 that we are to serve using whatever abilities we have, because that is the expression of our love for each other as believers and for the lost sinners in need of a Savior. By doing so, God is glorified through us.

I could go on and on by listing examples of service but I think a good short way to explain service is putting others’ needs before one’s own.

To sum up, Christian service is the acting out of our faith in Christ by putting the needs of others before our own, and filling those needs as a sign of our love for them.

Next time, I will wrap up the series with a brief conclusion. Enjoy!

What Is An Evangelical? Part 4.2: Inerrancy

All right, here we go with the next sub-point of part 4 — inerrancy.

What is inerrancy? Dictionary.com defines this word as “freedom from error or untruths; infallibility.” Infallibility is further defined as “incapable of erring” or “the quality of never making an error.” Further, under infallibility, it says that in the context of the Roman Catholic Church, infallibility means “incapable of error in expounding doctrine on faith or morals.”

I think that the majority of us are concerned with the last definition, the one posited of the RCC. I also think it is this definition that the majority of evangelicals hold. The Bible is inerrant in “expounding doctrine on faith or morals.”

Notice this is very different from a fundamentalist perspective on Scripture. A fundamentalist–who very likely holds to the dictation theory–would disagree with this perspective completely. A fundamentalist would likely say that every last word of Scripture (indeed the “jots and tittles” of my last post on the subject) is “100% correct, and if something out there contradicts it, then that something is just plain wrong!” Perhaps this is a good moment to expound on that verse.

When I say that God has inspired even the smallest marks of the Bible, I mean to say that He has used even these to get his message across without any error. I believe this is what evangelicals mean when they interpret a verse such as this in the plenary view (or plenary-verbal for those of you sticklers).

Now let’s take a look at what inerrancy does not mean.

Inerrancy does not mean the very text of Scripture is inerrant. That can only apply to the original manuscripts. What we have are copies of copies, but those copies have had the living daylights researched out of them. The result of all this research is that we have a text today that we are certain is at least 99% faithful to the original manuscripts. In fact, if you were to attempt a reconstruction of Scripture from the sayings of the early church fathers, you would get so clear a picture of the Bible that you’d see our modern versions differ to the degree of (if I remember the number correctly) 11 words or phrases, all of which vary in terms of spelling an the like, minor variances. And none of these variants affect a single doctrine of Scripture.

What I (and evangelicals as well, I believe) am after is an inerrant message. The text as we have it today cannot give a 100% inerrant text due to the variants that exist. But since none of the variants affect our doctrine, the message is in effect inerrant since it contains no doctrinal error.

Now, let’s look at my statement in my previous post:

Let’s start with this statement: If God is unchanging, then His revelation never changes. If God is perfect, then His revelation is perfect. In addition, if God is divinely in control of His revelation and the means by which that revelation is dispensed, then the Scriptures that result are unchanging and perfect. In other words, the Bible is inerrant.

“Sugar” Shane has much more to say in his comments.

If we understand this statement to apply to the original manuscripts, then I believe my statement is correct. Shane notes that I engage in a non-sequitur by ascribing to Scripture divine attributes. This is not my intention. My intention was to assert that God’s revelation to us, His words to us contain no error; not that Scripture itself is divine. Shane and I discussed this briefly at work one evening, and we concluded that I had worded this statement incorrectly. At this time I am not sure how I would reword this. Suffice it to say that I am not after idolizing the text, or “bibliolatry.” Shane also has more to say about bibliolatry and inerrancy in his comments that I think are worthy of reflection.

Shane, again, has something good to say about these last few paragraphs in his comments.

Perhaps I should take a moment to address the objection of “historical error.” Scripture has never been shown to be historically inaccurate. Every argument for the inaccuracy of Scripture that I have seen or heard of rests on an argument from evidence, that is, there is a lack of evidence for some of the things the Bible claims. This argument ignores that archaeology has never once contradicted Biblical claims; rather it has supported the Bible directly or indirectly. Just because some things have not been discovered yet does not mean that it does not or did not exist.

I believe a similar argument can be made against “scientific” error. Oftentimes the Bible will speak of “the sun rising and setting;” of “the four corners of the earth;” or some such thing. Critics love to use this language as “proof” of the inaccuracy of the Bible. This is a horrible argument. Suppose I described you in similar terms. “She’s just glowing. He is radiant. You’re an open book.” Does that mean you don’t exist? Does that mean I am wrong in the way I describe you? Humans do not glow, nor do they radiate, and they are not books. Yet I can accurately describe you by the use of these terms. It is a perspectival issue, not a question of literalness. Think about it; from a human perspective the sun actually does rise and set, and from the development of a compass we perceive the earth as having four corners: north, south, east, and west. Never mind that such a phrase “the four corners of the earth” can be seen as a metaphor for “the whole world” or something similar.

We need to be careful in ascribing error to something before we have thoroughly understood the perspective behind it. A rule all of us, including me, regularly break.

To sum up, the doctrine of inerrancy holds that the Bible, in its original manuscripts, is inerrant, and that we possess a message in our modern Scriptures that for all intents and purposes is also inerrant. It is because Scripture is inerrant in this way that we can say Scripture is sufficient for the things noted in Part 4: Sufficiency.

Whew, that was a journey! I look forward to taking this journey a bit deeper in January. But for now come back tomorrow for Part 5 in this series: Christian Service!

What Is An Evangelical? Part 4.1.1: Inspiration, Continued

Okay, I lied (not really). I’m going to do one more post on inspiration before moving on to inerrancy. I really want to expound on plenary inspiration a bit. So bear with me!

What is plenary inspiration? The word “plenary” means full and complete in every respect. A synonym to this word is absolute. So by the term “plenary inspiration” is meant the affirmation that every part of Scripture is inspired by God. No part of Scripture has been inspired by man.

For biblical support, we look to the aformentioned 2 Timothy 3 text, especially verse 16. We also look to Jesus’ words in Matthew 15:18–”For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.” This verse is in the context of destroying the Law, which Jesus expressly states He is not here to do. If Scripture is not inspired by God, why would it not be destroyed? Furthermore, the jot and the tittle are the smallest marks in written Hebrew. They would be the equivalent of the modern comma and period. Are not even these marks divinely inspired?

How can a position that governs even the smallest marks in Scripture be held biblically? For starters, let’s look at 2 Peter 1:20-21. I think that the Contemporary English Version makes it glaringly clear what this Scripture is saying:

But you need to realize that no one alone can understand any of the prophecies in the Scriptures. The prophets did not think these things up on their own, but they were guided by the Spirit of God. (emphasis added)

Indeed, not a single word of Scripture is of human origin. Even the parts of Paul’s letters where he makes clear he is giving his own suggestion and not a divine command (the “I, not the Lord” statements) were inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Further underscoring this notion is the pattern of Scripture itself. From Genesis to Revelation, the underlying procedure for describing divine revelation is to give the credit to God. “Thus saith the Lord” statements, retellings of what God has told people groups and individuals, accounts of visions, and so on are very clear that they are not human in origin but divine. Human speech then becomes merely the means by which God’s revelation is dispensed to creation.

This fits very seamlessly with the concept of God’s sovereignty. If God is absolutely in control of every aspect of cosmic existence, then why is it wrong to assert that He is in control of the message and words, and even the smallest marks, of Scripture?

I think this is a good place to stop and move into a discussion of inerrancy. Let’s start with this statement: If God is unchanging, then His revelation never changes. If God is perfect, then His revelation is perfect. In addition, if God is divinely in control of His revelation and the means by which that revelation is dispensed, then the Scriptures that result are unchanging and perfect. In other words, the Bible is inerrant.

Now, in Part 4.2 I’ll discuss this last paragraph a little more in-depth. You can expect to see it no later than tomorrow.

What Is An Evangelical? Part 4.1: Inspiration

First, a shout out to J Hearne for doing what I hoped might happen among the more serious readers–interact! Raise questions! Dialogue! The biggest point of this particular series (which I’m probably at fault for not making clear at the outset) was to flesh out what exactly an “evangelical” is as well as what evangelical “distinctives” are. This is all being done for both generous and selfish reasons: generously, to inform and educate others, and selfishly, to educate myself and form a theological perspective consistent with Scripture and what I believe. Hopefully what I believe is consistent with Scripture! To see Mr. Hearne’s comment on Part 4, mosey over to the sidebar and click on “Part 4: Scripture.” It’s at the end of the post.

Mr. Hearne correctly implies to me by the depth of his comment that this particular post is pretty superficial. Yeah, it is. It’s not meant to be indepth but superficial, expressly because I want this to be basic and explanatory. But he is correct in making me feel as if I could have explained it better. So let’s take a post here to work on that from his remarks.

For this installment, let’s start with different views of inspiration.

Plenary View. This view, I understand it, is what is held by the majority of evangelicals today, especially Southern Baptists. What this view means is that the influence of the Holy Spirit over the writers of Scripture extended beyond the thoughts to the selection of the very words which the authors chose. Yet this influence of the Holy Spirit did not amount to a verbal dictation. The term often adopted is that of “concursus,” or confluent authorship, i.e. That every word is both fully divine and fully human. This is likely where Southern Baptists in particular glean the concept of inerrancy. I would venture to guess this is also a Calvinistic view of inspiration as well, as it holds to the absolute sovereignty of God.

If I am understanding Mr. Hearne correctly, the dynamic view to which he alludes holds that inspiration is not simply a natural but a supernatural fact, and it is the immediate work of a personal God in the soul of man. It is an attempt to balance the role of God and humans in the writing of Scripture. It holds that inspiration belongs, not only to the men who wrote the Scriptures, but to the Scriptures they wrote, so that these Scriptures, when taken together, constitute a sufficient record of divine revelation. The Scriptures contain a human as well as a divine element, so that while they present a body of divinely revealed truth, this truth is shaped into human molds and adapted to human intelligence. In short it is neither natural, partial, nor mechanical, but supernatural, plenary and dynamic.

The mechanical view, unless I miss my guess, is the belief that the writers of Scripture were nothing more than secretaries, taking down Scripture as the Holy Spirit (or as is said by many, God) dictated it to them. Thus is is also more commonly called the dictation theory of inspiration. What this view seeks to safeguard is the absolute divinity of the Scriptures. Proponents deny that the biblical authors engaged in historical research, utilized documents or oral tradition. All Scripture is seen as having come directly from God to the human writers. This view is commonly held by fundamentalists.

Now, the dictation (or mechanical) view is easily dismissed by a look at the introduction to Luke/Acts found in Luke 1:1-4:

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.

As a friend of mine and I have been discussing, one verse or text does not establish a doctrine, but this text by itself demolishes the mechanical view. So I do not think evangelicals subscribe to a mechanical view of inspiration. Granted, there are places where Scripture is in fact dictated (the letters to the seven churches of Revelation comes to mind), but this is not true for Scripture as a whole, as Luke makes clear. Paul also passes on what might be an early Christian creed (see
Part 2: The Gospel), further illustrating that a mechanical view is not how Scripture was inspired.

So that leaves us with the dynamic and plenary views. I will be the first to confess that I know very little about the dynamic view of inspiration, and I invite readers (especially Mr. Hearne) to post on their own blogs an explanation to which I will link or to send me an email explaining it which I will post here.

I would say that at this time I hold to a plenary view of inspiration, since I am a believer in the full sovereignty of God. God through the working of the Holy Spirit moved the writers of Scripture to write the things they did, to accomplish His purposes in revelation. That these things are revealed in human terms illustrates nothing more than the means by which God has revealed Himself. While He does not dictate (letters to the seven churches aside, of course), He does move humans as He wills to accomplish His purposes, and this is seen throughout Scripture.

Next time (part 4.2) we’ll discuss how this view interacts with the concept of inerrancy.

What Is An Evangelical? Part 4: The Sufficiency of Scripture

Now, I believe it is a good time to expound upon the next section of my series, “What Is An Evangelical?” For previous entries in the series, check the sidebar under the heading “Evangelicalism.”

To recap: an “evangelical” is a person (preacher), church, or denomination that has the Gospel of Jesus Christ, especially the primacy of Christ’s work, as the central article of faith; that believes the spreading of the Gospel and the salvation of souls is the number one duty of the Christian; that believes all moral/spiritual truth is found in the Bible; and that Christians are called to live lives of service before God and fellow man.

Thus far we’ve discussed the meaning of “evangelical,” the Gospel, and evangelism. Today we will discuss the sufficiency of Scripture.

What do we mean by sufficiency? Dictionary.com gives a good definition: the quality of being sufficient for the end in view, with “sufficient” being understood to mean enough to meet the needs under the law of a situation or a proposed end. So understood in this way, we can understand “the sufficiency of Scripture” to mean that Scripture is enough; it is all that we need to guide our moral and spiritual lives.

I’d like to take a moment to point out I am not saying other religions or philosophies do not contain truth. Many of them do contain valid and helpful truisms. I would submit to you that this is nothing more than the “law of God written on human hearts” that Paul talks about, that instinctive knowledge that all humans possess. Also interesting is that usually any helpful truisms we find elsewhere are already biblically affirmed.

How do we get this doctrine biblically? There is a prominent text that gives us sound reasons. Let’s see 2 Timothy 3:15-17.

From childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

And to elaborate, let’s look at Hebrews 4:12.

For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

Notice, if you will, that these verses establish three doctrines simultaneously: sufficiency, inspiration, and inerrancy.

Why inerrancy? Because if something is inspired by God, does it not follow that it cannot be wrong, since God Himself cannot be wrong? What is errant is human interpretation of Scripture, not Scripture itself.

Now, if Scripture is good enough to teach us, correct us when we have erred, and train us in how to obey God (righteousness), and is never wrong; then we now can say that Scripture is sufficient for all of our moral and spiritual needs. This is why we say that Scripture contains “all moral and spiritual truth.”

Furthermore, Scripture becomes sufficient for salvation. Why? Because in Scripture contains the knowledge we need to understand who Jesus is and to come to faith in Him. I am not saying that simply knowing the Bible is enough to get saved. Many people today think all they have to do to get to heaven is read their Bibles. Let’s look at Jesus’ words in John 5:39-40:

You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about Me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life. (emphasis added)

So it is clear here that Scripture is sufficient for salvation in that it contains the witness to Christ–the Gospel. Jesus expounds on this witness by making it clear that the way to salvation is to respond to the witness of the Gospel. “You refuse to come to me that you may have life.” What a sad commentary on spiritualism–spiritualists seek to glean moral truth from the Bible, yet refuse to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior.

So, in conclusion, the “sufficiency of Scripture” refers to the concept that all moral and spiritual truth is contained in the Bible; that the Bible is able to save us by the witness of the Gospel; and that the means of that salvation is our response to the truth contained within its witness by coming to Christ in faith.

I close this installment of the series with a favorite and timeless children’s song:

The B-I-B-L-E,
Yes, that’s the book for me
I’m standing firm on the Word of God!
The B-I-B-L-E,
BIBLE!!!!!!

Join me next time for the last characteristic of an evangelical (but not the final post in the series): Christian service!

What Is An Evangelical? Part 3 - Evangelism

And now, ladies and gentlemen, we return to the most anticipated (haha) post of the past few months - Part 3 of my series, “What Is An Evangelical?” This entry we will be discussing the third mark of an evangelical: evangelism!

To recap: an “evangelical” is a person (preacher), church, or denomination that has the Gospel of Jesus Christ, especially the primacy of Christ’s work, as the central article of faith; that believes the spreading of the Gospel and the salvation of souls is the number one duty of the Christian; that believes all moral/spiritual truth is found in the Bible; and that Christians are called to live lives of service before God and fellow man.

We have discussed thus far the meaning of “evangelical” (see above paragraph) and the Gospel. Now let us turn to evangelism.

To begin, what exactly does the word evangelism mean? It comes from the Greek word euangelion, which means “good news.” I think we covered that in our first foray into the meaning of “evangelical.” In practice, evangelism involves spreading the Good News about Jesus to people who do not know Him. Sounds pretty straightforward, right? Evangelism is very simply telling people about Jesus. There are several ways we accomplish this basic act: preaching the Word and intentional conversational discussion with people. This discussion can be flat out telling people “you need Jesus” (which is what preaching does much more than conversation) or it can be something that comes about as part of every day conversation with those around us who are non-Christians. There are several methods of sharing the Gospel that have been identified but I will not discuss them here.

This is in direct obedience to the Great Commission as recorded in Matthew 28:19-20:

Go therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.

Or again in Mark 16:15:

Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation.

Now, let’s discuss some practical details about evangelism. Evangelism involves winning a person to Christ and helping them to mature as a born-again believer. At my church, my pastor invented an easy way to teach the Deaf this term: a BAB (born-again believer). There are two implications of this practical definition.

First, we must understand that the primary goal of evangelism is winning a person to Christ. If all we do is simply tell about Jesus and no one ever believes, then we may as well shut up and go home. We’re just peeing into the wind. Our words and actions must have a definite purpose, and if our purpose is not the salvation of lost individuals, of lost souls, then we have no business telling people about Jesus, period.

Further underscoring this point is that God’s word does not return to Him (and by implication, to us) empty-handed as Isaiah 55:11 tells us. It does what God has purposed for it to do. The good news about Jesus, the Evangel, will never be told by us without doing what it is intended to do. Thus our attitude must be the same as the Father’s–our evangelism must have the express purpose of winning lost souls to Christ. We must pray that every time we share Jesus with someone that the Holy Spirit will be working to secure that person’s eternal security.

Second, we must understand that evangelism does not stop with the salvation of the lost soul. We now have a commitment to the brand new BAB to nurture them in Christian growth. They are spiritual babies, and babies must be cared for, nurtured. If all we do is win them to Christ and they never grow and become mature believers, we have seriously failed. This nurturing of new Christians is what we call discipleship.

An example of this principle is the current push for church planting. Each church in the SBC is being encouraged to reproduce itself in one or more church plants. That church must be at a point in its growth where it is mature enough to “birth” and “raise” a church to maturity. That new church must then do the same, reproducing itself and raising a new church to maturity. Just so, we must be willing to not only “birth” the new Christian, but to take up the task of raising that new BAB in the way he or she must go. The goal is for that new BAB to reproduce him/herself. Indeed, that must be the goal of every Christian!

I want to make a couple of remarks about something I’ve been noticing as part of my own personal study into the theological system of the doctrines of grace. Historical Calvinism was heavily evangelistic in its practice. Modern Calvinism has largely lost this focus, from what I have seen. There is a movement now to correct this loss of purpose, and I believe this is a great thing. It would be extremely educational and practical to see Calvinistic evangelism in action.

There is much, much more that could be said here about evangelism, but that would require turning this blog into a Personal Evangelism class, and that’s beyond the scope of this series. Let’s suffice it to say that evangelism involves (1)telling people (especially lost people) about Jesus with the express purpose of winning them to Christ; and (2)discipling new converts to Christian maturity, with the goal of equipping them to win and disciple new believers themselves.

Well, that is it for part 3 of this series. Join us next time as I explore the third characteristic of the evangelical in part 4: the commitment to Scripture!

What Is An Evangelical? Part 2 - The Gospel of Christ

At long last, Part 2 of my What Is An Evangelical? series has arrived! Thanks to all who showed patience and restraint in not cussing me for delaying.

Let’s recap quickly what an evangelical is: an “evangelical” is a person (preacher), church, or denomination that has the Gospel of Jesus Christ, especially the primacy of Christ’s work, as the central article of faith; that believes the spreading of the Gospel and the salvation of souls is the number one duty of the Christian; that believes all moral/spiritual truth is found in the Bible; and that Christians are called to live lives of service before God and fellow man.

This week we are examining:

The Gospel of Jesus Christ

Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

1 Corinthians 15:1-8

It should be obvious to the reader that this is the very heart of the Gospel. Paul here repeats what is believed to be the earliest Christian creed ever. We would do well to take heed to what is the clear teaching of the Twelve to Paul.

Firstly, we need to understand that this passage underscores why the Gospel is of primary focus for evangelicals: Paul passes this confession to the Corinthians as of first importance. The Greek implies that this teaching logically is “above all,” meaning it is the one thing we cannot do without.

Christ died for our sins. Christ dies for the sins of fallen humanity. Jesus made a vicarious, sacrificial, atoning death for our sins, that through Him we might be restored to a right relationship with God.

Christ was buried. Lest anyone say, “Jesus didn’t really die,” the Apostles affirm that Jesus was buried in a tomb. You don’t waste a perfectly good tomb on someone who is alive, much less put a Roman guard on it! Never mind that from the Gospel accounts alone it can be medically verified that Jesus really did die. That made burial, well, necessary!

Christ rose from the tomb on the third day. Without the Resurrection, there is no Christianity. Period. Unless Jesus defeats death by rising from the dead, His work is in vain, God is thwarted, and we are hopelessly lost in a never ending cycle of sin. Paul says that if Jesus did not rise from the dead, we are to be pitied most of all humanity, for we have been horribly deceived. Our entire lives have been a worthless waste. (1 Cor. 15:12-19)

Christ appeared to many eyewitnesses after the Resurrection. Without appearing to those who knew Him, how would we know that He rose from the dead? For all we know, the tomb is still sealed tightly, waiting for an archaeologist to uncover it. But it is interesting to note that He appeared to so many people that it cannot be dismissed as grief, hallucinations, mob mentality, or “group-think.” Even more interesting is that no Jewish authority from the time denies that His tomb was empty! Instead they tried to explain it away. Quite implausibly, I must add.

The presence of eyewitnesses further cements early Christian history and theology, because if anyone tried to slander Jesus or make up false stories about him, you had eyewitnesses who could refute or corroborate any reports. The Gospel thus receives a firm grounding in reality by the presence of eyewitnesses.

But it is interesting to note the addendum “in accordance with the Scriptures.” This indicates that Christ died for us only because it has pleased God to allow Him to do so. God declared His will in His word, the Bible, and Jesus performed it expressly and perfectly. All other parts of this confession must be understood in the context that nothing happened unless God expressly willed it. How this enlightens Jesus’s statement in John 5 that He can only do what He sees the Father doing!

Just think, from the beginning of time (nay before time began!), God saw me and planned meticulously to save me, and allowed Jesus to see me and carry out that plan save me, and led the Holy Spirit to move me into His wondrous light. How humbling. I am driven to my knees in thanksgiving and praise to God, that He would have mercy on me, a sinner.

As you may be able to see, this explanation of the Gospel of Christ leads into several essential Christian doctrines, namely the doctrines of atonement, resurrection, and sovereignty, to name three obvious choices. These doctrines themselves give birth to others which help flesh out what Christians historically have believed. So the centrality of the Gospel in evangelical (and indeed Christian) thought is illustrated.

So, then, the Gospel of Jesus Christ proclaims that before the hands of the watch began to move, before God placed the singularity that caused the Big Bang (”Let There Be Light!”), God knew us. According to His divine and sovereign will, He sent His Son as a ransom, a sacrifice, for our sins, an atonement by which we are made right with God for ever. By His grace we are able to accept the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. “By grace are you saved through faith, and that not of yourselves–it is the gift of God; not by works, so that no one can boast (Ephesians 2:8-9).”

Don’t you want the same kind of faith that can trust in God’s power over existence? Faith that can save you through the atoning work of Jesus? This, my friend, is the Gospel. Jesus died and rose again so that by God’s grace you might be saved. Won’t you pray that His grace extend to you, that you might believe and be saved? “If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. (Romans 10:9-10)” You don’t need to get right with God (clean up your life) first–this is HOW you get right with God! He declares His grace is enough for you, because His strength is made perfect in weakness (2 Corinthians 12:9)! Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you WILL be saved!

Next time in Part 3 we will examine evangelism, the second trait of an evangelical. Thanks for reading!

What Is An Evangelical? Part 1

First off, thanks to The Evangelical Outpost for providing a summary answer to this question that answers everything I’ve read on the subject–this post is largely based off of that summary.
So now, on to business: What, just what, is an evangelical?

It is a word fraught with many meanings…okay, really there is one central meaning. The word evangelical, at its root, is unavoidably tied to the Gospels. The word evangel, or “good news,” is the word used of the four Gospels in our New Testament. So, at root, an evangelical is one who follows the Gospels. Sounds simple.

The “evangelical church” is a term originating with Martin Luther during the Reformation. Describing his church, he coined the phrase evangelische kirke, which is still used to describe the Lutheran church today. So, given the above definition, an “evangelical church” is one that places primary emphasis on the Gospels. Sounds even simpler.

But here’s where things get a little wonky for us.

As the Great Awakening emerged, the term “evangelical” came to be used of the preachers, churches, movements, and denominations that arose from this period. Some prominent evangelicals of this time (can they be called proto-evangelicals?) include Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, and Charles and John Wesley. So now we have “evangelical” referring to preachers, churches, and denominations that not only followed the Gospels as their primary emphasis but also placed a large chunk of real estate on fulfilling the Great Commission, or evangelism (spreading the Good News to those who are lost). Still simple, but a little more complex.

The World Evangelical Alliance puts this definition very practically: “By definition an evangelical is someone concerned for the gospel. This means more than that he preaches the gospel now and then. It means that for him the gospel of Christ is central. It is, of course, his message and he preaches it, constantly. But it is more than a subject of preaching. The gospel is at the centre of his thinking and living.”

But now, the modern use of the term “evangelical” further complicates the matter. It now refers to:

• conversion, or “the belief that lives need to be changed”;
• the Bible, or the “belief that all spiritual truth is to be found in its pages”;
• activism, or the dedication of all believers, including laypeople, to lives of service for God, especially as manifest in evangelism (spreading the good news) and mission (taking the gospel to other societies);
• the conviction that Christ’s death was the crucial matter in providing reconciliation between a holy God and sinful humans.

As you can see, we have now gone beyond simple adherence to the Gospel and the spreading of that Gospel to a theological framework. “Evangelical” now refers to preachers, churches, and denominations that not only follow the Gospel and spread it, but believe that the salvation of souls, the primacy of Scripture, Christian service, and the centrality of Christ’s work are the central tenets of faith. This looks good, and is actually a biblical framework.

We also call churches that follow this framework “evangelical.” This encompasses Southern Baptists, most Pentecostals and Charismatics, some Reformed churches, conservative wings of Presbyterians, Methodists, and Episcopalians, among others.

Modern evangelicals, it would seem, are not fundamentalists. None of the “evangelicals” I know or have talked to around campus and elsewhere would like having that term ascribed to them. I’ve always said a fundamentalist is much more accurately found in Pentecostal, Charismatic, or Independent churches and denominations. A fundamentalist, to us, is seen as an “anti-intellectual separatist” who is very hostile to the secular world. You know who these people are–they’re the ones screaming about the evils of Halloween, the Catholic church, the evils of Eastern meditation in the martial arts, the evils of dancing, and the need for women to wear ankle-length dresses and long sleeve shirts, among other things. While a lot of evangelicals do make a point of these things, the last two (dancing and ankle-length dresses) underscores what a fundamentalist really is: a Christian Pharisee. Evangelicals are not, or at least we strive not to be, Pharisees.

So, in conclusion, an “evangelical” is a person (preacher), church, or denomination that has the Gospel of Jesus Christ, especially the primacy of Christ’s work, as the central article of faith; that believes the spreading of the Gospel and the salvation of souls is the number one duty of the Christian; that believes all moral/spiritual truth is found in the Bible; and that Christians are called to live lives of service before God and fellow man.

So far, so good. I like this definition of “evangelical.” You could sign me up in a heartbeat…oh wait, I’m already there. I think that a good next step would be to examine each of these points in a little more detail. Again, thanks to The Evangelical Outpost for providing an excellent summary of everything I’ve read on the above information!