I've been very busy all day, so unable to interact with the comments on my earlier post about the Ja... er, Patr... er, Francis Chan video. So I'll flex my blogly liberty and do some interaction right here, right now.
Carla — thanks for asking. I simply said I attached no significance to Chan doing something at a camp where Ergun Caner also will do something. Once upon a time you, Carla, could have seen a list of preachers including an Episcopalian, a Roman Catholic, a Foursquare — and me! What should you have concluded from that list? Nothing, except that I had a chance to preach, and grabbed it. (You already know the story from here.)
I mostly leave Frank and Willow to their dialogue. As to my post, I said "A," Willow says, "No, B."
Listen to the video, decide for yourself whether a video that forcefully presents the lostness of man, the holiness of God, the inviolability of God's Law, the penal, substitutionary death of Christ for sinners, salvation by faith alone through Christ alone by grace alone, the Sonship of Christ, the claims of discipleship, and the unique exclusivity of Jesus, can fairly be written off as "non-Gospel," let alone "Arminian" (any more than "post-tribulational" or "pedo-baptist").
Let me expand a bit on the invocation of Arminius and Finney. I do think that some folks, if they read someone writing "Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God!" would conclude that the writer was a Finneyite, or perhaps even a full-out Pelagian. If
they didn't know it was Paul (2 Corinthians 5:20). "'Implore?'" they would scoff. "As if God is some pathetic beggar on the street! God doesn't implore -- He commands, and demands!"Look, friends, be honest about it. Read Isaiah, Ezekiel, and above all Jeremiah. Transport those messages into modern and Christian parlance. Tell me that some of Chan's critics wouldn't be leveling the same sorts of accusations against those prophecies. God, yearning over His people, reaching out to them, rejected, but still compassionate, likening himself to a spurned spouse? "Degrading," some would surely spit. "Pathetic. As if God, the great King of the Universe, ever grovels and pines in such a way!"
The prophets thought He did.
Frank Martens — My only problem with the video is where Chan says that "God is crazy about you." I think better language could have been used. Because we all know that we don't know if God is crazy about a particular person. We know that God is crazy about His elect, and angry and those who are in condemnation.
I agree. The apostles never found a need to say it or anything like it in such a setting, so I don't see that we need to, either.
But like you (if I'm reading you right), to me, that doesn't merit damning the video or Pastor Chan, as he very clearly calls to repentance, faith, and discipleship.
Cindy Bleil asks: Dear TeamPyro, I so appreciate your biblical teaching here at Pyromaniacs. It has been tremendously helpful and I thank you for your fine work. ...If you were making a 15 minute video for use as a means for witnessing to the lost, what key elements would you include in your presentation of the gospel? What do you think people need to hear about the Lord Jesus Christ?
Cindy, it's a great question. I reserve the right to re-examine it more analytically at another time. But for now:
I once wrote a paper that our church used for door-to-door evangelism. It's online now, called How Can I Know God? Take a look at it, if you will. Very un-slick. It might take 10-15 minutes to read. There you will see, unedited, what I did in fact stress.
But I wrote other tracts with other focus-points as well. One focused largely on the person of Christ. I have another evangelistic/apologetic essay online, titled "Why I Am (Still) a Christian." You'll see that it has still another emphasis.
I will say again: if the prophets, apostles, and our Lord are our models, different settings and different audiences will call for different emphases (compare Acts 13:16-41 and 17:22-31, for instance). In the secular world, it doesn't make sense to criticize (say) Schindler's List because it wasn't very funny. We know it wasn't supposed to be funny.
So likewise, I think it illegitimate to fault one kind of presentation because it's a poor model of something it didn't set out to be.
Do we want people to reason to themselves, "Well gee, if I can't say everything, and say it perfectly, I'd better not say anything"?
I don't think so.
27 comments:
I'm grateful, Dan, for your comments re: "Finneyism" etc. It was bothering me that there seem to be folks who conflate that term with Arminianism, with a hefty does of Semi-Pelagianism thrown in, and think it all works out to the same thing. It does not, and it's sloppy theology to think so. Your balance in these exchanges is much appreciated.
Dan,
thanks for addressing some of the comments like this. Now, I don't mean to be nit-picky, but you did point this out in the first place, so I wondered about it.
The Chan/Caner thing isn't exactly a couple of guys on a longer list of pastors all at the same place at the same time. These two will actually be pastoring together, for the June 25-29th deal in Texas.
Now, lest I be guilty of assigning GBA (and I honestly do not mean to), to me this says a bit more than just a bunch of names on a list, at the same place at the same time.
It just doesn't sit well. Maybe I'm dead wrong.
Doggone it, Dan. I can't help but like you boys, you and frank,( yes, Phil. You too).
Yet, if y'all keep edifying me, I won't be able to ever leave any snarky comments.
I simply enjoy reading what you offer.
ta ta, Steven
Like Carla, I have a hard time understanding how the two of them preaching together can NOT mean something.
Don't forget that Caner is a synergist who thinks Calvinists are worse than Muslims. And don't think Caner will allow any Calvinism to crop up in Chan's presentation of the Gospel. Caner is the guy who said "elected because I selected."
Steven:
it's because we're the real calvnists. The rests are something else.
___________________________
DJP:
Dude, you bump me any time. It's a relief on a day like today.
it's because we're the real calvnists. The rests are something else.
I'll assume that's a joke...the last line that is.
Dan and Frank, I just want to say thanks for your attitude in all this. Even though I disagree with a little bit of what Chan said, and even though i'd use a completely different approach, I can't imagine how someone could condemn Chan for his message. I guarantee seeds are being planted and genuine conversions are happening.
There's nothing wrong with critiquing Chan, but we have to remember what our mother's always told us, "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all." In other words, if the only thing that has come out of your mouth in regards to Chan's message is ridicule, then you should do what Frank said; don't blog for a week and think about what you've said.
Carla, wonderful yooman bean that you are: And me preaching in the same service as a Roman Catholic priest?
What is so hard about just not. concluding. ANYTHING. until. we. know. MORE?
Good question Dan. Those that didn't know you or your motivations would likely assume you were ecumenical, I suppose.
Those that did know you might likely understand you were there to present a Biblical message.
I'm not concluding anything at all, which is why I said something just doesn't sit right with all this, and that I could be wrong.
I'd love to have Pastor Chan explain (if for no other reason than to clear the air, since I assure you I'm not the only one who found that link you posted, curious at best) why he's co-pastoring with man who makes a mockery of our faith and calls us worse than Muslims, but I somehow doubt that is going to happen.
Just thinking outloud.
Dan:
Thanks for this post. A few thoughts for you:
1. You didn't exactly represent 2 Cor. 5:20 accurately. "Implore" (beseech, pray, beg - first, plural, present, passive indicative) is the role of us as His ambassadors. Tyndale translates it this way, "Now then we are messengers in the room with Christ." That really says it well. We do this representing the dignity and power of the Sovereign as His ambassadors. IOW, we "plead" with people on behalf of Christ. We are Christ's Legates.
However, in the next sentence is the command. "..be reconciled to God." This is the imperative used with the dative case and literally means, "get reconciled to God." Similar as in Acts 17:30 ".. God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent," Declare is a command.
We plead with men; God commands them. There is the balance in this verse.
2. You list many theological terms that you think Pastor Chan represented in this short film. Could you please quote his words that support your "list." It would be most helpful--for many of us find several of these you mention (i.e., Eternal Sonship) not present. Hearing Chan's words directly and not your construal of them would be appreciated.
3. Chan partnering with Caner means everything - not "nothing" as you suggest. Pastor Chan needs to reconsider this "partnership" of ministry with Dr. Caner knowing Caner's utter disregard and venom for the doctrines of grace and for those who hold them dear, If Dr. Caner is willing to repent to James White and Tom Ascol; and publicly ask forgiveness for his lies, deception and divisiveness then there would be ground to reconsider his employ with Caner. The two of them will be sharing the pulpit as the "camp pastors." This is an intimate alliance--not just a casual situation.
Another example of this, yet in a different way, would be Ed Young, Jr. and Mark Driscoll partnering with T.D. Jakes (who is a heretic--a Sabellianist denying the very nature of the One Triune God) at Ed's church in February for a pastor's conference (Ed Young senior will be there too). This is profound that two SBC pastors do not think the doctrine of the Trinity is an essential doctrine worth separating over. Jakes worships a different god than the God of the Bible; he is a wold in sheep's clothing and must be treated as a nonbeliever.
Similar also to Dr. James Kennedy having Romanist Father Frank Pavone to share the platform with him at his Reclaim America for Christ conference in March. This is also significant and says a great deal about him. Kennedy considers his "political cause" more important than truth. Kennedy who stood shoulder to shoulder with MacArthur and Sproul against ECT ten years ago, now changed his position. Very tragic indeed.
Thankfully, one scheduled brother withdrew from the conference over conviction on this very issue.
It's not nothing Dan--it means everything.
3. Lastly, no one is suggesting that one must say everything perfectly and completely all the time--that's a straw man. But it is a biblical expectation for a pastor if he is to honor the is charge of 2 Tim. 4:1-5 to preach the word, fulfill his ministry and do the work of an evangelist to get the gospel right. For Chan to purposely leave out the resurrection (for whatever reason) is not a theological oops--it is a tremendous lapse in judgment and renders his well made video presentation "in vain" (1 Cor. 15:1-5, 12-17). Without the resurrection Dan, there is no gospel.
Thank you again for your post--it is good to dialogue with you on these things.
Grace and peace to you brother,
Steve
2 Cor. 5:21
>if the prophets, apostles, and >our Lord are our models, >different settings and different >audiences will call for different >emphases (compare Acts 13:16-41
>and 17:22-31, for instance).
This is the red herring thrown into the discussion every time someone claiming to be a "calvinist" is exposed as a calvinist wannabe.
"Contextualization" is an overplayed card in our schmamby pamby evangelicalism. And it's certiainly overplayed in defending the indefensible (such as "despite everything you've done in your life, God still loves you and he doesn't want to punish you", which is patently false in all of its Finneyan nonsense). "Contextualization" is the means by which many turn, even subtly, what is supposed to be theocentric and Christocentric, into a me-oriented, anthropocentric message.
The truth is that the emphases and the message of Acts 13 AND 17 are *the same*. The message given to the men of Israel is the same one with the same content as the one given at the Areopagus. Both presumed a knowledge of the Old Testament. Both proclaimed Christ's death. Both blatantly called its hearers to repent. Both landed on the resurrection. In this regard, Acts 17 is the most abused and misused text by those who think they can dumb down the message without compromising the gospel.
bruess wane:
You are correct and well said. Acts 13 and Acts 17 are both saying the same thing. The message, not the audience, is sovereign.
I think we all might be assuming something in this discussion.. Is Pastor Chan a true five point Calvinist? Does he claim to be reformed in his soteriology? This video might not be a blip on the radar screen, but his true beliefs on film.
Could he be a four point Calminian? :-). (I have emailed him but as of yet have not heard back from him).
If we only had a short-film of the Apostle Paul in Perga in Pamphylia (Acts 13) or in Athens before the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers at the Areopagus (Acts 17) preaching the gospel (and he didn't leave out the resurrection) with conviction and boldness. Now that would have been tremendous!
There is an inherent offense to the cross isn't there; "it is foolishness to those who are perishing" (1 Cor. 1:18-24). This video goes out of its way to soften that offense and makes the gospel anthropocentric with the Arminian/Finneyan language of romanticism, invitationalism, and emotionalism.
Spurgeon brings sobriety of mind to this issue when he so aptly says, Brethren, there is nothing in the gospel, apart from the Spirit of God, which can save a man, for man hates the gospel with all his heart! Though the reasonableness of the gospel of Jesus ought to make the belief of it universal, yet its plain dealing with human sin excites deadly antagonism.
Therefore, the gospel itself would make no progress were it not for the divine power. There is an invisible arm which pushes forward the conquests of the truth. There is a fire unfed with human fuel, which burns a way for the truth of Jesus Christ into the hearts of men."
Hi Dan
One thing I really appreciate about the pyro site are its dimensions. I feel that you guys mostly (though certainly not always!) manage to pitch things in the right way in terms of theological depth, evangelical narrowness, and gracious breadth. Keep it up. I enjoyed your analogy from the OT, and the picture of imploring prophets.
Iain Murray (in print) and Stuart Olyott (on Banner of Truth audio) speak powerfully and passionately about the need to 'persuade' men. These are two individuals whom I regard as Reformed statesmen - I don't know how widespread their influence is on your side of the Atlantic. Murray's article which I mentioned in a comment on Frank's post 'The Cross - the Pulpit of God's Love' deals with many of the issues you discuss, injecting a strong element of application and injunction.
Many thanks again for all of the help your site provides to us.
You got the last word in, Steve. I'm glad you found some people to agree with you.
I'm done. God bless you.
>Is Pastor Chan a true five point >Calvinist? Does he claim to be >reformed in his soteriology?
I'm not sure we can make that kind of judgment from this video. I'm not familiar with Chan. This is the first I've heard him speak.
What we can say is that his offer of the gospel is that it is non-Lordship/easy believism which garned attention in the MacArthur vs. Ryrie debate of the 80's. This video is clearly on the Ryrie side of the debate. It doesn't have a call to repentance (a call to say "I love you" and "follow Jesus" is *not* reflective of the biblical definition of repentance) and its confession of faith is nothing more than "I love you". Further, in the grand tradition of non-Lordship revivalism, the helpless Savior standing outside the heart's door begging entry has been updated to a helpless God on one knee begging his bride to accept his marriage proposal. And the "accepting Jesus" language is the same... nothing in that part of the revivalistic offer has been updated. As creative as Chan seems to be in this video with his gospel offer, if he's as Calvinistic as some seem to think he is, one would think he would have found a creative (dare we say postmodern) way of talking about cross-bearing, the resurrection, and bowing the knee to King Jesus. Unfortunately, it's not there... what is there is an updated non-lordship presentation.
And IMHO, the context of Chan's offer is universal atonement. He goes beyond the universal, well-meant offer of the gospel when he says "God doesn't want to punish you". That phrase betrays a denial of limited atonement/particular redemption.
I have been absolutely amazed that some who call themselves Reformed and Calvinist have signed off on this video. The issue here isn't Chan. Whether he is a 5-pointer isn't the issue. The issue is what we reformed types are endorsing as legitimate contextualization of the gospel and its offer to sinners.
Steve, good to hear from you. I don't know where I've read so much I agree with and disagree with in the same post, though.
Do you really want to do Greek with me? I didn't know you'd studied it. Where? I started studying it in 1973. Not pulling rank, as I have none to pull. Just wondering where and when you did your preparation.
It would be a pity to be criticizing someone for being irresponsible and inaccurate, while doing the same oneself.
Wherever you studied, they should have explained deponent verbs to you better, though. deometha isn't passive, it's a deponent verb, middle in form but active in meaning. That's the sort of misstatement a non-Greek student might get from a tool.
I have no problem with your calling attention to the words immediately after it; they are indeed in the imperative. But nothing in the imperative fails to accord with a plea.
But I just think you should also have noticed the words immediately preceding deometha, namely: hos tou theou parakalountos di' hemon, deometha huper Christou — "as if God is appealing through us, we plead on Christ's behalf...." It's not that opaque. Paul represents the plea as God's own plea, made through him on Christ's behalf.
What are we trying to shave here? You've read the Old Testament. Do you really want to try to argue that God commands, but does not plead? Yikes.
That's all I have time for; more, actually. More's the pity.
On the subject of pity, though, to me, this is it: I don't doubt that you, Frank and I agree on a host of issues that separate us not only from the rest of the world at large, but from much of professing Christendom. Passionately agree.
I just think you're being harsh, alarmist, and hyper, on a very thin basis. I don't know when I've seen a more classic "Shoot first, ask questions later" scenario.
>Do you really want to try to argue >that God commands, but does not >plead?
The point is that the plea and the command in that passage are one and the same. Paul's definition of "plead" is not the same definition of "plead" being exampled by a helpless God on his knees begging his bride to accept his marriage proposal. That kind of example is foreign to not only 2 Cor. 5, but Acts 13 and 17 (as well as the rest of scripture).
How does the Father draw His sheep to His Son, the Good Shepherd, who laid down His life for His sheep, and is now the risen King of kings?
By speaking the truth in love.
The truth is definitely being watered down big time in the Church today.
And there are also those who preach the truth, and the "in love" is very weak, or missing altogether.
Do we really believe God loves the people we are preaching to?
Do we really believe the gospel is the power unto salvation? Christ crucified and risen!
When these two are are firmly joined in a heart of one of God's ambassador's, then the outcome will be conversions.
Frank:
It is not a case of finding a few people who agree with me; that’s not the objective when the Scriptures are clear on this.
Once again, one of the key concerns of this film comes down to: was the resurrection of Jesus Christ mentioned, proclaimed and explained? No it was not. Therefore, there was no gospel proclaimed.
To illustrate, last year, I had a very good discussion about Rick Warren's PDL material with one of the pastors at Grace Community Church who I have known for many years and for whom I hold in high regard. We both agreed that the PDL material has some profound problems biblically--no surprise. In Rick's presentation of the gospel (which was very weak to say the least) there was no mention of the resurrection at all. My friend’s words to me were simple and profound: "if there is no resurrection proclaimed, then you have no gospel no matter what else he has said."
That is the same standard being applied here.
No resurrection; no gospel. Pastor Chan has not presented a false gospel in the limited material he chose to use; he just hasn't presented the gospel.
Dan:
Chad's comment says it well on your comment about 2 Cor. 5:20. Paul's definition of "plead" is not the same definition of "plead" being exampled by a helpless God on his knees begging his bride to accept his marriage proposal. That kind of example is foreign to not only 2 Cor. 5, but Acts 13 and 17 (as well as the rest of scripture).
The context for 2 Cor. 5:20 is reconciliation to God. We are Christ's ambassadors pleading with people on behalf of Christ (we implore you) to - "get reconciled to God!" (and there's the command)
There is no, God is crazy about you; it's like the whole universe is proposing to you; just fall in love with Jesus; He's waiting for you to accept Him... nomenclature. It would have been tremendous if Pastor Chan would just have been true to the text and employed this verse (and its methods) in his film.
You made the assertion yesterday that "I do think that some folks, if they read someone writing "Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God!" would conclude that the writer was a Finneyite, or perhaps even a full-out Pelagian." Come on Dan, I expect more from you than that. There is nothing of Finney that verse and no one would ever draw that conclusion.
The Finney label on Chan's video refers to presenting a God who is down on one knee proposing marriage and begging sinful man to get engaged... and then being presented as a powerless lover, who is waiting for man to decide to "choose and accept Him." This is Arminian/Finney sentiment and a form of invitationalism. It is what MacArthur wrote against in part in "The Gospel According to Jesus." It is unbridled emotionalism without the constraint of biblical truth.
Lastly, no one is pulling the trigger here Dan in a casual way "shoot first..." except those who too quickly endorsed this film before really studying its contents. What is unfortunate, is that when someone as a seasoned pastor purposely and explicitly leaves out essentials of the gospel in their presentation such as: repentance from sin, the Lordship of Christ, the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, in what is a very well produced piece designed to communicate the gospel, then the end result is unfortunate; what nonbelievers are viewing is no gospel at all – even if other truth claims biblically were made (which they were).
Help me understand this brother: Myself and many others are contending that those elements should be a part of any effective gospel presentation. Surely, you’re not suggesting the contrary, are you? I would find it hard to believe that you would think they shouldn't be included; for that doesn't sound like the Dan I have come to respect on this blog through his writings.
With Chan's education from Master's college and Seminary; and then serving in pastoral ministry for many years (which his church's website reflects in some excellent material there), this movie's content should have been spot on. Frankly, this kind of video I would have expected from Erwin McManus, Ed Young, Jr., Rick Warren, Bill Hybels or the late Bill Bright.
"We preach not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord..."
There is the mandate--we just need to do it.
My only regret in all that I have read this past week, is that some have chosen to attack me personally and not stay focused on examining the contents of this video from the Word of God (that is why I didn’t comment here for a few days). I am grateful you have not taken that path.
I do appreciate you Dan. This is an important discussion. May it continue with humility, charity, in truth, and to God and His glory alone.
Grace and peace to you,
Steve
1 Cor. 15:1-5
I think I'll largely stay out of this fight except to say that I just finished listening to Phil's interview with John MacArthur on the doctrine of election. I loved how John forcefully demonstated the need and command to evangelize, urging people to be reconciled to God. Only God knows who His elect are, and He has chosen the foolishness of preaching to reach them.
It is worthy of note that the immediate result of Paul's preaching in Athens was that some sneered, but others wanted to hear more. It seems to me that Pastor Chan's video is intended the same way -- not as the final word, but as an invitation to hear more. Nothing wrong with that that I can see, so long as the "more" is the whole gospel. This seems perfectly legitimate as a first step. We must remember that it is really the Holy Spirit who issues the call, and that can come by any number of Scriptural means. If Pastor Chan were to preach this way only, there would be cause for alarm. But from what I can discern that is not the case.
JSB wrote:
>It seems to me that Pastor Chan's >video is intended the same way -- >not as the final word
I don't think anyone here would disagree with this. But this still doesn't explain the Finneyan and Amyraldian theology in the "invitation to hear more".
"God doesn't want to punish you" is patently false. The helpless God begging for the sinner to accept his marriage proposal is categorically unbiblical. The entire "God wants to have a relationship with you" evangelism rubric is both Arminian and laden with self-esteem implications (I've heard Joel Osteen say the same thing on numerous occasions. That Osteen says it doesn't automatically make it wrong, but it should give pause). The initial pragmatic presentation of the law as making the world "a better place to live" is inherently moralistic. And recasting the first question of the Westminster Catechism ("the whole point of life") as a "story about a God who wants to give to us" is humanist anthropocentrism.
I don't hear anyone denying that this kind of video can function as an introduction to the gospel (though, if Acts 17 is touted as the example as it has been here, we're forced to note its grounds in the OT, call to repentance, and the preaching of Christ crucified and risen). In fact, for my own self, I would not have joined the conversation were this video not defended by those claiming to be Calvinist and Reformed. This video is something I would expect from Greg Laurie or Erwin McManus. If it were from that camp I live with it as a reality of our post-Second Awakening/Finneyan evangelicalism and its non-Lordship, easy believism, and Arminian theology. That Calvinists and Reformed types would endorse it says more about the state of Reformed theology in America than it does about Chan, Laurie, or whoever.
The theology in the video is unbiblical. Period.
The Apostle Peter says "The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you,[a] not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance."
Bruess Wayne says "'God doesn't want to punish you' is patently false."
hmmm...I don't have much to say about all this...I'm not a greek expert, so maybe there's some interpretation of this verse where it would actually mean "God is not patient and wants to punish you!"
Peter is talking about the elect... those in the invisible church. Contra the popular Arminian interpretation of that verse, he is not talking about the general offer of the gospel.
One other thought concerning Peter and Chan... what makes the statement patently false in the video is that the statement is made in the context of explaining the sinner's relationship to the law. In fact, later Chan will say that God will punish the guilty. I think it's the very same Piper (non-contextually used against some of us in this discussion in a most recent post) who has made a habit of pointing out the implicit in God's punishment of sinners: God wants to punish sinners... because God only does what he *wants* (a thought that courses through all of Jonathan Edwards' theology). If God did not *want* to punish sinners, he wouldn't.
Thus, the statement in Chan's context is patently false. Sinner's sin. God is just. Therefore God not only must punish sin, he wants to punish sin... because it is not man who is God's chief interest, but God and His own glory.
But then again, I'm guessing Chan and maybe some of the others here, in very non-reformed/non-Calvinist fashion, deny double predestination. Which merely proves the original point.
breuss,
How do you see this verse?
"Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing you lack: go and sell all you have, and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven: and come take up your cross, and follow me." Mark 10:21
Jesus loved [agapao] this young unregenerate man.
Just wondering.
hmmm... it seems a bit redundant for the Apostle to say God doesn't want any of those who aren't going to perish, to perish. If that's Armenian logic then I'm disappointed in myself. There is a difference is general will, and the volitional will of God. God "wants" to punish sinners in so much that he hates sin and must punish it. But that doesn't mean he can't at the same "want" sinners to repent, and show them loving patience.
Post a Comment