The following article was written by Chris Bolt @ ChoosingHats.com

Introduction

In April 1518 Martin Luther was called upon by the Augustinian order of Germany to set out and defend his theology at the General Chapter of Heidelberg. While Luther was rather thoroughly surrounded by controversy he would be presenting the theological ideas which had produced this controversy to those who shared much of his Augustinian thinking. The name of the presentation Luther delivered is the Heidelberg Disputation. The Heidelberg Disputation consists of a number of theses divided between philosophical theses and theological theses. The theological theses are explained in much greater detail than are the philosophical theses. Luther actually overlooks further explanation of his philosophical theses and chooses instead to let them stand on their own whereas after initially stating his theological theses he returns to them in order to further explicate and defend them. Perhaps this is a reason that the philosophical theses are largely overlooked in literature written on Luther. It may also be that theologians do not want to interact with strictly philosophical concepts in Luther and by extension Aristotle or that the philosophers who would perhaps be better suited to address Luther’s understanding of Aristotle are simply not generally interested in Luther as a philosopher. Whatever the reason is for the relative silence regarding Luther’s philosophical theses in his Heidelberg Disputation it is evident that Luther’s theology and philosophy are inextricably connected to one another so that a deeper understanding of Luther’s philosophical theses lends greater insight into Luther’s theology and vice versa.[1]

Heidelberg Disputation

The Heidelberg Disputation is of utmost importance “for understanding Luther’s developed theology.”[2]

Here he not only expanded his theology of sin, grace, and free will, but also offered his own positive theological agenda centered in the “theology of the cross” (theologia crucis). In this formulation of theological method we begin to hear Luther’s distinctive contribution.[3]
Sin, grace, and free will had everything to do with Luther’s theses on philosophy because he found the traditional use and abuse of Aristotle by the Catholic Church to be every bit as mistaken as the theology of the Catholic Church in general and for the same reasons.

Luther had come to think that the trouble with the whole tradition that had developed from Thomas Aquinas was that it tended to be dominated by its opening theological moves. Since the existence of God could be shown rationally or philosophically a style of theology developed that moved too smoothly from what could be known and comprehended clearly in creation to the grace of God in Jesus Christ. Though Thomas himself was clear that the saving mysteries could not be known by reason, much of the energy of subsequent theology went into these foundational questions.[4]
Sin has such far reaching consequences that the intellect of humanity is affected by it and hence is not trustworthy when utilized apart from the revelation of God. Grace is necessary not only for salvation but also to free the mind from its mistaken philosophical wanderings. Salvation does not come through human reasoning by way of philosophy operating in accord with itself or in accord with unaided and unregenerate human thought. Luther thus went after those places where the faulty and incomplete views on sin, grace, and free will held by the Catholic Church had resulted in faulty philosophy as well. The Catholic Church was essentially basing their theology upon pagan philosophy. Luther believed this to be a completely backward approach and insisted upon having his theology of the cross as the lens through which both philosophy and theology may be correctly understood and used. To do otherwise is to contradict Scripture.

The theologians of Martin Luther’s day were infatuated with imposing unbiblical ideas upon the doctrine of God and the Bible through secular philosophy.

This could obscure what St. Paul had taught so forcefully: the cross of Christ is not a concept compatible with human wisdom and philosophy, but only with deep folly and offense. The cross is not inspiring but a scandal. Therefore the true theologian is not the one who argues from visible and evident things (following Aristotle), but rather the one who has learned from the cross that the ways of God are hidden (des absconditus), even in the revelation of Jesus Christ.[5]
The Heidelberg Disputation is rather well developed with Luther elaborating upon his philosophy and theology by drawing out conclusions from Scripture and showing how the views of different theologians relate to one another and also his own view.[6]

What emerges in this document is Luther’s radically grace-centered theology that sets the righteousness of God not only against the claims of philosophy for wisdom, but also against all the best moral achievement of humanity. It is an appeal to rediscover the sharp voice of Augustine (especially in his controversy with Pelagius), which apparently had become muted even in the Augustinian order.[7]
Of course, Augustine was hardly Luther’s only resource in theological controversy. The words and works of Luther are saturated with biblical thought and he no doubt had passages of Scripture in mind even while writing out his theses concerning philosophy.

Scripture

In 1 Corinthians 1.18-25 the Apostle Paul writes concerning the Gospel or “word of the cross.” It will be shown that Luther alludes to this passage during the course of presenting his philosophical theses when he speaks of becoming “thoroughly foolish in Christ.” The word of the cross which is the Gospel is not perceived as being wise or even reasonable by those who reject it. Those who have received the word of the cross view it as being the power of God and are being saved by it. It is likely that their being saved by the word of the cross is one of the reasons they do view the cross as the power of God. Meanwhile, those who are not being saved but are perishing count the word of the cross as folly. They consider it foolishness rather than power or wisdom and consider themselves to be wise even in their proclamation that the cross is foolish.

Paul quotes from the Old Testament that God will destroy the “wisdom of the wise.” In Paul’s context the “wise” at least includes the Greeks. Aristotle, whom Luther is writing about in his philosophical theses, is thus numbered among the wise of Paul’s passage. In verse 20 Paul asks rhetorically, “Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?” In verse 21 Paul appeals to the wise counsel of God as ultimately behind the placement of human reason in God’s redemptive plan. It is not possible for someone to come to know God through wisdom. Wisdom might be taken to refer more specifically to human wisdom, reasoning, or philosophy. God has determined that the world will not know Him through wisdom. Perhaps the reason for this is the weakness of humanity’s reasoning, the arrogance which often accompanies human wisdom, the uneven inclinations people have toward philosophical understanding, or something else along these lines. Not surprisingly Luther appeared to ground the folly of using reasoning as a path to God in the inability of humanity resulting from sin. The verse does not give a reason for God’s having determined that human wisdom would have the place that it does in His redemptive plan. What the passage does state is that it was wise of God to make things this way. It is “in the wisdom of God” that the world “did not know God through wisdom.”

Paul goes on in verse 21 to explain that while wisdom is not a route to the knowledge of God foolishness is for “it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.” Paul is following verse 18 and presenting his case from the perspective of those who are perishing and believe that the “word of the cross is folly.” Paul and the Apostles preached what is considered folly, not wisdom, because they preached the Gospel message which is the word of the cross. God is nevertheless pleased in saving those who believe this message that is considered foolishness by the standards of even the wisest reprobate.

Verses 22 and 23 describe Greeks or Gentiles as seeking wisdom but finding the preaching of Christ crucified to be folly. What is true for the Greek of Paul’s time is no less true for the earlier Aristotle or any other number of other people for whom the message of the cross is foolishness as compared to the human wisdom some attempt to use in order to come to know God. All people come to the saving knowledge of God not through the means of human wisdom, but through belief in the Gospel. In verse 18 those who see the word of the cross as the power of God are those who are being saved, in verse 21 those who are being saved are those who believe the word of the cross, and in verse 24 those who see Christ as the power and wisdom of God are those who are called from both the Jews and the Greeks. The difference between those who see the cross as foolishness and those who see it as power and wisdom is that the latter are saved while the former are not. The reason that some are saved while others are not is because the saved have believed on Christ. The reason that some Greeks believe while others do not is not because of wisdom, but because of God’s call based in His gracious election. People are ultimately saved not because they are wiser than others, but because they are chosen by God. (1 Corinthians 1.27) Hence the route to the knowledge of God according to the Bible is by grace through faith. (Ephesians 2.8)

Philosophy

In his 29th thesis Luther writes that, “He who wishes to philosophize by using Aristotle without danger to his soul must first become thoroughly foolish in Christ.”[8] In this statement Luther does not dismiss philosophy as such or even Aristotelian philosophy but rather makes a qualification for its use. Failure to qualify the use of Aristotelian philosophy in the way Luther suggests results in danger to one’s soul. In order to both use Aristotelian philosophy and avoid danger to the soul one must “become thoroughly foolish in Christ.” It seems that Luther is here alluding to 1 Corinthians 1.18-25. The prerequisite to using Aristotelian philosophy is becoming foolish in Christ. The interpretation is that while Aristotelian philosophy will not deliver one’s soul it is still useful. Becoming foolish in Christ is having faith in Jesus. Interpreted in slightly broader terms faith in Christ Jesus precedes a right use of reason. This broader interpretation is warranted given the nature of the philosophical theses in the Heidelberg Disputation, the context of Luther’s other works, and the arbitrariness which would be entailed by suggesting that Luther rejected Aristotle alone or thought that other philosophers could be used without danger to the soul and without faith in Christ. While Luther emphasizes the foolishness of following Christ he also points out problems in Aristotle’s philosophy and if nothing else establishes that Aristotle’s philosophy is inconsistent with Scripture. Luther highlights that God has destroyed the wisdom of the wise as exemplified in Aristotle.

Luther continues his philosophical theses by stating in his 30th thesis that, “Just as a person does not use the evil of passion well unless he is a married man, so no person philosophizes well unless he is a fool, that is, a Christian.”[9] That “becoming foolish in Christ” is properly understood as exercising “faith in Christ Jesus” as mentioned earlier is confirmed by the thirtieth thesis in that Luther states that his use of “fool” is synonymous with “Christian”. Here Luther uses an analogy of a married man. The analogy pertains to the use of philosophy.

Conceivably there are many things that a married man is able to “use” well that an unmarried man is not able to use well. Luther provides the example of the “evil of passion.” That philosophy in general is in view is clear in this thesis and confirms the conclusions drawn from the previous thesis. In order to philosophize well or in order to be a good philosopher one must be a fool which Luther here explains is a Christian. Luther’s use of “fool” mimics the Bible, but it also matches Luther’s tendency to revel in paradox and antithesis. Luther is implying that the fool is wise. It is not just that one cannot use philosophy without danger to the soul without being a Christian, but it is also that the Christian actually uses philosophy better and does so through faith. Presumably faith is the lens through which everything else must be viewed. To put it another way; faith precedes reason and gives way to its rightful use. Philosophical reasoning which is predicated upon faith is something which is useful, does not damn the soul, and can be done well. Over against this the person without faith will find philosophy useless (even if he or she is not cognizant of this fact), damning, and poorly done. These contentions match quite well with the testimony of the passage provided above. Luther is likely attempting to argue from what he has read before in the Bible concerning the philosophical wisdom of the world.

Luther does not argue for his assertions philosophically but he has no need to. If philosophical theses are inconsistent with what Scripture has to say concerning philosophy then they are to be rejected. Luther is showing that traditional philosophical theses accepted by the Catholic Church as a part of tradition are at the very least in many cases inconsistent with the teaching of Scripture. Luther provides a number of examples in Aristotle. Luther writes, “It was easy for Aristotle to believe that the world was eternal since he believed that the human soul was mortal.”[10] In this 31st thesis Luther moves on to argue against specific allegedly Aristotelian ideas and starts with Aristotle’s belief that the world was eternal. Luther contends that it was “easy” for Aristotle to believe that the world is eternal. The human soul, by contrast, is mortal. Whatever else this means; Luther is highlighting that Aristotle’s understanding of the world as eternal is in some way consistent with Aristotle’s position that the soul is mortal. For Luther, both the proposition that the world is eternal and the proposition that the soul is mortal are false. Christian theology would have it that the world was created and so is not eternal and that the soul will go on after death. Luther at the very least argues that Aristotle’s views on the nature of the soul and world, while possibly consistent with one another, are nevertheless inconsistent with Christian theology.[11]

Luther next calls the implications of Aristotle’s theory of forms into question in the 32nd thesis. In Aristotle’s theory there are material forms. Luther points out that if the number of material forms is the same as the number of created things then it follows that all created things are material.[12] Following Luther; accepting Aristotle’s theory of the forms appears to lead to accepting that all created entities are material entities. If this is correct then it is certainly inconsistent with particular tenets of Christianity. Luther also mentions that, “Nothing in the world becomes something of necessity; nevertheless, that which comes forth from matter, again by necessity, comes into being according to nature” before moving on to another important point in Aristotle.[13]

In his 34th thesis Luther writes, “If Aristotle would have recognized the absolute power of God, he would accordingly have maintained that it was impossible for matter to exist of itself alone.” It is important to realize that Luther did not believe that Aristotle had come to recognize the absolute power of God. This fact points again to the inability of humanity to come to a saving knowledge of God by way of pagan, faithless philosophy. If Aristotle himself did not make it to the God of the Bible then how can one following Aristotle without first placing his or her faith in Christ ever hope to reach the God of the Bible in his or her own conclusions? Aristotle maintained that matter actually existed of itself alone. The material world had always existed. If it is actually the case that matter has always existed then it is obviously possible that matter has always existed of itself alone. Luther points out that Aristotle’s view that it is possible for matter to exist of itself alone is actually inconsistent with a Christian view. Once the absolute power of God is recognized one cannot continue to hold as Aristotle did that it is possible for matter to exist of itself alone. The world in Aristotle’s view is self-existent while in Christianity only God is self-existent. God alone has always existed and does not depend upon the world in any way. Thus to ascribe eternality to the world is to attempt to attribute to the world characteristics that God alone possesses. Luther continues to find fault with Aristotle in his 35th thesis where he writes, “According to Aristotle, nothing is infinite with respect to action, yet with respect to power and matter, as many things as have been created are infinite” and in his 40th thesis which states that, “To Aristotle, privation, matter, form, movable, immovable, impulse, power, etc. seem to be the same.”[14] Interestingly, Luther gives credit to other philosophers and criticizes Aristotle for having found fault with them. Thus in the 38th thesis Luther pits Aristotle against the pre-Socratic philosopher Parmenides and claims that the “disputation of Aristotle lashes out at Parmenides’ idea of oneness (if a Christian will pardon this) in a battle of air.”[15] Luther takes another swipe at Aristotle in his 39th thesis by criticizing him for not thinking that Anaxagoras was the “best of the philosophers” if it was in fact the case that “Anaxagoras posited infinity as to form.”[16]

Luther contends in his 36th thesis that “Aristotle wrongly finds fault with and derides the ideas of Plato, which actually are better than his own.”[17] Here Luther not only criticizes Aristotle, but praises Plato. He does so again in the 37th thesis not by first criticizing Aristotle, but by praising the Pythagoreans. The Pythagoreans who developed mathematics and held to the principles of mathematics as making up matter itself (“mathematical order of material things”) are said to have “ingeniously maintained” their philosophy. Obviously Luther was not a stranger to ancient Greek philosophy. He recognized the cleverness of the Pythagorean philosophy and gave Pythagoras credit for it but only as a precursor to exalting Plato’s doctrine of the interaction of ideas as being “more ingenious” than the observations of Pythagoras. In praising Plato in this way Luther implicitly reaffirms the more Platonic teachings of Augustine over against the more Aristotelian teachings of Thomas Aquinas while in the midst of his fellow Augustinians.

Theology

Luther’s theology is not wholly separate from his philosophy, and it may be argued that the two are very closely related to each other. Luther views philosophy through his theologia crucis. Parallel to the reasoning of humanity are the works of humanity which Luther explicitly addresses in his theological theses. It is not out of line with Luther’s contention in his theses to take his words pertaining to human ability to be just as applicable to reason as they are to other human works. Luther’s statement that “he who acts simply in accordance with his ability and believes that he is thereby doing something good does not seem worthless to himself, nor does he despair of his own strength” may be modified by replacing “strength” with “reason” without complaint from Luther.[18] Some indeed “strive for grace in reliance on” their own reasoning.[19] That this is not an unjustified move is confirmed by the 19th thesis where Luther writes, “That person does not deserve to be called a theologian who looks upon the invisible things of God as though they were clearly perceptible in those things which have actually happened [Rom. 1:20].”[20] Here Luther is explicitly addressing what he also addresses in his philosophical theses. Luther believes that recognizing the invisible things of God does not make one “wise” as Paul still calls the “theologians” of Romans 1.22 “fools”.[21] Heino O. Kadai comments on this 19th thesis.

The “invisible things of God,” His eternal power and deity, cannot be properly derived from a knowledge of things. Luther clearly rejects the Thomistic type of natural theology. But he does not reject a “natural” knowledge of God. As far as Luther is concerned, to move from below to above, from creation to the Creator via analogia entis is not sound theology.[22]
Instead, the person who is to be called a theologian “comprehends the visible and manifest things of God seen through suffering and the cross.”[23] Again the folly of the cross is set in opposition to the wisdom of the world. Kadai explains, “Here a contrast is established between the invisible nature of God and His majestic attributes (see Rom. 1:20) on the one hand, and His visible back side of humanity, weakness, and foolishness (1 Cor. 1:25) on the other.”

Further contrast emerges between knowledge of God from His works and from His suffering. A true theologian seeks God were God Himself has hidden His revelation: in the foolishness, humility, and shame of the cross.[24]

Luther continues to develop this insight in his commentary on the 20th theological thesis.

Luther understands 1 Corinthians 1.25 to teach that where humans misused their knowledge of God that they had through works, God provided knowledge of Himself through suffering, and this is how God has destroyed the wisdom of the wise.[25] People must come to know God on His own terms and this is why one must become foolish in Christ prior to using Aristotle properly without danger to the soul. According to Luther, “it is not sufficient for anyone, and it does him no good to recognize God in his glory and majesty, unless he recognizes him in the humility and shame of the cross.”[26] One will not reach God through his or her own ability to reason as, “true theology and recognition of God are in the crucified Christ, as it is also stated in John 10 [John 14.6]: ‘No one comes to the Father, but by me.”[27] The attempt on the part of those who would endorse the philosophy of Aristotle as the means of knowledge of God to know God on their own should be contrasted with the knowledge of God which God has already made available.

Using his reasoning power man may seek to know God by way of philosophical reflection or contemplation of created reality. In such cases the goal is the knowledge of God as He is in His naked majesty. Luther knew that such a quest was doomed to failure. Man simply cannot bear exposure to the glory of divine majesty.[28]
God has made Himself available to know through Christ Jesus. Where the “theologians of glory” were seeking knowledge of God through their own works and their own secularized philosophical thinking Luther turned to Scripture and warned that God had made Himself known in Jesus Christ. Knowledge of God is obtained by way of what God has done, and God uses that which the world deems folly to make Himself known.[29] In his 22nd thesis Luther argues that the love of wisdom comes as a result of not knowing yet hating the cross and that the desire for knowledge is only encouraged by the acquisition or pursuit of wisdom but is not satisfied by it.[30] The desire to become wise must be put away if one is to know true wisdom.

In other words, he who wishes to become wise does not seek wisdom by progressing toward it but becomes a fool by retrogressing into seeking folly. Likewise he who wishes to have much power, honor, pleasure, satisfaction in all things must flee rather than seek power, honor, pleasure, and satisfaction in all things. This is the wisdom which is folly to the world.[31]
Conclusion

It is clear just from a brief look at the philosophical theses of the Heidelberg Disputation that Luther did not wholly dismiss reason from theology. Luther’s view of the relationship between reason and faith is quite complex and addressing it ranges well beyond a discussion on the philosophical theses. Bernhard Lohse notes that Luther “could speak very harshly of the arbitrariness of human reason over against revelation.”[32]

Nevertheless, all his theological work reflects an established as well as extensively developed view of reason and its application, so that it will not do simply to emphasize the contrast between reason and revelation. Further, on the basis of Luther’s statements it is necessary to distinguish reason’s tasks within the scientific sphere and the sphere of temporal authority, and reason in view of the relation to God.[33]
Just the brief look at Luther’s philosophical theses show that while he is extremely critical of Aristotle and philosophy in general he also leaves room for them to be used once one has become completely foolish in Christ, as “The service of the ratio is indispensable and necessary, but the danger of overstepping its bounds is always present.”[34] What Luther wants to prevent is giving in to the temptation to set reason up as dealing “autocratically with God’s Word.”[35] Lohse nicely summarizes Luther’s view.

According to Luther, not only in the person prior to the revelation but in the Christian as well the ratio is continually in danger of becoming autocratic and of wanting to judge God’s activity according to its own criteria. This made it impossible for him to describe the spheres of ratio and revelation as merely supplementing each other. His ambivalence concerning a possible natural knowledge of God or its impossibility ruled out the notion that the ratio can as it were develop ideas regarding the doctrine of God that could serve as basis for ideas derived from revelation. Nor can the spheres of ratio and revelation be set in mere opposition to each other. The danger of the ratio’s autocracy exists prior to as well as following revelation.[36]
In the end a discussion of reason in Luther is perhaps somewhat beside the point when it comes to the philosophical theses. What Luther is after in both his philosophical theses and his corresponding theological theses in the Heidelberg Disputation is the necessity of avoiding a theology of glory and striving instead to be a theologian of the cross.

Original article located @ http://www.choosinghats.com/?p=1520

——————————————————————————–

[1] Martin Luther. “Heidelberg Disputation (1518),” in Martin Luther’s Basic Theological Writings: Second Edition. ed. Timothy F. Lull. (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2005), 47.

[2] Ibid. 47.

[3] Ibid. 47.

[4] Ibid. 47.

[5] Ibid. 47.

[6] Ibid. 47.

[7] Ibid. 47.

[8] Ibid. 49.

[9] Ibid. 49.

[10] Ibid. 49.

[11] Ibid. 49.

[12] Ibid. 49.

[13] Ibid. 49.

[14] Ibid. 50.

[15] Ibid. 50.

[16] Ibid. 50.

[17] Ibid. 50.

[18] Ibid. 57.

[19] Ibid. 57.

[20] Ibid. 57.

[21] Ibid. 57.

[22] Heino O Kadai. “Luther’s Theology of the Cross,” in Accents In Luther’s Theology: Essays in Commemoration of the 450th Anniversary of the Reformation. ed. Heino O. Kadai. (St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 1967), 241.

[23] Luther, Heidelberg, 57.

[24] Kadai, Accents, 241-242.

[25] Luther, Heidelberg, 57.

[26] Ibid. 57.

[27] Ibid. 57.

[28] Kadai, Accents, 240.

[29] Ibid. 240-241.

[30] Luther, Heidelberg, 58.

[31] Ibid. 58.

[32] Bernhard Lohse. Martin Luther’s Theology: Its Historical and Systematic Development. ed. Roy A. Harrisville. (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1999), 196.

[33] Ibid. 196.

[34] Ibid. 204-205.

[35] Ibid. 204.

[36] Ibid. 203.

The Politically “Correct” Church

It seems every time you walk into a Christian bookstore or even watch a Christian TV station you’ll probably run across an energetic, and articulate woman preaching the Word of God or promoting her book.  Women like Juanita Bynum, Paula White, and Joyce Meyers are just a few of the popular women pastors who have crept into the church to stake their claim on the title of pastor or preacher in congregations all across this nation.  But we do need to ask ourselves, “Is this biblical?” and use the Word of God as our final authority and not be swayed by our emotions or the feminist movement.  Which by the way is not biblical as well.  What does the bible say on this matter?  Well there are no scriptures that tell us that women can be pastors or elders, but we do have scriptures that tell us the very opposite.

Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do… not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. -1 Timothy 2:11-12

The Biblically Correct Church

Priscilla and Aquila brought Apollos into their home and they both discipled him, explaining the Word of God to him more accurately (Acts 18:26).That is biblical for discipleship but not for being a woman elder in the church.  In Romans 16:1, even if Phoebe is considered a “deaconess” instead of a “servant,” that does not indicate that Phoebe was a teacher in the church. “Able to teach” is given as a qualification for elders, but not deacons (1 Timothy 3:1-13; Titus 1:6-9). Elders/bishops/deacons are described as the “husband of one wife,” “a man whose children believe,” and “men worthy of respect.” Clearly the indication is that these qualifications refer to men. In addition, in 1 Timothy 3:1-13 and Titus 1:6-9, masculine pronouns are used exclusively to refer to elders/bishops/deacons.  If men are to be the heads of their homes as said in Ephesians 5:23 why would he make her head of the church? God is a God of order and in Him there is no confusion.

But all things should be done decently and in order.  -1 Corinthians 14:40

Biblical Womanhood

Now of course scripture is very clear that older women should teach and train the younger women (Titus 2:3-4) who in turn should teach their own children at home.  Timothy was raised by his mother and grandmother who taught him the scriptures from very early in his life. And that’s not to say in a church setting a woman can’t disciple, answer questions or encourage a brother in Christ (who her husband knows or having her husband’s permission). Those things in parenthesis are my own personal convictions.  But this idea that men aren’t stepping up to the plate to preach so women have to take on those roles is ridiculous.  God is sovereign over all things and the bible does warn us that not all should be quick to teach because of the greater judgment.  In many weak and shallow churches in America all you need is charisma and the willingness to step up to the pulpit to preach the word of God whether you are male or female.  But to be a pastor, preacher or teacher is a gift, a calling that must be tested and proven so that those who should not be teaching can be weeded out.  Women are to be keepers of their homes and their primary ministry is their children.  That is not a lesser calling or something to be shunned at, but a blessing that the Lord has given to us.  Just because we see many popular and successful women pastors in the world doesn’t mean it is right. It is only success based on the values of this fleeting world and not according to scripture. We want to be biblical, not popular.

For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, -2 Timothy 4:3

Only let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of you that you are standing firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel, and not frightened in anything by your opponents. This is a clear sign to them of their destruction, but of your salvation, and that from God. For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake, engaged in the same conflict that you saw I had and now hear that I still have.

It has been granted to us (believers in Jesus Christ) to suffer for His name sake. This is clear from the text. I know that we all suffer each day with a mess of different things. We suffer in people treating us badly because we preached to them the gospel. We suffer in denying our flesh it’s sinful desires. There are plenty of ways we can and do suffer for knowing and living for Jesus. But are we ready to suffer physically? I mean true physical persecution? The time is coming, if not already here, where true Christians will suffer and even die for being Christians. Not that it’s not happening already in the rest of the world. But I am talking specifically of America, our country.The great nation where tolerance and equal rights are fought for mightily. They will lock us up in cages and cause true physical suffering for those who claim Christ. What should our attitude be when this happens?

Philippians 1: 12-14

I want you to know, brothers, that what has happened to me has really served to advance the gospel, so that it has become known throughout the whole imperial guard and to all the rest that my imprisonment is for Christ. And most of the brothers, having become confident in the Lord by my imprisonment, are much more bold to speak the word without fear.

Our suffering is to serve in advancing the gospel. God’s glorious message of His glory.

Colossians 1: 24

“Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church…”

We know that Christ’s sacrifice was perfect. We do not add anything to the cross of our Lord. So what does Paul mean by “…filling up what is lacking…”? What Paul means is the presentation of the suffering to the world. Jesus’ sacrifice was perfect and complete. But people need to hear about it and see it in action. Suffering for Christ helps to fill up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions. Namely, the presentation to other people of the gospel.

1 Thessalonians 1: 6-7

And you became imitators of us and of the Lord, for you received the word in much affliction, with the joy of the Holy Spirit, so that you became an example to all the believers in Macedonia and in Achaia.

Worshiping the Lord in the midst of trials and sufferings, makes God look glorious! Because we praise Him for being God, not as the magical sky fairy who gives us what we want if we’re good. The world needs to see Jesus as more than a santa clause of sorts. They need to see Him as He truly is, King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

This will be the reason of our suffering. Soli Deo Gloria!

If anyone should ask me what I mean by a Calvinist, I should reply, “He is one who says, Salvation is of the Lord.” I cannot find in Scripture any other doctrine than this. It is the essence of the Bible. “He only is my rock and my salvation.” Tell me anything contrary to this truth, and it will be a heresy; tell me a heresy, and I shall find its essence here, that it has departed from this great, this fundamental, this rock-truth, “God is my rock and my salvation.” What is the heresy of Rome, but the addition of something to the perfect merits of Jesus Christ—the bringing in of the works of the flesh, to assist in our justification? And what is the heresy of Arminianism but the addition of something to the work of the Redeemer? Every heresy, if brought to the touchstone, will discover itself here. I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation after having once believed in Jesus. Such a gospel I abhor.

Taken from A Defense of Calvinism by C.H. Spurgeon

And going a little farther he fell on his face and prayed, saying, “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will.” – Matthew 26:39

Again, for the second time, he went away and prayed, “My Father, if this cannot pass unless I drink it, your will be done.” – Matthew 26:42

I. Introduction

Slowly but surely, in this day and age we are losing touch with the importance of true theology and true doctrine. Everyday the church moves closer and closer to a negative outlook on the Christian knowing God. Those who put an emphasis on the  importance of right doctrine and right theology are seen as divisive, big headed, academic, argumentative, etc. The church seems to be completely comfortable with saying humility and love is being tolerant of many different ideas and perspectives of scripture.

When Jesus was asked what was the greatest commandment he replied:

“And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.” -Mark 12:30

The Post-Modern church replies:

“And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and check your  mind at the door”

II. What is Post-Modernism

When we talk about post-modernism we are talking about how our society has come to understand and explain truth. Society as a whole has gone through many stages of understanding truth. We went through an era where what we understood of truth relied on explaining things with the supernatural, the Egyptians had a god for just about everything just as did the Greeks, and the Romans and a number of other societies. In the turn of 19th century there was an emergence of something called The Enlightenment, where things were explained with science and philosophy. Scientist, sociologist, psychologist, etc. said that this movement would end religion because they now knew that there was an exact explanation for everything. Come to find out, to explain everything is to explain away explanation itself.

This brings us to the current movement, post-modernism, or there is no absolute truth, it’s all true. Shirley MacLaine is a guru in this new age movement and she explains post-modernism well when she says, “It’s true if you believe it and that goes for anything.”

III. God Disagrees With Post-Modernism

Because we have the Word, we know that God does not agree with the post-modern movement and that Scripture is absolute truth.

1. What We Do Not Know About God

“My thoughts are not your thoughts nor my ways your ways.” -Isaiah 55

“Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! -Romans 11:33

God has not revealed everything to us. We do not know God quantitatively and exhaustively. He tells us through Moses that if we did understand him in this way that it would KILL US! This is in regards to his externalities and his glory. We also do not understand him and see him the way that he sees himself. This is in regards to how he exists in three persons all at the same time in the trinity. This and among an infinite number of other things God is incomprehensible for sure.

2. What We Do Know About God

Romans 1 says that God has made himself clearly known. He has done this through the general revelation of creation and that he has also done this through the special revelation of his scripture. Because of this, we know that God is sovereign. We know that all things are created by him, through him and for him. Everything that is in the bible is God revealing truths about himself to us so this list is obviously not exhaustive for the sake of time and the fact that we can open the bible and answer this question.

IV. How the Post-Modern Church Has Perverted God’s Incomprehensibility

The post-modern church is not wrong in saying that there are things about God that we cannot be certain on, what they are wrong about is allowing that statement to persuade them to say there is no absolute truth about God.

1. Taking It To The Extreme

We all know that naturally in our flesh we are inclined to take things to the extreme. I truly believe that post-modernism in the church is simply that, an extremism of truth that there are things about God that are incomprehensible and a direct response to the extremism of knowing God. On one side you have a church that says there is no absolute truth. They say that because learning, studying, and knowing doctrine can create pride that it’s an act of humility to not involve themselves with these things.

2. A Shroud Called Humility

This abandonment of theology and doctrine and masking it with humility is defined by John MacArthur as “The Hermeneutics of Humility”. And this “humility” sounds like this:

“Well, I am much too humble to say that my interpretation of scripture is right, and I am way to humble to say that your interpretation of the scripture is wrong.”

Do you see how damaging this can be to a church? With this perspective, no one holds another accountable. Iron does not sharpen iron. Whatever the preacher says is truth to him so “let’s not call him out” even if it does not agree with scripture, because “we don’t want to be prideful”. It makes me sick to my stomach to even admit that this is actually happening in our churches right now as I type this.

The truth of this perspective is that these churches are covering up their unrighteousness; laziness and pride, with a word associated with righteousness; humility. They are lazy because instead of battling their prideful, divisive flesh with unceasing  prayer that God might reveal himself to them in humility, they abandon a pursuit to know him altogether, it’s a cop out. It’s hard to know God and pursue humility at the same time, but that does not give us an excuse to abandon knowing the doctrines.

V. How God Intends For Us To Handle His Revelation

The truth is there is a right interpretation of scripture and a wrong interpretation of scripture

1. God Intends For Us to Take Ownership Of What He Has Revealed

I believe that Deuteronomy 29:29 defines how we are to understand the incomprehensibility and the comprehensibility of God all at once.

“The secret things belong to the Lord our God, But the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.” -Deuteronomy 29:29

This beautiful piece of scripture tells us that there are secrets of God, there is a mystery, and they belong to Him. It also tells us though, that what he has revealed to us is given to us, that it is ours, we have ownership of his revelation. Isn’t that amazing? Praise God for the knowledge of Him that he has entrusted to us, that he says we have ownership of!

2. God Intends For Us to Proclaim Him Unapologetically

In Romans, Paul provides preaches truths about God without regard to the worldly consequence. Paul understands that God is absolutely knowable, but that what we know is minute compared to all that there is to know about Him. He glorifies God for the revelation that He provides and marvels at what is not revealed. Paul spends an immense amount of time in Romans 1-10 proclaiming some hard to swallow truths about our God. These things are still, to this day, hard to swallow. He challenges the world view with verses like:

“For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek” -Romans 1:16

“For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.” Romans 3:23

“For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. -Romans 5:6

“For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.” -Romans 6:14

“For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion but on God, who has mercy.” -Romans 9:15-16

WOW! That’s truth being preached unapologetically.

3. God Intends For Us to Have a Reverence for What We Do Not Understand

Paul does not just close the book here though, he does not say “OK that is all there is to know about God, thank you for your attention”. No, we reach Romans 11 and Paul says this:

“Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor? Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid?” -Romans 11:33-35

Paul reaches the end of himself and simply worships God for the truth of his incomprehensibility. Do you see that this is how we should be. We don’t close the book because he is incomprehensible but we also do not close the book because we think we know it all.

4. God Intends Us to Know Him with Humility

If humility is problem, saying there is no absolute truth is not the answer. We get into the Word and we learn about our God. We understand what Christ has done for us. If pride rears its ugly head in all of this, we fall prostrate in front of the throne of grace and plead with God in prayer that He would humble us. We do this because we know that every bit of knowledge that we do have has been granted to us graciously by God. Our knowledge is limited because it is subject to God’s control. He is sovereign over all things and we are not. We have nothing to be prideful in or to boast about. Do not abandon doctrine, instead battle your prideful flesh with prayer. So, we are not talking about the kind of knowledge that puffs up, or is divisive, or hardheaded, but a knowledge that is loving.

“If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or [whether] I speak of myself.” -John 7:17

VI. Conclusion

So God is knowable. Scripture tells us a vast amount of things about him. There’s no slight agnosticism in the Bible. He did not create us and go hide out somewhere waiting for us to discover Him. He has given us creation. He has given us the Bible. So we need not apologize for daring to say things about, if God has revealed it, then we can say it and say it with certainty and assurance. Whatever he hasn’t revealed we do not know, and what we do know he has graciously revealed to us.

Tom Ascol of Founders Ministries received a memo. It’s a little hard to believe, but, it is real.

It’s a ‘memo’ designed to reveal Calvinists pastors in your midst. Wouldn’t that be a tragedy? All joking aside, this really is sad. Those proclaiming to be promoting the Gospel are looking to ‘snuff’ those who actually are!

Some of the signs to look for include:

Focused on creating the ‘true’ church.
Use of the ESV Bible
Using as a statement of belief confessions like the 1689 London Baptist Confession
A move toward elder rule
A member of the Founders movement and attends meetings

“Yesterday I was sent the following 3 documents that have been circulating in Western Tennessee among some Southern Baptist Churches. It seems that they were distributed at seminars being held for churches to teach “how to find out if any of your staff are Calvinists and how to get rid of them.” Since receiving them I have communicated with others who have verified that they are being made available to Southern Baptist churches in Tennessee, not by any official denominational worker, but by zealous people who view the doctrines of grace as heresy. I am trying to contact one or more of those persons in hopes of better understanding what has provoked this mission.

The first document is in the form of a memo and is entitled, “Reformed Red Flags.” It contains a list of 16 “behaviors” to look for when seeking to smoke out Calvinistic pastors. Number 3 on the list is “use of the ESV Study Bible.” Someone should alert Crossway immediately. Founders made the list, as did John Piper, Jonathan Edwards, RC Sproul, James White and the first Southern Baptist confession of faith (which is still used at Southern and Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminaries, and which even the famous non-Calvinist Paige Patterson has signed), the Abstract of Principles.”

Source: The above is sourced from 5ptsalt.com

What happens when the importance of numbers outweighs the importance of truth?

More money? More power? Becoming famous? Whatever the reason, some Church leaders decide to pull the punches and turn their Church into a comfortable atmosphere for unbelievers. This is a dangerously slippery slope. I will attempt to make the case that once you begin down the road of growth for the sake of growth, there is no turning back.

The Scenario

Your average, well meaning Church gains some popularity. The leadership might start looking for patterns for what works and doesn’t. What makes people come and what doesn’t. They might even start reading leadership books or studying marketing strategies. No doubt, in the beginning it feels innocent. When confronted with questions of their motives they are likely to answer, “We just want to reach this community for Christ. Let’s reach as many of the lost as possible.”

Soon, the call to make disciples through the body preaching the gospel, is replaced with a call from the pulpit to bring your unbelieving friends to Church. The focus begins to shift from feeding the flock to luring in new people. The purpose of the Church gathering gets redefined somewhere along the way. It is no longer a gathering of believers, but a repository for the lost to get saved. It may seem subtle, but the organization is no longer concerned with building up existing believers, but all the focus is on making new ones.

Either through trial and error, or through deliberate marketing, the language of the sermons begins to change. Talk of blood, sin, death, wrath, and repentance begins to fade away. The messages take on a flavor of advice. How to be a better husband, mother, employee or citizen are the topics that face the culture, and decidedly the issues the organization takes on. Some of the responsibilities of those serving begin to look like the tasks of a marketing team in a corporation. The original faithful flock begins to look around and notice something. The people that are filling the seats in are not Christians by any measure besides possibly claiming the name.

From pulpit to pews to outside Bible studies, doctrine and deep study are frowned upon. Jokes about going deep and talk of ‘dangerous doctrines’ begin to abound. The shallow teaching of the pulpit becomes the expected norm, anything outside it is labeled divisive. The organization takes a stand of neutrality on most topics to keep the numbers as high as possible, and to keep from offending the target market: unbelievers.

Before too long the subtle changes turn to blatant shifts. The management begins asking for money for future needs as they look forward to bigger buildings and bigger staff. In reality, they have no choice. The people who understand what it means to give money to the Kingdom are leaving. The growing audience of unbelievers doesn’t know what sacrificial giving means, so they must be convinced to donate. Promises of prosperity, through twisted Scripture, are the obvious next step. The poor donations of the ‘new converts’ and unbelievers just compounds the need for an even bigger audience to ask for contributions from.

The management and employees become committed to the growth, like stock holders in a corporation. The mentality becomes, ‘If the Church isn’t growing, it isn’t successful.’. At this point, there is no turning back.

Even if the higher ups planned to temporarily stave off the deep teaching until they had a large congregation, they’ll never be able to now. The true gospel hasn’t been preached in months or years, so the whole audience is unsaved and Biblical truth is alien to them. If the Pastor begins preaching the foolishness of Christ crucified at this point, the unsaved masses will turn away. They are trapped, unable to do the very thing that the unbelievers loved them for leaving out. The organization is big BECAUSE it wasn’t preaching the offense of the gospel, and now it never can.

Eventually the organization as a whole is entirely bankrupt of any meaningful truth about God. The audience has full bellies of entertainment and a sentimental God, and the sheep are starving to death. As uncompromising believers leave, they’re mocked on the way out. The mentality becomes unashamedly ‘us against them’.

The future of this “church” is inevitable. The purpose and direction will continue to conform to the unbelieving majority, because any real truth will push the audience away. The organization got what it wanted: numbers -a huge mass of nominal Christians.

Some leadership in churches like this may very well desire to turn things around, but against the overbearing stream, their concerns fall on deaf ears. (Note: If anyone thinks that ‘teaching through the Bible’ somehow intrinsically avoids this trend, don’t be fooled. Like anyone else, an expository teacher can teach whatever he wants. Biblical truths can be avoided, twisted, and mocked verse-by-verse, just as easily as by never opening the Bible at all.)

What Do We Do?

If you are in a Church like this, or you know of one that is falling into this hopeless pattern, pray to God for restoration. He is the only hope. The flesh will never repent of this greed, only through the Spirit can God wake this kind of Church up.

Let’s love our brothers who may have made mistakes. Let’s sympathize with their good intentions. Let’s point out their error in love, and call them to repentance in gentleness. With man it is impossible, but with God all things are possible.