It is asserted in the first chapter of this Confession [The Westminster Confession of Faith], and vindicated in this exposition that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, having been given by inspiration of God, are for man in his present state the only and the all-sufficient rule of faith and practice. All that man is to believe concerning God, and the entire duty which God requires of man, are revealed therein, and are to be believed and obeyed because contained therein, because it is the word of God. This divine word, therefore, is the only standard of doctrine which has intrinsic authority binding the conscience of men. And all other standards are of value or authority only in proportion as they teach what the Scriptures teach.

While, however, the Scriptures are from God, the understanding of them belongs to the part of men. Men must interpret to the best of their ability each particular part of Scripture separately, and then combine all that the Scriptures teach upon every subject into a consistent whole, and then adjust their teachings upon different subjects in mutual consistency as parts of a harmonious system. Every student of the Bible must do this, and all make it obvious that they do it by the terms they use in their prayers and religious discourse, whether they admit or deny the propriety of human creeds and confessions. If they refuse the assistance afforded by the statements of doctrine slowly elaborated and defined by the Church, they must make out their own creed by their own unaided wisdom. The real question is not, as often pretended, between the word of God and the creed of man, but between the tried and proved faith of the collective body of God’s people, and the private judgment and the unassisted wisdom of the repudiator of creeds.

 (A Short History of Creeds and Confessions, A.A Hodge)

I thought that was an excellent assessment and very helpful in articulating what is wrong with this modernistic post-enlightenment “Christianity”.  It comes from a Psalter/Hymnal.

In an answer to one of my questions, “how can we better engage the culture” Douglas Wilson responds, “We are not currently in a culture war, but we do need to get into a culture war.  But there are prerequisites.  Before you can have a war, you need weapons.  And before you can have a culture war, you need to have a culture.”  This is clearly a long-term goal.

Today’s Christianity has made peace with modernity as Wilson says.  This brief manifesto has quite a bit to chew on.  This has helped me make better sense of my discontentment with modern Christianity and what (at risk of sounding pragmatic) practical things we can do to combat it.  I think however that if we will make any headway in this area of establishing culture we MUST see to it that our children understand and carry with them the same mindset… and we must see to it that we truly understand the heart of the issue as well.  If this battle is to be a sustaining success it will not be won in or by a single generation.  While we ought to be expecting and desiring the Lords return, this dispensational ‘rapture ready’ mindset has crippled Christians to live for the now and forsake the future.  It’s no wonder modern Christianity is in such shambles.

Manifesto on Psalms and Hymns

If there is anything that Calvary Chapel prides itself in it’s in the fact that it is non-denominational. An excerpt from a popular Calvary Chapel website states, “Calvary Chapel is a non-denominational church movement focused on the inerrancy of the Bible and the expository teaching from Genesis to Revelation.” From a statement of faith found on many of their sites, “nor are we opposed to denominations as such, only their over emphasis of the doctrinal differences that have led to the division of the Body of Christ.”

If there is a distinctive of modernism that is chief of all it is a disdain for truth and doctrine, if I were to put it bluntly I would call it liberalism. The idea that we can not know truth, that it is not important or that it divides rather than unites is paramount to modern evangelicalism. It is a running joke that some churches can get along with a statement of faith that fits on the back of a bulletin. While it’s nice to have a condensed version, it is never acceptable to stop at saying, “we believe in the trinity, the holy spirit, Jesus and spiritual worship…”. What does that mean?! I have found that this is not limited to the non-reformed. This lack of confession is also carried about by churches that boast of “reformation.”

In a consumer driven world it is sad that churches expect and encourage men to make a choice for a church based on externals (music, pep, relevance, simplicity, comedy, lax dresscode, youth, etc…) There is an acceptable degree of consumerism by which I must find a church in this fallen world and it is only in confessional churches where I have been handed material upon material to read concerning the one thing that counts… DOCTRINE.

Too many churches are aiming at doctrinal ambiguity and hoping to attract people by their atmosphere, cool worship, funny pastor, amneties, young crowd, etc…

I like the fact that OPC is confessional and historical. If I want to know what they believe I can read the westminister confession. It is quite a work! In fact it is a direct product of the reformation and full of scripture verses for backup. They also have a manual on church discipline, a manual on the deaconate, eldership, etc… Nothing is a surprise. They have been standing on the shoulders of giants since the reformation and have 500 years of experience and mistakes to draw from.

As far as Calvary Chapel is concerned: It is hypocritical for a church that totes unity through anti-doctrinal means to have been formed by a man who found a subjective distaste for his original form of church (doctrine in the so-called ‘non-essentials’) and decided now, with his finite experience, that he will create his own sect that meets these new needs. It is this individualistic, non-submissive, consumer mentality that has permeated the “laymen” and it is precisely for the sake of unity that all men should abandon their modernistic churches and return to historic Christianity.

But the gospel is simple, right? Anyone can pastor a church…

If you have sat under Calvary Chapel teaching long enough you have heard the joke, “you don’t need to go to cemetery, I mean seminary, to become a Pastor.” Studious, intellectual study of the scriptures, theology or anything is not only frowned upon, it’s laughed at…

Donald Van Dyken in “Rediscovering Catechism” writes, ‘Perhaps we can understand how an anti-intellectual, anti doctrinal atmosphere has found acceptance. Christians have watched brilliant theologians mutilate, twist, and pervert the Word of God. Disgusted with these ways of turning the truth of God into a lie, some Christians have eschewed learning itself, whether past and present. “away with theology!” they cry. “Give me the simple gospel!” But is ignorance better than falsehood? Can the great God and Creator whose mighty acts and wondrous character confront us on every page of Scripture be reduced to a scant few beliefs? The simplicity of the gospel is precious, but its simplicity never robs it of its profundity. Place a rose in the hand of a child, and that child can see that it is a beautiful, fragrant flower, a gift of God. But place a rose in the hand of Luther Burbank, and without losing any of his simple, child-like wonder and appreciation for its beauty, he could devote a lifetime exploring its profound complexity… Some Christians harbor the notion that doctrine divides people. But true doctrine unites rather than divides. True doctrine teaches us about Christ, who is the Truth, the Word from above. When we teach and keep the truth about him, we are bound together in an eternal bond. The truth unites us to God and to each other.’

Quoted by Michael Horton, Hofstadter in “Anti-Intellectualism in American Life” says, ‘The Puritan ideal of the minister as an intellectual and educational leader was steadily weakened in the face of the evangelical ideal of the minister as a popular … exhorter. Theological education itself became more instrumental. Simple dogmatic formulations were considered sufficient. The churches withdrew from intellectual encounters with the secular world, gave up the idea that religion is a part of the whole life of intellectual experience, and often abandoned the field of rational studies on the assumption that they were the natural province of science alone. By 1853 an outstanding clergyman complained that there was “an impression, somewhat general, that an intellectual clergyman is deficient in piety, and that an eminently pious minister is deficient in intellect.”‘ Horton comments, “By the time of the Second Awakening (beginning in the last quarter of the eighteenth century through first quarter of the nineteenth), the existential act of faith replaced the objective content of faith in popular revivals. People wanted to decide for themselves which church came closest to their views. Sects proliferated. ‘The idea of a historical continuity in the life of the Church,’ says Hofstadter, ‘ carries no weight whatever for the sect consciousness.’ In fact, ’since there need be only a shadow of confessional unity in the denominations, the rational discussion of theological issues- in the past a great source of intellectual discipline in the churches- came to be regarded as a distraction, as a divisive force.’”

I will always champion of unity. Paul commanded, “Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.” While this has been taken by modernists to mean that doctrinal discussions or debates are dangerous- we should never give in to such liberal folly.  This is how, as I will write in the future, a church such as Calvary Chapel can pride itself in “teaching through the bible” yet miss the serious implications of the gospel.  This is why you find such inconsistency in a preachers understanding of the gospel from Calvary Chapel to Calvary Chapel.  Some teach a false man-centered gospel and others, closer to the truth, teach a /near/ accurate God-centered gospel (yes there are some faithful men in Calvary Chapel).

If you are at all familiar with Calvary Chapel you may find it interesting how someone could be so gung-ho for a fellowship of Churches like Calvary Chapel and then end up in a confessional, Orthodox Presbyterian Church (opc.org).  I had spent an entirety of six years in Calvary Chapel and have served in a variety of ways from being on the facilities team, sound team, co-leading and teaching “College and Career Night” to being involved in a Calvary church plant, serving on the board and teaching on various occasions… even desirous of being sent out myself someday to plant a church.  There was a point in time where I thought the Calvary way was the modern extension of the book of acts church, oh how ignorant I was!

If you came here expecting a rant on the evils of Calvary Chapel or to see me air dirty laundry you came to the wrong place.  While I might list specific issues with Calvary Chapel- the issues really apply to the entirety of the modern evangelical church in America.  The application ranges from the very modernistic church to the essentially reformed and “reformed” churches I have visited along the way.  My purpose here is not to BASH anyone but to set off in reformation.   American Christianity is in a sad, sick place.  We say, I am rich, have prospered and need nothing- not realizing that we are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind and naked (Rev 3:14-22).  It’s easy for us to point our fingers at the extremes like Rick Warren and Joel Osteen and say, “those are the Laodiceans of Revelation Chapter 3″ when in actuality it may very well be us too.

American evangelicalism may trophy the conservative label around or claim to be biblical, but it has not only embraced secularization, pragmatism, pop-psychology and the liberal mindset- it has led the way in it.  Many of the references I make will come from Michael Horton’s book, “Made in America.”   You would do better to read his take on the issue rather than mine.  In either case look forward to future writings on the issue as I try to paint the picture with more specific cases from my prior circle of modern evangelicalism.

How to refute calvinism. from Randy Sofia on Vimeo.

Galations 2:10 “Only, they asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do.”

James 1:27 “Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.”

 Often I read verses such as Galations 2:10 and James 1:27 and wonder whether or not we, the church, correctly apply them.  I have been involved in more than one church function where we as a whole cooked up a meal and served it at a local soup kitchen, or gathered old clothes for use in a clothing drive for the, unsaved, needy.  Of course we took part in sharing the gospel and that was a good thing.  But is this what the scriptures are getting at when we are exhorted to take care of the poor, visit orphans, widows, etc…?  This one time acts seem all to easy and are perhaps an excuse for neglecting the consistent and true application of the word in this regard.

I have attended inner city churches for the past six or so years, living in NYC.   Church attendance in Manhattan is never limited to its surrounding and so you would find a diverse crowd of both rich and poor.  Allow me to define rich as those who worked for a living and could afford the necessities with excess; and poor as those who were struggling day to day.

Of the poor you had:

• those who were capable of working for a living but did not for one reason or another (sluggard)
• single mothers who worked for a living with several kids and struggled
• men with mental deficiencies who weren’t taught how to work
• men who have recently repented of a life that rendered them temporarily useless

It was often the case in many situations that the men who had mental deficiencies, or were legitimately poor were treated as a burden.  They lacked social skills and were for the most part left out of many clicks, conversations, social gatherings.  They were perceived as leeches, always needing money for the train or a ride home from church.

But are these the types of people we should be remembering?  Reading about the sympathy John Calvin had for the poor and indigent I am convicted of the way I have treated them in the past myself.

Jeannine Olson’s able historical volume Calvin and social Welfare: Deacons and the Bourse Francaise is an eye-opening study of Calvin’s impact on Reformation culture, focusing particularly on the enduring effect of his thought on social welfare through the church’s diaconate. (”Celebrating Calvin: Ten Ways Modern Culture Is Different Because of John Calvin”, 2009 Vol 18, No. 1 Modern Reformation)

The deacons cared for a large range of needs, not wholy dissimilar to the strata of welfare needs in our own society.  They provided interim subsidy and job training as needed; on occasion, they even provided the necessary tools or supplies so that an able-bodied person could engage in an honest vocation.  Within a generation of this welfare work, Calvin’s diaconate discovered the need to communicate to recipients the goal that they were to return to work as soon as possible.  They also cared for cases of abandonment, supported the terminally ill who, in turn, left their children to be supported, and also included a ministry to widows who often had dependent children and a variety of needs.

Today’s church could learn from the past; particularly a man who is still hated to this day for his work of Reformation.  The false sladerous report propigated by the enemies of his day are still told by the ignorant today.

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:9 KJV)

Arminians often use 2 Peter 3:9 as a proof text against Calvinists to refute the doctrine of God’s sovereign election.  At first glance this one verse seems to stand in blatant contradiction to the multitude of verses that clearly speak of God’s electing grace.  However the greek tells a different story; and it doesn’t take a scholar to see it for yourself.

Upon further investigation the greek words of this verse are as follows:

Notice that the word used in the very same verse for “SOME” is the same word used in the very same verse for “ANY”.  The Arminian argument that “ANY means ANY” turns out to be quite the opposite.Next lets examine the word “ALL”.  Believe it or not, our trusted and famous greek scholar of our trusted and famous concordance “STRONG” gives us a definition of the word ALL along with this insight:

“… ‘The whole world is gone after him.’ Did all the world go after Christ? ‘Then went all Judea, and were baptized of him in Jordan.’ Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem baptized in Jordan? ‘Ye are of God, little children’, and ‘the whole world lieth in the wicked one.’ Does ‘the whole world’ there mean everybody? If so, how was it, then, that there were some who were ‘of God?’ The words ‘world’ and ‘all’ are used in some seven or eight senses in Scripture; and it is very rarely that ‘all’ means all persons, taken individually.

The words are generally used to signify that Christ has redeemed some of all sorts—some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and has not restricted his redemption to either Jew or Gentile.“

So in fact, this word ALL is very infrequently used to signify EVERYONE in the WHOLE world, whether in the bible or in our own modern language.  The word is actually defined as:

1) individually
a) each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything

2) collectively
a) some of all types

See for yourself!  http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3956&t=KJV

Besides…  Lets not forget our basic interpretation rules about CONTEXT.  He’s long suffering towards.. USWARD.. WE… the people he is writing to which happen to be the very elect themselves.