Evangelicalism, Cultural and Doctrinal

In discussions with a friend, he wondered at my use of evangelical to describe my position, when many Calvinistic evangelicals (think Lloyd-Jones here) would certainly balk at my applications of it.

A word of warning first. Some of the following may be disturbing to my Baptist friends, but I don’t mind spooking them — but only so long as I am spooking them by being more evangelical than they are being. Hope this makes sense in a minute. I know it doesn’t make sense now. Calm down.

First, I identify as an evangelical because of what I consider to be shared foundational assumptions about what regeneration is. Try this: “Regeneration is a sovereign act of the Holy Spirit which monergistically transforms a child of the devil into a child of God, and which necessarily results in a life of repentance and faith being subsequently manifest in that individual.” How’s that? Can I get an amen?

Now most of our problems come from attempts to get the repentance and faith into an antecedent position to the transformation by the Spirit. But it is regeneration > repentance > faith, not repentance > faith > regeneration. I have to hear the gospel preached before I can believe it, but I don’t have to hear the gospel preached before the Spirit disposes my heart to listen to that preacher. At some point prior to Mary speaking, the Spirit disposed the heart of John the Baptist in the womb to leap when he heard the words of Mary’s salutation (Luke 1:44). Regeneration is prior; regeneration comes first.

Like all good monergistic Calvinists I believe that we repent and believe because we were already reborn, and we are not reborn because we did something first. If we have to do something first, this is bad news for those of us who can’t “do” anything.

That being the case, if that is an acceptable evangelical definition of regeneration, then why can it not be applied to little ones? If it is a monergistic gift, bearing fruit as age-appropriate, what restricts God from giving that gift early on?

Now I know that my baptist friends, and my Banner of Truth friends, would differ with such applications as I am going to make here — but I can make them without changing a word in our shared definition of regeneration. This means that I am pushing this definition into the corners, but applying it more extensively is not an alteration. We have been together for a while, playing our guitars on the porch, and true, I have headed for Nashville in search of a record deal, but I am still playing the same song.

What is that song? Human beings are all descended from their father Adam, and are objects of wrath by nature — every last one of them. In order for that condition to change, God must unilaterally do it, and when he does this, the life of the convert exhibits what he has done. If a person goes to Heaven when he dies, this means, necessarily, that God intervened at some point in his life — the time stamp of which is usually unknown to us, but which is always known to the God who did the intervening.

For us to say that the sovereign God can’t really start this work of His until after the kid has memorized the Heidelberg Catechism is to do two things. It is to make a kid memorize the Heidelberg, and it is to demonstrate for him how to effectively disregard what it teaches. God is God! We do not get to cordon off our covenant children with those yellow caution tapes, so that the God of all covenant mercies won’t jump the gun. “There He goes again . . . forgiving people early.”

Allowing that God starts early, and does so lots of times, is not culturally evangelical. Most evangelicals don’t think this way, I cheerfully admit. But when they become more evangelical, they will. It is not culturally evangelical, but it is doctrinally evangelical. My evangelicalism is Lloyd-Jonesian, and with its hair in a braid. It is not culturally that way, which is fine, and I don’t have his swell accent either. And I can’t preach like he could. But in what I am saying we have agreement in two essential things — God is God, and the absolute necessity of the new birth.

What aspect of our shared definition would I not be applying? I believe I am applying it consistently, and across the board. To affirm the reality of regenerate zygotes (which I do affirm, lots of them) is not a contradiction of evangelicalism simply because the zygote doesn’t have legs yet, and cannot walk the aisle at the invitation. The aisle, the invitation, the playing of Just As I Am, the waiting for a certain birthday, all that stuff, are not essential to evangelicalism. They are merely cultural trappings, some innocent, some not so much. The monergistic work of the Holy Spirit is essential to a true and robust evangelicalism, and the Bible tells us that He often starts in on that work pretty darn early.

“But thou art he that took me out of the womb: Thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother’s breasts. I was cast upon thee from the womb: Thou art my God from my mother’s belly” (Ps. 22:9-10).

Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength because of thine enemies, that thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger” (Ps. 8:2).

“When I call to remembrance the unfeigned faith that is in thee, which dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice; and I am persuaded that in thee also . . . And that from a child [brephos, fetus, infant] thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 1:5, 2 Tim. 3:15)

Now what about those people who agree with this on paper, but who never experience it? Wisdom is vindicated by her children. If a kid was baptized, educated in the covenant, catechized until his eyes bulged out, and all the rest of that drill, and apostatized in a terrible flame-out as soon as he left home, what does that do to the promises? Nothing! Let God be true, and every man a liar. But notice what saying this necessitates. It requires us to acknowledge that when the words don’t come true, it was the men who were lying, not God. It also requires us to acknowledge that somebody was lying. Nobody goes to Hell on a misunderstanding.

Faithfulness is as faithfulness does. If I were a televangelist healing folks on the teevee, and everybody was leaving the stage in the same wheelchair that brought them there, at some point I ought to reexamine my textual premises.

It is the same kind of thing here. The works of the flesh are manifest, which in the Greek means that dirty deeds are apparent. When that kind of heart is made manifest, we can see that God is not breaking His Word, but rather that He is keeping it. Those who live this way will not inherit the kingdom of God, and we shouldn’t care if they were baptized by John the Baptist three times in the morning, and then spent the afternoon playing with the axe he left at the root of the tree.

 

 

Share on Facebook0Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Google+2Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Please note: I reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, off-topic, or semi-Pelagian.

2 thoughts on “Evangelicalism, Cultural and Doctrinal

  1. Dear Baptist/evangelical brothers and sisters in Christ,

    I ask you to consider these points:

    1. When God said that he would preserve his Word, what did he mean? Did he mean that he would preserve the original papyrus and parchment upon which his Word was written? If so, then his Word has disappeared as none of the original manuscripts remain.

    Did he mean that he would preserve his word in the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek only? He would not preserve his Word when it was translated into all the other languages of the world?

    Or did God mean that he would preserve his Word…the message/the words…the Gospel: the free gift of salvation, and the true doctrines of the Christian Faith? Would God allow his Word/his message to mankind to be so polluted by translation errors that no translation, into any other language from the three original languages, continues to convey his true words?

    2. There is NO translation of the Bible, from the original ancient languages, into ANY language, ANYWHERE on earth, that translates the Bible as the Baptists/evangelicals believe it should be translated.

    No Bible translation on earth translates Acts 2:38 as, “Repent and believe in Jesus Christ every one of you and you will receive the Holy Ghost. Then be baptized as a public profession of your faith.”

    Why would God allow EVERY English translation of the Bible throughout history to be mistranslated or use such confusing language as to suggest that God forgives sins in Baptism? And not only all English translations, ALL translations of the Bible have retained these “mistranslations or confusing wording”.

    Do you honestly believe that God would allow his Word to be so polluted with translation errors that EVERY Bible in the world, if read in its simple, plain interpretation, would tell the people of the world that God forgives sins in water baptism??

    3. Why is there not one single piece of evidence from the early Christians that indicates that ANYONE in the 800-1,000 years after Christ believed that: Water baptism is ONLY a public profession of faith/act of obedience; sins are NOT forgiven in water baptism? Yes, you will find statements by these early Christians that salvation is by faith, but do Baptists and evangelicals really understand how a sinner obtains saving faith? THAT IS THE MILLION DOLLAR QUESTION, MY FRIENDS! Does the sinner produce faith by his own free will or does God provide faith and belief as a gift, and if God does provide faith and belief as a free gift, with no strings attached, WHEN exactly does God give it?

    4. Is it possible that: Baptist-like believers, at some point near or after 1,000 AD, were reading the Bible and came across verses that read “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved” and “Call upon the name of the Lord and you will be saved” and established their doctrine of Salvation/Justification first, based on these and similar verses alone, and then, looked at the issue of water baptism, and since the idea that God forgives sins in water baptism didn’t seem to fit with the verses just mentioned, these early Baptists re-interpreted these verses to fit with their already established doctrine, instead of believing the “baptism verses” literally?

    Is it possible that BOTH groups of verses are literally correct?? If we believe God’s Word literally, he says that he saves/forgives sins when sinners believe/call AND when they are baptized? Why not believe that God can give the free gift of salvation in both situations: when a sinner hears the Gospel and believes and when a sinner is baptized?

    Should we re-interpret God’s plain, simple words just because they don’t seem to make sense to us?

    God bless you and keep you!
    http://www.lutherwasnotbornagain.com/2013/06/the-early-church-fathers-believed-in.html

  2. Can you really trust your English Bible to be God’s true Word?

    Have you ever had an evangelical or Reformed Christian say this to you:

    “THAT passage of the Bible, in the original Greek, does NOT mean what the simple, plain reading of the passage seems to say in English.”

    It happens to me all the time in my conversations with Baptists, evangelicals, and fundamentalists on my blog. They state: “Repent and be baptized…for the forgiveness of sins” was mistranslated. “This is my body…this is my blood” is a metaphorical expression, “Baptism does now save us” is figurative speech for what happens to us spiritually when we ask Christ into our hearts.

    What they are basically saying is that unless you speak ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek…you can’t read and really understand the Bible without the help of an educated Churchman!

    This morning I came across an excellent article on this subject, written by Jordan Cooper, a Lutheran pastor. I am going to give the link to his article below. I have copied a couple of his statements here:

    “So here is a question that we all need to ask ourselves when doing this (refusing to accept the simple, plain, English translation of a passage of Scripture): If a verse seems to disprove your theological beliefs, and you translate it in some way that doesn’t fit with any of the dozens of major English translations of the Bible, and that unique translation just happens to fit your own theological biases, could it be that it is in fact you who are in the wrong? Could you be reading your own preconceived theological convictions back into the text?”

    ” I know it can be frustrating when you are constantly told that Scripture can’t be understood unless you learn (an ancient) language or read ancient documents that you don’t have either the time or the energy to study. Honestly, if you have a few good English translations at your side, and you take the time to compare them to one another, you have all the tools you need to understand the meaning of the Bible.

    Link to Pastor Cooper’s original article:

    http://justandsinner.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-wrong-use-of-biblical-languages.html

Comments are closed.