On his blog today, John Piper reflects on how reading G.K. Chesterton’s Orthodoxy impacted his own life. Despite Chesterton’s Anti-Calvinistic position, the book drove Piper deeper in his appreciation of these biblical truths.

If I thought his broadsides against predestination really hit home and undid true biblical doctrine, I would keep my mouth shut or change my worldview. But his celebration of poetry and paradox undermines his own abomination of the greatest truth-and-mystery-lovers around today, the happy Calvinists.

Nothing in this Calvinism-abominating book came close to keeping me from embracing the glorious sovereignty of God. On the contrary, the poetic brightness of the book awakened in me, along with the works of C. S. Lewis, an exuberance about the strangeness of all things—which in the end made me able to embrace the imponderable paradoxes of God’s decisive control of all things and the total justice of his holding us accountable.

One of the reasons that Calvinism is stirring today is that it takes both truth and mystery seriously. It’s a singing, poetry-writing, run-through-the-fields Calvinism.

It’s the Arminians that are the rationalists. Arminianism trumps biblical sentences with metaphysics: God can’t control all things and hold us responsible. God can’t choose some and love all.” Why? Metaphysics. Out with mystery! It just can’t be!

So Chesterton’s anti-Calvinist shotgun sprays all around today’s poet-Calvinist and misses the mark.

We have been discussing Postmodern thought processes, truth, and whether or not there are non-essential truths when it comes to salvation. It seems best to speak of doctrine that is more central to salvation or more foundational to salvation rather than essential or non-essential. I have included the drawing above to help demonstrate what needs to take place in our mind. While all doctrine has ramifications and ties to salvation, certain doctrines are more core, central or foundational to salvation. Who God is, the Person and work of Christ, doctrines of the atonement and faith, and who man is are foundational and central. Therefore, even if I disagree with a brother on baptism or the Lord’s supper, modesty, or eschatology, but we agree on who God is, what Christ accomplished on the Cross, Sin, and faith, then we may have far more in common than other baptist or those within a given denomination. This is why I will often refer to men like John MacArthur (our views of the end times are different), RC Sproul, Sinclair Ferguson, Jerry Bridges (our views of church government and baptism are different), CJ Mahaney and John Piper (our views of the gifts of the Holy Spirit are different, not our view of the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit though). These men all get the Apostles teaching on who God is, He is a sovereign creator; who man is, one created in the image of God, fallen in the first Adam, and dead and enslaved in sin unable to save himself or in any way merit God’s grace; what Christ accomplished on the Cross, that he died an atoning death for his people.

In theology it is essential that we keep what is central in the center of our theology. Many claim to hold to Christ and his death and resurrection. However, when He is distorted by adding to Christ then the entire gospel is distorted. Conversely, when He is distorted by minimizing or watering down the truth the entire gospel can be distorted. Paul speaks of men that elevate the doctrine of circumcision, or tried to add back in the doctrine of circumcision. When this happens our focus and hope can be easily shifted off of Christ. Those in Galatia wanted to add to Christ and his righteousness. ‘Sure, you are saved by Christ’ they would say, ‘but the real way of knowing you are a Christian is if you are circumcised. ‘ However, it is important to note that Paul does not write as if doctrines such as depravity (Ephesians 2), election and predestination, the sovereignty of God(Romans 9, Ephesians1), and a literal resurrection of Christ (2 Timothy 2:7-9) were non-central to believing in Christ.

The more we agree on who God is, and the person and work of Christ the more unity we will have in Christ. This does not mean the men and women have never been truly saved under incomplete or even wrong theology. This is the grace of God that he works in such a way. It also does not mean the men and women have not made false professions of faith under good theology. This is the depravity of men’s hearts and the deceptiveness of sin. However, Christ is most clearly displayed and glorified when He is proclaimed as He is revealed in the word.

Dr. Russ Moore has a well written article on why we need more depth than simply Veggie Tales (By the way, I do enjoy watching some of them) and what it means to preach Christ. Preaching Christ is not minimalistic, but whole-istic when it comes to the truths of Scripture.

Have you ever seen the episode of Veggie Tales in which the main characters are martyred by anti-Christian terrorists? You know, the one in which Bell Z. Bulb, the giant garlic demon, and Nero Caesar Salad, the tyrannical vegetable dictator, take on the heroes for their faith in Christ. Remember how it ends? Remember the cold dead eyes of Larry the cucumber behind glass, pickled for the sake of the Gospel? Remember Bob the tomato, all that remained was ketchup and seeds?

No, of course you don’t remember this episode…

There’s plenty of Veggie Tales preaching out there, and it’s not all for children. As a matter of fact, the way we teach children the Bible grows from what we believe the Bible is about–what’s really important in the Christian life. There’s also such a thing as Veggie Tales discipleship, Veggie Tales evangelism, even erudite and complicated Veggie Tales theology and biblical scholarship. Whenever we approach the Bible without focusing in on what the Bible is about–Christ Jesus and His Gospel–we are going to wind up with a kind of golden-rule Christianity that doesn’t last a generation, indeed rarely lasts an hour after it is delivered.

Preaching Christ doesn’t simply mean giving a gospel invitation at the end of a sermon–although it certainly does entail that. It means seeing all of reality as being summed up in Christ, and showing believers how to find themselves in the story of Jesus, a story that is Alpha and Omega, from the spoken Word that calls the universe together to the Last Man who governs the universe as its heir and King….
Every text of Scripture–Old or New Testaments–is thus about Jesus, precisely because, at the end of the day, everything in reality is about Jesus. Why is there something instead of nothing? Why are human beings religious? Why do people want food and water and sex and community? Why are there galaxies and quasars and blue whales and local churches? God is creating all that is for His heir, for the glory of Jesus Christ. When you see through Jesus, you see the interpretive grid through which all of reality makes sense.

With this in mind, the Scripture tells us that all of Scripture tells us the story of Jesus. The Gospel writers show us how Jesus fulfills the Scripture, but, interestingly enough, He doesn’t simply fulfill direct and obvious messianic prophecies. He also relives the story of Israel itself–exiled in Egypt, crossing the Jordan, being tempted with food and power in the wilderness during a forty-day sojourn there. Jesus applies to Himself language previously applied to Israel and its story–He is the vine of God, the temple, the tabernacle, the Spirit-anointed kingship, the wisdom of God Himself.

2 Timothy 3:16-17

16All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

Any discussion on such a subject, non-essential truth, is a dangerous discussion. What is the bare minimum truth we need to hold? An attempt to minimize and streamline what God has revealed as that which man needs to be competent and equipped is the beginning of a slippery slope that many have gone down. However, the truth remains that there are genuine Christians who disagree on doctrines such as baptism, The Lord’s Supper, the end times, and yes even the cross and what was accomplished there. We must first state that this disagreement on such truths can only stem from sin and the fall. It appears we would be better served to state that there are doctrines that are more central to salvation than to call others non-essential. For instance, some would say baptism is non-essential in the discussion of salvation. However, there are others that tie this doctrine so closely with salvation that they end up teaching baptismal regeneration. Others would not teach such a doctrine but they practice it. So I hesitate to even speak of the sacraments as non-essential to salvation. Doctrine is a bit like a quilt. We have individual pieces, but they are all intertwined to produce one large goal.  We may be able to appreciate and examine each individual piece for what it is, but they all are stitched together by God to reveal Himself.

Building on these points, it is important to note that we must think larger than just the individual when we call something non-essential. In calling doctrine non-essential we must ask to who’s salvation is such truth non-essential? You may know a friend that disagrees with you on a doctrine (let us stick with baptism), but you are convinced they are a believer. For that individual we could call the doctrine of baptism non-essential to their salvation. However, what about the generation the comes behind and that they disciple and teach. For instance, if that brother believes in infant baptism or even accepts catholic infant baptism, what damage may that have for subsequent generations? Surely, some could trust in that early, pre-conversion baptism and be deceived. For others, maybe the hold to a man centered gospel, where man’s will is the determining factor in salvation. In one case, someone like this may be a real believer, but what about others they disciple and lead to Christ? Could such doctrine not deter others from Christ?

I have relatively few quotes from this sermon. It was one that I simply had to just sit and listen in amazement of what Christ accomplished and how little I deserved any part of it. At pastor’s conferences certain messages can be aimed directly at pastors, others can be more academic in nature. Dr. Sproul seemed to disregard any credentials in the room. It seemed he did not care if it was a room full of educated pastors or simple minded men and women; whether there were sinners or saints present he was burdened to preach Christ! At one point he even addressed that some in the room, even though pastors, may still be under the curse and in need of Christ. Therefore, I would encourage all that this message is for them.

It is based on the premise that we live in a planet under the curse of God; What does that mean? He then contrasts the blessing of God and the curse of God. Christ came to make his blessings known as far as the curse is found.

I have just returned from attending the second T4G conference and want to try to share a few quotes and thoughts from the conference. First, some may be interested to know that the sermons are available for free download. All were good but I would highly recommend Ligon Duncan’s, R.C. Sproul’s, and John MacArthur’s.

Ligon Duncan’s is a helpful examination of the need for a systematic theology. Not simply doctrine, but a systematic way of understanding that doctrine. For any struggling with the emergent movement I believe he rightfully points out some of the liberal backbone of that movement. One quote came from J Gresham Machen’s book “Christianity and Liberalsim”: “Christianity is a life not a doctrine.” Surprising to some maybe many evangelicals is that this quote is the wording from the 19th century liberals! Here is a fuller quote and response by Machen in his writing:

Christianity, according to that fashionable modern answer, is a life and not a doctrine, it is a life or an experience that has doctrine merely as its symbolic intellectual expression, so that while the life abides the doctrine must necessarily change from age to age.

That answer, of course, involves the most bottomless skepticism that could possibly be conceived; for if everything that we say about God or about Christ or about the future life has value merely for this generation, and if something contradictory to It may have equal value in some future generation, then the thing that we are saying is not true even here and now. A thing that is useful now may cease to be useful in some future generation, but a thing that is true now remains true beyond the end of time. To say, therefore, that doctrine is the necessarily changing expression of religious experience or religious life is simply to give up the search for truth altogether.

Was Christianity at the beginning in that sense a life as distinguished from a doctrine? At this point we desire to be perfectly clear. Christianity at the beginning certainly was a life, about that there can be no manner of doubt. The first Christians led lives very different from the lives of the people about them, and everything that did not conform to that peculiarly Christian type of life was rigidly excluded from the early Church. Let us be perfectly plain about that.

But how was that Christian type of life produced? There we come to the crux of the whole question. If one thing is clear to the historian it is that that type of life was not produced merely by exhortation or merely by the magic of personal contacts; if one thing is clear to the historian it is that earliest Christian missionaries did not go around the world saying. “We have been living in contact with a wonderful person, Jesus; contact with Him has changed our lives; and we call upon you our hearers, without asking puzzling questions, without settling the meaning of His death, without asking whether He rose from the dead, simply to submit yourselves to the contagion of that wonderful personality.”

Ligon went on to give advice for those that are opposed to systematic theology:

If someone tells you they don’t believe in systematic theology, look out! They are about to slip it in under the door without you looking.

He also addressed the notion that the bible is really a story, not doctrine, and that this too is on the slippery liberal slope. I was not quick enough to write down all the quote on this but he traced how the Bible is full of narrative, prophecy, wisdom literature, hymns and songs, letters, etc. not simply a story from which we pull some meaning. He even went to show how the stories that the scriptures use and that Christ used are “not to leave wiggle room. That is not how the Bible stories work. He (Christ) uses them to drive deep in our heart propositional truths and doctrine.”

I can only share bits and pieces. The whole context will make even these quotes more clear and powerful. If you enjoyed them or even if you disagreed with them, I would encourage you to listen to the entire message.

Romans 2

12For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

The question of the law is much debated today. Is the law still relevant? On both sides of the argument I believe it is admitted that the law is active prior to conversion. It is a schoolmaster (Gal 3:24-25) that shows us what we do wrong in the sight of God that demands Christ’s sacrifice. When it is considered this way, we must acknowledge that there is a definite change after Christ, but can what was wrong before Christ now be permissible or right after Christ? If so how? Sin is defined or determined by the character of God and therefore what falls short before Christ, should still fall short after Christ. If an action, attitude, or thought failed to bring God glory prior to conversion, then shouldn’t we conclude that it would fail to bring God glory even more after conversion? The role of the law no longer brings condemnation, but it becomes a delight. It is no longer over us, but it is in us.

Kris Lungaard has written the helpful book The Enemy Within. It is really a modernization of John Owen’s Sin and Temptation. I wanted to post the links to several lectures or sermons he gave on the book. As our church has been going through Jerry Bridges Pursuit of Holiness, I thought these sermons would be a great accompanying source. Click on the picture to go to the audio sermons.

(HT: Justin Taylor)

Here is a great sermon by Dr. Russ Moore from SBTS on James 2:1-9 on “The Kingdom of God in the Wal-Mart Break Room; Poverty, Partiality, and the Perils of a Gentrified Christianity.” I would encourage any pastor to listen to it as a great devotional for the ministry, and I would encourage anyone else to listen to it to hear a good message on being relevant and humble with your faith.

Sinclair Ferguson’s comments in “Let’s Study Mark” set a great benchmark for preachers.

“Wherever Jesus preached people recognised the note of authority and authenticity in his message. He preached biblically, simply, graciously, and powerfully. They must have felt what we too feel when we hear God’s Word properly expounded: “So that’s what this passage means. It is so clear. Why didn’t I see it before?”