Does Tim Keller Have Two Gospels?
In this recent Christianity Today article written by Tim Keller, he says there is only one gospel, but many forms. He uses Galatians 2:7 to justify preaching what he calls a gospel for the people with a more religious background/upbringing, and a gospel for people like postmodern pluralists. Keller says that to the former he preaches the gospel for the “circumcised,” while to the latter he preaches his gospel for the “uncircumcised.” Below is a basic summary of Tim Keller’s gospel[s] forms:
For the circumcised - this gospel is only given to people that have the ability to “grasp the idea of sin as the violation of God’s moral law.” These are people that were raised in the religions of Islam, Roman Catholicism, Judaism, and conservative Protestantism. This group can realize that they fall short of God’s law, and in that context, “Christ and his salvation can be presented as the only hope of pardon for guilt.” He refers to this gospel as “the traditional evangelical gospel of the last generation.”
For the uncircumcised - this gospel is for postmodern listeners that “consider all moral statements to be culturally relative and socially constructed.” Keller says that these people are not to be given the other form of the gospel (for the circumcised) because “[i]f you try to convict them of guilt for sexual lust, they will simply say, ‘You have your standards, and I have mine.’ If you respond with a diatribe on the dangers of relativism, your listeners will simply feel scolded and distanced.” So rather than explaining their sin to them in the context of the falling short of the demands of God’s moral law, Keller “take[s] a page from Kierkegaard’s The Sickness Unto Death and define[s] sin as building your identity-your self-worth and happiness-on anything other than God. That is, [he] use[s] the biblical definition of sin as idolatry. That puts the emphasis not as much on ‘doing bad things’ but on ‘making good things into ultimate things.’”
If that summary of Tim Keller’s “gospel for the uncircumcised” was not clear enough, the following paragraph in his own words should give you a clearer understanding of what he means when he says “my gospel for the uncircumcised.”
“Instead of telling them they are sinning because they are sleeping with their girlfriends or boyfriends, I tell them that they are sinning because they are looking to their romances to give their lives meaning, to justify and save them, to give them what they should be looking for from God. This idolatry leads to anxiety, obsessiveness, envy, and resentment. I have found that when you describe their lives in terms of idolatry, postmodern people do not give much resistance. Then Christ and his salvation can be presented not (at this point) so much as their only hope for forgiveness, but as their only hope for freedom. This is my ‘gospel for the uncircumcised.’”
Tim Keller’s “gospel for the uncircumcised” is presented to postmoderns as their only hope for freedom. This freedom, so it seems from his own words, is from the anxiety, obsessiveness, envy, and resentment that come from their Godless search for meaning in life. Since they look to other things such as their romances rather than to God in their search for meaning, they are guilty of idolatry, and idolatry is sin. In this context (contrasted with breaking God’s law), Christ and his salvation can be presented as their only hope for freedom. This, he calls his gospel for the uncircumcised.
My question is regarding the postmodern that Tim Keller preaches his “gospel for the uncircumcised” to. If the postmodern accepts the offer of Christ as her only hope for freedom but does not look to Christ as her only hope for forgiveness of her sin, where would she spend eternity if she died on her drive home from believing Keller’s “gospel for the uncircumcised” in a 75mph head-on-collision with an eighteen-wheeler? Would Tim Keller have a biblical warrant to preach at her funeral and offer the same hope for freedom to the surviving family and friends - that they may too go to be with her one day?
My answer is no. Tim Keller is preaching another gospel, not just another form of the one true gospel. If the gospel is reduced to merely a source of meaning for the postmodern existentialist, even if it is viewed as true and ultimate meaning, unless it points to Christ’s death on the Cross as a substitute for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried and was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, then it must be rejected because it is a false gospel.
For it is written:
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. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.” - Romans 1:16-17
For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. - I Corinthians 1:17
Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel! - 1 Corinthians 9:16c
Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, 2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you-unless you believed in vain.
3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, - 1 Corinthians 15:3-4
Therefore, having this ministry by the mercy of God, we do not lose heart. 2 But we have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways. We refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God’s word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God. 3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing. 4 In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 5 For what we proclaim is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake. 6 For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. - 2 Corinthians 4:1-6
I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel- 7 not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be anathema. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be anathema.
10 For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ. - Galatians 1:6-10
For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man’s gospel. 12 For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. - Galatians 1:11-12
Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, the offspring of David, as preached in my gospel, 9 for which I am suffering, bound with chains as a criminal. But the word of God is not bound! 10 Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory. - 2 Timothy 2: 8-10
164 Comments, Comment or Ping
Becky
I disagree that this is wrong, to a point. It is true that there should be a different approach for the “uncircumcised.” They just won’t get it or won’t listen if you just tell them don’t do this or that. You can’t rebuke an unbeliever, they’ll just scoff. They need to be shown what sin is first, since the concept is relatively foreign to them. Or bring it home in such a way that they see why sin is bad, since many people have a basic understanding of Christian moral code. They just giggle and continue on with their depraved lives. Many will laugh about hell and say they are on their way because they don’t really believe in it.
This approach works, but only if not used alone. Idolatry IS a sin. For many, it is the root of many other sins as well. He’s right that it’s better to cut right to the issue rather than peck away at the surface sins. I don’t say surface as shallow or anything, but visible. Fornication is the branch of a idolatrous root. Doesn’t this fit Dr. Bob’s analogy of firing missiles from a submarine instead of just shooting at the top of a ship? The problem is if it is just left at that. Once a person’s worldview is torn down, and their hope is restored into Christ, then a new worldview needs to be constructed. Once they finally understand they are a sinner and need a savior, then they need to learn the rest of Biblical morality so they can continue growing. What’s the point of trying to convict someone fornication is wrong (even if they agree) if they are still idolatrous beings? Work on the root first, and then the branches if they still remain. They often times do, but without that root, it’s easier to remove them.
While nothing is more important than the gospel and it is the center of our focus, we do move on from learning “just the gospel.” What i mean by that is those churches that for years just preach just the gospel. It’s only milk. It’s good for babies but a person can’t grow. Since idolatry is a sin, then the “uncircumcised” approach to the gospel is still the gospel. Not telling someone something isn’t a sin isn’t the same as telling them something isn’t a sin. They can be filled in on that later, but why waste time a-peckin’ when you can get straight to digging?
May 30th, 2008
agogley
Praise the Lord! This is so timely. I was responding on another forum to a thread started by a Christian to bring out the Athiests. And sure enough it did. One particular guy brought up the old argument that since so called Christians have done terrible things, Christianity is a farse. He then moved on to state that people interpet Scripture willy nilly and therefore, unreliable. I called him on it and said the following:
“So because others abuse Scripture in ways they ought not, that’s an excuse for you to ignore the truth in Scripture? Other people are disobedient so therefore, you aren’t subject to the law? You are right…people are sinful and because of that some of them refuse to repent and then interpret Scripture to their own likes. You are presented with two choices. You can awknowledge that you are also sinful and need Jesus as Savior. You can strive to study the Bible and help to root out the sinful practices or you can choose to continue on your current path, the path that leads to hell. As you say, you can show the person the way, but you cannot make them see reality. Just keep in mind that when you are judged by God, pointing out other people’s sins wont get you off. ”
I was, of course, immediately attacked. I was told the following:
“this is the sort of comment that will just lead to trouble here. Please try not to go pointing fingers, shouting “SINNER!” and telling us what we “need,” ok? It’s very, very important that you understand two things in a conversation like this:
1. Not everyone shares your convictions. That, in fact, is the whole point of this thread.
2. Telling someone they’re going to hell is not going to further your argument.
I am not saying that you need to change your beliefs. I am not even saying that you’re wrong. I am just saying to tread more lightly the line between explaining your own thoughts and telling other people how they “need” to live. One is constructive, the other gets peoples’ backs up and picks fights. ”
Sadly, some Christians have also commented that I need to be more understanding and present the gospel in a more friendly type manner because the forum is filled with strong personalities. Finally I concluded with he following post:
Who are you? I’m not here to “further my arument.” I tell people how it is. You don’t like it? Tough! You don’t like the truth? Tough! You don’t like how the truth is presented? Tough! You don’t like me telling you what you need? Tough! I’m not explaining my own thoughts. I was telling him the way things are. People need to hear that they “need” Christ. I don’t care if they don’t like it. I don’t care if they pick fights. I’m not going to argue over the merits of the truth. If you or others choose to reject the truth then so be it. I’m certainly not going to dress the truth up in some sugar coated package so you or others will find it easier to swallow.
May 30th, 2008
agogley
The response to all that:
“Roger that. You coulda gone in two directions with your reply, and you went that way.
I’m happy for you that you’re so enlightened as to be the sole owner of The Truth on these boards. I guess there’s no need for other viewpoints anymore.
Have fun with your “discussion.” “
May 30th, 2008
Glen
He is most definitely preaching two messages. I would also go so far as to say that if he is preaching a false gospel the other is more than likely false as well.
The danger that we see here is that, as with most lies, there is some truth in Keller’s message to the “uncircumcised.” Looking in other’s for fulfillment is a form of idolatry and idolatry is a sin. He is right about that. Where he gets it wrong is that we are not to preach about sin to the unbeliever. How will they ever know about sin unless they hear the truth of the Gospel? Paul says that the Law of God is what shows us that we are sinners (Rom 7).
A.W. Pink in his book The Sovereignty of God said “The nature of Christ’s salvation is woefully misrepresented by the present-day evangelist. He announces a Savior from hell rather than a Savior from sin. And that is why so many are fatally deceived, for there are multitudes who wish to escape the Lake of fire who have no desire to be delivered from their carnality and worldliness.” This is exactly what Keller is doing. He is preaching to save them from hell without calling for repentance from sin.
We are not called to preach a different Gospel to different people from different walks of life. We may start from a different point depending on the background and may use different illustrations, but we should NEVER preach a different Gospel. The Gospel is ALWAYS the same to every tribe, tongue and nation. It never changes through time and will always remain the same.
May 30th, 2008
Danny Pelichowski
2 Corinthians 4:3
“And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing.”
1 Corinthians 1:18
“For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.”
I discuss the Gospel quite frequently at work with unbelievers and difficult questions arise. Is homosexuality a sin? Is it wrong to look at pornography? Do you think that I’m going to hell? What if I simply told them that what they are doing is idolatrous and is putting other god’s before the one true God and left it at that. They would continue in their homosexuality and sin and interpret my answer in line with their relativistic worldview. They could write me off because they are unbelievers who do not recognize God as the judge of truth, justice, morals, and beauty. They are perishing in unbelief and they need to hear what the Bible says about salvation and human depravity. Yes you are in sin when you engage in homosexuality for the Bible condemns your lifestyle as sin and you need to repent and trust Christ for your only hope of salvation. Yes pornography is wrong and as an unbeliever you are on your way to hell according to the Scriptures and need to repent and trust in the Gospel of Grace through faith. You see if we communicate in a real and straight forward way to unbelievers as they go on their way in unbelief and sin they will at least know the Biblical Gospel and have zero room to relativise it. They will know according to the scriptures that they are sinners on their way to judgment and not just missing out on the more fulfilling life in Christ. They will see the pervasively God centered Christian answer and realize that they have sinned and provoked a Holy God and are in need of salvation that comes from outside of them and has nothing to do with their happiness and fulfillment and everything to do with their eternal destiny. The reality is that even postmodern unbelievers can hear the one Biblical Gospel of God’s grace through faith in Christ alone! We do not need to move from sin and repentance to psychological incentives to fulfill what the sinner in view is supposedly searching for when sleeping with his girlfriend. That is just as Stephen said “another Gospel”. The whole approach that Keller takes with the “uncircumcised” is completely man centered. It reminds me of the God shaped hole Gospel that is obnoxiously preached by many modern evangelicals. The fact is that man is dead in their sins and needs to be given a new heart in regeneration in order to understand the one true Gospel. Man is not brought to life and suddenly convinced of the truthfulness of the Gospel by watering it down for the postmodern culture. The one Gospel of repentance and faith must be preached to the lost no matter the culture that we live in, both to the Jew and the Gentile, the churched and the unchurched, the civilized and the heathen.
May 30th, 2008
Danny Pelichowski
Romans 3:29-31
“For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one—who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.”
The following is a section from the notes that I took on Dr. Morey’s Romans lecture part 9. I thought it would be relevant to the current discussion. Although I’m not sure Keller is saying that there is more than one plan of salvation his distinction between multiple Gospel presentations can be rebuked by this very passage. I encourage everyone to download this lecture as well as the others and follow along through the book of Romans. Its available for free for crying out loud!
-Jesus’ plan of salvation included both Jews and Gentiles
-Some Jews thought that there were different rules and requirements for the Jews than there were for the Gentiles. This separation is a two track plan of salvation to get to heaven. One for the Jews and the other for the Gentiles.
-Dispensationalism: is based on the error that there is more than one way of salvation. The Scofield study Bible footnotes teaches that there were different ways of salvation. According to dispensationalism salvation is not always by grace through faith.
Romans 3:29-31 is the wedge that splits dispensational theology (or any multiple gospel views for that matter)
-God is the God of Jews and Gentiles.
-God will justify both Jews and Gentiles by grace through faith.
-There is only one God and only one way of salvation and that one way is through faith period!
-The oneness of God means the oneness of the plan of salvation both in the New Covenant and Old Covenant as well as for the Gentiles and the Jews.
-Hebrews 11: Able offered his sacrifice by faith, Abraham lived by faith, and David lived by faith!
-Justification by grace through faith does not nullify the law. We cannot simply live a lawless life because salvation is by grace through faith and not by the law.
May 30th, 2008
the BOC
Danny said:
“The one Gospel of repentance and faith must be preached to the lost no matter the culture that we live in, both to the Jew and the Gentile, the churched and the unchurched, the civilized and the heathen.”
Repentance and faith are a result of salvation, not the means to it.
Shalom!!!
May 30th, 2008
agogley
Glen,
I’d be happy if most Pastors even mentioned “hell.” From my vantage point, the gospel message presented by most Pastors today seems more like a self-help method.
May 30th, 2008
agogley
Amen to your first post, Danny! I have had the same encounters.
May 30th, 2008
Becky
If he means that they are just to be told one thing and leave it at that, then it is wrong. For evangelical purposes, it’s not. To have two different approaches is not two plans of salvation. The “uncircumcised gospel” is but one step in the process. Of course, from God’s point of view, salvation is instantaneous, but for us it isn’t that easy. Am i really the only one that can’t say i was saved at such and such time on such and such day? One can look back in their lives and see real turning points. Some people may have one radical one, like Dr. Bob did, but some many have many. I’ve seen people admit Scripture is true, but still not want to change. Sometimes they need more than just who, what, where, when, how. They need why. Of course you don’t say Jesus is your happiness and leave it at that. It’s a first step. You show them how what they’ve been looking for is Jesus, then show them how they aren’t worthy, then show them how is loving and forgiving, and what they should do if they love Him and want to show gratitude for His mercy and grace. That is one way. Different people respond differently. If any of you have ever had agnostic friends, then you’d understand that their skulls are like boulders. There is no getting through there except to scoop away the sand it’s sitting on and shine light underneath that the LORD might be pleased to turn that boulder to flesh and place the Rock underneath.
May 30th, 2008
Becky
While pomo churches forget to feed the children meat so they can become strong men and women, we mustn’t forget that babies need milk. They’ll grow teeth soon enough, but they’ll choke if fed meat prematurely.
May 30th, 2008
agogley
Christian #1: These heathen need vegetables to live. They eat only ice cream and will die of malnutrition.
Seeker Sensitive Christian: They won’t like brocolli. If you tell them to eat it they’ll laugh at you and go back to eating their ice cream. They’ll die of malnutrition.
Christian # 1: So what do you propose we do?
Seeker Sensitive Christian: Secretly give them a little broccoli inside a giant scoop of ice cream. Tell them it’s a new flavor. They’ll like the idea of a new flavor of ice cream and then they may eat it. Then they’ll get a little bit of broccoli.
Christian #1: But they wont get enough broccoli to prevent them from dying of malnutrition.
Seeker Sensitive Christian: We’ll steadily increase the amount of broccoli in the ice cream. We’ll hope they get enough that way or that at some point we can tell them we deceived them into doing what’s best for them. Hopefully, they’ll be ok with that and continue to eat broccoli on their own.
Christian #1: Well, what about those who do eat vegetables. If we only serve ice cream on Sundays, wont we starve the vegetable eaters?
Seeker Sensitive Christian: Well feed the vegetable eaters them on Wednesdays so that we don’t interfere with the ice cream heathen on Sundays. Or we’ll have small groups and hope that they get their broccoli then.
Christian #1: Wont the heathen who only eat ice cream influence the vegetable eaters?
Seeker Sensitive Christian: Look, vegetables taste nasty and few people will eat them if we just simply tell them they’ll die without them. It’s better to feed a little bit of vegetables to a lot of people then to feed a lot of vegetables to a few people.
Christian #1: Isn’t’ it better to save a few then to save none? Shouldn’t we just tell the truth and let the heathen choose for themselves?
Seeker Sensitive Christian: Listen, you’re being insensitive and legalistic. You need to be culturally relevant if you are going to get anybody to eat some vegetables.
May 30th, 2008
Danny Pelichowski
The BOC said:
“Repentance and faith are a result of salvation, not the means to it.”
“Shalom!!!”
To call a man to repent or turn from their sins and believe in the one who has been sent by God the Father is actually the way that we should present the Gospel. God’s grace is the basis or foundation of the Gospel for if God the Son did not chose to become incarnate and live a perfect life and die as our substitute then no one would be saved. Yes the good news is that Jesus died to save sinners however only those who repent and believe in Him will be saved. So God the Father’s election, Christ’s redemption, and the Holy Spirits work in regeneration are all in view when we talk about salvation. Salvation is on the basis of God’s grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone! And our faith is a gift from God that should not be considered a work. And yes to go on, regeneration comes before faith for a dead man spiritually cannot understand the Gospel, repent of his sins, and believe in Messiah.
May 30th, 2008
Danny Pelichowski
The BOC
Do you believe that regeneration comes before faith and repentance or do you believe that a person is born again after they believe and repent?
May 30th, 2008
Glen
If I may jump in on the salvation question here… I was listening to the T4G 2008 conference and I believe that it was one of the messages there that I heard this. The work of salvation covers regeneration, justification, and sanctification. It is the whole work of God in our lives. It begins when God regenerates us and continues until we see Him in Glory.
On the Gospel… I wrote my last post while on lunch at work and think I can clarify some now that I have had some time and reread my last post I think that some of it was not as clear as it could be.
Paul did say in 1 Cor 9:22 that he became all things to all people. He did not say that he made the Gospel all things to all people. He said that he became weak to the weak, he did not say that he made the Gospel weaker for the weak. Paul did start at different points in his message depending on the audience. If he was speaking to the Jews he started with the OT Scriptures. If he was speaking with the Gentiles he started at different points. The point here is that we can start at different points and still preach the same Gospel. We can still preach Christ and Him crucified even though we start at different points or use different illustrations.
If we preach the Gospel of Christ to an unregenerate person who does not have God working in their life then we would expect a reaction like Keller says “You have your standards, and I have mine.” How can we expect a person in whom the Holy Spirit is not working to understand the things of God. God’s thought are higher than man’s and His ways higher than ours (Isa 55:9). It takes the Holy Spirit working in our lives for us to be able to understand the Scriptures (Jn 16:13, 1 Cor 2:6-14). Over and over again the Scripture tells us that the unregenerate person cannot understand the things of God and that they are foolishness to him (Rm 1:21-23, 1 Cor 2:14, 1Cor 1:18, 21, 23, 25).
As a previous post in this blog with the closing statement of James White where he said that if an unregenerate person tells him that they do not understand the Gospel and that they will continue in sin he simply says “I know” because they have no capacity to respond to the call of God unless He draws them. Without the draw of God on our lives we have no power to respond to the Gospel of Christ. We are simply dead in our sins.
The danger in the seeker sensitive message is that there is some truth mixed in with the message that can confuse many people. The bottom line is that God does love us not the way we are, but despite the way we are. He loved us even while we were yet sinners (Rm 5:8). We are not called to God to stay the same we are called to change (Rm 12:1-2, Eph 2:4, Col 3:10) into His likeness. That is the part that the seeker sensitive message misses. We are not to stay in our sin. We are called to recognize our sinful depraved nature and repent from it. We are to put on Christ (Rm 13:14) and to renew our minds (Rm 12:1-2).
If the declaration that we are depraved sinners that need to turn from our sin, if there is no Scriptural understanding of what sin is, if there is no call for a true repentance of that sin then how can we say that the Gospel message has been given. Someone cannot be saved from what they do not know about. If God is working in their lives then He will enable them to hear the message of sin and repentance, if He is not then it will be as foolishness to them.
One last thought… Jesus did not tell His disciples in Mt 28 to go into all the world and preach the easy ABCs of the Gospel. He told us to make disciples and to teach ALL that He has commanded. We are to teach all of the Gospel not just the easy parts that won’t make people blush.
Praise God for His sovereign saving grace!
May 30th, 2008
Bumble
I would humbly suggest that you get the series Tim Keller preached on Galatians (30 sermons total, verse by verse exposition) and see if he preach the Gospel or not.
“Isn’t’ it better to save a few then to save none?” The Bible said that God wants all men to be saved.
May 30th, 2008
the BOC
Danny-
What did John The Baptist preach?
“Repent for the Kingdom of God is near”, not “repent to be saved”.
What are we to repent of? Our sins? That is impossible because all flesh sins, whether saved or unsaved. So back to the question-repent (turn from) our belief in other things that will save us, ie: other gods, religion, the teachings of man). Is non belief a sin? Absolutely! But one cannot turn from all of their sins until you know what you are doing is a sin. And how do you know you are sinning? Through the conviction of the Holy Spirit who enters your life AFTER your belief in the Messiah. He does not come in by repentance and faith, which would be by works insread of Grace anyway.
What did Jesus tell Nicodemus?
“….that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”
He says nothing of repentance and faith. These two occur naturally as a result of salvation. They are not a means to it. I purposely left off the rest of John 3:16 because the folks on this blog believe that it only applies to special people, not everyone and I really don’t feel like arguing with that false doctrine right now.
As I grow in Messiah, I find myself not doing things I used to because God is patient and kind with us all and sanctifies us at the pace we need to go. If he weren’t we’d all be smoldering ashes by now!
So if Paul, a “pharisee of pharisees” had righteousness like filthy rags, what is yours like?
And to answer your question-
I believe regeneration occurs first.
May 31st, 2008
Glen
I would submit that we can’t save any. That is what God does. In the parable of the sower we see that the soil is the most important part. The sower (us) sowed his seed (the Word of God) on all types of soil (conditions of the heart). It is the Holy Spirit that prepares the heart of mankind not us. The sower has no responsibility for the preparation of the soil, that is the work of the Holy Spirit.
May 31st, 2008
Danny Pelichowski
The BOC,
Where do I begin?
The BOC said: “And how do you know you are sinning? Through the conviction of the Holy Spirit who enters your life AFTER your belief in the Messiah. He does not come in by repentance and faith, which would be by works instead of Grace anyway.”
Do you realize that believing in Messiah is the same thing as having faith in Him? Do you realize that true saving faith is not a simple intellectual assent to the historical reality of Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, and ascension? Scripture says that even the demons believe in those things. To repent is to turn away from sin and to believe is to turn towards Christ and trust Him alone for your salvation. You see, you cannot have one with out the other. You cannot claim to believe if you haven’t repented of your sins. You cannot repent of your sins unless you believe in Christ and his propitiatory sacrifice. And you cannot repent or believe unless you have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit or born again for a dead man spiritually cannot believe the Gospel message and or repent of his sins for all have sinned and are spiritually dead prior to regeneration.
The BOC said:
“What did Jesus tell Nicodemus? “….that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” He says nothing of repentance and faith. These two occur naturally as a result of salvation. They are not a means to it.”
Once again the “whoever believes in him” part includes faith. Faith is belief and belief is faith. If someone believes in him (Jesus) in a Biblical sense they have also repented of their sins. Those who believe in Christ and repent of their sins are justified through their faith on the basis of God’s grace. They are forgiven and God’s wrath has been propitiated for Christ bore their punishment and his record was imputed to theirs and theirs to His.
The BOC said: “As I grow in Messiah, I find myself not doing things I used to because God is patient and kind with us all and sanctifies us at the pace we need to go. If he weren’t we’d all be smoldering ashes by now! So if Paul, a “pharisee of pharisees” had righteousness like filthy rags, what is yours like?”
Sanctification is a whole other story. The process of sanctification starts at our conversion and continues until the day we die. It’s that process in the Christian life when we are putting to death our sin and being made more like Christ. We are not alone in sanctification for although we are striving towards holiness it is God who is working the willing and the doing (see Philippians). We are saved by God’s grace and continue in His grace until we die and there is no other way around it. Justification and sanctification must not be blended together. We are made right before God through justification and we are made to be more like Him in sanctification. And to answer your question, I do not have any righteousness of my own. I am justified on the basis of Christ’s righteousness and Christ’s perfect life imputed to my account. Anything truly good that I do is a direct result of God’s grace and therefore I cannot boast. All of life is lived by grace and I have never claimed otherwise.
May 31st, 2008
Danny Pelichowski
Danny said in a previous post: “Do you believe that regeneration comes before faith and repentance or do you believe that a person is born again after they believe and repent?”
The BOC said: …”But one cannot turn from all of their sins until you know what you are doing is a sin. And how do you know you are sinning? Through the conviction of the Holy Spirit who enters your life AFTER your belief in the Messiah. He does not come in by repentance and faith, which would be by works instead of Grace anyway.
The BOC said: “And to answer your question- I believe regeneration occurs first.”
You have contradicted yourself multiple times in your discussion of salvation. You first wrote that the Holy Spirit enters your life after you believe which would be impossible as I wrote before because a dead man spiritually cannot believe in Messiah and repent of his sins for he is completely dead spiritually. Your first statement indicates that you believe a person is born again or regenerated after they believe in Christ. You later state that you believe regeneration comes first or prior to faith and repentance. Can you see that this is all confused and contradictory? If a person is regenerated they are given eyes to see and ears to hear, brought to life, born again, quicken by the Spirit ext. If regeneration comes first then God is the ultimate author of the whole plan of salvation and all of your negative talk about Calvinism and election of “special people” can be thrown in the garbage. Repentance and faith always follows regeneration and everyone who is born again i.e. the elect will turn to Christ and believe in the Gospel. You can never say that a person who is in hell was once regenerated by the Holy Spirit for if that person had been regenerated they would have believed, repented, and been saved. All the glory goes to God and God alone for he is the author and perfector of our faith. Calvinism is monergistic and teaches that God is solely responsible for salvation and man has no room to boast about his salvation for it is a gift and is not dependent on man whatsoever.
Your first statement began well and the logic was leading in what seemed like the right direction. Example: The BOC said: “But one cannot turn from all of their sins until you know what you are doing is a sin. And how do you know you are sinning? Through the conviction of the Holy Spirit…” However, where you went next brought the whole argument crashing down. Example: The BOC: “…who enters your life AFTER your belief in the Messiah.”
In your example above a person believes in Messiah first, then receives the Holy Spirit, and is lastly convicted of their sin after they have believed in Christ. You completely rule out repentance as a necessary prerequisite for true faith in Christ and justification before God. You view a man as being ignorant of his sin, followed by believing in Messiah, and then receiving the Holy Spirit who convicts him of sin after he believes in Christ. It is clear that you believe in a synergistic plan of salvation where man and God are working together. Man is in your view capable of believing in Christ without being regenerated by the Holy Spirit. I guess your view of human depravity is only some kind of sickness and not complete spiritual death. This interpretation of salvation is contrary to scripture as well as the historic Christian faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.
I am truly concerned for you especially if you are in a position of teaching and leadership. I am not saying that you lack the ability to communicate and could one day be a great Bible teacher however based on our exchange I am concerned that you may need to hash these very important doctrines out before blogging or teaching because you are clearly having a hard time articulating the doctrine of salvation. I am not questioning whether you are saved for I do not even know you so I will give you the benefit of the doubt as a professing Christian. As a Christian brother I humbly exhort you to spend some time thinking about these issues for it is clear that you have misinterpreted many of the different aspects of salvation. I encourage you to read Dr. Morey’s book Studies in the Atonement and test what is written by Scripture. I think that it might clear some of this up as well as being a great blessing in your life as it was in mine.
May 31st, 2008
James Pate
Well, everytime I’ve heard Tim Keller preach, he brings in the cross. God satisfies us because he demonstrated his love for us on the cross. And what does the cross do? It pays the sin-debt, in Tim Keller’s eyes. So even his Gospel for the uncircumcised includes what you define as the Gospel, Stephen.
Jun 1st, 2008
Travis
Hey everyone
Im back in the states.
Well my first few days in the states have been good but rough adjusting to life with out war, well in the physical sense.
I ask for prayer because when I went to church today i saw Tim Kellers new book sitting in a pile for everyone to have. My Pastor just got back from a personal meeting with Tim K. and I heard a little bit of what we having been discussing here, in his sermon today. It was encouraging but at the same time some flags were raised with the comments on the Law and the gosple. I want to confront my pastor on wednesday. I want to just see what he believes, and go from there. He is one of the main players in the Acts 29 Network, and works closely with Tim K. and Mark Driscoll.
I am getting a lot of flack just for brinnging it up, as if there is no issue. So again pray I will have discernment when adressing my elder but that I will not back down from truth.
Hope to see you guys
Jun 1st, 2008
Ron Hodgman
I have in the past attended City Church San Francisco and Christ Community Church in Walnut Creek, CA which are church plants done by Redeemer Church NY. I have started reading Tim Keller’s latest book and it has been great Christian reading so far. I have listened to Tim Keller’s sermons for several years. I have never read the article that started this discussion.
Currently I am living in Southern California but while living in the Minneapolis, MN area I attended John Piper’s church. John Piper I know thinks highly of Tim Keller per my personal discussion with him about Tim Keller. Tim Keller has been a speaker at several of John Piper’s conferences.
I cannot say I agree with Tim Keller on everything, but I know of no heresy taught by Tim Keller. Before this gets out of hand, perhaps some prayer and careful additional study is in order.
Jun 1st, 2008
Ron Hodgman
Danny says:
“The whole approach that Keller takes with the “uncircumcised” is completely man centered. It reminds me of the God shaped hole Gospel that is obnoxiously preached by many modern evangelicals. The fact is that man is dead in their sins and needs to be given a new heart in regeneration in order to understand the one true Gospel. Man is not brought to life and suddenly convinced of the truthfulness of the Gospel by watering it down for the postmodern culture. The one Gospel of repentance and faith must be preached to the lost no matter the culture that we live in, both to the Jew and the Gentile, the churched and the unchurched, the civilized and the heathen.”
I have heard many man-centered water downed sermons but not from Tim Keller. Tim Keller is as much a Calvinist as John Piper and James White. He does teach the TULIP. I have listened to several years of Tim Keller’s sermons and I am clueless as to what you are talking about. I listen to Tim Keller for the same reason that I listen to Robert Morey, James White, John Piper, John MacArthur, and R. C. Sproul. It is because Tim Keller’s sermons are God centered and not watered down to make it more acceptable to modern day American culture.
Do you have any clear examples to prove your point that are not creative out of context quotations? Please keep in mind that I have several years of Tim Keller’s sermons on my computer hard drive so I can check out the validity of your claim.
Even the music played in Redeemer Church NY is God centered which is more than can be said about most American churches now days. The music from Redeemer Church NY is by far my favorite Christian music. So I love both the music and the sermons of Redeemer Church NY.
Jun 1st, 2008
Ron Hodgman
Glen
Glen says:
“He is most definitely preaching two messages. I would also go so far as to say that if he is preaching a false gospel the other is more than likely false as well.
The danger that we see here is that, as with most lies, there is some truth in Keller’s message to the “uncircumcised.” Looking in other’s for fulfillment is a form of idolatry and idolatry is a sin. He is right about that. Where he gets it wrong is that we are not to preach about sin to the unbeliever. How will they ever know about sin unless they hear the truth of the Gospel? Paul says that the Law of God is what shows us that we are sinners (Rom 7).
A.W. Pink in his book The Sovereignty of God said “The nature of Christ’s salvation is woefully misrepresented by the present-day evangelist. He announces a Savior from hell rather than a Savior from sin. And that is why so many are fatally deceived, for there are multitudes who wish to escape the Lake of fire who have no desire to be delivered from their carnality and worldliness.” This is exactly what Keller is doing. He is preaching to save them from hell without calling for repentance from sin.”
Not only does Tim Keller make it clear that man is a sinner but he makes it as clear that man needs a new heart. I have read books by A. W. Pink and I have listened to several years of Tim Keller sermons. I am not aware of anything taught by A. W. Pink that is not clearly preached in a sermon by Tim Keller. I do not like any teaching that tries to save unrepentant sinner from Hell fire but I do not recall any sermons by Tim Keller that did not make it clear that man needs to repent because he is a sinner. I am clueless as to where you are getting your strange ideas. Perhaps you need to repent of making false statements about Tim Keller? I do recall one of the 10 commandments being about false witnessing.
Jun 1st, 2008
Ron Hodgman
Stephen quotes this to prove that Tim Keller peaches a false gospel:
“Instead of telling them they are sinning because they are sleeping with their girlfriends or boyfriends, I tell them that they are sinning because they are looking to their romances to give their lives meaning, to justify and save them, to give them what they should be looking for from God. This idolatry leads to anxiety, obsessiveness, envy, and resentment. I have found that when you describe their lives in terms of idolatry, postmodern people do not give much resistance. Then Christ and his salvation can be presented not (at this point) so much as their only hope for forgiveness, but as their only hope for freedom. This is my ‘gospel for the uncircumcised.’”
Not only is this very Calvinist but it is also very Lutheran. It is called “Law and Gospel”. I admit what Tim Keller says on the subject of idolatry is mild compared to what Martin Luther had to say on the subject. Yes, I have read some of Martin Luther’s writings. The last time I checked, idolatry is a major sin. It is even one of the sins covered by the 10 commandments. Your so called proof text only exposes you as being clueless as to what you are talking about. Even Jesus summed up the 10 commandments as basically love of God and man. Tim Keller makes the point in his sermons that man is a great idol maker worshipping everything and anything except God. There are times that Tim Keller sounds like Martin Luther on the subject of man being the great creator of idols to worship rather than repenting and worshiping God. Perhaps you need to read 1 John very carefully. Redeemer Church SF has a great Bible study on 1 John that I highly recommend. I cannot believe the silly things being said about Tim Keller on a website that claims to be Reformed.
Jun 2nd, 2008
Ron Hodgman
I made a mistake in the above posting by accidently confusing City Church SF with Redeemer Church NY. The 1 John Bible study is available on the Redeemer Church NY website not City Church SF website. There is no Redeemer Church SF, as the church in San Francisco, CA is City Church SF. If you visit San Francisco, I high recommend that you attend services at City Church SF which is typically in the Russian Center near Japantown. If in Seattle, WA I recommend Grace Seattle which is a church plant done by both Redeemer Church NY and City Church SF. The pastor at Grace Seattle use to be assistant pastor at City Church SF so I know him. There is also a church plant by Redeemer NY in San Diego, CA called Harbor Presbyterian. Actually Harbor Presbyterian appears to be a semi-John Piper church plant since it doesn’t follow the traditional Tim Keller model and somewhat copies the John Piper model. Not sure, but I believe there may be some PCA church plants in the Los Angeles area that may be connected to Redeemer Church NY. A listing of PCA churches connected to the Tim Keller movement in the PCA can be obtained from the Redeemer Church NY and City Church SF websites.
Last I knew, the PCA considered Tim Keller to be very Calvinist. It is not like Tim Keller created his own church like some have. He is very PCA (Presbyterian Church of America) as is R. C. Sproul.
Jun 2nd, 2008
Ron Hodgman
Article by Tim Keller on the culture of the PCA
http://www.epcnewark.org/recread/TKeller_CultureofthePCA-rev.pdf
Jun 2nd, 2008
Ron Hodgman
Being still fairly new to Southern California I am clueless as to where anything is. My GPS navigation gets me from Point A to Point B. Mapquest indicates that Irvine, CA is near Huntington Beach where I have been doing some projects for the City of Huntington Beach and Orange County. Having been in Huntington Beach a few times, yes I do know where that place is.
Mapquest indicates that Faith Community Church is about 45 minutes (37 miles) from Claremont, CA where I presently live near Claremont Theological College which has yet to find any heresy in Christendom that they have any problems with since they are so Liberal and open minded on everything and anything.
I have been thinking of visiting Faith Community Church for some time so that I can meet Robert Morey since I have read so many of his books and listened to many of his lectures on CD. I even have his Libronix collection on my computer.
Therefore be warned that a lover of the preaching of Tim Keller is planning on visiting your church very soon. The next visitor in your church may be me.
Jun 2nd, 2008
Dan Reichenberg
As a former member of the PCA I have to say that in the post Auburn Ave. era there are two major threats in the PCA. One is the intergration of secular psychology with Christianity and the other is compromise with postmodern thought. Both are compromises with existential theology. I find it ironic that the PCA, which was founded as a reaction to existential theology, is slowly being infiltrated by existential theology through these two routes, and only one generation after its founding. City Church SF has already completely fallen to existential theology and left the PCA. (At least they are honest enough to leave!)
Jun 2nd, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Ron Hodgman,
Your personal history of church attendance, your personal preference of music, as well as the quantity of sermons you have on your hard drive, have nothing at all to do with Tim Keller’s recent public theological statements.
I appreciate your desire to do what you consider noble, in this case, to defend Tim Keller, but I suggest you become familiar with the issues before you repost here. Not only will it spare you any further embarrassment, but it will honor God as you seek His opinion revealed in Scripture and count it superior to your own experiences.
I suggest that you:
a) brush up on the Law/Gospel distinction (you could benefit from a correct understanding);
b) learn the basic tenets, origin, and of existentialism (overview is fine);
c) learn Soren Kierkegaard’s philosophic distinctions (warning: do not embrace it - it is anti-Christian);
d) read Gordon Clark’s refutation of Kierkegaard’s anti-Christian philosophy;
e) power up your Libronix software and peruse Morey’s “Studies in the Atonement;”
f) read my Apostasy Warning as well as the article that sparked the discussion in which you are attempting to contribute to;
g) judge all of the above by the supreme judge in whose sentence we are to rest, Holy Scripture (WCF 1.10). From a Reformed perspective, there are few things more noble than this!
If you need any assistance or need resource recommendations, I’d be happy to help! If you visit FCC, look me up and introduce yourself.
Jun 2nd, 2008
Ron Hodgman
Dan says:
“As a former member of the PCA I have to say that in the post Auburn Ave. era there are two major threats in the PCA. One is the intergration of secular psychology with Christianity and the other is compromise with postmodern thought. Both are compromises with existential theology. I find it ironic that the PCA, which was founded as a reaction to existential theology, is slowly being infiltrated by existential theology through these two routes, and only one generation after its founding. City Church SF has already completely fallen to existential theology and left the PCA. (At least they are honest enough to leave!)”
I have been out of California for two years and I was not aware that City Church SF had left the PCA. I checked and it appears that you may be correct on this matter as they do not appear to be listed in the PCA church directory anymore. As to the reason City Church SF left the PCA I have no idea as I was not aware that they had left. As to the complex terms you use which I am not familiar with nor do I know how you define these terms; I have no comment.
Sorry I have been in the fly over states of Iowa and Minnesota for two years and totally isolated from what has been going on in California during my absence.
Jun 2nd, 2008
Ron Hodgman
Stephen says:
“Your personal history of church attendance, your personal preference of music, as well as the quantity of sermons you have on your hard drive, have nothing at all to do with Tim Keller’s recent public theological statements.
I appreciate your desire to do what you consider noble, in this case, to defend Tim Keller, but I suggest you become familiar with the issues before you repost here. Not only will it spare you any further embarrassment, but it will honor God as you seek His opinion revealed in Scripture and count it superior to your own experiences.
I suggest that you:
a) brush up on the Law/Gospel distinction (you could benefit from a correct understanding);
b) learn the basic tenets, origin, and of existentialism (overview is fine);
c) learn Soren Kierkegaard’s philosophic distinctions (warning: do not embrace it - it is anti-Christian);
d) read Gordon Clark’s refutation of Kierkegaard’s anti-Christian philosophy;
e) power up your Libronix software and peruse Morey’s “Studies in the Atonement;”
f) read my Apostasy Warning as well as the article that sparked the discussion in which you are attempting to contribute to;
g) judge all of the above by the supreme judge in whose sentence we are to rest, Holy Scripture (WCF 1.10). From a Reformed perspective, there are few things more noble than this!
If you need any assistance or need resource recommendations, I’d be happy to help! If you visit FCC, look me up and introduce yourself.”
If I visit FCC I have no plans to meet you and frankly I desire to stay as far away from you as possible. I do not need any of your assistance and please agree to disagree peacefully. I am very familiar with what Robert Morey has written on the matter of the atonement. I have no desire to be converted to whatever Christianity you are marketing.
I am not into Soren Kierkegaard or Gordon Clark either. Those that love Gordon Clark tend to be holier than thou Christians that think that their understanding of Gordon Clark makes them superior Christians. You give me the impression that you are a holier than me Christian and I am sick and tired of persons like you.
Jun 2nd, 2008
the BOC
Danny-
If man is not ignorant of sin, why did God give the Torah?
Jun 2nd, 2008
the BOC
Danny-
You say I contradict myself. Read again what I wrote with his in mind–faith and belief are two entirely different things.
Faith—the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Belief–a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing.
Belief is constant, faith grows. I beliefs are what one holds to be true. Faith cannot be proven true. They are two separate issues.
One cannot grow in faith unless he is “regenerated”. If he does, it is by works he is saved. Then you have opened the door to another entrance into heaven. The Holy Spirit prods us to make the CHOICE whether or not to accept Jesus as Messiah. Some choose, most don’t, but ALL have the opportunity. There is ONE way to the Father and that is through the Son, by the leading of the Holy Spirit.
Shalom!!
Jun 2nd, 2008
Denise
There is but ONE gospel. It proclaims Christ Jesus as the risen Master, who is God the Son. It proclaims man as dead in his sins and trespasses.
As Stephen rightly pointed us to in Scripture: Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of THE GOSPEL of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation to everyone believing, BOTH TO JEW FIRST ,AND TO GREEK; 17 for in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; even as it has been written, “But the just shall live by faith.” Hab. 2:4
Same Gospel to Jew and Gentile: Rom. 1:16; 1Peter 1:10-12; Rom. 10:8-10; 1Cor. 15:3-4; Gal. 3:8; Rom. 4; Eph. 2:12-17
Justification the same for Jew and Gentile: Romans 4
Peace in Christ for both Jew and Gentile by Jesus’ death:Eph. 2:12-17
Gal 3:8 And the Scripture foreseeing that God would justify THE NATIONS by faith, preached THE GOSPEL before to Abraham: “All the nations will be blessed” “in you.” Gen. 12:3
Jew and Gentile One man in Christ: Eph. 2:12-17
All men are in the same spiritual condition: lost and dead in their sins and trespasses.
All men know God exists.
All men know right from wrong.
All men deny to give God praise and glory.
(see Romans 1-2, Eph. 2).
Keller says, ” I have found that when you describe their lives in terms of idolatry, postmodern people do not give much resistance. Then Christ and his salvation can be presented not (at this point) so much as their only hope for forgiveness, but as their only hope for freedom. This is my ‘gospel for the uncircumcised.’”
Lowering the gospel to what is accepted by God-haters is not proclaiming the truth. Rather, its allowing the God-haters to dictate what they deem acceptable. The world, Jesus says, will hate you because it hated HIM first. It hates truth. The Light of Truth causes those in darkness to flee b/c of their evil deeds and dark hearts. If the world is not resisting the gospel one presents, then likely the Gospel is not being proclaimed.
Forgiveness is proclaimed as the sinner’s need because he has violated ALL of God’s laws (James 2) and stands guilty before the Holy and Just God. The sinner MUST be declared guilty. Freedom isn’t part of the gospel. Its the result of being saved by Christ Jesus. Freedom is only declared to those whom the Son sets free.
Idolatry is condemned in the Law. Lust (adultery and covetousness) is condemned in the Law. Keller’s false dichotomy makes no sense.
Perhaps Keller might consider this: Rom 2:14 For 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.
The use of the Law for all sinners: 1Ti 1:8 Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, 9 understanding this, that THE LAW IS not laid down for the just BUT FOR THE LAWLESS and disobedient, FOR THE UNGODLY AND SINNERS, for the UNHOLY AND PROFANE, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10 the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, 11 IN ACCORADANCE WITH THE GOSPEL of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.
When Keller says, “That puts the emphasis not as much on ‘doing bad things’ but on ‘making good things into ultimate things,’” its still wrong, because of what Romans 3 says:
Rom 3:9 What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, BOTH JEWS AND GREEKS, are under sin,
Rom 3:10 as it is written: “NONE IS RIGHTEOUS, NO, NOT ONE;
Rom 3:11 no one understands; NO ONE SEEKS FOR GOD.
Rom 3:12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; ON ONE DOES GOOD, NOT EVEN ONE.”
Felt needs, being relevant, being hip, isn’t what opens the door to hearing the gospel: the preaching of the Gospel is what God uses. Man’s sin and spiritual condition has always been the same since the Fall. It doesn’t matter the country, culture, or age. Man is always the same: the sin is the same, the need is the same. The deadness is the same. And the GOSPEL is the same. POMO (Post Modernism) isn’t new. Its rehashed garbage from previous generations. Take a look at The Downgrade Contraversy that Spurgeon addressed. Same issues, just different labels.
Jun 2nd, 2008
Glen
After reading the article again I have a question on this statement “…postmodern listeners who consider all moral statements to be culturally relative and socially constructed. If you try to convict them for guilt for sexual lust, they will simply say, ‘You have your standards, and I have mine’.”
Is this not the type of answer that any unregenerate sinner who is not lead by the Holy Spirit going to give? Not necessarily in those words, but isn’t the attitude behind the statement would be pretty much the same?
Jun 2nd, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Ron Hodgman,
What exactly was it that I wrote to you that struck such a nerve with you to the point that you reacted in such a wicked way?
Lastly, do you profess to be in Christ?
Jun 2nd, 2008
Ron Hodgman
Stephen says:
“What exactly was it that I wrote to you that struck such a nerve with you to the point that you reacted in such a wicked way?
Lastly, do you profess to be in Christ?”
I am in Christ but not Gordon Clark. Having Gordon Clark tossed into my face was a big turn off. I tend to agree with James White’s comments about Gordon Clark and his fellow like-minded followers. Ditto that I agree with the late Greg Bahnsen’s comments about Gordon Clark. It is very clear that any additional discussion is pointless and I really doubt that I will go anywhere near your church.
So those who are true professors of Christ understand Gordon Clark and agree with him?
Jun 2nd, 2008
Denise
What a difference!!!!!
“[i]f you try to convict them of guilt for sexual lust, they will simply say, ‘You have your standards, and I have mine.’ If you respond with a diatribe on the dangers of relativism, your listeners will simply feel scolded and distanced.” –Tim Keller
Versus
“We live in perilous times: we are passing through a most eventful period; the Christian world is convulsed; there is a mighty upheaval of the old foundations of faith; a great overhauling of old teaching. The Bible is made to speak to-day in a language which to our fathers would be an unknown tongue. Gospel teachings, the proclamation of which made men fear to sin, and dread the thought of eternity, are being shelved. Calvary is being robbed of its glory, sin of its horror, and we are said to be evolving into a reign of vigorous and blessed sentimentality, in which heaven and earth, God and man are to become a heap of sensational emotions; but in the process of evolution is not the power of the gospel weakened? Are not our chapels emptying? Is there not growing up among men a greater indifference to the claims of Christ? Are not the theories of evolution retrogressive in their effect upon the age? Where is the fiery zeal for the salvation of men which marked the Nonconformity of the past? Where is the noble enthusiasm that made heroes and martyrs for the truth? Where is the force which carried Nonconformity forward like a mighty avalanche? Alas! where?”
“The one thing common to them all is the studious avoidance of all those sharp features of the gospel which are repulsive to the natural man—which ‘are hid from the wise and prudent, and are revealed only to babes.’
“I should not have said so much in this strain were it not that all our churches are honeycombed with this mischievous tendency to minimize all those features of the gospel which the natural man cannot receive. And no wonder, for their object seems to be to attract the natural mind. Wherever this is the case, the spirituality of the pulpit is done away, and the Spirit himself is not there.
–Spurgeon, The Downgrade Contraversy, “The Case Proved”
Then of course there is Edwards’ “Sinners In the Hands of an Angry God”. The likes of Warren, Keller, etc would no doubt correct him today.
Jun 2nd, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Ron Hodgman,
Many other websites are available to turn you on. Perhaps biblicalthought.com is not for you.
I know James White, he is a dear brother. But I am unaware of him ever expressing his displeasure with Gordon Clark’s refutation of Kierkegaard (RRR pgs. 73-80), whom Tim Keller appeals to as essential to his “other gospel.” Please provide a link or reference to this.
“So those who are true professors of Christ understand Gordon Clark and agree with him?”
No, of course not. I asked because whenever such vitriolic reactions to God, Scripture, truth, the gospel, etc., arise, it is usually one of two things:
1. an unbeliever (which is normal according to Scripture).
2. a believer in poor spiritual condition, a state of rebellion.
To the unbeliever we give the gospel, and to the believer in poor spiritual condition we give biblical exhortation in love through the power of the Holy Spirit. I know that is very VanTillian of me, but I am an organic second-generation VanTillian (if that means anything).
Since you are a #2, I will repeat myself in saying, “…I suggest you become familiar with the issues before you repost here. Not only will it spare you any further embarrassment, but it will honor God as you seek His opinion revealed in Scripture and count it superior to your own experiences.”
Jun 2nd, 2008
Ron Hodgman
Stephen says:
“Many other websites are available to turn you on. Perhaps biblicalthought.com is not for you.
I know James White, he is a dear brother. But I am unaware of him ever expressing his displeasure with Gordon Clark’s refutation of Kierkegaard (RRR pgs. 73-80), whom Tim Keller appeals to as essential to his “other gospel.” Please provide a link or reference to this.
“So those who are true professors of Christ understand Gordon Clark and agree with him?”
No, of course not. I asked because whenever such vitriolic reactions to God, Scripture, truth, the gospel, etc., arise, it is usually one of two things:
1. an unbeliever (which is normal according to Scripture).
2. a believer in poor spiritual condition, a state of rebellion.
To the unbeliever we give the gospel, and to the believer in poor spiritual condition we give biblical exhortation in love through the power of the Holy Spirit. I know that is very VanTillian of me, but I am an organic second-generation VanTillian (if that means anything).
Since you are a #2, I will repeat myself in saying, “…I suggest you become familiar with the issues before you repost here. Not only will it spare you any further embarrassment, but it will honor God as you seek His opinion revealed in Scripture and count it superior to your own experiences.””
How I am a #2 because I disagree with you. It only proves to me that additional discussion is pointless.
Could there be a third option? By the laws of logic can you prove that no third option is available and I am in fact a #3 and not a #2.
By your logic I should have never left the Campbellites to become a Calvinist. Believe it or not, the Campbellites are still tying to figure out if I am a number 1 or 2 because I disagree with them on how the Bible is to be understood. I do not agree with the Alexander Campbell “Christian System” for understanding the Bible their way.
I do not believe you to be far in your critique of Tim Keller and I do not desire to get into a pointless argument on the matter.
I saw this coming and you proved me right by your last posting.
Jun 2nd, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Glen,
You wrote: “After reading the article again I have a question on this statement ‘…postmodern listeners who consider all moral statements to be culturally relative and socially constructed. If you try to convict them for guilt for sexual lust, they will simply say, ‘You have your standards, and I have mine’.’
‘Is this not the type of answer that any unregenerate sinner who is not lead by the Holy Spirit going to give? Not necessarily in those words, but isn’t the attitude behind the statement would be pretty much the same?’
*Yes, the unregenerate (collectively) are dead in their sins and trespasses. Keller’s other gospel, at best, sends the heathen home with clean outsides of their cups while filth and stench abound inside.
I truly hope that Tim Keller drops this other gospel and rages back on to the scene with SOLID gospel preaching. It would be to God’s glory if he saw his error from Scripture and publicly repudiated his other gospel. My hope is in God’s ability to restore a man by grace, but Scripture doesn’t speak lightly about men with other gospels.
Forgive him Lord, for he doesn’t know what he’s doing!
Jun 2nd, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Ron Hodgman,
How many times are you going to extend a conversation that you have already deemed pointless?
Your issue is with God, not me.
Take it up with Him.
I have already demonstrated my willingness to help you through this, an offer that you have rejected colorfully. I’ve correctively pointed out your errors in love, and even offered to meet with you in person.
If you cannot accept the fact that you are almost entirely ignorant of the issue on which you intend to discuss, and unable to receive instruction that will benefit you in resolving your ignorance, then what should become obviously pointless is your continuance in perpetuating an infinite conundrum of irrelevant babbling.
Anyone reading our exchange can see that you are a man pleaser.
Jun 2nd, 2008
Drew
How postmodern of Tim Keller to change biblical terms to suit his preaching of the gospel. We need to use biblical terms in biblical ways and not re-define them and in effect make them worthless.
Romans 2:29 - No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not the written code. Such a man’s praise is not from men but from God.
To say that an unbeliever is circumcised is an unbiblical distinction and is false teaching. When God has regenerated someone, the above verse says that they have a circumcised heart.
I have also downloaded and was edified by many sermons by Tim Keller. However, a large number of good sermons does not allow someone to teach a false doctrine here and there.
The church is in real danger if we fail to preach the gospel of God according to the scriptures. So much danger that those who engage in false gospel preaching will be cursed. (Galatians 1:8-9)
Jun 2nd, 2008
Ron Hodgman
Stephen,
Now I am a man pleaser as well as a Number 2. Whatever is wisdom in your eyes.
Jun 2nd, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Ron Hodgman,
One of the most spiritually healthy act a man pleasing #2 can do is become resolved to NOT be a man pleaser. By turning in one fluid motion from man and to God (a swooping 180), it should set your heart and mind to desire His will, to long for His statutes, to hunger for His words, His revelation, etc. You will become dissatisfied in your pursuit of Him by looking to man and it should cause for you to seek Him where He has spoken - in Scripture. Scripture will refresh you on your trek and provide you with the foundation needed in order to discern truth from error. Truth has flavor and it can be tasted, but the taste buds of a man pleaser are not satisfied when all they encounter are lateral-anthropic ingredients.
This in turn should disqualify you as a #2 if it is done in the fear of God!
Jun 2nd, 2008
Glen
Further in his article (Point 3) Tim also says this “I have found many highly secular people over the age of 40 are not reached very well with any emphasis on personal problem. Many of them think they are doing very well, thank you.” Is this not also the answer of any regenerate person who is not under the influence of the Holy Spirit?
In one of my earlier posts I wrote that Tim “…is most definitely preaching two messages. I would also go so far as to say that if he is preaching a false gospel the other is more than likely false as well.” Let me explain why I say this.
In light of another section of the same article Tim writes “… define sin as building your identity - your self-worth and happiness - on anything other than God.” While he is correct that this would be a sin, that is not the Biblical definition of sin.
If you don’t have an appropriate view of sin then you don’t have a right view of the total depravity of man. If you don’t have a right view of the depravity of man then you don’t have a correct view of what it is that we need to be saved from. How can anyone preach a Biblical view of the true Gospel with an incorrect view of the depravity of man?
As some have written in these posts defending Tim, I hope and pray that they are correct and there was just a better review of written comments needed. I pray that what appears clear as written here is not what it seems. I’m not familiar with Tim’s work up until now so I can only make comments on what is written in this article, but there are several sections that make flags raise.
Stephen, thank you for the work you have done here.
Jun 2nd, 2008
Ron Hodgman
Stephen says:
“One of the most spiritually healthy act a man pleasing #2 can do is become resolved to NOT be a man pleaser. By turning in one fluid motion from man and to God (a swooping 180), it should set your heart and mind to desire His will, to long for His statutes, to hunger for His words, His revelation, etc. You will become dissatisfied in your pursuit of Him by looking to man and it should cause for you to seek Him where He has spoken - in Scripture. Scripture will refresh you on your trek and provide you with the foundation needed in order to discern truth from error. Truth has flavor and it can be tasted, but the taste buds of a man pleaser are not satisfied when all they encounter are lateral-anthropic ingredients.
This in turn should disqualify you as a #2 if it is done in the fear of God!”
I checked Phil Johnson’s website to see if he agreed with your viewpoint on Tim Keller and he appears to not agree. I checked some other spiritual discernment websites that I trust and they appear to support my viewpoint about Tim Keller.
Now if one is to take the position that Phil Johnson who teaches at John MacArthur’s church is a man pleaser then it appears that I am not alone in my man pleasing ways. Your viewpoint doesn’t appear to be a majority viewpoint.
Now if I was to agree with you in order to please you; then I would be a man pleaser because I do not agree with you at all.
Dare I say the H word which is Hyper-Calvinist because I am concerned that you are sounding like one.
The bottom line is that I do not trust you because a lot of alarm bells are going off in my mind saying beware of Hyper-Calvinism.
Jun 2nd, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Glen,
Your comments reveal your discernment of the issues. Praise God that you are first familiar with the genuine, equipping you to be able to recognize a counterfeit. It’s all by grace!
You said: “I’m not familiar with Tim’s work up until now so I can only make comments on what is written in this article, but there are several sections that make flags raise.”
Keller has some helpful material that has blessed me in the past. We once considered him solid. Don’t be afraid of listening to old lectures (prior to Purpose Driven Keller), just be discerning, as you should always be.
Jun 2nd, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Ron Hodgman,
1. You need to check Scripture, not man.
2. Please define “Hyper-Calvinist.”
3. “The bottom line is that I do not trust you because a lot of alarm bells are going off in my mind saying beware of Hyper-Calvinism.”
Beware, Ron Hodgman. Bells are not supposed to go off in one’s mind, let alone say anything. This is exactly how Joseph Smith started. Test your subjective feelings by Scripture! The bells in your head may be being rung by Satan. How can you ever know? Again, I point you to Scripture…
Jun 2nd, 2008
Ron Hodgman
Stephen,
Strange I was under the impression you were the Bible and Calvinist expert. You are clueless as to what is a Hyper-Calvinist? How sad
Jun 2nd, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Ron Hodgman,
As James White would say, and has said, “Hyper-Calvinism has a historical definition.” I am asking you, please, to define your terms. Please define what you mean by it, and then please justify your charge against me that I am a Hyper-Calvinist.
I learned this from James as I watched him get slandered by being called a Hyper-Calvinist by the unjustified-insult-hurling Caner’s. So, define it, and I will match it with the historical definition and check it for accuracy. Please do not submit a relativized definition, I’m getting tired of all the postmodernism flying around as of late.
Jun 2nd, 2008
Ron Hodgman
I do accept the term as used by James White and Phil Johnson which is the historical meaning of Hyper-Calvinist. However, since all accept that a Hyper-Calvinist will never admit to being one. Frankly you are acting too cultic to me. Even if you prove you are not a Hyper-Calvinist; your cultic behavior is a problem.
Jun 2nd, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Ron Hodgman,
Please define cultic.
Jun 2nd, 2008
Danny Pelichowski
Wow, I’ve never met a Hyper-Calvinist before! Stephen, do you deny the Biblical mandate of evangelism? I haven’t seen any indications of that in this post or any others that you have written. Seems like a red haring to me.
I would be surprised to find that you’re a Hyper-Calvinist for you continuously keep pointing this discussion back to scripture alone? From what I have witnessed reading this blog it seems that you care highly about being faithful to aligning your beliefs and actions according to the Word of God. If you have distorted the Scriptures and are teaching Hyper-Calvinism in this post then I guess I should beware of being a Hyper-Calvinist as well because I like Glenn am thankful for the work that you have done here and am in like mind with you brother.
Ron should have listened to your warning and ought to”…become familiar with the issues before [he] reposts here. Not only will it spare [him] any further embarrassment, but it will honor God as you seek His opinion revealed in Scripture and count it superior to your own experiences.” Ron’s empiricism and mysticism has risen closer and closer to the surface after each one of his posts. Instead of turning to the Scriptures in order to test the clear content of Keller’s “Gospel to the uncircumcised” he ran over to Phil Johnson’s website to gain approval for his emotional connection to Tim Keller. I was hopeful that he might give heed to your Biblical correction however it appears that although he might claim the doctrines of the reformation he does not live by them. He has not shown a deep commitment to Scripture as a guide to teach him what to believe and how to live. He has followed his emotional connection and experience with Keller and has shut his eyes to the very clear and warranted issues that you have raised here in this article as well as previous warning dealing with Tim Keller. I thought it was cool that he lived near Faith Community Church and was going to visit and that he could indeed talk with you in person however it seems as if that is out of the picture now. I have to say I was surprised to see the conversation turn out the way it did. By God’s grace this can all be cleared up for the Glory of God and the edification of the Church.
Jun 2nd, 2008
Ron Hodgman
All communication is terminated. I only desired to meet Robert Morey in person, but I no longer have any desire to meet Robert Morey.
Frankly, I am looking for a church home here in Southern California and I will keep looking. I have crossed your church off my list permanently. Not that I really desired to attend a church down in Irvine CA.
My connection to Tim Keller has been long distance. I have never attended any services at Redeemer Church NY but the pastor in Iowa City, IA who is PCA had no issues with Tim Keller either. One of the children raised in his church attended Redeemer Church NY.
So who is this cultic yes person that is playing man pleaser for you?
Tim Keller has no idea who I am as we have never meet. So I am clueless as to how I am a man pleaser of someone that doesn’t know that I exist. I defend Tim Keller for the same reason I would and have defended John Calvin. I really do believe that Tim Keller teaches a sound gospel message. However, I do not detect that you are anything but cultic and desire followers of yourself. Since John Calvin is dead, he has yet to thank me for my defense of him too.
Jun 2nd, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Well, let’s hope he keeps his word this time.
Moving on, how about this question I raised in the OP: “If the postmodern accepts the offer of Christ as her only hope for freedom but does not look to Christ as her only hope for forgiveness of her sin, where would she spend eternity if she died on her drive home from believing Keller’s “gospel for the uncircumcised” in a 75mph head-on-collision with an eighteen-wheeler?”
Hypothetically, if we (to use Phil Johnson’s words) “shoe-horned” the gospel to fit a humanistic philosophy such as Kierkegaardian Existentialism and presented Christ to a postmodern as her only hope for freedom as the gospel for the uncircumcised would demand (since she is unable to grasp the concept of sin as the falling short of God’s Law), if she believed it and died later that night, would she be saved (as defined in Scripture)?
Jun 2nd, 2008
Reformed Mama
No…see Denise’s post above…it starts with…”There is but ONE gospel”…
Well said Denise…love the Spurgeon quotes in the other post as well…he is one of my heroes!
Stephen…we appreciate your work…and love you…even if Ron doesn’t!! (my fav was …”perpetuating an infinite conundrum of irrelevant babbling”.)
Travis…Welcome Home!!
Jun 2nd, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Thanks, Reformed Mama.
Travis, home? How did I miss that?
You’re in Colorado, right? Let us know if you plan on hittin’ Cali this Summer!
Jun 3rd, 2008
Travis
Thanks guys,
We plan to come and visit everyone, family, and friends, but it all depends on weather or not we can afford the gas. I will keep you posted, our kids are just old enough to enjoy Disneyland and my mom lives right down the road and can get us free tickets, so that’s another idea.
I have been reading Tim Keller’s gospel and looked at Gal. 2:7 in four different translations, I do not even understand how he comes up with the conclusion that there is two different gospels. (Unless I missed something in the Greek) The only translation that he could advocate using for this exegesis is the King James.
The NASB, NIV, and the Amplified all agree that Peter went here Paul went there and they both went with the same gospel.
My next point would be to say the gospel could be presented in many ways and in many venues. Because everyone we meet (unbelievers) are the same in the sense that they are separated from God by there sin and needing forgiveness and atonement. However, how we present it to them needs to be discerned. Some, we have time to get to thier presuppositions and ask them questions and present it that way, others, give them a quick smack of reality right up front. Others are looking into Christianity and want to be explained what it is all about, and you can then present the only way to be a follower of Christ.
In all these instances, the gospel never changes. Atheist scholars as well as people sitting in the church not part of the ecclesia (thanks for that study Dr. Bob) still must come to God by his grace through faith.
One thing that I have a question on is this. The terminology used in the reformed circles can be confusing (but I don’t mind explaining it) for example, if I was to say you must come by Grace through Faith, people would say “what?” so I have to explain what Grace is and what Faith is because a lot of people think Grace is gift and faith is something they have already.
Jun 3rd, 2008
Glen
I would agree with Denise and Reformed Mama. As I said before if you don’t have a right view of sin and the depravity of man then how can you have a right view of the work of Christ on the cross. If you don’t have a right view of the work of Christ on the cross then where does your faith truely lie? If your faith is not in Christ alone through faith alone by grace alone then I believe that gives a good picture of your relationship with the Heavenly Father. Not that I stand to judge as that is God’s job since I cannot see the heart of man, but I believe that we can see the fruit from a true believer (Mt 7).