Does Tim Keller Have Two Gospels?

May 29, 2008

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

202 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).

Jun 3rd, 2008
Denise

Well Stephen, if they were looking for freedom (from what?) and purpose in life, I’d say no. The “gospel to the uncircumscized” as Keller defines it, has man at the center and needing a more fulfilling purpose (Arminian man-centered junk). It appears Keller wants to solve “psychological” issues of anxiety, obsessiveness, resentment, and envy, instead of seeing that all those things including immorality are sin and earning the POMO hell.

It seems to me Keller is manipulating people and appealing/appeasing the mind and reasoning of rebellious God-haters, rathan than being up front with them. Put another way, Keller manipulates for a response. How subtle the enemy to put a lot of truth with a little error!

Keller said, “If you respond with a diatribe on the dangers of relativism, your listeners will simply feel scolded and distanced.”

I say they SHOULD “feel” scolded and be PROVEN distanced from GOD and Truth! They are, after all, under God’s wrath (John 3:36). They shouldn’t feel cozy, nor should they be coddled. Nor should they feel just merely depressed because of a lack of fulfillment. Look at how the Lord used the preaching of The Gospel through Peter (Peter wasn’t very irenic!):

Act 2:36 Let all the house of Israel therefore KNOW FOR CERTAIN that God has made him both Lord and Christ, THIS JESUS WHOM YOU CRUCIFIED.”
Act 2:37 Now when they heard this THEY WERE CUT TO THE HEART, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?”
Act 2:38 And Peter said to them, “REPENT AND BE BAPTIZED every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Keller can take his new convert he so successfully won over to one of the dance parties his church has. ; )

Redeemer Dance Network: http://www.redeemer.com/connect/congregational_life/dance_network/

Jun 3rd, 2008
Denise

http://www.spurgeon.org/s_and_t/dg05.htm

… When men begin to hesitate about, and hold back the truth in relation to him, it is a sign of an unhealthy state of soul; and when these truths are diluted, omitted, or otherwise tampered with, it is a sign which in plain words means “Beware.”

“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?”

Jun 3rd, 2008
Mario

Stephen,

I was going to say the same thing with regards to “Cultic.”

According to Webster’s online dictionary, I think we’d qualify under numbers 2 and 5 maybe. Of course according to the Triune God of Scripture and His revealed Scripture!

1: formal religious veneration : worship
2: a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
3: a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents
4: a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator
5 a: great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b: the object of such devotion c: a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion

Jun 3rd, 2008
the BOC

I repeat to Danny–

Danny-
If man is not ignorant of sin, why did God give the Torah?

Jun 3rd, 2008
Stephen Macasil

Ah, Mario. You are turning out to be quite a prized cult member. I am pleased that you have not violated any of our Handbook rules. Come see me at our next meeting at the undisclosed location for your reward. You shall receive the gift of your choice (unopened Oreos, Strawberry Twizzlers, or a John Denver cassette tape w/case) as well as a signed yellow slip which allows you an exemption from the 2.43% increase in the Summer 2008 tithing chart that is based on gross income that all of my followers *WILL be pleased (Handbook 3.16) to pay* during these tough financial times for me with high gas prices and so on.

Jun 3rd, 2008
Stephen Macasil

Drew has made a good point in a comment buried above. He said:

“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.” (about 23 above)

Drew is critical of Kellers use of the term “circumcised” for an unbeliever that has the supposed ability to grasp the concept of sin as the violation of God’s Holy Law. As Drew point out, a circumcised heart is by way of the Holy Spirit’s regenerating the sinner. Prior to regeneration, no man is “able” to believe, regardless of his/her upbringing. Drew concludes that Keller has drawn an unbiblical distinction.

I think Drew is on to something here. Although Keller appeals to the way it is used in Gal. 2:7, Drew’s theological perspective is more faithful to the overall eternal plan of salvation revealed in Romans.

My objection would be with Keller’s distinction between circ/uncirc based on “ability.”

Proposal: No person is more or less able (based on their upbringing) to receive the gospel. Unless God regenerates the sinner, they will never believe because they cannot, as Romans 8 says, they are “unable” to. This is a theological objection to a major premise in Keller’s scheme for two forms of the gospel that hinges on one type of person’s ability to do something and the other type of person’s inability.

Can this proposal be challenged and/or refuted by Scripture?

Also worth noting is J. Gresham Machen’s Notes on Galatians which disagrees with Keller’s interpretation of Gal. 2:7 as a biblical warrant for two forms of the gospel. It isn’t the strongest commentary on Gal. 2, but since Machen left Princeton (for theological reasons) and founded the seminary that Keller attended (WTS), it shows the “school of thought” that Keller was trained in which he now at least in part, rejects.

This pits him against Machen, the founder of Westminster Theological Seminary, as well as the theology of many other “Reformed” men such as Geerhardus Vos, Gordon Clark, Cornelius VanTil, Francis Schaeffer, Carl Henry, et al.

If these men (and others) and their doctrine/philosophy represent 20th Century Reformed Theology, a “school that Keller capitalizes on by being associated with,” and if he now embraces their theological enemies and embraces what they considered heresy, then we and everyone else should stop referring to Keller as Reformed and either give him a new label, something cool-counding perhaps, or lump him in with the rest of those men that Machen, Clark, VanTil, etc., fought so hard to God’s glory to refute.

Do not think for a second that if any of those old dogs were still alive, that they’d approve of Keller’s recent “ministry” efforts.

Jun 3rd, 2008
Danny Pelichowski

The BOC said: “If man is not ignorant of sin, why did God give the Torah?”

I’m not intentionally ignoring your question, I just didn’t know where you were going with the question and how you came up with it in view of our discussion. Correct me if I am wrong but I’m pretty sure you did not come up with this question in relation to anything I have written. You are asking the question as if I wrote something that you are objecting to when if fact your question is off topic. I am not willing to chase you down this rabbit trail. If you have something you want to write dealing with the question you asked above then by all means go right ahead but I cannot partake in a discussion that is incoherent.

Jun 3rd, 2008
the BOC

Danny
You made the statement by accusing me of something you cannot answer. You obviously believe that man is not ignorant of his sin. Do you know every time you sin? Does God not reveal things to you He doesn’t want you doing anymore as you grow in Him? If he doesn’t, then you are a Suoerhero!
Danny said-
” 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.”
Sin is relevant to your beliefs. Some abstain from drinking alcohol because they believe it is a sin. The bible doesn’t say not to drink alcohol, it says do not get drunk. If you believe drinking alcohol is a sin, it is your conviction, not mine. The 613 laws in the Torah are to point out the sin that we as humans are unaware of. Can you name all the Laws written there? If you cannot, then you are ignorant of your sin.

Jun 4th, 2008
Danny Pelichowski

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…”You made the statement by accusing me of something you cannot answer. You obviously believe that man is not ignorant of his sin. Do you know every time you sin? Does God not reveal things to you He doesn’t want you doing anymore as you grow in Him? If he doesn’t, then you are a Superhero!”

O.k. now I understand your question. The reason that it was confusing is because we are both talking past one another. We need to do a better job defining our terms and getting to the heart of the issue. I will try my best with the intention of being helpful. Correct me if I am wrong but your above statement pictures a person believing in Messiah before the Holy Spirit comes upon a person in regeneration. In regeneration the Holy Spirit does His Trinitarian work in the plan of salvation where He gives the sinner a new heart and changes the sinner from being dead in sins to being brought to life in order to be able to understand and perceive the Gospel and to be truly convicted of his sinfulness. A regenerate person will not know every single sin that he has committed, is currently committing, and will in the future commit. He will however be overwhelmed by the reality that he is indeed a wicked sinner in need of the grace of God. I am also as a converted Christian in the process of sanctification and do not know every sin I committed in the past, am committing right now, or will commit in the future for I am a finite sinful being and am completely dependent on the Holy Spirit’s guidance and the study of the Word in order to continue to put to death sin in my life and live and act more like Christ.

Maybe I can ask a question that just might clear this all up. Your above statement could be a little more clear or maybe you can even elaborate on the statement so that I can understand by what you mean by conviction of the Holy Spirit and whether that happens prior to or after faith in Christ. It seems that you are saying that the conviction of the Holy Spirit comes after you belief in Messiah. If that is the case then how in the world does a spiritually dead sinner believe in Messiah if he has not been born again, truly convicted of his utter sinfulness, and in light of the Holy Spirits work spurred on to true saving faith, repentance and accurate belief in Christ?

Jun 4th, 2008
Danny Pelichowski

The BOC said…”Sin is relevant to your beliefs.”

I would be careful in how you phrase this. Oh how I would cling on to this statement prior to my conversion when I was unregenerate and attending a seeker church. Our definition of sin should never include the above statement unless you are an atheist, agnostic, new age, free thinker, Oprah follower, and a relativistic humanist who only wants to be free from God and run as far away from Him as they possibly can.

I do not think drinking alcohol is a sin and I would meet up with you at a local bar to have a beer and talk theology if we lived in the same area. The reason I don’t have any issues with having a six pack of beer in my refrigerator is not because “sin is relative to my beliefs.” The word of God alone dictates what I shall believe and how I then should live. I will in moderation drink alcohol occasionally because I enjoy it and it is not a Biblically defined sin. Others like my wife may choose not to drink alcohol because of family abuse of alcohol in the past and she wisely has chosen not to drink alcohol and I respect her for that. Other Christians will look down on people who drink alcohol because of as Dr. Bob says they are “mushy head Christians” who have opened wide their mouths and received their theology and morality from their church leaders without ever searching the scriptures in order to determine their beliefs and morals. There are also those Christians that are young in the faith and recent converts and might still be learning and have not been able to make a well thought out Biblical decision on different aspects of morality. I would never use my freedom in Christ to cause a believer to stumble in the faith so I will also be careful and discerning about these things with the intention of being helpful to those weaker in the faith. The question you brought up comes down to Christian liberty and the fact that we are living in the new covenant, not that sin is relevant to our beliefs. Sin is black and white and not relative to anything. Either we can say that a thought or an action is sin or that it is not a sin. Where do we find that out? We define sin from Scripture alone. Can we keep completely free from sinning all the days of our lives? Absolutely not for like I said even when we do not know that we are specifically sinning there are cases when due to our fallen and depraved nature we commit a sin even in ignorance. Not only do we sin in ignorance but we also willfully and knowingly sin and any freedom or victory that we have is to be credited to the grace of God and nothing in and of ourselves for no man or woman can boast before a holy God.

We are also free from Old Covenant ceremonial laws included in the 613 that you mentioned like what to eat and not to eat, or how to comb and cut your hair. I recommend Dr. Morey’s book and audio lectures on the relationship between the Old and New Testament as well as reading Hebrews and Galatians.

Jun 4th, 2008
Denise

Drew and Stephen, right.

God describes both the religious and non-religious; Jew and Greek, in Romans: all unrighteous men supress the truth; God has made Himself known to all people:”his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, ” ; all are without excuse; all are sinners; none seek God nor can understand Him.

1Jn 3:4 “Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness.” Romans 1-3 declare all men guilty. It might be an obvious point, but idolatry and immorality BOTH equally violate God’s law: Love God, worship God. Disobedience is not love, Jesus said in John. I don’t get Keller’s distinction. Its POMO nonesense. The Lord does not say fornication is idolatry.

Col 3:5 Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and COVETUOUSNESS, WHICH IS IDOLATRY. 6 On account of these the wrath of God is coming.

Gal 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20 IDOLATRY, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, 21 envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

1Pe 4:3 For the time that is past suffices for doing what the Gentiles want to do, living in sensuality, passions, drunkenness, orgies, drinking parties, and lawless IDOLATRY.

Is Keller redefining “guilt” ? Does Keller think that only IF you are aware of the Law, THEN you are guilty?
If so, he’s rejected Romans 1-3!

This is interesting:

Eze 5:5 “Thus says the Lord GOD: This is Jerusalem. I have set her in the center of the nations, with countries all around her. 6 And she has rebelled against my rules by doing wickedness MORE THAN THE NATIONS, and against my statutes MORE THAN THE COUNTRILES ALL AROUND HER; for they have rejected my rules and have not walked in my statutes.

Seems the “uncircumcized” had a better “grasp” on moral issues than the Circumcized, in some cases.

Keller is saying, if I can sum it up (he’s very confusing b/c he’s a POMO (post-modernist):

*Religious people who grasp the idea of God’s moral laws = circumcized = need a gospel of hope from guilt
*POMO’s (who put all moral statements as relative) = uncircumcized = needs a gospel of freedom

Then Keller proceeds to use the very Law (”idolatry”) he says the POMOs view as relative,to convict the POMOs of idolatry?

Huh?

Why would a POMO accept the fact of being an idolator yet not an adulterer/fornicator/thief/hater of God, according to Scripture, when all things are relative to him? A POMO sees all of Truth as relative, not just the moral issues.

Keller is using the Arminian manipulation of “felt needs”. Their need is to find their self-worth; happiness, identity.

Sin isn’t about WHERE you get your self-worth. Sin, Scripture says, is LAWLESSNESS and falling short of the glory of God. Salvation isn’t about having a “right” self-worth; its about God saving wretches, God-haters, His enemies, who are earning Hell, by grace because He was pleased to do so, to HIS glory. Its not about ME, but HIM. Christ Jesus is the CENTER of salvation, not man. HIS glory is the REASON For salvation (Eph. 1) not getting MY Self-Worth from the right place!

Keller’s revealing he’s truly man-centered and more in line with the heretic Robert Schuller (who btw, is from the RCA) and Kierkegaard: sin is really sickness of despair. What nonsense!

Here’s Schuller in “Self-Esteem: the New Reformation” (emphasis, mine):

“What do I mean by sin? Answer: Any human condition or act that ROBS GOD OF GLORY BY stripping one of his children of their right to DIVINE DIGNITY. … I can offer still another answer: `Sin is any act or thought that robs myself or another human being of his or her self-esteem.’” (p. 14)

“If the gospel of Jesus Christ can be proclaimed as A THEOLOGY OF SELF-ESTEEM, imagine the health this could generate in society!” (p. 47)

“To be BORN AGAIN means that we must be changed from a negative to A POSTIIVE SELF-IMAGE–from inferiority to self-esteem, from fear to love, from doubt to trust.” (p. 68)

“The Cross SANCTIFIES THE EGO TRIP. For the Cross protected our Lord’s perfect self-esteem from turning into sinful pride.” (p. 75)

Mat 10:38 And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

Jun 4th, 2008
Reformed Mama

Denise, Drew and Stephen~

Thank you for the excellent way in which you are taking apart Keller’s “Two Gospels”. There is much to think over and what you have written here is very helpful. You make the rest of us think and challenge us to organize our thoughts!

Denise your constant companion…use of the Scriptures…is a great blessing! By God’s grace they are never far from you and it is very uplifting and edifying. What encouragement for those of us burdened by family who embrace pagan ways.

Jun 4th, 2008
the BOC

Danny
Drinking alcohol was an example. It could have been the type of music you listen to or the movies you watch or the places you hang out. I grew up Catholic, believing I was going to hell because I ate red meat on Good Friday. Beliefs are deeply rooted. What you hold as truth may not be truth to me. Don’t get me wrong, I believe Gods Word is true and obviously so do you. I try to read the bible through the eyes of the people who wrote it–Hebrew men. Most of our interpretations and commentaries, including Dr. Bob’s, are from the eyes of Greek, Helenistic thinking. When you look at it through the eyes of the Hebrews, you’ll see my point. You speak of Christian liberty–how free is the church, really? It is in more bondage than freedom and it has been that way for centuries. The 613 laws were given for a reason and you know, the founder of our Christian faith didn’t break one of them, yet we are allowed to? That doesn’t make sense. Do I keep them all? Heck no–I am not Jesus. As the Holy Spirit enters your life, after regeneration, he begins dealing with you. He may have you not cut your hair, I don’t know. But we can’t pick and choose which laws to follow-they are there for a reason-to make us aware of sin. God will tell us through His Torah which ones he wants us to keep. Most say they take the bible literally, except for those 613 Laws. Hmm, I wonder why? Because we can’t follow them unless we are guided by the Holy Spirit.

Jun 4th, 2008
Daniel F. Wells

Stephen,

Since I couldn’t find your e-mail address on this web site I decided to post a comment. I did a blog recently responding to your February post “Apostasy Warning: Tim Keller.” However, this morning I discovered your most recent post on Keller so I may do a blog on that as well.

Feel free to read my resonse and post any comments on it or send me an e-mail. If any dialogue ensues I hope it is a cordial one.

Blessings,
Daniel F. Wells

http://cosmicchrist.blogspot.com/2008/06/response-to-stephen-macasils-apostasy.html

Jun 6th, 2008
Travis

Daniel,
I am definitely not out to get Keller, and am still looking into Kellers claims, so the issue is between you and Stephen, but, here is what I have done, I am confident Stephen does not want to see any believer become apostate.

Daniel said
“I’m sure Macasil is not out to “get” Keller. However, a better way of going about this issue would to have spoken with Keller himself (or at least submitted his article to Keller).

I contacted Keller and kindly asked him to explain himself on the accusations Stephen put out. Kellers staff emailed me back and said I should refer to the article in First Things for my answers and this article

http://confessionalouthouse.wordpress.com/2008/02/28/keller-and-the-pca/#comment-1717

Therefore, this is what he wants us to go off for his answers. We are commenting on him on these answers, the book is not needed because of the staff response, who is authorized to speak for Keller. However, I would recommend reading it for future discussion.

So now you can analyze Stephen based on the article in First Things and the above address.

I think more of an issue for me is the two different gosple’s this is beyond contextulization. This is why I am wanting to look into the issue of Kellers book.

Jun 6th, 2008
Travis

Helpful info on Keller

http://sermons.redeemer.com/store/index.cfm?fuseaction=category.display&category_id=28

Im gonna listen to a few of these thought others might want to as well.

Jun 7th, 2008
Travis

Stephen,

Some people are having issue with your analysis of Tim Keller. Do you think you have been fair to Keller, why or why not?

Are you ready to make a definite proclamation about Kellers faith? Why or why not?

I have told people that no pastor or elder in a Christian church should want any person in a church that has proffessed Christ, to “walk away from Him” But if he does we should try to restore Him, and let His church know so they can put him under dicipline and if that doesnt work, then make a public statement of his apostasy.

How would you go about this from here?

Jun 8th, 2008
Stephen Macasil

Hi Travis,

I’m heading to church now, but I’ll respond to your post this afternoon. In the mean time, I need to know what fair means to whoever it is that is taking issue with me.

Fair according to whose rules?

Jun 8th, 2008
Travis

Since I am asking the questions, I dont really care what “fair means” to others because I only care if “fair” is in accordance with scripture. Im sure the people making the “its not fair claims” would agree, hopefully.

From what I precieve, but I hope im wrong, is, since Keller is well known and a respectable reformed pastor, we shouldnt criticize him so hard. But, I also see people want to make sure you look at all of his teachings to understand him and make these claims.

So, some are saying your comments are not in accordance with the rest of his teachings, from the pulpit.

Like I said to them, what “Macasil” is going off of was what was given to him to critique. So in that sense have you been fair, according to scripture, with the articles given. AND can you say Kellers pulpit is cosistant with the interview? Thats why I provided the link to the question and answers at Redeemer.

as well as my other questions above.

Thanks Stephen, I just want to make sure our motives are correct…be encouraged for the Lord is with you.

Jun 8th, 2008
Stephen Macasil

Travis,

I stressed the need for a definition of “fair” because the term can vary from person to person. Seeing that it is you that is asking me, and since you have clearly asserted that “fair” is “according to Scripture,” then I would answer, yes, I think it is fair. Here’s why.

Rome: According to Scripture (I will not make the full arguments here), Rome is not a true church of Jesus Christ. The gospel that she teaches is not the true gospel, and her religion is not the faith once delivered to the saints. Rome and her children is a mission field and need salvation (grace alone, faith alone, Christ alone). To affirm them as Christians is to provide them with a false sense of security and is unfaithful to the biblical mandate to speak truth in love. Rome is without a lampstand and is not a true church but a synagogue of Satan. This is the position of the Reformers and the Divines, and I agree with them to the degree that they agree with Scripture. They went as far as to say that the Pope was the antichrist.

The Reformers “protested” against this false religious system of Rome on the basis that it was false according to their (Reformers) authority – Scripture. Luther’s reform was one type (moderate) and Calvin’s was another type (thoroughgoing). Luther desired to keep the medieval liturgy, worship, government and doctrine, and only eliminate what was expressly forbidden in Scripture, while Calvin knocked the whole thing to the ground and built religion from the ground up, with Scripture being the ground, only allowing what conforms to the pattern shown in Scripture to be included.

This is a very, very general summary (that really does little justice) of this era in church history known as the Protestant Reformation, but it lays at least a basic framework in understanding that we (FD/BT) consider ourselves after the order of Calvin’s reform, hence our label – Calvinists. We do not subscribe to the supposed form of Calvinism that identifies itself as adherents to TULIP. We are trying to be faithful to our call of God as Reformers. Like Calvin, we desire to bring religion back in conformity to the word of God! We do not consider embracing Rome a part of this, we consider it regressive.

On that basis, I believe that my article “Apostasy Warning: Tim Keller,” is warranted, fair, and in-line with the cause of God and truth as revealed in Scripture, as articulated in the WCF, and as seen in church history, namely the Protestant Reformation.

Jun 8th, 2008
Travis

Thanks Stephen, I agree I think it was fair also. So this is the main issue you have with his teaching? I have to agree with you RC are not Christians, ill have to go read read a few things, and check his website, because if he is calling them brothers and sisters then we definetly have issues.

As far as the two gosples go, I hope he is just trying to present the true gosple in a different way, with out changing the fact that it will be offensive. But at the same time, I dont think there is anything wrong with trying to explain things to people, as long as we understand that is not the gosple

So what would be the next step in dealing with Keller, a warning went out, Now what? How do we in this “Internet age” restore a believer to the faith or have someone corrected?

Jun 8th, 2008
Stephen Macasil

Travis,

First of all, thanks for asking these questions. I hope you continue to be cautious and not swallow the hook, line, and sinker. Whether it be me, Morey, Keller, Driscoll, Piper, et al., you are commanded to test all things holding fast to what is good. I praise God for raising you up in such a way.

I wouldn’t say I have an issue with his (Tim Keller’s) teaching. That would imply *all* his teaching, and I have been immensely blessed by his teaching because it was biblically faithful, clever, interesting, etc. This is a specific complaint about the recent Tim Keller that has appeared during his book campaign.

I have strong disagreements (as mentioned earlier) with ecumenism, Mere Christianity by CS Lewis (which contains rank, damnable heresy), and hyper-contextualization of the gospel. Like you, Travis, I hope he is just trying to get the true gospel out there via contemporary means. But I am afraid that his gospel for the uncircumcised goes too far in becoming another gospel – a false gospel. The Second Person of the Trinity did not enter into space and time in the likeness of sinful flesh in order to bring freedom to the existentialist from a few psychological ailments. He came to save sinners! He died on the cross for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures. He was buried and rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. We were purchased and redeemed by his blood, and we have eternal life both quantitatively and qualitatively. He will return to judge all ungodliness and unrighteousness, both living and dead, and cast the wicked into outer darkness for eternity – except for those found in Christ through faith. With those he will dwell with for eternity on a new earth – on which we will live in a new incorruptible body.

We are not to take lightly what God has revealed. If we do, then we are just playing church and will perish ourselves. I am not ashamed of the gospel.

Jun 8th, 2008
Travis

AMEN,

I am communicationg with my pastor on this issue and he believes what we believe is the gosple but at the same time thinks Keller was saying we shouldnt preach the whole gosple. We will see how it turns out.

May God be true…

Jun 8th, 2008
Travis

Stephen
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.”

Inoticed he says (at this point) which seems to imply that they need to know that the need forgivness from thier sins, BUT at the same time its not just that they need forgivness but they need to know why they are in need of forgivness. But I think he says that at the beggining of the article.

Keller says
“Some parts simply engage her more than others, and, to begin with, a communicator should go with those. Eventually, of course, you have to get to all the aspects of the full gospel in any process of evangelism and discipleship. But you don’t have to say everything every time.”

Jun 8th, 2008
Denise

I think this also shows why Keller wants to reshape the Gospel to fit POMO’s mindset:

http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/articleprint.php?a=2

Seriously, Keller’s making the proclamation of the Gospel way too hard and complicated. Its simple, its clear, and its for all people in all cultures. All this silliness of dividing people up into catgories and then deciding which way to go with how to manipulate them to hear and respond with less resistance is nothing less than psycho-heresy, man-centeredness.

Scripture is clear, all men are in the same spiritual state outside of Christ and it is the Gospel that is the power of God unto salvation. WE aren’t to be fiddling with trying to stylize the Gospel so that people can hear better. That’s manipulation. Just proclaim the simple Gospel (which includes the bad news, too) and if the Lord so chooses, HE will cause them to hear and believe and then respond to HIM.

Jun 9th, 2008
Travis

Denise,
Yes the gosple is simple, but how we relate to people is shown in scripture paul talked to some one way and others another way, but the gosple never changes, he just used different methods to communicate it to people.

I think Keller wants the “good and bad news” to be preached to everyone. I dont think this is the issue for me anymore, I dont see him preaching two gosples, I ve listened to a sermon or two and he doesnt fold the gosple as much as I was saying. But the issue is stil on fire about the Inclusiveness of the roman catholics as brothers and sisters

Jun 11th, 2008
Glen

I agree with Denise and Travis that the Gospel is simple. I would say that it is simple in its complexity and complex in its simplicity. You can give the Gospel in a few minutes and on the other hand spend weeks in the Gospel and still not get to the bottom.

The one thing I believe that we have to be careful on when talking about the delivery of the Gospel in the different methods we use it that as Travis said, the Gospel never changes. We can start at different places or maybe use different illustrations, but the root of the Gospel should never change. We should never leave one part out because people might be offended or not understand. We always need to point people to their own sin and the work of Christ on the cross. If we water down the sin aspect then we water down the Gospel.

Jun 11th, 2008
Stephen Macasil

Hi Travis,

I’d like to explore something here with you and anyone wishing to participate.

You said: “…how we relate to people is shown in scripture paul talked to some one way and others another way…”

So that we are all clear on which examples in Scripture are being used to justify this and statements like it, can you cite those texts here? I’d like for us to take a look at the biblical examples that are appealed to to justify contextualization (which I am not opposed to).

My position is that contextualization can be moderate, extreme, and everytwhere in between. And to the degree that the content of the gospel is not jeopardized or obscured by the method, is the degree of its faithfulness (biblically).

A healthy examionation of this will shed light on the answer to the question of whether Keller has one gospel or two.

Jun 11th, 2008
Denise

Sort of going back to square one for a minute, Keller makes a false dichotamy (sp?) of unbelievers by renaming them using terms Scripture never intended. That’s going to be a huge hurdle to get over, before you get to the issue of *how* to proclaim the Gospel.

So the issue still is: how many catagories of unbelievers does Scripture proclaim? And what terms does it use?

I would go back to Romans 1-3. Romans 3 says both Jews and Gentiles are all equally under sin, all equally God-haters, all equally ungodly and does no good nor seeks Him, nor has any fear of God.

Romans 4 starts with justification for the ungodly…no false dichotamy, precisley because of all men’s condemnation in Romans 1-3.

Jun 11th, 2008
Glen

Stephen,

When I say that we can start at different points or use different illustrations here is what I mean…

In Acts 17:16-34 Paul begins by proclaiming Jesus to the Jews and God-fearing Gentiles. When he was overheard by some of the non-God-fearing Gentiles he was invited to the Areopagus. There he started with the “unknown god” he then started from the begining of creation. He did not need to start from creation with the Jews because they already knew the creation story. In both cases of proclaiming the Gospel Paul preached Jesus and His resurrection. He did not change the Gospel, just the starting point.

Also when Paul gave his defense in Acts 22 Paul gave an overview of his history that the Jews would understand (an in their own language).

Stephen in Acts 7 gave an overview of Jewish history and tied that to Christ. He did not give a total history as he would have had to if speaking to an audience that did not know it to begin with. He spoke to an audience that knew the history and used that knowledge to bring them to Christ. Here again he did not split the Gospel up for two different audiences. He brought them to Christ and Christ alone.

In Acts 26 Paul gave a little more in-depth background of himself to King Agrippa. He did not have to start from the begining because King Agrippa was an expert in Jewish customs and history (v3).

Jun 11th, 2008
Stephen Macasil

Glen,

I like the observations you have made on those four passages.

So, you’re basically saying that the starting point for the communication can be relative, but the communication must be objective? Is this an accurate way to summarize what you have labored to post?

If so, then I would second that on the basis of what has been recorded by Luke in the cited texts above.

But from your vantage point, Keller’s gospel for the uncircumcised would not be approved by Scripture, right? It would seem that the only conclusion to be drawn (from what he’s written in the article in question) would be that the starting point as well as the communication are both relative or dependent on the audience.

Jun 11th, 2008
Stephen Macasil

Denise,

You have a good point in noting that according to Rom. 3, Jews and Gentiles alike are equally condemned – to which justification (ch 4) is said to be for one category, “the ungod-like.”

I don’t think Keller would disagree here though. He uses Galatians 2:7 primarily to justify his distinction of sinners. Of course he hasn’t given us any exegetical support for such a notion, he just proof-texted and kept going.

This takes nothing away from your point that ALL sinners (regardless) are in an equal standing before the Judge of all the earth, and it is a guilty standing for falling short of His Law and its demands. I see your point, one justification for one class of humans – sinners.

Jun 11th, 2008
Denise

Stephen,

Yeah…I mean when God used “uncircumcized” and “circumcized” He was distinguishing Jews from the rest of the world (aka “the nations”, “world”, “Greeks”, “barbarians”, and “Gentiles”). It was not between religious unbelievers from Post-modern unbelievers. There’s just believers and unbelievers. Paul and Peter putting it as those who are “near” and those who are “far off” for the same idea.

Act 2:39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”

Eph 2:11 Therefore remember that at one time you GENTILES in the flesh, CALLED “THE UNCIRCUMCISED” by what IS CALLED THE CIRCUMCISED, which is made in the FLESH by hands–
Eph 2:12 remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of ISRAEL and STRANGERS to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.
Eph 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus you WHO ONCE WERE FALL OFF have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

Ok check this out (caps just to emphasize). Context is everything and its clear Paul is showing the typical biblical distinction between Jews and everyone else, and btw, putting himself and Titus into the circumcized catagory.

Gal 2:1 Then after fourteen years I went up again to JERUSALEM with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me.
Gal 2:2 I went up because of a revelation and set before them (though privately before those who seemed influential) THE gospel that I proclaim among the GENTILES, in order to make sure I was not running or had not run in vain.
Gal 2:3 But even Titus, who was with me, was not forced to be CIRCUMCISED, though he was A GREEK.

Gal 2:8 (for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the CIRCUMCISED worked also through me for mine to the GENTILES),

This is what I mean: distinction between Jew and Greek, not unbelievers and unbelievers. If it were the later, then Paul himself along with Barnabas would be unbelievers, as they were of the circumcized. I mean, is that where we end up using Keller’s catagories?

The circumcised:

Gen 17:8 And I will give to you and to your offspring after you the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God.” 9 And God said to Abraham, “As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations. 10 This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised.

Rather the distinction is made of all people, believers as well as unbelievers, whether they were Jews by birth OR Gentiles/Greeks/of the nations.

Act 10:43 To him all the prophets bear witness that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.” …..45 And the BELIEVERS from among the CIRCUMCISED who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the GENTILES.

Rom 4:7 “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are FORGIVEN, and whose sins are covered;
Rom 4:8 blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.”
Rom 4:9 Is this BLESSING then ONLY FOR THE CIRCUMCISED, OR ALSO FOR THE UNCIRCUMCISED? We say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness.
Rom 4:10 How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but BEFORE HE WAS CIRCUMCISED.

Act 16:1 Paul came also to Derbe and to Lystra. A disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek.

Jun 11th, 2008
Denise

In reference to priming the proverbial pump of unbelievers to get them less resistant to the Gospel of Jesus Christ:

Col 3:11 Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all.

As MacArthur points out in his EXCELLENT sermon on the Church-growth Movement, http://www.gty.org/Products/AudioLessons/GTY114 Scripture shows there is but one Gospel, THE message of the gospel, that transcends all nationalities, cultures, and languages, seen here and also in Acts. It is not ever to be changed or nuanced or contextualized. It is simply: Christ Jesus and Him crucified.

What’s more, in those days, nations and cultures were far more separated and distinct and people took far more pride in them, as opposed to today where there’s more globalization and far less distinctions. If THE Gospel transcended such a divided world then, it will in today’s homogenized global village.

Look at Acts 2:6-11 for instance….people from all over the world heard the SAME Gospel: Greece, Libya, Italy, Mesopotamia, Arabians. Likely most of them were Jews, but their cultures, nation, and languages separatedly greatly.

Rev 14:6 Then I saw another angel flying directly overhead, with an eternal gospel to proclaim to those who dwell on earth, to every nation and tribe and language and people.

Jun 11th, 2008
Travis

First off thanks Stephen for bringing this up, I really want to understand contextualization, because Ibelieve it is imposrtant but I do not want to destroy the word of God. So with that being said I looked up the book of Acts which is the proclamation of the manifestation of Christ,and found a few more verses.

Acts 3:9-19
And all the people saw him walking and praising God;
Act 3:10 and they were taking note of him as being the one who used to sit at the Beautiful Gate of the temple to {beg} alms, and they were filled with wonder and amazement at what had happened to him.
Act 3:11 While he was clinging to Peter and John, all the people ran together to them at the so-called portico of Solomon, full of amazement.
Act 3:12 But when Peter saw {this,} he replied to the people, “Men of Israel, why are you amazed at this, or why do you gaze at us, as if by our own power or piety we had made him walk?
Act 3:13 “The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His servant Jesus, {the one} whom you delivered and disowned in the presence of Pilate, when he had decided to release Him.
Act 3:14 “But you disowned the Holy and Righteous One and asked for a murderer to be granted to you,
Act 3:15 but put to death the Prince of life, {the one} whom God raised from the dead, {a fact} to which we are witnesses.
Act 3:16 “And on the basis of faith in His name, {it is} the name of Jesus which has strengthened this man whom you see and know; and the faith which {comes} through Him has given him this perfect health in the presence of you all.
Act 3:17 “And now, brethren, I know that you acted in ignorance, just as your rulers did also.
Act 3:18 “But the things which God announced beforehand by the mouth of all the prophets, that His Christ would suffer, He has thus fulfilled.
Act 3:19 “Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord;

Acts 14:1-7
In Iconium they entered the synagogue of the Jews together, and spoke in such a manner that a large number of people believed, both of Jews and of Greeks.
Act 14:2 But the Jews who disbelieved stirred up the minds of the Gentiles and embittered them against the brethren.
Act 14:3 Therefore they spent a long time {there} speaking boldly {with reliance} upon the Lord, who was testifying to the word of His grace, granting that signs and wonders be done by their hands.
Act 14:4 But the people of the city were divided; and some sided with the Jews, and some with the apostles.
Act 14:5 And when an attempt was made by both the Gentiles and the Jews with their rulers, to mistreat and to stone them,
Act 14:6 they became aware of it and fled to the cities of Lycaonia, Lystra and Derbe, and the surrounding region;
Act 14:7 and there they continued to preach the gospel.

And

Acts 18:4-5
And he was reasoning in the synagogue every Sabbath and trying to persuade Jews and Greeks.
Act 18:5 But when Silas and Timothy came down from Macedonia, Paul {began} devoting himself completely to the word, solemnly testifying to the Jews that Jesus was the Christ.

All three of these passages have a form of reasoning or explainging followed by the gosple of the Christ.

It seems that Keller is saying we still must do this in this quote.
“Some parts simply engage her more than others, and, to begin with, a communicator should go with those. Eventually, of course, you have to get to all the aspects of the full gospel in any process of evangelism and discipleship. But you don’t have to say everything every time.”

Jun 11th, 2008
Stephen Macasil

Travis,

Phil Johnson has a good series on contextualization that shows many of its weaknesses here http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2008/03/why-i-dont-like-c-word.html

It’s a helpful read for this discussion.

I also have a paper I wrote in December of 2007 that I used as the basis for a lecture I gave in January. It is along the same similar line as Phil’s. I am going to post part of it on BT tomorrow.

Jun 12th, 2008
Glen

Yes, that is exactly what I was getting at. Our Gospel message MUST never change in its content. I was once and forall delivered to the saints (Jude 3) and cannot change.

And yes, based on the article written by Mr. Keller, I have to come to the conclusion that he is softening the Gospel. If you are not willing to call a sin a sin then you are softening the Gospel and if you soften the Gospel then I propose that you are in essence changing the message you present.

As 1 Cor 1:18 says the Gospel is foolishness to those who are perishing. If anybody rejects the Gospel then it is because they are perishing. We should not try to soften it for them to make it more palatable to them. The Gospel is offensive to those who reject it (1 Pet 2:8). A good quote for this if from Dr Grant on the Amazing Grace videos.

Jun 12th, 2008
Travis

I agree with you Glen, and ill read those articles

I definetly do not want to dumb things down, then people will believe lies, and I know personally what that does to our mind and emotions before God.

Having to keep coming down to the alter and reciving Christ, because no one told me I once i believed and repented that I am secured. But praise the Lord he is Kind to his children.

Jun 12th, 2008
Glen

My previous post should have read “…it was once and forall delivered to the saints (Jude 3) and cannot change.” “It” of course refering to the Gospel.

Jun 12th, 2008
Travis

I read the pyro artical and I guess the most important thing would be to define contextualization, but in defining it I dont see why I should use that word anymore

I would define it as, making the gosple understandable with out losing the gosple.

So I suppose contexualization is not the proper word to use.

I have a good Idea on words to use EXPLAIN or TRANSLATE.

Explain- becuase its not always simple
Translate- because some words may not be used today anymore, as long as the meaning doesnt change ie. sheep to sea lion but you can use, You = Ye .

Say, all sheep disappeared one day, we would still have to explain what Christ ment by sheep, because the original language isnt going to change.

I hope that made some sense

Jun 12th, 2008
Dave

First of all, you are barking up the wrong tree. Tim Keller doesn’t preach the gospel?l!!!!!!!!! How many sermons by Keller have you listened to?
Keller is not saying that it is forgiveness or freedom, but the two are the same.
Here is Keller explaining the gospel (from his paper 2 Gospel Approaches):
“The gospel is not our developing a righteous record and giving it to God, but that God in Christ developed a righteous record and gives it to us. The only way to be accepted by God is by asking God to accept you for Jesus’ sake-then you can know that you are loved and accepted because of his record, not yours. Then the determining factor in your relationship with God is not your past but Christ’s past.

“Pray: ‘Lord, I have been trying to be my own Savior and Lord, both in my bad deeds and in my good. If I have never done so before, I thank you for the perfect life and sacrificial death of Christ in my place. Now I ask you to receive and adopt me as your child, not because of anything I have done, but because of what Christ has done for me.’”

That’s NOT the gospel? Like WHO ARE YOU and what in the world are you trying to do?

Jun 12th, 2008
Stephen Macasil

Dave,

Excellent commentary! But what about this?

Jun 12th, 2008
Dave

Ah, so you admit defeat!
Hey, I’m just saying you are totally out to lunch and way out of line with regards to Keller.
Here’s some more quotes by Keller (from How Can I Know God):
“In order to form a personal relationship with God, you must know
three things:
1) Who we are:
God’s creation. God created us and built us for a relationship with him. We belong to
him, and we owe him gratitude for every breath, every moment, everything. Because
humans were built to live for him (to worship), we will always try to worship something
– if not God, we will choose some other object of ultimate devotion to give our lives
meaning.
Sinners. We have all chosen (and re-affirm daily) to reject God and to make our own joy
and happiness our highest priority. We do not want to worship God and surrender ourself
as master, yet we are built to worship, so we cling to idols, centering our lives on things
that promise to give us meaning: success, relationships, influence, love, comfort, and so
on.
In spiritual bondage. To live for anything else but God leads to breakdown and decay.
When a fish leaves the water, which he was built for, he is not free, but dead.
Worshiping other things besides God leads to a loss of meaning. If we achieve these
things, they cannot deliver satisfaction, because they were never meant to be “gods.”
They were never meant to replace God. Worshiping other things besides God also leads
to self- image problems. We end up defining ourselves in terms of our achievement in
these things. We must have them or all is lost; so they drive us to work too hard, or they
fill us with terror if they are jeopardized.
2) Who God is:
Love and justice. His active concern is for our joy and well-being. Most people love
those who love them, yet God loves and seeks the good even of people who are his
enemies. But because God is good and loving, he cannot tolerate evil. The opposite of
love is not anger, but indifference. “The more you love your son, the more you hate in
him the liar, the drunkard, the traitor,” (E. Gifford). To imagine God’s situation, imagine
a judge who also is a father, who sits at the trial of his guilty son. A judge knows he
cannot let his son go, for without justice no society can survive. How much less can a
loving God merely
ignore or suspend justice for us—who are loved, yet guilty of rebellion against his loving
authority?
Jesus Christ. Jesus is God himself come to Earth. He first lived a perfect life, loving
God with all his heart, soul, and mind, fulfilling all human obligation to God. He lived
the life you owed—a perfect record. Then, instead of receiving his deserved reward
(eternal life), Jesus gave his life as a sacrifice for our sins, taking the punishment and
death each of us owed. When we believe in him: 1) our sins are paid for by his death,
and 2) his perfect life record is transferred to our account. So God accepts and regards us
as if we have done all Christ has done.
3) What you must do:
Repent. There first must be an admission that you have been living as your own master,
worshipping the wrong things, violating God’s loving laws. “Repentance” means you ask
forgiveness and turn from that stance with a willingness to live for and center on him.
Believe. Faith is transferring your trust from your own efforts to the efforts of Christ.
You were relying on other things to make you acceptable, but now you consciously begin
relying on what Jesus did for your acceptance with God. All you need is nothing. If you
think, “God owes me something for all my efforts,” you are still on the outside.
Pray after this fashion: “I see I am more flawed and sinful than I ever dared believe, but
that I am even more loved and accepted than I ever dared hope. I turn from my old life of
living for myself. I have nothing in my record to merit your approval, but I now rest in
what Jesus did and ask to be accepted into God’s family for his sake.”
When you make this transaction, two things happen at once: 1) your accounts are cleared,
your sins are wiped out permanently, you are adopted legally into God’s family and 2)
the Holy Spirit enters your heart and begins to change you into the character of Jesus.”

Tell me, is this NOT the gospel?

Jun 12th, 2008
Johnny B

Stephen, never seen that before, but it is a clear presentation. LOL

Jun 12th, 2008
Daniel F. Wells

Here is a response to Macasil on this issue. I feel that Macasil has grossly misread Keller and has not followed proper, biblical protocol in charging an ordained minister of preaching a false gospel.

Blessings,
Daniel F. Wells

http://cosmicchrist.blogspot.com/2008/06/response-to-macasils-does-tim-keller.html

Jun 13th, 2008
Stephen Macasil

Daniel F. Wells,

I appreciate your zeal in critiquing what you feel to be a gross misinterpretation of Keller’s CT article wherein he writes about his gospel for the circumcised and his gospel for the uncircumcised.

But to actually interact with your subjective opinions about what I’ve written is not really something I can do now, at least not until you base your critique on something objective rather than your feelings. Not to sound like a broken record, but, since what is in view is the degree of your psychological state of satisfaction (which is relative) on the whole matter, I’d rather just leave you to “feel what you feel” and not try to change that.

Come back with a critique that measures my writing against an objective standard, and maybe we can discuss the issues. But I can’t chase down every critical response from someone that isn’t happy with me.

Jun 13th, 2008
Cretan

Stephen.
The point in what Keller is arguing is how to get the postmodern LISTEN to and SEE THE NEED FOR the gospel. He talks about “freedom” so that he can then present “forgiveness”.
With regards to whether the girl dies after only hearing that Jesus brings freedom, but hasn’t heard about forgiveness: Would the woman at the well have known enough to be saved if she would have been ran over by a herd of camels on the way back to the Samaritan village, or was it enough that she believed that Jesus was “living water” and “Messiah”? After all Jesus didn’t say anything about his work on the cross or her need for forgiveness.

Jun 14th, 2008
Travis

I have posted a comment her http://l2today.com/mike/?p=10 this is my pastor Mike, was wonderingif people would critique my comment and the post.

CRETAN, I hop that is what Keller is saying!

John 4:26-27
The woman *said to Him, “I know that Messiah is coming (He who is called Christ); when that One comes, He will declare all things to us.”
Jesus *said to her, “I who speak to you am {He.}”

It doesnt say weather she was or was not saved because of her knowladge of the Messiah. But she knew about him and what he was going to do. And then Jesus said, I AM he. So now we know she knows exactly who Messiah is and what the Messiah must do. We cant really go past that because Scripture doesnt tell us.

SO…as far as the girl dieing, the freedom preached would not saver her. But my question would be is it Kellers fault that the girl died without the knowladge of the gosple? What if he intended on preaching the girl the gosple later on.

I am talking to our neighbor and the are kantians, and I am just answering questions, and havent got a chance to share the complete gosple with them, if the were to die would they go to hell, YES, is it my fault? NOT SURE.

Jun 14th, 2008
Denise

I find a lot wrong with Keller’s “gospel” presentation, if Daniel Well’s quotes are accurate. Here are the problems I see with each point given:

1) Starts with the wrong focus. The Gospel starts with God, not “who we are” as His creation. The Gospel isn’t about how we find meaning in all the wrong places. The Gospel isn’t about “self-image” reimaging, nor is sin about “self-image” . This is psycho-heresy garbage.

2) Again, starts with the wrong focus. God’s “concern for our joy and well being”? That’s not the Gospel, that’s self-centered psycho-heresy again.

“The opposite of love is not anger, but indifference” I’ve heard this a thousand times before and do not know who made it up yet I find it unbiblical too. I only see “Love” and “hate” shown in Scripture to be opposites:

Luk 16:13 No servant can serve two masters, for EITHER he will HATE the one and LOVE the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.”

Rom 9:13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

God doesn’t love everyone either:

Ps 5: 5 The arrogant cannot stand in your presence; You hate all who do wrong.

Ps. 5 6 You destroy those WHO tell lies; bloodthirsty and deceitful MEN the LORD abhors.

Ps. 11: 5 The LORD examines the righteous, but THE WICKED and THOSE WHO love violence His soul hates.

I find GLARINGLY ABSENT from the “Jesus Christ” description (as well as the “gospel” of Keller in the quotes, is the RESURRECTION of Jesus Christ, which is always part of the Gospel. See Acts 2 Romans 1 and 1Cor. 15 for examples. It is His resurrection that declares Jesus Christ to be God the Son in power and it is His resurrection that justifies us (Rom. 4).

Also absent is the LORDSHIP of the Lord.

Rom 10:9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.

Jesus is proclaimed to be “Lord” in Acts 100 times and only twice as Savior.

3)..”the efforts of Christ” ? Efforts? He tried? Or did Jesus actually accomplish the Father’s will as He said He did in John 17:4?

Also absent is the WRATH of God on sinners:

Joh 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the WRATH OF GOD REMAINS ON HIM.

Rom 1:18 For the WRATH OF GOD is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.

If you look at the evangelical preaching of the Gospel in Acts, you won’t find the “love” of God proclaimed there. Again, this is very man-centered, instead of Christ-centered.

This is nothing but re-packaged, feel good, man-centered SchullerWarranism. Dump it and return to the simple Gospel in Scripture that permiates every culture, every nation, every tribe, and every language.

Perhaps Keller and any of his defenders, should think about *why* God saves anyone.

Jun 14th, 2008
Glen

Cretan,

You said “The point in what Keller is arguing is how to get the postmodern LISTEN to and SEE THE NEED FOR the gospel. He talks about “freedom” so that he can then present “forgiveness”.”

I would submit that it is not our job to get anyone (postmodern or not) to listen to the Gospel. Our job is only to preach the Gospel. In every example that I can remember in the Scripture the Gospel is never changed to fit the audience so they will listen. There may be different starting points, but the message is never changed. In the parable of the soils the sower simply sows the seed, he never prepares the soils. That is the work of the Holy Spirit. It is the Holy Spirit that convicts us of sin, not the changing of the message so anyone will listen.

From what was written the article by Tim Keller, I would say that he is not attempting to simply start at a different point, but that he is changing the message to reach the postmodern. I really do hope I’m reading that wrong.

Jun 14th, 2008
Travis

I hope I am to Glen, I like what Denise said that he starts in the wrong place as far as God or man.

That brings me to a question, in scripture does any Christian/disciple start with mans state or “who we are?” and present the gosple that way. I think I am going to atempt to pull and catergorize the different ways that the gosple went out at the end of the gosples through Acts, and preached.

CRETEN brought a point up, about the women at the well, Was the gosple preached before the Cross? We have John the baptist and we have Jesus preaching at the well to the women, and other places.

THis brings me to the way man is saved, and that is by grace through faith, and has always been, and by this story of the women we see they were looking forward to the Messiah. I guess I answered my own question, but would like to look more into preaching the gosple and the salvation of those before the cross.

Does the verse one sows and another reaps apply here? And How?

I know the gosple doesnt change, but the presentation can be different from one man to another. We do not know what questions they are going to ask, we do not know if we are going to get punched in the face for speaking. There are many many factors that could play into preaching or not preaching the gosple.

Hope that makes a little sense.

Jun 14th, 2008
Denise

I ran across this article this morning and immediately thought of Keller’s wrong views and how its impotent and too confusing in proclaiming the clear Truth of the Gospel to all people everywhere:

Pro 30:5 Every word of God proves true; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him.

http://www.sfpulpit.com/2008/06/04/preaching-and-postmodernism-part-1/

MacArthur notes in why expostiory preaching is the biblical way to preach:

“Well first, because it is a biblical mandate. It doesn’t fluctuate with culture, with expectations, with times or seasons. Expository preaching is the best way to preach the Bible. If every word of God is pure, if every word of God is true, then every word needs to be dealt with. And expository preaching is only way you actually come to grips with every word in the Scriptures.”

He also says:

“Expository preaching is the only thing that is going to change anything. There isn’t any other way to affect people positively aside from hitting them with that kind of authority. In my own preaching, my objective is not to court the postmodern mind. My objective is to confront it—to hit it stone cold in the face with truth. It’s irrelevant to me how the person thinks. It’s only relevant to me how they need to think. So I’m not going to play around with their sensitivities to postmodernism.

So the advantages of preaching expositionally and authoritatively in a postmodern culture are the same as they are in any environment where there is error—you bring an authoritative word to bear upon how people think.”

Ps. 1:2… You have exalted above all things Your name and Your word.

Jun 17th, 2008
Bumble

Friends,

I found Keller’s explanation of ‘Two Forms of the Gospel” in his recent talk here: http://www.acts29network.org/sermon/dwelling-in-the-gospel

Give it a listen and please explain where did he goes wrong?

There he established the biblical basis for different views of the same Gospel from perspectives of Paul, John, and the Synoptic Authors. What would then be your take on those differences then?

Bumble

Jun 17th, 2008
Daniel F. Wells

Stephen,

I find it hard to take serious your sentiment that my response to you was merely “subjective” without any sort of concrete, substantive critique. Even if I misquoted you, or have myself misread Keller, that is not the same thing as being subjective. A careful reading of both my blog posts reveal interaction with your words and the words of Keller. That doesn’t seem to be subjective to me.

If you do not feel like writing a response to the concerns I raised, that is fine. We are all busy people. I personally do not know how certain people are able to have full-length conversations in comments sections on a blog. I just hope everyone who reads your work will also read mine, as well as give Keller a fair reading and hearing so as to determine how they feel about his gospel presentation(s).

I’ve enjoyed our interaction thus far.

Blessings,
Daniel F. Wells

Jun 17th, 2008
Glen

Bumble,

I listened to the talk by Keller and he pretty much said the same thing that he did in the article. One area I would agree with him is that there are different aspects of the Gospel and that you can emphasize one or more at a particular time. Where I would differ is in the presentation of the different forms of the Gospel. When you soften the blow of sin to make the message more palatable to different people who happen to be post-modern or otherwise you are in danger of (and possibly are) changing the Gospel.

It is not our job to preach different forms of the Gospel to different groups. We might start at different points, but come to the same message of our sinful nature, the work of Christ on the cross, the resurrection, etc… It is not our job to choose a different sin message for different groups. The work of the Holy Spirit is to convict us of sin and that is what will allow anybody post-modern or not of sin. If the Holy Spirit is not working in a persons heart then no matter how we present sin they will not turn toward Christ.

So, to directly answer your question, yes there are different perspectives, or better said aspects, of the Gospel, but there is only ONE Gospel message.

Jun 17th, 2008
Stephen Macasil

Daniel,

Your critique is subjective because it hinges on what you feel. What I am faced with is having to change the way you feel. How am I supposed to do that?

You seem like a smart kid, Daniel, but let me show you how your “response” falls short.

1) You completely misunderstood the whole entire thing. I have never critiqued Keller on the gospel (for the circumcised). I find no major fault with it. The article points out that Keller believes in one gospel with many forms. I abstracted one of the forms that he calls his gospel for the uncircumcized and came to the conclusion that it was not just another form of the one true gospel, rather, another gospel. Nowhere in your entire “response” do you deal with that, or Kierkegaard, existentialism, etc. These are the main points of my article that you are responding to and you never bring them up?

2) Your last response failed to interact with anything concerning CS Lewis and mere Christianity. If you read the article again, you will see that that is the main point, that he openly endorses a heretical book as the number one book outside the Bible (and his own) to be given to an unbeieving skeptic.

Both main points were entirely absent from your response[s].

Since you hold a non-Reformed view of Rome, perhaps you cannot understand my position at this time. I see that you are an RTS student. By God’s grace they will teach you the truth about Rome, that is, if they haven’t fully penetrated RTS and taken over yet.

Jun 17th, 2008
Reformed Mama

Daniel F Wells~

You said :”I just hope everyone who reads your work will also read mine, as well as give Keller a fair reading and hearing so as to determine how they feel about his gospel presentation(s).”

Umm…why should everyone who reads Stephen’s work also read yours? I don’t get it! Stephen has built a rep here…we trust him…no offense but you are just a kid! Many here are Keller fans…I guarantee they know his work and are grieved at the direction he is heading in!

Also….it is dangerous to judge gospel presentations by how one “feels”.

Take a little advice from Mama…go back to your blog and deal with that nut you have commenting.

Jun 17th, 2008
Daniel F. Wells

I’m glad that ad hominem is a prominent tool in argumentation over here. I just hope RTS weeds out my Romanist loving ways.

Please. Are you people serious?

Jun 18th, 2008
Denise

I noted Keller is over at Mark-the-Cussing-Pastor-Driscoll’s (not my lable, but his buddy’s Donald Miller’s) website.

As I’ve noticed in the last two years, Keller’s going Emergent. This is evident in his approach to “evangelism”, his Post-Modern redefining of terms such as “circumcized” and “uncircumcised”, the worldliness of his “church”, and his embracement of feminist Eastern Mystics.

But as long as Keller uses the magical words “Reformed” and “Calvinist” I guess the “Reformers” at large won’t deal with nor call him to account for his gross error, especially the youngin’s who want to be SO like the world they think its totally like, cool.

But God says: Act 2:40 And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.”

He doesn’t say, BE like this generation or relate to this generation. He says this generation is crooked and we are not to be like it but rather escape it.

Jun 18th, 2008
Denise

Dan,

What’s your reason and goal for going to a Reformed seminary?

Jun 18th, 2008
Reformed Mama

Daniel~

What was “ad hominem”?

Jun 18th, 2008
Travis

As my wife and I read through the book of Acts we highlighted texts where a believer was speaking about God, the gospel, and found that they took lengths of time to explain the Old testament to the Jews, and explaining how they killed him though it was in ignorance. They also made comments like this.

“go speak to the people in the temple the whole message of this life…”

“they preached the word where ever they went..”

The Etheopian and Phillip, He explains Isaiah 53

Acts 10 ..peace through Jesus Christ….you know(this)….you know.(that)……life, death and resurrection of Christ…Holy Spirit falling

…the message of salvation has been sent…

..they preached the good news…

we are brininging you good news…turn from the worthless things o the living God, who made all things….he shows kindness by giving you
rain…

…spoke boldly for the Lord…

…God had called us to preach the gospel to Macedonia….

…what must I do to be saved…believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be save you and all your house…then they spoke the word of the lord…

…Every Sabbath he reasoned in the synagogue…

…teaching them the word of God…

…reasoned with the Jews…

..He taught about Jesus acuratly…

…Act 19:17 This became known to all, both Jews and Greeks, who lived in Ephesus; and fear fell upon them all and the name of the Lord Jesus was being magnified.
Act 19:18 Many also of those who had believed kept coming, confessing and disclosing their practices.
Act 19:19 And many of those who practiced magic brought their books together and {began} burning them in the sight of everyone; and they counted up the price of them and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver.
Act 19:20 So the word of the Lord was growing mightily and prevailing.

There are many different things I could add, but in every instance the speaker does not say he preached the gospel but uses other terms as shown, but that doesnt mean the gospel ever changed, both Jews and Gentiles heard it the same way, and they became BELIEVERS by repenting of there sin and believing.

I cant see any “contexulizing” of the gospel just explanations and question answering which preludes giving the gospel. or proceeds giving the gospel.

ANY Biblical comments on conextualization and the quotes given?

Jun 18th, 2008
Glen

Travis,

You are right in your statement of contexulization. You are giving perfect examples of one of my previous posts about starting from different points depending on the audience, but ALWAYS coming to the same Gospel as there is only one. We can use different examples, but need to be careful that we don’t downplay any part of the Gospel in those examples. If you want a very good message on the proper use of contexualization see Al Mohler’s message at T4G 2006 http://t4g.org/06/media/#.

Jun 19th, 2008
Tim Melton

Macasil,
The person who seemed to be the most logical in this whole comments section was Daniel Wells. I checked out his blog and found his challenges to you were well thought out, biblical, logical, and graceful. Your responses to him only prove out your poor debating skill.

Furthermore, it seems to me that your position toward Keller is something of a witch hunt. Because it is clear that you don’t like him, you seem to care more about “defaming” him, than listening to him. Keller is not preaching another Gospel. He is trying to teach us how to preach the Gospel to a particular people group, using a language that can be understood. He is simply teaching us to do what Paul did when he preached to the pagans at Mars Hill. You are pretending that there is no such thing as a Post Modern. Are you one of those people who believe that you can communicate with a Hispanic by yelling louder in English? Keller is telling us, “Hey guys, there are these people in America who are Post Modern and they can’t hear us. No matter how loud you yell, they will not hear you unless you learn their language.” Keller is not suggesting that we toss out the Scripture or the Gospel. He is suggesting that we translate it into language that communicates. Why is this so difficult to understand?

You are criticizing Keller according to an overly truncated form of Covenant and Reformed Theology. Instead of giving him the benefit of doubt as brother and fellow Presbyterian, instead of listening and learning, you hurl accusations – stopping just shy of calling him apostate. Shame.

From previous posts, it seems to me, your biggest beef is that you have a problem accepting an ecclesiology where it might be possible to become, and exist, as a believer outside of your particular form of Presbyterianism. Why don’t you just admit that this is where your real problem with Keller exists and go from there and stop blowing the ad-hominem smoke screen? But I guess declaring Keller as an apostate makes it easy to dismiss everything else that he might say. Clever. Very clever.

Meanwhile, could you at least stop dissing on Daniel Wells for being young. Deal with his argument. And “Refromed Mama”…just so you know. When you said, “Stephen has built a rep here…we trust him…no offense but you are just a kid!”, that was ad hominem. The basic rules of debate teaches us that we shouldn’t blindly trust a point of view because it comes from someone we like. And we shouldn’t dismiss a point of view because it comes from someone we don’t like. Your comment was ‘double’ ad hominem! Look it up.

But maybe I’m in the wrong. After all, I’m wearing a yellow shirt and everybody knows that guys who wear yellow shirts are stupid.

Jun 30th, 2008
Stephen Macasil

Tim,

Why must you bring in my “overly truncated form of Covenant and Reformed Theology,” and my “particular form of Presbyterianism?”

Jun 30th, 2008
Reformed Mama

Hey Tim…where’s the love you prayed for this morning on your blog…I don’t feel it…lol…

Jun 30th, 2008
Tim Melton

You’re right. I repent. I love you guys. I love you very much.

That said, I don’t think I personally attacked anybody. I didn’t call anybody apostate, or dismiss anyone as a kid. I tried to argue well. I attacked what I felt to be poor debating tactics with a desire that you would be more loving toward Tim Keller, more generous toward Daniel, and a little less confident of your own theological viewpoint. It’s important to listen.

I don’t think Jesus was wrong in telling the Pharisees to drop their rocks. That’s all I’m suggesting here. Drop the rocks. Give Keller a fair hearing. Give a young guy like Daniel a fair shake. That’s all.

And in regard to the love I prayed for this morning…that’s why I pray for it. Because I don’t have it. I will continue to pray for it. Please pray for me as well. I’m far too arrogant.

Blessings.

Jun 30th, 2008
Stephen Macasil

Tim,

Your reply says alot about your character. It’s an admirable quality when someone admits repentance and asks for prayer the way you did. I praise God for working in one’s heart to foster humility and love. And you’ve shown a good example of how we need to continue to pray for what we don’t have. We can all learn from that, starting with me. If your reply was tongue-in-cheek, then I’ve been fooled. We get alot of “drive-by” posters here that just fly in and fly out, that’s why I gave you a short response.

Regarding your assertion that I have poor debating skills, that may be the case, but I wasn’t debating. A straw-man was raised up and knocked down (by Wells), and I dismissed it as invalid. Furthermore, his response to my post was based on emotional feelings. I have come to the realization that I cannot change people’s feelings.

If one wishes to discuss the issues, I am and have been open and willing. I’ll go back and read your comment (and Wells’) and try to overlook some of what initially seemed a problem to me. But it is difficult to always do that, especially now. I can’t submit this comment without pointing out that when you attribute “drop the rocks” to Jesus, assuming you are referring to John 8, you are repeating an ages-old error. Most English translations will footnote that the passage was added later and is not found in earlier manuscripts, and is therefore not biblical.

Most people don’t like to be corrected and take offense – and that’s the way things work around here. It’s either that or we just let things go.

The same level of integrity in pointing out error and offering correction was provided in critiquing Keller’s non-Reformed ecumenical view of Rome, his open andorsement for CS Lewis’ Mere Christianity, his Kierkegaardian existential gospel for the uncircumcised, his abuse of Galatians 2:7, etc., and now if you go to Steve Camp’s blog you can see that I am not the only one. And for the record, Steve and I have about a 2% overlap in readers. IOW, most of BT readers do not visit “Camp On This,” and most of his readers don’t visit BT. This is not a collaborative effort out to get Keller. It is about establishing, maintaining, and proclaiming God’s truth revealed in Scripture to a generation of professing Christians that are enamoured with a world that is passing away.

And I’m not a Presbyterian – or – covenant theology

Jun 30th, 2008
Reformed Mama

Hi Tim~

I’m the Mama here…looking out for the emotional health of the commenters and the general mood of the blog. It really serves no purpose for you to come by here and lash out at us addressing Stephen as- “Macasil”, proclaiming him to be on a “witch hunt”, out to “defame” Tim Keller, the Hispanic insult, “shame”, the “apostate” mess and on it goes…

I do realize that you came back with “I love yous” and an “I repent”…we thank you, for that is rare…however you went on to say: “I don’t think I personally attacked anybody”…but really you did!!

You could not possibly have read all 3 of Stephen’s posts on Tim Keller and the discussions that followed the first 2…if you had you would have a much clearer picture of what this is all about. I will tell you the same thing I tell others who are critical of Stephen’s work. You will be hard pressed to find a more godly man…who’s heart was grieved at the thought of exploring the Tim Keller issue! Truly…much prayer and counsel preceeded this situation.

We are not man-pleasers…but God only. We will not back down on this issue because we have seen up close and really personal what it costs the body of Christ when eyes become tempted to look upon anything but the word of God for what to believe and how to live.

As for Daniel F Wells…the admonishment stands. He’s very young…he proved that by the little tantrum he threw on his blog entitled “I Give Up”!

I do pray for my blog family…hope we can be friends…
God’s grace!

Jun 30th, 2008
Tim Melton

You guys funny.

Jul 1st, 2008
Tim Melton

Oops. I meant to say…
You guys are funny.

Jul 1st, 2008
Rob Davis

“Where he gets it wrong is that we are not to preach about sin to the unbeliever.”

Just a question… Have you actually read the article?

http://www.christianitytoday.com/le/2008/002/9.74.html

Jul 9th, 2008
Rob Davis

“The one Gospel of repentance and faith must be preached to the lost no matter the culture that we live in.”

So, “the gospel” IS repentance and faith?

I think it’s interesting when some want to simplify a gospel “definition” that they completely ignore Galatians 3:8, which says “THE gospel” was preached to Abraham. Which gospel? Well, Paul says over and over there is only ONE gospel. So, what is THE gospel that was preached to Abraham? That Jesus died and rose again? Repentance and faith? No, here Paul defines THE ONE gospel as the promise “In you shall all the nations be blessed.”

Jul 9th, 2008
Stephen Macasil

Rob,

It would help if you named who your comments are directed to.

Jul 9th, 2008
Rob Davis

Sorry, I haven’t been involved in this whole debate… I was quoting from some of the original comments.

I found this interesting dialogue by searching for Tim Keller on google, and I think it’s really sad that some are willing to use the strong language of “false gospel” about someone who they obviously know nothing about and are taking parts of things he has said out of context without diving deeper into his teaching.

Especially the comment that Tim Keller is “going emergent” which is quite possibly the strangest statement I’ve heard in a long time.

Jul 9th, 2008
Stephen Macasil

Thanks Rob, that certainly helps.

You said: “I think it’s really sad that some are willing to use the strong language of “false gospel” about someone who they obviously know nothing about and are taking parts of things he has said out of context without diving deeper into his teaching.”

The “strong language” of “false gospel” has been used specifically in criticism of Tim Keller’s “gospel for the uncircumcised.” His “gospel for the circumcised” has not been in question anywhere here. Therefore, to appeal to his overall teaching as the barometer in evaluating his “gospel for the uncircumcised” is to seriously miss the entire point of criticism.

I understand that he has loyal followers that view my criticism of his doctrinal and applicational/homiletic particularities as personal attacks on him, but I cannot help it if one blinds themselves to the issues at hand. I have remained open and willing to discuss any of the issues raised in my criticism, but closed and unwilling to seriously respond to general sentimentalism and psychological/emotional dissatisfaction.

Jul 9th, 2008
Rob Davis

Well, I would be glad to dive into this conversation more fully, but my responsibilities as an employee, husband and father would keep me from doing so to the extent necessary. I will add this, that my own frustration with these types of communication has nothing to do with sentimentalism, but rather truth. And, biblically, there is a method for confronting error (i.e. personally), and this is not it. For instance, when John Piper had doctrinal questions to ask Tony Jones and Doug Pagitt, he did so face-to-face rather than feeling the “call” to confront them on a website.

Jul 9th, 2008
Lora

I think you’re missing the point.

How can a person who has no concept of sin understand forgiveness? Basically, Tim Keller is reframing the argument. One has to understand their need before one can accept a remedy.

As Christ sent different people to preach the gospel to different groups of people, so Tim Keller adjusts the concept or the frame of the argument to explain the point to different world views.

Aug 7th, 2008
Stephen Macasil

Lora,

I’m sorry that you think I’ve missed the point (although you haven’t specified which point[s] I’ve supposedly missed), but as I wrote earlier:

My objection would be with Keller’s distinction between circ/uncirc based on “ability.”

Proposal: No person is more or less able (based on their upbringing) to receive the gospel. Unless God regenerates the sinner, they will never believe because they cannot, as Romans 8 says, they are “unable” to. This is a theological objection to a major premise in Keller’s scheme for two forms of the gospel that hinges on one type of person’s ability to do something and the other type of person’s inability.

Can this proposal be challenged and/or refuted by Scripture?

Also worth noting is J. Gresham Machen’s Notes on Galatians which disagrees with Keller’s interpretation of Gal. 2:7 as a biblical warrant for two forms of the gospel. It isn’t the strongest commentary on Gal. 2, but since Machen left Princeton (for theological reasons) and founded the seminary that Keller attended (WTS), it shows the “school of thought” that Keller was trained in which he now at least in part, rejects.

This pits him against Machen, the founder of Westminster Theological Seminary, as well as the theology of many other “Reformed” men such as Geerhardus Vos, Gordon Clark, Cornelius VanTil, Francis Schaeffer, Carl Henry, et al.

If these men (and others) and their doctrine/philosophy represent 20th Century Reformed Theology, a “school that Keller capitalizes on by being associated with,” and if he now embraces their theological enemies and embraces what they considered heresy, then we and everyone else should stop referring to Keller as Reformed and either give him a new label, something cool-counding perhaps, or lump him in with the rest of those men that Machen, Clark, VanTil, etc., fought so hard to God’s glory to refute.

Do not think for a second that if any of those old dogs were still alive, that they’d approve of Keller’s recent “ministry” efforts.

Aug 7th, 2008
Stephen Macasil

Lora,

You said: “As Christ sent different people to preach the gospel to different groups of people, so Tim Keller adjusts the concept or the frame of the argument to explain the point to different world views.”

Which world view exactly are you referring here, and what is it about this “world view” that justifies Keller’s “adjustments”?

Aug 7th, 2008
Travis

Rob

I confronted Tim Keller over the phone? So It has already been done.

Aug 9th, 2008
Travis

Stephen,
I might have missed this part but you reffered to “AUG 7th, Kellers recent ministry efforts” are you still refering to the “gospel of the uncircumsised?” I need to go back and read the post again,

What would do you think Van Till or Clarke or Martin would say about Tims ministry efforts? I ask because the Acts29 network is similiar to that?

Aug 9th, 2008
Stephen Macasil

Hi Travis,

When I said “recent ministry efforts,” I was primarily referring to the latest media blitz that unreservedly affirms Roman Catholicism, including the article where he basically says “I have a gospel for the uncircumcised,” and “I have a gospel for the circumcised.” Specifically, and this is something most (younger) Christians won’t know, Kierkegaard’s worldview has been condemned as unChristian in the past – That’s why I named VanTil, Clark, etc. Kierkegaard and his unChristian philosophy is continually used as examples of apostate thought. VanTil, in his criticism of neo-Orthodoxy, New Reformation theology, and in particular, Karl Barth, trace Barth’s (an others) roots to Kierkegaard. VanTil says that it is clear from Barth’s Romans commentary that he followed Kierkegaard.

Here’s a quote from VanTil’s “A Case For Calvinism”

“The movement really began,” he says, “in the nineteenth century in that strange Danish thinker, Sören Kierkegaard.”?? Kierkegaard argued that “life cannot be formed into a system of rational thought.”?? “Life is not ‘neatly rational,’ it is ‘paradoxical,’ and the Christian faith presents us with paradox at its very center—time and eternity united in the God-man. Consequently, faith, or commitment, becomes an important element of philosophy; it is not our task to find the truth but to live it. We should not worry about what is Christianity but about how do I become a Christian?” ??

(Van Til, Cornelius: The Case for Calvinism. The Prebyterian and Reformed Publishing Company : Philadelphia, 1964)

In Chapter 3 of “Christianity and Barthianism” VanTil says that the Christian reader would be disturbed by Kierkegaard.

Here’s another VanTil gem on Kierkegaard:

Kierkegaard is merely carrying on in the spirit of Kant. His final reason for rejecting system and all that is bad, comes from his conviction that there is no God who can give a final revelation of himself to man in history. In other words, he seeks to attain uniqueness for his Christ in terms of the idea of pure contingency. And this idea of pure contingency of necessity has for its correlative the formal ideal of pure rationality.

Thus his position is basically no less speculative than is that of Hegel. Both are irrationalist in that they allow for the idea of pure contingency. Both are rationalist in that they use the laws of human logic in order by them to exclude the possibility of the truth of historic Christianity. The difference between them is merely one of degree. The philosophy of Kierkegaard is a form of Kant’s ethical dualism and ethical monism. And his theology is adapted to his philosophy. His philosophy is, to be sure, “critical” rather than “speculative.” It is open to Christianity. But it is only open to a certain kind of Christianity, the Christianity of the indeterminate God and of the unknowable Christ.

(Van Til, Cornelius: Christianity and Barthianism. The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company : Philadelphia, 1962)

Gordon Clark also has an appraisal of Kierkegaard in RRR.

I wouldn’t be shocked if Keller began to promote Karl Barth soon…

Aug 9th, 2008
Travis

Quote from Keller
The gospel, says Keller, is the power of God to change people (irreligious or religious) from the inside out. “Christ gives us a radically new identity, freeing us from both self-righteousness and self-condemnation. He liberates us to accept people we once excluded, and to break the bondage of things (even good things) that once drove us. In particular, the gospel makes us welcoming and respectful toward those who do not share our beliefs.”

It seems as though Keller hasnt mentioned Barth, but an intresting note is (this has nothing to do with Keller specificlly) a lot of people who reference Karl Barth reference Tim Kellers book “The reason for God”

Aug 10th, 2008
David W. Congdon

Stephen,

I am sorry to see you promote Van Til’s thought. The notion that Barth “followed Kierkegaard” on the basis of his Romans commentary is rather laughable, since it is a lengthy biblical commentary in which Kierkegaard’s name appears maybe a dozen times at most. Barth quoted from whatever he felt was helpful in elucidating his exegesis of the Bible. Have you read Barth? I’m guessing you haven’t. I haven’t met a single Van Til disciple who actually read Barth in depth and with appreciation for what he was trying to do and what he accomplished. Most simply take Van Til’s statements for granted.

At the end of the say, Van Til’s rejection of both Kierkegaard and Barth comes down to his rejection of Kant as some kind of plague. Sure, Kant has his problems, but to say that Barth is Kantian is a mistake. Barth only employed Kantian thought insofar as he felt it was helpful for illuminating Scripture. If there was ever a point at which Kant contradicted what Barth found in the pages of the Bible, he quickly discarded Kant, and that happens more and more as Barth writes. By the time of Barth’s Church Dogmatics, Kant is gone from the scene altogether. At the end of the day, Van Til, like so many others, evaluates Barth on his Romans commentary alone, even though that is his first major work. Everything else is read as if it just confirms what Barth wrote back then, which just isn’t the case.

I’d like to ask who is, in the end, the more biblically faithful — Van Til or Barth? Throughout Barth’s writings, we see Scripture. It’s jam-packed with the Bible. Does Van Til offer his own counterexegesis? No. He simply accuses Barth of Kantianism and other philosophical errors, and thinks that his job is done. The true follower of Van Til would attempt to offer a better exegesis of the Bible. Instead, it seems that disciples of Van Til are content simply to parrot his work, and that is a disservice both to Van Til and to Barth.

Aug 10th, 2008
Glen

What does Keller mean by “In particular, the gospel makes us welcoming and respectful toward those who do not share our beliefs.?” Is he talking about in our personal lives or the Church? Interesting in light of 2 John 10-11.

(10) If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting; (11) for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds.

Aug 10th, 2008
Travis

Glen,

I think he saying that it transforms the believer in a welcoming and respectful person, or we should say “it should make us that way” but 2 John 10-11 is interesting, what do you know about the context of that verse. I will read the context later?

Good example, we find multiple ways to react to people in scripture that dont always make us respectable in others eyes, but it is honoring to God.

Aug 11th, 2008
Stephen Macasil

Hi David,

Thanks for the reply. I spent some time a while back reading much of your work on universalism. It was recommended to me by Kim F. (I forgot the spelling of his last name – Fabricious?) Kim said that his position can be fully and accurately summarized as laid out in your writings. So I’m glad you’ve responded here because I was looking forward to reading your future works after you completed your PhD at Princeton.

In response to your comment, it must be understood that a question was asked of me as to what Van Til and Gordon Clark would have said about Tim Keller’s new gospel form (for the uncircumcised) and his use of Kierkegaardian existentialism to contextualize the gospel to postmoderns. These men (including Carl Henry) have written enough on Kierkegaard (as well as Barth) to get a pretty good picture of how they’d view it, had they been alive still today. So there wasn’t necessarily a Van Tillian argument against Barthianism per se, more of an answer to the question “what would they have said?”

You’ve guessed correctly, that I haven’t read Barth as you’ve described (in depth and with appreciation for what he was trying to do and what he accomplished.), and your generalization of Van Til’s “disciples” simply taking for granted Van Til’s statements was profound to say the least. You said:

“The true follower of Van Til would attempt to offer a better exegesis of the Bible. Instead, it seems that disciples of Van Til are content simply to parrot his work, and that is a disservice both to Van Til and to Barth.”

I agree!

A couple of quick things before I hand the exchange over to you…

“I am sorry to see you promote Van Til’s thought.”

What is meant by Van Til’s thought? If it is allowable for Barth to use Kant where he deemed him useful, what is wrong with using VT where he is useful?

“The notion that Barth “followed Kierkegaard” on the basis of his Romans commentary is rather laughable, since it is a lengthy biblical commentary in which Kierkegaard’s name appears maybe a dozen times at most.”

What I see as rather laughable is the claim that VT taught that KB followed SK on the basis of KB’s Romans commentary – alone. Surely this isn’t what you’re saying, is it? I hope not, because VT writes:

“The answer is that Barth’s position is much more fully and more carefully articulated in his scholarly than in his popular works. Barth would have every reason to complain if we sought to analyze his views in terms of his popular writings alone, especially if we found it necessary to differ with him. Due respect for Barth requires us to listen at length and with patience as he speaks in his major theological writings. Even the more popular writings must finally be seen in the light of the Church Dogmatics and its companion works.

The Church Dogmatics is a truly monumental work. In reading it one’s admiration for Barth knows no bounds. One must look back to the Christian Dogmatics of 1927 and even to the commentary on Romans, as well as to other earlier works, in order to trace the development of Barth’s thinking. But in the Church Dogmatics we have the ripe fruition of a long lifetime of arduous reflection and research.”

In light of the whole of KB’s thought, VT states that KB followed Kierkegaard (others have said the same thing). This seems inescapable. Didn’t Barth even say so himself that he followed Kierkegaard?

“At the end of the say, Van Til’s rejection of both Kierkegaard and Barth comes down to his rejection of Kant as some kind of plague.”

This is simply a poor evaluation of VT. This is like describing Barth’s theology apart from his Christological interpretation feature. Van Til is very clear as to why he rejects what he rejects – including SK, KB, and Kant.

This leads me to return a question to you: Have you read Van Til “in depth and with appreciation for what he was trying to do and what he accomplished?”

Aug 11th, 2008
Glen

Travis,

Here is the context… We are told to love (v6), love is then defined (v7) as obeying God’s commandments. We are told to watch ourselves (v8) so that what we don’t loose what we have been taught. We are warned against anyone to goes too far (v9) and told that they are not part of God’s kingdom. We are told not to welcome anyone that fits the description in v9 into our house (v10). The question would then be what exactly does the Apostle mean by v10.

Here is what Matthew Henry says “The direction is negative. 1. “Support them not: If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine (concerning Christ as the Son of God, the Messiah and anointed of God for our redemption and salvation), receive him not into your house.” Possibly this lady was like Gaius, of whom we read in the next epistle, a generous housekeeper, and hospitable entertainer of travelling ministers and Christians. These deceivers might possibly expect the same reception with others, or with the best who came there (as the blind are often bold enough), but the apostle allows it not: “Do not welcome them into your family.””

I have not studied this enough to say if the Scripture is saying that we should not welcome any unbeliever into our homes. I don’t think that is what is being said here. I would think that this is referring to someone who is claiming to be a believer and is in fact teaching a false gospel. This means that we should not welcome a pastor who does not preach the Word into our church or into our homes for support.

I would be interested to see what others have to say on these versus.

Aug 11th, 2008
Stephen Macasil

Glen,

I agree with your conclusion concerning the antichrist.

Travis,

The Keller quote sounds like part of his sermon on the two sons. Unfortunately, for Keller and his followers, he has to commit major hermeneutical crimes in order to give that sermon. His failure to apply parable hermeneutics to the Lk 15 passage, and instead expound on every detail in the parable (known by scholars as “local color” – Morey calls it “filler”) to establish doctrine is a first class violation of rightly dividing the word of truth (2 Tim 2:15)!

Theologically, it is also off (i.e. he affirms works from unbelief as good, etc.)…

Aug 11th, 2008
Jamie

I have not read every post here and i do not tim keller personally although i have heard many of his sermons. I felt i could not let my reading of this go by without posting here.

what agenda do you people have that you feel it is necessary to bash keller’s teachings? Of course he is not professing to have 2 gospels. He believes in the one true gospel.

The point he is trying to get across is that if you simply tell the postmodern thinker that he is sinning and needs a savior he is not likely to believe you that he is even sinning!! If he does not understand his sin why will he turn to a savior. In his relativist mind he is doing exactly what he should be doing so why look to outside influence from Christ. keller is simply pointing a different tack in explaining sin to the “uncircumsized” in hopes that he would see his need for the gospel. It does not change the gospel or the sin- but it may help someone realize they are a sinner.

How could this possibly be theologically off??

Aug 19th, 2008
Stephen Macasil

Jamie,

You asked: “what agenda do you people have that you feel it is necessary to bash keller’s teachings?”

2 Cor. 10:5 “We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ”

Two questions for you:

1) Do you have a problem with Scripture?

2) What is the gospel?

Aug 19th, 2008
Glen

Jamie,

From what I can see Keller is not just telling the post-modern that they are sinners and need a savior. He seems to be (and I could/hope I’m wrong) watering down what sin is when the “gospel for the uncircumcised” is preached. There seems to be a lowering of the standard of what sin is so a “relativist” mind can understand it. I do not see any example of that in the New Testament nor do I see any directives to do so (if you know of any please expound on them). We are called to present the Gospel as it is and it is God who opens the hearts to receive it. It is not up to us to make it easier to understand or accept.

Aug 19th, 2008
Jamie

I have no problems with scripture. I believe in the authority, inerrancy, and sufficiency of scripture. the gospel is that christ died so that anyone who would have faith in Him would receive his sinless record and have a right standing with God. he died so i could live….

Keller does not change in any way what the core of the gospel is. How does his explanation of sin to a postmodern thinker threaten the teaching of the gospel? It does not!! He is still teaching them that there is only one way to be saved and that they need Jesus. he is simply helping them to understand that at their core they are sinners in need of a savior. He is simply gining them rails to run on to begin to think of themselves as needy and broken.

A question for you:

If you were to enter a conversation with a relativist that Keller has described who believes that they exist in their own moral paradigm, and you were trying to get them to recognize that they are a sinner- how would that go?

“You are a sinner and you need Jesus”
“i”m not a sinner, that’s crazy, i don’t believe in sin”
“yes you are”
“no I’m not”
“yes you are”
“get out of my face”

Keller simply presents an argument that gets them to begin to think that they might be a sinner as described in the bible. How is that counter to the gospel? He is trying to get someone to recognize that they have sin in their heart and need a savior. Sounds like the gospel to me.

Besides, who has ever come to belief and had a full understanding of the depth of their sin the moment they are saved- no one. every day we are on this journey of sanctification we understand more and more of our need for a savior. keller is simply opening that door.

When you tell a child that they need to obey mommy and daddy because God has said that they should, does that water down the sin? No!! It presents it in a way that they can understand. Mommy and Daddy understand it as grievous sin bu the child does not think in those terms. keller is presenting sin to the postmodern in terms they can understand but it does not change his opinion of how grievous the sin is or his hope for his audience’s understanding of how grievous their sin is. That is in no way an alternative gospel or “lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God”

Aug 20th, 2008
Sir Aaron

The problem Jamie, is that the “culture” during the apostles time was arguably worse than ours. Havig personally visited Greece, I can attest to the sexual and other moral sins that were commonplace amongst the general population during that time. Considering the philosophy developed by the Eurasion countries, I have no doubt that they were much more relativistic than we are now. And yet, we don’t see any examples of the type of evangelism that you imply by your statements.

Are you proposing the following conversation:

You: “Do you want to go to heaven?”
Sinner: “Yes, absolutely. What do I need to do.”
You: “Well, Jesus loves you just the way you are. You just need to pray this prayer and come to church on Sunday mornings. By the way, did I mention we have a culturally relevant, rock n roll worship series this week. We also have worship times starting every hour on the hour so you can choose whichever service best fits your schedule.”
Sinner: “That’s sounds great.”
You: “Oh yeah, there’s one more thing. You should stop having sex with your girlfriend because it’s sinful.”
Sinner: “Doesn’t the Bible say ‘Judge not lest ye be judged’?”
You: “Well, I meant that you shouldn’t have sex with your girlfriend because it will cause innumerable emotional and health problems.

In that conversation, not only was the gospel watered down to the point of irrelevancy, but the sinner was made to believe he could go to heaven when it was clear that he was still on his way to hell. Frankly, I prefer to tell somebody they need to repent and be told “get out of my face.”

Aug 21st, 2008
Paul Maurice Martin

It would be a strange world if believing in Christ were the one criterion for going to heaven and avoiding hell. I just have trouble seeing, say, the Dali Lama burning in the flames along with billions of others who happened to be brought up in non Christian traditions.

The great majority of people from every tradition were born into it and it’s no coincidence. You can’t choose Christ if you haven’t heard of him or don’t know any more about him than the average Christian does about the Buddha or Mohammed.

I also like to think Christianity is more than a personal reward and punishment system – that we can be more spiritual than, say, a lab rat.
Seems to me that Jesus himself was hardly all about saving his own skin…

Aug 21st, 2008
Stephen Macasil

Paul Maurice Martin,

Define what you mean by “strange.”

Aug 22nd, 2008
Glen

Paul,

One question… Do you believe that the Bible is God’s Holy written Word?

Follow up if you answer yes… Do you believe what is written in the Bible from cover to cover is Holy and Inspired by God and is completely accurate without flaws or errors?

Aug 22nd, 2008
Sir Aaron

Paul: “The great majority of people from every tradition were born into it and it’s no coincidence.”

Sir Aaron: Nope. God’s soveriegn will has determined everything.

Paul: “You can’t choose Christ if you haven’t heard of him or don’t know any more about him than the average Christian does about the Buddha or Mohammed.”

Sir Aaron: You are right. This just shows us two things. (1) God elects those who are saved. (2) We need to evangelize as much as possible.

Paul: “It would be a strange world if believing in Christ were the one criterion for going to heaven and avoiding hell.”

Sir Aaron: Then it is a strange world, because the Bible clearly says that this is the case. Either the Bible is true or it’s not. You may think it is merely a great philosophy book that contains some truths, but if that’s the case there is no reason to obey the Bible or any other moral sytem that man created. You might as well live life as you please. Great philosophers and thinkers such as Leonardo Da Vinci and others have long ago reach this depressing conclusion.

Romans 9 says the following:

“Not only that, but Rebekah’s children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?” But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’ ” Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

Aug 22nd, 2008
Jason

Please read the material. This is such a sad distortion.

Aug 30th, 2008
Stephen Macasil

Jason,

To which material do you refer?

Along with your answer, please describe the distortion that you have found sad.

Aug 30th, 2008
Tim

I’m sorry but you didn’t actually make a point as to why Keller is wrong in his assertions. You just showed his 2 different presentations and went into your example of the car crash. He is still framing the gospel in the context of sin, while simply using different frameworks to do so. I can see how this would be problematic if it wasn’t found in Scripture. All it takes is a simple survey of Acts to see how differently the gospel is presented in various encounters. Looking at Acts 16 alone will show you this.

As N.T. Wright says, you are NOT justified by believing in justification by faith . You are justified when you repent (turn away) and proclaim Jesus as Lord. Let’s not make the gospel more complicated than it is meant to be.

Sep 17th, 2008
Troubled

Hello, I just felt compelled to post, though I do realize the conversation died down two months ago. The zeal with which Stephen and others want to defend the Truth is commendable. But where is the love? Several times, when a poster brought up a viable criticism, Stephen and others were condescending (almost to the point of being disrespectful), and accused the poster of having a problem with the Gospel. These posters taking their free time to post thoughtfully on this board is indication to the contrary. I started reading these blog posts about Keller out of genuine concern for the truth. But reading through the comments sections to these blogs was rather discouraging, and any curiosity I had about what the OP had to say has been effectively extinguished by the treatment received by anyone who tried to bring up rational criticisms. Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up…

Dec 8th, 2008
Stephen Macasil

Troubled,

So which of Tim Keller’s gospels do you believe?

And which “rational criticisms” do you refer to?

Dec 8th, 2008
Troubled

Your first question assumes that Keller has two gospels. You can’t engage people in a real discussion if you already assume your own conclusion. (By the way, he wrote explicitly in his article that there is only one gospel but that there are different ways to present the same message.) By rational, I mean one is able to follow the logic. There were many in the comments — Jamie, Tim, or Daniel, among others. Anyway, please don’t miss my point — the credibility of your original post, sound or not, is undermined by the the behavior of your (and your supporters) in reaction to anyone with an opposing view.

Dec 8th, 2008
Stephen Macasil

Dear Troubled,

You’re correct when you say, “Your first question assumes that Keller has two gospels. You can’t engage people in a real discussion if you already assume your own conclusion.”

Please see Testing Tim Keller’s Gospel Forms

You will see that I have made an exegetical argument against his use of certain biblical passages to support his form in question. You will also see why I assume that Keller has at least two gospels.

You say, “By rational, I mean one is able to follow the logic.”

This is good. I agree.

You go on to say, “the credibility of your original post, sound or not, is undermined by the the behavior of your (and your supporters) in reaction to anyone with an opposing view.”

Tell me, please, how one’s behavior can undermine sound logical arguments.

Note: At this point I haven’t accepted or denied your claims about my behavior (or others).

Dec 8th, 2008
Troubled

Case in point about your defensive responses to criticism: What was the point of asking me which one of Keller’s two gospels I believe in? It was kind of a random response to my comment, in which I hadn’t said anything substantive about Keller at all. Your choice of wording seems to be deliberate (as you are so careful about semantics), so your wording makes me inclined to believe you were insinuating something about me — that I (or you) know that Keller has two gospels and that I believe only one or the other of them. I hadn’t even said what I thought about Keller yet. It seemed like you trying to imply something about me. Anyway, it’s obvious to anyone who actually read your original post why you assume what you do, but acknowledging this would have left me with a potentially offensive insinuation about me. I guess I just wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt by assuming (to your credit) that you just wanted to engage me in debate. You could have responded to my original comment in a whole host of ways, but the one way you chose had a danger of being offensive. I’m just saying — it might help you get your message across if your immediate responses to people erred on the side of being polite and non-offensive.

Also, I don’t have claims about your (and others) behavior. It’s just an observation that echoes the sentiments of what others noticed as well. Whether you accept or deny them doesn’t make my observations any less valid, because how one treats others is a bit of a subjective issue.

To answer your question: I didn’t say behavior can undermine logical argumentation. I said the credibility of your original post, SOUND OR NOT, is undermined by certain behavior. If I don’t like or trust someone, I am more skeptical of what she has to say, even if what she says is objectively sound. (Please know I’m not saying I don’t like or don’t trust YOU — just giving an example to show what I meant). It’s a matter of credibility being undermined, rather than the substance itself. The credibility is important here because you are trying to defend God’s truth. I want to believe that fellow believers, who make it their business to defend God’s truth, exhibit the fruits of the Spirit as they do so. I would like to think defending Truth in the world would also dictate seeking God’s truth in one’s own character…I agree that the Truth can be divisive — but I don’t think it has to be delivered in a way that is so to fellow members of the body who genuinely might be seeking truth in their lives as well. Like I referred to before, knowledge rooted in God and coupled with love builds up the church, while knowledge alone just puffs up.

Thanks for the link, by the way. Your in-depth treatment of the text was really interesting and I learned something new from it. I have thoughts about it and Keller’s “Two Forms,” but I won’t get into it here for fear of losing my point by getting into a substantive debate.

Finally, your bone to pick with Keller implicates some pretty serious accusations. (I know you said you didn’t call Keller an apostate, but when you label a blog posting about him with “Apostate Warning,” maybe the subtle distinction is lost on some people.) I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the posters who brought up counterarguments to your posts were just trying to make sure you had given real and dispassionate consideration to other ways of viewing the situation before coming to your rather grave conclusions about Keller.

Dec 8th, 2008
Stephen Macasil

Troubled,

I appreciate your input, and I thank you for taking the time to articulate your opinions and offer advice. I do disagree with your ethical statements about how one is to proceed – always. But people are wired differently, and maybe you’re just a low-key, non-confrontational type of person. I don’t know.

But if you go back and actually read the thread, you will see that my first interaction was with a person by the name “Ron Hodgman.” This person was irrational and although he was given grace, eventually he had to be dismissed on the basis of his own stupidity. Not much you can do there…

But you will see that my first response to him was done with grace and love. I demonstrated patience, peace, and care in responding to his unwarranted attacks. I even offered to meet with him in person and help him out in ways that I thought I could be helpful. But if you read the interaction you will see that he became suddenly ugly and began saying many nasty things without any provocation.

A person by the name “Dave” came in on June 12, 2008 and was hostile. You can see that the method of answering him was different based on his approach, not an arbitrary decision on my part.

Then Daniel F. Wells felt the call to begin posting about my writings on his own blog, inviting a discussion. You will see that although the kid gave a good effort, he missed the whole thing by a mile. It was primarily based on his feelings – his psychological degree of satisfaction/dissatisfaction. I told him that I can’t change people’s feelings. He got offended, ran off and who knows what happened to the kid. I did, however, invite him back once he developed an actual argument comparing my writing to an objective standard rather than his twenty-something limited life experience. Eventually I tried to give Daniel some encouragement. I read his article, gave him some feedback, and gave him some hope for his future at seminary.

A “Tim Melton” came in and began hurling insults, painting me as holding to an “overly truncated form of covenant theology” and a” particular form of Presbyterianism” – two things that I don’t – whatever he meant by them. In rereading my correspondence with him, from my perspective I seemed fair.

Then we were graced by the great “Dave Condon,” Princetonian liberal theologian extraordinaire! He posted some comments, I responded, he was refuted and never came back. It seemed fair though.

So when you polarize the whole activity here as “unloving” and such, it doesn’t accurately describe the way things really are. Those sorts of claims about the way things are don’t really get handled the way other claims are handled. I’m not trying to turn it on you, I am expressing my disagreement with your overall perception of this thread, which affects your perception of all my articles on Keller’s theology & philosophy, which affects your perception of me, which if allowed to the general public affect the perception of Christ.

Now if you had taken all these things into consideration and only singled out the few examples of where I did not affirm the ground of my opponents, things would be much different. But as it stands, since your claims are based only on a portion of the overall interaction here, I can only do what I’ve had to do with the other irrational people that have been unable to present an understandable argument and dismiss your “complaints.”

I’m already aware that some of the things I write here may offend people and make them feel sad or mad. But as I have already had write several times here, I can’t help someone who as a result of the way they perceive my efforts here do not walk away with a higher degree of psychological and emotional satisfaction than they’re used to. I’m spiritually allergic to pragmatics.

Take care.

Dec 9th, 2008
Troubled

I have to disagree with you.

If this was an ethics board, maybe we’d be having a different conversation, but this board is about your defense of the truth. Calling someone *almost* an apostate in the name of biblical truth is a serious accusation. I’m just urging caution like many others have tried to do. If you don’t see the need to be careful in publicly making claims like that, that’s your prerogative, but that doesn’t make me non-confrontational. What do you think I’m doing here with you? “Non-confronting” you about your approach? No. If anyone is to be called irrational in this instance, it is you. As you have agreed with me that rational means capable of following the logic, I have been nothing but rational so far in my posts. You, on the other hand, in the face of my confronting you with my posts, call me non-confrontational…

You are fooling yourself if you think your first post to Ron was graceful and loving. You said: “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.” This was so transparently condescending and full of insinuation about your superior understanding — I challenge you to take this statement around to neutral third parties (not your followers) and ask if it was purely gracious and loving.

Further, isn’t it clear that I already read through the entire comments section? I didn’t need you to give me your blow by blow interpretation of what happened. And that’s precisely my point — your interpretation is not what objectively was going on. It means nothing that you THINK you were being loving and respectful — I’m telling you (as other posters have tried to do before me) that you are NOT indeed being respectful and loving. That is what I mean before, about this being a subjective issue. You can think you’re being nice, but if 5 separate people (who have almost no other motivation to post here than a genuine concern for truth and the health of the body) warn you that you are being disrespectful and condescending, then maybe you should take a step back and really think about it. By your logic, either we’re all wired super-low-key or…just maybe it is you who are wired disrespectful and condescending.

But since you think it’s important to go through the whole comments again to me, I’ll play.

I challenge you, truly out of concern and love, to be honest with yourself and me. You are so deliberate about semantics (as exhibited by your long blog posting about the cosmic difference between the meaning of “to” vs. “of”) that I can’t believe you are truly unaware of the insinuations you make in your “loving” comments to people. Can you honestly sit there and tell me you meant complete love and respect to Ron when you urged him not to post again for fear that he will embarrass himself? Really? I find it rather amusing that you can make a straight-faced argument about how pure and loving those comments are. You state in your last post “eventually he had to be dismissed on the basis of his own stupidity. not much you can do there.” Was this statement rooted in your worry for his embarrassment too?

Further case in point example — you refer to Daniel all over your last post to me as a “kid.” Is that not based in condescension? He’s not even here anymore to read it! Are you trying to show me more examples of your love and graciousness to others? (I’ll let you in on a little secret — calling him “kid” as you defend your loving responses to him isn’t helping your argument.) When I read his arguments, I didn’t find them to be purely subjective and based on emotion — I was rather surprised you took it that way. He had very logical arguments against you and you were too cowardly to deal with them head on, so you copped out by saying you can’t reason with emotion.

What about Jamie? Was she being irrational? I’ll move on.

Every post of yours on this board (including your last one to me) wreaks of self-importance, arrogance, superiority, and callousness. Here’s an example from the end of your last post: “I can’t help someone who as a result of the way they perceive my efforts here do not walk away with a higher degree of psychological and emotional satisfaction than they’re used to.”

You also exhibit a true lack of self-awareness at your best and actual deceit at your worst if you think you were being completely respectful to others on this board.

I caution you…this isn’t a game. You treat this board like a challenge to outsmart (I would argue unsuccessfully) anybody who disagrees with you. (Your whole last post was like you were boasting about your track record — “he was refuted and never came back”). Good for you! You win!

If your goal is to run anyone with opposite thoughts to your own off this comment board, then you win. Go ahead and stroke your ego and pride again.

Yet…you professed yourself that you are posting to defend God’s Truth. If you truly were posting for the glory of God, I don’t know that you would treat people with such flippancy as you are doing. If you are truly worried about people’s spiritual health and truly worried people might be falling down a dark path towards apostasy, I don’t know that you would be acting the way you are. I challenge you to be honest with yourself about your motivations. Pride is a dangerous thing.

And here I return to my very first point. If Keller is really treading dangerous water, this is an important message to take to the body. I commend you for wanting to uphold truth so much. It’s a hard and necessary job to challenge our pastors if they really are preaching falsities. But your behavior in this comments section betrays your base motivation. It is hurting your ability to convey your message. You are clearly gifted in your thirst for biblical scholarship and you have an enormous body of knowledge in your head. If these gifts aren’t being used to build up the church but rather tear it down because of your pride, it is a sad waste of your gift. The pharisees were also well-studied and extremely well-versed in the bible but they missed the point completely.

Dec 10th, 2008
Sir Aaron

Troubled:

Putting the issues between you and Stephen aside…

It seems to me that there are two sides arguing here. One says that clearly what Keller is teaching is two gospels (even if he, himself, says he means there is one gospel presented in two different manners). The other seems to accept Keller at his word and then defends him without really addressing the underlying concerns about Keller’s original statements. Is what Keller is describing actually two gospels or is it really one gospel presented in different manners as he says. We can call an apple an orange, but that doesn’t make it so. That is not to say that I agree or disagree with Keller…just that I haven’t seen the Keller defenders really address the substance of his teachings. Secondly, shouldn’t theologians, in a time filled with heresies and seeker sensitive mentalities, be more clear in what the Gospel truly is? Based on the little bit that I read (in comparison to his total volume of works), Keller’s writings seem to support and fuel the seeker sensitive movement. Keller, IMHO, only muddies the water instead of clarifying the difference between presenting the gospel in a manner that can be understood by a certain culture and eliminating portions of the gospel to keep from offending certain segments of today’s culture. I’d like to see him address where contexualization ends and selling out the gospel begins. Then I’d feel a lot more comfortable with the entire matter.

Dec 10th, 2008
Denise

The latest on Keller:

“Innovation3 is happening later this month in Dallas… January 27-28 to be exact.

Leadership Network has invited over a hundred of the best and brightest ministry leaders to present at Innovation3. You’ll hear from people like Tim Keller, Mark Driscoll, Dino Rizzo, Nancy Ortberg, Larry Osborne, Matt Chandler, Dave Gibbons, Darrin Patrick, Dave Ferguson, Ed Stetzer, Neil Cole, and many more. We’ll be lead in worship by the Robbie Seay Band!” Also Chris Seay will be mc’ing.

http://innovation3gathering.com/2008/10/15/tim-keller/

Leadership Network is a well established Emergent company that pushes this movement hard, especially this year.

As is normal for Emergent gatherings, many women will be teaching men. This also includes women “ministers” such as Nancy Ortberg who is a teaching pastor at Willow Creek Community Church in South Barrington, Illinois,Theresa McBean, Pastor Laurie Beshore,Missy Hannon is co-executive pastor of Living Hope Church.

Tim Keller is sharing the pulpit with these people.

Jan 12th, 2009
Denise

http://www.exponentialconference.org/speakers/

Tim Keller shares the platform with Gary Lamb: “Gary Lamb is on the record saying that one of his biggest regrets is that he didn’t club a church lady with a baseball bat, punch her husband in the face and set fire to the church organ.” –Slice of Laodicea

Go here to hear him say it: http://www.alittleleaven.com/2009/02/exponential-09-conference-to-feature-a-speaker-whose-biggest-regret-is-not-clubbing-a-church-lady-wi.html Note the background stage production (Las Vegas style). He calls the woman he hates “Lucifer” from his last church, blamed that church for almost divorcing, and was responsible for him hating Christians. Yup that’s the man to speak at this conference. NOT.

A Little Leaven reports:

Read what Lamb wrote on his blog to the person who stole one of his church’s trailers:

To the people who stole our trailer:

First let me say, God loves you. Second let me say we forgive you. We really don’t want to forgive you, but God says we should so we do. Third of all I want you to know that I think you are scum bags. I think you are lowlife degenerates who need a good butt kicking. Matter of fact I feel so strongly about the fact that you need a good butt kicking that I am volunteering to do it. I hope you believe in God because you should get on your knees and cry out to Him like never before because if we find you, I can promise we will kick the crap out of you. It won’t be pretty, it won’t be over quickly, and it will be very painful. I know that doesn’t sound very nice but I feel pretty strongly that is what you need.

Unquote.

1Ti 3:2 Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,

1Ti 3:3 not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money.

1Ti 3:4 He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive,

1Ti 3:5 for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church?

1Ti 3:6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil.

1Ti 3:7 Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.

Gary Lamb fails this test and therefore is illegitmate as a pastor and speaker.

Back to the 09 Exponential Conference:

Note the women who will be teaching men at this conference.

Francis Chan and Tim Keller will be sharing the pulpit with:

Ed Stetzer, John Burke, Alan Hirsch, Erwin McManus, ECM leaders (a few more look to also be Emergents but I didn’t have time to research that right now).

Feb 12th, 2009
Denise

**Update***

http://wccc.blogs.com/willow_news/2009/02/speakers-announced-for-2009-leadership-summit.html

Tim Keller is to be a speaker at the 2009 Leadership Summit at Willow Creek Community Church, which includes speakers like: Bill Hybels; Dr. Henry Cloud; Bono.

Mar 3rd, 2009
kidoist

I see no problem with Keller’s approach to the urban sinner, who, probably is a post-post modernist in his or her lifestyle. I recently had a debate with a professing Christian and also practicing homosexual. He’s heard it all, and reacted exactly as Keller said he would to every single scripture concerning homosexuality. He reads scripture through the spirit of the times, and omits or discards scripture that the gay community says is obsolete.

Keller is deep in the urban lifestyle with his ministry. I’m sure he has a huge gay following, without condoning the sin. I’m also confident he has something to teach to us not up to our eyes in “big city sin.” His sermon on the sanctity of life is rock solid and impossible to dispute if you accept the imageo dei doctrine.

Jun 22nd, 2009
Becky

Kidoist- You didn’t give a solution for the homosexual though. If the proposed Scriptures don’t work, then what is your answer for witnessing to the homosexual and leading them to repentence (besides prayer, of course).

Jun 22nd, 2009
Denise

Another Keller Update: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/june/15.20.html

The problems of Keller: http://surphside.blogspot.com/2009/06/tim-keller-following-in-warrens.html (I post this only b/c its too long to get into here–but I show how Keller is just like Warren. For example, both built churches specifically for unbelievers, which is thoroughly unbiblical).

Read the comment by “grace”. She goes to Keller’s church and has given eyewitness accounts of how emergent and man-centered they really are there.

Joh 15:19 If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.

The world hated Jesus because of Who He is and what He taught. If a Christian is doing as HE did, the world will hate him also. Its as simple as that.

Jun 25th, 2009
Denise

Another thing I came across in my research recently is that Keller is a feminist, even while claiming to be Reformed: Quote:

“In a nutshell, our position is this: whatever a non-ruling elder male can do in the church, a woman can do. We do not believe that I Timothy 2:11 or I Corinthians 14:35-36 precludes women teaching the Bible to men or speaking publicly. To “teach with authority” (I Timothy 2:11) refers to disciplinary authority over the doctrine of someone. ”

“In marriage, wives are told to give headship to their husbands (Ephesians 5:21 ff.)”

“The Bible directs that a wife, when she marries, give that “right/responsibility” freely to her husband. …But when there is a “hung jury”, and it is critical for one person to take both leadership and responsibility, the “head’s” service takes the form of initiation. He leads by over-ruling.”

“The traditionalist says: “Women must submit because women aren’t fit for making decisions, for leadership.” But many couples will admit that the wife is more decisive and has better judgement than the husband. Besides, the Bible no where gives that as a reason.”

Elders are to be men (1 Timothy 3:1-3). In 1 Timothy 2:11, Paul forbids women to “teach or have authority” over men. In 1 Corinthians 14:35-36, women are not to take part in determining whether a teacher is teaching sound doctrine. (Note: Paul’s command for women to “keep silent in church” cannot mean that they may never speak publicly. That would contradict I Corinthians 11 where women are told to pray and prophesy. It means they are to keep silent when the prophets are judged.)

Elders are leaders who admit or dismiss people from the church, and they do “quality control” of members’ doctrine. These are the only things that elders exclusively can do. Others can teach, disciple, serve, witness.

In a nutshell, our position is this: whatever a non-ruling elder male can do in the church, a woman can do. We do not believe that I Timothy 2:11 or I Corinthians 14:35-36 precludes women teaching the Bible to men or speaking publicly. To “teach with authority” (I Timothy 2:11) refers to disciplinary authority over the doctrine of someone. For example, when an elder says to a member: “You are telling everyone that they must be circumcised in order to be saved—that is a destructive, non-Biblical teaching which is hurting people spiritually. You must desist from it or you will have to leave the church.” That is “teaching authority”—it belongs only to the elders.

Thus, women at Redeemer will be free to use all the gifts, privately and publicly. There are no restrictions on ministry at all. There is a restriction on the office of elder. Why? Because the Bible precludes it, and therein it points us back to the Trinitarian pattern which is strong in marriage and muted in society, but which is practiced in the church.

End quote.

Source: http://www.upc-orlando.com/resources/written/doctrines/doctrine06.html

Jun 25th, 2009
Denise

Scripture however says differently.

First, re: discernment is only for the elders:

He said, “In 1 Corinthians 14:35-36, women are not to take part in determining whether a teacher is teaching sound doctrine.”

So he’s saying that women can’t have discernment; they’re good enough to teach men, but they have to shut up and not question. Scripture doesn’t restrict the gift of discernment to men only (see 1Cor.12).

Secondly:

1Tim. 2: ?11? A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 1Tim2: ?12? I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. ?13? For Adam was formed first, then Eve. ?14? And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. ?15? But women ? will be saved ? through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

2Ti 3:6 For among them are those who creep into households and capture weak women, burdened with sins and led astray by various passions, 7 always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth.

1Cor. 14: ?33? For God is not a God of disorder but of peace. As in all the congregations of the saints, ?34? women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35? If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. 36? Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? ?37? If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. ?38? If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored.

Jun 25th, 2009
john

Denise: At the risk of sounding mean on you, I want to mention a few things. This is not a spanking.

You, being a woman I am assuming by your name..

a) teach men here all the time
b) rebuke with the word of God anyone that transgresses your interpretations of that word.
c) exhort both men and women in various issues of faith and practices.

I realize that Keller is not your cup of tea, but I note that what you condemn him for, you do yourself here regularly and without censorship.

So, while you label him a feminist, you by your own actions and definition condemn yourself as a feminist.

I personally do not disagree with Tim on this issue, and you are fine to continue. Nevertheless, your own criteria in my opinion has censored any further comment from you in this blog.

Which will it be, retract the feminist charge and continue teaching, rebuking and exhorting men on this blog or keep the charge against Tim as it stands and keep all commentary to yourself?

John

Jun 25th, 2009
Sir Aaron

Denise:

Ok, Keller’s followed Warren’s megachurch building plan which is unBiblical. Ok, I get that…no problems there. But then you accuse him of being a feminist while at the same time accusing him of telling women that they cannot have the gift of discernment. You kinda lost me at that point. Some clarification of what you mean would be helpful.

Jun 25th, 2009
Sir Aaron

John:

I must confess you said what I was thinking (although I’m no Tim Keller fan).

Jun 25th, 2009
Denise

Here’s Keller’s church going fully into Contemplative Spirituality/Emergent junk:

http://www.redeemer.com/learn/classes/class_details.html?scheduleid=613

Susan Costillo, the teacher is also attending Westminister Theological Seminary. This class is for men and women, and they highlight it would be useful for group leaders to attend.

Jun 28th, 2009
Denise

Keller shows his hypocrisy by thinking women are gifted to teach men, but not gifted with discernment to know and show who is a false teacher. That’s hypocrisy on HIS part, not mine. He’s wrong on both counts.

I don’t teach men in a church or group. As I have done my research, its clear that Keller believes women can teach men in church, which is clearly prohibited by God. And this ain’t church.

I guess HIS commands are optional, guys eh?

You both actually make my point, thanks!

Jun 28th, 2009
Stephen Macasil

John,

I encourage you to reconsider Denise’s points. I don’t think she’s being read in the best light, and it may be a lack of clarity and precision on her part, but I think she’s made some valid points.

Let us remember that this issue falls in to the category of ecclesiology.

Jun 28th, 2009
john

Hi Denise I will look at the link.

I receive what your saying that you do not teach men at Church, but thats only a venue, this is a venue. A venue doesnt change the principle or the act. Nevertheless, this is something thats up to you not me. I am fine with your teaching and exhortations on this site.

John

Jun 28th, 2009
Sir Aaron

“You both actually make my point, thanks!”

Who are you both? And who are the “guys.” The only person arguing in favor of Keller, was John. (I am really having to use all my willpower to avoid snarky comments).

Based on your last two posts (and a visit to your blog), I gather that your points are: (1) Keller is a feminist because he allows women to perform functions that men who are not leaders perform including some teaching. (2) Women shouldn’t teach men under any circumstances. (3) Women can and do have the gift of discernment.

My response to you is the following:

(1) With respect to Keller being a feminist, I disagree, as would most feminists. Keller’s view hardly fit into the classical definition of a feminist. I do get your point, and I agree that Keller’s doctrine with respect to this issue is flawed. My problem here is that you throw around terms like feminist very loosely.

(2). We agree absolutely that women shouldn’t be teaching men.

(3) You clearly believe that women can’t teach men but yet can have the gift of discernment. “And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.” This implies that one reason why Paul says women can’t teach men is because they lack discernment or at the very least are more easily prone to being led astray. So I agree with you that women shouldn’t be teaching men. We have no argument there. I’m not particulary convinced that women can have the gift of discernment. However, I’m willing to entertain a case for or against such a position.

Finally, the biggest concern that I have is that I don’t see how what you are doing is much different than teaching men, especially since you routinely challenge men, including pastors and elders, to doctrinal disputes. How is teaching men or challenging them over the internet via your blog or elsewhere, any different than doing so at your local church body? What male leader has endorsed your positions or holds you accountable for your what you write? What male leader has qualified you to lead in this area and confirmed your giftedness in discernment?

Jun 29th, 2009
Sir Aaron

….chirp…chirp…chirp….

Jul 2nd, 2009
K Harrell

Stephen,

Not real familiar with “biblical warrants” for funeral preaching and wasn’t aware that you were in a position to refuse them.

And could you also please show me where Keller indicates that “The Circumcised” must “ONLY” be presented with a certain “gospel” and “The Uncircumcised” must “ONLY” be presented with another.

And please don’t tell me that while I pondered Keller’s heresy, and responded to your blog, that some pagan driving a jet-ski, went over a water-fall.

Jul 14th, 2009
JS

When Tim discusses the Gospel “working” differently he means in the heart of the worldly sinner vs the heart of the religious, common pharasaiacal sinner. What Tim knows is common in the Gospel is that it needs to grow man continuously in how deep our need is for a savior, Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith.

Tim agrees, as do I, that the world looks very dimly on sin… which is why he discusses idolatry so often. Religious man, for example, is quick to point out religious sin but very short at pointing out their own religious sin as we create sanctuaries for saints in the Church and not Hospitals for sinners where the Gospel Jesus(the author and perfecter of our Faith) and the Holy Spirit are the ONLY doctors.

Jul 25th, 2009
JS

The sentence should have read:

Religious man, for example, is quick to point out worldly sin but very short at pointing out their own religious sin as we create sanctuaries for saints in the Church and not Hospitals for sinners where the Gospel Jesus(the author and perfecter of our Faith) and the Holy Spirit are the ONLY doctors.

Jul 25th, 2009
JS

In regards to Keller being a feminist, thats a major overstatement probably 25 clicks after reading some statement from an ODM.

The Church as a whole is struggling with male leadership stepping up and actually leading. As a result, many denominations are either considering or allowing individual sections of their denominations or individual Churches to allow deaconesses. However, while allowing deaconesses they are not allowing elders at Tims Church.

I personally am ok with deaconesses but not female elders (although I have belonged a Church that allowed female elders).

I am adamently against female pastorship and consider that biblical.

As far as female teaching goes I would say equal but different and consider many of the rules and verses in 1 Cor applicable to a dysfunctional Church of Corinth 2000 years ago (my personal statement).

I recommend reading 1 Corinthians again and this time reading some context into the verses and the state of that particular Church.

Jul 25th, 2009
JS

Now that I have read the CT article I see you have really twisted what was said about the Gospel and many forms.

Try harder next time!!

Jul 25th, 2009
Stephen Macasil

Hey JS,

Please explain what was “twisted” from the CT article.

You can also learn more of my position on this here:

Testing Tim Keller’s Gospel Forms

Jul 25th, 2009
Denise

I decided to post this link here too, in case others read it and need the latest information:

http://www.demossnews.com/manhattandeclaration/press_kit/manhattan_declaration_signers

Another ECT type document, but the signers include Keller as well as other “evangelical” notables like Mohler, Randy Alcorn, Kay Arthur, Joni Tada.

Nov 22nd, 2009
Travis

i was just going to post on this, is this something that all faiths can agree apon as people, for the sake of religious freedom?

Nov 24th, 2009
Stephen Macasil

I have been talking on the phone and by email to Ken Silva about this over the last couple days (and some other fine folks too). I am not completely resolved on the entire issue yet, but I can say this: I wouldn’t have any issue with it if it were a purely political document. But it’s not. It is presented as a theological document so I treat it as one. The issues raised that the document claims to defend are indeed issues worth defending, but I would rather lose religious liberty, abortion, and traditional marriage than be forced into compromise and call papists and EO’s brothers and sisters -which is what this document binds the consciences of its proponents to do. Is my stance considered “radical”? Probably so, but only by compromising moderates (at best). I told Ken,

“I would not be able to sign it since I cherish the absolute authority of the Inspired Word of God (and all its implications) far greater than the few political issues this document aims to defend. I would never call a man or woman that denies justification by faith alone a brother or sister, even at gunpoint with my wife and children watching…”

I will start a new thread on this for all to discuss.

Nov 24th, 2009
Denise

Ok thanks Stephen.

In the meantime look at this: http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3638

” I listened to Chuck Colson speak on the Hugh Hewitt program this afternoon. He made it very clear that this is, in fact, a theological document, despite the assertions of others that it is not. ” – James White

Nov 25th, 2009
Travis

“We pledge to each other, and our fellow believers”

Why are Mormons not included and JWs?

I just read it and it is definetly needed, but it is most definetly a theological document.

I hope someone will hold a national debate with the RC and EO about these statements “One true God, the Triune God of Holiness and love”…”Grounded in the Holy Scriptures, in natural human reason (which is itself, in our view, the gift of a beneficient God)”…”across historic lines of ecclesial differences”

Nov 25th, 2009
Travis

We must insert our names in the “WE” of this document!!

My next question would be, Does signing this document violate the scripture by standing with those who call themselves chrisitan, and are not.

Nov 25th, 2009
Stan

Paul did not have different forms of the Gospel, neither did Jesus. Nor for that matter the prophets of the Old Testament.

Paul preached Christ and Him crucified, the gospel as in 1 Corinthians 15. When Paul preached, the RESPONSES indicated the paucity and depravity of the hearers. The so-called forms were NOT established by Paul or Jesus, the responses are the Keller “forms”, the misunderstandings and misinterpretations of the hearers. So Keller has it wrong wrong wrong. Instead of preaching the gospel of Christ and Paul and the Puritans and the Reformers Keller has the Keller understanding of the Gospel based on human understandings of the message preached. The message for the circumcision and the uncircumcision was the same. The message to the Greeks and the Jews was the same – the Person and Work of the Lord Jesus Christ in light of the condition of the human race before God. The Greeks saw it as foolishness. The circumcised saw it as an abrogation of the law. Postmoderns will see it as whatever postmoderns would see it as. So what? The gospel is the gospel and does not change. Keller misapplies and perverts the Word of God.

Mar 16th, 2010

Reply to “Does Tim Keller Have Two Gospels?”

Stay updated on Biblical Thought.

Content RSS - Straight to your reader
Comments RSS - Add to the discussion

eNewsletter

FORUM RULES

This is an interactive forum with rules that will be enforced by BT Moderators at their sole discretion. It is understood and accepted that some theological discussions can be emotionally driven, and at times get heated. BT Moderators will attempt to regulate any behavior that is deemed destructive to the pursuit of biblical truth, or any behavior that violates the commands, precepts, and examples revealed in Scripture.

Participation in the BT Forum is a privilege and not a right. Therefore, go out of your way if necessary to show yourself blessed, and conduct yourself according to the following:

1. Try to stay on topic. Use the contact form for private or off topic comments/questions.

2. Do not post outside links unless they are directly related to the topic of the OP.

3. Posting using your real name is preferred (unless we know you), but not mandatory. When choosing a nick-name, you may not use the word “Reformed.” There are two exemptions: Reformed Mama and Reformed Rich. These saints were granted free BT exemption passes at the BT headquarters: the Oasis.

4. No drive-by posting. No posting in book form; keep it a reasonable length that will encourage others to post and promote further biblical discussion. (HT: Steve Camp)

5. Immediately adhere to Moderator warnings.

6. No stalking. No demands. No Presbyterians (j/k)!

7. if you have anything to say other than what is immediately related to the OP, use the contact form.

8. Failure to comply with Moderators will result in your indefinite banishment, including the blocking of your IP. EXEMPTIONS: Testimonies, praise reports, prayer requests, doxologies, exhortations, encouragements, clean humor, and things like these are permitted irrespective of the thread or OP.

biblicalthought.com