Fake Liberal Xian

The Amplified Bible is intended to give the "fuller" meaning of the text of Scripture. However, its additions get interweaved with the text, rather than added as commentary, it can be easy for someone to confuse the Word of God with the insight of a translator. Unfortunately, it ends up being, in some cases, misleading additions to the text. Perhaps for many passages it could be a very helpful tool. However, its additions often flatten words to a specific meaning or even broaden words to mean more than they do. My observations have been that it is very popular in charismatic churches where there is less formal theological training. For that reason, I tend to think it could have a Pentecostal bias, though that's just my speculation. Either way, a good lexicon is a more valuable tool; it's just not quite as convenient. And I would recommend a good study bible or a set of good commentaries over the additions of the Amplified Bible.

View more

You asked specifically about the rapture, but let me explain why I can't answer your question more simply.

---

When I first became interested in theology, I spent a lot of time reading Puritan writing, and I leaned in a postmillennial direction. I'm convinced now, however, that postmillennialism is really the least viable option biblically. After my Puritan stage, I began reading up on eschatology specifically. Most of the theologians I most respected ascribed to premillennialism. I kind of jumped on their bandwagon. I figured if John Piper is here, Al Mohler is here, and Jim Hamilton is here, then I can have some confidence in the premillennial position. With that being said, as I read more into eschatology, I read convincing arguments for amillennialism from some significant church fathers, and Sam Storms' book on amillennialism is solid.

---

So here is my final verdict: I'm not sure. If I had to take a position, it would be premillennial. However, eschatology is the one area of doctrine that I'm most readily willing to admit that I could be wrong.

---

In regards to the rapture, dispensationalist premillennials are [generally] the only ones who believe in a rapture of the church that occurs prior to a period of tribulation. Others who believe in the rapture believe that it occurs simultaneously with the second coming and judgment of Christ. I tend to side with this interpretation. However, there are many solid theologians that reject the rapture altogether, and I'm not willing to say that their position is not viable.

View more

The ultimate reason that the Jews did/do not receive Jesus as their Savior is that the eyes of their hearts are blinded. Their inability to live faithfully as God's people brought about the New Covenant in Jesus Christ in which people from all nations would be saved. As a great King/High Priest/Savior, Jesus came in a form they did not expect and saved the world through the 'foolishness' of a sinner's death of a cross, and this was/is a stumbling block to them.

---

As a result, many Jews are unfortunately still awaiting a Messiah to come. The 400 years of silence that we know has become much longer for them.

---

Jews transgressed their covenant with God, and under the New Covenant, people with faith in Christ have become the new Israel. However, the bigger picture that God shows us is that a day will come when Jewish people will indeed come to know Christ as Lord. God's new covenant did not nullify the old; instead, the new covenant allowed God to bring salvation to every nation.

---

(Romans 11:7-12, 25)

View more

I think it's important to begin answering this question by saying what people don't mean by sufficiency.

---

First, we don't mean that the Bible literally says everything we can possibly know, everything that it would be good for us to know, or even everything we need to know. There is extra-biblical knowledge that is important in life.
Second, we don't mean that the Bible can meet all of our needs. The Bible cannot teach us to repair our car. It cannot put food on our table. Scripture isn't a good replacement for surgeons, basketball coaches, and architects.
Third, we don't mean that medicine is bad. Some of us would say that you should not treat with medicine what is meant to be treated by faith. However, most of us, including myself, wouldn't go that far. Instead, we would say that, while you can treat symptoms of the heart with medicine, you cannot treat the [spiritual] heart with medicine.

---

So what do we mean by the sufficiency of Scripture?
What we mean when we say that the Bible is sufficient is that the Bible is sufficient for us to know God and to know his will. The Bible provides us with an authoritative worldview and a proper reorienting for every circumstance in life. In Scripture, we have everything we need to make the proper decision(s) in any situation, more specifically in the moral aspects of those situations, and we believe that every experience in life is informed by and only rightly understood through the lens of Scripture.

View more

I have found this article, and the chart at the end, by Timothy Jones helpful in defining terms: http://proofofgrace.com/naming-the-new-calvinism/

---

If you line up with everything in the Institutes, I think you can safely call yourself a Calvinist.

---

If you line up with everything in the Westminster Confession, I think you can safely call yourself Reformed.

---

Most people today using the terms "Calvinist" or "Reformed" probably mean something more like what is described below:

---

Neo-Reformed - this term usually implies a separation from (but not a denial or affirmation of) the Westminster Confession in that it has a more narrow focus on the soteriology of monergism.

---

Neo-Calvinism - this term usually implies a separation from (but not a denial or affirmation of) the Institutes in that it more narrowly focuses on the sovereignty of God.

---

To help further distinguish, Neo-Reformed tends to focus on monergism (soteriology) while Neo-Calvinism tends to focus on the sovereignty of God in all things, and both of the "Neo" terms usually separate themselves from the more historical understanding of "Reformed" and "Calvinist" by disassociating themselves from ecclesiology and the sacraments.

---

Reformed Baptist seems to be a term that doesn't necessarily distance itself from the Westminster Confession but provides a nuance to Reformed Theology that distinguishes itself as having a Baptist understanding of ecclesiology and the sacraments. Fullerism could probably be a good synonym for Reformed Baptist.

---

Dortian refers to the five points from the Synod of Dort, or TULIP. Obviously this isn't a popular term because nobody uses it. And for whatever reason, the term tends to historically have an unfair association with the doctrine of limited atonement and the non-evangelistic side of hyper-Calvinism. Generally, a person who is "Dortian" could feel comfortable calling themselves either Neo-Reformed, Neo-Calvinist, or Reformed Baptist.

---

With all of that being said, the defining of terms may be beyond reconciliation in regards to the terms that surround Reformed theology, so it's sometimes easier to lay out a statement of beliefs than it is to describe yourself with terms because even if you're accurate with terms, you may be misunderstood.

View more

What I mean is that there are likely homosexuals who have a sincere desire to follow Christ but who have had their sexual preference affirmed by liberal theologians and don't realize that repentance involves their sexuality. I do think that most of them will eventually see their error if they are true followers of Christ, especially with this area being such a hotly debated topic, but it's also true that many or most of us will die with blind spots in our doctrine.
The "deceived" will certainly not receive a lesser judgment than those who haven't been deceived, but we have to remember that Christ has taken the wrath of judgment for all who believe. And maybe I am being naive, but I don't think it is right to say that someone who has been deceived in the area of sexuality is worse than one who has been deceived in other areas. Unless we are willing to admit that sexuality is a primary, fundamental area of doctrine for Christianity, can we say that someone is unsaved because they're wrong about it?

View more

I think it's important to establish a few truths implicit in your question before answering it.
1. We are naturally dead in sin and cannot have faith apart from the work of God.
2. No one is saved apart from being born of the Spirit.
3. The indwelling Spirit for all believers did not begin until Pentecost.
4. People had saving faith before Christ came.
The question, ultimately, is, "How can all four of those things be true?"

---

I want to begin answering this question with a statement from Jesus in John 3. As Jesus explained that one must be born again to be saved, Nicodemus is confused, and Jesus says, "Are you the teacher of Israel and do not understand these things?" So while it may be difficult to reconcile the four truths above at first glance, it's important to note that Jesus makes an assumption that this should be understood from the Jewish Scriptures.

---

There are some wrong ways to reconcile these truths. The doctrine of prevenient grace is one that attempts to answer this question. It says that God has given enough universal grace to break the bonds of sin enough that makes faith possible for all men. This doctrine fails on many level, most importantly, it's foundation in Scripture. In spite of what many Wesleyans want to say, the doctrine of prevenient grace is not a doctrine taught in Scripture. It is a doctrine developed to reconcile other truths found in Scripture. A second way to reconcile these truths is to actually reject number three and suggest that the Spirit actually did dwell in all believers in the Old Testament. However, this does an injustice to how Acts 2 fulfills prophecies in places like Joel 2 and Jeremiah 31. Others may reject number one, saying that depravity doesn't actually impact man so deeply that he cannot seek God on his own accord. This is Pelagianism, or at best semi-Pelagianism.

---

And there are some potentially right ways to reconcile these truths. One is to say that the Spirit worked through various means of God's external work in the tabernacle and temple. In addition, there are also times when the Spirit of God did dwell in people, particularly in the leaders of God's people; for example, David asked God not to remove the Spirit from him in the Psalms. Those things were ways of sustaining God's people before the indwelling of the Spirit in all believers. However, it's important to distinguish the regeneration of the heart unto faith by the Spirit from the sustaining presence of the indwelling Spirit.

---

One of the continuities from the old and new covenants is that salvation is by faith. Abraham was justified by faith just as Paul was justified by faith. And I would suggest that both of their hearts were regenerated, circumcised, and/or softened by the Spirit unto salvation by faith. However, the difference is that Paul received the gift of the indwelling Spirit to sustain his obedience while Abraham's obedience was sustained by external influences of God's Spirit.

---

I would love some pushback on this answer!

View more

The reality is that the biblical narrative presents a young earth if you accept a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11. And, if you don't accept a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11, which, for the most part, seems to present itself as a historical narrative, you lose a large foundation for the rest of Scripture. Without Creation, Fall, Flood, and Babel, how do you explain how the rest of the Bible talks about the image of God, the sin of man, the wrath of God, the nations, and how Christ relates to those things? You also undermine other biblical figures that talk about the characters of Genesis with the notion that they were historical figures. Beyond that, What is lost in rejecting the historicity of Genesis 1-11 is far more than just a young earth. You may look at guys like Ken Ham and see the holes in their arguments. However, one thing that Ken Ham and his Creation Museum have done successfully is to show that it is possible to look at the scientific data of the world without necessarily concluding that the universe is billions of years old. Furthermore, people like Ken Ham show how the biblical narrative help explain why that's true. If we believe that Scripture is the Word of God, then what is presented as true in Scripture must be our foundation for truth, far and above what is scientifically tested. Science exists entirely in the natural realm, and there are so many things in Scripture that we would have to reject if we did not accept the supernatural. However, we don't have to reject natural Science to believe Scripture, though we may have to reject some of its conclusions.
In short, God did not mislead us in creating the world, even if he created all of it with an appearance of age. Instead, God perfectly and miraculously created a world that would best serve His creative purposes. Science ought to lead us to a greater wonder and awe of God, not to question His Word.

View more

I hope you don't mind me answering your question with a question. Why would you respect Scripture's authority if you believe that its writings are just a product of ordinary men? What about Scripture would make you elevate it above any other book if you deny dual/divine authorship?
Ultimately, to deny divine authorship of Scripture is to deny the authority of Scripture, particularly because Peter, Paul, and many of the prophets affirm the divine authority of Scripture within the text itself as a means of giving us confidence in its authority. It's one thing to have concerns about the process of canonization, (though I would commend to you that the reasons people give for their concerns are generally either speculative or disingenuous,) but it is another thing to slander the gift that God has given us in His Word by suggesting that it is just a work of man.

View more

Like any extra-biblical text, we have to weigh the Didache against Scripture. Texts like this can be helpful for understanding how some early Christians may have practiced Christianity and how some early Christians may have understood the teachings of Christianity. However, there is a reason that texts like this are not canonized. There are a few places where this text prescribes things that seem at odds with some practices we see in the book of Acts. However, the biggest issue I have with the Didache is that it presents a legalistic gospel. If Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all ended before the crucifixion, the Didache would make more sense. There is no mention of the cross, no mention of the sacrifice of Christ, no mention of grace. It presents two ways: a way of life and a way of death. The way of death is: don't do these things. The way of life is: do these things. It mentions the gospel, but when it mentions the gospel, it does so with an implication that the gospel is simply a new law. Obedience is surely a core part of our faith, but what the Didache presents is ultimately a gospel-less Christianity, a Christianity without the cross.

View more

I can't think of an author who was leaning liberal and then bounced back. Rob Bell is a good example of why that's true. As his Nooma videos became popular, there were a few small voices that weren't a fan of his ambiguity at times, but he hadn't crossed any theological lines that people felt like they needed to speak out strongly against. He started to cross those lines in Velvet Elvis, but even then, they were "just questions." Instead of being condemned, he was affirmed by influential people like Doug Pagitt. It wasn't until Love Wins that you began hearing thinks like "Farewell Rob Bell" and having books written opposing him. By the time he really started receiving harsh criticism, he had already made up his mind and wasn't turning back. You have to wonder what would've happened if he had been confronted with stronger opposition earlier in his career.

---

I have, however, seen a few examples of people in my personal life who have started to think liberally and have turned toward conservatism when it was shown that their trajectory was leading them to a denial of biblical authority/sufficiency/infallibility. Here are some signs I've noticed:

---

-Liberal authors become prevalent and persuasive. The most obvious sign of a person being on a liberal trajectory is their bookshelf. Who are they being influenced by?
-Christianity becomes a religion about social justice rather than the salvation of sinners. Christianity shouldn't be about setting aside religious beliefs in order to partner with humanitarian organizations. If the cross isn't needed for your practical application of Christianity, then you've almost certainly undertaken a liberal agenda, even if you still believe a conservative theology.
-Science begins to make you question a literal interpretation of Creation and biblical miracles. The story usually goes, "I grew up in a conservative, young-earth-creationist church, but when I went to college, I began to see that science and many of the things I learned in the Bible don't line up." This story often ends with a person questioning the historicity of many biblical events and the inerrancy of Scripture.
-Love begins to be overemphasized and faith and/or repentance are under-emphasized. I've begun to call this the 'One Thing Remains' Principle. This is very much like the first point, but it begins theologically rather than practically. This is where love begins to be defined as tolerance and acceptance.
-The importance of certain orthodox doctrines begins to be questioned. In this case, a person starting on a liberal trajectory won't deny things like the virgin birth, the resurrection, a literal hell, etc., but they will begin asking why it's so important that we believe in them.
-Humans are seen as intrinsically good and worthy. If you misunderstand man's depravity and God's holiness, you will be profoundly confused by so many passages of Scripture that deal with wrath and will inevitably overvalue man's worth and undervalue Christ's sacrifice.

View more

As with parts of my last answer, your context is going to determine a lot of what you can and can't do. It seems like in Luke 22, Jesus broke the bread and gave the cup, handed it to the disciples, and they shared it. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 11, condemns the church for profaning the Lord's Supper by (forgive my oversimplification) not sharing it rightly. I don't think it matters so much how the elements are passed, but they are certainly to be shared in such a way that the unity and love within the body is clear. It may be better for someone to receive it to practically symbolize their reception of Christ's sacrifice. However, with that being said, I don't think our matters if a person is served the elements or serves them to themselves as long as they understand that the gospel is something they have received. It is not something they have earned or taken, it is something that has been earned for them and given to them. The Lord's Supper preaches that to us every time we take it.

View more