-
information
- The Harbinger: Fact or Fiction?
- Are Muslims Seeing Jesus?
- “Son of God” Translation Controversy
- God’s Plan through the Ages
- Supersessionism Rising: Dispensationalism…? Part 2
- Supersessionism Rising: Dispensationalism…? Part 1
- The Greatest Tragedy of the Rapture Prediction
- ABI Ministry Update
- “The Muslim Brotherhood and the Gospel of Christ”
- The Crisis in Egypt
- Saddleback’s Health and Fitness Seminar: An Eyewitness Account
- Rick Warren’s Controversial New Initiative information
- ABI 2010 Year-End Report
- Ministry Trip to S. Korea / Philippines
- Where Should We Meet?
- Burning Korans (the right way)
- Glenn Beck’s “Black-Robed Regiment”
- ABI Quick Survey: Mark Galli’s CT article
- Christianity Today: God – the “Divine Drama Queen”
- Partnership Opportunities: ABI International
Does “I am the way…” Teach Universalism?
This appears to be the essence of Brian McLaren’s claims concerning John 14:6 in one of the chapters of his upcoming book A New Kind of Christianity: Ten Questions that are Transforming the Faith (to be released in February 2010).
On his blog, Mr. McLaren writes the following in response to a comment received from a reader concerning John 14:6:
I reworked that material into an important chapter in my upcoming book, A New Kind of Christianity: Ten Questions that are Transforming the Faith. The passage is often used to answer the question, “How do we relate to people of other religions?” But a careful reading of the verse (“I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me”) in its immediate and broader context shows that its most likely meaning is almost the opposite of the way it’s commonly used. Who is Jesus speaking to? What specific question is he answering? What does “come to the Father” mean? What do way, truth, and life mean? What’s the dramatic setting for the statement? (If people think the answers to those questions are either immaterial or self-evident, I don’t think they’ve really struggled with the text, nor have they taken seriously what is for John an extremely important statement – namely, John 6:63 in relation to 6:55 (John 6:55) … Jesus speaks on a “spirit” level and people hear/read him on a “flesh” level. This theme goes way back to 3:6 (John 3:6).) What a fascinating gospel we have in John! Working on a close and comprehensive reading of John for that chapter in the book constantly moved me to wonder, amazement, and worship.
McLaren notes that the “most likely meaning” of John 14:6 “is almost the opposite of the way it’s commonly used.” He is apparently referring to the way this passage has been generally understood within conservative evangelicalism, which is that Jesus is stating that salvation is found exclusively in and through him. And in the broader context of New Testament teaching concerning salvation, it would be understood that Jesus is affirming that salvation comes only to those who have explicit knowledge of him and who have explicitly placed their faith in him. In other words, conservative Bible students have historically understood Jesus to be teaching that salvation is found exclusively in him personally and not that there is universal salvation for all through his work on the cross in a general way.
However, McLaren suggests that a study of the verse, “in its immediate and broader context,” reveals that Jesus is teaching universal salvation. So, let’s consider the contextual issues and the questions he says we should be asking.
When: It is at the end of the passover meal that Jesus has just shared with his disciples on the night he was betrayed. And now, Jesus has just sent Judas away, saying, “What you are about to do, do quickly.” (John 13:27)
Who: Jesus speaks to the remaining eleven disciples.
What: He speaks of the glorification of the Father and the Son (John 13:31-32), his departure (John 13:33), the significance of their love for one another (John 13:34-35), and Peter’s denial (13:36-38).
After he tells Peter of his impending denial, Jesus then returns to the issue of Peter’s concern about his soon-departure. Jesus tells them that their hearts should not be troubled because he is not only going to prepare a place for them, but that he will also return to take them back to be with him (John 14:1-4).
Jesus concludes by saying, “You know the way to the place where I am going.”
Thomas then responds, “Lord, we do not know where you are going…” and then poses the question, “…how can we know the way?” It is to this question that McLaren directs our attention as the immediate context of Jesus’ statement: “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”
And then, very importantly, Jesus says, “If you had known me, you would have known my Father also; and from now on you know him and have seen him.” This is important, because, among other things, it gives insight into the exclusivity of the “I am the way” statement. Note that Jesus did not say, “If you had known the Father, you would have known me.”
Jesus was speaking to those who already had a personal relationship with him. And it is because of this relationship and through this relationship that his disciples were able to know the Father (have a relationship with him). Jesus said that it was only through the Son that they could have this relationship to the Father.
McLaren then directs our attention back to John chapter 3 – to the discussion between Jesus and Nicodemus – so that we can be sure to understand the “broader context.” Good advice.
Nicodemus would have been the equivalent of what we would consider a seminary-trained, conservative, theologian – a scholar who not only thoroughly knew the Hebrew Scriptures, but someone who worked hard to live consistent with what he knew to be the demands of those Scriptures. And it is armed with this knowledge that Nicodemus addresses Jesus: “We know that you are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.” (John 3:2)
Nicodemus was right. But neither his knowledge nor his apparent acceptance of this truth was enough to establish a relationship with the Father or secure him a place in the kingdom of God – which is precisely why Jesus then told him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John 3: 3) And, of course, later in the conversation Jesus said, “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.”
From this conversation and the one in John 14, it is clear that being born again and possessing eternal life are directly and inseparably connected to having a personal relationship with Jesus, which one enters into by faith. In John 14, Jesus spoke of preparing a place and the way (or pathway) to that place. This place was the Father’s house, his kingdom.
In summary: Jesus unequivocally states that there is only one way to the Father and into the Father’s kingdom. Jesus unequivocally states that he is personally that one way. The disciples knew the way and were on that way only because of their personal relationship to Jesus. Salvation is not applied universally to all on the general basis of Christ’s work on the cross and definitely not because of some general belief in God as taught in any given religious system.
As always, the context does provide the correct understanding of John 14:6.
The Problem of “Red-Letter” Bibles
(This article is available in downloadable and printable PDF, 2-column article format: Click here to download)
I subscribe to Google Alerts because they are a very helpful research tool. If you’re not familiar with Google Alerts, when you subscribe, you can put in topics or names – and then, almost real-time, whenever these “hits” appear anywhere on the internet, you receive an alert into your email Inbox.
One of these alerts just arrived in my Inbox concerning “Phyllis Tickle” – and it was related to one of my “pet” issues, so I decided to just go ahead and write about it while we’re sitting in a hotel room in west Chattanooga in the midst of our move back to Indiana.
_____________________________
In 2008, Phyllis Tickly published a book entitled “The Words of Jesus: A Gospel of the Sayings of Our Lord with Reflections by Phyllis Tickle.” In a review by “Publisher’s Weekly” as posted on Amazon.com we read, “Award-winning author and speaker Tickle (Rediscovering the Sacred; The Divine Hours), who is PW’s former contributing editor in religion, chooses to take the red letter Bible one step further in this excellent study tool.” Of the four reviews on the Amazon site, they are at least as positive as the publisher’s review.
However, I don’t think “red-letter” Bibles really should be taken a step further. Rather, I would suggest that the decision to print such Bibles was probably a mistake in the first place. The reason is this: By having the words of Jesus appear in red, the impression is (wrongly) given that what Jesus said is somehow more important and to be taken more seriously than the rest of the Bible.
But this isn’t the case at all. We are to live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God (Matthew 4:4) – and a high view of the inspiration and authority of the Bible as Scripture, as the Word of God, leads us to conclude that every word in the Bible is from the mouth of God (2 Timothy 3:16).
Of course, what Jesus said had special significance in the context of His earthly ministry. But in the context of the entire Word of God, they are certainly no less important, but neither are they more important. Rather they are equal – completely and fully, in every respect.
This is even more important to understand in a day when groups like “The Jesus Seminar” try to figure out just what of those “red-letter” words Jesus actually said. (And their conclusions are that He probably didn’t actually say much of it.) And, we are in a day when more and more of those who are gaining notoriety as leaders and spokesmen (like Rob Bell for example) for an ever-larger segment of evangelicalism – men and women who are trying to redefine “inspiration” and see the Bible not so much as inherently inspired and infallible, but rather as the product of men, who were occasionally blessed by God with spiritual insights.
This is not how we should handle the Bible. If you have a red-letter Bible, why don’t you consider going out and buying one that isn’t – and start your Bible study afresh. Let’s fully understand and believe that when Peter said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God” – and he did it because it was revealed to him by the Spirit of God, it carried truth that was as great and profound as when Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth and the life,. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6)
The second temptation we face when using a “red-letter” Bible is to lift verses out of their context and memorize them without ever having any idea what is found in the preceding or following paragraph. I haven’t read Mrs. Tickle’s work, so I can’t comment if she has appropriately dealt with Jesus’ words in context. I hope she has. And I hope that each of us, whenever we study any verse or passage, we will not conclude our work until we know and understand the context.
As I frequently told my students (and being a very original person – meaning I can’t remember from which thief I stole the idea) – “the context is not the main thing – context is the only thing.” A serious student of the Word of God should be able to overlook the chapter and verse divisions, which are often a distraction to true Bible study – and he needs to be able to look past the words in red – so that appropriate value can be assigned to the “words in black” – the very breath of our Lord.
Please don’t misunderstand, I’m not just singling out this work by Phyllis Tickle, which I’m sure she would describe as a labor of love. But I am suggesting that perhaps this type of work is not necessarily taking us in the right direction in our overall understanding and appreciation of the Word of God.
Dave James
Ministry Coordinator
The Beginnings of ABI – Part IV
I have mentioned the email to Jimmy DeYoung asking about whether there was a need for an organization similar to the Pre-Trib Study Group to help hold the line on historic, conservative evangelicalism. This is where we pick up the conclusion of the story about the beginnings of ABI.
_________________________
A couple of days after sending Jimmy the email, I received a phone call from his office in Chattanooga. Steve asked if I would be available to do a radio interview with Jimmy concerning the results of the Pew Study that I have noted in previous posts.
About a week after the interview, Jimmy called to further discuss the idea of launching such a ministry. He, too, seeing the need in his many travels as a conference speaker. He mentioned that he knew two other men that might be interested.
One of the men was Rob Congdon. Rob is a regular guest on Jimmy DeYoung’s weekly radio program. He is is the director of Congdon Ministries International and the Internet Bible Institute and a conference speaker and author, who is a recognized authority on the European Union, especially in relation to potential fulfillment of end-times prophecies. For many years, he was a missionary with Friends of Israel in Great Britain and during that time he was involved in starting a similar ministry called Hermeneus Fellowship.
The second person was Paul Barreca. Paul is the pastor of Faith Bible Church in Vineland, New Jersey. Jimmy had heard that Paul had recently preached a message entitled “Why I Am No Longer An Evangelical” (available on the ABI website). Based on this message, Jimmy saw that Paul also shared the same concerns that we had for the current state of the evangelical church.
Jimmy then suggested that perhaps we should all meet together, to get to know one another, and discuss whether launching a new ministry might be something we should consider. We scheduled a set of meetings to be in Asheville, North Carolina for early July, 2008.
We spent Monday evening just getting to know one another, since I had never met Rob or Paul and Paul did not know Rob or me. That evening, we found that we had all been seeing the same developments and trends within evangelicalism and that we all shared the same concerns. The next morning, we began discussing our theological views and found that we were all in agreement in even the smallest details. We also shared the conviction that the primary issue was the diminishing view of the authority of the Bible and a deficient hermeneutic (a system of princples of interpretation).
By early afternoon our discussion had turned to the question of starting a ministry. We agreed that there was a need for something like what we were discussing and that we were not aware of a ministry that had the particular set of distinctives that would soon come to define the new ministry. We decided that we would meet again in four weeks, giving us time to think and pray about about the final decision to start a ministry and also the role that each of us might have should we decide to proceed.
As part of the process, we also discussed a potential name for the ministry and within about 10 minutes we agreed on “The Alliance for Biblical Integrity.” An interesting sidenote: As soon as we decided on the name, Jimmy called his webmaster to see if the website name “www.biblicalintegrity.org” was available. And amazingly, out of all the millions of domain names already in use, no one had taken this name and within five minutes, we had reserved the domain for our use.
During the four weeks between meetings, Karen and I spent a lot of time in discussion, thought and prayer. Prior to our first set of meetings, I had written to Al Konya (WOL Hungary country director) letting him know about what we were doing because it potentially had implications concerning our ministry in Hungary. At the time, I never envisioned leaving the ministry of Word of Life and thought that even if we were involved in a new ministry, that it would be something we would do while staying with WOL. After the first meetings, I called Al again and told him that I didn’t know whether or not anything would come of this and he replied, “I think something will.” His reply sort of took me aback as I wasn’t expecting it. Then as we were driving back to Asheville in August, Karen and I were naturally discussing what this all might mean for our future. We agreed that this might very well be the next phase in our ministry lives. During the second set of meetings, we all concluded that we should proceed and begin establishing The Alliance for Biblical Integrity.
After we returned to Hungary at the end of the month, I met with Al to further discuss what was going on in our hearts and the passion that was developing for this new ministry. It soon became clear that ABI was something with which we would need to be involved full-time if we really hoped to have a significant impact. A few weeks later, I told Al of our decision to leave Word of Life and he replied, “I knew this would be your decision.”
In some ways it was a very difficult decision given that just a couple of months earlier we had never envisioned ever leaving WOL. In other ways, it was a very eary decision because we were so confident of the Lord’s guidance and because of the passion He had given us for this type of ministry. Looking back, He had been preparing us for this new phase of ministry for 25 years – and particulary for the 16 years we had been in Hungary – which is rather amazing in itself.
Our confidence in our decision was repeatedly confirmed over the coming months as we shared our decision with family, friends, trusted advisers and the leadership of Word of Life. We consistently received nothing but encouragement – not only regarding us personally being involved with the launch of such a ministry, but with regard to the great need for such a ministry, as well.
There are innumerable other things that have happened over the past year, almost on a weekly basis, that the Lord has used to encourage us and confirm to us that we have made the right decision. We have continually experienced His peace and countless blessings – and the truth is that we have not doubted our decision for even a moment.
I am incredibly thankful for our time with Word of Life. And although we are no longer on staff, we still feel part of the Word of Life family, especially the family in Hungary. Our relationship with Word of Life – as an organization and with individuals in WOL – remains as strong as ever. I will still be working closely with WOL, teaching at some of the Bible institutes – and hopefully helping in many other ways. I thank God for the many fine leaders in Word of Life and for the many dear friends we have with the staff and students who have been a part of our lives.
Dave James
Ministry Coordinator
| 1 CommentThe Beginnings of ABI – Part III
In that first two-line email to Jimmy DeYoung in June, 2008, I had mentioned the “Pre-Trib Study Group.”
___________________
The Pre-Trib Study Group (now the Pre-Trib Research Center – www.pre-trib.org) was started in 1992 by Tim LaHaye and Tommy Ice out of a concern that they were witnessing a broad departure away from Pretribulational Premillennialism within evangelicalism. Premillennialism is the belief that Christ will return prior to a literal 1000-year (millennium) during which time He will rule as the earth’s sovereign king from the Throne of David in Jerusalem.
This is distinguished from Amillennialism – meaning “no millennium” – which teaches that Christ is already ruling in a spiritual way from heaven and in the hearts of believers and that there will be no literal earthly kingdom. Perhaps, the major defining characteristic of the Amillennial view is the idea that the Church has replaced national Israel in God’s program and therefore, all the promises made by God to Israel will only have some sort of spiritual fulfillment. The problem is that to arrive at such a conclusion requires one to allegorize whole sections of the Old Testament and also claim that virtually all of Revelation should only be understood in some sort of symbolic way (except for the part about Satan being bound, which is said to be true during this present age).
In contrast, Premillennialism teaches that Israel and the Church are distinct groups in God’s program and that national Israel still has a future because there are many sure promises made by God to Israel that have not yet been fulfilled. A significant part of this fulfillment means that Israel will literally occupy the land promised and guaranteed to her by God in the Abrahamic covenant (found in Genesis). This fulfillment will be during the millennium (the 1000-year reign of Christ on the earth).
Pretribulational Premillennialism further holds that when certain passages, particularly in Daniel, Matthew, 1 Corinthians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians and Revelation are taken together in a synthesized, consistent and unified way, it becomes clear that Christ’s return (His Glorious Appearing) will be preceded by a seven-year period of time known as the Tribulation or Daniel’s 70th week. During that time, God will pour out His wrath upon the earth in fulfillment of the promised judgments against both Israel and the nations for their wickedness and rejection of God through the ages. However, because God has promised to preserve His people, the Bride of Christ, the Church from the wrath to come, He will catch up or rapture his church (all believers in Christ, living and dead) away from the earth to meet Christ in the air prior to the onset of the Tribulation period. This is most clearly stated in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18. And because there are no more prophecies yet to be fulfilled prior to the Rapture, it is said to be “imminent” – it could happen at any moment.
Although Pretribulational Premillennialism has historically been the prevalent view within conservative evangelicalism over the last 100+ years, the Pre-Trib Study Group was formed because more and more were abandoning this in favor of Amillennialism or some significantly modified form of the historic Pre-Trib view. Since its beginnings with about 30 men in 1992, the Pre-Trib Study group has grown such that it at its annual meeting at Dallas in December, 2008, a record number (over 500) were in attendance. The purpose of the meetings are to encourage people to remain faithful to this biblical view and to also provide them with the biblical resources necessary to defend this view from various “attacks” and temptations to abandon it for a more broadly acceptable and popular view. Each year some of the world’s top evangelical scholars present relevant articles and discuss related issues from a thoroughly biblical and historical perspective.
This is the background for my question about whether there might be a need for a similar group that would serve a similar function with regard to historic, conservative evangelicalism. As I watched what was happening in the American church, as I was reading books, articles and blogs, it became apparent to me that things were quickly changing and that there was a growing tendency away from the theological moorings that had held classic evangelicalism in place as a foundation for conservative, biblical Christianity.
As I mentioned earlier, we sensed that there was a broad shift in the world-view of the average person in evangelical churches and they were being drawn away from their biblical roots in vast numbers. These shifts seemed to be to especially affecting more and more churches, particularly some of the larger influential ones and then in a ripple-effect, many smaller churches that adopted the larger churches as their models for ministry were also being affected. In talking with many Christian educators and other Christian leaders, I sensed that this move away from solid biblical-teaching and expositional teaching was also beginning to take place in some historically evangelical schools – or at least in some departments within those schools. More and more was being written and taught by those who were challenging the biblical views of heaven, hell, salvation, the atonement and even the very nature of God. And with the instantaneous nature of the internet, the spread of these new ideas was quickly becoming “viral” – and reaching levels of influence that in previous generations could take multiple decades to achieve.
It is interesting, that it seemed that the Lord had used our entire time in Hungary to prepare me to ask this question. I had taught Bible Study Methods and Expository preaching for twelve years. The very heart of my ministry was specifically centered around teaching others to handle the Word of God correctly. My interests and passions also developed along the lines of apologetics – and biblically evaluating teachings, trends and movements in light of clear biblical teaching. For many years and in a number of different schools (both in and outside of Hungary) I had taught courses on Apologetics, Creationism, Critique of the Charismatic Movement and Understanding Roman Catholicism.
Within 48 hours of sending that email to Jimmy DeYoung, I was on the phone with him, preparing for an interview on his national weekly radio program. We would be discussing the results of the survey I mentioned in the last two posts and the concern we shared for what seems to be happening in the evangelical world regarding the departure from biblical truth . From that point things began to move very quickly.
Stay tuned for “Part IV.”
Dave James
The Beginnings of ABI – Part II
Even though our decision to move back to the U.S. and start a new ministry probably seemed very sudden to many, it was actually the culmination of a long process of preparation through which the Lord had taken us.
——————————
I wrapped up the previous post with: This prompted me to write a simple two-line email to Jimmy DeYoung (a long-time friend and Founding Director of Prophecy Today), asking the question: “Is there a need for an organization, something like the Pre-Trib Study Group, to help hold the line on historical, conservative evangelicalism?”
As I mentioned, I wrote this email because of the results of a survey that had just been published (in June, 2008) concerning beliefs among those who self-identified as “Evangelicals.” As a missionary, it was very disconcerting to read that 57% indicated they believed other religions could lead to eternal life.
On the other hand, these results weren’t a complete surprise. In fact, for several years I had been suggesting that I would not be surprised if as many as 70% of those in Evangelical churches did not really believe that “the heathen are lost.” Up until the Pew Study results were published, I didn’t really have anything concrete upon which to base my “gut feeling.”
However, this whole issue had been a concern to such a degree that for each of the past three furloughs (2004, 2006, 2008), I had been preaching exclusively about this from Romans 10:9-15 whenever I had the opportunity. (And there had been an overwhelming response, especially from older believers, as their attention was drawn to the Lord’s perspective on the question of “What about those who haven’t heard?”)
In December, 2005, I had the privilege of speaking in chapel at Dallas Theological Seminary and again I preached from Romans 10. I was stunned when after the message, Howard Hendricks came up to me and said, “Thank you. I’m glad someone finally had the courage to say this.” I thought to myself, “How could this be coming from a professor at DTS?”
(If you would like to hear this message, it is still available on the DTS website: “Are the Heathen Lost?”)
For several years, many of us on the mission field were becoming increasingly concerned about the broad decline in the emphasis on missions, the struggle churches were having in even maintaining their financial commitments to missions, how fewer and fewer believers were moving into vocational missions, and how it was becoming increasingly difficult for missionary candidates to actually get to the field. Missions conferences were and are almost a thing of the past. For various reasons, very few people in any given church know any missionaries very well. And, because more and more churches only have one service a week with preaching from the pulpit, most congregations never hear missionary speakers as many pastors are understandably reluctant to relinquish that one opportunity they have each week to speak to the entire church.
What was happening within Evangelical churches? And more importantly, why?
I was beginning to conclude that ultimately there must be a theological reason behind this. I was sensing that a dramatic shift was occurring with more and more evangelicals becoming “practical universalists,”even though I knew most would theoretically agree that “Jesus is the way, the truth and the life.” Again, the Pew Study only served to confirm this conclusion.
This theological shift could only mean one thing: Either people were no longer being grounded in the Word through clear expositional teaching and preaching or what evangelicals believed about the Bible and the way they were handling the Word of God was changing – or both. If this were true, then the foundations upon which “classic” evangelicalism rested were being quickly eroded and the future of historic, conservative evangelicalism was at stake. At the same time, I was sure that there must be a significant number of evangelical leaders who were seeing the same thing and shared the burden to keep the church faithful to the Lord and his Word.
It was this thought that prompted the email to Jimmy DeYoung and it was this concern that became one of the main catalysts in the formation of The Alliance for Biblical Integrity.
Please “stay tuned” for Part III in the next few days.
Dave James
ABI Ministry Coordinator