October 31st is the official date of “Reformation Day,” though it is often celebrated on the last Sunday of the month of October by Christians around the world. On October 31, 1517, Martin Luther posted his 95 Theses to the Wittenburg Castle Church door. Though many understand Luther’s move to be one of fierce defiance, it was not. It was a plea for doctrinal clarity and an invitation to doctrinal discussion.

Years prior on a stormy night in 1505, Luther was walking to law school at the University of Erfurt in Germany when a bolt of lighting struck near him. His reaction was to cry out “Help me, St. Anne and I’ll become a monk!” Luther made good on his vow and became a monk. His superiors urged him to pursue the doctorate of theology, and he eventually became a professor at Wittenburg University. While lecturing through the book of Romans, he was stopped by the implications of the phrase the righteousness of God (Romans 1:17). Luther became convinced of the doctrine now known as “justification by faith alone” that Protestants now take for granted.

It is very easy for us to focus on the men involved. It’s common to hear objections such as why do you worship John Calvin when discussing what has come to be broadly known as Calvinism. It is readily admitted that Luther, along with his great accomplishments, was also not a terribly nice person and said some rather nasty things. Yet, it’s not about the men involved but the God for whom they were willing to die. Are we willing to die for God and do we see doctrine as a life and death matter? These men did.

Has doctrine been used to say some mean things? Absolutely. But that does not free us from the obligation to get our thoughts concerning God right. Churches has sacrificed doctrine for numbers and they’ve lost sight o God in the process. The Reformers understood the relationship that exists between head and heart and that when our doctrine is right, it points us squarely to such a grand vision of God that our hearts cannot help but overflow with obedience, praise and thanksgiving.

Yes, there are often points of disagreement, but we are still not free to lower our doctrinal standards in pursuit of a false campfire unity. Doctrine is important; inescapably so and churches must once again strive to fulfill our roe as te “pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15). We must heed the strong warning of A.W. Tozer in his book The Knowledge of the Holy that “What comes into our minds when we think about God is the most important thing about us.” Doctrine is the boundary between orthodoxy and heresy, between devotion and idolatry and we must take it serously. If God thought it important enough to reveal Himself to man, we’d better make sure that man understands that revelation correctly.

Read Luther’s 95 Theses.
Read The Bondage of the Will by Luther.
Read Martin Luther by Martin Marty.
Read What is Reformed Theology by R.C. Sproul.
Watch the Luther movie trailer.
Buy Luther.
Download Dance With My Father by Luther Vandross.

Alright, so maybe we all haven’t been where this guy is at … but man, you can still feel his pain. There was one sermon in which I tried to say “cut to the core,” but ended up saying “cut to the whore” which was pretty bad!

Watch Boom Goes The Dynamite (Windows Media).

As I’ve stated, I have been preaching through Paul’s letter to the Colossians. We are nearing the end of that letter, and Lord willing, once finished, we will begin a study through the book of Genesis, then, though this is quite some time away, we will move on to the Gospel of John. In planning this progression, my initial thought was this: begin with a book squarely focused on the centrality of Christ, both in Creation and New Creation. Then, move to Genesis, showing the outworking sovereignty of God through Creation, but particularly pick up on the beginnings of the unfolding revelation of the Gospel in Genesis 3:15. Then, move to the Gospel of John which again clearly portrays Christ as both Creator and New or Re-Creator, picking again on the Creation/Redemption themes of Genesis, thus providing a framework for all of Scripture.

All of this betrays some underlying hermeneutical presuppositions that I want to briefly expand upon. To begin with, we must all admit that we have certain hermeneutical principles by which we understand the text; we all have a hermeneutic. At its most basic level, a hermeneutic is simply the way we read and understand the text.

In laying out my hermeneutic, I want to start by saying that this is nothing more than a popular (I don’t know how popular though!) treatment of The Idea of Biblical Theology as a Science and as a Theological Discipline by Geerhardus Vos. Believe it or not, there was once a time when theology was considered the queen of the sciences; the pinnacle of knowledge. While this is certainly no longer the case, it presents an interesting starting point: consider biology. When we set a frog out on the dissecting table, it is the observer who establishes the quest, it is the observer who makes the incision, lives the lungs, etc. The object of study is passive to say the least. This could not be farther from the truth when it comes to theology. We must admit, that we can only know of God what He reveals of Himself to us. We are the finite struggling to comprehend the infinite. God is certainly not passive, in fact, He controls the process from beginning to end.

It is significant that God has chosen to act within the confines of human history. He does not reveal Himself to man all at once (nor could we comprehend if He did, like a burst of light after hours of darkness; our eyes must adjust gradually), rather, God reveals Himself progressively through Redemptive History (history as seen through the lens of God’s redemptive activity).

Yet we must exercise caution. When we think of progression, we also think of improvement. Think of the Wright Brothers and the airplane, or Henry Ford and the car for example. As history progresses, these objects also undergo significant improvement. Such cannot be the case with God’s revelation, because with God, there is no room for improvement upon the revelation itself. Rather, it is our understanding which “improves.” For example, picture yourself in a pitch-black fully-furnished room. Suddenly, a pin-prick in ceiling lets in a tiny beam of light. Gradually the furnishings and colors of the room become more visible as more light is let in. The room was always furnished, yet its our perception of the room which changes, not the room itself.

Putting this into practice, we look at Genesis 3:15 and we see nothing less than the Gospel itself. Here we see God promising that He will reverse the Fall, crushing the head of the serpent, and such is the Gospel. Gradually, we realize that this will be accomplished through a man who will be a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Judah, a descendant of David, prophet, priest and king, etc. In other words, we are given more information, which fills out our understanding. God’s revelation does not change, it is simply progressively revealed. The analogy is often used of an acorn or a flower; it is a flower even at it’s “seed” stage, it simply progressively reveals itself (grows out of itself).

Thus, there is an organic unity to all of Scripture. Whenever you come to a particular piece of revelation, you cannot fully understand it without also understanding its context within Redemptive History. It builds upon the previous revelation, but it also lays the groundwork for what follows.

The culmination is an approach which Augustine summarized as “The New Testament is in the Old concealed; the Old Testament is by the New revealed” and the key to it all is Christ. Christ becomes our lens for understanding all of Scripture because He is the fullness of God’s revelation, the beginning and the end. Christ then becomes the key to all of Scripture and all Scripture is interpreted through Him and the Cross.

• Read The Idea of Biblical Theology as a Science and as a Theological Discipline by Geerhardus Vos.
• Read Biblical Theology by Geerhardus Vos.
• Read According to Plan by Graeme Goldsworthy.
• Read Paul’s letter to the Colossians.
• Read the book of Genesis.
• Read The Gospel According to John.

Phillip Johnson over at Pyromaniac has an interesting post regarding spiritual warfare. This has been an issue that I’ve thought about periodically since the publication of Frank Perretti’s “Darkness” books. I was in High School at the time and remember that it coincided with a period of much influence for Neil T. Anderson and Bob Larson. Sensationalism ruled the day and Satan was under every rock.

Yet, as Johnson points out, our battle is not as easy to spot as we would like to believe, quoting 2 Corinthians 10:3-5: “For though we walk in the flesh, we are not waging war according to the flesh. ⁴For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. ⁵We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ.”

Or consider Paul’s admonition to put on the “whole armor of God” of Ephesians 6:10-19. Think about the metaphors that Paul here develops: “belt of truth,” “breastplate of righteousness,” “shoes of readiness for the Gospel,” “the shield of faith,” “the helmet of salvation” and the “sword of the spirit.”

Jesus warned for a reason to “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves” (Matthew 7:15). Our battle is to know and love the Truth so much that we are not taken in by a lie, for false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect” (Matthew 24:24). Satan does not come dressed up in horns and pitchfork but as an “angel of light” (2 Corinthians 11:4). Satan’s primary approach is not outright attack but a subtle sorcery of words and deception.

Please do not misunderstand. Am I saying that demons are not real, that Satan is not a threat? Absolutely not. But what we miss is that the core of “spiritual warfare” is actually doctrine; it is knowing the Word, living by the Word, being transformed by the Word and loving the Word in all of life. Satan did not come to Eve initially with an outright lie, but with a subtle twist of words (Genesis 3:1-6).

Johnson has reminded us of the true weight of spiritual warfare. It’s one thing to think of demon oppression and territorial spirits. It’s quite another to think of “false prophets” having already slain a sheep for its wool and sneaking into the flock to devour any they can. Do we understand the seriousness of knowing the Truth or do we relegate “doctrine” to those “academic types.” Every Christian is a theologian. The question will be: are you prepared for the battle or will we end up a black eyed sceva (Acts 19:11-20)?

Read Phil Johnson’s post.
Read The Christian in Complete Armour (devotional version) by William Gurnall.
Read This Present Darkness by Frank Perretti (if you must).
Read Piercing the Darkness by Frank Perretti.
Read The Bondage Breaker by Neil T. Anderson.
Visit Bob Larson’s website.
Read Victory Over Darkness by Neil T. Anderson.
Read Knowledge of the Holy by A.W. Tozer.
I just got side-tracked by my favorite bands:
Buy Way Before the Flood by Black Eyed Sceva.
Buy 5 Years, 50,000 Miles Davis by Black Eyed Sceva.
Watch video of Black Eyed Sceva performing.
Read Black Eyed Sceva lyrics.
Visit Way Before the Blog.

My wife really got me side-tracked today. She sent me an e-mail saying that she did a Yahoo search on my name and several people named Brent Thomas came up; none of whom are me. Just when we think we’re unique, we realize how many people are doing so much more with our names!

Meet some people named Brent Thomas (most of whom are not me):

Brent Thomas is a believer and sells Orthopedic implants.
Brent Thomas is a comedian.
Brent Thomas is a 3-D artist.
Brent Thomas has a double-decker bus?
Brent Thomas plays baseball for Texas Tech.
Brent Thomas is a production designer.
Brent Thomas is Assistant Coach at Missouri State University.
Brent Thomas teaches science.
Brent Thomas directs commercials and has a beautiful family.
Brent Thomas preaches (hey, I do that!)
Brent Thomas has a filmography?
Brent Thomas passed away May 9, 1998.
Brent Thomas is Spokesman for the Alabama State Troopers.
Brent Thomas is an artist.
Brent Thomas has D&B reports (I don’t know either).
Brent Thomas plays outfield for Bellevue Community College.
Brent Thomas has a ‘72 Chevy truck.
Brent Thomas is part of the Hamilton Family Tree.
Thomas Brent designs super kimonos.
Brent Thomas is getting back to work.

Download Waste by Phish (live recording).

Russell Moore,Dean of my former School of Theology at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary has written an intriguing book entitled: The Kingdom of Christ: The New Evangelical Perspective. More an interaction with Carl F.H. Henry’s The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism than with eschatology or theology, Moore nonetheless draws some forceful conclusions.

Moore uses excerpts from both the Covenantal and Progressive Dispensational views, and shows how George Eldon Ladd has forced the two positions closer through an emphasis on the “already/not yet” tension. Drawing heavily from Henry, Moore argues that regardless of your eschatological position, there is a growing consensus for the “already/not yet” understanding of at least the firstfruits of the kingdom here and now. The kingdom has arrived (at least in part) because the King has arrived. This brings with it drastic cultural and societal implications that Evangelicals are only now beginning to realize.

Rather than focusing on specific eschatological details (which certainly has its place), this view of “inaugurated eschatology” forces our eyes where they should have been in the first place: squarely upon Christ. Moore notes: “This is the key insight of inaugurated eschatology - namely, the fact that its central biblical referent is not a golden age within history or the timing of prophetic events, but instead is the One whom God has exalted as ‘both Lord and Christ - this Jesus whom you crucified’ (Acts 2:36).”

Moore continues: “The ‘already’ and the ‘not yet’ aspects of the Kingdom find their content in the identity and mission of Jesus as Messiah. This correctly locates the hinge of history as resting on the incarnation, life, sacrificial death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus as the harbinger of the ‘last days’ (Heb 1:2), the ‘firstborn’ of the eschatological resurrection of the righteous (Col. 1:18), and the Kingdom of God in person.”

In other words, regardless of our individual eschatological positions, the fact that the OT prophets and the Disciples saw the arrival of the Messiah as the ushering in (at least in some regard) of the “last days” is huge and cannot be overlooked. Jesus is indeed the Creator and the Re-Creator (John 1:1-18) and just as Jesus came un-doing the effects of the Fall, so we too, as His representatives are to work to reverse the Fall where ever possible.

This flies in the face of the tendency of many Christians to withdraw rather than to engage culture. Granted, this is a fine line to remain in and engage this world, but not to be “of the world” (John 17:16). Yet the fact that Jesus Himself came to redeem this world, and that He does not pray that we would be removed from it (John 17:15) seems to leave us no option.

Moore boldly asserts that “evangelicalism ought to become both more and less political. Evangelical theology will not serve an activist agenda to be an identity caucus in someone’s political party. But evangelical theology will remind Christians that the call to Christ is not a call to ‘go to heaven when you die,’ but instead a call to be ‘joint heirs’ with the Messiah who will inherit an all-encompassing Kingdom.”

Jesus renews the mandate that we rule over the earth as good stewards of God’s creation and a focus on the Kingdom reminds us that all of this will eventually be redeemed. It is not a lost cause and Christians are not to retreat from a fallen culture, but we are to boldly proclaim the arrival of the King who is returning to judge lest we find repentance.

We can thank Moore for reminding us of the common ground that we share and the impetus that that ground should provide. It’s up to us to reach across “party lines” and to face the culture with the Gospel that alone can provide help. Our hope is not in “Christian music” or “Christian politics.” Our hope alone is in Christ and our interaction with culture is to accurately represent the spirit of power given to us (2 Timothy 1:7).

We must ask ourselves whether or now our cultural interaction reflects that we are serving a victorious King and a reigning Lord or whether or not we are simply reactionaries. When the Gospel is truly lived out in our lives it will look radical to those surrounding us because too many Christians don’t understand that the Gospel is to affect all of life, from our thinking to our actions; everything is taken captive to the Gospel and all that we have is at its service. Do we understand the implications for art, for music, for business, for “blogging”? There is no sacred/secular divide and we must bring all of life into subjection to the Gospel.

Moore has done a fine job reminding us that we do indeed have much to agree upon and that our “central ground” of the Kingdom does indeed have drastic implications. The question now becomes whether or not we will follow those implications to the conclusion or if we will be content living in our Christian bubbles?

Read The Kingdom of Christ by Russell Moore.
Read The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism by Carl F.H. Henry.
Read The Presence of the Future by George Eldon Ladd.
Read The Bible and the Future by Anthony A. Hoekema.

As recently alluded to, particularly in the Southern Baptist Convention, Reformed Theology has been given the “straw-man” treatment. In other words, you build up a man of straw, which of course is easily knocked down. In other words, you paint a picture of your opponent’s position and then you “knock it down.” The only problem is that, too often, what’s knocked down is not truly your opponent’s position at all.

We all do this to varying degrees. For example, when it is argued that we ought not to adhere to Dispensationalism because they teach that there is more than one way to heaven. Now, I do think that Dispensationalism is wrong, but I also recognize that though there may have been implications of this at one time in the system, no one now holds anything close to that. The most popular SBC straw-man to knock down of late seems to be that Reformed churches don’t evangelize because they have fewer baptisms (PDF file).

I had this same experience when a friend pointed me to a blog entry entitled Religion: Can I Get It? In the piece, Joe Phillips openly calls the Reformed tradition a cult and does so, because he believes that we require “secret knowledge” in order to be saved. If you don’t know the right doctrine, then you’re not elect.

The problem is often that a kernel of truth is taken from an argument and then exaggerated, blown-up and generally twisted. For example, does traditional Dispensational theology see a clear distinction between national Israel and the Church? Yes, but that does not mean they are proposing separate means of salvation. Do Reformed churches often have fewer baptisms? Yes, but is that because we don’t evangelize or because of other reasons all together (Here among my own ramblings, the topic of evangelism seems to reappear quite frequently)? And lastly, do Reformed churches emphasize theology and doctrine? Absolutely, but does this mean that if you don’t have the exact right knowledge then you’re damned? Certainly not; unless of course you simply mean that one must possess enough knowledge of Jesus Christ as the Savior (John 14:6) to believe in his heart and confess with his mouth Jesus as Lord (Romans 10:8-10).

The application here is obvious: if we’re going to interact with position other than our own (which I hope that we will), it must be in love. Our goal must not be simply to be right, but that of iron sharpening iron (Proverbs 27:17), driving one another deeper into the Word (Acts 17:11), and speaking the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15). We at least owe it to the other position to represent it accurately. This means that we will have to do some research, some thinking, and we will have to show some respect. Yes, as Rhett has pointed out, I can be passionate, but I pray that even in my passion, I accurately represent those with whom I disagree and that the Word is the final judge between us.

Read the original post Religion: Can I Get it? at Ashemha.
Download Say What You Mean by Maktub.
Download Say What You Mean by Neville Staples.