Latest / Reformed Thinking / Contending for the Faith Once Delivered: Sacred Controversy in Scripture, Church History, and the Witness of the Swans

Transcript

Contending for the Faith Once Delivered: Sacred Controversy in Scripture, Church History, and the Witness of the Swans · Reformed Thinking

• 0:00
  Welcome to reformed thinking. You know, when you go to a
• 0:03
  medical professional with a broken bone, there was a certain
• 0:06
  comfort in the X-ray. Oh, absolutely.
• 0:08
  You sit in that freezing cold room and the Doctor clips a film
• 0:14
  up against the glowing light box.
• 0:16
  They point right to the jagged white line.
• 0:19
  It is binary. I mean the bone is broken or the
• 0:23
  bone is intact. The diagnosis is totally
• 0:26
  visible. Well, that is because physical
• 0:28
  reality gives us the luxury of physical evidence.
• 0:30
  We like things we can measure. Right, we really do.
• 0:33
  We like things we can point a finger at and categorize without
• 0:35
  any ambiguity. It brings a sense of order to
• 0:38
  the chaos of an injury. Yeah, it feels clean.
• 0:41
  But then you pivot into the realm of theology and church
• 0:43
  history, and you know, it feels like someone took a sledgehammer
• 0:46
  to that X-ray machine. That is a great way to put it.
• 0:49
  We find ourselves looking at a diagnostic landscape that is
• 0:51
  incredibly murky, and nowhere is that more obvious than when we
• 0:55
  start talking about the word controversy.
• 0:57
  Just saying the word out loud makes people tense up.
• 1:00
  Exactly. I mean, we are conditioned to
• 1:01
  believe that polite people avoid conflict.
• 1:05
  We are told to keep the peace at all costs, focus on the positive
• 1:09
  and just find common ground. But today, our mission is to
• 1:12
  take a stack of intense theological and historical texts
• 1:16
  and extract the core insights. So you can walk away thoroughly
• 1:19
  informed without feeling overwhelmed.
• 1:22
  And the sources today argue the total opposite of what modern
• 1:25
  polite society tells. Us, they really do.
• 1:27
  They argue that when the core of the Christian faith is attacked,
• 1:29
  avoiding controversy is not polite.
• 1:31
  No, it is actually an act of spiritual treason.
• 1:34
  What's fascinating here is how the source material frames this.
• 1:37
  We are examining the concept of sacred controversy.
• 1:40
  Sacred controversy. We are looking at the biblical
• 1:42
  mandate laid out in the book of Jude and the historical battles
• 1:45
  of theologians whom author John Piper calls the Swans.
• 1:49
  The Swans, Men like Athanasius, John Owen and Jay Greshamation.
• 1:53
  Precisely, we are looking at their ongoing war between God
• 1:57
  centered truth and man centered heresy.
• 1:59
  The stakes are as high as they can possibly be.
• 2:01
  OK, let's unpack this, because the immediate pushback from
• 2:05
  almost anyone listening is going to be Well, why should I care
• 2:08
  about ancient church arguments? Right, people are busy.
• 2:11
  Yeah, we have bills to pay. We have modern cultural crises.
• 2:14
  We have regular life happening. Why does a theological fight
• 2:18
  from the 4th century matter to someone listening to this deep
• 2:21
  dive right now? The text makes a staggering
• 2:24
  claim about this. It argues that a compromised
• 2:26
  gospel offers a thirsty world a poisoned well.
• 2:30
  Wow, a poisoned well. Yes, if the well is poisoned,
• 2:34
  people do not get life, they get destruction.
• 2:37
  But before we look at the specific historical battles, we
• 2:39
  first need to define what sacred controversy actually is.
• 2:43
  Because it is so easily confused with just being argumentative
• 2:46
  and nobody likes an Internet troll.
• 2:48
  That is a vital distinction to make right at the start.
• 2:51
  Sacred controversy must be completely separated from sinful
• 2:54
  contentiousness. So how do the sources separate
• 2:56
  them? The source material outlines 2
• 2:58
  opposing spiritual pathologies that threaten the Church, and
• 3:01
  they exist on opposite ends of a spectrum.
• 3:04
  On the right hand, you have cowardice.
• 3:06
  Cowardice, OK. This is when an individual
• 3:09
  values personal comfort or social acceptability over the
• 3:13
  safety of the flock. It is a failure of love
• 3:16
  masquerading as peacemaking. I see.
• 3:17
  So you see a threat coming, but because you want people to like
• 3:21
  you, or you just do not want the awkwardness of a confrontation,
• 3:25
  you stay quiet. Yes, you essentially watch the
• 3:28
  wolf walk into the sheep pen and decide not to sound the alarm
• 3:32
  because, well, you are worried the wolf might think you were
• 3:36
  rude. That is a chilling thought.
• 3:37
  It is. That is the pathology of
• 3:39
  cowardice. Now, on the left hand, you have
• 3:41
  the pathology of pride. And what does that look like?
• 3:43
  This is the individual who loves conflict for the sake of
• 3:46
  victory. They enjoy the thrill of the
• 3:49
  dispute, the adrenaline rush of an argument, and the applause of
• 3:53
  their specific faction. Right.
• 3:55
  They are not fighting to protect the sheep, they are fighting
• 3:57
  because they love the sound of their own voice and the feeling
• 4:00
  of winning spot. It is the difference between
• 4:02
  defending your home from an intruder and just going out to a
• 4:05
  bar on a Friday night actively looking to start a brawl.
• 4:08
  Yeah, the actions might look similar on the surface.
• 4:11
  I mean, there is fighting involved in both, but the
• 4:13
  motivation is entirely. Different.
• 4:15
  That is a perfect analogy. True humility, the texts argue,
• 4:19
  loves truth based unity. Humility grieves when
• 4:22
  controversy is required. It does not seek a fight.
• 4:25
  A truly humble person hates the fracture of relationships.
• 4:29
  Exactly. However, that same true humility
• 4:32
  refuses to abandon truth simply to keep up the artificial
• 4:36
  appearance of peace, defending the truth we presented in the
• 4:39
  sources as pastoral, evangelical, and doxological.
• 4:43
  It is about protecting the flock from wolves.
• 4:45
  Yes, when the truth of Christ, the purity of the gospel, and
• 4:49
  the salvation of souls are at stake, controversy becomes an
• 4:52
  indispensable instrument of love.
• 4:54
  I want to build on that idea of love compelling a fight.
• 4:57
  Think of a surgeon scalpel. A doctor does not cut into a
• 5:00
  patient because they enjoy causing pain.
• 5:02
  In fact, cutting someone open is an incredibly violent act.
• 5:06
  It is, but love compels the knife when gangrene threatens
• 5:10
  the body. If you have ever been around
• 5:12
  actual gangrene, it is repulsive.
• 5:15
  It destroys healthy tissue rapidly, right?
• 5:18
  If a doctor sees gangrene and says I don't want to cause any
• 5:22
  discomfort, let's just leave it and focus on the healthy parts
• 5:24
  of the body, well, that doctor's guilty of gross malpractice.
• 5:28
  They are. The patient will die because of
• 5:31
  the doctor's desire to be nice. But how does a church know when
• 5:34
  a disagreement is gangrene versus just a minor scratch?
• 5:37
  The Church must learn to distinguish primary doctrine
• 5:40
  from secondary disputes. Primary doctrine involves the
• 5:43
  very core of the faith, where Christ's nature or the mechanics
• 5:47
  of salvation are at stake. So if someone denies that Jesus
• 5:50
  is God, that is gangrene. Yes, it will kill the body.
• 5:54
  If someone adds human works to the finished work of Christ for
• 5:57
  justification, saying you have to earn your way into God's
• 6:00
  favor, that is a gangrene. OK, what about secondary
• 6:03
  disputes? Secondary disputes, while they
• 6:05
  might be significant and worth discussing, do not destroy the
• 6:08
  floor of the gospel itself. Things like the timing of the
• 6:11
  end times or specific styles of church government.
• 6:14
  Those might be a minor scratch or maybe a sprained angle.
• 6:17
  Right. You do not amputate an arm for a
• 6:19
  sprained wrist. But knowing that we need to
• 6:21
  fight gangrene is not enough. We need to know what standard we
• 6:26
  are using to identify it. And to find that standard, we
• 6:29
  have to look at what happened when a man named Jude tried to
• 6:32
  write a simple, peaceful letter. The Epistle of Jude.
• 6:36
  Yeah, it is a kindly book right before Revelation at the end of
• 6:39
  the New Testament. It's only 1 chapter long but man
• 6:43
  it packs a massive punch. Is described in our sources as a
• 6:47
  Thunder clap. We have to set the historical
• 6:49
  stage here. Dude was the brother of James
• 6:52
  and the half brother of Jesus. Imagine that family dynamic for
• 6:55
  a moment. Right, he is writing to a 1st
• 6:58
  century church that already knew the immense pressure of
• 7:00
  doctrinal corruption. He sits down to write a letter
• 7:03
  and his original intent is quite pastoral and peaceful.
• 7:06
  In Jude verse three, he says he was eager to write about our
• 7:09
  common salvation. He wanted to write a comforting,
• 7:11
  uplifting letter about the grace they all shared.
• 7:14
  He wanted to focus on the positive.
• 7:16
  But he gets interrupted. The letter he wanted to write is
• 7:20
  not the letter he ended up. Writing No, it is not.
• 7:23
  He gets interrupted by a divine mandate.
• 7:25
  He writes that he found it necessary to sound an alarm.
• 7:27
  Instead, circumstances within the church made a different kind
• 7:31
  of letter unavoidable. He tells them they must contend
• 7:34
  for the faith. Yes, and the threat he was
• 7:37
  addressing was not external. It was not the Roman Empire
• 7:40
  threatening to throw them to the lions.
• 7:42
  The threat was internal. Verse 4 says certain men had
• 7:46
  crept in unnoticed. They infiltrated they.
• 7:48
  Were inside the house. They were sitting in the pews
• 7:50
  sharing meals. They infiltrated the Love
• 7:53
  Feasts, which were the communal gatherings and meals of the
• 7:56
  early church, and they were doing 2 specific things that
• 7:59
  Jude identifies as fatal gangrene.
• 8:02
  What were they? First, they were perverting the
• 8:04
  grace of God into sensuality, which is a theological concept
• 8:08
  known as antinomianism. Second, they were denying the
• 8:12
  absolute Lordship of Jesus Christ.
• 8:14
  Let's breakdown antinomianism for the listener, because it is
• 8:17
  a clunky word, but the concept is highly relevant.
• 8:20
  What it really is? It essentially means anti law.
• 8:24
  It is taking the beautiful reality of God's grace and
• 8:27
  twisting it into a license to sin.
• 8:29
  Yes. It is the mindset that says,
• 8:32
  hey, God Forgives everything, He is a God of love.
• 8:34
  Therefore, how I live my life, my sexual ethics, my financial
• 8:37
  dealings, none of it matters. I can live however I want and
• 8:41
  God will just sweep it under the rug.
• 8:43
  The false teachers were turning grace into a liturgy of the
• 8:46
  flesh. They were not just bringing in
• 8:48
  intellectual errors. Their doctrinal error was
• 8:50
  producing blatant moral rebellion.
• 8:53
  Wow. And that connects directly to
• 8:55
  their denial of Christ's lordship.
• 8:57
  You cannot receive Christ as a Savior who forgives your sins
• 9:01
  while simultaneously refusing Him as the Lord who commands
• 9:04
  your obedience. The two are inseparable.
• 9:06
  They are. So Jude looks at this internal
• 9:08
  rot and he tells the church they must contend.
• 9:11
  Here's where it gets really interesting.
• 9:12
  Let's look at the actual language Jude uses because he
• 9:15
  does not say. Maybe have a polite dialogue
• 9:18
  with these guys. No, he does not.
• 9:20
  The Greek terms highlighted in the source are incredibly
• 9:23
  intense. The command to contend comes
• 9:25
  from the Greek word it paganizes Thai.
• 9:27
  It is a compound verb that only appears here in the entire New
• 9:30
  Testament, which magnifies its rhetorical weight.
• 9:33
  It means to agonize continuously.
• 9:36
  The root is where we get our English word agony.
• 9:38
  Yes. It paints A vivid picture for
• 9:41
  the 1st century reader. It evokes the image of an
• 9:44
  athlete straining in the Greek games, muscles tearing, sweat
• 9:47
  pouring down, pushing to the absolute limit.
• 9:50
  Or a soldier fighting hand to hand on the battlefield for his
• 9:53
  very survival. The grammar indicates a
• 9:55
  permanent state of mobilization. It is not a call for a
• 9:59
  quarrelsome temperament, but a command for earnest, strenuous,
• 10:03
  exhausting defense. And what are they agonizing for?
• 10:06
  What is the prize? Jude says it is for the faith
• 10:08
  once for all delivered to the Saints.
• 10:10
  The text highlights the objective, unchanging nature of
• 10:13
  this dogmatic deposit. It is a fixed body of truth.
• 10:17
  It's not an evolving religious mood or a fluid set of cultural
• 10:20
  suggestions. The definite article is crucial
• 10:22
  there. The faith.
• 10:23
  Jude is not talking about the subjective act of believing.
• 10:26
  You know how strongly you feel your faith on a Tuesday morning
• 10:29
  after a good cup of coffee. He is talking about the faith as
• 10:32
  an objective body of Apostolic teaching concerning Christ's
• 10:35
  person, His work, his resurrection, and the Gospel of
• 10:39
  grace. Furthermore, the word delivered
• 10:40
  word is passive. Yes, the church did not invent
• 10:44
  this truth in a boardroom. God gave it.
• 10:47
  The church is a steward of this truth, a guardian of the vault,
• 10:51
  not a manufacturer creating new products.
• 10:53
  And the phrase once for all means the deposit is closed.
• 10:57
  It is not open to later supplementation or revision by
• 11:00
  new profits or cultural shifts. This raises an important
• 11:04
  question, though. Oh yeah.
• 11:05
  I want to push on this concept for a minute.
• 11:07
  If this faith was delivered once for all back in the 1st century,
• 11:11
  does that not make the whole religion incredibly stagnant?
• 11:14
  That is a common modern objection.
• 11:16
  How do we reconcile a closed, fixed deposit of truth with the
• 11:20
  idea that human society changes, That we are always learning,
• 11:23
  That we face ethical dilemmas today that they never could have
• 11:26
  imagined back then, right? Are we basically saying
• 11:28
  Christianity peaked 2000 years ago and we are just museums
• 11:32
  keeping the dust off the artifacts right?
• 11:34
  The source text handles it beautifully by distinguishing
• 11:36
  between the substance of the truth and our articulation of
• 11:39
  it. Saying the faith is delivered
• 11:41
  once for all does not mean the Church's understanding cannot
• 11:44
  grow in clarity. OK, so our understanding grows.
• 11:47
  As history progresses, the Church has to articulate
• 11:50
  doctrine more carefully in response to new heresies, which
• 11:53
  is why the massive historical creeds were written.
• 11:56
  But the substance of the Apostolic testimony cannot be
• 11:59
  revised. Think of it this way.
• 12:01
  The night sky is fixed. The stars are where they are.
• 12:05
  But as we invent better telescopes, our clarity and our
• 12:08
  ability to describe those stars improves drastically.
• 12:12
  The Canon of Scripture is not a seed bed for new doctrines that
• 12:15
  contradict the original witness. You might get better glasses to
• 12:18
  see the landscape more clearly, but you do not get to redraw the
• 12:21
  map. The deposit is fixed.
• 12:23
  Precisely. OK, so if.
• 12:24
  Jude gives us the mandate to agonize for this fixed deposit.
• 12:28
  The rest of history is essentially watching different
• 12:30
  generations pick up that mandate.
• 12:33
  We now trace how this play out in history through figures John
• 12:37
  Piper calls the Swans. Let's look at them.
• 12:39
  Let's travel from the 1st century to the 4th century.
• 12:42
  The Roman Empire is shifting, Christianity is moving out of
• 12:45
  the catacombs, and we meet a man named Athanasius.
• 12:49
  Athanasius stood at the center of the first great battle line
• 12:53
  over the Trinitarian core of the faith.
• 12:55
  He was fighting the Arian heresy.
• 12:57
  Tell us about Arius. Arius was a presbyter in
• 13:01
  Alexandria. A very charismatic and
• 13:04
  influential teacher, Arius began teaching that the Son of God was
• 13:08
  a created being. He was the highest creation, the
• 13:10
  most glorious creation, but still a creation.
• 13:13
  Yes, the insidious slogan of the Aryans, which they actually
• 13:16
  turned into catchy songs that people would sing in the
• 13:18
  marketplaces, was well, there was a time when he was not.
• 13:21
  Meaning Jesus had a beginning. He was not eternal in the same
• 13:24
  way God the Father is eternal. That is right, and Athanasius
• 13:28
  recognized that this was not a remote metaphysical debate for
• 13:31
  scholars in ivory towers. It touched the very nerve of
• 13:34
  human salvation. He fought relentlessly for the
• 13:37
  use of the Greek word hamusios, meaning the son is of the same
• 13:40
  substance as the father. Not similar substance, but the
• 13:43
  exact same substance. I think a modern listener hears
• 13:46
  a debate over a single Greek word like homoeseos and thinks
• 13:50
  wow you guys split the church over a vowel.
• 13:53
  Who cares, right? It sounds petty to modern ears.
• 13:56
  Why was the mechanical reality of that single word so vital to
• 13:59
  Athanasius? Because of the mechanics of the
• 14:01
  atonement, if Christ is a created being, his sacrifice on
• 14:06
  the cross lacks infinite value. A mere creature, no matter how
• 14:10
  exalted, cannot bear the infinite wrath of an eternal God
• 14:14
  against sin. Exactly.
• 14:15
  A mere creature cannot perfectly reveal the Father, and a mere
• 14:19
  creature cannot receive the worship due to God alone without
• 14:21
  it being idolatry. Wow.
• 14:23
  Athanasius saw that if Arianism won, the Christian faith would
• 14:27
  collapse into Pagan idolatry, worshipping a creature rather
• 14:30
  than the Creator and. Humanity would be left
• 14:32
  hopelessly lost in its sins because the creature cannot save
• 14:35
  you. Yes, Athanasius was exiled five
• 14:38
  times by various emperors for his stance.
• 14:40
  He stood against the entire political and religious
• 14:43
  establishment of his day. It is the classic Athanasius
• 14:46
  contramundum Athanasius against the world.
• 14:50
  He was willing to be hated by the entire Roman establishment
• 14:53
  to protect the gangrene from entering the doctrine of Christ.
• 14:57
  He really was so if. Athanasius fought for the basic
• 15:00
  identity of Christ. It seems like the next logical
• 15:03
  battleground will be about how we actually relate to that
• 15:07
  Christ. Which brings us to the 17th
• 15:09
  century in a man named John Owen.
• 15:11
  John Owen was a brilliant English Puritan who operated
• 15:15
  during an incredibly turbulent time in English history.
• 15:18
  We are talking about the English Civil War, the execution of a
• 15:20
  king, immense political upheaval.
• 15:23
  And he fought on many theological fronts.
• 15:25
  He did primarily against Arminianism and Sicinianism.
• 15:29
  Sicinianism was a rationalistic movement that denied the Trinity
• 15:32
  and the substitutionary atonement entirely.
• 15:35
  But what is key about Owen is his internal motivation for the
• 15:38
  fight. He viewed doctrine as the
• 15:40
  grammar of communion. The grammar of communion.
• 15:42
  Let's think about that. Yeah, grammar provides the rules
• 15:46
  for how words connect, so that communication actually makes
• 15:49
  sense. Without grammar, you just have a
• 15:51
  salad of random words. So Owen is saying that theology
• 15:54
  provides the rules for how we actually connect with God.
• 15:57
  Spot on. It means that theological
• 16:00
  precision is necessary to actually know and relate to God
• 16:04
  as He truly is. For Owen, false views of Christ
• 16:08
  obstruct the soul's ability to commune with him.
• 16:11
  That makes a lot of sense. Think about it in terms of a
• 16:13
  human relationship. If I have a fundamentally
• 16:16
  distorted view of my wife, if I think she hates the things she
• 16:19
  actually loves, or if I think she has a completely different
• 16:22
  background than she actually does, my relationship with her
• 16:25
  will be artificial. You will be relating to a
• 16:27
  phantom of your own making, not the real person.
• 16:30
  Right. Owen argued that if your view of
• 16:32
  Christ is distorted by error, if you view him just as a creature
• 16:35
  or just a helpful moral example rather than a sovereign Savior,
• 16:39
  you cannot truly worship him. Owen contended for the truth so
• 16:43
  that believers might behold and enjoy the Savior.
• 16:45
  In reality, he did. That makes the stakes so
• 16:48
  personal. It means theology is not just
• 16:50
  about passing a written exam. It is about whether your prayer
• 16:54
  life is hitting a ceiling because you are praying to a God
• 16:57
  who does not exist. And that brings us to the 20th
• 17:00
  century with J Gresham Macon. He fought a battle that feels
• 17:04
  incredibly close to our modern era, the fight against
• 17:08
  Protestant liberalism. Maton faced a highly
• 17:11
  sophisticated, stealthy threat in the 1920s.
• 17:14
  Liberalism, heavily influenced by secular philosophy and the
• 17:18
  desire to be respected by the modern scientific community,
• 17:21
  sought to adapt Christianity to the modern mind.
• 17:23
  They wanted to strip away the supernatural elements they felt
• 17:26
  were embarrassing. Yes, but they did it through
• 17:29
  stealth. The liberals kept all the
• 17:31
  traditional Christian vocabulary.
• 17:33
  They used words like resurrection, salvation, sin and
• 17:37
  gospel from the pulpit. But they completely emptied
• 17:39
  those words of their biblical supernatural substance and
• 17:42
  filled them with new naturalistic meanings.
• 17:44
  OK, let's unpack this. It sounds like Macon's opponents
• 17:47
  were performing a bait and switch.
• 17:49
  They absolutely were. It is like taking a smartphone,
• 17:52
  keeping the shiny glass screen and the familiar icons, but
• 17:56
  gutting the internal hardware and replacing it with the
• 17:58
  circuitry of a cheap in 1980s calculator.
• 18:01
  That is a brilliant way to conceptualize it.
• 18:04
  You hand it to someone in the Pew, they look at it and say
• 18:07
  Yep, looks like Christianity to me.
• 18:09
  They tap the resurrection icon, but instead of the literal
• 18:12
  bodily rising of Jesus from a tomb, they get a lecture on the
• 18:16
  springtime renewal of the human spirit.
• 18:19
  Is a massive bait and switch. The liberals spoke of salvation,
• 18:24
  but the sources point out they meant moral improvement or
• 18:26
  social uplift, not justification through the blood of a
• 18:29
  substitute. They spoke of the Kingdom of God
• 18:32
  but meant political progress. Make and perceive that removing
• 18:35
  the supernatural, the substitutionary atonement, and
• 18:38
  the absolute authority of Scripture resulted in a religion
• 18:41
  that might be highly moral and might build hospitals and
• 18:43
  advocate for the poor, but it was absolutely not the Apostolic
• 18:46
  faith. He famously wrote a book called
• 18:48
  Christianity and Liberalism, arguing that liberalism was not
• 18:51
  a variant of Christianity, it was a different religion
• 18:54
  entirely operating under the same name.
• 18:56
  So when we zoom out and look at these three Swans, Athanasius
• 19:00
  fighting Arianism, Owen fighting Socinianism, Mashin fighting
• 19:05
  liberalism, and the specific enemies they fought across
• 19:08
  completely different centuries and cultures, what is the common
• 19:11
  denominator? Why does human history keep
• 19:14
  producing these specific kinds of errors?
• 19:17
  If we connect this to the bigger picture, the sources identify a
• 19:20
  very clear common thread. The history of sacred
• 19:23
  controversy is fundamentally a history of the ongoing war
• 19:27
  between the sovereign, monogistic self revelation of
• 19:30
  God and the persistent anthropocentric, meaning man
• 19:34
  centered attempts of fallen humanity to assert its own
• 19:37
  autonomy. Whenever heresy arises,
• 19:39
  regardless of the century, its core impulse is always to
• 19:42
  elevate humanity and devalue God's sovereignty.
• 19:44
  Yes, it seeks to convert the grace of God into something man
• 19:47
  can control, earn, or initiate. Fallen humans hate the idea that
• 19:52
  they are completely dependent. They want to contribute to their
• 19:54
  own rescue. And that struggle between a God
• 19:56
  centered reality and a man centered reality exploded
• 19:59
  dramatically in the centuries following the Reformation.
• 20:01
  It certainly did. Which leads us to the systematic
• 20:03
  framework often referred to as the Five Points of Calvinism.
• 20:08
  These points were formulated at the Senate of Dort to defend
• 20:11
  against the rising tide of Arminianism.
• 20:13
  But instead of just listing these points like a table of
• 20:15
  contents, let's look at them as a chain of cause and effect.
• 20:18
  Because they all cascade from 1:00 central question who is in
• 20:22
  charge of human salvation in the end?
• 20:24
  The sources outline this systematic grid.
• 20:27
  In stark contrast, the Reformed faith insists upon the absolute
• 20:31
  supremacy of God in the entire work of redemption.
• 20:34
  The opposing views elevate human free will and natural ability.
• 20:38
  The first domino to fall in this logical chain is the concept of
• 20:41
  total depravity versus free will.
• 20:44
  Orthodoxy asserts that fallen man is not just spiritually
• 20:47
  sick, he is spiritually dead. His mind, his will, his
• 20:50
  affections are entirely corrupted by sin, making him
• 20:53
  completely unable to choose God apart from regenerating grace.
• 20:57
  Yes, the opposing anthropocentric view claims that
• 21:00
  fallen man, while injured by sin, retains a natural ability
• 21:03
  to cooperatively believe on his own.
• 21:05
  And if you believe that humans are totally spiritually dead,
• 21:09
  then the next point is a logical necessity.
• 21:12
  If a dead person cannot choose God, then God has to be the one
• 21:15
  making the choice. Precisely this brings us to
• 21:19
  unconditional election versus foreseen faith.
• 21:22
  The historical Orthodox position confesses that God's choice of
• 21:26
  the elect is grounded solely in His sovereign, unmerited grace.
• 21:30
  He chooses before the foundation of the world based on nothing in
• 21:34
  the creature. The man centered view,
• 21:36
  uncomfortable with that level of divine sovereignty, makes
• 21:39
  election depended upon God looking down the corridors of
• 21:42
  time and foreseeing who would generate their own faith.
• 21:45
  In that system, man is still the final decider.
• 21:48
  God is just reacting to human choices.
• 21:50
  Which leads to the Third Point, particular redemption versus
• 21:53
  universal potential. If God definitively chose a
• 21:56
  specific people, then Christ's death actually accomplished
• 21:59
  their specific salvation. Orthodoxy maintains that
• 22:02
  Christ's death secured the salvation of his elect.
• 22:05
  It accomplished definite atonement.
• 22:07
  It paid a specific debt for specific people.
• 22:10
  What about the opposing view? The opposing view reduces the
• 22:13
  cross to a mere possibility. It provided potential salvation
• 22:16
  for everyone, but actually secured salvation for no one.
• 22:20
  It essentially says Jesus died to make salvation possible,
• 22:24
  making the actual effectiveness of the cross dependent upon
• 22:27
  human acceptance to complete the transaction.
• 22:29
  Yes. Then we hit irresistible grace
• 22:32
  versus resistible influence. With that, Oxy holds that the
• 22:35
  Holy Spirit works savingly in the elect with invincible
• 22:39
  strength. He changes the heart of stone to
• 22:41
  a heart of flesh, guaranteeing they will come to Christ.
• 22:44
  And the Armenian view asserts that man's sovereign will can
• 22:46
  successfully veto the grace of the Almighty God, right?
• 22:50
  And finally, the last link in the chain Perseverance of the
• 22:54
  Saints versus falling from grace.
• 22:56
  If God shows you unconditionally, redeemed you
• 22:58
  specifically, and called you irresistibly, He is not going to
• 23:02
  lose you. Orthodoxy guarantees that those
• 23:04
  whom God saves will be kept by his strength to the end.
• 23:07
  The anthropocentric scheme leaves the believer in constant
• 23:10
  jeopardy of losing their salvation through personal
• 23:12
  failure, turning the Christian life into a terrifying tightrope
• 23:15
  walk. This systematic conflict was not
• 23:18
  just abstract theology debated in universities.
• 23:21
  It played out in massive historical events like the 18th
• 23:24
  century Great Awakening in America and Britain.
• 23:27
  The text brings up the intense clash between two giants of that
• 23:30
  era, George Whitefield and John Wesley.
• 23:34
  Both of these men were tremendous, tireless
• 23:36
  evangelists. They preached to thousands in
• 23:39
  open fields, but they had a severe theological divide right
• 23:42
  down the middle of their friendship.
• 23:44
  Whitefield stood firmly upon sovereign grace while Wesley
• 23:47
  fiercely preached in Armenian view.
• 23:49
  Whitefield wrote his famous Bethesda letter to Wesley
• 23:52
  pleading with him not to preach a human centered gospel.
• 23:56
  Whitefield viewed the Calvinistic doctrines of grace
• 23:58
  not as a hindrance to evangelism, but as the very
• 24:01
  oxygen of evangelical zeal. He warned Wesley that preaching
• 24:05
  man is the final arbiter of his own destiny, robs God of His
• 24:08
  glory, and offers sinners a fragile anchor that will fail
• 24:11
  them in the storm. For Whitefield, telling a
• 24:13
  spiritually dead man that he holds the keys to his own
• 24:16
  salvation was a cruel deception. This man centered drift only
• 24:20
  accelerated. The text moves to the 19th
• 24:23
  century, examining Charles G Finney, who represented a severe
• 24:27
  theological departure. Finney was the father of modern
• 24:30
  revivalism, but he completely altered the machinery of how the
• 24:33
  Church viewed conversion. Finney is a fascinating and
• 24:37
  deeply tragic figure in this context.
• 24:39
  He broke sharply with his Presbyterian roots and embraced
• 24:43
  what the text describes as a pelagianizing theology.
• 24:46
  Pelagius was an ancient heretic who believed humans were born
• 24:49
  basically good and could choose perfection.
• 24:52
  Finney rejected the biblical doctrines of original sin, total
• 24:55
  depravity, and, perhaps most crucially, the imputation of
• 24:58
  Christ's righteousness. Let's pause and drill down on
• 25:01
  that phrase. Imputed righteousness.
• 25:04
  That is a theological heavy hitter and we need to understand
• 25:07
  the courtroom mechanics of it. Imputation is the legal transfer
• 25:10
  of a status in historic orthodoxy.
• 25:12
  When a person believes their sin is imputed or legally credited
• 25:15
  to Christ on the cross, Christ absorbs the punishment.
• 25:19
  Simultaneously, Christ's perfect life of obedience is imputed to
• 25:22
  the believer. It is an alien righteousness, A
• 25:25
  perfection outside of ourselves that gives us right standing
• 25:29
  before God. The Judge Finney rejected this
• 25:32
  entirely. He argued that it was a legal
• 25:34
  fiction. So what replaces it?
• 25:36
  If you strip away imputed righteousness, what are you left
• 25:39
  with when you stand before God? You are left with your own
• 25:42
  performance if you remove imputed righteousness.
• 25:45
  Justification is no longer a once for all judicial
• 25:48
  declaration based on Christ's finished work.
• 25:50
  It becomes an aggressive state that depends entirely upon the
• 25:53
  believer's personal, ongoing obedience and moral perfection.
• 25:58
  As a result, Finney treated revival not as a miraculous
• 26:01
  sovereign work of the Holy Spirit descending on a town, but
• 26:05
  as the natural result of psychological techniques and
• 26:08
  human persuasion. He instituted the anxious bench.
• 26:10
  Yes, a place at the front where people were subjected to intense
• 26:14
  emotional pressure until their wills broke and they made a
• 26:16
  decision. But wait, someone might look at
• 26:18
  that and say, is pushing for personal perfection a bad thing?
• 26:23
  Why is it dangerous to blend the rules of the law with the good
• 26:26
  news of the gospel if it makes people act better?
• 26:29
  The sources provide a rigorous answer to that, based on the
• 26:32
  Westminster Confessions outline of the Law gospel dynamic.
• 26:36
  The Law demands perfect, personal, entire, and perpetual
• 26:40
  obedience. It promises life upon complete
• 26:43
  fulfillment and pronounces A terrifying curse upon every
• 26:46
  single infraction. The gospel, however, is the
• 26:48
  sweet announcement of what Christ has already done for us.
• 26:51
  It offers full justification based solely on Christ's imputed
• 26:55
  righteousness. So blending them ruins the
• 26:57
  recipe entirely. You are pouring bleach into your
• 27:00
  drinking water. Blending them introduces A fatal
• 27:03
  poison into the bloodstream of the church.
• 27:06
  If justification depends on your ongoing perfection, it creates A
• 27:09
  crushing legalistic yoke. It turns the pulpit into an
• 27:12
  engine of condemnation. True sanctification, the actual
• 27:16
  pursuit of holiness, only happens when believers know
• 27:18
  they're already entirely accepted in Christ.
• 27:20
  You do not obey the law of God in order to be accepted.
• 27:23
  You obey because you have already been accepted in the
• 27:26
  Beloved. It changes obedience from the
• 27:28
  terror of a slave to the joy of a son.
• 27:31
  Finney's theology destroyed that piece of conscience leading
• 27:34
  behind a trail of exhausted, burned out congregations.
• 27:38
  Despite all this historical evidence that precise doctrine
• 27:41
  matters deeply to the health of the Church, the modern Church
• 27:44
  often embraces pure pragmatism. We live in an era of metrics.
• 27:48
  We prefer immediate, measurable results.
• 27:51
  Bigger buildings, larger crowds, more clicks over intense
• 27:55
  theological precision. The modern mindset is heavily
• 27:58
  infected with a pragmatic epistemology.
• 28:01
  It values whatever works above deep, objective truth.
• 28:05
  You hear common objections today in church leadership meetings
• 28:08
  like, well, let's stop arguing about theology.
• 28:10
  It divides people. Let's just preach the gospel.
• 28:12
  Or we should rely on the Holy Spirits leading, not dry human
• 28:16
  reasoning. It sounds so spiritual as it
• 28:18
  sounds so unifying. It plays right into our desire
• 28:21
  for peace. It does sound pious, but the
• 28:22
  texts argue it rests on a massive category Mistake.
• 28:26
  The author CS Lewis coined the brilliant term chronological
• 28:29
  snobbery. Which is the arrogant assumption
• 28:31
  that the ideas of our modern era are automatically superior to
• 28:34
  historic orthodox paths simply because they are newer.
• 28:37
  When we look at modern seeker sensitive pragmatism through the
• 28:40
  lens of history, we see it as often just ancient Pelagianism
• 28:44
  dressed in new clothes, relying on marketing algorithms and
• 28:48
  psychological manipulation rather than sovereign grace.
• 28:51
  To dismantle this modern pragmatic objection, the texts
• 28:54
  bring in some brilliant analogies from Mason and Piper.
• 28:57
  Let's look at the airplane analogy, because it completely
• 29:00
  reorients how we value the hidden work of theology.
• 29:03
  Saying evangelism and practical ministry are more critical than
• 29:06
  doctrinal polemics is like asserting that flying food to
• 29:10
  starving people is far more critical than the academic
• 29:13
  science of aeronautics. Now, in an immediate crisis, on
• 29:16
  a surface level that appears true.
• 29:18
  A starving person cannot eat a textbook on fluid dynamics.
• 29:22
  They need bread. But the bread will never reach
• 29:24
  the serving people across an ocean if someone, somewhere is
• 29:27
  not doing the hard, precise, hidden mathematical work of
• 29:30
  aeronautics. If the planes are not designed
• 29:32
  according to rigorous laws of physics, they crash, the pilots
• 29:36
  die, and the food never arrives. And the other analogy is
• 29:39
  medical, which strikes even closer to home.
• 29:42
  Saying preaching the gospel is better than polemics is like
• 29:45
  saying administering penicillin to a dying child is more
• 29:48
  critical than the quiet, tedious labor of biochemistry.
• 29:52
  Both are true, but without the rigorous work in the laboratory,
• 29:55
  the medicine simply does not exist.
• 29:57
  Imagine a biochemist laboring in a lab for 20 years and people
• 30:01
  walking by mocking him saying why are you looking through
• 30:03
  microscopes? You should be out on the streets
• 30:05
  healing people. They do not realize his hidden
• 30:08
  work is what produces the cure. Doctrinal polemics is the
• 30:12
  laboratory that produces the life saving medicine of the
• 30:15
  gospel. When the Church devalues that
• 30:17
  defense, she dismantles her own laboratory.
• 30:20
  Within a generation, she will have no medicine left to give.
• 30:23
  And what about that other idea, the dichotomy that says we
• 30:26
  should just rely on the Holy Spirit instead of our intellects
• 30:29
  and logical arguments? The text dismantles that false
• 30:32
  dichotomy completely. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of
• 30:35
  truth. He does not work in spite of the
• 30:37
  human intellect. But through it.
• 30:40
  The text points to the Apostle Paul's methodology in the book
• 30:42
  of Acts. When Paul traveled to new
• 30:44
  cities, he went into the synagogues and reasoned with the
• 30:47
  people from the Scriptures. He used logical exposition to
• 30:50
  prove the necessity of Christ's death and resurrection.
• 30:53
  The Spirit does not bypass logic.
• 30:55
  He takes a sound biblical argument and makes it
• 30:58
  supernaturally compelling to the human heart.
• 31:00
  Refusing to engage the intellect is not a mark of high
• 31:03
  spirituality. The text calls it intellectual
• 31:07
  laziness. So let's bring this to the
• 31:08
  person listening right now. If someone says they just want
• 31:11
  to focus on what unites us, maybe water down the doctrinal
• 31:14
  statement to get bigger numbers in the pews.
• 31:17
  What is the inherent danger there?
• 31:19
  What does history tell us will happen?
• 31:21
  The inherent danger is that unity built on a vague lowest
• 31:24
  common denominator theology is incredibly fragile.
• 31:27
  It leaves the flock entirely vulnerable to the exact internal
• 31:31
  wolves Jude warned about. Vague ecumenical compromises
• 31:34
  that paper over real theological differences might buy you a
• 31:37
  decade as superficial peace, but they prepare the ground for the
• 31:41
  next generations. Total apostasy.
• 31:43
  The kids. Growing up in that church will
• 31:45
  have no immune system to fight off heresy because they were
• 31:48
  never exposed to the clear antibodies of robust doctrine.
• 31:52
  So what does this all mean? This brings us directly to the
• 31:54
  present day. How does the modern listener or
• 31:57
  the modern local church pick up this mandatory sword of sacred
• 32:01
  controversy without becoming arrogant, bitter or sectarian?
• 32:05
  How do we fight the gangrene without amputating healthy
• 32:08
  limbs? Yeah, exactly.
• 32:10
  The sources offer very practical applications.
• 32:13
  First, there must be a massive recovery of confidence in the
• 32:16
  fixed Apostolic deposit. We cannot treat doctrine as a
• 32:19
  barrier to the mission. Evangelism without doctrinal
• 32:23
  clarity is just religious salesmanship.
• 32:25
  Second, local churches must be actively guarded from
• 32:28
  infiltration. Elders and teachers must require
• 32:32
  confessional seriousness. They cannot be gullible simply
• 32:35
  because someone shows up using Christian vocabulary.
• 32:37
  Which brings us right back to Macon's battle.
• 32:40
  The modern heretics hijacked the Orthodox vocabulary.
• 32:43
  Language is the primary battlefield right now.
• 32:45
  Absolutely. Heretics rarely invent new
• 32:48
  words. It is too obvious.
• 32:50
  They pour destructive new meanings into old terms.
• 32:52
  The modern pragmatists speak of the gospel while reducing it to
• 32:55
  therapeutic techniques for self improvement or as the sources
• 32:58
  point out, political activism. We have to demand linguistic
• 33:02
  precision. When someone says salvation, we
• 33:05
  have to ask salvation from what? By what means?
• 33:09
  There is a striking quote from Martin Luther in our sources
• 33:12
  that perfectly captures the urgency of applying this today
• 33:15
  rather than just fighting the ghosts of the past.
• 33:18
  I love this quote. Let's hear it.
• 33:19
  It says, If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest
• 33:22
  exposition, every portion of the truth of God, except precisely
• 33:25
  that little point which the world and the devil are at that
• 33:28
  moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however
• 33:31
  boldly I may be professing Christ.
• 33:33
  Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldiers
• 33:36
  proved, and to be steady on all the battlefield besides is mere
• 33:40
  flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point.
• 33:42
  That quote is a master class in contextual faithfulness.
• 33:46
  It explains that we cannot simply fight the battles of the
• 33:48
  4th century and feel incredibly brave.
• 33:51
  It is easy to condemn Arianism today because modern society
• 33:55
  does not care about Arianism. Nobody is going to cancel you on
• 33:58
  social media for defending the home we Seo's.
• 34:01
  We must fight on the current lines of conflict.
• 34:04
  According to the text, those current lines involve the
• 34:07
  absolute authority of Scripture, the exclusive nature of
• 34:10
  salvation through Christ alone, the reality of God's wrath and
• 34:14
  judgement, the biblical definition of humanity and
• 34:16
  gender, and the rejection of prosperity, preaching and
• 34:19
  mysticism. To remain silent on these points
• 34:22
  while defending safe historical doctrines is spiritual
• 34:25
  desertion. You are guarding a fortress that
• 34:28
  the enemy has already bypassed. But there is a vital personal
• 34:31
  application here too, and this is what we need to land.
• 34:34
  The plane contending must always be paired with Communion.
• 34:37
  We talked about John Owen earlier.
• 34:39
  Yes, the grammar of Communion. If defending truth does not lead
• 34:42
  you to a sweeter, more reverent worship of God, then your
• 34:45
  defense has become an exercise in fleshly ego.
• 34:48
  That is the ultimate safeguard against the pathology of pride
• 34:52
  we discussed at the very beginning.
• 34:53
  The defender of truth must be a worshipper.
• 34:56
  The goal is not personal vindication in a debate.
• 34:59
  The goal is not getting the most retweets for a theological
• 35:03
  takedown. The goal is that your own soul
• 35:07
  and the souls of those listening may behold the glory of Christ
• 35:10
  in the mirror of the Word. Sacred controversy must be
• 35:14
  wrapped in the tears of holy sadness and deep humility,
• 35:18
  recognizing that we only know the truth because God graciously
• 35:21
  revealed it to us. OK, we have covered an immense
• 35:25
  amount of ground today on this deep dive.
• 35:27
  We started with the mandate of Jude, recognizing that the
• 35:29
  Church is called the agonized continuously for an objective,
• 35:33
  unchanging deposit of truth against those who would twist
• 35:36
  grace into license and deny Christ's absolute lordship.
• 35:39
  We looked at the historical Swans, Athanasius defending the
• 35:42
  infinite value of Christ's deity, Owen fighting for the
• 35:45
  grammar of communion so we can actually know God, and Mason
• 35:48
  exposing the vocabulary tricks of liberalism.
• 35:51
  We also unpack the absolute necessity of distinct
• 35:53
  extinguishing the terrifying demands of the law from the free
• 35:56
  grace of the Gospel, seeing how man centered theology like
• 35:59
  Phinney's inevitably builds a crushing yoke of legalism that
• 36:02
  destroys peace of conscience. And we saw that the rigorous
• 36:05
  hidden biochemistry of theological polemics is the
• 36:09
  unseen engine that preserves the life saving medicine of
• 36:12
  evangelism and worship. It is a lot to absorb, but the
• 36:15
  stakes could not be higher. It is the difference between a
• 36:18
  well of living water and a poison spring.
• 36:21
  Before we sign off, what is the final take away?
• 36:23
  What is the lens we should leave the listener with?
• 36:26
  I will leave you with a reflection based on the doxology
• 36:28
  at the very end of Jude's letter.
• 36:30
  After spending the entire chapter sounding the alarm about
• 36:32
  infiltrators and commanding the church to fight, Jude does not
• 36:35
  end with a frantic call to arms. He ends by praising the God who
• 36:40
  is able to keep his people from stumbling.
• 36:42
  The church is contending is framed entirely by divine
• 36:45
  preservation. God keeps his people and he uses
• 36:49
  means like are contending to do it.
• 36:51
  So consider this. If God uses controversy as the
• 36:54
  furnace to forge confessional clarity, could be intense
• 36:57
  theological disagreements or cultural pressures you see in
• 37:00
  your own community right now actually be the very instrument
• 37:03
  God is using to forge a stronger, more resilient faith
• 37:06
  for the next generation. The pressure is not a sign of
• 37:09
  God's absence. It might be the anvil where he
• 37:12
  is shaping A sharper sword. That is a phenomenal
• 37:14
  perspective. The battle is the forge.
• 37:16
  Thank you for joining us today on Reformed Thinking.
• 37:19
  Keep agonizing for the truth, keep rejoicing in grace, and we
• 37:22
  will catch you on the next deep dive.