An Example of Evangelical Irrationalism

It is no exaggeration to state that contradictory theological claims dominate the evangelical landscape today. In an article entitled Five Lies I Used to Believe About Being Christian, Tyler Speegle starts with a very sound affirmation regarding the Love of God for his people:

"But the truth is you don’t have to try to use your behavior to earn God’s love. He loves you despite your behavior." (Tyler Speegle)

I completely agree with this statement. The love of God for his chosen people is not based on anything found in them, neither is it based upon any actions they have ever taken, but is rather, in spite of the fact that they, in their natural state (Ephesians 2:3), are completely lacking either of those things (Romans 3:10-18). Had Speegle stopped there he would have done well. Instead he goes on to say...

"God’s love for you isn’t based on what you do or don’t do, it's based on His Son Jesus AND YOUR DECISION TO ACCEPT HIM" (Speegle)

If Christian Theology Worked Like a Business Case...

I have often wondered how the following business case would go over in my secular employment:

The "Good" Shepherd?

In what sense can a shepherd who loses sheep of his flock be regarded as good? (John 10:11-30) Much less great? (Hebrews 13:20)

The Omnipotence of God

Christians often make the statement that "God is omnipotent" and insist that this means that "God can do absolutely anything." In turn this coarse and unscriptural definition becomes philosophical fodder for scoffers who intend to confound and undermine the Lord's people with questions like, "Can God make a rock so large that he cannot pick it up?" When most evangelicals are confronted with this objection (and a host of others like it), it has been my observation that they often seek refuge in the cave of irrationalism in order to justify their belief, opting for a sad mixture of hopelessly quixotic arguments to defend a fundamentally indefensible position. It's not pretty, to say the least.  But this approach is proven both unprofitable and unnecessary provided we allow the bible to define our terminology.

Does the Rich Young Ruler Story Teach Lordship Salvation?

I suppose it is no mystery that TETH has long opposed the teaching that is commonly referred to as Lordship Salvation.  Having spent a great deal of time in the company of Lordship Salvationists, I am aware that there are some texts in the bible that they believe support a Lordship Salvation point of view.  I was recently confronted with the following statement about the Lord’s interaction with the Rich Young Ruler (RYR) in Matthew 19:

The Gospel and the New Birth

"Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." 

(Jesus Christ to Nicodemus, John 3:3)

There is certainly a great deal of misunderstanding on the topic of the new birth in Christendom today. I believe that regeneration is as broadly misunderstood in our day as it was in the time of Christ and that a great many professing Christians stand to benefit from the exact same lesson that the Lord Jesus Christ taught Nicodemus some 2000 years ago. Consider the following: