Author: Uri Brito

Posted on

Calvin: “Man is an idol factory”

Calvin’s comment in regard to the main tendency of the human heart is not only a reality but an evangelistic need. The sinner is in as much need to hear about sin as he is about Christ. The call of the gospel is to turn away from idolatry to the living Christ. Dr. Steve Childers comments on this gospel invitation when he states that the “gospel is directly linked to the first two commandments.” By that he means that our sin is worshipping other gods and making to ourselves graven images in the form of personal passions. One may find pleasure in adultery, but what is really taking place is that adultery has become a temporary idol or at times a permanent one. All sin is an issue of the heart and it is the heart that needs to be turned. As Luther has stated in his 95 theses, “Repentance is part of the daily life of a Christian (paraphrase of theses one).” In repentance we find restoration and turn once again our gaze upon the true God and Savior of our lives.

A particular insight I have acquired in my studies of evangelism, is that in a sense, sins are inherently polytheistic. That is, when we sin we all serve and worship many gods. We serve the god of lust, the god of pride, the god of reputation, ad infinitum. This reality would make even the largest syncretistic religion in the world (Hinduism) envious of such an accumulation of gods. The beauty of the gospel is that God is seeking to bring His people to once again put their trust in the monotheistic faith of Abraham. However, turning from idols and gods has become an ineffable homily in modern evangelicalism; rather we are told that these are vices or habits. Don’t you think the gods are pleased to hear that? If we do not treat these matters as what they really are then I see sin’s domineering power becoming another source of doubt and endless despair in the lives of Christians. Christ is the only solution to the billions of alternatives. He alone can deliver us from sin’s dominion. Our Lord is as supremely interested in the rescuing of our sins today as He was when He delivered us from the penalty of sin.

Posted on

Book Review – Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God by J.I. Packer

1339packer.jpeg J.I. Packer, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God (Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 1991).

Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God is a historical masterpiece. Though the title would seem to indicate that a final and ultimate explanation of these realities has been elucidated satisfactorily, the contrary is the case. J.I. Packer is not interested in “reconciling friends” as Spurgeon explained (at least in a philosophical sense). His main theme is that the reality of these two Biblical truths–God’s sovereignty and evangelism–must significantly challenge our thinking in the field of evangelism. His thoroughgoing Calvinism does not hinder his rich application, but rather strengthens it. As it is stated, the Calvinist “will be able to evangelize better for believing it” (126). It is the certainty that this theology is Biblical that enables the true evangelist to place his trust on the author of faith -– God Himself.

The most profound insight Packer’s classic offers is his ability to bring seemingly contradictory realities into a single book. In the end, the reader finds comfort, stability and the recognition that God’s sovereignty and evangelism are complementary and utterly dependable on one another. The writer instills this truth in his readers with utmost delicacy and sensitivity to this critical question in biblical history. Another strength of Dr. Packer is his observation that even the Arminian must come to grasp the concept of God’s sovereignty. When he prays that God would intervene in the salvation of his friend or family, unconsciously he is depending that the sovereign grace of our God may change the heart of stone and makes it into a heart of flesh. However, one critique, perhaps the only one this reviewer has to offer, concerns Packer’s omission in dealing with the famous evangelistic crusades of his time and even of our times in the 21st century. This reviewer feels rather strongly against such practices and would have preferred that J.I. Packer would offer a critique of such practices rather than leaving it to further discussion. Of course, anyone familiar with Jim Packer’s writings is aware of the irenic spirit and the gracious tone of this godly man. Hence this critique is perhaps unwarranted, but still a critique nevertheless.

This classic reveals an unpopular application to the modern Christian thinker. One who is concerned with the evangelistic enterprise will notice that the common “handing out pamphlets” or even “knocking on doors” is not the most effective approach to evangelism. Rather, the approach he offers is that of establishing relationships. Instead of bombarding the lost with undefined biblical slogans, we need to approach our neighbor with love and a genuine desire to know them and their needs. This will enable the believer to understand who they are evangelizing and how to better approach them with the gospel.

Posted on

Storms of Life?

I am beginning to re-think those well-known sermon lines dealing with the storms of life. Is it not a bit more accurate, at least here in Florida, to name them the “hurricanes of life?” Well, consider it briefly. Hurricanes bring gust winds, tropical storms, destruction, shatters lives, demolishes material possessions, and separates loved ones.  The conspicuous truth is this: Storms are just too general of a term to reflect our reality. To me the idea of hurricanes seems to be a more realistic view of Providence and reflects even more accurately God’s works in creation. If He is the author of calamities, let us give at least somewhat more powerful analogies to the most powerful God.
Truthfully, jokingly and comforted,
Yours truly.

Posted on

Sola Scriptura: Brief Reflections

One of the central themes of my theological studies at this moment is the question of Sola Scriptura. This pedagogy of the Reformation has at times as Richard Pratt stated, “been twisted to fit the individualistic tendencies of American Christians.” Sola Scriptura as defined by the Reformers is not a declaration of the autonomy of humans to isolate themselves for forty days and forty nights and discover new truth yet unknown in 2000 years of Christianity, but rather it is an alternative to such practices.

The very soul of Sola Scriptura is not that all we need is Scriptures, but rather that only the Scriptures can shape our thinking. As the Confession states, it is “sufficient for faith and life.” The current tendency of individual Christianity towards isolationism has led the Church to lose its commitment to the very doctrine they cherish. The church properly defined is made up of the “called out ones.” This is a statement of utter dependency on communal living. It is the community that Christ came to save and deliver. The purpose of the Church is to invite individuals to join a community. Jay Adams once wrote that there is “no place for lone ranger Christianity.”

The Scriptures have been preserved and given to the benefit of the Church as a whole. It is in this environment which we will find growth and a greater passion for God’s special revelation. It is also there in the “communion of saints” that unregenerate people come to embrace the gospel in all its fullness  As Augustine has said: “There is no salvation outside the church.” The proper interpretation of that statement is that there is no truth outside the community of believers. Simply put, there is no other way to know God outside an environment committed to the Head of the Church, Jesus Christ.

The Apostle’s Creed says, “I believe in the Holy Catholic Church, the Communion of Saints.” This historical truth reveals the apostolic intent which breaks the sinful tendencies of our fallen hearts to divorce ourselves from our need for one another.

Posted on

Theocentrism vs. Anthropocentrism

One common and constant reaction in Reformed circles is to distance oneself from an anthropocentric theology. We are rather more concerned about pontificating theological ideas into the ethereal world of abstractions. Of course, abstract theology is the foundation of true theology. Anthropocentric ( man-centered) theology also must play a specific role in the lives of Biblical students. Perhaps a brief explanation of this will take away some of the initial fear of a synergistic view of life. In fact, this is not in any way related to a synergistic theology, for synergism relates primarily to the system of soteriology.

The primary concept that must be grasped at the outset is that the greatest commandment is not summarized in one overarching statement, but rather Christ himself summarized it into two. In Matthew 22, Jesus says that the greatest commandment is to love the Lord your God, and almost as if in the same breath, he proceeds to give a further command. This commandment He says is “like unto the first,” and that is to love your neighbor as yourself. Notice that the distinctive similarity is “love.” Love is the essence of both commandments.

One interesting idea in this text is the Old Testament reference taken from Deuteronomy 6 and Leviticus 19 respectively. Love in that context refers to loyal duty, a delight or a pleasurable experience. This love runs in direct contradiction to the modern concept of love in our society. So, to put things into perspective, doing theology or practicing theology is not only theocentric but also anthropocentric. That is, doing theology is directly related to loving man. It is a loyal duty to do theology with the purpose of serving your neighbor. For the student or theologian, theology has a dual affect. It goes not only to the transcendent sphere but also to the human sphere. It serves the purpose of edifying the body and ministering to our neighbors. This proper distinction helps us to avoid a common error, which is: to understand theology simply in a celestial fashion.  A proper balanced approach does justice to a love for humanity and a love for God.

Posted on

Seminary begins with Richard Pratt

For some reason or another I have not had a chance in the last two weeks to post anything. An unexpected event called “Charley” had the audacity to interrupt my perfect schedule. As one witty fellow has said before: “We make up schedules and the Almighty destroys them.”

Now, a new set of challenges have come my way and are beginning to affect me in a way Charley could not. Some may call this challenge “Prattinism.” Yes, what I feared is happening. Richard, as he prefers to be called, is already taking away some of my sanity with his intimidating and straight-forward approach to theology. Indeed, my thinking is already going through some rearranging. Believe it or not, I thought I had it altogether (after all, we Presbyterians tend to think that way). How cruel of another Presbyterian to destroy my perfect set of presuppositions of theology and how it is to be played out in my life! Oh Richard! What can I say? Well, at least this much I know in my naivety: Prattinism runs in direct contrast to comfort. Oh by the way, if you feel comfortable about the intricacies of your systematics, come and join us at RTS in the fellowship hall at 8AM on Wednesday mornings and join other 80 pilgrims in a fun experience commonly known as the DARK SIDE.

Posted on

A Brief Response to a friend concerning Christian Liberty and Evangelism

You wrote:

You did not respond to my conjecture that you are referring merely to the abuse of something as an excuse for avoiding it. If someone was falsely assured, it is the preacher who is in condemnation as a teacher (James 3:1).

First, you have now and before misquoted the statement. It goes as follows: “The abuse of something is not an argument against its proper use.” By the way, I am not the originator of that quote. It was written by someone (perhaps Luther) who certainly understood the extremes taken by some in order to avoid certain freedoms that we have in Christ.
Let me give you an example as to how that quote plays well with certain situations. One clear example is the often pulpit cry that drinking is associated with pagans therefore, as Christians we should not drink. This concept was also coincidentally an essential message of Charles Finney and other revivalists of the early 19th century. In this case, I plug in that quote immediately and say that since the Scriptures many times endorses or even demands the people of God to drink, then for the sake of Scriptures, drink (Psalm 104:15; Ecclesiastes 9:7). The abuse of some is not an argument against its proper use. In the case you used, I suggest that the quote cannot be used in that context. It contradicts its purpose. In other words, the abuse of something that is found in the Scriptures is not an argument against its proper use. However, I do not believe whether it be the invitational system, raising hands, walking down the aisle, or any of these Finneistic novelties in American evangelicalism are Scriptural, but rather are used to lead many to a false profession of faith and furthermore to guilt-bound “christianity.”

You went on to say:

Oh yeah, and my Dad was saved in an ice cream shop by a man who used the simple gospel via the four spiritual laws. Even though I have a pastor at my local body, he has been my pastor for almost 23 years. Indeed the four spiritual laws are the Truth and the gospel is simple, but it’s not merely an action one can claim to have taken, and we agree.

To this I would simply reply that I am not in any position to judge anyone’s conversion experience. The Four Spiritual Laws from my perspective do not contain an accurate representation of the gospel (though I am convinced it has been used for good, after all there are Scriptural quotations in them). It misleads the Christian to think wrongly of the concept of the Lordship of Christ by confusing categories of Christian experience (the false idea of “carnal Christianity is one o them). Thus, my contention is that this approach completely distorts Paul’s meaning in I Corinthians 3.

Finally, just a few corrections in order to help further dialogue. You mentioned a few strongly Reformed categories and distinctive such as Family Worship and Home Education. I deeply admire your parents for a strong emphasis on family and education. As I have come to know you and your family, it is evident that all of you have a strong passion for our Lord. However, family and education devoid of Reformed confessions and a strongly covenantal view of family denies the Reformed faith. As you may know Mennonites, the Amish, and others, also have a strong view of courting, family and so on; but yet they clearly deny the Reformed perspective on God’s sovereignty and Covenant Theology.
I hope this helps our future interaction…
Your brother in Christ.

Posted on

Should Christians vote for Bush?

This may be an easy question for Christians to answer, but should it be that easy?
In this article which appeared on intellectualconservative.com a few months ago, the writer analyzes the Bush administration and brings to the surface facts that are not very well known nor heard of in your conservative talk-show program. Perhaps it’s time to start thinking Biblically about these issues. Well, read for yourself!

ARTICLE LINK: http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3114.html