Top 10 doctrinal concerns for evangelicalism

Recently, in developing some thoughts for a sermon, I took a very unscientific poll of various friends and lists as to what their Top 5 doctrinal concerns about evangelicalism would be (and a couple of very astute friends noted the term evangelicalism itself no longer conveys the gospel clarity of the reformation).

Keep in mind that most, if not all, of the recipients would consider themselves Calvinists or Reformed. And to make it easier, I generalized the answers into broad categories, coming up with a Top 10 from the broad categories.

In Letterman style, here are the very unscientific, yet interesting results:

10- Charismata/Pentecostalism
10- Doctrinal Indifference
10- Failure to understand grace
10- Legalism
10- Biblical Illiteracy
(all tied for 10th)

9- Weak Preaching
9- Materialism
9- Hermeneutics

8- Doctrine of the Trinity/Modalism/Open Theism
8- Understanding of the Covenants

7- Doctrine/Practice of Worship

6- Doctrine of God

5- Emerging Church

4- Atonement/Justification/Federal Vision/New Perspective on Paul

3- Ecclesiology (church growth, church leadership, doctrine of membership, discipline)

2- Authority of Scripture/Sola Scriptura

1- Nature of Conversion/Arminianism/Semi-Pelagianism/Revivalism

And some were curious as to my own list (which is not included in the above)

(6- Sola Scriptura via lack of discernment)
5- Open Theism
4- Justification/Imputation/RCC ecumenism
3- Emerging Church
2- Revivalism/Easy Believism
1- Lack of Discernment

Lack of Discernment: It's not that we don't deny the Trinity; we don't think it should be a test of orthodoxy, nor do we understand *why* it was ever a test of orthodoxy. We don't deny open theism; we just don't know why we would call those who hold such heterodox. We don't employ the Madison Avenue approach to marketing for church growth; but we can't figure out how those who do have neutered the gospel of its power. We affirm the shortcomings of enthroning "relevance" as our mission statement; but we can't fathom how the pursuit of relevance has rendered the church irrelevant. We don't wholeheartedly embrace the pluralism and relativism of the emerging church; we just don't know how those who have embraced it are undermining the authority of scripture and ultimately, salvation itself. We don't deny sola scriptura; we just don't understand when it has been abrogated. It's not that we deny justification or imputation; we don't think the Roman Catholic's soteriology is all that big of a deal and wonder why some of us (or the Reformers, for that matter) would make such a fuss. It's not that we would deny the gospel; we don't think its clear articulation is fundamental to our______________ (insert historic, orthodox, Christocentric doctrine here). etc. etc.

In thinking about this list, I found myself agreeing with John MacArthur: "Most of the market-driven megachurches insist they would never compromise doctrine. They are attractive to evangelicals precisely because they claim to be as orthodox in their doctrine as they are unorthodox in their methodology. Multitudes are sufficiently reassured by such promises and simply abandon their critical faculties, thus increasing their vulnerability. Unfortunately, real discernment is in short supply among modern evangelicals." -- John MacArthur, "Ashamed of the Gospel : When the Church Becomes Like the World."

Sound doctrine is the antidote for false doctrine and the prescription of discernment for a healthy church. In empowering discernment, sound doctrine is the word of life from the WORD of Life that keeps the antiChrists and their false teaching at bay. Where there is false teaching, the word of life is absent. Via discernment, sound doctrine marks out the line between true and false teaching. Contrary to the mentality of pop Christianity, sound doctrine unites, it does *not*, divide. Sound doctrine exposes error and when the error is exposed, it runs from sound doctrine. Hence, they went out from us, because they were not of us (1 John 2:19). Where there is no sound doctrine, there will be no discernment.

Allegory vs. Biblical Theology

iamchief asked: “When/where then is it appropriate to be allegorical with OT images & symbols & such?”

IMHO, it is *never* appropriate to be allegorical with OT images & symbols & such. Allegory does not presume there is a connection, sometimes even remotely, between the image or parable and reality. Rather than allegory, the OT has been written in typology. Actual historical events by design and intent point forward to the reality in Christ. There is, as Vos would say, an *organic* (real, living, historic, and not man-made) connection between what has happened in the past and what has been fulfilled in Christ.

Most of this blog has been dedicated to answering your question. :-) Most, if not all, of the posts on typology (as well as Vos’s various explanations of biblical theology as a discipline) have been attempts to explain and develop typology as inherent to all interpretation of the scriptures, especially the Old Testament. Whereas allegory is reading into events of the OT (eisegesis), biblical theology is interpreting the events as they were intended by the divine author (exegesis).

While I might quibble with Baugh on minor details, he best sums up this distinction in his essay “Hermeneutics and Biblical Theology”:

"A full description of biblical theology and its hermeneutic is not always easy. Because it has suffered from caricature, it is easy to jump to hasty conclusions about it. For example, biblical theology has been equated with Christianizing allegory, such as that practiced early on by Clement, Origen, and other Alexandrian church fathers. They found a symbolic meaning to nearly everything. The "great whales" created in Genesis 1:21, Origen said, represent "impious thoughts and abominable understandings" that we too should "bring forth" before God that he may assign them their place after their own kind!

"The reason that biblical theology suffers mistaken identity with allegory is probably its persistent habit of reading the Bible as a book about Jesus Christ from beginning to end. Thus, a biblical theologian reading about Adam in the Garden of Eden tends to think of Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane. This does not imply that Adam was a parabolic versus an historical figure. Quite the contrary, biblical theology is staunchly opposed to taking historical figures mythically, since biblical theology is predicated on the fact that redemption was accomplished in genuine history. Someone (I don't remember who) once put it well: "Fact without word is dumb; the word without fact is empty."

"But is biblical theology warranted in reading Christ into Adam, and vice versa? Apparently Paul thought so when he equates Christ with the Last Adam (1 Cor. 15:45) and Adam as a "type" of Christ (Rom. 5:14). Adam stood as covenant head of the first creation, whereas Christ is head of a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17; Eph. 2:15). Therefore, if anything else, biblical theology is a hermeneutic of the Emmaus road: "And starting with Moses and all the prophets he [Christ] interpreted for them the things concerning himself in all the scriptures" (Lk. 24:27; emphasis added). Biblical theology is Christocentric: "Moses wrote about me" (Jn. 5:46)."

AWOL in Texas

I've spent the last week in Dallas, Texas at the Gaylord Texan attending the National Religious Broadcaster's convention. Among the highlights: getting together with the ever-dwindling news gang, chatting with R. C. Sproul, giving Bob Butts a hard time, catching up with Bob Lepine, meeting Wes Ward and Matt Schmucker, and hanging with Abraham Piper & Matt Perman in a vigorous discussion over the heterodoxy/non-heterodoxy of those who deny imputation and affirm justifying works at the last judgment AND the practical theology of temporary "backsliddenness". :-) Somewhere I found time for 21 interviews, a couple of seminars, and too many trips to the buffet. :-)