Monday, December 26, 2011

FARLEY Part III: THE GOSPEL


The Gospel
A proper understanding of “the gospel” is essential when launching a discussion of God, Jesus Christ, salvation, justification, forgiveness, and other theological topics.  The best overall description of the gospel I have found to date is in Jerry Bridges’ The Discipline of Grace, at Chapter 3, entitled “Preach the Gospel to Yourself”.  You may ask, “why a description of the gospel?  Isn’t it merely the fact that Jesus paid the penalty for sin for those who would believe?”  Of course, that is true, but it is much more than that.  “The Gospel” includes God’s complete plan of redemption from the beginning.

Bridges refers to Romans 3:19-26 as “the single passage in all of the Bible that most clearly and completely explains the gospel...”[1]  There, Paul wrote:
19Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. 20For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.
21But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it—22the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.  (Romans 3:19-26 ESV)

Bridges then does an excellent exposition of the passage, identifying “seven truths that we need to clearly understand”.[2]  Those seven truths are:

Sunday, December 25, 2011

FARLEY Part II: HOW ONE STUDIES MATTERS




Study of the Word of God comes with an incredible responsibility to be true to that Word.  One cannot merely “come up” with “new ideas” and then attempt to find Scriptural passages that seem to substantiate or validate those ideas.  One must conduct an exegetical study of the Word and intentionally avoid eisegesis.  These are two opposing means of studying the Scripture.  Exegesis is the exposition or explanation of a text based on a careful, objective analysis, which would include context, word study, and looking at the Scripture in light of other Scripture.  Conclusions are arrived at by a thorough examination of the Biblical text.  The opposite approach to studying the Word is eisegesis, in which the interpretation of a passage is based on a subjective, non-analytical reading. The word eisegesis means, “the interpretation of a text (as of the Bible) by reading into it one's own ideas”[1] which means the interpreter inserts his own ideas into the text, making it mean whatever he wants it to mean.


Andrew Farley seems to have done just that—he has come up with ideas that sound really good at first blush, but when compared with the Word, they fail.  When he refers to Scripture to “back up” his ideas, there is an obvious disconnect in the majority of instances.  Rather than conduct an exegetical study of the text, Farley has conducted an eisegetical study—forcing the Scripture to fit his personal preconceived biases and notions.

For that reason alone, his argument fails.  However, the analysis will continue.

NEXT:  Farley Part III:  The Gospel

Saturday, December 24, 2011

A REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF ANDREW FARLEY’S THE NAKED GOSPEL


Introduction

The first time through The Naked Gospel proved to be a fairly quick read.  Andrew Farley writes very well, in a conversational style, which makes reading his book quite easy.  He is quite conversational, and one can feel as if one knows him already.  As this writer made his way through the book though, red flags began to flap in the breeze. 

If one were to fly an airplane from east to west on a 5,000 mile trip, but off by one degree, one would wind up way north or way south of the desired destination.  In the same way, if one fails to remember a common navigational equation—Heading = Course + Wind Correction + Intercept—one will again miss the desired destination.

The same thing is true in studying the Bible.  If one starts with a premise that is not supported by the Scripture, or if one starts with an erroneous understanding of what Scripture says, then the conclusions one comes to will be “off”.  More importantly, if one begins with an “opinion” rather than Scriptural truth, then the conclusion cannot be considered a Biblical position.

At the risk of alienating the reader at the outset, I have to be honest—my second reading of Farley’s book not only confirmed the concerns that arose the first time through, but a number of conclusions he arrived at cannot be considered Biblical positions.  Why?  They cannot be considered Biblical positions because they begin with a flawed premise or with his personal opinion rather than with the Scripture.  Additionally, a little more than half way through the book it seemed that his argument is more about feeling good about oneself as a believer, rather than the grace-infused gospel of Jesus Christ as revealed in the Scripture.

A Dusting of Error
The majority of what Farley writes is quite Biblical in its content—most of what he wrote is Biblical truth.  However, throughout the book, there is a bit of a “dusting” of error, rendering entire arguments ineffectual.  Farley’s past “church” experience—something his description left no doubt as to its being in the extreme—leads the reader to believe that he perhaps moved to the opposite extreme.  One extreme seems to have led to another—not unlike this writer’s personal experience growing up years, being told, “you shouldn’t feel that way”.  That particular extreme led me to stifling my feelings in my teen years and following, resulting in my being in a position where I did not know what I felt, as well as an unwillingness to “get in touch” with my feelings.  I went to the opposite extreme.

Another notable problem is that Farley is attempting to make understandable that which cannot be completely comprehended in this life.  There is still mystery that is veiled, only to be disclosed on the Last Day.

A Lack of Specificity
Farley makes a number of statements in the book, as if he has discovered something new.  At issue is the fact that he neglects to explain what his premises “look like”, he does not provide any “specificity” as to what he is attempting to convey, and he does not provide any Scriptural support for the statements.  In most instances, he utilized examples from the human experience to “prove” his “spiritual truths”, rather than using the Word.

Exegesis and Hermeneutics
Farley’s exegesis of the written text in many places is faulty.  The premises he articulates, for example, about Adam and Eve, John’s epistle, and James’ letter are, at best, inaccurate.  He does not properly interpret multiple passages of Scripture.  

Listening to a Heretic
Finally, of grave concern is the fact that Farley quotes from a recognized heretic to make his point that “religion is a headache”. (p. 32) Hannah Whitall Smith was a Universalist whose view of God was horribly skewed.  Many other people could have been quoted to make the point—including D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones who preached a series of sermons on spiritual depression, discussing some of the issues Farley referred to in quoting Smith—but Farley chose to quote one who made it her goal to advance heresy.

The purpose of this paper is to examine a selected few of what appear to be problem areas in various sections, and I do so with one goal:  to point to God’s Word in order to glorify the Lord Jesus Christ.  I have provided alternate section titles in order to summarize the thrust of Farley’s teaching.

NEXT:  Farley Part II: How One Studies Matters