Saturday, January 14, 2012

FARLEY PART IX: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION


Summary and Conclusion
One must have sympathy toward, and show mercy toward another who has lived under a legalistic religious system as Andrew Farley has done in the past.  It truly is a burdensome way of moving through this life as a believer, and one that can be very frustrating.  However, having had that experience does not excuse moving completely to the other side of the spectrum.  Rebellion against “religion” does not excuse taking up a position that reinterprets—tweaks—the truth of the gospel.

It is rather ironic that Farley quotes heavily from Galatians, in that the Apostle Paul wrote to that church to chastise them for buying into the ritualism of the Judaizers (circumcision), and casting aside the one true gospel of Jesus Christ.  The church at Galatia had deserted “him who called (them) in the grace of Christ” and turned to a different gospel, preached by those who troubled them and wanted to distort the gospel of Christ (Galatians 1:6-7).

By tweaking, misinterpreting, and coming up with premises that are not supported with Scripture, Farley has inched dangerously close to distorting the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

 Soli Deo Gloria!

Further Reading
Bridges, Jerry, The Discipline of Grace: God’s Role and Our Role in the Pursuit of Holiness, Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 1994, 2006

Chester, Tim, You CAN Change: God’s Transforming Power for Our Sinful Behavior and Negative Emotions, Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2010

FARLEY PART VIII: “WE DON’T MARRY DEAD PEOPLE” OR “DO NOT LIVE LIKE JESUS” AND “SPIRITUAL DISCIPLINE IS NOT FOR THE BELIEVER” AND “EVIDENCE IS NOT NECESSARY”

We ARE To Walk As Jesus Walked

Farley argues in this section that believers are not to live like Jesus lived.  He wrote, “Hence, we’re not being asked to imitate the recorded actions of Jesus of Nazareth.  Instead, we’re invited to allow Jesus to do what he has always done—be himself.  The risen Christ wants to do this through our unique personalities in every moment of every day” (p. 178).  One of the problems with this statement is that Farley fails to describe what that looks like.  Farley also rejected living like Christ when he wrote, “Some Christians mistakenly obsess over everything that the historical Jesus did in the four gospels.  We memorize his words and actions and try to imitate them the best we can” (p. 180).  Farley discarded living like Christ when he wrote, “The motivation for daily living within the New Testament centers around acting like the person you truly are and benefiting from Christ’s life in the here and now…We’re urged to grasp an important spiritual truth: when we come to Jesus Christ, we receive his life.  Through our expression of him, we find fulfillment” (p. 182).  Again, Farley fails to describe what this looks like,

Friday, January 13, 2012

FARLEY PART VII: “CHEATING ON JESUS” OR “THE HOLY SPIRIT DOES NOT CONVICT BELIEVERS OF THEIR SIN”, BELIEVERS ARE NOT TO CONFESS THEIR SIN TO GOD” AND “1 JOHN 1 WAS WRITTEN TO UNBELIEVERS”

This section is perhaps the most disturbing portion of the entire book.  Here, Farley begins by saying believers can “live guilt free, knowing that a perfect lamb has done away with their sins once and for all” (p. 133, emphasis added). This appears to be the primary theme and purpose of the book—to “live guilt free” (p. 133), “more comfortable in the possession of” one’s Christian religion (p. 12), being “content with our choices” (p. 157), to “do away with all of the religious guilt” (p. 36), going “through life being ourselves” (p. 36), escaping “the misery of today’s hybrid religiosity” (p. 36), “…(there being a) distinction between what Jesus taught to the Jews and what God wanted (us) to enjoy under the New” (p. 87), and “to enjoy life free from guilt” (p 156)—in short, to basically feel good about ourselves.   

1 John 1 Was NOT Written to Unbelievers
Sadly, Farley offers an assertion in the fifth section of his book that is full of serious errors in Biblical analysis.  He argues that the first chapter of John’s first letter was to an audience made up, not of true believers, but “…Gnostics who had infiltrated the early church and (who) were teaching false doctrines” (p. 151).  Any good student of Scripture recognizes that none of the letters authored by any of the apostles were written to unbelievers.  None of those letters had unbelievers as the audience.  All of the letters were written to believers in churches or to individual believers, and many of those letters were shared among the various churches.  1 John is no exception.  Authored by the Apostle John,

FARLEY PART VI: “BURNING MATRYOSHKAS” OR “BELIEVERS BATTLE WITH AN ‘ENTITY’”


Believers in the Lord Jesus Christ are at war.  Paul made it clear that we do not battle in the physical realm, but in the spiritual realm—powerful spiritual beings, evil days, darkness, the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience, flaming darts of the evil one, this present darkness, and spiritual forces of evil were all terms he used to describe that war.

12For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. [Ephesians 6:12 ESV]

Believers Do Not Battle an “Entity”, but an Enemy
Discussing sin, Farley wrote, “There’s a power called sin, and its desire is to overtake us.  Again, we’re not speaking of sins or sinning but of an entity called sin” (p. 116, emphasis in original).  He then asked the question,

FARLEY PART V: “CROSSING THE LINE” OR “JESUS’ TEACHING WAS UNDER THE OLD COVENANT”


Sadly, Farley identified the teaching of Jesus as being under “the old”, and that his teaching was therefore hopeless in that it was addressed to the Jews of his time.  He wrote, “…Jesus’ harsh teachings aimed at the religious kill you every time…(there is a) distinction between what Jesus taught to the Jews and what God wanted (us) to enjoy under the New” (p. 87). 


Jesus’ Teaching is Old Testament—Not So!
Farley goes so far as to posit that the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ are not for believers at all, in that he wrote, “Peter, James, John, and Paul wrote epistles about life under the New Covenant.  Years earlier, Jesus was teaching hopelessness under the Old.  The audience wasn’t the same.  The covenant wasn’t the same.  And the teachings aren’t the same” (p. 86).

To say that the teachings of Christ are Old Testament teachings, and not applicable to the New Covenant believer is to walk ever so closely to the line—in fact, some would argue that he crossed the line.  Ironic, in that “Crossing the Line” was the title of Section 3.

Next: 
FARLEY PART VI:  “BURNING MATRYOSHKAS” OR “BELIEVERS BATTLE WITH AN ‘ENTITY’”

Wednesday, January 11, 2012

FARLEY Part IV: “RELIGION IS A HEADACHE” OR “THE LAW IS BAD AND HAS NO PLACE IN THE LIFE OF THE BELIEVER” AND “ADAM AND EVE DID NOT SIN”


In Part 2 of his book, Farley takes on the law, sin, and Adam and Eve’s illicit activity in the Garden of Eden.  One can understand the title of the section, given the past experience Farley had with “legalistic religion” rather than grace infused Christianity.  In that, he is right—“religion” is a headache!


In this section, we will examine three of Farley’s arguments in this regard, that is, (a) the Law has nothing to do with the fruit of the Spirit, (b) Adam and Eve did not sin, and (c) the pursuit of godliness or sanctification is off the table.

The Moral Law and Antinomianism
While there is no argument that Christ fulfilled the ceremonial law and eliminated it with his voluntary, sacrificial death on the cross, one must consider two questions posed by Farley, who asked, “So if you’re a Christian, what place should the law have in your life?” (p.48) The implied answer is “none!”  He also asked, “But should Christians still look to the Ten Commandments as their moral guide?” (p.54) Farley says that no one can keep the law, and he is absolutely right!  But he then makes a giant leap, casting aside the moral law.  He answered the questions he posed at page 48 and page 54 when he wrote about his confrontation with pastors at a conference in Chihuahua:  “After several minutes of absorbing heated comments, I realized that what angered them the most was my insistence that Christians are even free from the Ten Commandments” (p. 57, emphasis added).  As will be shown below, that is classic Antinomianism.
 
To support his theory that the law has nothing to do with believers,

Saturday, January 7, 2012


And after you have suffered a little while, the God of all grace, who has called you to his eternal glory in Christ, will himself restore, confirm, strengthen, and establish you.  (1 Peter 5:10 ESV)