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’”

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,

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)

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:

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

---

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/eisegesis

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

Humility...

"The secret of humility, and therefore of change, is never to stray far from the cross.  It should be often in our thoughts, on our lips, in our songs, determining our actions, shaping our attitudes, captivating our affections."--Tim Chester, You Can Change, p. 128

So It's Been Awhile...

I have been away for a while due to the demands from my retirement job, but that is no more!  I resigned a couple of months ago, and now I am getting "caught up".


One of the joys of retirement is having the time to increase my reading.


I just finished reading You CAN Change by Tim Chester, and no, it is not a moralistic/legalistic approach to change in the Christian life.  Chester approaches the change a true believer will desire from the perspective of God's sanctifying grace.  Beginning to re-read to soak up the truth of God's wonderful grace!

More later...just wanted to get this out!

WHEN YOU COME TOGETHER AS A CHURCH

INTRODUCTION

The primary gathering of the church each week is specifically intended for (1) the worship of God and (2) for the edification of believers—the primary gathering of the church each week is not intended to evangelize the lost.

This discussion must be had not only because of misconceptions that have infiltrated the church over the centuries, but also because of practices and traditions that have crept in among the ecclesia, the “called out ones”, the church. Among the misconceptions, practices and traditions are:

• Preaching to the “Margins”

• Abandonment of Theology/Doctrine 

• Man-centered view of evangelism/salvation 

• “Crusades” held in large venues 

• The “altar call” 

• “Revivalism”

Each of these will be addressed very briefly, in order to illustrate why many have come to believe that the primary gathering of the church is for the purpose of evangelism, and why such a view is Biblically indefensible.

PREACHING TO THE MARGINS

In most evangelical churches today, the preaching is “to the margins”, that is, the man in the pulpit will preach the truth only to the point that he thinks will not offend the “marginal” Christian or the possible unbelieving visitor in the pew. The goal is to make sure nothing offends, so the marginal believer or the unbeliever will possibly return the next week. This watering down of the Scriptures, in order to not offend an unbeliever or a supposed believer at the edge, is a serious misstep by the preacher, and is undertaken with the misguided belief that the goal of the primary meeting of the church is evangelism.

It was not always this way. Charles Spurgeon, for example, preached expository messages from the Word of God in a profound, intentional manner, without worrying about offending anyone.

George Whitefield did the same in the fields of colonial America. God used both men mightily to further his kingdom.

Nowhere in Scripture do we see an example of preaching to the margins; instead, we see preaching to believers for their edification, for their building up, to equip them for the work of ministry.

ABANDONMENT OF THEOLOGY/DOCTRINE IN THE PULPIT

Again, men in the pulpits of most evangelical churches today are preaching “how to...” messages, “when you feel...” messages, “what to do when...” messages, as well as messages from Bible study guides, messages revolving around psychology, “felt needs”, or even “messages” that are made up of stories and jokes, rather than expositing the Word of God for the benefit God’s church. They will talk about what movies or books their people should avoid.  Coming across certain accounts in Scripture, they will inject legalism into the discussion, addressing issues such as tattoos, piercings, the use of alcohol, or mode of dress in church, rather than expositing the doctrine and/or theology that begs to be addressed. These men in the pulpits, as well as the congregations in their care, seem to view theology and doctrine as something for the academics, and not useful to the church body. They could not be any further from the truth. How is the preacher in the pulpit going to fulfill the mandate to “equip the saints for the work of ministry” without teaching theology and doctrine? Failure to do so will result in anemic believers who become stagnant. Failure to do so is to send the flock out into the field unprepared and ill equipped to declare to others the good news of Jesus Christ.

This writer can recall attending a “revival”, where a guest preacher was brought in. This man, a leader in a large denomination in California, spent the time in front of the church telling stories, and making people laugh. Even children in attendance recognized he was not teaching the Word of God. The sad thing is that at the State Convention a few months later, where he had the opportunity to expound on theology and doctrine to that gathering of believers, he chose to tell the same silly stories.

The exposition of Scripture naturally includes theology—the “study of God”—and doctrine—“the study of the Scripture for the sake of instruction”—both of which Paul not only did, but also exhorted other pastors to do. Failure to do so is to fail—period.

MAN-CENTERED VIEW OF EVANGELISM/SALVATION

James Arminius—whose theology is taught in the majority of evangelical churches—held that salvation is accomplished through the combined efforts of God, who takes the initiative, and man, who must respond, with man's response being the determining factor in salvation. Further, that God has provided salvation for everyone, but His provision becomes effective only for those who, of their own free will, "choose" to cooperate with Him and accept His offer of grace. At the crucial point, man's will plays a decisive role; thus, according to this body of teaching, man, not God, determines who will be recipients of the gift of salvation. Such teaching cannot be supported Biblically.

As a result of this teaching, many people in churches in America today believe that they must get their friends to church with them so they will “get saved”. They believe that if their friend hears the word preached, they will come under conviction and will be saved. The all-important altar call will be the time that they “surrender to Christ”. This is a man centered belief system as opposed to being God centered. The fact of the matter is, God is the author of salvation, not man. What takes place in a man’s heart is the work of God, not of man. Man is utterly unable to rescue or save himself. (See Ephesians 1, Ephesians 2, Romans 9)

God has charged the church to go out and evangelize, but he never charged the church anywhere in Scripture to stay within its doors and evangelize. Every time God charged the church with respect to preaching, he did it in such a way as to give the charge to preach to believers. For example, in 2 Timothy 4:2, Paul instructs Timothy to “Preach the word, be ready in season and out of season, reprove, rebuke and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. One does not reprove, rebuke and exhort, and teach unregenerate people, but those covered by the blood of the Lamb.

THE ALTAR CALL

Under Charles Finney, a Pelagian1 heretic, the “altar call” came into use in the church. In order to get people to “make a decision”, Charles Finney and those who followed him in his thinking used what they called “techniques” or “new methods” to accomplish that end. Finney’s “new methods” included emotional tactics that resulted in fainting and crying, and other "excitements," as Finney and his followers called them, as well as the “Anxious Seat”.

In approximately 1835, Finney instituted the use of the “Anxious Seat”. Finney held that the Anxious Seat took the place of baptism in the days of the apostles “as a public manifestation of their (new converts) determination to be Christians". The Anxious Seat was not rooted in Scripture and was not rooted in the early church.

The Anxious Seat evolved into what it is today—the walking of an aisle, the raising of a hand, or the praying of a prayer, which, it is believed, is the public manifestation of one’s belief in Christ. It is typically referred to as an “invitation” or “altar call”.

Finney—and altar calls—misconstrue the actual Ordo Salutis, the Order of Salvation and make salvation something that man accomplishes for God rather that what God accomplishes in the hearts of men.