On the BRN

When I am at work, I usually listen to Bott Radio. It is an area wide radio station network that can also be accessed through the internet and various other means of media. I get to hear all sorts of preaching from various pastors that lead up to the likes of Chuck Swindoll at around 7:30 am. Yesterday I heard some interesting comments that I just have to talk about.

First off, there was a comment the famous preacher J. Vernon MaGee said. It came when he commented on Joel 2 and the pouring out of the Holy Spirit. In Acts 2, Peter preached to the Jews when the Holy Spirit was poured out and men heard the Christians speak in their own tongues. Peter said that what was happening was the fulfillment of Joel 2. Dr. MaGee took a different stance on Joel 2 and Peter’s interpretation of it. Joel 2 has not been fulfilled as Peter said Pentecost did. Why? Because of his prior commitment to his dispensational theology that places Israel at the pentacle of history. He is forced to interpret Joel 2 as solely referring to Israel and not able to be fully fulfilled in the NT church. He has to disagree with the inspired apostle’s reading of Joel to maintain his theological system. I know that as a Calvinist I am prone to do that too. But it is pretty bad when your interpretation of a text conflicts with how the rest of the Bible understands it.

The next one came from Chuck Swindoll. He was in Daniel 2 and examining the vision of the statue that Nebuchadnezzar has dreamed. He read it as the following: Gold = Babylon; Silver = Medo-Persia, Bronze = Alexandrian Greece. But for the iron and clay portions of the statue, it was the Roman system of government. Notice the switch from specific kingdoms to an ideology or political system. This was to allow for Rome to continue through to the present day and for a reconstituted Roman Empire. His exegesis of Daniel 2 was like an Arminian trying to consistently argue a nation/historical privilege view in Romans 9 starting in 9:1 and ending with the last verse. They have to make a switch from nations individuals and then back again. Swindoll does the same thing in order to make his interpretation stick, only he switches from specific kingdoms to political systems. Rome as a political system and its ideologies haven’t really died off. The US can trace its government right back to the representative republic ideas of Rome, as well as its system of jurisprudence. Again, there is nothing in the text to justify such a switch, only a prior theological commitment.

Finally we have the late Dr. Adrian Rogers. I love/hate listening to this preacher because his preaching style was really good. The man never stumbled over his words, never let an “well…uh…um” slip. However, his theology is really off and the last two days have really shown that. Yesterday he spoke of us being spiritually dead, unable to believe in Christ because we are sinners. Yet in order to be covered by the blood of Christ we must believe. His entire topic was authority, but Jesus authority is only over a believer if he/she has submitted to it. Then he spoke of the atonement. He cited 1 John 2:2 and said that Jesus paid for every sin every man, woman, and child has ever committed on the cross. They are all done away with. So no one goes to hell for lying or cheating or sexual immorality. Those who go to hell are only those who refuse to trust Jesus Messiah as their Lord and Savior. In one sense that’s true, only believers go to heave and only unbelievers go to hell. But consider 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Galatians 5:19-21; Ephesians 5:1-5; Revelation 20:15; Revelation 21:8. These texts clearly state that people go to hell for sins like sexual immorality. Also consider the fact that Rogers severely destroys the cross in his interpretation of 1 John 2:2. If the cross is a true propitiation for all sin, then why is unbelief excluded? Why is anyone in hell if actual propitiation was achieved and accomplished? If one must believe for the atonement to atone for sin, then what did Jesus death actually accomplish for man? Arminians don’t like these questions because there really is no satisfactory answer (and I’m sure that they can ask questions that I won’t answer the way they would like me to as well). But they have to be asked. If when the one died all died, why must I die again if I fail to believe (cf. 2 Corinthians 5:14-15)? I say if when the one died all died then the all are free from the power of death and now live (cf. 2 Corinthians 5:15; Romans 6:1-6). Rogers is now with the Lord and I can guarantee he now knows the answers to these questions. I’m jealous, honestly.