Mongrel Horde: Just Plain Mutts!

Jon Stewart Rails Against the Old Media?

2009-09-16T19:54:00.000-07:00

Late comer Jon Stewart is outraged that the non-starter old media is oblivious about ACORN. Watch until the very end, it's fantastic- had me convulsing with laughter. Perhaps he should call up Charlie Gibson and give him the scoop.

*caution to the sensitive- Jon Stewart can't help but be profane every two minutes

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

The Audacity of Hos

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Healthcare Protests

The Reason For God, by Tim Keller

2008-12-08T11:25:00.000-08:00

If you haven't picked up this book yet, you should.

A Post About Music, the Gospel, and a Dave Matthews Band Concert

2008-08-21T20:12:00.000-07:00

I thought it would be worthwhile to write a reflection on the Dave Matthews Band concert that my wife and I attended at the Staple's Center last night. While it was a fun experience for both of us (it was the first time either of us has seen them live), what made it remarkable was the fact that this concert was held only hours after the band learned that LeRoi Moore (sax, flute, oboe), who founded the band with Dave and Carter in 1991, had died. It was certainly an odd and extraordinary thing to see them under these circumstances.

See this article for the news blurb on the concert.

Just before the show started we overheard folks in the audience talking about getting the news of LeRoi's death on their Blackberries. I wasn't sure I believed it, since the show had not been cancelled and it was only minutes away from showtime (the opening band had already wrapped up). But then the band came on and it was obvious. The usually-cheery drummer, Carter, was somber-faced. And their opening number was "Bartender", a song where God is personified as a bartender:

If I go
Before I'm old
Oh, brother of mine
Please don't forget me if I go

Bartender, please
Fill my glass for me
With the wine you gave Jesus that set him free
After three days in the ground

You can find the complete lyrics here. DMB never open their shows with that song, and I knew the that there was a reason for the change on that day.

After the song ended, Dave Matthews briefly explained the bad news, and that he hoped that the concert would help lift the band's spirits a little.

Dave Matthews was raised in a Quaker family, and while he has (from what I can gather) never found spiritual moorings of any sort, he clearly has something of a Christian imprint on his mind leftover, that he keeps toying (or wrestling) with. Need more proof? You need look no further than other selections from last night's set list - The Maker and the "Water into Wine Jam".

Facing death (either in one's own body or in a loved one) forces people to go back and re-examine things of fundamental and eternal purpose. I hope that it works some good in Dave's heart and life, that he would be forced to deal with the claims that Christ made about Himself.

It seems that, too often, folks just get around death by gritting their teeth and weathering out the existential crisis that death presents during episodes like this, and then tuck away those questions of eternal importance and resume life as they once did. As a Christian, I just can't relate to this attitude. It is lunacy. But I know that that's what happens. For them, it is just a sad thing that they have to wait out to be healed by the passing of time, even if they can't make any sense out of it or put the matter into any greater perspective. But for a Christian death is the enforcement of God's law, and God's law is what drives us to Christ (as Paul argues in Galatians 3). So, for us, death reminds us of our sin and misery, that we may seek refuge in Christ. But the non-Christian has to either ignore it or belittle it, or else be terrified, puzzled, and paralyzed by its presence in this life.

Now, I didn't want to reflect only on the spiritual and theological significance of the night. I'm a musician as well as being a music-lover, so I would be remiss if I didn't say that the concert was the best concert I've ever attended in my life (yes, even better than the U2 concert). The band hit every song out of the ballpark, including a blistering rendition of "Two Step" and "Dancing Nancies". You wouldn't have guessed that they were having an off day by their performances. They seemed genuinely cheerful during the more upbeat songs, as though they had nearly forgotten, momentarily, the day's events. Carter got his trademark grin back and silenced the whole auditorium during his drum solo during "Two Step." Jeff Coffin from Bela Fleck and the Flecktones was substituting for LeRoi, and Jeff is himself a virtuoso on sax and flute. He didn't miss a beat, and delivered some jaw-dropping solos. Tim Reynolds was on electric guitar, not having toured with DMB in ten years or so. His solos were goosebump-inducing incredible. He stole a few songs right from under the rest of the band when they let his guitar take the reigns for a few minutes. He is so good, he makes me want to just give up playing guitar altogether (my mental dialogue goes something like "why bother when Tim can play so much better than I ever will and just makes me look silly in comparison if I were to try?"). And Boyd's violin solos were crisp and animated, as he shuffled back and forth across the whole stage as his bowing arm flailed wildly during songs like "Ants Marching" and "Dancing Nancies". After 20 songs and about 3 hours, my wife and I felt we had gotten 3X our money's worth in both quality and quantity.

A further lesson to learn - never underestimate the genuine value and power of God's common grace. Great rock 'n' roll wouldn't exist without it.

Category: Blogging Ourselves

Posting from my own comment

2008-06-26T20:16:00.000-07:00

Not that anyone really reads (or writes on) this blog anymore, so basically I'm just doing this for myself. But I was reading a comment I had written awhile back in response to a guest who had commented on my post regarding "Emergent Values" (no link, just scroll down), and I was impressed with myself (something that happens often, requiring continual repentance). Perhaps I plagiarized it, I don't know. Anyway here it is:

We find that throughout the history of the Church there have been periods when theological convictions have been tied more closely to cultural values as opposed to Biblical virtues. This is certainly the result of theology shaping itself to a particular zeitgeist. However, in the midst of that, there have always been those who have sought to protect true truth. American Christian culture and institutionalized church betray a weakening of conviction and a clinging to religiosity. If the ECM (emergent church movement) is to be seen as a backlash to that (which it is) I think it is one that has over shot its mark and made the same error on the opposite extreme. Both modernist and post-modernist Christian culture use the Bible to substantiate values that are not particularly Christian. Modernists used the Bible to create intolerance for all manner of "sins", speaking far beyond the Scriptures in many cases and advocating for the legislation of aesthetic morality(right wing politics). On the other side, post-modernists use the Bible to create tolerance for all manner of sin, speaking far beyond the Scriptures in many cases and advocating for the legislation of aesthetic morality(left wing politics). The error in both instances is the Christian faith being turned into mere religious expression.

I think if one commits to a deep understanding of the journey of the church through history, it is possible for any Christian to discern true Gospel truth. Read the early Church fathers, or the Reformers, or the Puritans, and one finds their observations and exposition of Scripture wholly relevant to life and Godliness regardless of cultural context. In addition, we must humble ourselves and believe God truly wants us to know his plan from the alpha to the omega of all time. We must believe that he has given it to us in his Word. We must believe that we are "transformed by the renewing of our mind", and that this comes first by knowing the Gospel as given in the Scripture; a Gospel that was initiated outside of our reality and is the relevant and transforming message for all generations. A robust theology in regards to the attributes of God, the nature of man, the incarnation of Christ, God's sovereign purposes in salvation and the mission and nature of the Church, are the strongest guard against the err of "time borne framework."

Don't Miss This! RC and Ben Stein discuss Expelled

2008-05-23T08:06:00.000-07:00

Francis is my homeboy

2008-05-02T07:39:00.000-07:00

I have had the pleasure of knowing Francis Chan casually over the last couple of years and have benefited immensely from his teaching and reformissional approach to church planting and building. He has a new book out called Crazy Love which Tim Challies reviewed. I've been anticipating it since I heard he was writing one and hope to read it as soon as I can get my hands on it. You should read it too. I expect it to share the trajectory of Don't Waste Your Life, with the added bonus of direct confrontation with the Southern California temporal dreamscape of stuccoed McMansion's and perpetual vacation that lulls hundreds of thousands of Christians into false security.

The Remedy of the Gospel

2008-04-10T19:39:00.001-07:00

I preached the sermon below as the second part of a series entitled Intervention @ Collide on April 6th.

The text I chose for this week is Ephesians 1:3-14- this passage to be the back drop for what we are going to be first talking about tonight, and the main text for what we talk about lastly.

Last week Scott taught the Doctrine of Human Depravity and Original Sin, how we aren’t sinners because we sin, but we sin because we are sinners, and carry the curse of the fall of Adam in our flesh to the degree that, as fallen humans, it is impossible to generate even one righteous act out of our own ability. This week, we will be looking at the Remedy to our fallen-ness. We will recap the subject of sin, and see how that points us to the true Remedy, the Remedy of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, that heals us from our sin, reunites us to our Creator, and ultimately will result in a new nature where the effects of sin are dead in the past, absent from our memories, and eternally expunged from our flesh. We will therefore be examining what Dr. Tim Keller, Pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City calls, the “Moral Performance Narrative vs. Grace Narrative.” In that, I will show often times our sinfulness infiltrates our desires to do good and we accept a partial-Gospel or the Gospel plus something, and how then these errors lead us to frustration and away from Christ, rather than to him. What I want you to come away with tonight is that it is impossible in every sense and instance to please God out of your own effort, and that the Remedy for you is not found in a religious process or system, but the Remedy is one that is applied by God to you as a free gift, to the praise of his glory. So not only must we have an accurate picture of ourselves, and our inability to heal ourselves, but we must also have an accurate picture of God and his Gospel, the story of his Grace that invaded our world with the true Remedy.

Original Sin and Total Depravity
Romans 3:23 tells us that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”. How far do we fall short? Previously in Romans 3 Paul described it this way that “None is righteous no not one; no one understands, no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.” See, the fallen-ness of man is complete, it is all encompassing and it is total.

The 1646 Westminster Confession of Faith puts this way, that “from this original corruption, by which we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, does proceed all actual transgressions”. More simply put, we sin because we are sinners, and by nature everything we do of ourselves (that is key) is blasphemous, even our best efforts. We are utterly without ability. It’s not the committing of sins that makes us sinners, rather we are sinners and all we do is sin, even those things we (subjectively) see as good deeds.

Continuing on the topic of human inability the Westminster Confession states that “Man, by his fall into a state of sin, has completely lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation: so as, a natural man (that is a person not born again by the power of God through the Gospel), being altogether averse from that good and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or prepare himself for it.” In other words, as Paul writes in Romans 3 “No one seeks God” because in our sin, we can’t and we won’t.

The doctrine of original sin and total depravity means that our rebellion against God is total, everything we do in this rebellion is sin, and our inability to submit to God or change ourselves permeates every aspect of our being. We are spiritually dead, and there is no treatment we can undergo or ointment we can apply that will change that.
It is hard to exaggerate the importance of accepting the reality that our condition is this bad. How often do we overlook God’s righteousness when we accept the idea that people are basically good, or that some people are basically good (those who try), or that at least I am basically good? See, if we think of ourselves, or people in general, as basically good or even less than totally at odds with God, our grasp of who God is and the work of God in redemption will be defective and we end up believing in a false Gospel. But if we are humbled under this terrible truth of our total depravity, we will be in a position to see and appreciate the glory and wonder of the work of God. It is purposeful rejection original sin and total depravity, or the ignorance of it, is the starting point of the moral performance narrative that keeps us enslaved to sin.

The Moral Performance Narrative
A narrative is simply a sequence of events that construct what we call a story. In the case of a Moral Performance narrative we are talking about a type of story characterized by the theme of human goodness and moral performance. It takes on many different forms and characters, but at its core is the idea that one comes to God through moral effort and personal expense. In other words it is the idea that God is pleased with us when we try to be moral, follow laws, or attempt to be good.

When it comes down to it we see that the moral performance narrative is really the story of all religion. Religion is centered on humanity changing itself, performing- doing something- that moves it out of the category of damned, into the category of saved. Or, in some of the more optimistic religions, ties great rewards (like 70 virgins) to certain acts (like sacrificing oneself for jihad).

The foundation of religion is human ability in some form or another- and it becomes formulaic- insert good act for variable A, add to variable B, Holy water, and C= God’s favor. In the converse- insert bad act for variable A, add to variable B, beer, and C= God’s punishment. The Gospel stands in opposition to this.

It is my opinion that much of what calls itself “evangelical Christianity” in America today is not Christianity at all, but a folk religion, wherein beliefs, superstitions and rituals are codified and passed from generation to generation, creating a cultural religion. This folk Christianity is focused more on reforming the morality of the cultural then it is on preserving and teaching the theology of the Gospel. It treats the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ as an entry point into a religion of law keeping and moral performance, rather than as the sum total of Christian religion. Unfortunately, because it has lost track of true Christian doctrine, it has put too much stock in the ability of human beings and weighs people down entrapping them in the moral performance narrative. If we would look around at our culture, we see that the effort to reform the morality of the culture has not worked, for it cannot and will not, and in fact has resulted in more cultural evil then it started with. The chasm between the secular culture and the Christian culture is widening, and on one side the secular is becoming more outlandish in their sin and on the other side it seems the Christians are becoming more judgmental, condemning and irrelevant. But the reality is that both are obeying the moral performance narrative, just at opposite ends of the spectrum. The secular person says that being judgmental is the worst of all evils and in an attempt to not be judgmental further poisons his own environment with wickedness. The folk Christian says that being a morally pure culture is the greatest of goods and further alienates him self from the culture he wishes to change, effectively accelerating its demise.

The Apostle Paul speaks to this in Romans 7, “The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment deceived me and through it killed me.” It is this truth from Paul that underscores the Moral Performance Narrative. At the root of the Moral Performance Narrative is pride, the belief of personal ability, or self-righteousness. Paul says that sin seized an opportunity through the law-- it elevated Paul’s own sense of self-righteousness and led him deeper into condemnation, discovering that the law did not give him life, the freedom from sin, but rather brought only death, revealing the depth of his sinful nature.

Variations on the Moral Performance Narrative
The Moral Performance Narrative wants to cure the disease, but only treats the symptoms, leaving the sinner in bondage to sin, and leading him further into darkness. So I want to examine briefly a few specific variations of the moral performance narrative that masquerade as remedies to our condition, but in true effect are the equivalents to fixing a decapitated head with duct tape. And in every case these errors reflect on too high a view of our selves, and to low a view of Christ and the Gospel, by supplanting Christ’s work on the cross with our own works, or exchanging the purposes of God’s plan with our own purpose and plan.

Legalism (law following as the way to God)
Legalism in one way or another puts a person in the drivers seat of salvation, by requiring strict adherence to moral code for the completion of salvation. Legalism is always the product and producer of human pride. It stems from prideful self pity, producing despair, or prideful self-exaltation of ability, resulting in self-righteousness and judgment. It is a blasphemy that erodes the need for the Gospel and denies the sufficiency of Christ’s death on the cross for our salvation. If our Christian life is characterized by striving to keep laws, believing it will gain us anything, we turn our back to the truth that Jesus Christ fulfilled the law on our behalf, a glorious fact that we can add nothing to.

Debtors Ethic (paying back God)
This is the mindset that adds to the Gospel an incredible weight of obligation that paints the picture of the Christian life as the ongoing effort to pay back God for salvation. It asks the question, “God has done so much for you, what are you going to do for him?” The problem with such a mentality is it rejects entirely what God has done for you and strips the free gift that is Grace of the “free” part, making the offer of the Gospel more like the offer of a home mortgage loan. John Piper wrote in his outstanding book Future Grace that “Good deeds do not pay back grace; they borrow more grace.” Ephesians 2:10 says that “we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared before hand that we should walk in them.” Did you catch that? The reality is, if we have been made new in Christ, we walk in good works that flow from grace, not as a response too grace.

Moral Therapy (changing your lifestyle to receive God’s favor)
A therapeutic effect is defined as “a consequence of a medical treatment, of any kind, the results of which are judged to be desirable and beneficial.” Moral therapy is when we attempt to “clean up” our lifestyle, behavior or whatever with the addition of good works and/or the suppression of sinful actions, hoping to bring about a result that is desirable or beneficial.
Maybe our life falls on tough times or maybe we discover something we really want and we think- I need to pray more, read my Bible more, quit partying and God will make things easier on me or give me want I want. It can appear incredibly self-centered or completely altruistic (self-sacrificing), but no matter what, it in essence, is bargaining with God. What it does is it takes things other then God- financial prosperity, health, relationships, family, escape from hell, self-esteem, successful church, esteem from others, freedom from guilt and places this thing as the object of our desire, and displaces God from the center of our affections (if he was ever there) and makes something else the object of our desire. It is the dark exchange written of Romans 1:25 when the truth of the God is exchanged for lie and the creature is served rather than the creator. Moral therapy sees God as a means to an end, rather than as the end- and that is blasphemy in opposition to the Gospel.

Believing that moral performance can undo wickedness, improve your life, pay back God, or satisfy God’s requirements is to not believe the Gospel, but to perpetuate folk religion. God is not (just) the means to our happiness, he is the end of our happiness. All of these errors are subtle and they’ve manipulated all of our consciences at one time or another. But, if we are truly to honor God, and find our true Remedy in him, we must root them out, and we do so with the Gospel plus nothing, minus nothing.

The Grace Narrative
As the real solution to Romans 3:23 “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” Paul writes Romans 3:24-25, “and are justified by his grace as a gift, through redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith.”

The Grace narrative is the story in which God brings a people to himself by his effort and at his expense. The Grace Narrative is the true Remedy, the Remedy of the Gospel of Jesus Christ that heals us from our sin, reunites us to our Creator, and ultimately will result in a new nature where the effects of sin are dead in the past, absent from our memories, and eternally expunged from our flesh. The Grace Narrative is not about us and what we must do, but about Jesus and what he has done.

Let’s read again Ephesians 1:3-14.

This passage of scripture is a death blow to the moral performance narrative. This is the Apostle Paul’s declaration of grace, wherein, all the effort and expenses paid are clearly carried out by God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit, and sinners such as our selves are only recipients.

You know what a preposition is? It’s a part of speech that shows position or location, either in space or in time- for example, over, under, above, in, out, before, after, through, beneath etc. In this passage of Scripture, every thing is described as the believer, the recipient of Grace, being in Christ, as the way one receives anything. This is the very core of the Grace Narrative.

v. 3 “blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing”

v. 4 “chose us in him (Jesus) before the foundation of the world”

v. 5 “he predestined us for adoption through Jesus Christ”

v. 6 “he has blessed us in the Beloved. (Jesus)”

v. 7 “In him (Jesus) we have redemption through his blood”

v. 9 “according to his (the Father) purpose, which he set forth in Christ”

v. 10 “to unite all things in him (Jesus)”

v.11 “In him we have obtained an inheritance”

v. 13 “In him you also… were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit.”

The Gospel is the working out of God’s plan in real events by which Jesus Christ accomplished something specific. “In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of trespasses, according to the riches of his grace.” (v.7) God doesn’t look to us to satisfy his requirements, he looks to his son, who stood in our place. Jesus Christ stood in the place of sinners and bore God’s punishment for sin. Redeem means to get something back by exchanging something as a ransom. The basis of the Grace Narrative is that Christ’s redeeming ransom has accomplished something. It has purchased something. And it didn’t just purchase an opportunity, but purchased a people. Our redemption is by his blood and it is effective to secure the salvation of all God sent Him to save. Jesus’ sacrifice is over, finished, unrepeatable and successful, having accomplished His mission without human assistance. No one else can or needs to pay for sin; all attempts to do so are a rejection of Christ and His sacrifice.

But not only did Christ stand in our place, but we now stand in Jesus’ place. Having been made holy and blameless, the believer receives the blessings of God lavished upon us as God the Father lavishes them upon his own son- for we are in Jesus Christ. We are adopted children, and we receive full inheritance of every spiritual blessing. And the Holy Spirit is the guarantee to that inheritance- it is the proof of that the eternal glory we hope for is there, waiting for us. The believer’s entire life is by the Spirit. God the Spirit breathes life into sinners dead in their sins, opens the eyes, the ears and the mind to hear the beauty of the Gospel, and renews our mind to understand the mystery of the Son of God. By grace it gives us the gift of faith so that we might believe and the love of God so that we might seek God and love him. And finally in the day of future glory we will acquire full possession of our inheritance- we will inherit the fullness of our glorious wealth in Christ, imperishable bodies complete without a trace of sin or its effect.

Colosians 1:13 tells us that Christ “has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.” What the Gospel does, by the power of God, is literally removes us from the narrative of moral performance and it’s dire consequences, and places us in a totally different story, the grace narrative, wherein, independent from our abilities, self-generated faith, supposed goodness, efforts and religious schemes we are transferred into the kingdom of Jesus Christ, based entirely on the wisdom, love, grace and manifold perfections of all that God is for us in Jesus Christ, for the praise of his glory. This reality is implicit in Ephesians 2:8,9 where it says “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing (your faith); not a result of works, so that no one may boast.” Which is why Paul says, “let he who boasts, boast in the Lord.” Our salvation rests not in our own hands, but in the Sovereign plan of the Lord, purposed in him so that Jesus Christ would be magnified and glorified in the laying down of his life for sinners.

Now, there is unbelief rooted in our hearts that challenges this- it seems to easy. Truthfully it is too supernatural- “can we really trust it to work like this” we wonder. We distrust the simple-ness of the Gospel and its humble nature because it requires complete reliance on a fiat miracle in our hearts; in doubt, we concoct complex works oriented schemes that revolve around our human effort- they make us feel good because we are trying so hard, they make us prideful if we believe we have succeeded as opposed to others. And in pursuit of experiential spirituality we leave the supernatural mystery of the Gospel behind. We must cling to the simple truth of the Gospel of Grace.

The Gospel of Grace, that Jesus Christ, God’s only son and the exact representation of his nature, left his estate in heaven, was born of the Virgin Mary, became flesh and dwelt among us. He knew what it was to feel pain and sorrow, joy and pleasure; he was tempted to sin and did not, he performed incredible miracles, healing the sick, raising the dead, walking on water; and he was delivered by his friend to his death. Jesus Christ the righteous one was crucified and died for sinners, and he rose again eternally triumphant over all of his enemies so that there is now no condemnation for those who believe, but only everlasting joy. That is the Gospel. I invite you tonight, if you have never believed in this Gospel, to do so.

The Shack = heresy

2008-04-03T14:48:00.000-07:00

I agree.

philosophy matters

2008-03-24T06:10:00.000-07:00

This is part of Francis Schaeffer's "How Then Shall We Live" video series entitled "The Idol of Peace and Affluence" and is undoubtedly prophetic. Considering the varying shades of what he calls "The New Left" slated to apprehend the Presidency, his words are even fuller with relevance today. Enjoy.

girls who do

2008-03-11T14:45:00.000-07:00

1 in 4 American teenage girls have an STD.

This is the legacy of the sixties progressive politics and libertine moral philosophy. It's the legacy of a President who obfuscated the meaning of th word "is" and deconstructed the word sex. It's the legacy of an American evangelical church that has marginalized true doctrine for self-help entertainment.

ICON series: Jesus, the true and better Joshua

2008-02-26T23:25:00.000-08:00

From my sermon Sunday, February 25th @ COLLIDE

There is something to this word and idea of Icon, and it’s implications by extension, that I have been processing through and really seeking to understand over the last several years. It’s an exciting topic to me- one that has magnified the glory of God and superiority of Christ in my life in how it unifies so many ideas and categories of our existence and understanding that we tend to compartmentalize, if we even explore them at all. I’m just starting to be able to understand this myself, but I hope that maybe the perspective I have developed will in some way help you to increase your love and worship of God in spirit and in truth.

I’m going to start in what is perhaps an odd and unfamiliar place for many of you and that is from the 17th Century Westminster Confession of Faith, specifically Chapter Five, which defines God’s Providence. The word providence refers primarily to God’s work of governing and sustaining all of his creation. It says that:

“God the great Creator of all things does uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least, by His most wise and holy providence, according to His infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable counsel of His own will, to the praise of the glory of His wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy.”

Now that is a lot of really heavy theological stuff, but what I want you to come away with is that God is in perfect control of all things, and nothing has transpired in history or is set to transpire in the future that is of an accidental or coincidental nature. More so, it has been purposefully and carefully directed by God in such a way that his name receives the fullest realization of praise and glory. I think, because of this truth we can see God as an infinitely brilliant artist, a writer perhaps, or poet, or painter, and having declared the end from the beginning, he has crafted a story that is infused with deep and joyous meaning. From the very least to the very greatest of objects, circumstances and people, his story flourishes not on the pages of a book, or the moving frames of a film, but in and through the lives of real people, real places, and real events that shape the course of all existence. When we can step back and began to get a picture of what this means, the Bible and it’s interaction with all of life should stagger us with the complexity and sheer beauty with which God has created us and the lives we live out every day. Understanding the extent of God’s providential governance pulls back the veneer of mundane life, it exposes life’s trials as momentary and purposeful, it reveals life’s pleasures to be but shadows compared to the intended future joys, and we see that something magical, something supernatural, is transpiring right in our midst. It is the unfolding of God’s story of redemption.

Which brings us back to this subject of Icon; we get this term Icon from Colossians 1:15 were Paul writes that Jesus is “the image of the invisible God.” He is the icon of God himself. Our English word Icon comes from the Greek eikōn and means simply "image" which is how it is used here and in 21 other places in the New Testament.

An icon is an image, picture, or representation; it is a sign or likeness that stands for an object by signifying or representing it, or by analogy. By extension, icon is also used, particularly in modern popular culture, in the general sense of symbol, such as a name, a face, a picture, a statue or even a person readily recognized as having some well-known significance or embodying certain qualities. It is when one thing, image or depiction, represents something else of greater significance through literal or figurative meaning.

So tonight we are going to be discussing Joshua as an icon, as an iconic figure or archetype. We will see how the man Joshua is an image and a depiction that represents something else of greater significance both literally and figuratively. Joshua and the things he did point us to Jesus Christ and who he was and what he has done for us. Therefore, my main thesis is this, that Jesus is the true and better Joshua.

The Hero’s Journey
First thing we are going to look at is the universal cycle of a hero so we can see how Joshua both fits into that cycle and represents something of greater significance than just the circumstances of his own existence.

In 1949, anthropologist Joseph Campbell published the book The Hero of a Thousand Faces in which he detailed the phenomena of the monomyth, or the hero cycle, with which most, if not all, heroic stories, or narratives, share their structure. The similarities of mythical structures and the common characteristics of religious stories are explained by the term “collective universal subconscious”, teaching that humanity produces, in its subconscious mind, a universal origin common to the human experience that is shared among all religions as demonstrated by the similarities of their heroes, gods, shaman, prophets and priests.

Campbell said that the cycle of the hero, or the hero’s journey, is fairly simple, falling into minimally three stages:

First is the separation, where the hero departs from one’s roots, from the normal life and into the call of adventure. Often the hero has been born under supernatural or special circumstances.

Second is the initiation, where the hero undergoes a dark period, often entering into a supernatural or unfamiliar setting, and must complete various tasks, and may endure trials or temptations.

Finally is the return, marked by the completion of a task or tasks, where the hero may be brought back to normal life, but is now able to bestow gifts on his or her people, sometimes in the form of a physical object, or an abstract gift like wisdom or freedom.

For example, we see the hero’s journey narrated in the life of Moses. It begins with the separation where Moses was born under the special circumstance of the Egyptians killing all the first born Hebrew males. His mother puts him into a river and he is taken to live in the house of the Pharoah’s daughter. The initiation transpires when Moses kills an Egyptian and flees to Midian where he encounters God in the wilderness at the burning bush. There God calls Moses to return to Egypt to deliver his people and reveals his secret name “I AM”. Moses’ return is marked by the plagues on Egypt and the delivery of the people from their oppressor. It completes all aspects of the cycle. And if we look we see the same hero’s journey repeated again and again through every single religion and pagan mythology in the history of the world, from the most primitive Native American myths to the most complex of polytheistic Hinduism; and clearly and obviously in the characters of the Old Testament and ultimately in the incarnation, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Now what of it? Campbell and those who have absorbed his teaching would say that the fact that this hero’s journey is present shows that there is a collective universal subconscious. They would extend this idea to the degree that the commonality of the hero’s journey proves that Christianity is just like every other religion- it is merely the retelling of the hero journey for a specific people at a specific time. They would say that each generation must create its own hero’s journey and that to believe in the hero as literally important or even existing is to miss the point. The fact that the lives of Moses, or Joshua, or King David demonstrate deep similarities to the events and subsequent meaning of Jesus Christ, to them, proves that the teachings of the New Testament are a fraud, the way Jesus story fit’s into the hero cycle is so perfect, it must be made up.

I think it is quite the opposite. I think it demonstrates remarkably that there isn’t a universal collective subconscious, but rather a uniform singular conscious, specifically the mind of Creator, who has imprinted on our nature, and in our imagination, a yearning for this hero cycle. Which one of us doesn’t long to be a part of this quest? What woman doesn’t want to be rescued by her knight on a white horse? What man doesn’t want to engage life with such reckless abandon that he is swept up into a story much greater then himself? This is what is imprinted on our hearts and our souls thirst for it, long for it. It is played out in every character of every book and movie- it is the thread running through every myth, legend and tale. It is imprinted on our nature, beckoning us in our deepest longings, and we play it out in our imagination over and over. It is what makes us human and what makes us a living soul.

The human imagination is the receptor for the shadows and echoes of what God left for us to desire. We readily recognize in human stories the qualities of beauty and truth that we long for. The archetype of the hero originates in God and carries His truth, even though it may be distorted in the stories of pagan gods and heroes. In the human longing for fulfillment the mind creates an image that reflects the reality we were created for. Jesus Christ’s life, death and resurrection, rather then being the enemy of the mythical heroes of pagan religions is actually the historically true fulfillment of what those myths were about.

And superior that, God is the author of the hero’s journey in the lives of real people and has foreshadowed his story time and time again through real men and women. Not only do false myths show God’s work, but factually true stories, show the providence of God working in history as a poet, constantly showing us and leading us to understand his story of the heroic redemption of his people. Joshua, the man, the warrior and prophet, points towards God’s fulfillment of that cycle in the person and work of Jesus Christ.

Wanderers No More
Joshua, son of Nun, comes of age in the time of Israel’s wandering in the desert after the Exodus from Egypt. He first appears in Exodus 17 and goes by the name Hosea, when he leads a successful counter-attack against the Amalekites, even though he is very young. After this he subsequently becomes Moses’ personal assistant and protégé. It is likely at this time that Moses gives him the name Joshua. His original name Hosea means “saves;” and the change to Joshua changes the meaning of his name to “The LORD is salvation”. Illuminating but not coincidental is the fact that Joshua is Jesus’ actual name. The Hebrew name for Joshua is Yeshua which was translated into the Greek as Iesous; which was then transliterated into the Latin Iesus, which is where we get the English pronunciation, Jesus. Jesus and Joshua share the same name, which should tell us about the significance of this man in God’s unfolding story of redemption.

In this era of Joshua’s life is where see the hero’s journey begins with separation - God’s chosen prophet Moses changes his name to accord with his future and the future of all of Israel. Joshua is also specifically appointed by Moses to take his place, as just prior to Moses’ death it says Joshua was “full of the Spirit of wisdom, for Moses had laid his hands on him.” (Deutoronomy 34:9)

Now the initiation of Joshua, where Joshua enters the dangerous land and must complete the incredible task of conquering it’s inhabitants, begins in the book of Joshua 1:1-9

“After the death of Moses the servant of the LORD, the LORD said to Joshua the son of Nun, Moses’ assistant, "Moses my servant is dead. Now therefore arise, go over this Jordan, you and all this people, into the land that I am giving to them, to the people of Israel. Every place that the sole of your foot will tread upon I have given to you, just as I promised to Moses. From the wilderness and this Lebanon as far as the great river, the river Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites to the Great Sea toward the going down of the sun shall be your territory. No man shall be able to stand before you all the days of your life. Just as I was with Moses, so I will be with you. I will not leave you or forsake you. Be strong and courageous, for you shall cause this people to inherit the land that I swore to their fathers to give them. Only be strong and very courageous, being careful to do according to all the law that Moses my servant commanded you. Do not turn from it to the right hand or to the left, that you may have good success wherever you go. This Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it. For then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have good success. Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Do not be frightened, and do not be dismayed, for the LORD your God is with you wherever you go.”

Now what I find remarkable about the initiation of Joshua is the great transition it signifies. For a generation Moses has led the people. He led their deliverance from Egypt, from where they crossed the parted Red Sea, and were led by God in a pillar of fire by night and a rain cloud by day, and fed with manna from heaven. Moses receives the Law of God and delivers it to the people. But because of their wickedness, God tells them that the whole generation will wander for 40 years. And Moses, because of a moment of anger is kept from crossing into the promise land of Canaan. The Israelites were wanderers up until this point. They had the Law, but they were disobedient, they had been delivered from their oppressor, but they had no home.

After Moses’ death, God commands Joshua to cross the Jordan to the land he has given Israel. He marks out the boundaries of the land telling him that it extends “From the wilderness and this Lebanon as far as the great river, the river Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites to the Great Sea toward the going down of the sun shall be your territory.” The LORD tells Joshua that no man will be able to stand before Joshua for the rest of his life and he will cause his people to inherit the land and that “God will be with him wherever he goes.”

So what does Joshua do? He obeys the Lord. He leads the people across the Jordan River, when God again stops the flow of water and they cross on dry land. When he gets to the other side we learn that the circumcision God has commanded as a sign of his covenant has been disobeyed and unfilled; God therefore commands Joshua that all the men be circumcised. Joshua also reinstates the Passover meal at which time the manna from heaven ceases. From this point on, through military conquest, in obedience Joshua causes the land to be taken.

Now a significant event occurs when Joshua is about to invade Jericho. It says “He lifted his eyes up, and behold, a man was standing before him with his drawn sword in his hand. And Joshua said to him, “Are you for us or our adversaries? And he said, “No; but I am the commander of the army of the LORD. Now I have come.” No? What you mean no? What does this tell us? The LORD is on his own side. The commander of the Lords Army is there to win the battle. It is not a matter God being on the side of Israel, but more of Israel being on the side of God. There are two important examples that show how God determines is righteous and who is wicked. Is it by birth and by law keeping? No, it is by faith.

This concept of salvation by faith is clearly illustrated when Joshua sends spies into Jericho, and Rahab the prostitute hides them because she says “the Lord your God, he is God in the heavens above and on the earth beneath.” Rahab is mentioned both in the lineage of Christ and in the hall of faith of Hebrews 11, where it says that “by faith Rahab the prostitute did not perish with those who were disobedient, because she had given a friendly welcome to the spies.” Interestingly, the way that the invading Israelites knew not to kill Rahab and her household was she was directed to hang a scarlet cord in the doorway of her home. Of course, scarlet in the Bible is a common symbol of Christ’s blood. But isn’t it amazing, God spares a foreign prosititute because of her faith.

On the other hand there is Achan of the tribe of Judah, he steals a beautiful cloak from the conquered enemy when God had commanded the Israelites to give all the captured treasure to the LORD. It says that “the people of Israel broke faith in regard to the devoted things.” The result, Achan was stoned and burnt alive. From the tribe of Judah, he was circumcised, and according to the law ceremonially clean to be sure, but “broke faith” when a cloak became the god of his idolatry and he served it’s purposes rather than the Lord’s.

The Bible teaches us that “faith is reckoned to us as righteousness”. It is not by birth right, when a foreign prostitute is honored by God for all of posterity, but a child of Israel is stoned and burned alive for stealing a cloak. Achan had the law and it condemned him, Rahab did not have the law, but she had faith and God showed her mercy.

Finally the hero’s journey concludes in the return, when Joshua divides up and bestows the conquered land of inheritance to the 12 tribes of Israel. He also leaves them with a gift of wisdom when he says in Joshua 24:14 “fear the Lord and serve him in sincerity and faithfulness.”

Jesus Christ is the True and Better Joshua
Now obviously the story of Joshua is about a righteous man who feared the Lord, obeyed the Lord, was strong and courageous, and had faith, and therefore conquered his enemies, fulfilling what God had commanded him to do. But if we come away from this incredible story thinking of it only as a moral lesson that we need to be righteous like Joshua, we will have missed the reason for Joshua entirely. Joshua is an Icon pointing to the hope of the Gospel- it’s not about “Me and what I should do” but about “Christ and what he has done!”

It says in Romans 8:3,4

"For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit.”

Moses represented the law. But the people, even though they had Moses, they could not enter the promise land until Moses was dead. The deeper meaning is that having the law will not gain us entry into the promise land, into the Lord’s rest. Joshua is the Icon that reveals to us that we are not our own salvation, able to deliver ourselves by our ability to follow the law, but rather “the LORD is our salvation”. Our salvation is not found in following the Law, because we can’t, but in entering into the Kingdom that God has conquered for us. The transition from Moses to Joshua points us to see the transition from a covenant of works, wherein we must follow the law, to the covenant of grace, where Christ has fulfilled the law on our behalf. Just as Joshua succeeds Moses in leading the people, the Gospel succeeds the law in leading us to God.

And as Joshua brings the people into the possession of the Promised Land, Jesus brings his people into his heavenly kingdom and eternal rest. Jesus Christ is the true and better Joshua, the commander of the Lord’s army, who conquered the land of sin and death fulfilling the law on our behalf, so that we are no longer doomed wanderers, but have been led to rest in the covenant land of grace through faith. The boundaries are defined by God’s perfect righteousness, it is a spiritual kingdom, and we are his people, his church, secured by Jesus Christ’s obedience through faith. The sign of circumcision performed after the crossing of the Jordan; has been replaced by baptism, the sign and seal of our new life in Christ and symbol of rebirth, which is also a sign of something greater to come. The Passover meal, commemorating when the angel of death passed over the first born sons of Israel during the 10th Plague, because the blood of the lamb was painted on the doorpost, has been replaced by the Lord’s Supper, the meal which we consume to signify our participation in the death of God’s first born son whom he did not pass over, but rather was the lamb that was slain, whose shed blood causes us to be passed over. And like Rahab the prostitute who in faith hung a red cord in the doorway, we are saved by our faith when we are marked with the blood of Jesus Christ. The symbolism, the imagery, it is amazing. And the Bible is so rich in it.

See the hero’s journey of Joshua is not about what you must do and how you must do it. It is about the ultimate fact that Jesus did it for you. Jesus is the true and better Joshua who leads us into rest, who has conquered the land for us, and who gives us our portion.

The book of Hebrews begins:

“Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days, he has spoken to us by his Son, who he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature.”

Long ago God spoke to his people through Icons, through the heroes of the Bible, but at last be has spoken to us by His son. Jesus Christ is God’s final word to us; he is the very Icon of God. The wisdom that leads us to life, it isn’t some abstract concept, some system of beliefs- it is a person- Jesus- or Joshua “the LORD is Salvation.” He is our hero, who has saved us.

The Gospel is the fulfillment of the hero’s journey: Jesus Christ, God’s only son and the exact representation of his nature, left his estate in heaven, was born of the Virgin Mary, became flesh and dwelt among us. He knew what it was to feel pain and sorrow, joy and pleasure; he was tempted to sin and did not, he performed incredible miracles, healing the sick, raising the dead, walking on water; and he was delivered by his friend to his death. Jesus Christ the righteous one was crucified and died for our sins, and he rose again eternally triumphant over all of his enemies so that there is now no condemnation for those who believe, but only everlasting joy. That is the Gospel.

Standing up for the Lord, KJV-Only Style

2008-02-17T17:34:00.000-08:00

To: Calvin College. ATTN School of Education

2008-01-17T15:53:00.000-08:00

The Christian school I teach at uses the ABEKA curriculum, which is published by the Christian college that gave the world the free will song. It's not surprising that their curriculum presents a ~~rabid~~ vigorous defense of their theology. That said, this 4th grade Math problem left me speechless:

Charles Finney is thought by many to be the greatest evangelist since the apostles. Of the people under his preaching who confessed salvation, 85 out of 100 remained true to God. Reduce 85/100 to lowest terms.

Category: Theoblogia

this guy rocks

2008-01-15T16:49:00.000-08:00

If the blog is a rockin, don't come a knockin.

2007-11-29T17:32:00.000-08:00

Jeremy and Allison got married in March.

I married Jessica in September.

Dave is marrying Denae in December.

Gosh, I wonder why we haven't posted for months.

Dr. James Kennedy goes home

2007-09-05T12:05:00.000-07:00

Read about it.

“Now, I know that someday I am going to come to what some people will say is the end of this life. They will probably put me in a box and roll me right down here in front of the church, and some people will gather around, and a few people will cry. But I have told them not to do that because I don’t want them to cry. I want them to begin the service with the Doxology and end with the Hallelujah chorus, because I am not going to be there, and I am not going to be dead. I will be more alive than I have ever been in my life, and I will be looking down upon you poor people who are still in the land of dying and have not yet joined me in the land of the living. And I will be alive forevermore, in greater health and vitality and joy than ever, ever, I or anyone has known before".
-D. James Kennedy, Ph.D.

is this a joke?

2007-08-27T11:42:00.000-07:00

Just read this and bask in how asinine it is. If turning the shrill up to eleven against prosperity gospel peddlers, gospel-lite church growers, and money grubbing, cloaked charlatans is upsetting to the unchurched masses...? Do the editors at Christianity in Disarray even know what the Gospel is?

*Centuri0n blogged a response to this article a coupla' weeks ago.

breakfast of champions

2007-08-20T09:38:00.000-07:00

values of the emerging conversation

2007-08-10T09:29:00.000-07:00

This is more of an abstract... just some linked random thoughts...

As I have been discovering this week (and here), much of the ethos of the emerging conversation relates to being a kinder, gentler person, and focusing on aspects of the Gospel that those in the more theologically convicted camp would call the "Social Gospel". Without depicting why those in the "conversation" have adopted this view, as it has been written about ad nauseum, I have this to say: I see little difference in the unbiblical asceticism of modernity and that of post-modernity.

We KNOW about the legalism of modern denominational and evangelical churches thank you very much. Post moderns and "emergents" have identified themselves as being accepting/tolerant/participatory of beer drinking, dressing down, tattoos, post-modern art and music, and left-wing activism. Fine, I don't hold dogma against any of those (well except the last). Many of the moral values of modernity are cultural not Biblical, but get trumpeted as absolutes. I understand the "emergent" complaint about this- but there is a fly in the ointment. I think that emergents have substituted only the content, and left the faulty presuppositions intact.

See, a lot of "emergent values" could be called post modern asceticism. Think about it. The cultural virtue of the 1950s is largely gone, and frequently mocked. Those cultural virtues have been transformed and altered over the last 50 years into the cultural values of political correctness as dictated by liberal political ideology. Tolerance, kindness, acceptance, dialog, etc, etc, these are the morals of the progressive culture, and not one's necessarily grounded in scripture, primarily being pluralistic, with an emphasis on marginalizing anything dogmatic. Emergents are so deeply attached to the progressiveness of post modern culture, they have shaped their theology around its values. It's no worse, but certainly no better, than it's predecessor.

minnesota bridge collapse

2007-08-02T16:32:00.000-07:00

Perspective

piper goes off on the prosperity gospel

2007-07-10T07:38:00.000-07:00

living with grace infused abandon

2007-07-06T08:03:00.000-07:00

I read this at a friend's blog and thought it was solid. The Pastor who wrote it seems to be an emergent/seeker friendly type, and not really my cup of tea. But, what he writes is reflective of the way I hope to live life. Which, for me, results from the influence of the Doctrines of Grace and an ever expanding realization of God's sovereignty.

Quit living as if the purpose of life is to arrive safely at death. Set God-sized goals. Pursue God-ordained passions. Go after a dream that is destined to fail without divine intervention. Keep asking questions. Keep making mistakes. Keep seeking God. Stop pointing out problems and become part of the solution. Stop repeating the past and start creating the future. Stop playing it safe and start taking risks. Expand your horizons. Accumulate experiences. Enjoy the journey. Find every excuse you can to celebrate everything you can. Live like today is the first day and the last day of your life. Don't let what's wrong with you keep you from worshiping what's right with God. Burn sinful bridges. Blaze a new trail. Criticize by creating. Worry less about what people think and more about what God thinks. Don't try to be who you're not. Be yourself. Laugh at yourself. Quit holding out. Quit holding back. Quit running away. And remember: If God is for us, who can be against us?

-Mark Batterson

why the grown ups need to be in charge

2007-07-05T05:41:00.000-07:00

The thing that separates the political left so drastically from the right is their incredible denial that radical Islam poses a threat to our survival. Some even go so far to suggest that we are the aggressors in this conflict and the Islamofacists are somehow the victims. It's our fault due to "oppressive" and "imperialistic" foreign policy that has filled these humble and reverent people with righteous indignation leading to frustrated violence. If we just capitulated more enthusiastically, all would be well. This propagandist tripe plays right into the schemes of those who don't view us through the lens of geo-politics, but theology. A reasonable question to ask is, was American foreign policy at fault when Muslim armies invaded Europe in the early 8th century?

Among the Democrat presidential field there appears a mad dash to be the most amorous towards the enemy. The vapid and intellectually bankrupt John Edwards has gone as far to say that the "war on terror" is nothing but a bumper sticker slogan and isn't really happening as the administration claims. We don't need war, we need a "conversation", they say. Bleh. Following last weeks terror acts in the UK the only sound emanating from the Dems was crickets chirping. Conversation... not so much.

Read this article penned by a man who was once a terrorist and confirms that which the left wishes to deny. The left's entire paradigm is based in an alternate reality and this guy proves it.

And fascinatingly, it's not a bunch of ignorant, folk Islam, yokels behind the most recent terrorist plots exposed, but doctors!

Our enemy is at war, and we need to be too.

(pay attention this weekend: 7-7-07)

Newtonian Eschatology

2007-06-19T10:37:00.000-07:00

When commenting on the Apocalypse (which, interestingly, he thought would be in 2060 AD) Sir Isaac Newton had something to say to the LaHayes and Robertsons of his day:

"This I mention not to assert when the time of the end shall be, but to put a stop to the rash conjectures of fanciful men who are frequently predicting the time of the end, and by doing so bring the sacred prophesies into discredit as often as their predictions fail."

PCA Report Aftermath and Fallout

2007-06-14T20:51:00.000-07:00

Well, judging by the reaction in the Federal Vision blogosphere, I'd say that FV folks aren't taking yesterday's events too well. Of all things, I'd say that FV reminds me most of Paris Hilton. No matter how much misfortune, indignity, and dishonor befalls it, FV has an uncanny way of maintaining an invincible, smug self-confidence amidst it all. There seems to be no averting FV's high self-estimation. But at least we can say that FV is not just famous for being famous.

If my bizarre illustration doesn't resonate with you, please consider, then, the more serious words of Jim Cassidy:

I've read some of the responses already by FVers. And quite frankly, I am surprised. They are disappointed, but there is no sign among them that perhaps they might be wrong. Brothers, the vast majority of the Reformed church in America has said that the FV is out of accord with the Westminster Standards. Does that not at least give you some pause? I mean, if my brothers spoke so loudly and in such unison to me about my views on a given issue, I would be trembling. Maybe I am weak in my nerves, but when the corporate body of Christ speaks with such unison, I am humbled.

Look, none of us FV critics are throwing a catered party over this matter (OK, maybe I was tempted to) because we don't take these matters lightly, but it would be nice to see the FV do something besides shrug off this development and immediately begin planning their next ecclesiastical survival tactic.

If things continue the way they have, FV will be exiled from the NAPARC churches, at which point it will be hard for FV to have any Reformed street cred. If so, FV will more aptly resemble the Black Knight from Monty Python's Holy Grail, exclaiming "it's just a flesh wound!" after all of its limbs have been chopped off. At this point, Paris Hilton's self-image will seem rather reasonable in contrast.

Another voice whom FV sympathizers should have listened to with some care and heeded as a bright, dazzling red flag is that loveable Romanist apostate who taught us all how to laugh, how to cry, and how to swim the Tiber with the help of FV theology:

The PCA has essentially told the Federal Vision adherents that they are not welcome in the PCA denomination and that their beliefs are contrary to the denomination's theological commitments. If the Federal Visionists seriously trusted their ecclesiology and believed that the PCA was a valid Church, they would submit to the ruling. I doubt they will. I predict a split, a new denomination, or a defection to Douglas Wilson's homegrown denomination.

He had previously remarked:

younger Presbyterians will gravitate toward what the Federal Vision offers. Many will sink their teeth into it and many will find it wanting. Many will discover that the Catholic Church is their true home, and many will discover her in a great moment of joy. This Federal Vision is really only a peek into the keyhole of the Catholic Church. The Federal Visionist has a vision of the beautiful things inside, but they have not yet appreciated the warmth of a true home.

HT: Dr. Scott Clark

Peter Leithart registers his disagreements and quibbles with the Report's declarations here. It is hard for honest people to think that the Report was "slandering" FV and didn't hit its mark when we see reactions like this. Clearly these reports are striking some real, not imaginary nerves. To this I would add the vociferous objections of James Jordan against the recently-published Mid-America Reformed Seminary Report (claiming it incorporates "pagan thought").

Dr. Clark has a worthy discussion concerning FVs future in my denomination, the United Reformed Church.

To say that my classis (Classis Southwest) has been zealous against Federal Vision-related errors is an understatement, but I do wonder if our orthodoxy is as prevelant and unanimous in other classis' (or is it classes?) in the URC federation. Our Synod is coming up in just a few more weeks, and I'll have more to say about it in the days to come.

Category: Theoblogia

The Federal Vision Just Got Owned. Again.

2007-06-14T00:48:00.000-07:00

Praise be to God for the good work He has granted today, through the PCA's General Assembly, that adopted the PCA's REPORT OF AD INTERIM STUDY COMMITTEE ON FEDERAL VISION, NEW PERSPECTIVE, AND AUBURN AVENUE THEOLOGY. For those who have been following the Federal Vision Theology (FV), this is consistent with its track record in just the last year:

1. Last year the OPC General Assembly adopted the Report critical of the Federal Vision, which rejected FV as being compatible with the Westminster Standards.

2. The Synod of Bible Presbyterian Church adopted a resolution to reject FV.

3. The RCUS rejected FV in their report.

4. Just a few weeks ago, Mid-America Reformed Seminary published a statement against the Federal Vision doctrines.

The PCA, being the super-hip and technological denomination they are, have webcast their GA. Please check out the proceedings on the Federal Vision Report. You'll find good debate in there, along with R.C. Sproul at his best! Dr. Scott Clark recaps the proceedings on his blog here.

My brother Lane Keister/GreenBaggins commented on the development here, calling it a Triumph of the Gospel:

The motion was defeated by about a two to one majority. The recommendations themselves passed by approximately 95%. Indeed, that is probably a conservative estimate. It was a resounding triumph for the study committee report.

Tim Wilder made a pertinent comment at Lane's blog about the matter concerning Joel Garver's response to the Report's adoption:

Garver is already pooh-poohing the vote:

“The report is merely commended as useful and the nine declarations should be pretty innocuous for anyone ordained in the PCA.”

What these guys mean is that are going to force long, painful judicial processes everywhere, fighting every step, causing maximum damage on their way out of the PCA.

In response, Doug Wilson gave a fairly gracious response. This, however, is somewhat undercut by the implicit assumption that the PCA delegates couldn't read a 36-page report. He condescendingly stated:

If Christ can tell us to bless those who despitefully use us, then how much more should we be able to see our way to bless brothers in Christ who thought they were doing nothing more than affirming sola fide?

Um, the Report said a bit more than that. And this comes on the heels of Wilson's disgusting arrogance (quoting his son-in-law) toward presbyterian FV critics:

The Reformed always managed to be orthodox and intellectually engaging. But with the death of Falwell and the retirement of that generation of evangelicalism, it seems like our presbyterians, with their willful ignorance on the FV issue, are shifting over to take the place of orthodox shallow thinkers. If that happens it is going to leave a real vacuum for orthodox believers looking for challenging thinkers.

Oh, yes, if only we could all be like those sophisticated, erudite folks from Moscow, ID and Monroe, LA, (BTW, can someone remind me where Doug Wilson and Rich Lusk went to seminary, I can't seem to recall) since apparently the army of folks who actually pastor in confessionally-reformed denominations and have doctorates (like Ligon Duncan, R.C. Sproul, Robert Godfrey, Guy Waters, Gary Johnson, Joseph Pipa, R. Fowler White, Calvin Beisner, Robert Reymond, George Knight, Mike Horton, Scott Clark, T. David Gordon, David VanDrunen, etc.)are too dense and shallow to understand the glories of the Federal Vision theology.

On Wilson's blog, someone suggested that the PCA Report had made slanderous accusations against the Federal Vision proponents:

The implicit assertion that the FV writers deny the 9 declarations is effectively a violation of the 9th Commandment not to bear false witness.

To which I responded:

Gosh, where could they have gotten that idea? [Steve Wilkins wrote:]

The reprobate may be in covenant with God. They may enjoy for a season the blessings of the covenant, including the forgiveness of sins, adoption, possession of the kingdom, sanctification, etc., and yet apostatize and fall short of the grace of God.

But the Report stated:

The view that an individual is “elect” by virtue of his membership in the visible church; and that this “election” includes justification, adoption and sanctification; but that this individual could lose his “election” if he forsakes the visible church, is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

The view that water baptism effects a “covenantal union” with Christ through which each baptized person receives the saving benefits of Christ’s mediation, including regeneration, justification, and sanctification, thus creating a parallel soteriological system to the decretal system of the Westminster Standards, is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

[And Rich Lusk wrote:]

Final justification, however, is according to works. This pole of justification takes into account the entirety of our lives -- the obedience we’ve performed, the sins we’ve committed, the confession and repentance we’ve done

But the Report states:

The view that justification is in any way based on our works, or that the so-called “final verdict of justification” is based on anything other than the perfect obedience and satisfaction of Christ received through faith alone, is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

Category: Theoblogia

shocking news?

2007-06-08T05:08:00.000-07:00

Nikola Tesla was doing this over a hundred years ago.

what is the gospel we preach?

2007-06-04T05:34:00.000-07:00

From J.I Packer's introduction to The Death of Death in the Death of Christ by John Owen

According to the Scripture, preaching the gospel is entirely a matter of proclaiming to men, as truth from God which all are bound to believe and act on, the following four facts:

(1.) that all men are sinners, and cannot do anything to save themselves;

(2.) that Jesus Christ, God's Son, is a perfect Saviour for sinners, even the worst;

(3.) that the Father and the Son have promised that all who know themselves to be sinners and put faith in Christ as Savior shall be received into favor, and none cast out (which promise is "a certain infallible truth, grounded upon the superabundant sufficiency of the oblation of Christ in itself, for whomsoever (few or more) it be intended" (J. Owen));

(4.) that God has made repentance and faith a duty, requiring of every man who hears the gospel "a serious full recumbency and rolling of the soul upon Christ in the promise of the gospel, as an all-sufficient Saviour, able to deliver and save to the utmost them that come to God by him, ready, able and willing, through the preciousness of his blood and sufficiency of his ransom, to save every soul that shall freely give themselves unto him for that end." (J.Owen)

AMEN.

C.S. Lewis, Mythology and Reality

2007-05-16T19:24:00.000-07:00

The heart of man is not compound of lies,
But draws some wisdom from the only wise,
And still recalls Him.
-JRR Tolkien, Mythopoeia

The great 20^th century Oxford Professor of Medieval and Renaissance Literature, Christian apologist, lay theologian and author, C.S. Lewis, was also (IMHO) the greatest modern mind to study and elucidate the unique qualities of the particular type of story commonly called myth. Not to be lumped in with legend, a type of story rooted in a true event that as ages pass by is embellished with fantastic details and impossibilities. Or fairy tales and folk tales that seek to impart moral lessons of virtue and vice. Myth is an imaginative story born from the poetic mind to impress on the senses the truth about reality. Myth results from man’s attempt to understand the phenomena of nature and the world he lives, in light of the eternity written on his heart. Whilst Mythology writer Edith Hamilton, and modern mythology scholar Joseph Campbell would claim that myth merely was an early form of science melded with art, C.S. Lewis would say it is much more than that; myth is the exercise of human imagination reaching for the Creator who transcends, yet is immanent in his creation.

Prof. Lewis describes six characteristics of literature that make a myth:

It is extra-literary, or independent of the words used. Mythology is not a literary style; it is not a specific form of poem, book, or essay. It is an image that carries with it a meaning that touches human experience and longing.
The pleasure of myth does not depend on literary devices such like suspense or surprise. The mere existence of the stories image is what one finds enjoyment in. Creative plot is not an important function. In some myths, it is clear from the beginning what is going to occur; in fact in many cases, the exact end of a character is revealed before the story is even underway.
Our sympathy with the character is minimal. We do not identify specifically with the character. They are like shadows moving along a wall. We are not sad or joyful for the individual character, but their tragedy or triumph is something we understand and react to.
Myth is always fantastic and deals with impossibilities and the preternatural. Myths reside in a world where the uncommon occurs. The natural order of the world and the universe are constantly subverted and changed by the powerful influences of its supernatural inhabitants.
Though the experience may be sad or joyful, it always is grave and never comic. There is never humor for the sake of being funny. The experience of myth leaves the feeling that we have encountered something solemn.
The experience is not only grave, but awe inspiring. We feel as if something of great importance has been communicated to us. We recognize that whatever it was, it was much greater than ourselves. We somehow know that the facts we believe to be true, though not wrong, are somehow incomplete to the way things actually are.

Secular mythologists would claim that mythology is the result of ancient man observing the facts and building up the story upon them. As time progressed, simple and crude myths became more elegant and complex, constantly reappearing in higher, more organized forms. Jesus Christ is immortalized in legend as a god that dies and comes back to life, because the concept was copied from less ordered myths about corn gods or gods of the harvest, who die in the fall and are reborn again in the spring. The secularist sees the search for religious significance as growth upward from the simple answers of mythology. C.S. Lewis says that this is the modernist assumption that higher things are always copies of lower things. Much like Darwinian evolution, where more complex life forms have evolved from lower life forms, the secularist claims that Christianity, along with other great religions, is simply myth evolved into a higher form.

On the contrary Lewis would demonstrate that lower things are copies of higher things. Mankind exists as the main example of this. We are made in God’s image. We are a copy of an infinitely higher being. Though the communicable attributes of God are present in mankind, mankind is not God and never will be. Likewise the pagan myths are true in as much as they are copies of the complete truth. The pagan myths though not true in historical reality, are nonetheless the distorted reflection of a higher reality.

We discover then, that the heart of Christianity is a myth which is also a fact. “By becoming a fact it does not cease to be a myth. God is more than a god, not less. Jesus is more than Balder not less,” Lewis says. Jesus Christ’s life, death and resurrection, rather then being the enemy of the mythical heroes of paganism is actually the historically true fulfillment of what those myths were about. The pagan myths give us a glimpse into what was really meant to satisfy our longing as humans. Pagan myths do not disprove Christianity, but reveal that pagan people received a glimpse of truth and reality prior to it becoming fact. One finds truth expressed in pagan myths that are the echoes of God himself.

The human imagination is the receptor for the shadows and echoes of what God left for us to desire. We readily recognize in human stories the qualities of beauty and truth that we long for. The patterns of mythology originate in God and carry part of His truth, even though it is often distorted. Mankind longs for the beauty embodied in myth that cannot be complete in this world. The fulfillment of that longing is what Lewis calls joy. “If I find in myself a desire in which no experience in the world can satisfy, then the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world. If none of my earthly pleasures satisfy it; that does not prove that the universe is a fraud. Probably earthly pleasures where never meant to satisfy it, but only arouse it, to suggest the real thing.” So then, says Lewis, if we are made in Gods image, and cannot exist apart from him, then it would make sense that we have a craving for this very joy that is beyond all earthly satisfactions. The imagination therefore reflects this truth. In its longing for fulfillment it creates an image that reflects the reality we were created for.

C.S. Lewis also claimed that it is right that other religions possess truth. The similarities or parallels that other religions contain should not alarm Christians. In fact, according to Lewis, we should be alarmed if they didn’t. It is the similarities that demonstrate the divine origin that humanity shares. All the great religions possess the truth to some extent, but they do not have the complete truth. The pagan myth contains some truth; that is why as humans we find momentary satisfaction in the images they present. But the Christian myth is a factually true myth. It contains the complete truth and provides lasting and complete fulfillment, or joy. Lewis says that “the story of Christ is a true myth: a myth working on us the same way as the others, but with a tremendous difference that it really happened”. Other religions are made up of men’s myths, generally revealed by God in the minds of poets. Christianity is God’s myth. God’s special revelation expressed through real things. Pagan myth seeks an answer, but God’s myth is the answer.

passing of an era

2007-05-15T13:50:00.000-07:00

Jerry Falwell is dead. If you know me, you know I have strong distaste for some of the things he espoused. Nevertheless, he shepherded his people the best he could and preached the Kingdom without wavering. I rejoice with him as he is now basking in the marvelous light of the Savior.

UPDATE: Frank Turk has a thought to think.

And: Doug Wilson pays his respects.

Christianty Today does something productive...

2007-05-08T10:33:00.000-07:00

... for once, by hosting a debate between Douglas Wilson and Christopher Hitchens. I'm surprised that CT choose to involve a real theologian, rather than a Hybels, Warren or Osteen(!).

for glory and beauty, imperishable

2007-05-05T12:28:00.000-07:00

"When old age shall this generation waste,
Thou shalt remain, in midst of other woe
Than ours, a friend to man, to whom thou say’st,
“Beauty is truth, truth beauty,”—that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know."
(John Keats, Ode on a Grecian Urn)

Beauty is defined as the quality of something that brings “delight to the sense or mind”. In this post I am hoping to touch on how (post &) modern Christian culture has pretty much given away the intrinsic value BEAUTY to subjectivity in a way that leaves appreciation or scrutiny to mere preference. There is such a thing as absolute beauty, or in other words, aesthetic perfection, and as Christians we need to care about it.

If part of our chief end as human beings is to enjoy God forever (and it is), then we are to delight in Him by embracing his manifold perfections with intellectual fervor that evidences a renewed mind. This mind renewed by the Spirit should effectively transform us to discern true ideas that are good, acceptable and perfect. But, it likewise follows that we should delight in Him through our senses, by experiencing the manifold joy of the fullness of God and enjoying the riches of his creative perfections through touch, taste, smell, sight, and hearing.

Food, drink, visual art, poetry, music, architecture, story, the human form, all of these physical realities exist at the pleasure of the created order of God. Whether the residue of God’s fingerprints are undeniably clear or smudged and muted by the impacts of sin, the collected works of humanities’ creative abilities are shadows of the Ultimate. In part the Christian act of worship is joyful discernment of the good, acceptable and perfect qualities intrinsic to the essence of that which is expressed in art, culture and life.

What I am NOT talking about is creating a Christian equivalent of what the world offers. The activity of (post &) modern evangelical Christianity has a history of pursuing all sorts of sensual delights in a hopelessly lame way. (I once attended a church that now boasts the church feels “just like your favorite coffee shop”) I think it's fair to say that a large portion of American Evangelicalism has anchored the Gospel to a pathetic and kitsch subculture that is running away into complete banality and irrelevance. As long as Christians think that "changing the culture" means accepting the popular culture, and stripping away the “bad stuff” (alchol, nudity, curse words, Democrat politics, etc.), the mission objective will perpetuate Christianized worldliness. “Changing the culture" needs to be about wholesale swapping out of world views- "Spirit of the age" for the "Spirit of Christ.” The contrary results of post-modern and modern evangelicalism betray confused presuppositions about almost all aspects of theology.

This mentality has pursued intellectual delight and sensual delight to much the same end. Anti-intellectual theology and sloppy, topical and anthropocentric preaching have produced cheap grace or legalism and hordes of milk fed Christians, incapable of connecting their fraudulent presuppositions and values to the world around them. To steal in plain daylight from Doug Wilson, if a deep, thoughtful, God exalting, Christ centered personal faith is rich, hardwood, the faith of the masses is mobile home grade wood veneer. In an effort to sell church, a church sells out. It capitulates on hard teachings so controversy doesn’t send people packing, or needlessly bore the goats in the crowd who are just there to punch in to the religion time clock.

BUT, to their credit, in the midst of this doctrinal squishiness, moral relativism has been nearly always resisted. HOWEVER, the blind acceptance of aesthetic relativism and its snaggle-toothed offspring “pop culture", has given way to trite and unimaginative faux-culture that's always a step behind the world, soap and sponge in hand. Like Brittany Spears, Tickle Me Elmo, or OP shorts, its popularity is disposable. Loss of the ability to produce and appreciate things that pass the test of true beauty (transcendence and longevity) is evidence of jejune ecclesiology and the over-arching rejection of epistemic certainty and God-centeredness.

Absolute truth and moral ethic are championed by most conservative evangelicals, but aesthetic absolutes deemed impossible. Citing that “it’s what’s on the inside that counts”, or blithely accepting that “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” somehow the Biblical fact God made a physical world, and it was good, is overlooked. It is as if an odd type of Gnosticism has crept in. Instead of denouncing all that is physical as evil, it despises the value of true beauty with ambivalence.

Not all of Christendom has failed in this area. But it is something that has shackled the mission of much of the American church to the rise and fall of worldly whims. Of course there is the error to the other extreme of worshiping beautiful things. Idolatry is still idolatry whether the icon is beautiful or ugly. We should be motivated to worship God when enraptured by beautiful things. We are in awe of Michelangelo’s brush strokes on the Sistine Chapel, but remember God made Michelangelo.

For those of us fed on the stale bread of aesthetic relativism, meaningful appreciation of beauty in art, culture and life seems daunting and elusive. Learning to appreciate true beauty can mean the painful letting go of comfortable preferences. It could be likened to the world shattering pangs as one is wrested away from the autonomous fog of untutored spiritual youth, and into the glorious doctrines of grace. The Scripture is not silent on the value and qualities of beauty, any less then it is on the sovereignty of God. As we must cast aside our preconceived false beliefs, we must also cast aside our flesh taught aesthetic sensualities, and in both strive to long for what is good, acceptable and perfect.

Owen on the outcome of sin management

2007-05-05T09:58:00.000-07:00

"Through lack of acquaintance with the mystery of the gospel and the efficacy of the death of Christ, they have imposed a system of self-wrought mortification on the necks of their disciples which neither they nor their forefathers were ever able to bear. The mortification they press is not suitable to the gospel in nature or effect, and regularly has the deplorable outcome of producing superstition, self-righteousness and anxiety of conscience in those who take their teaching up." (John Owen, The Mortification of Sin, p. viii)

dude...

2007-05-02T12:14:00.000-07:00

"The cavity created by ignorance is always filled with falsehood."

-John Piper from My Kinsman Are Accursed Part 1

sheep in poodle's clothing

2007-04-27T15:03:00.000-07:00

You're not going to believe this ...

rights for little women

2007-04-25T12:29:00.000-07:00

Pastor John Piper blogs on the SCOTUS partial birth abortion decision.

In light of the VT Massacre

2007-04-24T06:26:00.000-07:00

In the wake of tragedies such as 9/11 or Hurricane Katrina, as a teacher and pastor I've been challenged by young people to articulate an apologetic in defense of the concept of a loving, omnipotent God. Unfortunately, the most vocal of American church culture has skittered far off the trail of orthodoxy due to the ill effects of humanism, rationalism, and skepticism. This is most clearly illustrated in the anthropomorphous doctrine of God and deified doctrine of man preached from pulpits. In search for authenticity, today's youth quickly dismiss the ready made answers of shallow, untutored faith that gloss over the stunning implications of a creation that is in revolt against the moral order. Contrary to the unbiblical philosophical current, the fight must be waged to protect and advance a true doctrine of God that affirms His Sovereign purposes for the magnification of His Glory. It is to this end, the Glory of God, that all creation exists, and until we reckon ourselves to this truth, the answers of superficial spirituality will come back void.

Jesus, when asked why tragedy struck some and not others, didn't give a quaint answer. He didn't dish out smarmy platitudes intended to make people feel better. He instead responded with harsh reality, "I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish."(Luke 13:1-5) In other words, no human deserves a peaceful end to life. It is by God's grace alone we haven't had similar God ordained calamity visited upon us- and there is no guarantee that the future holds otherwise. So be ready.

The links below articulate a position that I think, though at odds with the "mainstream", elevate true Christian doctrine and magnify Christ as the Sovereign ruler of this universe. The first is text of a sermon by John Piper that paints Christ as Supreme in the midst of general suffering. The second is an mp3 file by John MacArthur, wherein he addresses the VT Massacre directly on his "Grace to You" radio program. The third was written by Frank Turk (aka the affable CenturiOn and contributor to Pyromaniacs), it extracts the truth of the Gospel from the meaning of this tragic event. The fourth is a sermon preached by me.

By His Grace, Garet

1. John Piper's The Supremacy of Christ in the Age of Terror

2. Listen to John MacArthur

3. Frank Turk's Just Like Me

4. My sermon How Do We Respond When Life Hurts?

God is sovereign at Virginia Tech

2007-04-23T17:52:00.000-07:00

I preached this as a sermon March 22nd, 2006 to group of high school kids and young adults. Truth be told I was emerging from the most testing experience of my life. As I am preparing a short post on my thoughts regarding the VT massacre last week, this sermon came to mind. It is NOT a comprehensive treatise on the subject. Nor is the prose as clear and ordered as I'd like. In fact, it is mostly just a slightly fleshed out outline that I’ve slightly edited for blogging format. Regardless, I believe what I write here is true, as opposed to the religious escapism offered by much of evangelicalism. My desire is to foster a stalwart hope in the immutable purposes of God.

How Do We Respond When Life Hurts?

Life hurts. Sometimes it hurts so badly it overwhelms everything else. Physical pain manifests in the way of disease and sickness, natural disasters and accidents. And the thing is oftentimes it is the “innocent” who suffer most. Emotional pain is something that everybody lives with in varying degrees. Really this is the pain we hate the most. Probably the biggest bringer of emotional pain in American culture today is the impact of divorce on the family. To many kids get caught between feuding people unable to endure their commitment. When someone dies we feel pain- that sense of loss that perhaps a life that we needed (like a parent) or that we loved (like a child or friend) is gone. Suffering is real and it manifests in a variety of forms. Here is an example of evil that results in suffering, one that I pulled fresh off the internet this afternoon.

N.Korean defector says disabled newborns are killed
By Jack Kim
SEOUL (Reuters) - North Korea has no people with physical disabilities because they are killed almost as soon as they are born, a physician who defected from the communist state said on Wednesday.
Ri Kwang-chol, who fled to the South last year, told a forum of rights activists that the practice of killing newborns was widespread but denied he himself took part in it.
"There are no people with physical defects in North Korea," Ri told members of the New Right Union, which groups local activists and North Korean refugees.
He said babies born with physical disabilities were killed in infancy in hospitals or in homes and were quickly buried.
The practice is encouraged by the state, Ri said, as a way of purifying the masses and eliminating people who might be considered "different."
The group urged the South Korean government to change course away from "silent diplomacy" and immediately begin taking action to pressure the North to improve its human rights record.
The South Korean government has refused to join international condemnation of human rights abuses in the North out of concern that such a move could rattle ties with Pyongyang, which considers any criticism of its human rights as deeply offensive.
"The government should stop trying to avoid upsetting Kim Jong-il," said another defector, Kim Young-sun, 67, referring to the North Korean leader. "It should try to upset Kim Jong-il," she said, adding it would be the best way to change the North.
Kim Young-sun is a survivor of the North's Yodok prison camp, notorious for its forced labor and life-sentences for people charged with conspiring against the Kim Jong-il leadership.
Mun Hyon-ok said women from her hometown in the northern region of North Korea bordering China were taken by a ring of human traffickers and probably ended up in China.
"And there are women who are selling themselves for a handful of rice," she told the forum.
North Korea has called itself a people's paradise and said criticism of its human rights was motivated by a goal of toppling the leadership of Kim Jong-il.
South Korea has come under fire from human rights groups and some countries for abstaining in votes on U.N. measures to condemn the North's human rights record.

This is taking place today, in our world.

So we find ourselves in a paradoxical situation. Here we are as Christians bringing forth a message of hope and salvation, yet so many people have a hard time seeing the possibility of God through the mire of their own strife. In fact, the most common argument for atheism and against Christianity and a belief in God in general is the problem of pain. The atheist says, “The world is full of pain and suffering, either God is an evil torturer, or He doesn’t exist.”

We must be ready to answer that. We can’t blame the devil; and we can’t blame each other, because ultimately God has created this universe. To suggest that human freedom or the devils schemes are the ultimate cause of suffering is to usurp God of his authority as God. It is to say that the universe is chaotic and out of control, and all he can do is react and try and fix it. We cannot allow such a belittling doctrine of God to take root in our hearts for this is not who the Bible says God is. God is unchanging, all-knowing, all-powerful, wise, just, loving and good. Therefore, we must search the scriptures and see how these attributes of God are to be reconciled with the reality of the universe that objectively brings misery into people’s lives seemingly without discrimination.

To understand suffering Biblically is to undergo an entire shift in attitude. It is to recognize one's self as a small and humble, and recognize that God’s main purpose in creating is to demonstrate the fullest measure of his glory. We must realize that the Gospel message does not just save our souls, but it saves our minds, bringing us to right understanding of God and his plan for human history.

Suffering is purposed by God
In one of his famous WWII radio addresses to the British people, C.S. Lewis said the following “Pain is God’s megaphone to rouse a deaf world.” This is not a concept that Prof. Lewis invented independent of orthodoxy. Scripture teaches that God decrees the evil acts of man and the calamities of the natural world to accomplish his purposes, namely, that his glory might be known.

In Isaiah 45:6-8, God speaks. “I am the Lord, and there is no other, besides me there is no God; I equip you, though you do not know me, that people may know, from the rising of the sun and from the west, that there is none beside me; I am the Lord, and there is no other. I form light and create darkness, I make well being and create calamity, I am the Lord, who does all these things.”

The Apostle Paul articulated this reality well. In Romans 9:17, he explains that God hardened the heart of Pharoah against the people of Israel, writing “For the very purpose I have raised you up, that I might be proclaimed in all the earth.”

The Cross: Climax of Human History
The mind should marvel at the reality that all of human history is an epic story God has written with purposed intent, namely the magnification his glory. The crucifixion of “God with us” is the central theme and climax of existence itself. The cross is where the magnitude of God’s righteousness poured out wrath and burning hatred on sin, and the infinite depth of his mercy and loving kindness for his people, culminated simultaneously for the purpose of the praise of his glory. Jesus nailed to the cross is in the most evil act in the history of the world, yet it was God’s ultimate goal decreed in eternity past. What man had intended for evil, God intended for good.

Isaiah 46:81-13 “Remember this and stand firm, recall it to mind, you transgressors, remember the former things of old; for I am God and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying “My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose calling a bird of prey from the east, the man of my counsel from a far country. I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass; I have purposed and I will do it. Listen to me, you of stubborn heart, you who are far from righteousness; it is not far off, and my salvation will not delay; I will put salvation in Zion, for Israel my glory.”

The Suffering Christian: Discipline for the one God loves
God disciplines those whom he loves, so sometimes he is using suffering to get our attention back on him when it isn’t. He molds us and shapes us into the likeness of Christ with the events of our life.

Hebrews 12:5-6 “My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord, nor be weary when reproved by him. For the Lord disciplines the one he loves and chastises every son whom he receives.”

Romans 5:3-5 teaches that suffering is to be celebrated as a joyful thing. Why? Because, God in his love disciplines us for our sanctification; in Phippians Paul reminds us that we “have been granted for Christ’s sake… to suffer.” From this suffering three things derive that are essential for a Christ exalting life unto the glory of God.

Perserverence. Or, the steady persistence in adhering to a course of action, a belief, or a purpose; steadfastness. When God stretches our faith to the breaking point, the result is a greater capacity to endure.

Proven Character. Or, the experience of being tested and approved. When we respond to trials with persevervence it demonstrates the surety of salvation in Christ, for how we respond to trials proves that (in Christ) we have the strength to endure.

Hope. Or, the Christ exalting confidence that God is in ultimate control. He is working out his perfect plan despite circumstances that throw our lives into perceived chaos. This is why faith is “the assurance of things hoped for.”

In Summation
The Westminster Confession states, “The chief end of man is to love God and enjoy him forever.” I’ve heard it said that the most righteous deed in this life is to value most that which is most valuable. It should be obvious therefore, that anything that would deliver us from crippling idolatry and free us from self occupied myopia, drive us to our knees and focus us on the glory of God himself, is to be embraced and proclaimed. We must reckon the suffering and evil in this world for what is- the working out of God’s purposes for his glory and our joy.

“Momentary, light affliction is producing in us an eternal weight of glory far beyond all comparison, while we look not at the things which are seen; for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal.” II Corinthians 4:17-18

I'm back

2007-04-23T15:25:00.000-07:00

You probably didn't know I was gone, but I was. And a lot has happened since I last posted here. I will post in great length some time soon on the journey of the last two years. It could be said that I've learned Romans 5:3-5 through experience, and I hope to articulate for your edification, the deeper knowledge of Christ it wrought in me.

I do have several other posts in the queue, so be sure to check back frequently.

By His Grace,
Garet

The Federal Vision: Fitting Its Square Peg Into a Round Hole

2007-04-13T01:11:00.000-07:00

In this post I want to supplement my effort in the previous post to demonstrate that the Federal Vision's (FV) conception of the visible/invisible church distinction is foreign to the Reformed tradition by going beyond the Reformed confessions previously cited.

Various Reformed advocates, expositors, historians, and commentators have seen the invisible church to exist on the earth, in the present (at the very least in part, if not in whole), and not solely in the future. Some pre-date the Westminster Confession, and others are later yet trustworthy theologians and historians who can cast light onto the traditional Reformed doctrine of the church with some authority.

The Invisible Church According to Protestant Theologians and Historians, from Ursinus to the Present

Ursinus' view is important (especially if the reader consults the Objections he considers subsequent to the discussion below), considering that he is a powerful representative of the continental Reformed view, proving that the doctrine of the invisible church is not peculiar to the British/Westminsterian view of the church:

The church militant [that is, here on earth-DG] is either visible, or invisible....

The invisible church consists of those who are chosen unto eternal life, who are also regenerated, and belong to the visible church. It lies concealed in the visible church, during the whole of the struggle, and conflict which is continually going on in this world between the kingdom of light and darkness. It is likewise called the church of the saints. Those who belong to this church never perish ; neither are there any hypocrites in it; for it consists only of such as are chosen unto eternal life of whom it is said [quotes John 10:28 and 2 Timothy 2:19]. It is called invisible, not that the men who are in it are invisible, but because the faith and piety of those who belong to it can neither be seen, nor known, except by those who possess it; and also because we cannot with certainty distinguish the godly from those who are hypocrites in the visible church.

And it is of this universal invisible church of which this article of the Creed properly speaks, saying I believe in the Holy Catholic Church. These properties are also attributed with great propriety to the church, because it is holy, and because it is here that we find the true communion of the saints with Christ, and all his members. The difference which exists between the visible and invisible church is very nearly the same as that which exists between the whole and a part; for the invisible church is concealed in the visible, as a part in the whole

Zacharius Ursinus, Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, pgs. 286-288

And Turretin comments:

For the invisible church.

(a) it is taken for the mystical body of Christ constantly and intimately united to him as its head according to eternal election and efficacious calling….This is the catholic church which we acknowledge in the Creed. It may be regarded either universally and all together (kath’ holou) with respect to the whole multitude of believers (of which it is composed of whatever place and time) or particularly and as to its parts (kata meros)(now concerning that which reigns gloriously with Christ in heaven; then concerning this which labors and pursues its journey in the world and inasmuch as it is distributed into various particular churches which are designated by the same name as the whole).

Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 18.2.7

Although the entirety of Turretin's treament of the 7th question of the 18th topic (18.7) supports the present reality of the invisible church, we will just cite a portion of it:

II. The true origin of the controversy must be sought from this – that from the beginning of the Reformation the Romanists disputed from the Scriptures against Luther and others concerning indulgences, justification and human satisfactions (concerning which the controversy was at first carried on) and since they could not easily extricate themselves, they wished to drag them to the tribunal of the church that these questions might be decided by her dictation. They did not recognize any other church than the visible assembly externally professing faith (consisting of bishops, clergy and others, over whom the pope presided as head). But Luther was not only unwilling to allow this, but denied also that such either are or ought to be called the church. The true church was not to be measured by an external profession or subjection to the Roman pontiff, but by faith and internal piety alone (which cannot fall under the senses). Bellarmine acknowledges this: “Luther in book 4 of his De servo arbitrio since Erasmus had objected to him that it was incredible that God had deserted his church for so long a time, answered, God had never deserted his church, but that is not the church of Christ, which si commonly so called, i.e., the pope and the bishops; but the church is the certain few pious persons whom he preserves as remnants” (“De Ecclesia Militante,” 3.11* Opera [1857], 2:94). Hence arose the question concerning the invisibility of the church.

III. Now although this question (the distinction between the internal and external state of the church having once been established; and the parts of the church constituted by the pious and elect and called believers alone) may seem less necessary (for if it is true that believers alone constitute the church, since they alone are known to God, nor can they be certainly and distinctly known by anyone else, it is clear that the church is rightly called invisible). This Bellarmine confesses, “If they who are destitute of internal faith are not and cannot be in the church, there will be no further question concerning the invisibility of the church between us and heretics” (“De Ecclesia Militante,” 3.10 Opera [1857], 2:91). For as he adds at once, “No one can certainly know how are truly righteous and pious among so many, who externally profess righteousness and piety.” Still because it is one of the most important questions here agitated and capable of multiple relations (schesin), on this account we must treat distinctly of it.

Robert Shaw comments on the Westminster Confession of Faith's doctrine of the invisible church as follows:

But there is a twofold calling; the one external, merely by the Word—the other internal, by the Holy Spirit, which is peculiar to the elect. Hence the Church may be considered under a twofold aspect or form; the one external or visible—the other internal or invisible. The Church, viewed as invisible, consists, according to our Confession, "of the whole number of the elect that have been, are, or shall be, gathered into one, under Christ, the head thereof." Of this Church the apostle speaks (Eph. v. 25-27): "Christ loved the Church, and gave himself for it; that he might sanctify and cleanse it, with the washing of water by the Word, that he might present it to himself a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish." Of the members of this Church some have already finished their course, and are now perfected spirits in heaven; others are still living upon earth, and engaged in the Christian welfare; which diversity of condition has given occasion for the ordinary distinction between the Church triumphant, and the Church militant. The invisible Church, viewed as comprehending the whole number of the elect, will not be completed until that day when "the Lord shall make up his jewels." This Church, viewed as actually existing on earth at any particular period, is composed of those who have been called by divine grace into the fellowship of the gospel, and sanctified by the truth; and these constitute one Church [emphasis mine], because, however distant in place, and diversified in circumstances, they are vitally united to Christ as their head, and to one another as members of the same body, by the bond of the Spirit and of faith.

Robert Shaw, The Reformed Faith: An Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith

The Reformers introduced the terminology “visible” and “invisible” Church. By this they did not mean two distinct and separate Churches, but rather two classes of Christians within the same outward communion. The invisible Church is in the visible Church, as the soul is in the body, or the kernel in the shell, but God only knows with certainty who belong to the invisible Church and will ultimately be saved; and in this sense his true children are invisible, that is, not certainly recognizable and known to men. We may object to the terminology, but the distinction is real and important.

Luther, who openly adopted the view of Hus at the disputation of Leipzig, first applied the term “invisible” to the true Church, which is meant in the Apostle’s creed. The Augsburg Confession defines the Church to be “the congregation of saints (or believers), in which the Gospel is purely taught, and the sacraments are rightly administered.” This definition is too narrow for the invisible Church, and would exclude the Baptists and Quakers.

The Reformed system of doctrine extends the domain of the invisible or true Church and the possibility of salvation beyond the boundaries of the visible Church, and holds that the Spirit of God is not bound to the ordinary means of grace, but may work and save “when, where, and how he pleases.” Zwingli first introduced both terms. He meant by the “visible” Church the community of all who bear the Christian name, by the “invisible” Church the totality of true believers of all ages. And he included in the invisible Church all the pious heathen, and all infants dying in infancy, whether baptized or not. In this liberal view, however, he stood almost alone in his age and anticipated modern opinions.

Calvin defines the distinction more clearly and fully than any of the Reformers, and his view passed into the Second Helvetic, the Scotch, the Westminster, and other Reformed Confessions.

Phillip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. 8, p. 458-9

The CRC systematic and historical theologian Louis Berkhof (1873-1957) comments:

The Many-Sided Character of the Church

2. THAT BETWEEN A VISIBLE AND AN INVISIBLE CHURCH. This means that the Church of God is on the one hand visible, and on the other invisible. It is said that Luther was the first to make this distinction, but the other Reformers recognized and also applied it to the Church. This distinction has not always been properly understood. The opponents of the Reformers often accused them of teaching that there are two separate Churches. Luther perhaps gave some occasion for this charge by speaking of an invisible ecclesiola within the visible ecclesia. But both he and Calvin stress, when they speak of a visible and an invisible Church, they do not refer to two different Churches, but to two aspects of the one Church of Jesus Christ. The term “invisible” has been variously interpreted as applying (a) to the triumphant Church; (b) to the Church of all lands and all places, which man cannot possibly see; and (d) to the Church as it goes in hiding in the days of persecution, and is deprived of the Word and the sacraments. Now it is undoubtedly true that the triumphant Church is invisible to those who are on earth, and that Calvin in his Institutes also conceives of this as included in the invisible Church, but the distinction was undoubtedly primarily intended to apply to the military Church. As a rule it is so applied in Reformed theology. It stresses the fact that the Church as it exists on earth is both visible and invisible. [emphasis mine] The church is said to be invisible, because she is essentially spiritual and in her spiritual essence cannot be discerned by the physical eye; and because it is impossible to determine infallibly who do and who do not belong to her. The union of believers with Christ is a mystical union; the Spirit that unites them constitutes an invisible tie; and the blessings of salvation, such as regeneration, genuine conversion, true faith, and spiritual communion with Christ, are all invisible to the natural eye; - and yet these things constitute the real forma (ideal character) of the Church. That the term “invisible’ should be understood in this sense, is evident from the historical origin of the distinction between the visible and the invisible Church ion the days of the Reformation. The Bible ascribes certain glorious attributes of the Church and represents her as a medium of saving and eternal blessings. Rome applied this to the Church as an external institution, more particularly to the ecclesia representativa or the hierarchy as the distributor of the blessings of salvation, and thus ignored and virtually denied the immediate and direct communion of God with His children, by placing a human mediatorial priesthood between them. This is the error which the Reformers sought to eradicate by stressing the fact that the Church of which the Bible says such glorious things is not the Church as an external institution, but the Church as the spiritual body of Jesus Christ, which is essentially invisible at present, though it has a relative and imperfect embodiment in the visible Church and is destined to have a perfect visible embodiment at the end of the ages. [emphasis mine]

The invisible Church naturally assumes a visible form. Just as the human soul is adapted to a body and expresses itself through the body, so the invisible Church, consisting, not of mere souls but of human beings having souls and bodies, necessarily assumes a visible form in an external organization through which it expresses itself. The Church becomes visible in Christian profession and conduct, in the ministry of the Word and of the sacraments, and in external organization and government. By making this distinction between the invisible and the visible Church, McPherson says, “Protestantism sought to find the proper mean between the magical and supernatural externalism of the Romish idea and the extravagant depreciation of all outward rites, characteristic of fanatical and sectarian spiritualism.” It is very important to bear in mind that , though both the invisible and the visible Church can be considered as universal, the two are not in every respect commensurate. It is possible that some who belong to the invisible Church never become members of the visible organization, as missionary subjects who are converted on their deathbeds, and that others are temporarily excluded from it, as erring believers who are for a time shut out from the communion of the visible Church. On the other hand there may be unregenerated children and adults who, while professing Christ, have no true faith in Him, in the Church as an external institution; and these, as long as they are in that condition, do not belong to the invisible Church. Good definitions of the visible and invisible Church may be found in the Westminster Confession.

Berkhof, Systematic Theology, reprinted by Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. (1996), pgs. 565-6

Lastly, the contemporary systematic theologian John Frame says:

That leads us to the distinction between the visible and the invisible church. This language is from tradition, not the Bible (as in the Westminster Confession 25.1-2). But it does guive us language to express the presence of both believers and unbelievers in the church. We should not take this to mean that there are two churches. Visible and invisible are just two different ways of looking at the same church, two perspectives. The invisible church is, to use Wayne Grudem’s definition, “the church as God sees it.” God knows for sure who is truly jointed to Christ by faith, for he can see people’s hearts. We cannot, for the heart is invisible to us….

Are those unbelievers “in” the church? In one sense, no, for they are not united to Christ in a saving way. So, we say that they are not part of the invisible church. But in another sense, yes, because they have taken vows.

John Frame, Salvation Belongs to the Lord, copyright 2006 P&R Publishing Company, Phillipsburg, NJ, pgs. 236-7

Category: Theoblogia

The Federal Vision: Homogenizing the Church Since 2002!

2007-04-12T00:07:00.001-07:00

One of the disturbing things about the Federal Vision (FV) theology is its tendency to blunder things that should be Reformed Doctrine 101 due to the fact that much of what is driving FV is the effort to conceive of those within the covenant in a manner that is as undifferentiated as possible and to homogenize the nature of the church as much as possible (or as much as is plausible to confessionally-Reformed types, anyway). This is especially apparent in the conversation going on over in the combox at Green Baggins' blog, where Wes White has written an excellent article defending the distinction between the invisible and visible church against the re-formulations of FV.

FV embarrasses itself in trying to recast this doctrine in terms of a historical/eschatological distinction, making the distinction chronological rather than ontological. And then mighty works of sophistry, mental gymnastics, intellectual contortions, and academic jumping jacks ensue in order to defend this view in light of what the Westminster Standards say. But, in the end, their square peg isn't going to fit into the round hole, as we'll see.

In the next two posts, I'm going to go over the various evidence that indicates that the prevailing Reformed notion of the invisible church conceives of it as existing now, on earth, and not exclusively in the future. This being the case, the concept of the eschatological church cannot be made to substitute for it. This also makes it highly unlikely that the Westminster divines would have intended for their doctrine of the invisible church to be taken this way, unless we are prepared to believe that their Standards on this point are an anomaly in the Reformed tradition.

The first post will list quotations from various confessions from the Reformed tradition, and the second will list treatments from various Reformed authors.

Just a word of warning, these next two posts are not for the faint-hearted. They're crazy long, actually. So make sure you have a caffeinated beverage of choice onhand and click the "Read More" link below to continue.

The Current Controversy

Instead of holding to a distinction within the church as to its nature, visible (those who profess the true faith outwardly) and invisible (those regenerate who have true faith inwardly), FV prefers a chronological distinction: between the historical church (the church as it exists now) and the eschatological church (the church as it exists at the eschaton).

Here are some of Douglas Wilson's comments on the visible/invisible church distinction that originally helped spark the FV controversy:

If we abandon the Hellenistic ontological division between invisible and visible and adopted a more Hebraic biblical way of thinking and toppled the whole thing on its side, the invisible church is the eschatological church and the visible church is the historical church. Now notice what this now does, if I toppled the whole thing on its side and it is now in history, the eschatological church is now the historical church and it is at the culmination of history, all right, and the visible church is that same church at an earlier point in time.

Wilson, Visible and Invisible, 2002 AAPCPC lecture. As cited in The Federal Vision and Covenant Theology, Guy Waters.

It would be better to consider the one Church under a different set of terms, discussed earlier, and which preserve the necessary distinction made by visible and invisible – historical and eschatological. Because time is taken into account, we preserve the understanding of just one Church, and at the same time preserve the necessary distinction between those Church members who are ultimately saved and those who are ultimately lost. The historical Church is the counterpart to the visible Church, and consists of those throughout history who profess the true faith, together with their children. The eschatological Church is the elect, but it is not invisible. At the last day, every true child of God will be there, not one missing and every false professor will have been removed. At the resurrection of the dead, this Church will be most visible.

Wilson, “Reformed” Is Not Enough, pg. 74. As cited in The Federal Vision and Covenant Theology, Guy Waters.

Wilson thinks that, since the WCF talks of the invisible church as including the "whole number of the elect" that this rules out the possibility of the invisible church existing now, here on earth. In other words, the invisible church can only exist in the future (thus his equating this concept with the eschatological church) since it includes the "whole number of the elect, that have been, are or shall be gathered into one..." (WCF 15.1).

The problem with relegating the invisible church to the future only is that the Westminster Larger Catechism views the members of the invisible church as enjoying present, earthly saving benefits in Q&A 65, 69, 82, & 83.

Xon Hostetter speculates, in Green Baggin's combox (linked to above), that the Westminster divines could have been speaking of present members of the invisible church even if the invisible church does not yet exist.

This is problematic, considering that it would imply that the catholic or universal church, also, would exist exclusively in the future (according to the language of 15.1).

Yet this ignores the whole history of doctrine that the Westminster divines derived their teaching from. I have included below the most relevant portions of various Reformed confessions and articles that can only be understood as teaching explicitly or necessarily implying or assuming that the invisible church exists, at least in part, on the earth in the present.

The Invisible Church in the Reformed Confessions Outside of the Westminster Standards

For as without Christ Jesus there is neither life nor salvation, so shall there none be participant thereof, but such as the Father has given unto his Son Christ Jesus, and those [that] in time come unto him, avow his doctrine, and believe into him (we comprehend the children with the faithful parents). This kirk is invisible, known only to God, who alone knows whom he has chosen, and comprehends as well (as said is) the elect that are departed (commonly called the kirk triumphant), as those that yet live and fight against sin and Satan as shall live hereafter

Scots Confession (1560), Chapter 16

THE CHURCH APPEARS AT TIMES TO BE EXTINCT. Yes, and it sometimes happens that God in his just judgment allows the truth of his Word, and the catholic faith, and the proper worship of God to be so obscured and overthrown that the Church seems almost extinct, and no more to exist, as we see to have happened in the days of Elijah (I Kings 19:10, 14), and at other times. Meanwhile God has in this world and in this darkness his true worshippers, and those not a few, but even seven thousand and more (I Kings 19:18; Rev. 7:3 ff.). For the apostle exclaims: "God's firm foundation stands, bearing this seal, `The Lord knows those who are his,' " etc. (II Tim. 2:19). Whence the Church of God may be termed invisible; not because the men from whom the Church is gathered are invisible, but because, being hidden from our eyes and known only to God, it often secretly escapes human judgment.

Second Helvetic Confession (1564), Chap. 17

There is but one Catholic Church (out of which there is no salvation) containing the universal company of all the Saints that ever were, are, or shall be gathered together in one body, under one head Christ Jesus: part whereof is already in heaven triumphant, part as yet militant here upon earth. And because this Church consisteth of all those, and those alone, which are elected by God unto salvation, & regenerated by the power of his Spirit, the number of whom is known only unto God himself; therefore it is called Catholic or universal, and the Invisible Church.

Irish Articles (1615), Article 68

Finally, a modern confession describes the invisible church thusly:

God has his church in every age, and under every dispensation. It consists of all the people of God in heaven and earth, and may, therefore, be regarded as militant and triumphant. That portion of the church which is on earth, the church militant, consists of all professing Christians throughout the world, and may be divided into the visible church and mystical church

Confession of Faith of the Calvinistic Methodists or the Presbyterians of Wales (1823), Chapter 35

Category: Theoblogia

URC Ministers Gone Wild!

2007-04-04T23:08:00.000-07:00

Behold! The inimitable "Flying Pub" flugtag (pictured above)!

Do not suppose that abuses are eliminated by destroying the object which is abused. Men can go wrong with wine and women. Shall we prohibit and abolish women?
-Martin Luther

It just so happens that my pastor, Adam Kaloostian, was part of a recent broadcast on the subject of wine, that I thought dovetailed nicely with my post on wine from a few days ago. He has a regular podcast entitled Sinners and Saints, where he and two other URC ministers (Moses Janbazian and John Sawtelle) discuss various theological topics.

You can hear the entire Sinners and Saints series entitled "To Bet, Drink, Smoke, and Chew, and Run With Girls Who Do."

What do we do when the Bible gives us a promise of blessing coupled with a stern warning? Paul tells us (in 1 Cor. 6) that drunkards will not inherit the kingdom of heaven - and this sin is coupled with other ungodly sins:

the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God. Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

So the Bible tells us that if we are drunkards, yet look down on homosexual sinners, then we have a huge problem that is both logical and moral. Let's call it good ol' fashioned hypocrisy.

But then we go to Psalm 104, where we are to "Bless the Lord!" from the soul for various things, including

wine which makes man's heart glad,
So that he may make his face glisten with oil,
And food which sustains man's heart

Wine is clearly listed as one of the blessings we receive that we should bless the Lord for, and is a blessing in a similar way as "food which sustains man's heart." So one must conclude, from the preceding and subsequent context, that wine is God's gift that we are to enjoy and thank God for.

When faced with two biblical admonitions, we ought to steer a middle course that honors both scriptural principles. We ought not drink to the point of drunkenness. Those who embrace drunkenness, without repentance, are clearly said to be unbelievers, destitute of true faith. But those who drink in moderation are said to have glad hearts, as a blessing from God.

An excellent book, detailing (in a whimsical, entertaining way) the history of alcohol in the Christian church, is Drinking with Calvin and Luther.

If we believe that Jesus has come to redeem all of creation (a creation which, according to Romans 8, is groaning for restoration) then we ought not hesitate to embrace all of the good gifts in God's creation, including alcohol, while rejecting the world's abuses of God's good gifts.

Category: Theoblogia

Jeremy Caught Up to the Third Heaven

2007-04-02T21:45:00.000-07:00

This last Saturday my co-blogger, Jeremy Felden, was married to the lovely woman next to him in the above picture, Allison Ewing. When he gets back from his honeymoon, his face shining like Moses', we'll put a veil over his head so he can render unto us more glorious blog posts for your edification and guidance.

I gave a toast at the wedding as one of the groomsmen. Here is the latter half of that toast:

The Psalms give us such a wonderful picture of what marriage is supposed to look like. Psalm 128 tells you, Jeremy, that you have the unique privelege of being a husband to a wife and, Lord willing, one day, also a father to children in the same sort of way that a farmer would "husband" or tend to a vine and cluster of olive shoots.

I know that this will work into you the unique sort of sanctification that only a marriage can bring, and that'll involve hard things as well as happy things. And you will be able to see and understand the things of God in a way that you otherwise could not, and you will be able to serve and glorify God in ways that you cannot do by yourself.

I've had many people in my life that I look up to and spiritually admire- giants in the faith. Most of these were in the latter half of their lives and some even approaching death. But their uniform testimony to me has been, "Dave, with the sole exception of my salvation in Jesus Christ, the greatest blessings, treasure, and source of joy in my life has been my wife, far and away." Allison will be that woman for you, and, should the Lord tarry, you will confess that of her in the sunset of your life.

So what is your reasonable response to this? Our charge to you is that you would treasure Allison today, tomorrow, and the next day knowing that is and will be true of her. Cheers!

The wedding went off wonderfully, and Jeremy and Allison were whisked off to their honeymoon soon after.

The day after the wedding, Jeremy and I had the following text message exchange:

DG: Hey man. Wanna go grab a beer somewhere if youre not busy?

JF: Sure. if im not busy.:-)

Funny enough I haven't heard back from him since.

Category: Blogging Ourselves

Seminary for the Rest of Us

2007-03-19T23:46:00.000-07:00

As some of you know, I have been attending the Academy at our sister church, Christ Reformed in Anaheim, over the past few months. Since I'm a normal working stiff, I have neither the time nor the money to attend seminary, so this is the next best thing (and, probably, a great bit less stressful than seminary, too). And, best of all, they're kind enough to offer this to the public for a nominal ($5) suggested donation.

Hey, what else did you think a happenin' bachelor like me would be doing on a Friday night?

Anyone who is interested in enriching their lives by digging deeper into God's Word should come down on Friday nights (or, if you are outside of Southern California, you can download the lectures here) and be blessed by the lectures and enjoy the fellowship of us fellow theology geeks over coffee afterwards.

As you can see in the picture above, Pastor Kim was kind enough to arm me with his Case for Amillennialism at this last week's Academy session so that I could be prepared to counter the recent blogospheric bru-ha-ha over the pre-mill/a-mill eschatology debate. My own library, while formidable, didn't include any volumes devoted to the subject (while being touched on, in briefer treatments, in the various systematic theology tomes I own). He even was willing to sign his propaganda for me. So now my copy of the book has the much-coveted Second Blessing. Perhaps even physical healing and financial blessing will result just from reading it.

Ken Samples, pictured below, is a scholar and a vice-president at Reasons to Believe, as well as being a licensed exhorter in the URC at Christ Reformed Church. He is currently finishing off his section on Augustine. Be sure to download the audio if you've missed the past sections. Next up will be Dr. Riddlebarger lecturing on the New Perspective on Paul. I'm sure he won't have anything controversial or provocative to say about that sort of business.

Category: Theoblogia

A Wine Connoisseur Reviews His Church's Communion

2007-03-19T22:22:00.000-07:00

And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

Acts 2:42

...the Lord's Table should have been spread at least once a week for the assembly of Christians, and the promises declared in it should feed us spiritually.

John Calvin

My church, Ontario United Reformed Church, celebrates the Lord's Supper every Sunday, as do most of the churches in Classis Southwest of the URC. And if your church doesn't celebrate weekly communion, I must say that it really ought to. So be sure to pester your elders and sow seeds of division until it does.

OK, just kidding about that last bit. But you can find solid reasons here, here, here, and here for biblical support of weekly communion.

My fellow congregant and friend Charles, coming from an Anglican background, suggested that we switch to the Common Cup for our communion (where all of the congregants receive wine from the same chalice). I responded that I'd just be happy if we used a bigger cup so that it didn't seem like we were taking paltry sips of medicine from the small 1/4 ounce plastic cups. Not enough to get anyone drunk, mind you, but enough so that it is a real drink (along with a corresponding portion of bread), to reflect the fact that Christ and His Gospel truly nourish us, and that His blessings are not paltry tokens or meager portions for our soul.

When I started attending Ontario URC, I noticed that the wine used in the communion was a particularly tasty, sweet wine. Now, contrary to the title of this post, I'm not really a wine connoisseur. I'll drink red wines (usually cabs, pinot noirs, or port) sometimes, but I'm a much bigger fan of British ales during the course of a normal meal. And I'll take a single malt Scotch over even the best port to finish off the evening after a meal. [Incidentally, our Pastor Adam rejected my proposal to replace the communion wine with single malt Scotch. While not disagreeing with it's merits, he was pretty sure the consistory wouldn't approve. Darn.] Anyway, I was pleased enough with the taste of our communion wine and so inquired as to what we were using. Turns out that we use Manischewitz, a Jewish-made "kosher" wine made of concorde grapes.

So I went ahead and picked up a whole bottle at the grocery store some time back. Hey, it was only $4, so why not? I wondered if it'd be a good wine to try in a normal quantity in a normal wine glass over a meal. My evaluation is that Manischewitz has all of the subtlety and complexity of cotton candy, and, come to think of it, was roughly as sweet as cotton candy. I'll say that it is a good drink, but notice that I didn't say it is a good wine. It is far too sweet to have this in any normal quantity as you would a real wine. And even a lower-grade dessert wine (like sherry or port), which can be nearly as sweet, has far more body, complexity, and character than this stuff. A real wine connoisseur probably wouldn't use words like "bouquet", "tannic", "tart", "balanced", or any of the usual descriptors in a sober review of Manischewitz. Phrases like "remeniscent of Hi-C" and "aftertaste hints of Kool-Aid" would be more appropriate.

Category: Theoblogia

Islamic Apologetics

2007-03-19T21:01:00.000-07:00

I had the privelege of spending six weeks in London in the year 2000 doing campus ministry with Campus Crusade for Christ (there's a long story behind that). One of the more fascinating things for me was interacting with Muslims, and it was during that experience that I dug into understanding Islam and learning to present an apologetic defense of my Christian faith against Islamic claims.

During that time, I not only read books on Islam and interacted with Muslim students, but I spent some time visiting a mosque and, most compellingly, spent time at Speaker's Corner at Hyde Park in London (pictured above). There, politicians and religious advocates of every stripe would draw crowds, giving speeches on ladders or soap boxes. That included various Christians preaching the Gospel against Islam, interacting with Muslim critics and hecklers yelling from the audience. And Muslims had their own "preachers" up on their soap boxes as well. And, although this was a pre-9/11 world, these fanatics were just as fiery as the "spirited" folks you see today on TV.

I had the privelege of getting to know a man who is and was by far the best apologist preaching the Gospel at Speaker's Corner, an American named Jay Smith. He had a booming, rapid voice, was a master of rhetoric, had a quick mind, and knew Islam and the Quran like the back of his hand. He always drew a large crowd of both Christians and Muslims, as he polemicized against Islam and effortlessly responded to objectors from the crowd. It was fascinating to watch him work a crowd.

Much of his ability to do this sort of work week in and week out stemmed from his doctoral studies on the origins of the Quran at the School of Oriental and African Studies. He was kind enough to take time out from his schedule over the course of a few weeks to talk with us would-be missionaries about Islamic apologetics. He encouraged us to talk and debate with people at Speaker's Corner which, while initially intimidating, was for me a marvelous exercise in learning to interact with unbelievers, answering their objections and giving reasons for the hope of the Gospel in a public context. On some occassions, I even had sizeable crowds form around ME as I talked to Muslims at the Corner. Amazing times.

After leaving London I lost track of Jay. His website, while being an excellent resource, hasn't been updated in years from what I can tell. I heard that he had earned his PhD and had debated Shabir Ally shortly thereafter.

So I was just delighted when, just last week, Team Pyro brought to my attention the fact that Jay Smith is not only alive and well (a legit question considering the death threats Jay's received over the years) but that he has been posting short apologetic videos on YouTube here. These videos are simply excellent and give good, concise apologetic presentations aimed at Muslims. He's been making quite a splash in the internet world with these (garnering "response" videos, thousands of comments, and hundreds of thousands of viewers), and I highly recommend that anyone with an interest in Islamic apologetics check them out.

Category: Theoblogia

Some Light Reading Before Bedtime

2007-01-30T21:02:00.000-08:00

Yes, that really is a picture of my current night stand (click the picture for a larger version). I realized that a good portion of the library in my office has been migrating to my bedroom over the last few weeks. Is this an indication that I am undergoing a time of deep and intensive study, so as to prompt Festus to declare that my great learning is driving me mad? Unfortunately, no.

The reality is that my reading has been sorta schitzophrenic lately, and I've just been reading small portions of various books as I've tackled different issues of late. Some of those books I've already read, and some I am currently reading but have no plans to read in their entirety (like that thick Turretin book). However, I do plan on reading Dr. Clark's FV book and Venema NPP book all the way through. Anyway, I've been jumping back and forth between books in 'research mode' on a variety of disparate topics, skipping around trying to find relevant treatments. My office library has just over 230 volumes (in the theology section), and I've been gradually plucking them off the bookshelves and curling up with them in bed, only to fall asleep leaving each one on my night stand. Over the past weeks, I haven't bothered to put them back and they just keep piling up. Eventually, they stacked up high enough that it took some effort for me to keep the pile from teetering off to one side, and I thought I should snap a picture of what is essentially a monument to my laziness.

The 'odd man out' in the bunch is the Dr. Laura book. Hey, why not? She's got some really wise things to say for a non-Christian. She's got us guys pegged pretty good, and she has no time for feminism or PC psychobabble, so it gets the rare and coveted common grace thumbs up from me. I'm sure I'll re-gift it as a present for my future wife.

Notice that Peter Leithart's book is precariously in direct contact with Dr. Clark's anti-Federal Vision book. I actually thought I saw Dr. Clark's book levitating, mysteriously, a few centimeters above Leithart's in the middle of the night due to the repulsive theological/magnetic forces contained in the respective volumes.

Also notice that there are 3 versions of the ESV in the stack. So, yes, the votes are in. The ESV has my official seal of approval as Bible of choice. No offense intended to my beloved NASBs.

Now for something completely different....

--------------------------------

The Something That You Really Should Listen To Award, an award that I made up just now, goes to Kim Riddlebarger for his recent series on Francis Schaeffer. For those who don't know, he is a URC pastor at one of our sister churches, and also co-hosts the White Horse Inn radio program. He has been giving an overview of his apologetics at the Christ Reformed Academy in Anaheim, which I have been attending when I can, although he has kindly been making the audio available here.

The best stuff he has had to say actually isn't on Schaeffer himself, but rather on Schaeffer's sources. His discussions of Cornelius VanTil, Old Princeton (especially Charles Hodge and B.B. Warfield), and the wars between "traditional" and presuppositional apologetics have been very enlightening. These are worth listening to from beginning to end if you have any interest in apologetics at all. His insights are keen, and he has some very balanced criticisms. He has even put himself in the unpopular place of saying some kind things about Scottish Common Sense. Scandalous!

I knew Dr. Riddlebarger was a good theologian, but I didn't know he knew his way around philosophy and apologetics so well. Turns out that the chap did his doctoral dissertation on B.B. Warfield's apologetics. Oh. That probably explains it.

Category: Blogging Ourselves

Federal Vision and Petulant Papists

2007-01-28T23:55:00.000-08:00

The blogosphere has, of late, been scandalized by the apostacy of a supposed Calvinist fellow (a.k.a. "Paleocrat") to Rome. Paleocrat announced that he was "swimming the Tiber" on his Xanga blog, and the Puritanboard picked up on it in this thread. There, one of Paleocrat's friends commented:

His flip flopping on issues started a few months after we met...just after I helped guide him back to paedobaptism. From there he went FV, and then I told him perhaps it would have been better to be a Baptist again, that God was protecting him from further errors there. After that, everything was up for grabs.

Scott Clark commented on Paleocrat's self-professed Federal Vision sympathies and it's logical connection to his conversion to Romanism. He is right about this, but there is a bit more to the story.

I clicked over to Paleocrat's (former) church's web site. Notice anything strange? This church was not a confessionally Reformed or Presbyterian church. Not even close. It is a Church of God member, a Pentacostal denomination. Although this particular church is an um...interesting hybrid. It lists theonomy, presuppositionalism (although it's definition of it is fideistic), "victorious exchatology", and dominionism as their distinctives. Oy veh!

Reading Van Til and Bahnsen is all well and good, but clearly there were a lot of conflicting strains of theology at work in and around Paleocrat. Being confessionally Reformed grants us a stability, along with coherence and consistency, in our theological convictions, as opposed to merely having an unstable hodge-podge of beliefs that happens to include presuppositional apologetics and TULIP.

James Swan commented (in the Puritanboard thread), regarding Paleocrat's reasoning for the authority of Rome:

I have to wonder if he ever did the basic-presuppositional 101 test of applying the same question to the person asking it. Typically, Roman apologists can't answer their own questions. They can't give a coherent response when the same question is asked of them.

Indeed, I think this is another chapter in what Dr. Clark would call the Quest for Illegitimate Certainty. Essentially: gosh, there are a lot of hard questions and issues in life and in the Bible for me to get a grasp on, so I will turn to X system to answer those questions for me and provide 'certainty.' The promise of epistemological certainty come through various means in different claims, but the core promise is the same. Rome claims infallible authority in it's teaching, so I don't have to depent on my own fallible interpretations of Scripture.

Of course, this fallacy is exposed when you consider that Rome's teachings also must be interpreted by us fallible interpreters. You haven't improved the epistemic situation by putting the question one step back, and swapping out the object of our interpretation for another source. Eric Svendsen's book On This Slippery Rock covers this, and other, epistemological fallacies that Roman apologists routinely use.

Be sure also to read James Swan's article here, and Steve Hay's here.

On a more biographical side of this issue, I had this to say on the Puritanboard:

A few things go through my mind when I hear about this:

1. I hope that his pastor and session will excommunicate this newly-minted Roman convert swiftly if he does not heed their admonition to repent.

2. There but by the grace of God go we. Amen and amen.

3. I cringe to think of his wife and new child being discipled in a false church unto their spiritual destruction.

4. I hope that the wife I marry in the future will have the Scriptural fortitude and moral integrity to exercise godly and firm disobedience of my spiritual 'leadership' if I were to ever apostatize; and pray for me without ceasing, rebuke me, and continue to attend a true church without me. I hope that the powers of my emotional and intellectual persuasion would have their limits at such a point, and not drag her into such foolishness.

I'll also take some time to quickly note some breaking Federal Vision News.

First, the good news is that Lane Keister's presbytery drafted and approved this anti-Federal Vision and anti-New Perspective document. It is short, sweet, and oh-so-delicious. If you don't read it, you are just plain silly.

Second, the bad news is that Steve Wilkins' presbytery exhonerated him again. Now the PCA's Standing Judicial Commission will review LA Presbytery's decision. A few thoughts:

A. I'm trying to find another source to confirm this, but someone on the Puritanboard testified that the vote was 13-8. If this is true, then it is telling. If 38% of your presbytery thinks that there is a strong presumption of guilt on matters like this, there is something terribly wrong. I would be utterly embarrassed to attend a church under such a pastor. There is at least some plausible reason for this happening to someone like Wilkins, and why it would be absolutely laughable if someone were to accuse anyone in my URC classis (Classis Southwest) of not teaching the Reformed doctrine of salvation with 100% crystal clarity.

B. Even if the vote was unanimous, this only raises the bigger question of whether or not the LA Presbytery is worthy of censure from the broader PCA not simply for failing to discipline Wilkins, as a failure or duty or perhaps incompetence, but rather because the whole presbytery has been infected by Wilkin's errors. We have already seen the inter-presbytery problems that this failure to be of one mind has caused when Rich Lusk's transfer was denied when he tried to transfer out of Louisianna to a sister presbytery. (He then jumped ship to the CREC). That sort of situation cannot be resolved until the lines are drawn in the sand at the General Assembly level.

Theoblogia

The Gospel According to Johnny Cash

2007-01-12T01:06:00.000-08:00

As a crotchety musician I don't have much use for the new-fangled music the kids are listening to today. As a child of the 1990's, I lost interest in the new music playing on the radio after the Smashing Pumpkins broke up in 2000 (sniff, sniff). The good ole days. Anywho, as the rancidification of the radio airwaves got progressively worse, we were forced to go backwards in time to listen to the good stuff from before our time.

Any musician who is serious about knowing the history of the rock and roll he is playing is going to run into Johnny cash. A track he recorded was released posthumously just a few months ago, called God's Gonna Cut You Down, and it even saw some rotation on radio and MTV. It is a traditional folk song, so it is not Cash's song. But it is quite good (see the video here).

As an aside, I note that the video is very odd. It is full of wide mix of celebrities, all of whom, with the exception of Bono, are fairly open pagans and God-haters - the very ones that God is 'gonna cut down.' Are these people even listening to what Johnny's saying here??!!

Here are the lyrics:

You can run on for a long time
Run on for a long time
Run on for a long time
Sooner or later God'll cut you down
Sooner or later God'll cut you down

Go tell that long tongue liar
Go and tell that midnight rider
Tell the rambler, the gambler, the back biter
Tell 'em that God's gonna cut 'em down
Tell 'em that God's gonna cut 'em down

Well my goodness gracious let me tell you the news
My head's been wet with the midnight dew
I've been down on bended knee talkin' to the man from Galilee
He spoke to me in the voice so sweet
I thought I heard the shuffle of the angel's feet
He called my name and my heart stood still
When he said, "John go do My will!"

Go tell that long tongue liar
Go and tell that midnight rider
Tell the rambler, the gambler, the back biter
Tell 'em that God's gonna cut 'em down
Tell 'em that God's gonna cut 'em down

You can run on for a long time
Run on for a long time
Run on for a long time
Sooner or later God'll cut you down
Sooner or later God'll cut you down

Well you may throw your rock and hide your hand
Workin' in the dark against your fellow man
But as sure as God made black and white
What's down in the dark will be brought to the light

You can run on for a long time
Run on for a long time
Run on for a long time
Sooner or later God'll cut you down
Sooner or later God'll cut you down

Go tell that long tongue liar
Go and tell that midnight rider
Tell the rambler, the gambler, the back biter
Tell 'em that God's gonna cut you down
Tell 'em that God's gonna cut you down
Tell 'em that God's gonna cut you down

Now the question is this: is the Gospel in there? I'd say, yes, the Gospel is in there, but it is not the Gospel. The song talks about God's judgment of sinners, and alludes to Cash's own repentance. But, strictly speaking, this is only Law. It tells us about our obligations (Law), but not about what Jesus has done for us (Gospel). There is the 'do this...' of the Law, but the 'it has been done [by Christ]' of the Gospel is not explicit. You can argue, rightfully, that a Christian can understand the lyrics in the proper sense, where the 'man from Galilee' is the one who bears our sins and gives us eternal life and, on this basis, calls us to repentance. But this requires some background knowledge of the Gospel that is not explicit in the lyrics. Fine - this isn't supposed to be a Gospel tract we hand out to unbelievers, I take it.

In conclusion, I think Johnny's right on this one. Christians should sing it remembering that we - every one of us - are long-tongued liars, backbiters, and worse who needed, and continue to need, God's grace.

Category: Theoblogia

More Thoughts on the Federal Vision Train Wreck

2007-01-11T23:12:00.000-08:00

You may have noticed that Westminster Seminary California has released a book critical of the Federal Vision and New Perspective on Paul, edited by R. Scott Clark. The book, Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry came out, officially, just last week.

Curiously, on the 8th - that's Monday - of this week Andrew Sandlin's organization, the Center for Cultural Leadership, announced that they would be publishing a book, edited by Sandlin, in response to the Westminster West's book, tentatively called A Faith That Is Never Alone: A Response to the Faculty of Westminster Seminary California. The contributors to this response include John Armstrong, John Frame, Don Garlington, Mark Horne, Sandlin himself, and Norman Shepherd. This is curious, because I'm not sure how and why you would plan on writing a book and announce it to the world when the book you are responding to was released only days ago. As a matter of fact, I just got my copy in the mail today.

This is desperation, and a transparently knee-jerk reaction on the part of the Federal Visionists. The Federal Vision has been in hot water lately in various ecclesiastical forums, so I suppose they have to kick out something -anything- to throw a wet blanket on the influential H-Bomb that Dr. Clark's book promises to be in Reformed circles. 'Clark & Company must be wrong, so we're going to prove it to everyone (as soon as we know what they actually wrote, anyway).'

Now, I suppose it is possible that Sandlin and his contributors all got their copies of Clark's book ahead of me, had time to read the thing, and formulate initial objections to the arguments contained therein, which would justify throwing together a response book (or, rather, announcing the intention to) so quickly. But, barring the authors having access to early copies of Clark's book, I highly doubt it.

Also, notice the strange title of their book - A Faith That Is Never Alone. Now, most polemical books usually contain titles or subtitles that actually give you an idea of the primary thesis of a book or lets you know what idea is being opposed in the book; the pivotal issue of antithesis and disagreement. But if all the Federal Vision was saying is that "faith is never alone", well, we wouldn't be having this debate at all. Certainly, the critics of the Federal Vision do not imply anything other than that we are saved by a faith that is never alone. So this misrepresents the issue from the get-go. It will either end up shooting at straw men or else ignore the real point of controversy.

For all of this, I have lost a few notches of respect for all of the contributors to this childishly reactionary project. Although, to be honest, only John Frame was "in the black" in my book to begin with. If he thinks that his multi-perspectival theology can be waved over the Federal Vision like a magic wand to make it OK, he is wrong.

Ligon Duncan comments:

Kind of reminds one of the good ole days when Gary North was cranking out "responses" to Westminster Seminary, Philadelphia volumes!

[UPDATE] - Dr. Clark linked to this post, and Robin helpfully reminds us of a pertinent admonition from Scripture in Clark's combox:

Proverbs 18:12-13

Before destruction a man's heart is haughty,
but humility comes before honor.
If one gives an answer before he hears,
it is his folly and shame.

Also, for updates and critiques of the Federal Vision controversy, especially as Wilkins' presbytery will be reporting to the Standing Judicial Commission later this month, be sure to keep stopping by Green Baggin's (Lane Keister, a PCA minister) blog. He is at the forefront in the blogosphere, in my opinion, in handing out confessional and scripture-rich spankings to all manner of FV wonkiness and Tom Foolery.

Category: Theoblogia

The Hingies--Television Times TBA

2006-12-30T11:51:00.000-08:00

The Needed Hinge Award for the most unhinged apologist in the last, oh, as long as I can remember, goes to...Dan Corner! Mr. Corner has the unenviable task of defending the heresy of Pelagianism. This would drive anyone to desperate lengths to avoid the teachings of Scripture, but Corner excels himself. He comes truly unhinged on Gene Cook's Narrow Mind broadcast on 12/29 (Right-click to download). Begin listening at about the 43:30 mark and you will hear what I mean. He accuses Gene of deleting half a word in the context of an hour's dialogue. You can find the original program that sparked this lunacy at the Narrow Mind Aftermath. You may find Dan Corner's unabridged heresies here.
Category: Theoblogia

Federal Vision Smackdown!

2006-12-01T12:16:00.000-08:00

Preface: The fans of our blog (which I could probably count on one hand) have probably noticed that us Horde folks haven't blogged since August. You see, my co-bloggers, Jeremy and Garet, have been preoccupied, busying themselves on their quests to attain matrimonial bliss. Since this more blessed estate is not on the horizon for me, I guess it is up to me to keep up the blogospheric edification.

If I am to continue live as I am, that means fruitful labor for me. Yet which I shall choose I cannot tell. I am hard pressed between the two. My desire is to depart and be married, for that is far better. But to remain as I am is more necessary on your account.

Some of our more astute readers will have noticed that I'm not a fan of the Federal Vision (FV). That's why recent events have given me warm, fuzzy feelings as I have considered the ramifications of the recent ecclesiastical smackdowns of FV. You see, presbyterian government smackdowns are sorta like what you see during WWE Smackdowns, only presbyterian smackdowns are way more boring.

First smackdown came from the OPC this past June in their report, critical of FV, which the General Assembly adopted. Read it here.

At around the same time, the PCA's General Assembly approved the formation of a study committee, presumably critical of FV, to provide a report for adoption in next year's GA. [As an aside, note that the PCA folks have a really slick website. They even webcast their GA's. If their website is like a Ferrari, our website is more like a mule-drawn cart on the information superhighway)]

A few weeks ago, Steve Wilkins' presbytery got handed a smackdown from the PCA's Standing Judicial Commission, which basically told Louisiana Presbytery that they needed to re-examine Wilkins, in spite of that Presbytery's recent examination and report, mostly exhonerating him, and told that Presbytery to report back to the Commission (also see this thread). Basically saying "you should probably come up with a different answer next time." This is sorta like when you used to hand in your homework to your teacher, as a kid, and the paper came back with with "redo" or "rewrite" scrawled on it in red ink. The criticisms advanced by the Central Carolina Presbytery's Memorial (see the link above) are essentially the same as have already been advanced by Calvin Beisner et al. here. I have yet to receive any straightforward defense of these blatant, indefensible departures from Reformed theology from any FV advocate.

But, by far, the best (and most entertaining) FV smackdown in the blogosphere of late is coming from Green Baggins, a PCA minister who is way smarter than me. Catch all the action here and Part 2 is here (be sure to read the comment boxes). Also, be sure to read all of his FV material here.

And then there is my own church family, the United Reformed Church. No, no recent smackdowns here. As a matter of fact, we don't need no stinkin' study commission on FV. Aside from R. Scott Clark already being a walking study commission unto himself, most folks have seen the MENE MENE TEKEL UPHARSIN handwriting on the wall for FV in our circles. Theo Hoekstra and John Barach have both already left our federation.

I think that FV has collided with the ecclesiastical iceburg at this point, and I doubt that all the internet rhetoric in the world can save it. Telling, considering that FV ostensibly holds to such a high church view of church governing authority.

As I commented on another website (that just doesn't 'get' it):

I don’t think it is a just a coincidence or product of mean, knuckle-dragging “TR”s that many elements of FV are taking heat in confessional churches (Wilkins) or else jumping ship (Barach switched out of our URC federation to the CREC [which doesn't even have a true presbyterian form of government]; Shepherd went from OPC to CRC; Lusk from PCA to CREC), are independent (Schlissel and apparently [?] Jordan), or are in the CREC (where there is no will and, apparently, any mechanism for discipline on the matter). Does this not tell you something?

Incidentally - I’m not CREC bashing here. I think the world needs something like the CREC, and I know many good CREC folks. I think it’d be a shame and a waste for them to end up as the land of FV exile.

Indeed, I consider myself most blessed by a good many of the FV promoters through their past written works. Jeremy and I were particularly edified during this summer's Trinity Fest by the lectures of both Doug Wilson and Steve Wilkins. I think it'd be a shame and a waste of these men's ministries if they are going to choose to tie their FV hobby horses around their necks and jump into the sea of biblical church discipline.

Category: Theoblogia

Trinity Fest--Day 2

2006-08-17T16:26:00.000-07:00

The second day's seminars were exceptional. Dr. Peter Lillback opened with an empirical analysis of the works that influenced the American founders. As it turns out, the book with the largest number of citations by the founders is...the Bible. Huh. Moreover, most of the other authors cited had a fairly Calvistic view of the nature of man, with Locke being the notable exception.

Dr. Lillback went on to describe how Washington has been portrayed as a Deist who rarely cited scripture. When he looked into it for himself, he found all sorts of biblical allusions. This inspired him to write a 1200 page book about Washington's christianity. I look forward to reading it. I'm sure there will be an audio version for those with lower back problems.

Steve Wilkins used his last talk to describe the reaction against revivalism by John Williamson Nevin. Nevin was burned by revivalism and went on to argue for a very high view of the Church.

Nevin and Philip Schaff worked together on what came to be known as Mercersberg Theology. Wilkins argued that they were not trying to develop a systematic theology, but were trying to find solutions to problems they saw in the church. He thought it analogous to a certain current theology, but was too modest to say which one.

I'm going to reserve judgement on this one until I get some time to read Nevin for myself. Wilkins definitely challenged my thinking about the Church. We will need to deal with our individualistic conception of the christian life at some point, but I still have a fear of pointy hats.

The last talk of the day was Dr. Lillback's biography of John Witherspoon. Rather than give the whole spiel, here's a gem from the notes:

John Witherspoon's Students:

James Madison
Aaron Burr
12 members of the Continental Congress
5 Delegates to the Constitutional Convention
49 U.S. Representatives
28 U.S. Senators
3 Supreme Court Justices
8 U.S. District Judges
26 State Judges
1 Secretary of State
3 Attorney Generals
2 Foreign Ministers
114 Ministers

His school? The College of New Jersey, now known as Princeton. Some of the newspapers in England called the Revolutionary War "The Presbyterian Rebellion." If none of this sounds impressive, imagine a new form of governance, rooted in biblical principles, birthed by graduates of Azusa Pacific University. Don't laugh, Wheaton, I could have used you.

Dave amused himself by wearing Frank Turk's "Grab his Baptism" shirt. I wanted to get a picture of him with Doug Wilson, but I didn't have the camera with me. I was despondent, but after some reflection I realized that God would use this for Frank's sanctification.

Category: Theoblogia

Innovations in Catechism

2006-08-14T20:17:00.000-07:00

I had the distinct pleasure of hearing my 13 year old sister, Nadia, confess her faith yesterday. She had just completed a class with our pastor emeritus during which she was required to memorize the Apostle's Creed. My dad decided that he would help her through an innovative memory aid. He taped a copy of the creed to his motorcycle helmet and took her for a ride. I don't know if there is any advantage to memorization on the back of the motorcycle, but it seemed to work for my sister. And it says something about my dad, too.

Category: Theoblogia

Trinity Fest--Day 1

2006-08-10T17:29:00.000-07:00

Why is the Trinity Fest logo a toucan? I will know!

What can I say about our hosts? They have been gracious throughout and shown true hospitality. I shall post more on this later.

We began our session with some great hymns that I didn't know. I asked them if we could sing "Shine, Jesus, Shine." I learned to listen and enjoy the harmonies.

The first speaker was Steven Wilkins. He spoke about the Great Awakenings. He acknowledged that the Awakenings did lead to conversions, but in the process, the revivalists impugned good ministers of the gospel as "unconverted" and made a crisis conversion experience the norm. Pastor Wilkins cracked wise about the Auburn Avenue controversy, noting that his church was on a street that seems to get people upset for some reason. Throughout, he challenged the popular conception of being "born again" as an emotional response.

Douglas Wilson was next to speak. He described the Federalist/Anti-Federalist controversy. He made it very clear that he sympathized with Patrick Henry. He argued that had Patrick Henry not insisted on the Bill of Rights, our liberties would have eroded even faster than they did.

Wilkins took the stage again and gave an excellent biography and evaluation of George Whitefield. While Whitefield was incredibly charismatic and effective in his ministry, he also denounced other ministers as unconverted. Whitefield also made it clear, through open air preaching, that the local church was not necessary in the believer's life. Whitefield repented of many of his actions later in life.

The end of the day was spent at St. Brigid's Feast. Some excellent Idaho BBQ and even better pie was a nice end to the day. Yes, they did sell beer at the picnic. No, no one was swallowed up by the ground. After the picnic, some headed off to a big square dance. We considered playing cards just to complete the fundamentalist triathalon, but it had already been a long day.
Category: Theoblogia

Trinity Fest--Day 0

2006-08-07T10:56:00.000-07:00

Dave and I have made it up to Moscow and experienced Christ Church for ourselves. I've got to get to Trinity Fest in about an hour, but I wanted to post a bit about what I've seen of the Potato Militia.

I don't think anyone doubts Douglas Wilson's status as a controversy magnet, but I don't think that he is a publicity hound like a few internet denizens I shan't name. Rather, like Huckleberry Finn, he was "born for trouble." The service at Christ Church was a liturgical decathalon that left me exhausted, but edified. I can't recall when I have heard better music sung more boistrously by the congregation.

The really impressive thing about yesterday was the hospitality we were shown by the church. A very nice guy called Dave introduced us to some other guys who took us to lunch, showed us around, and were generally cool people. They were even nice to us after they found out we were from California.

Dave has been in theology geek heaven. If you want to have an theological argument, and money is no option, Moscow, ID is your place. To narrow it down a bit, the excellent coffee at Bucer's will keep you wired and spouting five-syllable words late into the night.

All of the very sharp folks we've met have disagreed with us (well, Dave mostly) in the most cheerful manner you could ask. They're probably the only people I know who will make sure that you get enough to eat while you're taking them to task about the Federal Vision (all Dave).

The concert last night was the best choral music I can remember hearing. The conductor (whose name escapes me at the moment)has created arrangements of the Psalms that deserve to be sung in your church (even you, Baptist boy).

Oh, and there is absolutely no evidence of a doomsday device called "Project Bahnsen." Just a nasty rumor. Move along.

Category: Theoblogia

The Devil's Not the Only One Wearing Prada!

2006-07-22T08:19:00.000-07:00

The ordination of women has really allowed the Anglican church to demonstrate the superiority of specialized pastoral care that only women can provide. Case in point: Rev. Joanna Jepson. Rev. Jepson has been appointed as the chaplain of the London College of Fashion.

The London Telegraph has the whole story. Apparantly, the move has already had an effect:

Frances Corner, the college head, said that the move reflected a more holistic approach to education. She hoped that the unusual combination of fashion and religion would help to break down prejudices and misconceptions.

"It is important to highlight that fashion is more than just clothes," she said. "The industry can be seen as being just about how tall and skinny you are, but there's more to life than just how you look. Fashion should be able to make you feel good, and spirituality can have the same role. I want to show people that fashion has a serious side, too."

Nothing like feeling good while looking good. What could possibly be wrong with that?

Category: Theoblogia

More Sola Fide For You!

2006-07-20T16:46:00.000-07:00

Since it appears that I am inadvertently on a sola fide "kick", I'll post some things I wrote in the comments section of Andrew Sandlin's blog. Sandlin posted Norman Shepherd's response to the OPC Report on Justification, and I tried to give some reasons as to why his response is insufficient to uphold a robust, confessional affirmation of sola fide. I have lightly edited my original comment post.

The frustrating thing about Rev. Shepherd’s response is that it dances around the central issue. Gaffin does not want the very definition and essence of faith to be blurred with works because what the OPC Report is trying to preserve is the fact that works are, in no sense, a co-instrument of faith by which we receive justification. The OPC Report says:

...he [Shepherd] is unclear that and how faith is the sole instrument in justification to the exclusion of all that accompanies it.

Indeed. If Shepherd were to simply and straightforwardly affirm that faith is the sole instrument by which we receive justification, to the exclusion of sacraments, works, really good works, and really really good works (done in true evangelical faith), then there would be little controversy. Indeed, he would probably still be teaching at WTS.

But I don’t think Shepherd’s theology could allow for such an affirmation. For two reasons:

1. His exegesis of James 2:24 denies the traditional distinction between James’ use of the term “justify” and the Pauline use. Rather, Shepherd tells us, James’ use is the same as Paul’s. The necessary implication of this is that good works are, along with faith, a co-instrument of justification.

2. Shepherd states positively against “the merit of good works” justifying us, and against works being the “ground” of our justification, and against “works of the Law”. But tellingly, this leaves out other forms of works. Possibly, one could then include the sacraments, or other works of evangelical obedience (”faithful” obedience). These omissions lead me to believe that he could consider certain forms of works as candidates for being co-instruments of justification.

Another problem, common in Shepherd’s discussion of the issues, is the conflation of justification with the broader category of salvation. Notice the shift from justification to salvation in the 20th paragraph of this article, where Shepherd writes:

The reason why these matters are important is signalized by Machen when he quotes Gal. 5:21 to say that without the works “insisted upon by Paul in every epistle . . . no man can inherit the kingdom of God.

No one is going to argue that good works aren’t necessary (in a descriptive, not prescriptive sense) to salvation (broader category). But this is not the same issue as saying that good works are necessary (in a prescriptive sense) to receive justification (narrow category).

I conclude that the OPC Report is correct in its criticism of Shepherd at this point on the relationship between faith and justification. To whatever extent the "Federal Vision" follows suit, it also falls under the criticism that it compromises the historic Protestant doctrine of sola fide.

Category: Theoblogia

Where Does This Trajectory Take Us?

2006-07-18T21:11:00.000-07:00

First, it is true. We (Jeremy, Garet, and I) owe apologies to the blogosphere for failing to edify, amuse, and delight the God blogosphere and impart our wisdom to others for well over a month now. Seeing as how such wisdom shouldn't be hoarded, here we go.

It is common in some Evangelical and Reformed circles to view the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone (sola fide) as being unnecessary to A. the pure preaching of the Gospel as a mark of the true church and B. saving faith of the individual. The natural corollary to this is, of course, that we accept Roman Catholics, who reject sola fide, as believers and fellow saints and believe Rome to be a true church.

Such views are supported by criticisms of this primacy of sola fide as being too rationalistic, or unhistorical, or a "narrow" view of the Gospel, or by defining saving faith on broader lines, or insisting that sola fide has been overturned by modern biblical studies, or stressing the objective nature of the church and covenant. Most Federal Visionists, for instance, often sustain such criticisms, as do the Ostensibly Reformed (OR) types in various ecumenical, muddle-headed, triangulating corners of the blogosphere (such as the actual as well as functional Anglo-Catholics at ReformedCatholicism.com, for instance). Some of these folks are thoughtful, honest thinkers and upright men, although wrong, in my estimation. Others, however, are sophists who are jumping on the "respectable" and "sophisticated" bandwagon du jour and see fit to re-draw the lines of orthodoxy arbitrarily.

The OR's claim to carry the mantle of the Reformation in doing so, but there are problems with this. From a confessional standpoint, the Westminster Standards as well as the 3 Forms of Unity contain unambiguous anti-Roman polemics in them which militate against such views. What is more, they see the heart of the issue, the nature of true, saving faith, as being as being necessarily sola fideistic.

I was reminded of this during this week's evening service as Question 30 from the Heidelberg Catechism was exposited to my beloved URC congregation:

Do such then believe in Jesus the only Saviour, who seek their salvation and happiness of saints, of themselves, or anywhere else?

Answer. They do not; for though they boast of him in words, yet in deeds they deny Jesus, the only deliverer and Saviour: for one of these two things must be true, that either Jesus is not a complete Saviour, or that they, who by a true faith receive this Saviour, must find all things in him necessary to their salvation.

This teaches us that true saving faith in Christ must be trust in Christ alone, apart from works, saints, or themselves. Those who do not deny Jesus. This condemnation is not general or vague in what it is getting at. Zacharius Ursinus, the chief writer of the Catechism, comments on this Question and Answer:

This question is proposed on account of those who glory in the name of Jesus, and yet, at the same time, seek their salvation, either wholly or in part in some other place without him, in the merits of the saints, in the indulgences of the Pope, in their own offerings, works, fastings, prayers, alms, &c., as do the Papists, the Jesuits, and other hypocrites of a similar cast. We must therefore enquire, whether these persons believe in Jesus as the only Saviour, or not. It is answered, that they do not believe in him, but that in very deed they deny him, however much they may boast of him in words. The substance of this answer is included in this syllogism, drawn from the description of an only and perfect Saviour: Whosoever is a perfect, and only Saviour, he does not confer salvation with others, nor in part only. Jesus is a complete and only Saviour, as we have shown in the exposition of the former question. Therefore he does not confer salvation in connection with others, nor in part only; but he alone confers it entire, and in the most perfect manner. Hence we justly conclude that all those who seek their salvation wholly or in part somewhere else, in reality deny him to be an only and perfect Saviour. Or, we may put it in this form: Those who seek salvation elsewhere than in Christ, whether in the saints, or in themselves, &c., do not believe in Jesus as an only Saviour. The Papists and Jesuits, who look upon their works as meritorious, do this. Therefore they do not believe in Jesus as their only Saviour.

Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, pgs. 168-169

I conclude that neither church members nor officers who strictly subscribe to the 3 Forms of Unity (which include the Heidelberg Catechism), such as is required in churches of the continental Reformed tradition like the URC, are at liberty to follow this OR "trajectory" that denies that sola fide is necessary to orthodox, saving faith or sees the Roman system as being in accord with such faith.

The proof that this "trajectory" is foreign to a confessionally-Reformed train of thought is that deviant trajectories bring you to a place that is far, far away from travelers who took the other path at the fork in the road. I have found one such example as I was perusing Andrew Sandlin's blog some time back. I found, shining brightly, the implications of this trajectory. Sandlin's blog often has great stuff on it, so I was saddened to see that he had officiated at the wedding of a "devout Roman Catholic" (the groom) and a "devout Protestant" (the bride). Sandlin says:

Does the Bible forbid the marriage of a Roman Catholic and Protestant? It does not. Here the revered Westminster Confession blunders badly (24:3), forbiddingProtestant marriage with “papists, or other idolaters,” offering as “proofs” Scriptures that warn against marriages with those who embrace false gods and allegedly prohibit all “mixed marriages.”

The WCF supposedly "blunders" here - I suggest it is because Sandlin has taken a road foreign to the priorities and logic of the Confession and the Westminster Divines. So they end up in different places. Sandlin's defense, that Rome's espousal of the early ecumenical creeds is sufficient to consider it orthodox, goes contrary to the fundamental value the confessions and Reformers assigned to the doctrine of sola fide to the nature of saving faith (individually) and to orthodoxy (as a visible church). If "being of one mind" on the fundamentals of the faith is vital to unity and purity in the visible church, how much MORE vital is it to the unity and purity of a one-flesh, matrimonial union? Sandlin called this Roman Catholic/Protestant wedding an "intra-faith, inter-sector wedding." I call it an astonishing lack of pastoral discernment.

Category: Theoblogia

Second Thoughts

2006-06-08T18:37:00.000-07:00

I'm not about to go toe-to-toe with PCA pastor Tim Bayly in disagreement over something as trivial as an internet article, even though he has taken strong exception to the "Quiet Time Guilt" article I recommended a few posts ago. Why? Because if I did something like that, it would look a lot like the above picture, and I don't want to end up like that small kid - crushed into a fine, powdery substance by the sheer force of his superior biblical knowledge and raw intellect.

OK, actually the real reason is that Pr. Bayly's criticisms are worth considering, and he has forced me to have some second thoughts about some of its contents. I encourage our readers to read through the comments section on his blog article:

...the admixture of truth and error ultimately renders this piece unsalvageable except as an exercise in the practice of that most-neglected-of-all-spiritual-gifts, discernment.

So what are you still doing at this blog? Get over there and check it out.

Category: Theoblogia

Don't Mumble It!

2006-05-19T16:59:00.000-07:00

My church is a bit unique. We are a part of the Reformed Church of America, and certainly subscribe to their doctrine, but we operate like a pretty typical independent evangelical church. We've got guitars and drums and our pastor just started wearing one of those Tony Robbinsesque boom mikes. We don't talk a lot about our Reformed-ness. We even stopped wearing wooden shoes to church. So what gives us away as a mainline church? Saying the creed.

Every once in a while (twice a year, perhaps) we say the Apostle's Creed. I imagine this is to fulfill our obligation to the denomination. It's always a bit interesting as we stumble through reading the words. Those who lift hands and sway gently during the slo-jam half of the worship aren't doing that anymore. The staid non-hand-lifter, non-swayer types are forced to speak. It's really quite beautiful because of its awkwardness.

As a teacher, I have experienced the ritual of saying the Pledge of Allegiance thousands of times. Most students would be hard pressed to explain the meaning of the pledge. But they certainly know the words. They even have developed an annoying cadence that is nearly impossible to break, a cadence still familiar to adults.

I am happy to hear our faltering rendition of the creed. We haven't made it into a meaningless sequence of syllables. If this is what it takes to keep us alert to its meaning, let us say it as sparingly as we need to. It is a wonderful shock to those who, like me, have grown up believing that such a practice was tantamount to popery to realize that many have gone before us and kept the flame of orthodoxy.

Category: Theoblogia

The Sixth Circle?

2006-05-19T11:39:00.000-07:00

At the repository of sophistry known as Reformed Catholicism Kevin Johnson saw fit to edit out one of my posts there on the grounds that it was "inappropriate and disrespectful". I like to think of our blog as appropriately disrespectful, dispensing noogies, wedgies, wet willies, and occasionally even swirlies to all forms of doctrinal unsoundness. So I have posted the uncensored version here with light editing. Parental guidance suggested for children under 13.

This was written in response to Jamey Bennett's post.

----------------------------

Jamey,

I first read Wright’s What Saint Paul Really Said in the summer of 2001 and remember thinking to myself “there is a lot of good stuff in here, but gosh, some of this sounds a lot like Norm Shepherd and Daniel Fuller.” This is before the Auburn Avenue flap. You can probably buy the book for $10 or so. It really should concern you more than it seems to.

But saying "discipleship is salvation" is not the same as saying "discipleship is justification". I assume McArthur is using "salvation" here in reference to sanctification.

But the most charitable reading of Wright’s quote that God will declare us just "on the last day on the basis of an entire life" leads me to conclude that he is, at best, equivocating - "declare us just" is really in reference to our public vindication, not justification (our right standing before God). I chalk this sort of confusion up to the prevalent illiteracy in systematic theology. Anyone who has read standard works such as Berkhof knows better than to muddle such basic concepts. Or, heck, Reymond or Grudem or Hodge’s systematics tomes will do fine, too.

Another example of this systematics confusion is assuming that the statement “salvation is God’s work from start to finish” exonerates Wright from a Reformational standpoint. That statement is an affirmation of sola gratia (which even Romanists often affirm), but not an affirmation of sola fide.

Is Wright going to hell? Maybe. Maybe not. For St. Paul, it was a certainty that the Judaizer leaders were (thus his anathema) - but for the Galatian audience he only held it out as a live possibility, thus giving them a stern warning in hopes that they would accept correction. This is under the assumption that their faith of the heart was better than their momentary doctrine and practice. Hopefully Wright falls into the latter. I suspect he does, but does not a similar stern warning have propriety, as God disciples his sons?

I echo Phil Johnson's sentiments and appreciate the spirit and tone of your post. As I reflect on the matter further, I realize that most Anglicans - even academics - have probably never been exposed to standard works of systematics by us American presbyterians and Dutch-rooted Calvinists. Turretin is maybe the closest thing an Anglican might be exposed to. I could be all wrong here, since I don’t exactly have my hand on the pulse of the Anglican world.

One can affirm that “discipleship is salvation [i.e. sanctification]” yet deny that eternal life “hinges on faith lived out faithfully.” Justification judicially secures BOTH eternal life and the living out of our faith. So the living out of our faith (good works) is a descriptive condition of eternal life, not prescriptive. Thus, good works are not instrumental causes of justification or eternal life. I know that this metaphysics is rather tight, but wander off and you could step on a theological land mine.

----------------------------

Now Jamey's post was respectable, and if the ratio of posts from Jamey, Joseph Johnson, and Rev. Pahls to posts by Kevin Johnson and Tim Enloe continues to climb past a ratio of 1.00, then that web site might become a respectable little outfit conducive to edifying dialogue. I might even be forced to revoke my award I gave them for Most Pretentious Sophistry on the Internet.

Kevin took exception to my use of the "h" word. Hey, I am not the one who brought up the topic of hell in relationship to bad theology, Jamey did. On a serious note, I have a hard time seeing the reproducing of the biblical warnings to the Galatians as "disrespectful" to any ordained minister. The Judaizers received anathemas from Paul, but the Galatian church (including the ordained officers there) received a warning. I see no scriptural principle that bars church laity from making similar warnings to church officers or (in this case) about church officers.

As I have made clear, I'm calling no one a heretic nor anathematizing Bishop Wright. If I have learned little else from John Frame's writings, it is that one should always read an author's writings with the most charitable interpretation that logic and language can allow. Therefore, I believe his theological views are muddled, and while I honestly believe the faith of his heart is better than the teaching he articulates, I still see great propriety in warning brethren about his teaching.

Plenty of people who will be in heaven have muddled theology. The problem with muddled theology is, rather, a pastoral problem. You never know what sort of faith is really lurking inside all the smoke and haze of such a theology.

Category: Theoblogia

Quiet Time Guilt

2006-05-17T10:03:00.000-07:00

My co-bloggers, Jeremy & Garet, and I were involved in Campus Crusade for Christ once upon a time at Cal Poly, Pomona. After intense counseling, deprogramming, and absinthe consumption, we are now mostly healed. OK, I am jesting a bit. I still have a warm spot in my heart for Crusade, and I benefited spiritually from my experience there greatly.

However, I still cringe at my indoctrination with "Quiet Time Guilt", a form of guilt that is really ubiquitous with the larger world of evangelicalism. This is the belief that if you have not set aside time for daily prayer and Bible study devotions, you don't have a "strong relationship with God" at best, and are in sin, at worst. I was reminded of it when I ran across this article refuting this particular form of legalism. If you or a friend are suffering from Quiet Time Guilt, then read this article now.

Category: Gnat-Strainers

Anyone for a Scottish Revival?

2006-05-11T10:43:00.000-07:00

Dr. R. Scott Clark was kind enough to stop by again and lend our blog some credibility by posting some good stuff in the comment box. He alluded to some blog posts from Rick Phillips, which you can read here and here (which includes some info on the PCA side of the controversy). Apparently, a petition is going around, hilariously named "Presbyterians and Presbyterians Together", calling for "charity" in the whole Federal Vision debate. Fair enough, and I'm the first to say that we need to do all we can to prevent a "Scottish Revival" (i.e. church division). But what does "charity" really mean here? Clark observes:

I don't mean to be cynical, but is it mere coincidence that the PPT call for "charity" came out just after the OPC report?

Indeed. The Petition seems to go beyond a mere call for charity and assumes the very thing that is under debate in the church courts right now: that the Federal Vision is consistent with the confessional standards.

In my imaginary dream world, I can hope that the General Assemblies, Synods, and courts will biblically sift the wheat from the tares in the fairly heterogeneous Federal Vision world, laying out carefully and clearly which tenants or elements are outside the confessions and which are not. The involved ministers would then clarify, retract, repent, or turn in their collars accordingly. We would then all join hands and skip into the sunset, the soundtrack orchestra would swell, and the credits would roll. But somehow Reformed controversies seldom turn out that way.

Also: read Ron Gleason's demolition of similar "can't we all just get along" mushy-mindedness from John Armstrong here. He's the first guy I go to when I need theological firepower from an ex-tank commander.

Category: Theoblogia

The Discerning Reader is Back!

2006-05-10T19:11:00.000-07:00

Yup, the Discerning Reader is back. But it is not run by Rob Schlapfer anymore (if you remember that whole brou-ha-ha). Thankfully, the trustworthy Tim Challies bought the domain name. Excuse me while I go try and hide my wallet from myself.

Category: Between the Covers

A Heat-Induced Analogy

2006-05-09T18:20:00.000-07:00

My summer job this year involves lots of quality time with a shovel. That's right, I'm doing construction. Today my shovel and I were up on the roof of an industrial building, scraping tar paper off 20 year old plywood. It was a lovely spring day in California, but a bit warm on the roof. As I walked around, I was careful to walk over the joists; but when I put a foot on the middle of the sheet of plywood, it would flex or even let out an ominous cracking noise.

I was reminded of a most applicable verse:

Ephesians 5:15
Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil.

This admonition comes in the middle of an exhortation against immorality. If we think of the world as the roof, Christians often go to two different extremes. The liberal acts as if there were no sin, and jumps up and down in the middle of the sheet of plywood until he falls through to the hard concrete of apostasy. The fundamentalist draws a very narrow circle around himself and thinks that if he stays inside it, he will be safe. Somehow he still manages to fall through an open skylight.

We have a serious problem. We are sinners. Like a drunkard or a man with vertigo, we do exactly the wrong thing when it matters most. As Christians, we are being changed, but we can certainly sin in extraordinary ways. Is there no hope? Fortunately, there is another verse for us:

Romans 7:24-25
Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death?

Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin.

Rather than denying our nature through libertine openness or a the phony discipline of a tie and short haircut, why not give Christ a chance? Through the work of the Holy Spirit, he keeps us on the path. If we try to keep ourselves pure any other way, the best we can hope for is traction.

Category: Theoblogia

No More Craft Morecaroni and Cheese

2006-05-05T12:47:00.000-07:00

Many of you will recall that the Federal Vision/Auburn Avenue theology flap started a few years ago when the RPCUS, led by Joseph Morecraft III, condemned the theology and those who taught it (including Douglas Wilson, Steve Schlissel, Steve Wilkins, and Steve Schlissel), calling such teachers to repentance. Wilson, in response, has rightly called it a "heresy-trial-on-the-cheap", and humorously ran a parody ad in Agenda/Credenda about the incident of "Craft Morecaroni and Cheese":

...Joe Morecraft made a travesty of biblical justice and judicial procedures. But at the same time, when the person in question is in the position that Joe Morecraft was in, such a response should not be done lightly at all. So when we were condemned as heretics, without evidence cited, without anyone talking to us, and without clear understanding what our actual positions were, the first thing we did was attempt to communicate with Joe privately before our church issued a public response of any kind. Joe flatly refused to work with us on it. Consequently, the only reasonable thing that was left for us to do was to explore the matrix between modern Southern Presbyterianism insta-mix heresy trials and Kraft mac in a box.

This incident got a lot of publicity, for bad reasons. The Federal Vision is a matter that Reformed Christians should debate and respond to, and the theological issues are important. I hope that proper debate and ecclesiastical judgment over the issue will get more publicity and eclipse the RPCUS flap for the edification of God's people and the preservation of sound doctrine.

Toward that end, the OPC has erected a study committee to critique the Federal Vision. After two years of labor, they have completed a report (hat tip to ReformedCatholicism.com) that will be submitted for adoption at this June's General Assembly. It does not rule on anyone's defrocking or excommunication, but does recommend that ordination candidates be tested for fidelity to the Westminster Standards contra some of the Federal Vision positions. The report concludes:

The committee believes that the following
points that are held by some one or the other advocates of FV are out of accord with Scripture and our doctrinal standards:

1. Pitting Scripture and Confession against each other.
2. Regarding the enterprise of systematic theology as inherently rationalistic.
3. A mono-covenantalism that sees one covenant, originating in the intra-trinitarian fellowship, into which man is invited, thus flattening the concept of covenant and denying the distinction between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace.
4. Election as primarily corporate and eclipsed by covenant.
5. Seeing covenant as only conditional.
6. A denial of the covenant of works and of the fact that Adam was in a relationship with God that was legal as well as filial.
7. A denial of a covenant of grace distinct from the covenant of works.
8. A denial that the law given in Eden is the same as that more fully published at Mt. Sinai and that it re-quires perfect obedience.
9. Viewing righteousness as relational not moral.
10. A failure to make clear the difference between our faith and Christ’s.
11. A denial of the imputation of the active obedience of Christ in our justification.
12. Defining justification exclusively as the forgiveness of sins.
13. The reduction of justification to Gentile inclusion.
14. Including works (by use of “faithfulness,” “obedience,” etc.) in the very definition of faith.
15. Failing to affirm an infallible perseverance and the indefectibility of grace.
16. Teaching baptismal regeneration.
17. Denying the validity of the concept of the invisible church.
18. A overly-objectified sacramental efficacy that downplays the need for faith and that tends toward an ex opere operato view of the sacraments.
19. Teaching paedocommunion.
20. Ecclesiology that eclipses and swallows up soteriology.

I agree with David Bayly on this matter:

Whether "Federal Vision" theology is cohesive enough or sufficiently heterodox to require such opposition we're uncertain. What is certain is that God's truth prospers in the light, not in smoke-filled rooms and alleyways.

I believe that many of the criticisms this Report makes are sound, and hopefully this will indeed shed light on the truth. For those with the courage, fortitude, and caffeine sustenance to wade through 91 pages of presbyterian polity and doctrinal jargon, I commend our audience to reading the whole Report. The main weakness is that I doubt that some, especially moderates like Wilson, would raise their hand and say that they affirm any of the 20 listed views. The lack of specificity may hinder the effectiveness of enforcing the Report's criticisms. Only the views of the more radical elements, such as James Jordan, Mark Hornes, and Rich Lusk (who are not OPC themselves), are liable to get swept up. I'm a URC guy, so I don't know much about the OPC world on a personal basis, but I doubt that the OPC will be rent apart by the adoption of the Report.

My beloved URC has made some moves at synod that generally go against some facets of the Federal Vision (specifically against paedocommunion), and one of the FV proponents, John Barach, has now left our federation for the CREC. On the PCA side, there is an overture for this year's General Assembly to erect a similar study committee on FV, and one presbytery has requested that Steve Wilkins' exoneration by his presbytery be reviewed. For further reading:

1. The Louisiana Presbytery Report exonerating, with some qualifications and concerns, Steve Wilkins.

2. The Mississippi Valley Presbytery Report condemning, generally, FV theology.

3. Calvin Beisner & Co.'s response to the Louisiana Report, detailing more specific criticisms of Wilkins' teaching. This specificity is very helpful.

4. The Auburn Avenue Theology, Pros and Cons. This is the book that educated me on these matters, and was a good first step in having a Christ-honoring debate over FV.

So, after all of this heady theology stuff, who's hungry?

P.S. - I have no clue who that guy is. The things you find w/ a google search!

Category: Theoblogia

taking aim at hypocrisy hunting

2006-04-21T10:55:00.000-07:00

Firmly entrenched in my list of "women I take seriously" is the wonderfully sarcastic conservative beauty queen Ann Coulter. The other women on the list are my mom, Nancy Pearcey, Peggy Noonan, Elisabeth Elliot and Margaret Thatcher. It's kind of a short list. Of course, I'm kind of a chauvinist- a good natured one though.

Ms. Coulter's column this week entitled Lie Down With Strippers, Wake Up With Pleas struck the nail so squarely on the head that it may have created an harmonic vibration reverberating through the universe that is sure to sow discord in hearts of godless liberals (political and theological). She makes this obvious, yet often overlooked, observation:

The liberal charge of "hypocrisy" has so permeated the public consciousness that no one is willing to condemn any behavior anymore, no matter how seedy. The unstated rule is: If you've done it, you can't ever criticize it — a standard that would seem to repudiate the good works of the Rev. Franklin Graham, Malcolm X, Whittaker Chambers and St. Paul, among others.

I so often hear the lame excuse from people who are either nominal Christians that won't attend church or resistant non-Christians who remain repellent of the Gospel because "there are so many hypocrites." Such responses reveal the Arminian thinking so etched into a mind yet transformed by the doctrines of grace. It denies the total depravity of all men, and overlooks the necessity of the atonement. If men could, by power of their own desire, act perfectly and never sin, then Christ's death on the cross was an unnecessary tragedy. Of course, hypocrisy is just an illogical excuse for people to justify their own sin of unbelief and hatred of that which is good. Coulter essentially makes this point when she says,

But we're all rotten sinners, incapable of redemption on our own. The liberal answer to sin is to say: I can never pay this back, so my argument will be I didn't do anything wrong.

It shoud be pointed out to hypocrite indicators our call is to worship Christ not each other. And that may be the crux of the issue. Perhaps it is because the quivering gelatinous mass of humanism that envelopes much of evangelical Christianity instructs by default people to worship men(especially themselves) and not Christ. Choreographed lights, trivial, overproduced music, and advertised Starbucks coffee cry out- "you are who is important, come here to be served by God and his people!" "You are so great, we just want you on our team." A man centered, Christ diminishing gospel oozes forth fuzzily from the pulpit and a bunch of religous navel gazers pat each other on the back. Pagans and moral relativists look on from a distance in amazed indignance, thinking "I might as well just go to a Rolling Stones concert... at least there I can get some good weed." (potential outreach coming to an emergent church near you)

The problem, as always, is exceedingly poor theology. We are to gather in fellowship to worship Christ, and precisely because we are hypocritical sinners. Yet, so many people are enslaved to a mindset that looks to sanctification prior to conversion. Or looks to perfection prior to sanctification. Or, in their deluded, self-constructed reality have rationalized how they are in fact "a pretty good person" and think the church needs to make itself more holy before it is worthy of their presence. Of course, the real travesty is when the means by which a hard hearted person rejects Christ is the observation of unregulated pride present in those who believe they are saving themselves.

Category: Theoblogia

I Read Blogs

2006-04-13T12:20:00.000-07:00

A roundup of some interesting bits from the blogosphere (with Davidic commentary):

James White proves that N.T. Wright is even worse than I thought. He claims that even those such as his "friend" Marcus Borg who don't believe in the bodily resurrection are "Christians" who "love Jesus?." And this guy is supposed to be the Church of England's star hitter? Our consistory wouldn't even let him be our church janitor.

This doesn't make Wright useless in an academic sense (his defense of the resurrection and historicity of the gospel narratives contra the Jesus Seminar is helpful), but let's face it: he is not a beacon of light for Christendom to follow. We should look elsewhere for reformation of the church and sound doctrinal development in this new millennium. He is not fit to pastor over souls.

The "catholicity" over at ReformedCatholicism.com becomes an even smaller micro-sect as Douglas Wilson is criticized for being too "James White." If Doug Wilson is not Reformed Catholic enough for these folks, who then can be saved?

In political news, Comedy Central has censored South Park from showing a cartoon depiction of Mohammed. Gutlessness is being brought to new heights these days in the face of such indefensible Islamofascist insanity. If these rioting, slobbering animals can win the war against free speech against the West, then they can win any war they want against the West.

Category: Extraneous & Miscellaneous

Remember the 80's?

2006-04-13T12:03:00.000-07:00

I was in the video store yesterday and noticed that the Narnia movie had already come out on DVD. I happened to miss it while it was in the theatres. Of course, I don't normally see many movies in the theatre. Who needs these new-fangled movies anyhow with all of their CGI effects and such? What was wrong with the 1988 BBC mini-series production of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe? It may have had a special effects budget of $4.28, but when I was a kid that was good enough and we liked it.

Category: Extraneous & Miscellaneous

Animated Discussion of the Church Growth Movement

2006-04-10T07:42:00.000-07:00

Sometimes the world sees our faults more clearly than we do, and sometimes they're just catching on. In last night's episode of King of the Hill, the Hills are put out because they have to sit in a different pew for the first time in 12 years. They have a hard decision to make:

Peggy: Maybe we should try the new megachurch.

Hank: I don’t want to change churches. Besides, that place is too big. What’s it got, 5000-some-odd members?

Peggy: And it pampers all of them! They have their very own coffee shop, florist, mini-mart, bank, and a dry cleaner that accepts all competitors’ coupons.

Hank: If I wanted to go that route, I could just walk around the mall and think about Jesus!

Despite Hank's protestations, they end up at the megachurch (replete with Java-lujah coffeeshop) anyway. The Hills are initially enthusiastic, but they begin to grow weary of endless satisfaction surveys, hyper-spirituality, and 8-day-per-week church activities. They finally end up back at their old Methodist church (pastored by a woman, of course), and, through some sleight of hand, get their old pew back.

The real reproach here is that the satire may not go far enough. At least this fictional megachurch met together in one sanctuary rather than in separate venues where everyone gets the worship he or she wants. I'm not sure what music this fictional megachurch does sing, but in their church hunt, the Hills started to walk into a typical evangelical church, but they heard the insipid worship music and never made it through the door. As much as the world wants to satirize us, it does not know us well enough to see the the depth of our vacuity.

Category: Theoblogia

EPIC Douglas Wilson...

2006-04-04T22:10:00.000-07:00

All I can say is "my thought exactly."

Read Freedom? What Freedom?

Category: Theoblogia

On The Legacy of Dr. King

2006-04-04T08:45:00.000-07:00

Today's lesson plan for my ninth grade English class centered on the writings of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., focusing specifically on the sermon he delivered entitled Our God Is Able. As I went through the biographical information in the textbook with my students, I realized that today is the 38th anniversary of his assassination, which occured April 4, 1968. Dr. King is, of course, remembered for his contribution to civil rights in America, but what I stress to my students is that he was an incredibly well educated and theologically sound expositor of God's word. I am not certain of his influences, but certainly I can detect the presence of Spurgeon, Edwards, and Schaeffer. He demonstrates a profound understanding of the sciences, as well as a vast depth and breadth of literary knowledge. Dr. King aspired to be a complete man, if only that message had permeated deeper into the culture he inspired.

In the following passage from the aforementioned sermon, Dr. King directs his listeners to accept God's sovereignty in the existence of evil.

At times other forces cause us to question the ableness of God. The stark and colossal reality of evil in the world - what Keats calls "the giant agony of the world;" ruthless floods and tornadoes that wipe away people as though they were weeds in an open field; ills like insanity plaguing some individuals from birth, the madness of war - why do these things occur if God is able to prevent them?

This problem, namely, the problem of evil, has always plagued the human mind. Of course much of the evil we experience is caused by our own folly, ignorance and also by the misuse of our God given freedom.

Beyond this I can only say that there is and always will be a penumbra of mystery surrounding God. What appears at the moment to be evil may have a purpose that our finite minds are incapable of comprehending. So in spite of the presence of evil and the doubts that lurk in our minds, we shall not surrender the conviction that our God is able.

Read the full text of Our God Is Able

Category: Theoblogia

Starbucks - The New Jerusalem?

2006-04-03T09:49:00.000-07:00

If you are tired of having a coherent, biblical theology, feel boxed in by old, dusty confessions, and love Starbuck's lattes, then be sure to check out Christianbook.com's Emergent Church section!

Do you love eclecticism for the sake of eclecticism? Are you infatuated with your own Orange County hipster/metrosexual image? Feel like your theology needs some postmodernism injected into it? Tired of reading books by authors with seminary degrees and long for real theological insight from an ex-English teacher? Tired of seeing all those square over-30 folks in your church? Friend, you've come to the right place.

Feelings, Nothing More than Feeeeeelllllinngs.

2006-04-03T09:30:00.000-07:00

Does God speak to you directly? Not through a burning bush, but through the still, small voice of your emotions? Or does He give you signs?

I'm not going to say He can't, but I have my doubts that He does. Before antithesis.com shut down (the sad reasons can be found here), they published a most excellent article by Bruce Waltke on this very topic. Through the magic of The Wayback Machine, Antithesis, though it is dead, still speaks. Here is a taste:

Far too many Christians rely on faulty logic to divine the will of God. Their thinking goes like this: "God has a plan, and therefore He intends that I find it.' That is a non sequitur, a conclusion that cannot logically follow the premise. Simply because God has a plan does not mean that He necessarily has any intention of sharing it with you; as a matter of fact the message of Job is in part that the Lord in His sovereignty may allow terrible things to happen to you, and you may never know why.

Now read the whole thing.

Category: Theoblogia

From the road: What it is and what it isn't

2006-03-31T16:41:00.000-08:00

I'm posting from a Starbuck's in the rural, central coast town of Templeton, CA. In between sips of my Venti Expresso Roast, I came across this wonderful little nugget by Dr. J.I. Packer. He sums up the totality of easy-believism, Christianity and water, seeker friendly, emergent, and every other man centered and worthless fad diminishing the Gospel, in contrast to what the Gospel is and has been since the beginning. Semper Reformanda!

It (the Gospel) was always and essentially a proclamation of divine sovereignty in mercy and judgment, a summons to bow down and worship the mighty Lord on whom man depends for all good, both in nature and in grace. Its center of reference was unambiguously God. But in the new gospel the center of reference is man. This is just to say that the old gospel was religious in a way that the new gospel is not. Whereas the chief aim of the old was to teach people to worship God, the concern of the new seems limited to making them feel better. The subject of the old gospel was God and his ways with men; the subject of the new is man and the help God gives him. There is a world of difference. The whole perspective and emphasis of gospel preaching has changed.

From this change of interest has sprung a change of content, for the new gospel has in effect reformulated the biblical message in the supposed interests of 'helpfulness'. Accordingly, the themes of man's natural inability to believe, of God's free election being the ultimate cause of salvation, and of Christ dying specifically for his sheep are not preached. These doctrines, it would be said, are not 'helpful'; they would drive sinners to despair, by suggesting to them that it is not in their own power to be saved through Christ. (The possibility that such despair might be salutary is not considered: it is taken for granted that it cannot be, because it is so shattering to our self-esteem.) However this may be (and we shall say more about it later), the result of these omissions is that part of the biblical gospel is now preached as if it were the whole of that gospel; and a half-truth masquerading as the whole truth becomes a complete untruth. (from the introduction to a 1958 reprint of John Owen's The Death of Death in the Death of Christ)

Category: Theoblogia

Chuck Norris Facts (a superfluous, self-indulgent post)

2006-03-29T14:00:00.000-08:00

Recently it was brought to my attention that the cult following of the action star Chuck Norris, has, in its exuberance, attributed powers and abilities far exceeding those of a mere mortal to their idol. They have devised their own creed of sorts, an incredible list of Chuck Norris Facts, that elevate Chuck Norris, his manly beard, and his martial arts bravado beyond the bounds of human reason. The Chuck Norris Facts credo has even gained enough notariety to be included at Wickipedia. Chuck Norris, an outspoken evangelical himself, has denied any attributes of the Divine and strongly affirmed there is but One Lord over heaven and earth.

Chuck Norris' Favorites
1. When the Boogeyman goes to sleep every night, he checks his closet for Chuck Norris.
2. Chuck Norris doesn't read books. He stares them down until he gets the information he wants.
3. There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of creatures Chuck Norris has allowed to live.
4. Outer space exists because it's afraid to be on the same planet with Chuck Norris.
5. Chuck Norris does not sleep. He waits.
6. Chuck Norris is currently suing NBC, claiming Law and Order are trademarked names for his left and right legs.
7. Chuck Norris is the reason why Waldo is hiding.
8. Chuck Norris counted to infinity - twice.
9. There is no chin behind Chuck Norris’ beard. There is only another fist.
10. When Chuck Norris does a pushup, he isn’t lifting himself up, he’s pushing the Earth down.
11. Chuck Norris is so fast, he can run around the world and punch himself in the back of the head.
12. Chuck Norris’ hand is the only hand that can beat a Royal Flush.
13. There is no such thing as global warming. Chuck Norris was cold, so he turned the sun up.
14. Chuck Norris can lead a horse to water AND make it drink.
15. Chuck Norris doesn’t wear a watch, HE decides what time it is.
16. Chuck Norris gave Mona Lisa that smile.
17. Chuck Norris can slam a revolving door.
18. Chuck Norris does not get frostbite. Chuck Norris bites frost
19. Remember the Soviet Union? They decided to quit after watching a DeltaForce marathon on Satellite TV.
20. Contrary to popular belief, America is not a democracy, it is a Chucktatorship.

Chuck Norris Tribute Music Video

Category: Extraneous & Miscellaneous

Chesterton vs. the PETA of His Day

2006-03-29T08:02:00.000-08:00

I am here only following the outlines of their argument, which consists in maintaining that man has been progressively more lenient, first to citizens, then to slaves, then to animals, and then (presumably) to plants. I think it wrong to sit on a man. Soon, I shall think it wrong to sit on a horse. Eventually (I suppose) I shall think it wrong to sit on a chair. That is the drive of the argument. And for this argument it can be said that it is possible to talk of it in terms of evolution or inevitable progress. A perpetual tendency to touch fewer and fewer things might--one feels, be a mere brute unconscious tendency, like that of a species to produce fewer and fewer children. This drift may be really evolutionary, because it is stupid. (Orthodoxy, 118)

Category: Extraneous & Miscellaneous

Biola Educators Symposium--Part 2

2006-03-28T20:01:00.000-08:00

I thoroughly enjoyed both sessions by Dr. John Mark Reynolds. Dr. Reynolds is my kind of academic. He spoke clearly and didn’t pull any punches. Frustratingly, thanks to the cursed 91 freeway, we missed most of his first session. I was fortunate enough to have heard Dr. Reynolds deliver a similar session at the ACSI convention, so I can at least guess at most of what he had to say at Biola.

Reynolds' theme was the need for an integrated Christian world view. Since all of creation was the product of one mind, all of our disciplines should cohere together. His way of examining this was through the lens of truth, beauty and goodness.

Dr. Reynolds rightly pointed out that we are almost all relativists when it comes to beauty. We’ve bought into the idea that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. This is not an option for Christians. Although we can identify fads and fashions, there are some things that are timelessly beautiful and timelessly ugly. To believe otherwise is to deny the reality of the way in which God has created the world.

So why is this important? Reynolds argues that we are neglecting our students who are gifted in the arts. He points out that we often have the most discipline problems with artistic students. When students discover that we do not value beauty, they make themselves as ugly as possible. As funny as I find the pretentiousness of the goth kids, it is a tragedy that they mar themselves in every way imaginable.

Convincing students that most of the things they like are ugly is not easy. They are especially leery of claims that Bach is better than Beyonce. But this is our task.

Reynolds' larger point is that we have given into the world's idea that science holds the position of the only objective arbiter of truth. If we believe that everything else is relative, we are not going to produce virtuous students who will choose the good, beautiful, and true.

Category: Theoblogia

M is for Marxist

2006-03-27T15:07:00.000-08:00

As a big fan of The Matrix trilogy, when the Wachowski brother's new venture, V is for Vendetta, hit theatres, I was eager to attend. One solitary Sunday night, I secretly slipped into the theatre in my comfy sweats. As the film progressed I was dazzled by its cinematic wonder and stylized dialogue, yet increasingly incredulous at the pure political propaganda accumulating in steamy piles before me. I walked out of the theatre in state of disbelief as the slurring voices of a group of teen aged punk rockers and emo-types proclaimed how it was "the most amazing movie ever!" Seriously, they "got it" and really thought it was cool.

At its core this movie is clearly intended to be a pseudo-prophetic message extrapolated from a decidely Marxist world-view applied to the geo-political paradigm of Michael Moore. The vapidity didn't cease there as the neo-Marxist agendas of homosexuality and pluralism are graphically overt. Who is the culprit that instigated this oppressive, totalitarian government wielded by the villainous bourgeoisie? Homophobic, anti-Islam, generally intolerant, right-wing conservative Christians who have ties to drug corporations, that's who! Of course, the giant elephant in the room (or theatre in this case) is that totalitarianism has ALWAYS arisen within the regimes of idealistic Marxist/socialist revolutionaries.

The content of this film was astoundingly audacious in its portrayel of certain geo-political current events. For a more complete play by play, read the review by Megan Basham at TownHall. She quotes the creator of the comic book "V" the movie is based on, Alan Moore, who had this to say after insisting Warner Bros. remove his name from the movie, "[My comic] has been turned into a Bush-era parable by people too timid to set a political satire in their own country… [The film] is a thwarted and frustrated and largely impotent American liberal fantasy of someone with American liberal values standing up against a state run by neo-conservatives — which is not what "V for Vendetta" [the comic] was about."

I'm not going to say "don't waste your money", because as a faerie tale, it was quite good.

*Update* For a thoughtful analysis with a different take from The Pearcy Report, click here.
Category: Civitas Terrena

Biola Educators Symposium--Part 1

2006-03-25T22:02:00.000-08:00

I attended the most excellent Educator's Symposium at Biola this last weekend. I want to devote space to the challenges laid down at the conference, but I thought I would first report on one of the more informative lectures of the weekend. Dr. J.P. Moreland delivered a lecture on postmodernism that, while delivering a correct diagnosis of the problem with postmodernism, gave a strange prescription for its cure.

Dr. Moreland gave a very clear synopsis of postmodernism and deconstruction. I think even the most committed pomos would be satisfied with his definitions. I was very pleased that he did not take the easy route and attack the straw man of personal relativism (they say that anything goes!). Unfortunately, we would soon plunge into very deep water.

Dr. Moreland defined three types of knowledge: acquaintance, propositional, and skill. He made it very clear that we do not need to know with certainty to possess knowledge of the truth. I was beginning to fall into a fugue state of perpetual "Hmmm" at this point.

Moreland next defined truth as a relation between an idea (he never used "proposition" here, but hey, we're all teachers) and reality. If the two correspond, the thing is true. I don't know what to make of this. By saying "reality," don't we have to presuppose that what we call "reality" truly exists? How can we prove the truth about the thing by which all truth is proven?

At some point, Dr. Moreland mentioned that John 14:6 does not mean that Jesus is "the truth" in some sort of mystical way; he is merely making a statement about truly being the Messiah. I suppose God incarnate cannot be an eternal relation between such things as "green" and "brussel sprouts." I wonder, though, if Moreland's definition only covers how we humans experience truth. When God has an idea, He does not need to compare it to reality to know if it is true or not. He is the very definition of reality, and in Him we all have our reality. I cannot see how He is not truth itself, just as He is love.

Now that I have returned home to the blessings of broadband, I have been able to discover that Dr. Moreland is a Molinist. The disturbance in the Reformed force that I felt was indeed real. Molinists believe that they have got at the nature of the Almighty's thoughts through their own philosophy. I don't recall any of us being there when the Almighty measured off the heavens, so I'm not quite sure how Molinists know so much about it. They are fighting hard to pull Leviathan out with a hook.

None of this is to say that Dr. Moreland was in any way arrogant or dogmatic. He seems to be the model of a Christian gentleman. Had his material on postmodernism been less useful, I would not have been so frustrated with his digression into epistemology (Molinists like this type of sentence). His purpose was to distinguish his idea of worldview from the constructivist and presuppositionalist views. He sees worldviews as sets of habits that may be set aside to truly see things as they are. This too is problematic. When we talk about the ultimate question of salvation, people are dead in their sins until God intervenes. They're not "mostly dead." They're not suffering from a set of bad habits. Moreland's view fails when it matters most.

I commend Dr. Moreland for lecturing on epistemology to a group of teachers. Most of us need this kind of intellectual challenge. However, I think his time would have been better spent addressing the epistemological problems with postmodernism rather than trying to convince us of his curious view.

Category: Theoblogia

Cake or Death?

2006-03-21T12:12:00.000-08:00

If you've never seen Eddie Izzard's take on what a theoretical Anglican Inquisition would be like, it is a good laugh:

"Cake or death?"

"Eh, cake please."

"Very well! Give him cake!"

"Oh, thanks very much. It's very nice."

"You! Cake or death?"

“Uh, cake for me, too, please."

"Very well! Give him cake, too! We're gonna run out of cake at this rate. You! Cake or death?"

"Uh, death, please. No, cake! Cake! Cake, sorry. Sorry..."

"You said death first, uh-uh, death first!"

"Well, I meant cake!"

"Oh, all right. You're lucky I'm Church of England!" Cake or death?"

"Uh, cake please."

"Well, we're out of cake! We only had three bits and we didn't expect such a rush. So what do you want?"

"Well, so my choice is 'or death’? I’ll have the chicken then, please.

The Church of the Pointy Hats, also known as the Anglican Church (or Episcopalian Church here in the U.S.), has quite the reputation for being soft on...well, everything. Ann Coulter describes the "Church of the Proper Fork" thusly:

The Episcopalians don't demand much in the way of actual religious belief. They have girl priests, gay priests, gay bishops, gay marriages - it's much like the New York Times editorial board. They acknowledge the Ten Commandments or "Moses' talking points" but hasten to add that they're not exactly "carved in stone." After Bush said that the most important philosopher to him was Jesus Christ, the Episcopal bishop in Des Moines, Iowa, C. Christopher Epting, pronounced the answer "a turnoff." So there isn't a lot of hair-shirt-wearing and sacrifice for the Episcopalians.

So what's the occasion for today's Anglican ridicule post? Well, one could dismiss such quirks and effeminate mannerisms as cute but harmless byproducts of English foppery.

The problem is that Gospel proclamation should not be "soft", nor should the doctrine and practice of the church be corrupted by polite mushy-mindedness that disdains the Law of God. Tim Bayly unloads both of his shotgun barrels at the Bishop of Durham, N.T. Wright on his blog:

In this gelded age, the revelation and authority of God are soft-pedalled by emasculated clergymen who like to think of themselves not as preachers and shepherds, but intellectuals and "academics."

Yes, I know full well the whole world is going after that super-apostle, Bishop Wright. But I say to those I love, leave him alone. Even if his content is sometimes helpful when dealing with our decadent world, his affect, his rhetoric, his way of speaking is absolutely poisonous to those training to be faithful shepherds of God's flock. The last thing we need today are men who are emasculated and "think," "wonder," "intuit," and "digress" instead of fighting the good fight with all their might.

At some point academic nuance and disinterested, impartial, even-handed analysis become decadent prattle and sophistry that cannot proclaim God's Word with evangelistic and pastoral authority, clarity, and certainty.

I have drinking buddies with more conviction than these alleged ministers/bishops/fops.

UPDATE: Phil Johnson gives a hearty 'amen' here.

Category: Theoblogia

Finding Pleasure In Biting Satire

2006-03-21T10:26:00.000-08:00

I have a distaste for the banal ruffling of emotions over superficial, substanceless experiences and ideas. Which is why my heart lept in joyous agreement when I read this excerpt from The Devil's Dictionary, written by the sardonic journalist, Ambrose Bierce.

"Enthusiasm, n. A distemper of youth, curable by small doses of repentance in connection with outward applications of experience."

Nice.

If you appreciate this, make sure to check out some of his other definitions. I am doubtful Mr. Bierce was a follower of Christ, nonetheless his observations of Pharisitical Christianity are also painfully accurate (thus hilarious).

Death of Adam: A Story In Parts (1)

2006-03-18T12:48:00.000-08:00

Dead

Gasping for breath with trembling lungs, Adam broke through from the watery darkness into wistfully reflected daylight and inhaled painful daggers of icy air. Through the ringing in his ears pressed echoing cries of distress that reverberated over the frigidly stormy sea.

Adam had been wearing fashionable blue jeans, a sweat shirt and a pair of boots. He had torn the boots off in panic as he drifted downward into the abyss, and now labored against the water-laden clothes that tried to pull him into certain death. Every sinew of his body convulsed as it was gripped more deeply by the cold. With gnarled hands and feet he rent the clothes that bound him like a straightjacket. Free from the chains that had insulated his state; in his nakedness the cold compressed his lungs, limiting him to shallow, hopeless breaths. Stiff limbed and losing consciousness, Adam feebly fought for some stable substance to seize hold of. Among the flotsam and jetsam he clawed at a crooked limb of driftwood, and then a thick bramble of branches, neither did a thing for his situation as they sunk under his mass.

The cries of distress slowly diminished as Adam drifted into the inky blackness. Dying, unable to save him self, Adam resisted his fate, fighting with every ounce of strength against the buffeting waves, denying the inevitability of the situation. His mind fell into fuzzy reminiscing of banal experience, and taking a final breath faded into a numb death sleep. Small, sapless and purpled pale, his lifeless form flowed with the moon entranced movement of the deep. And as the pulse of the internal machinations of his person came to rest, Adam knew only the dull sound of lapping liquidity.

Category: Extraneous & Miscellaneous

Theology In The Classroom

2006-03-16T14:22:00.000-08:00

I teach 9th Grade English at a private Christian high school. This has afforded me the opportunity to teach exactly what I like and what I know- a luxury uncommon in government schools. Today I walked my students through the 13th chapter of G.K. Chesterton's The Man Who Was Thursday. Chesterton's main goal in the novel is to reconcile the paradox of an irrational and brutal universe confounded with suffering and the good and loving Creator believed to be its author. Chesterton illustrates the necessity of special revelation through the dialogue of Sunday, the absent minded and powerful President of the Central Anarchist Council of Europe, who functions as Chesterton's allegorical representation of the Creator manifested in the general revelation of nature.

"I? What am I?" roared the President, and he rose slowly to an incredible height, like some enormous wave about to arch above them and break. "You want to know what I am, do you? Bull you are a man of science. Grub in the roots of those trees and find out the truth about them. Syme you are a poet. Stare at those morning clouds. But I tell you this, that you will have found out the truth of the last tree and the topmost cloud before the truth about me. You will understand the sea, and I shall still be a riddle; you shall know what the stars are, and not know what I am. Since the beginning of the world all men have hunted me like a wolf- kings and sages, and poets and law-givers, all the churches, and all the philosophers. But I have never been caught yet, and the skies will fall in the time I turn to bay. I have given them a good run for their money and I will now."

Category: Between The Covers

Where I'm at Right Now

2006-03-14T15:57:00.000-08:00

Continuing on the recent spate of narcissistic posts, I had a great adventure ride on Saturday. My father and I rode through the hills of Aguanga, CA on a quest to reach Warner Springs. We know the route pretty well, but we never made it. We were turned back due to...SNOW! For those of you in colder climes, snow in our part of Southern California is about as rare as, say, a sunny day in Britain.

Riding in the snow was surprisingly hard. It is a little like riding in sand. A good deal of throttle gets the bike on top and prevents knifing around. Unlike sand, there are ruts and rocks hidden underneath it. Going fast enough to prevent general instability pretty much ensures crashing when the inevitable rut grabs the front wheel. I'm sure there's a great metaphor in it somewhere, but I enjoyed it too much to kill it with analysis. We thought better of our planned 70 mile ride and just focused on survival. We bailed out at the ranch and then headed home, defeated but happy.

Category: Blogging Ourselves

A Solipsistic Post

2006-03-11T16:24:00.000-08:00

Since the Muses have not visited Jeremy, Garet, nor I in the past week and blessed us with blog-worthy nuggets of wisdom, I thought I should take some time to talk about...us.

First item: That's me in the photo above with my best non-sentient friend, Predator A. She has a 45' wingspan, and I am currently doing design work on her big sister, Predator B (65' wingspan). It is indeed a cool gig for an aerospace engineer to have, especially knowing that these airplanes have recently been busy reducing Al Qaeda operatives to a fine, ashen powder with their Hellfire missiles. I finally got a snapshot of me next to a fully-assembled aircraft after working for the company for a year and a half now, and thought that our readers might be curious about what this particular God-blogger does for his day job. So there is a little peak behind the curtain for y'all. Which brings me to...

Second item: Blogging anonymity. I've never understood why someone who is in Christ would need or want to avoiding taking responsibility and ownership for the things they say in the name of Christ. Do they not want to be held accountable to their elders for any potential false teachings, vitriol, slander, or blasphemous binary code they spread to a worldwide audience? There are good reasons for us to be men and take responsibility for our words, in whatever forum:

Many Christians appear to believe blogs and discussion forums are morality-free zones. Suddenly, because we're not speaking face to face, we're freed from Biblical standards of conduct. Thus internet anonymity is no longer a trap only for Christian men dealing with lust. Lack of accountability also has led participants on Christian blogs and discussion boards to sin in tragic ways.

Also see the Top Ten Weblog Design Mistakes on anonymity. BTW, we are chronic violators of Rule #7. D'oh!

This is why I don't hesitate to post (duly unclassified!) photos of me at work. There happens to be a dashing picture of me under my profile, along with my (real) full name and e-mail address. If I have neglected Christian charity in my online dealings, and, for instance, said that your mother wears army boots, you can contact my elders at the United Reformed Church of Ontario, CA. Have I been disseminating suspect theology, displaying a trace sympathy for infralapsarianism, or worse - Amyraldianism? Then Pastor Kaloostian would be interested to know, and would promptly open a can of pastoral rebuke on me. Am I in sin for looking at that photo of Keira Knightley more than once, and causing brethren to stumble by posting it on my blog? Fine. But I'll appeal that matter all the way to synod if I must!

Look, I'm not afraid of getting physically attacked by a mob of Calvinists who recognize my face at the next Reformed conference: "hey, that's the guy who rejects the traditional interpretation of Genesis 38! Let's get him, fellas!" If someone does want to take me to task for my beliefs or something I said, I'll be happy to answer it in person.

Third item: 5 months into the lifespan of our blog, we've graduated to the double-digit daily readership category. Tim Bayly of Baylyblog has graciously added us to his blogroll, as has Steve Hays at Triablogue. Unfortunately, the illustrious Centuri0n has neglected to add us to his blogroll. Of course, his blogroll is fairly selective, which would obviously disqualify us, so I don't think this is a case of mere oversight. Clearly, we need to rack up more meritum de congruo (congruent merit) to earn a right standing before him. UPDATE: correction, we are on his blogroll (thanks, Frank!). But you have to scroll way, way, way down to find us (d'oh!).

According to Site Meter, I am clearly our biggest fan, having visited our blog more often than anyone else. At a close second, some peculiar fellow from Reston, Virginia has been spending a scary, inordinate amount of time visiting our blog. Our little treasury of wisdom here on the net simply does not warrant this. I suspect ulterior motives.

In the meanwhile, the Pedantic Protestant came to a functional standstill, while NTRmin.org essentially closed it's doors, and Pyromaniac became Team Pyro. Our blogroll was updated accordingly. Also during this time, James White has had 87 formal debates. And the Emergent Church movement continues to be simultaneously awful and hilarious. So many memories...

Fourth item: Where do we go from here? How can we get from our modest readership numbers to web traffic of Pyromaniac proportions? Judging by the Boar's Head Tavern traffic, clearly sound theology isn't the way to get there, but we'll go ahead and keep that in our resume anyhow. Should I pick a theological fight with someone in the blogosphere with more traffic than us (the blog parasite method)? Nah, blog wars can only last so long.

Actually, I've got some posts on presuppositional apologetics in the oven at the moment, as well as some stuff on the Federal Vision. I'll intersperse some lighter observations in between the meatier stuff, but hopefully we can strike a good balance of quality and quantity around here.

As a graduate student, Jeremy has powers far beyond my own. Once he gets his little "thesis" distraction out of the way, he can get back to the real work of edifying the God-blogosphere here at the Horde. However, I will no longer tolerate his "filler" posts responding to 3rd-party posts in the blogosphere. Since we have higher standards around here, only original scholarship will do, as my hard-hitting posts on beer ice cream and Keira Knightley exemplify.

Garet has undergone an experience of Pauline proportions, and is currently residing in Arabia, whereupon, after three years, he will emerge to blog again with wisdom and insight worthy to be added to the canon of Scripture.

Category: Blogging Ourselves

Like a Gold Ring in a Pig's Snout

2006-03-07T12:30:00.000-08:00

Were you dazzled by all of the glitz, glamour and excitement of this week's Academy Awards? Me neither. Rather, I was reminded again of why I don't watch TV. So why did I post a picture of Keira Knightley at the Awards on our blog? A desperate attempt to improve our blog's aesthetics? A shameless ploy to increase our readership? Neither. I swear.

Rather, it is an occassion to remind ourselves of what we are looking at and what we value. No doubt, Hollywood offers us scores of such beautiful women to gaze upon. Genuinely beautiful- not just "beautiful" in that plastic, fake tan, fake-everything California way. However, it is good to remember just who these people really are:

Like a gold ring in a pig's snout
is a beautiful woman without discretion.

-Proverbs 11:22

Not only do most of these women not know God, they don't even feign an attempt at availing themselves of wisdom and virtue from common grace or the light of natural revelation. I've had goldfish that last longer than most of their marriages. That is, of course, if they even bother to marry one from the string of guys they've slept with. They hire PR people to cover up, defend, or explain away their bulimia/alcohol/drug abuse problems that get exposed. They see nothing wrong with being paid to take off their clothes in front of a movie camera ("the director said there was artistic merit to the scene!"). And most of them are leftist wackos who thought John Kerry was their messiah to save us all from Bush.

What Solomon is trying to teach us in this Proverb is that while physical beauty is truly to be desired in a woman, it avails nothing in a foolish woman. It is a waste of beauty. Indeed, the beauty becomes ugliness without godly propriety, just as the ring does in a pig's snout.

Category: Extraneous & Miscellaneous

Why are you reading this, sinner?

2006-02-28T15:54:00.000-08:00

There was a time, not so long ago, when it was believed that we stood on the threshold of a new era of human knowledge. Our children would be far better educated than we were and money would rain down from the heavens. Indeed, real cash was poured upon many with nothing more than an idea and a clever name. This New Jerusalem was to be brought forth by the greatest blessing ever bestowed on mankind: the internet.

The internet even seemed to fulfill a New Age prophecy:

"With the evolution of Man," he [Teilhard de Chardin] wrote, "a new law of Nature has come into force--that of convergence." Biological evolution had created step one, "expansive convergence." Now, in the twentieth century, by means of technology, "the hitherto scattered" species Homo sapiens was being united by a single "nervous system for humanity," a "living membrane," a single "stupendous thinking machine," a unified consciousness that would cover the earth like "a thinking skin," a noosphere," to use Teilhard's favorite neologism.
Tom Wolfe, "Digibabble, Fairy Dust, and the Human Anthill." Hooking Up. 69

Of course it all came to nought. Our children may turn out to be intellectually crippled by relying on the internet, the stock market crashed when people finally realized that some companies had no actual product, and the internet has proven to be the most effective means of disseminating pornography yet conceived by man. And yet, despite the evidence that the internet is inspired by paganism, dangerous for America's youth, and a den of iniquity, Christians who give lip-service to separation from the world use it anyway.

So what say you, David Cloud? Do you and your ilk need to repent? You teach people to "touch no unclean thing." Surely that includes the internet. If musical rhythms are to be forbidden because they suggest sensuality, how much more so should a network which depicts sex in a graphic and debased way be condemned in our churches? To argue otherwise would be to admit that things are not evil by their nature, but only insomuch as they are misused by evil people. I await the carrier pidgeon announcing your repentance.

Category: Gnat-Strainers

The Other Blessed Hypostatic Union

2006-02-23T22:01:00.000-08:00

Nothing whatsoever in the world compares to our Lord, who has saved us by becoming the dual-nature God-Man. However, in His mercy he has also blessed us with creaturely delights. This includes the heretofor unknown union of Newcastle Brown Ale and ice cream. One nature beer, one nature ice cream, temporally existing in one delicious pint.

Category: Extraneous & Miscellaneous

Just Once, For Centuri0n

2006-02-20T08:09:00.000-08:00

The Psalms contain a word, Selah, that is troublesome for translators. It does not have any obvious meaning, but it is speculated that it is either a musical notation or an expression of agreement or emotion. If we believe it is the latter, we can see that we create such words in our own time and language. Is it any surprise that we have approximated Selah in English as nearly we can with Booyah? I will add a hearty Booyah! to this post by Frank Turk.

Category: Theoblogia

Et Tu, Britannia?

2006-02-15T09:30:00.000-08:00

Not that the United Kingdom was brimming over with freedom last I checked (after our little run-in with King George, things just went from monarchial oppression to socialist nanny-state oppression), but now they've really gone and made things worse by banning all smoking in public places. After visiting the U.K. (twice) I was convinced that they would never buckle under the prevailing trend to ban smoking that so many other countries were adopting. Smoking is such a staple of pub life, I thought. Smoking is just so...English. It would surely be Britain contra mundum.

Yesterday I was proven wrong by British Parliament, and instead we get Britain contra fumus. So I thought the topic would be a worthy addition to Mongrel Horde's recent, inadvertent smoking theme. The grouchy, Tory, English expatriates from National Review weigh in:

Iain Murray: "...the UK isn't really a free country any more."

John Derbyshire: "The madness is upon us. We are doomed, doomed."

And a random, hilarious quote from a Scotsman just for grins: "I don’t understand how we’re supposed to police this. If a big 6ft tall guy comes in and says ‘I’m going to have a fag’ what I am I supposed to do about it? Dial 999?" [So that there is no confusion, consulting your English-to-English dictionary will tell you that "fag" is British slang for "cigarette." -DG]

I'm sure there is going to be some civil disobedience and light enforcement of the ban in remote rural areas in the U.K. I'd love to hear about someone lighting up a big, stinky cigar in a pub and yelling "FREEDOM!!!!" like William Wallace at the end of Braveheart, as the local bobby fines him £50.

Category: Civitas Terrena

Too Good for the Meta

2006-02-12T19:50:00.000-08:00

There are strange doings in the meta. Dave posted a little travelogue from his trip to a Westminster conference. It was merely meant to put him in the running for the world's biggest amateur theology geek, but it turned into a rather, ahem, lively back and forth between Dr. R. Scott Clark and Dr. John Frame. Steve Hays takes sides on Triablogue. Enjoy reading some real theologians for a change.

Category: Theoblogia

Women Theologians

2006-02-10T20:30:00.000-08:00

Dr. Ron Gleason made a wonderful, marvelous contribution to the Bayly's discussion of female theologians in the church. It was so good, I couldn't let the comment remain hidden in the meta of a blog in obscurity:

The good idea [in the article under debate] is that women should be theologians and good ones. I have spent the better part of my life teaching my wife to be a good theologian and she passed with flying colors, although for some odd reason she keeps on reading and learning. She is truly a godly woman of the Book.

You aren't a red-blooded Calvinist male if that doesn't strike a chord with you. Oh, that a man, even a sinful man, could be blessed with such a student of the Word as a helpmate!

I met Dr. Gleason, a PCA pastor in Yorba Linda, at a retreat in Big Bear last summer. He blessed and impressed all in his presence there, and I commend his blog to everyone. A real man's man with the intellectual firepower to back up his confident temperament. As a matter of fact, I want to be like him when I grow up.

Category: Extraneous & Miscellaneous

Eine Alte Kircheanschauung

2006-02-08T19:19:00.000-08:00

I am reading through Martin Luther's Basic Theological Writings and loving every page. This passage seemed especially relevant:

Therefore I maintain and know that just as there is no more than one gospel and one Christ, so also there is no more than one baptism. And that baptism in itself is a divine ordinance, as is his gospel also. And just as the gospel is not false or incorrect for the reason that some use it or teach it falsely, or disbelieve it, so also baptism is not false or incorrect even if some have received or administered it without faith , or otherwise misused it. Accordingly, I altogether reject and condemn the teaching of the Anabaptists and Donatists, and all who rebaptize. (66)

Timothy Lull notes that the Donatists rebaptized members of the orthodox church because they deemed the orthodox priests to be impious, and therefore unable to perform "true baptisms." Luther's view seems to be the reasonable one to me, because his path runs between two very deep ditches. The one on the right is the idea that piety or doctrinal perfection replaces grace. The one on the left is the idea that any baptism will do, regardless of a profession of faith. Baptism can be done wrong, but when saving grace is present it is right--even retroactively.

Category: Theoblogia

Smoking - Good for What Ails Ya'

2006-02-07T15:46:00.000-08:00

Contrary to the suggestion of my co-blogger, Jeremy, I have uncovered evidence that shows the spiritual and health benefits of smoking. On no less than the authority of an OPC minister (so it must be true!). Far from being the unforgivable sin, Dr. Boer (scroll down to find his sermon) tells us that smoking tobacco is akin to the Scriptural uses of burning incense:

Cigars and cigarettes and pipe are all in the same category as incense. They're burned for the nice smell they give. Just like perfume and incense, they bring joy to the heart.

While the modern Reformed church has gone out of its way to defend the moderate uses of alcohol, I've never seen a positive theological defense of tobacco use before. Usually the issue is just sorted under the "Christian liberty" pile and forgotten. Much less have I heard of a defense of tobacco use proceeding from the pulpit in the form of a sermon.

Dr. Boer also covers some of the health benefits of smoking, and reviews the hazards of smoking. He points out that cigar and pipe smokers who do not inhale (such as myself) are at 5 times less risk of these hazards than cigarette smokers.

One of the other articles at the web site points out that Hitler was a "fanatical opponent" of tobacco. Well, that settles it then. Who are you going to believe? An OPC minister or Hitler? Do you want to be like Hitler? That's what I thought. [This is a joke, for our over-sensitive readers.]

So now I can enjoy my weekly cigar fully assured in my mind that the Lord's blessing is on me. The good under-the-table Cuban kind, of course.

Category: Gnat-Strainers

Mongrel Ethics: John Piper Vs. David Bayly

2006-02-02T11:46:00.000-08:00

Few things are more compelling to me than a good old-fashioned theological dispute between solid Reformed preachers. So grab a tub of popcorn, turn on your satellite pay-per-view TV, and enjoy the match.

We do "do ethics" here at the Horde, so I thought we should tackle a sticky, contraversial topic that the Reformed community struggles with. "Is it sinful to use birth control?" is an issue that has no concensus within Reformed circles. To represent the "yea" side of this question, I have selected an article by David Bayly. For the "nay" side I've selected an article by John Piper. I have oodles of respect for both of these fine pastor/theologians, so I thought that even though their articles don't directly address the others', it would still make an effective matchup. OK, guys, I want a good, clean fight. No biting, no eye gouging, no hitting below the belt. All right, touch gloves and come out at the bell. DING DING!

David Bayly comes out swinging with three implicit biblical arguments. First, he points out that the Bible calls children and unequivocal blessing. No Christian who has skimmed his Bible more than once can dispute this. He also points out that the Bible never indicates that we should seek to limit God's blessings, except in regard to material possessions. Piper blocks this initial jab with the following:

In response, it can be pointed out that the Scriptures also say that a wife is a
gift from the Lord (Proverbs 18:22), but that doesn't mean that it is wrong to
stay single (1 Corinthians 7:8). Just because something is a gift from the Lord
does not mean that it is wrong to be a steward of when or whether you will come
into possession of it. It is wrong to reason that since A is good and a gift
from the Lord, then we must pursue as much of A as possible. God has made this a
world in which tradeoffs have to be made and we cannot do everything to the
fullest extent. For kingdom purposes, it might be wise not to get married. And
for kingdom purposes, it might be wise to regulate the size of one's family and
to regulate when the new additions to the family will likely arrive.

Bayly goes on to the biblical mandate to "fill the earth, and subdue it" (Genesis 1:28), which by implication entails the mandate to procreate. This is something everyone in the Reformed camp should agree on - whether Dominionist, theonomic, Southern Presbyterian, or even Reformed baptist. It is to Evangelicalism's shame that materialism and decadence has led to the widespread and manifest de-prioritization of raising offspring in the Lord. Piper, however, qualifies this by asking "how a farmer...knows how much land he should cultivate. The answer, of course, is that a farmer seeks to cultivate what he believes he can reasonably handle. He doesn't take this command to mean that he needs to make his farm be as large as is naturally possible. Likewise, then, it is right for a couple to seek to have the number of children that they believe they can reasonably nurture in light of the other callings they may also have on their lives."

The third implicit argument Bayly provides is from the Levitical laws concerning a woman's ritual impurity during and after menstruation, implying God's desire for sexual relations during the time of maximal fertility. Piper has no counter-argument on this point, but the counter-argument is obvious. Sexual relations are not prohibited by levitical law or any other Scripture during times of non-existent fertility, such as during pregnancy or after menopause. The Bible sets apart sexual relations as a means of building and maintaining marital intimacy, not just for procreating.

David Bayly's explicit argument comes from the case of Onan in Genesis 38. Piper does not address this passage, so Piper and I have arranged an illegal tag-team so that I can jump into the ring and address Bayly's exegetical argument here.

God smote Onan for spilling his seed and failing to impregnate his sister-in-law, Tamar, after his brother's death. Bayly contends that the sin for which Onan was punished was specifically the use of birth control. He argues that the sin for which he died could not have been the failure of his duty to provide an heir for his brother. The Mosaic law that required this duty (Deut. 25:5-6) did not exist during Genesis 38, the time of the patriarchs. Bayly writes:

All law prior to the giving of the written law to Moses was moral law. None of
it was ceremonial or civil. Ceremonial and civil law came down from the mountain
with Moses. If God held a man guilty of lawbreaking prior to giving His written
law to Moses, it was not for violating ceremonial law or civil law, but for
violating the moral law which He had written upon the human heart.

Thus, he argues, Onan's sin was a sin against the moral law and applies to New Covenant members as well. This is a very powerful argument. However, I think the above quotation contains the flawed assumption on which his argument turns. That is, I think it is a mistake to assume that all law before the Mosaic law is necessarily moral law "written on our hearts". Civil or ceremonial law in some form must have existed before the Mosaic law. The proof of this is in God's disdain for Cain's sacrifice, where he clearly violated a form of ceremonial law that Abel had not. The only precondition of non-moral law is special revelation, not necessarily written or Mosaic revelation. Therefore, we can conclude that Onan could have known that it was his duty to provide an heir for his brother before the Mosaic commandment was given. This is why Judah could expect of Onan that he "go in to your brother's wife and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother."

I don't know if this match was exactly a TKO, but now that the dust has settled I conclude that it is an error to make a blanket condemnation of all uses of birth control in the Christian church.

Now the reader should not read into my conclusion, about my own feelings concerning having a large or small family. For now, this is an intellectual exercise for me that I can enjoy from my detached ivory tower on the internet, as I am not married. By God's grace my quiver will overfloweth one day, but I do feel compelled to urge my Reformed brethren not to put undue burdens on other brethren when I do not believe the Scriptures have done so.

Category: Theoblogia

Please Don't!

2006-02-01T10:28:00.000-08:00

One thing that's been puzzling me lately is the Christian content of ABC's Lost. Two weeks ago, they presented an interesting tale of redemption. Last week they took on the thorny issue of baptism. Before you do something silly and start a Bible study (Ooh, ooh! We could call it Lost?), let's take a look at what's really going on.

In an episode called "Psalm 23" we see the curious path to sainthood of Mr. Eko. He saves his young brother (they are both children) by killing a man. He is then taken under the wing of a local warlord. He flourishes in his mercenary apprenticeship and ends up running the whole show. His brother becomes a RC priest. Eko hatches a scheme to export a load of heroin out of Nigeria. He smuggles the heroin in statues of the Virgin Mary and forces his brother to ordain him and his men. The whole thing goes pear-shaped and Eko's brother is shot while Eko is left on the runway. Eko then begins to take his ordination seriously. Eko's redemption is completed when he finds his brother's body on the island. He makes a funeral pyre and recites the entire 23rd Psalm.

I was bewildered by the straightforward portrayal of regeneration. It would require listening to a month's worth of Christian music to hear as much scripture as was presented in the last two minutes of this episode; though, to be fair, it was only one psalm. I had a sense of foreboding. Christians just aren't presented in a good light for very long.

The next episode disappointed in its lack of disappointment. There are no dark secrets revealed about Eko. Moreover, the episode centered on the need to be baptized. Yes, you read that right. Eko makes an incredibly boneheaded statement about Christ's baptism by John the Baptist. He says that it was necessary for the forgiveness of the man's sins. Oops. Either the fact-checkers took the week off or someone slept through most of his/her catechism. But at the end of the day, the unsaved or incredibly ill-informed producers of Lost made a television show about baptism.

I can only speculate on the motives of the show's producers. I would say, cynically, that they know about the large number of evangelical eyeballs that view their program. They don't have to throw them much of a bone--heck, the title of the show is suggestive, no? It's an easy way to increase viewership.

Less cynically, it seems as though the show may be about redemption after all. But I wouldn't count on it being a particularly Christian redemption. They might do some sort of "all roads lead to heaven" mushfest. Whatever the plan, they have done a good job at showing the consequences of each character's sins. It is somewhat unique in its portrayal of the suffering caused by vengeance and infidelity.

If for some reason, Lost presents the gospel clearly, I will rejoice. I will also eat my hat and change my name to Armin Tanzarian. In the meantime, if you start a Bible study based on the show, remember this; many people were excited about MC Hammer's faith. Some things are meant to keep us humble.

Category: Theoblogia

It's Not Vegas, but...(Part 3 of 3)

2006-01-31T19:57:00.000-08:00

Maybe I'm the only person who thinks this is funny, but I had to chuckle to myself when I was standing in Westminster Seminary's bookstore and saw the Greek New Testaments for sale that you see in the above picture. On the sales sticker, it said "NOW WITH NEWLY PUBLISHED PAPYRI!" kinda like the kind of sticker you would expect to see on a cereal box advertising a free action figure at the bottom of the box that conned kids into buying the cereal. Only instead of an action figure, here you get an expanded textual apparatus. Theology geek heaven indeed.

Anywho, I did have one final thought about the Seminary that I thought was blogworthy. Actually, it was the one thing I found disappointing about the Seminary. I was thumbing through the school's catalogue, and found a mere two - TWO! - apologetics courses available. "What that about?" I thought to myself. OK, I know that Westminster in California has a reputation for being focused on training pastors and is not as focused on scholarship as Westminster in Philadelphia (where they have reams of systematics and apologetics courses). And, yes, this is a good thing, because we need more people to flock God's sheep than we need navel-gazing academics and ivory tower scholars. But two things about this: 1. we still need the latter, even if not as numerous as the former, especially here on the West Coast and 2. those training for the pastorate need grounding in Reformed apologetics in order to pastor the flock effectively.

This neglect is sad, because John Frame had faithfully and ably carried VanTil's torch there for almost two decades at Westminster West. I don't have any pictures of Frame, but if I did I'd probably have a poster of him hanging on my wall like a kid would hang a poster of his favorite rock band. He became this theology geek's hero after I read his writings that really opened up VanTil's thought to me, and after reading his "Doctrine of the Knowledge of God" cover to cover. Sadly, he left to teach at RTS. According to the people at the Seminary I talked to, and according to this interview with Frame, there were "personal issues and theological ones" that prompted this move.

So with the apologetics guru gone, what happened? Well, on paper Michael Horton is now the professor of apologetics. Now, don't get me wrong: Horton is a good guy, and he is indeed good at what he does. I read him with great profit, and enjoy listening to the White Horse Inn radio program. But he is good at critiquing the trends, theology, and practice of the professing church, not interacting with with unbelieving academia on matters of philosophy and epistemology. "The Modern Mind" is currently the only apologetics course he teaches.

Pastors need to be trained to give a reason for the hope that is within them, and to tell their flocks how to do likewise. I think there is a sad deficiency if a distinctly Reformed presuppositional apologetic is not made a higher priority in the training of pastors, whether at WTS-CA or anywhere else.

Category: Theoblogia

Boy, Are My Arms Tired...

2006-01-29T13:44:00.000-08:00

Us bloggmeisters here at the Horde are plain tapped out of theological brilliance for the moment, so here is some autobiographical filler for the week. Let me assure the hordes of Horde fans (hi, mom!) that Jeremy and I will get back to posting edifying material any day now. However, Garet is rumoured to have gotten himself hopelessly lost in an Emergent Church's Prayer Labyrinth. He may never "emerge" from the labyrinth to blog again.

The picture above is of yours truly at the helm of a Cessna 172. Yesterday, my parents and Jeremy were kind enough to come out and see me on my first solo flight. I was a little nervous in having my life depend on my meager piloting skills (after only 12 hours of stick time), but the Lord granted me success and I completed 2 takeoffs and landings by myself. My landings were lacking in finesse, but I was pleased nonetheless.

Once in the air, I thought "well, self, you're the only one who can get yourself out of this mess now. No one is sitting next to you to keep you from doing something stupid 1000 feet in the air at 120 mph." There was a light crosswind on final approach, but nothing unusual. "Remember," my flight instructor always said, "smooth as a mayonaisse sandwich." Well, my landing actually resembled a pickle relish sandwich more than mayonaisse, but the plane was in one piece, and so was I. Good times.

Category: Blogging Ourselves