Covenant Theology

Tools Of Theology

2012-01-22T14:30:00.000-05:00

"For although no man will now, in the present ruin of the human race, perceive God to be either a father, or the author of salvation, or propitious in any respect, until Christ interpose to make our peace; still it is one thing to perceive that God our Maker supports us by his power, rules us by his providence, fosters us by his goodness, and visits us with all kinds of blessings, and another thing to embrace the grace of reconciliation offered to us in Christ." (John Calvin, Institutes Of The Christian Religion, Book I, Chapter II)

Calvin begins his systematic thelogy with the knowledge of God, distinguishing between the knowledge of God the Creator and the knowledge of God the Savior. As such, he presents us with both the problem of man's knowledge of God as well as the solution to that problem. How is man, a creature, able to ascertain any truths about God the Creator? How does the science of theology even get off the ground, and how to we know that the truths we arrive at are objective and not conventional? The answer is that God Himself must reveal truths about Himself. Indeed, in order to avoid any claim to ignorance, God has revealed himself to all men by His creative attributes, by the way he providentially governs His creation, and by the very fact that he creates and governs the minds of men, without which no knowledge would be possible in the first place. Just as any sort of knowledge must needs be rooted in divine evelation, so the knowledge of God himself requires such revelation.

Natural Revelation

Man, by nature, is apprehensive to acknowledge anything higher than himself, yet in doing so, he proves that the knowledge of God is inescapable, "For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse." (Romans 1:20). The mulititudes of religions and deities testify to the fact that "...what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them," (Romans 1:19). The knowledge of God the creator being innate in all men, there has been no shortage of constructs by which fallen men will attempt to relate to the divine. Much can be determined about the divine nature by way of his Creation. This knowledge is revealed, among many ways, in the natural world (Job 12:7-9, Psalm 19:1), in the necessity of His Providence (Acts 14:16-17, Acts 17:28, Hebrews 1:3), in the ability to obtain knowledge itself (Job 38:36, Colossians 2:3), in the knowledge of moral absolutes (Romans 2:14-15), and in the acknowledgement of human dignity (Genesis 1:27).

Yet due to man's fallen nature, his innate knowledge of God has become corrupt. In this sense, natural revelation renders all men to be without excuse, and that is essentially all that it does.

Special Revelation

"If man were ever to be brought to salvation, it was`necessary for God reveal a way whereby he could become a partaker of it" (Wilhelmus a'Brakel, The Christian's Reasonable Service, Chapter 2, The Word of God)

Due to his deformed state, man may only attain to the merits of Christ's saving work if, and only if, God Himself would reveal these truths, both of his need for redemption, and the way by which he may obtain it. The revelation of these truth has been accomplished "..at many times and in many ways" as "God spoke to our fathers by the prophets" (Hebrews 1:1). Today, God's special revelation is complete in the 66 books of the Holy Scriptures, "... breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16-17). These books contain the faith that has been once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3), to which nothing can be added or taken from without serious consequences (Revelation 22:18-19). In addition, it is the Holy Spirit Himself that makes these truths obvious in the minds and hearts of his people (Matthew 16:17), in a manner without such revelation the things of God appear to be mere folly (1 Corinthians 2:14). Thus the most important need for the study of God is God Himself, without whom we could understand nothing. As such, the Holy Scriptures are, of necessity, the only infallible rule of faith and life.

Over the next few weeks, we will take an indepth look at both types of knowledge in an effort to properly apply them as well as to learn more about our Creator and our Savior. We will show how even the most adamantly unbeleiver relies on God's creation and Providence to even function in God's universe. We will also examine the Scriptures in terms of the basis for the Canon, its necessity, its self-attestation, and its self sufficiency.

Why Theology?

2011-12-27T22:26:00.001-05:00

"But as for you, teach what accords with sound doctrine." (Titus 2:1)

"Bad theology will eventually hurt people and dishonor God in proportion to its badness." - John Piper (A Godward Life Volume Two, pg. 377)

Introduction

The subject of “Theology”, namely the study of God, was once regarded as the Queen of the Sciences (Aquinas). Today, the very mention of the subject among modern Christians is viewed as unimportant at best; divisive and “unspiritual” at worst. Objective truths about the nature and person of God have rapidly been shunned in favor of subjective spiritual experiences and personal exegesis. Just a quick glance through most “Christian” bookstores will yield a plethora of pragmatic books on successful living, non-redemptive approaches to a better life steeped in pop-psychology and behavioral modification methods, and the latest round pop-prophecy fiction novels whose main characters seem to change every 10 years or so in order to coincide with current events. Occasionally, one may find a rich theological treasure stowed away in a back corner shelf, but these are the exception.

Like it or not, everyone has a theology. The question isn’t whether or not to have a theology, but whether or not you have a good theology or a bad theology. Everyone has a view of God. But is that view based on the objective truth that God himself has revealed?

But Doctrine Divides…

At this point I will concern myself only with Christian doctrine, since Christianity is the only worldview that is objectively true (a statement that will be defended at a later time.) In an effort to maintain “unity” in the body of Christ, many Christians have adopted the mantra “doctrine isn’t important, just love Jesus”. Aside from the fact that this statement is itself a “doctrine”, we must eventually ask who is this Jesus, and why should we love him. Can we rightly love someone without seeking to know something about them? “Acquaint thyself, I pray thee, with Him, and be at peace…” (Job 22:21) Once we begin to answer any question about the nature and personhood of God, we are making statements of doctrine and are engaged in theology.

We are often told, "We should avoid controversial doctrines, because they cause division. We need to be unified in Christ." There is much to be said for unity among the saints. Paul urged the Ephesian church to "walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (Ephesians 4:1-3). This is because "There is one body and one Spirit--just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call -- one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all" (Ephesians 4:4-6).

However, what kind of unity does the Bible teach? Did Paul want the Ephesians to avoid controversial doctrines in order to maintain unity? May it never be said as such. Paul goes on to explain the role of apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers (Ephesians 4:11). There were "to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ" (Ephesians 4:12). This was necessary in order to "attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God," (Ephesians 4:13). The unity that Paul spoke of was obtained "so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes" (Ephesians 4:14). The Bible teaches unity through sound doctrine, not despite it. In fact, the Bible has much more to say about sound doctrine that it does unity. Any "unity" that ignores doctrine is really no unity at all.

“Divisions and separations are most objectionable in religion. They weaken the cause of true Christianity...But before we blame people for them, we must be careful that we lay the blame where it is deserved. False doctrine and heresy are even worse than schism. If people separate themselves from teaching that is positively false and unscriptural, they ought to be praised rather than reproved. In such cases separation is a virtue and not a sin.” (JC Ryle, Warnings To The Churches)

The Great Commission Demands Theological Study

One of the ramifications to the modern approach to theology is that the Great Commission has been reduced to eliciting “decisions for Christ”. In fact, the successfulness of a ministry today is often measured by the number of “converts”. While evangelism is important, it is neither the sole focus of the Great Commission, nor the primary focus. Rather we are told to make disciples, baptize them, and teach them to observe all things that Christ commanded us (Matthew 28:18-20). Teaching requires theological study, and is done by those who labor
in Word and in doctrine (1 Timothy 5:17).

Subjective Doctrinal Importance

In an effort to maintain orthodox biblical truths while at the same time avoiding controversy, Christians commonly divide doctrine into “essential” vs. “non-essential” categories, the former being the basic beliefs of the Christian faith, while the later being those unimportant and controversial beliefs that divide Christians and create denominations. But by what standard will anyone make such a distinction? If we reduce the gospel to mere “fundamentals”, than what shall we do with the rest of Scripture? What portion of Scripture will we suggest that the Holy Spirit wasted his divine breath in giving us?

The fact is that all Theological Doctrine is divisive to someone. Is there a God? What is He like? What is the way to heaven? What book is the true revelation of God? The answers to these questions are divisive among men today, and if the goal of the Christian is simply to avoid controversy, we will not be obedient to our Lord’s admonition to make disciples and to teach them to observe all things that he commanded us (Matthew 28:19-20). To take any doctrinal stand on any issue is to invite controversy.

"Are there any significant biblical teachings that have remained untainted by controversy? If you have any acquaintance with the history of the Christian church whatsoever, then your immediate answer will be 'of course not.' Whether we’re talking about the triune nature of the Godhead, or justification by faith alone, or the personhood of the Holy Spirit, or the deity of Jesus Christ, or the content of the canonical scriptures, as Christians we have never had the luxury of living in a world where the most nourishing of Biblical truths have existing without opposition. And so when someone expresses a sentiment such as the following: 'I don’t like to talk about a particular doctrine because it is controversial,' we’re not confronted at that point with an expression of great piety or godliness, but rather in most cases a display of Biblical laziness, and in all cases a manifestation of immaturity and ignorance. If your commitment is to feed your soul on only those spiritual truths that have been or are presently non-controversial, than you’ll find yourself staring at an empty plate." (Dr. Arturo G. Azurdia's, Unconditional Election, part of the The Doctrines of Grace Series.)

Handling Disagreements

So does that mean that Christians will all agree on every single point of doctrine? Just a cursory glance over the religious landscape will clearly show otherwise. These disagreements are simply based in human fallibility, and though we seek to know as much objective truth concerning God as He has revealed to us, none of us are omniscient. When confronting a fellow saint who has a disagreement on a particular doctrine, avoiding controversy should not be the main goal, for “Blessed are those who find wisdom, those who gain understanding, for she is more profitable than silver and yields better returns than gold. She is more precious than rubies; nothing you desire can compare with her.” (Proverbs 3:13-15). We should argue and debate with those who disagree with us, yet with gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15). And we should be open to the idea of our own fallibility, having our own theology being corrected by others who love God’s word, as “Iron sharpens iron, and one man sharpens another.” (Proverbs 27:17)

Revelational Gifts Part I

2011-04-18T18:47:00.080-04:00

"Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints." (Jude 1:3)

"Why do you despise Prophecy?"
"Why do you reject the works of the Holy Spirit today?"
"Why don't you want all that God has for you?"

Such are the questions that are presented to those of us who do not accept the continuing revelatory gifts of the Holy Spirit (prophecy and tongues) as presented by today's Charismatics. As one who has spent most of his Christian life in the Charismatic movement, I can relate. Most of my family is Pentecostal even today, and I thank God that He placed me in a Christian household, where the Word of God was taught, revered, and lived. And yet while we are agreed on many things, there are clearly areas of doctrine that divide us since the time that God has reformed my faith.

The topic of tongues and prophecy today is a controversial one, and there is no way to avoid the personal aspects to the debate. When those of the Reformed faith uphold the teachings of the Westminster Divines that "those former ways of God's revealing His will unto His people [are] now ceased" (Westminister Confession of Faith I:I), we are doing more than just making an abstract doctrinal statement. We are calling into question some of the experiential aspects of worship that many Christians hold dear. As such, appeals to emotion and experience are common in this debate, but it is an area that must be discussed. For either we of the Reformed Faith are lacking true spirituality, having at best only a partial faith, or else those of the charismatic faith are actively participating in false prophecy. Furthermore, the debate must be settled by Scripture alone, not by subjective spiritual experiences which can likely be claimed by many different religions.

Additionally at stake are two crucial principles. The first is sola scriptura. While most Pentecostals would claim to hold to sola scriptura, they deny it in both their practice and their theology of continuing prophetic revelation. Either the scriptures contain "the whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life" (Westminister Confession of Faith I:IV), or else more is to be added through continuing special revelation. In many cases, some charismatics have implicitly accepted their own revelations (ie. being "led by the Spirit") as being superior to the Holy Scriptures. Consider this following quote from the introduction to a very popular work by a charismatic author from about a decade ago.

“A true God chaser is not happy with just past truth; he must have present truth. God chasers don’t want to just study from the moldy pages of what God has done; they’re anxious to see what God is doing.”

While most Pentecostals won't go quite so far as to refer to the Bible as "moldy pages", it is quite often to hear them claim that new prophetic revelations not only continue today, but are actually necessary for true holiness, power, and effective evangelism. No matter how you slice it, any claim supporting the "necessity" for continuing "fresh" prophetic revelation is nothing less than an implicit denial of the sufficiency of Scripture. If we have the Scriptures properly expounded, we are in need of nothing else in term of revelation. The Bible IS the "full gospel".

The second principle at stake is the office of Christ as the sole mediator of the New Covenant (Hebrews 12:24). When a person claims to receive prophetic revelations today, that person is actually claiming to be a covenant mediator (Galatians 3:20), standing between God and man. He is going to the mountaintop, receiving the Word, and bringing it back down to the rest of us. Thus it is necessary to discuss whether such a mediator may exist in the New Covenant among the sons and daughters of men (Hebrews 1:1).

Some Pentecostals, seeing the dilemma that continuing revelational gifts causes in these two areas, have sought to redefine prophecy in the New Covenant era. In this series, we will focus special attention to this issue, showing that:

Biblical (inspired) Prophecy is inerrant, infallible, and authoritative. This is true in both Old (Deuteronomy 18:18-22) and New (2 Peter 1:21) Testaments.
Biblical Tongues were a form of inspired prophecy. (Acts 2:16-18)
Biblical Tongues were earthly human languages (or at the very least included human languages - Acts 2:5-11).
The events of Pentecost were a sign of both New Covenant inauguration (Acts 4:16) and Old Covenant Judgments (1 Corinthians 14:21-22), both being fulfilled in that "crooked generation" (Acts 2:40). There is no biblical basis for a "personal pentecost".
All Christians have been Baptized In the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:9-11, Acts 2:38-39). There is no division between "Spirit-filled" Christians as opposed to just "regular" Christians (1 Corinthians 12:13).
The offices of Prophet (Hebrews 1:1) and Apostle (Ephesians 2:20) have ceased to exist.

Faith: A Gift From God

2011-02-22T05:06:00.002-05:00

"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." (Ephesians 2:8-9)

"Scripture does not seem to support the idea that faith is a gift from God. The Bible simply calls upon people to believe." (Gregory Sapaugh - Is Faith A Gift?)

The question of where saving faith comes from and how it is obtained is a sticky issue, particularly among those who oppose the doctrines of sovereign grace. As pointed out in The Christian "P" Word, the majority belief today is that God's "predestination" (for lack of a better word) is contingent upon His foreknowledge of a person's faith. Yet even if this were true (it's not), one still has to account for the faith that a person does have, since not all have faith (2 Thessalonians 3:2).

Thus it is no surprise that the most straightforward, clear meaning of Ephesians 2:8-9 has been challenged. For if it can be established that faith itself is a gift from God, then the opponents of sovereign grace are still stuck with Unconditional Election, since they would have God predestine people based upon something that God alone can give.

The objection states that the word "faith" in the passage is not a suitable antecedent to the pronoun "that" (despite the fact that every translation of the Bible has it as such), because the term used for faith (πίστεως) in this passage is a feminine noun, while the pronoun “that” (τουτο) is a neuter demonstrative pronoun. However, as Robert Reymond states, "It is permissible in Greek syntax for the neuter pronoun to refer antecedently to a feminine noun".

That faith is a gift can be confirmed in this passage by examining the possible antecedents for "that" in Ephesians 2:8. They are as follows:

1.) Faith.
2.) Grace.
3.) The concept of salvation by grace through faith.

#2 is the weakest possibility. Not only does the term "grace" have the same feminine gender as "faith", but it would be quite silly and redundant for Paul to suggest that grace is "not of yourselves, it is a gift of God". #3 is the most popular interpretation among those seek some sort of human autonomy in salvation, but the concept of salvation does not appear as a noun in the passage, leaving us with no real antecedent for the pronoun. Yet, even if we were to allow this, it still leads to the conclusion that faith is a gift from God. One cannot allow for the concept of salvation by grace through faith to be "not of yourselves" while at the same time allow for any component of that salvation to be of ourselves. If, as Gregory Sapaugh suggests, "Faith is not a divine gift from God" but rather a "personal conviction which a person exercises...", then Ephesians 2:8-9 is incorrect, and we do have a right to boast.

"However the text is exegeted, when all of its features are taken into account, the conclusion is unavoidable that faith in Jesus Christ is a gift of God." (Robert Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, p. 732)

Thanks be to Jesus Christ, who is both the author and finisher of our faith.

The Knowledge Of God Part IV

2011-02-10T14:58:00.002-05:00

Ethics

"Human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and can't really get rid of it…Whenever you find a man who says he doesn't believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later." (C.S. Lewis – Mere Christianity)

In preparing for this series on the Knowledge of God, the approach concerning ethics has been the most difficult for me for a variety of reasons. For one, I’ve never been well read on the subject of secular ethical theory. To me, as a Christian, the very idea that a material world can produce moral obligation is absurd. In reviewing the current ethical theories that are currently being promoted, this absurdity is verified, proving that all men know God on some level, and one way that we know Him is by the moral standards that he has written on our hearts. We know that there are moral standards, and we also know that we have failed to live up to them.

“For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them.” (Romans 2:14-15)

When Paul tells us that the Gentiles “by nature do what the law requires”, he is not saying that all people are naturally obedient to God. Rather, he is saying that all societies, even those who haven’t been given the written law, are aware of God’s standards to the point of enacting rules to follow suit. For example, all societies view dishonesty as immoral, even though all men are clearly not honest. Even so, they know that, on some level, they are wrong because “…their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them.”

All people have moral standards (even those who deny that there is any standard), yet as with knowledge and science, unbelieving worldviews cannot account for these standards. In their attempt to ascend to the heavenly throne and establish their own kingdoms, secularists have sought to erect their own versions of morality.

Cultural Relativism

"The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD and against his Anointed, saying, "Let us burst their bonds apart and cast away their cords from us." (Psalms 2:2-3)

The Cultural Relativist argues that, since moral standards differ from culture to culture, there is no moral absolute by which one may judge cultural morality. Of course, even is the premise were true, the argument is a Non Sequitur. It does not follow that, because two cultures disagree, that there is no absolute moral standard. One could be right and one could be wrong, or both could be wrong.

Cultural differences in moral standards aren't as widespread as the relativist would make them out to be. All cultures view dishonesty, murder, etc. as morally wrong. In addition, ethics themselves have little to do with many of the differences in behavior that cultural relativists point to. For example, cultural relativists like to point out that people will not kill or eat cattle in India, while beef is a mainstay of western diets. But the differences in this respect are not ethical, but metaphysical. Indians believe animals, especially cattle, to be divine, and possibly be reincarnate loved ones. Ethically speaking, we would be in full agreement that it is wrong to kill and eat ones ancestors.

Consistent cultural relativism would result in individual societies being morally infallible (including Nazi Germany, etc.) Within those societies, morality would be reduced to a mere “societal norm” based on popular vote, while immorality would simply be defined as non-conformity. Yet another implication would be that the idea of "moral progress" would be a sheer myth and a useless endeavor.

Individual Subjectivism

"In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes." (Judges 17:6)

The various forms of subjectivism have a common thread, that ethics are a matter of personal taste rather than being a universal, objective standard. Simple Subjectivism argues that moral opinions are not fact, just feelings of personal approval or disapproval, and nothing more. Emotivism suggests that moral language itself is not "fact-stating" language, but rather behavior-influencing language. Regardless of the category, subjectivism results in a world where any and all actions would theoretically be beyond moral judgment.

Of course, the most obvious problem is that no one lives this way. In the world of subjectivism, individuals are morally infallible. Yet subjectivists do make moral judgments, especially against people who make moral judgments. By suggesting that no one has a right to hold another person to a moral standard, they are establishing a moral standard. This is especially true of emotivism, where moral judgments are beyond reproach since they aren't really judgments, only expressions of attitudes.

Subjectivism cannot account for disagreements in ethics, nor can it account for moral truth or falsehood. While attempting to honor the ethical standards of individuals who have various opinions in this matter, subjectivists must presume a moral obligation to honor such standards (or else you are being “judgmental”). Subjectivism is thus self-defeating, and cannot justify moral absolutes, since it denies that such an absolute exists.

Altruism

"The truth is that the only rational basis for morality is a concern for the happiness and suffering of other conscious beings." (Do We Really Need Bad Reasons To Be Good? by Sam Harris / Boston Globe October 22, 2006).

Altruism bases its ethical standard on what is deemed to be an impartial concern and benefit to other people. Indeed, those who show concern for other people are often held up as heroes in our society (especially when such concerns are made with the TV cameras rolling.)

But eventually we must ask the question: What obligates one to be impartial or to have concern for the well-being of others? Where does this obligation come from? Altruism arbitrarily favors one group of people (others) over another (ourselves). Rather than being a “rational basis” for morality, Altruism begs the question by assuming that we have a moral obligation to live for the sake of others. Pragmatic concern for others cannot produce an obligation to any duty, nor can it provide a rational basis for morality since it must presume a moral obligation to be concerned with others as a basis for itself.

Egoism

“Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.” (Galatians 6:7-8)

"The achievement of his own happiness is man's highest moral purpose." (Ayn Rand - The Virtue Of Selfishness 1961)

Egoism is the idea that morality is based upon rational self-interest. It is suggested that all people, even altruists, act out of self-interest, doing what they want to do. While altruism, as a moral philosophy, degrades the value of the individual, egoism promotes it. Taken to its logical conclusion, unrestricted egoism would lead to hedonism, the desire to maximize individual pleasure.

As to the charge that altruists do what they want to do, that may well be the case. However, no matter how one slices it, wanting to act with others in mind is contradictory to egoism. Even the egoists "peace of mind" can be rooted in the interests of others. In addition, egoism as a philosophy is self-defeating, ie. "It is everyone's best interest is to act out of self-interest".

Egoism also cannot resolve conflicts of interest. If person A can benefit from murdering person B, yet person B clearly benefits from not being murdered, then what is the correct moral behavior? Faced with this dilemma, revisionist egoism calls for restraint based on self-interests in:

• Duty not to harm others
• Duty not to lie
• Duty to keep promises

Again, we would have to ask what the basis is for the above duties. Duty presumes obligation, and often the "duties" to not harm others, not lie, and keep promises conflict with self-interest. We often do things that we OUGHT to do instead of what we WANT to do.

Egoism fails to account for the value that it places upon individuals, thus arbitrarily favors one group of people (ourselves) over another (others). Pragmatic self-interest cannot produce an obligation to any duty, nor can it provide a rational basis for morality since it must presume a moral obligation to self-interest as a basis for itself.

Utilitarianism

"Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign." (John Stuart Mill, On Liberty - 1859)

Utilitarianism holds that morally is based upon whatever is required to promote the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people. While many people have never heard the term “utilitarianism”, the effects of this philosophy are felt in nearly every corner of modern western society. Utilitarianism is heavily influential in the pro-euthanasia, pro-abortion, and animal rights movements. It is also the foundation of socialism. In modern democratic societies, any groups of people are clambering for all kinds of “rights” that are defined by whoever is speaking and whatever axe they are grinding.

There are two types of utilitarianism. Act utilitarianism judges each individual act on its own merits as to whether or not this act has increased happiness as a whole. In doing so, it places impossible demands on people, and is often used to manipulate people through false guilt. Modern socialists try to push their “live simply” philosophy by blaming western consumption for poverty in parts of the world. Rule utilitarianism, rather then judge each individual act, seeks to establish a basic set of rules to follow.

One area where utilitarian philosophy is quite apparent is out modern judicial system. Utilitarianism cannot allow for retribution or punishment for immoral behavior, since such punishment would increase misery in the world. Instead, the judicial system has taken on the label of “corrections” (even though they don’t “correct” anything). The Department of Justice has become the Department of Corrections. Prison guards are now called “corrections” officers. This radical change in how we treat criminals can be best spelled out by utilitarian philosopher Karl Menninger, (cited in James Rachels; "The Elements of Moral Philosophy", 2007 McGraw-Hill, p. 135).

"We, the agents of society, must move to end the game of tit-for-tat and blow-for-blow in which the offender has foolishly engaged himself and us. We are not driven, as he is, to wild and impulsive actions. With knowledge comes power, and with power there is no need for the frightened vengeance of the old penology. In its place should go a quiet, dignified, therapeutic program for the rehabilitation of the disorganized one, if possible, the protection of society during the treatment period, and his guided return to useful citizenship, as soon as this can be effected.”

What has been the result of this approach? Depending on the area, it appears that anywhere from 56% to 90% of violent crime in the United States is committed by repeat offenders. In its attempt to replace judicial penalty with rehabilitation, the utilitarian approach accomplishes neither. It assumes that man is basically good, while arbitrarily defining what “good” is (an increase in “happiness” as a whole.)

Utilitarianism is at odds with justice in other ways. In order to be consistent, one would have to consider any act to be morally acceptable if it results in an increase in happiness. What about a thief who steals something that is never missed, or a peeping tom who is never noticed?

Like any other secular ethical theory, utilitarianism cannot be a foundation for an ethical standard, since it must presume a standard a priori, that being the obligation to promote the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people. Where does such an obligation come from?

Kant's Categorical Imperative

"Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." (Immanuel Kant, “The Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals” - 1785)

Immanuel Kant suggested that morality should be based on human dignity and reason, sort of like the "Golden Rule", but without the Golden Rule Giver. From a practical perspective, the categorical imperative fails when trying to resolve two evil choices (ie., lying to save a life). From a secular standpoint, neither human dignity nor reason can be justified, thus the categorical imperative begs too many questions. Consider the following quote from atheist Richard Dawkins:

"For the first half of geological time our ancestors were bacteria. Most creatures still are bacteria, and each one of our trillions of cells is a colony of bacteria."

From a secular standpoint, human dignity and human reason must be accounted for before any moral standard can be build upon them. Finally, we must ask yet again,

What obligates us to act “according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law”? Like all other secular ethical theories, the categorical imperative cannot be a sound basis for ethics, since it must assume a moral standard in order to build rules by which we act.

Social Contract

The “Social Contract” holds that humans, by virtue of being human, are contracted to obey ethics laws which are necessary for peaceful, cooperative, social order.

Aside from the fact that what makes up a "peaceful, cooperative, social order" is subjective at best, the social contract does not justify ethical standards as much as it assumes them in advance. What obligates humans to be concerned about a peaceful, cooperative social order? Like relativism and subjectivism, the social contract reduces immorality to mere "non-conformity", thus has no objective meaning.

The Moral Argument Revisited

In dealing with the various secular theories of ethics, two questions immediately come to mind.

1.) Why so many? If the secular worldview can justify morality, I would have expected there to be a predominant theory, with maybe one of two non-conforming theories. Instead, however, what this study shows is that there is no moral standard in a secular world.

2.) All of these theories have in common the fact than none of them can account for moral obligation. Instead, they must assume their standard in order to promote their theory.

As we have shown, not only are secular moral theories logically inconsistent, they are also unjustifiable. It is one thing to invent a moral theory, as many secularists have done. It is another thing to give a rational justification for that theory, and all secular moral theories have failed in this regard. The natural, materialistic worldview simply cannot justify obligation, “IS” cannot produce “OUGHT”.

John Owen correctly observed:

“Without absolutes revealed from without by God Himself, we are left rudderless in a sea of conflicting ideas about manners, justice and right and wrong, issuing from a multitude of self-opinionated thinkers.” - John Owen

Therefore, we may conclude with yet another transcendental argument for God’s existence…

P1: If Moral Absolutes exists, then God exists, since God is the precondition of Moral Absolutes.

P2: Moral Absolutes exists.

Conclusion: God exists.

There are many transcendental proofs for God’s existence. We hit only three in the areas of knowledge, natural law, and ethics. But we could also include areas such as intelligible experience, free thought, free will, personal identity over time, etc. None of these things can rationally be justified in a godless worldview. Man may makes attempts at autonomy, but like Nimrod, he is doomed to failure. All men live in God’s universe, and cannot even function without acknowledging him in some way.

The Christian "P" Word

2011-02-03T13:43:00.005-05:00

Predestination: Just a cursory glance through the Scriptures will inevitably lead the reader to this word. Yet even the majority of those who view Scripture as the Word of God tend to dance around it. In their attempt to hold on to some semblance of human autonomy, the opponents of sovereign grace have cojured up several ideas in an attempt to redefine this term, or avoid it altogether:

1.) Predestined according to foreknowledge of faith.

According to the system of doctrine know as Arminianism, God predestines individuals based on His ability to look ahead through the portals of time and see who would believe in Christ and who would not. Those who hold this view focus on the word "foreknowledge" and attempt to wrest the word from it's biblical context and redefine it as a "pre-known mental ascent". However, the word "foreknowledge" is Scripture has a much different meaning. In Acts 2:23, the word is used in conjunction with God's "determinate counsel". In Romans 8:29, it refers to the elect, "predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son". To view "foreknowledge" as mere mental ascent concerning the faith of a person does not work in this passage, since God also "foreknows" the reprobate in that sense as well. Rather, it can be defined more accurately defined as "divine favor". The same definition would apply to the term in Romans 11:2 and 1 Peter 1:1-2, referring in particular to the elect Israelites to whom God has granted salvation. 1 Peter 1:20-21, like Acts 2:23, uses the term to refer to Christ and to define His preordained work as the lamb slain from the foundation of the world (Revelation 13:8).

In contrast to the very popular interpretation, nothing is mentioned in Scripture about God predestining people based on a foreseen faith. In fact, by definition, this would not be predestination. It would be ratification, like a divine "stamp of approval" on the faith that we apparently must generate of our own resources. In scripture, God's foreknowledge always refers to people, never to their actions. God has determined who will believe (Acts 13:48), not determined on the basis of who would believe. This view requires that God must learn something about his own creation before he acts accordingly, and makes salvation a reward for the faith we've obtained, rather than by grace alone.

2.) Corporate predestination.

A newer, more covert theory suggests that God only predestines an abstract, impersonal entity of Christian believers, those who choose to be "in Christ" are the ones who are corporately predestined to salvation. According to this slick display of literary gymnastics, the phrase "in him" in Ephesians 1:4 does not refer to what Christ chose for us, but rather the position that we chose for ourselves in order to Christ to choose us. In other words, we choose to be in Christ, and based on that wise and nobel decision, God predestines us to that we should be holy and blameless before him.

"even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved." (Ephesians 1:4-6)

However, it is quite clear from the Scriptures that God predestines individuals (2 Timothy 2:19), not some abstract corporate entity. For, to what purpose was Christ death other than to provide actual atonement for His people, "that he might be the firstborn among many brothers" (Romans 8:29)? This requires a particular and personal atonement, or else Christ could not have been assured of being the firstborn of many. In fact, it would have been quite possible for Christ to have died for nobody. The only possible answer would be to revert back to the "foreknowledge of faith" approach, which we have already shown to be both unbiblical and irrational.

3.) Optimistic Predestination

This view is common among Pelagianism and, to some degree, Open Theism. In this view, God predestines everyone to eternal life. In contrast, Satan predestines everyone to damnation, and we humans are left with the deciding vote. Such a view is nothing short of a denial of God's Sovereignty, and actually teaches that Satan plus man can overcome God's eternal decrees.

"Our God is in the heavens; he does all that he pleases." (Psalms 115:3)

"The LORD brings the counsel of the nations to nothing; he frustrates the plans of the peoples. The counsel of the LORD stands forever, the plans of his heart to all generations. Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD, the people whom he has chosen as his heritage!" (Psalms 33:10-12)

"all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, "What have you done?" (Daniel 4:35)

According to Job, Satan himself cannot act outside of God's will, much less aid us in ascending to Christ's throne and overturning his immutable decrees. Once again, this is not predestination, by definition.

4.) Just ignore it, it's not important. We can't understand it anyway.

For many who come face to face with the Biblical view of Predestination, this is the unfortunate option they go with. But one cannot be a herald of the whole counsel of God and ignore any part of Scripture, for it was given to us that we might have hope. If the Prophets and Apostles, inspired by the Holy Spirit, thought that this doctrine was important enough to teach us over and over again, who are we to say otherwise? As for the second charge, is it that predestination is really that hard to understand, or is it that we understand it all too well, and just don't like it? Our depraved nature loves to have authority that it doesn't deserve. Charles Spurgeon illuminates the real reason why Christians run from this doctrine.

"Men will allow God to be everywhere except on his throne. They will allow him to be in his workshop to fashion worlds and to make stars. They will allow him to be in his almonry to dispense his alms and bestow his bounties. They will allow him to sustain the earth and bear up the pillars thereof, or light the lamps of heaven, or rule the waves of the ever-moving ocean; but when God ascends his throne, his creatures then gnash their teeth; and when we proclaim an enthroned God, and his right to do as he wills with his own, to dispose of his creatures as he thinks well, without consulting them in the matter, then it is that we are hissed and execrated, and then it is that men turn a deaf ear to us, for God on his throne is not the God they love. They love him anywhere better than they do when he sits with his scepter in his hand and his crown upon his head. But it is God upon the throne that we love to preach. It is God upon his throne whom we trust." – CHARLES SPURGEON

The real reason why man rejects the idea of predestination is because our natures strive for autonomy. We want to be in control, and it grates our sensibilities to find out that we are not. "...apart from me you can do nothing." (John 15:5).

So, having concluded that God predestines everything that happens without being contingent upon his own creation, the obvious question is, why do Christians pray and evangelize? After all, if God has already foreordained everything that comes to pass, wouldn't such exercises be an exercise in futility?

This type of questioning focuses on the fact that God ordains the ends, but ignores the fact that God ordains the means. God has determined who will believe (Acts 13:48), but He also has determined that these will be reached by the foolishness of preaching (1 Corinthians 1:21). Likewise, prayer is the means by which we "...may be filled with the knowledge of his will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding," (Colossians 1:9). In fact, it is the sovereignty of God that is the basis for the confidence we have in prayer. If God isn't absolutely sovereign, on what basis will we have such confidence? Maybe our prayers could be hindered by the "free will" of others. It is God's sovereignty that gives meaning to everything that happens in history, both good and evil, aside from which there could be no meaning at all.

The Necessity of the Incarnation

2010-12-22T14:29:00.001-05:00

Is the Doctrine of the Virgin Birth is necessary for salvation? Al Mohler details how many "liberal scholars like Hans Kung" and "John Shelby Spong argue...that belief in the Virgin Birth is unnecessary." But what are the implications of such a belief, and on what authority do they support their claims?

If Mary was not a virgin, then Christ had a human father.

If Christ had a human father, then He was not God.

If Christ was not God, then He was not a sufficient sacrifice for sins.

If Christ was not a sufficient sacrifice for sins, then we are all hopelessly lost.

Thus the Doctrine of the Virgin Birth is necessary for salvation.

G.K Chesterton On Reason vs. Faith

2010-07-27T07:25:00.021-04:00

G. K. Chesterton

Gilbert Keith Chesterton (1874-1936) was one of the biggest Christian apologists of the early 20th Century (literally, about 400 pounds worth). A staunch Anglican, he battled against the materialistic worldviews of renowned friends and peers such as H.G. Wells, H.L. Mencken, and George Bernard Shaw. In his book Orthodoxy, Chesterton exposes the fallacy of pitting reason against faith.

"It is idle to talks always of the alternative of reason and faith. Reason is itself a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all. If you are merely a sceptic, you must sooner or later ask yourself the question, "Why should anything go right; even observation and deduction? Why should not good logic be as misleading as bad logic? They are both movements in the brain of a bewildered ape?" The young sceptic says, "I have a right to think for myself." But the old sceptic, the complete sceptic, says, "I have no right to think for myself. I have no right to think at all."" (G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, 2006 Relevant Media Group, p. 23)

Providence

2010-07-21T15:37:00.000-04:00

When trials come our way, it is very tempting to question the providence of God. For example, it would be very easy for a military veteran who was recently laid off to ask why? This trained paramedic lost his job in Illinois, moved to Colorado, and had to get a job "delivering pizzas to make ends meet". Why?

Perhaps this may give us some insight...

Colorado man delivers pizza and saves heart attack victim

I don't know the faith of anyone involved in this incident, nor will I suggest that God's reason for this trial has met it's ultimate purpose. But I will suggest that the Linn family is very thankful that Christopher Wuebben got laid off as a paramedic.

The Knowledge Of God Part III

2010-06-29T21:41:00.003-04:00

The God of Science

“To the choirmaster. A Psalm of David. The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.” (Psalms 19:1)

"Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors. Can it be by accident that all birds beasts and men have their right side and left side alike shaped (except in their bowels) and just two eyes and no more on either side the face and just two ears on either side the head and a nose with two holes and no more between the eyes and one mouth under the nose and either two forelegs or two wings or two arms on the shoulders and two legs on the hips one on either side and no more? Whence arises this uniformity in all their outward shapes but from the counsel and contrivance of an Author? Whence is it that the eyes of all sorts of living creatures are transparent to the very bottom and the only transparent members in the body, having on the outside an hard transparent skin, and within transparent juices with a crystalline Lens in the middle and a pupil before the Lens all of them so truly shaped and fitted for vision, that no Artist can mend them? Did blind chance know that there was light and what was its refraction and fit the eyes of all creatures after the most curious manner to make use of it? These and such like considerations always have and ever will prevail with man kind to believe that there is a being who made all things and has all things in his power and who is therefore to be feared." (Isaac Newton - A Short Schem Of The True Religion)

I love science. From as early as I can remember, I have been fascinated by the world we live in, by the living things that share this world with us, and by different minerals and where they came from. The vision of a night sky is enough to invoke wonder, even before one actually examines the vastness of the cosmos itself through the lenses of power telescopes. I was always curious about the way things worked, and wanted to know all I could about the mechanisms of cause and effect. In our scientifically advanced age, we have a tendency to take such advancement for granted, even becoming frustrated when our computers don’t work exactly right (or fast enough), or when our cell phones don’t get enough area coverage. But when we stop and consider what has gone into making these things work in the first place, we can’t help but be in awe.

However, as wonderful as science is, we must be careful to keep it in its place. In recent times, science has rebelled against its Christian foundations, and attempted to advance itself to idol status. Indeed, science has become the most popular haven for those who seek to burst apart the bonds of the Lord and cast away His cords from them. (Psalm 2:2). No field of study has attempted to present as harsh of a challenge to the Christian faith as that of science, but is such a challenge valid or logical?

The Failure of "Scientific Apologetics"

I am not a big fan of popular "scientific apologetics", as currently presented, for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that they usually involve some pretty lousy science. When I was in the 6th grade, I was first introduced to a "science" that challenged my Christian faith. It was shortly afterwards that I was introduced to my first "scientific apologetics" comic book, which featured the now debunked yet still popular "moon dust" argument for a young solar system.

Of course, it is unfair to paint all scientific apologists with such a broad brush. There are a few that are scientifically sound, though many of these rely on questionable exegesis to support their concordist view of Scripture. Despite their best efforts, those attempting to approach God via science must implicitly accept naturalistic presuppositions. As a result, the best that they can expect to accomplish is to show that God "possibly" exists, or that God is the best explanation for the "gaps" that appear in the materialistic worldview. Those who tout “scientific evidence” as the primary tool of apologetics implicitly ignore the supernatural aspect of saving faith, and tend to offer a “god of the gaps” argument as the main naturalistic evidence of such faith. Consider the following statement from an atheist writer:

"Two popular god-gaps are the initial formation of life and the origin of the universe. While there are a number of hypothesis about both these issues it is difficult to say that there is a comprehensive scientific consensus - and so they are to convenient gaps where the religiously-minded can insert their deity of choice. It should be remembered however that the fact that science has no present explanation by no means means that god (or Uranus) exists. Indeed, if we were never to answer these questions it still wouldn't mean that Allah created the Universe or that Thor causes it to thunder."

Once materialism is conceded as the default worldview, the above statement is absolutely correct. The non-believer longs to establish science as the starting point for discussions concerning the supernatural, since science itself can neither directly prove nor disprove God’s existence. Increased examination or knowledge of the natural world, by itself, cannot convince the unbeliever, but instead renders him to be “without excuse” (Romans 1:20). As with knowledge itself, all that is meaningful in knowing God must be revealed to us by God (Matthew 16:17). God is more than simply the "God of the gaps"; he is the God of everything between the gaps.

Arguments for God based on science also have a tendency approach “natural law” in a deistic fashion. God is viewed as being separate from "natural law" (though He occasionally intervenes in order to perform a miracle). As a result, “natural law” becomes an impersonal standard by which all things, including God, must be studied, and thus science becomes the "neutral" or "default" truth. Such approaches, however well-meaning, are actually immoral, because they implicitly deny the Lordship of Christ over the human mind and the created order, relegating God to be a mere hypothesis that may be tested by our autonomous gray matter, "... exchang[ing] the truth of God for a lie, and worshipp[ing] and serv[ing] the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen." (Romans 1:25). Instead, we are commanded to "...in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy". It is only then that we may be "prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect," (1 Peter 3:15).

"...how wrong it is to use God as a stop-gap for the incompleteness of our knowledge. If in fact the frontiers of knowledge are being pushed further and further back (and that is bound to be the case), then God is being pushed back with them, and is therefore continually in retreat. We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." (Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1997 (ISBN 978-0-684-83827-4) "Letter to Eberhard Bethge", 29 May 1944, pages 310-312.)

The main weakness of any sort of “evidential” apologetic is that the unbeliever’s worldview is never challenged. The scientific approach, by granting a naturalistic worldview as the default, is left to try and prove a supernatural God by natural means. The unbeliever, on the other hand, is free from having to defend his presuppositions. He is never forced to defend his use of universal, invariant laws. He never has to explain how such laws can exist in a purely material universe. He never has to explain how the human mind, being an accident of biochemistry, is capable of perceiving such laws, or assuming any type of inductive reasoning. While the atheistic worldview cannot justify for any of these things, the scientific apologist is often willing to be “concessive on these basic points on which it should have demanded surrender” (Van Til).

Now there are certainly fascinating discoveries in science that can build our faith. We see the handiwork of God in the birth of the universe from nothing, in the creation of life from non-life, and in the precise mechanisms that allow life to exist. Volumes have been written on the Strong Anthropic Principle, which describes the way that the universe appears to be finely tuned for human life to exist. But we should also see God in the “scientifically explained” parts of nature, in the biochemistry of digestion, in the geology of a volcanic eruption, and in the cosmology behind the birth of a star. Who can miss the awe-inspiring order that makes science possible in the first place? The Christian can and should be inspired by God’s handiwork, for it is in this work that the Living God has been revealed to all men. John Calvin writes,

“And, first, wherever you turn your eyes, there is no portion of the world, however minute, that does not exhibit at least some sparks of beauty; while it is impossible to contemplate the vast and beautiful fabric as it extends around, without being overwhelmed by the immense weight of glory. Hence, the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews elegantly describes the visible worlds as images of the invisible (Hebrews 11:3), the elegant structure of the world serving us as a kind of mirror, in which we may behold God, though otherwise invisible. For the same reason, the Psalmist attributes language to celestial objects, a language which all nations understand (Psalms 19:1), the manifestation of the Godhead being too clear to escape the notice of any people, however obtuse. The apostle Paul, stating this still more clearly, says, “That which may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has showed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead” (Romans 1:20)....Paul, accordingly, after reminding the Athenians that they “might feel after God and find him,” immediately adds, that “he is not far from every one of us” (Acts 17:27); every man having within himself undoubted evidence of the heavenly grace by which he lives, and moves, and has his being...” (Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book I, Chapter 5)

God As The Foundation of Science

"Lift your eyes and look to the heavens: who created all these?” (Isaiah 40:26)

"You may find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world to the degree that we may speak of such comprehensibility as a miracle or an eternal mystery. Well, a priori one should expect a chaotic world, which cannot be in any way grasped through thought... The kind of order created, for example, by Newton's theory of gravity is of quite a different kind. Even if the axioms of the theory are posited by a human being, the success of such an enterprise presupposes an order in the objective world of a high degree, which one has no a priori right to expect. That is the miracle which grows increasingly persuasive with the increasing development of knowledge." (Albert Einstein, 1956, Lettres a Maurice Solovine).

What is the proper role of science in revealing the one true God? How has he revealed Himself in nature, and to what effect is that revelation? As it turns out, science itself requires a Christian worldview, being based upon God’s creative attributes and His Providence. While Richard Dawkins may hide behind science in order to “become an intellectually fulfilled atheist”, one must make certain assumptions in order to even begin to do science that an atheist has no right to make. God is not dependent upon science, but science, as it turns out, must presuppose God.

The Uniformity of Nature and the Problem of Inference

"Thus says the LORD: If I have not established my covenant with day and night and the fixed order of heaven and earth," (Jeremiah 33:25)

In our last post concerning the knowledge of God, we examined several problems with the idea that “man is the measure of all things”. Scientists have a tendency to be empiricists, holding that firm observation by sense experience is the pathway to true knowledge. We touched briefly on the issue of uniformity in the empiricist worldview, particularly with empiricist William Clifford. In his essay, "The Ethics of Belief", Clifford examines the "limits of inference", and tells us that "we may add to our experience on the assumption of a uniformity of nature". Clifford writes,

"What this uniformity precisely is, how we grow in the knowledge of it from generation to generation, these are questions which for the present we lay aside..."

Yet Clifford never actually deals with the issue of uniformity. Yet like most empiricists, he has to use inductive reasoning in order to establish universal laws of science, logic, and morality. Yet his own empiricism cannot justify or account for this sort of reasoning. David Hume, in his work on "An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding", undermined any sort of inductive reasoning by concluding that "causes and effects are discoverable, not by reason but by experience", since we have no way of proving that the future will be like the past.

“all the laws of nature, and all the operations of bodies without exception, are known only by experience… The mind can never possibly find the effect in the supposed cause, by the most accurate scrutiny and examination. For the effect is totally different from the cause, and consequently can never be discovered in it… Why then should we give the preference to one [effect], which is no more consistent or conceivable than the rest? All our reasonings a priori will never be able to show us any foundation for this preference.

In a word, then, every effect is a distinct event from its cause. It could not, therefore, be discovered in the cause, and the first invention or conception of it, a priori, must be entirely arbitrary. And even after it is suggested, the conjunction of it with the cause must appear equally arbitrary; since there are always many other effects, which, to reason, must seem fully as consistent and natural. In vain, therefore, should we pretend to determine any single event, or infer any cause or effect, without the assistance of observation and experience.” (David Hume – An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section IV: Sceptical Doubts Concerning the Operations of the Understanding)

This is an insurmountable obstacle for the naturalist, since induction is an a priori requirement for the establishment of any universal law, and induction assumes nature to be uniform. But on what basis will an atheist make such an assumption? Empiricism cannot account for inference, since any establishment of a universal law in an empiricist’s worldview would require universal sense experience. Omniscience can only be attributed to God, and our understanding of inference can only be revealed to us by an omniscient and omnipotent God (Genesis 8:22, Psalm 104:14, 20, Psalm 147:15-18, Jeremiah 33:25, Acts 17:28, Hebrews 1:3). Without God’s creative attributes and his providence, natural laws would be impossible, not to mention the ability of the human mind to comprehend such laws. The fact that scientists use inference without hesitation is proof that they know God and his attributes.

Physicist and popular science writer Paul Davies offers this observation:

"In the ensuing three hundred years the theological dimension of science faded. People take it for granted that the physical world is both ordered and intelligible. The underlying order in nature – the laws of physics – are simply accepted as given, as brute facts. Nobody asks where they came from; at least they do not do so in polite company. However, even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd, that there is a rational basis to physical existence manifested as lawlike order in nature that is at least part comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview."

The Non-Objectivity Of "Normal Science"

As a result of Christianity's concessions to the naturalistic worldview, it is often accepted that science is "neutral" or "objective". However, that is not, and indeed cannot be, the case. Thomas Kuhn, in his work "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions", shows how science, by its very nature, must operate within a certain paradigm. Experimental observations quickly eliminate competing paradigms, and after a time, anomalies are simply ignored or explained away. Experiments in what Kuhn refers to as “normal science” are expected to yield certain results.

Now this expectation is very acceptable once inference can be justified. Occasionally, a paradigm may be altered if enough anomalies occur to warrant such a shift, such as Einstein showing that Newtonian physics doesn't apply for objects at high speeds, or the discovery that certain material laws must be altered that the quantum level. But what do we do with a paradigm like Darwinian Evolution? This paradigm, too, has been altered in order to account for a lack of evidence. The neo-Darwinian model of gradual change has been replaced by "punctuated equilibrium" in order to account for a lack of fossil evidence. Consider Darwin’s own words concerning the Cambrian explosion.

“There is another and allied difficulty, which is much more serious. I allude to the manner in which species belonging to several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks...if the theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited long periods elapsed… and that during these vast periods the world swarmed with living creatures....to the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer...the case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained." (Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: On the sudden Appearance of Groups of allied Species in the lowest known Fossiliferous Strata, Sixth Edition (London: John Murray, 1872), Chapter X, pp. 285-288.)

In the nearly 150 years since Darwin wrote these words, no fossil discovery has been able to account for the ancestors of the Cambrian phyla, as admitted by late Harvard Paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould.

“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.” (Stephen Jay Gould – Natural History Magazine, 1977)

Yet despite the failure of the fossil record to support the neo-Darwinian model, evolution has remained the paradigm, and those who work outside the paradigm are considered "unscientific". Many have abandoned the fossil arguments for evolution in favor of genetic arguments, but those fall short as well. No explanation has been given for how the extremely complex parts of a cell could have evolved in a naturalistic worldview, or how they could have survived as independent systems even if they had evolved. No mechanism has been discovered that can lead to beneficial speciation via natural selection while being able to avoid pure genetic drift. In spite of these and other challenges, genetic similarities are currently presented as the main evidence for evolution, since naturalistic evolution has become “normal science”. In contrast, the Christian can observe, for instance, certain similarities between the human and chimp genome and see a miraculous mechanism by which God beautifully and meticulously designed both creatures. (With the obvious physical similarities, finding genetic similarities is hardly surprising.) The evolutionist, on the other hand, can observe the exact same thing and see evidence of a common ancestor, not because the observable evidence demands such a conclusion, but because it fits the current paradigm.

The Nature of Evidence

Darwinian Evolution is one paradigm for which induction has exceeded its proper boundaries. Adherents demand materialistic explanations for all that exists, and if observable evidence offers no such explanation, the issue is shelved until such as time as one is offered. Whether such inferences are acceptable depend solely on one’s metaphysical presuppositions. In any case, science is not “objective”, for if it were, there could never be any scientific progress. This is true regardless of the paradigm and whether or not such paradigms are valid. Nor are scientists “objective” when it comes to observable evidence. What one considers to be valid “evidence”, and how one interprets such evidence depends entirely on ones metaphysical presuppositions. Consider this quote by geneticist Richard Lewontin:

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” (Richard Lewontin, “Billions and billions of demons,” The New York Review (January 9, 1997), 31.)

Materialists like Lewontin have no desire to justify their precommitment to naturalism, but instead desire to be granted their worldview as the only valid starting point in the examination of any “evidence”. Such an arbitrary starting point is quite convenient for the naturalist. He’ll just define science as that which “cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”, and then consider all creationist theories as “unscientific”.

Scientific Proof For God's Existence

Like Jonah, many dream of a place where God does not reign, and often this place is the land of scientific inquiry. Yet scientists live and operate in God’s universe, and cannot even begin to perform scientific tasks without basic assumptions for which only Christianity can justify. Yet one can hardly miss the substitute deity for which those who seek to maintain a naturalistic worldview bow to pay homage.

“Nature free at once and rid of her haughty lords is seen to do all things spontaneously of herself without the meddling of the gods.” – Lucretius

From whence comes this goddess “Nature”, and on what throne does she reside? Vern Poythress correctly observes that even the most strident atheists have a tendency to treat natural law as though it has divine attributes, including personhood. Such divine attributes are required in order to justify belief in human knowledge, logic, free thought, order, uniformity, and inference, all of which natural laws and the ability to comprehend such laws are absolutely dependent. Therefore, we may prove God’s existence by the following syllogism:

P1: If there is natural law, then God exists, since God is the precondition of natural law.

P2: There is natural law.

Conclusion: God exists.

Cornelius Van Til once compared atheists who constantly battle against the knowledge of God to a toddler sitting on her father’s knee while constantly slapping his face. Yet she would be unable to do so without the foundation that her father gives to her. So it is with the scientific assault on the Christian God. Science requires an objectively real and rational universe, providentially governed in order to main the necessary uniformity conducive to science, as well as an ordered human mind capable of comprehending both. Thus scientists, in order to even begin scientific inquiry, must acknowledge the Christian God (Romans 1:19-20), even unconsciously. The non-believing scientist wants to assume the benefits of God’s creation and providence, and yet denies the God who gave them. But despite our scientific progress, we are all still creatures dependent upon God for everything, including our knowledge of science.

The Knowledge of Good and Evil

2010-05-09T20:54:00.001-04:00

I'm not a big fan of "psychology" as most of it is pseudo-science. Nonetheless, I found this article to be quite interesting.

Babies know the difference between good and evil at six months, study reveals

"At the age of six months babies can barely sit up - let along take their first tottering steps, crawl or talk.

But, according to psychologists, they have already developed a sense of moral code - and can tell the difference between good and evil.

An astonishing series of experiments is challenging the views of many psychologists and social scientists that human beings are born as 'blank slates' - and that our morality is shaped by our parents and experiences."

In one fell swoop, this study refutes Arminianism, Pelagianism, and one common theory of "atheistic morality", not to mention what it does to the popular yet unbiblical evangelical doctrine of "the age of accountability". Now that the "blank slate" nonsense has been challenged, psychology might actually be able to make some meaningful progress in the study of human behavior.

Atheistic Amens

2010-04-30T12:02:00.000-04:00

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then, and sometimes atheists say things that make you want to shout, "Amen!!!"

"I would say that if you don’t believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ and Messiah, and that he rose again from the dead and by his sacrifice our sins are forgiven, you’re really not in any meaningful sense a Christian." (Atheist Christopher Hitchens responding to Unitarian "Christian" minister Maryiln Sewell's denial of Christ's atonement)

"prosperity gospel" preachers..teach that God will reward those who give as much cash as they possibly can to his self-appointed representatives on Earth. These televangelists are obsessed with money and shamelessly exploit the faith and gullibility of their flocks to enrich themselves." (From Daylight Atheism: Probing the Prosperity Gospel)

“How can you know if you’ve saved someone if there’s never follow-up, never counseling, never a progress report? How can you be sure the person hasn’t instantly reverted to his old ways? In other words, aren’t you simply counting the people who prayed the prayer in that instant rather than counting new Christians?… If you’re a sincere Christian you believe all it takes is that instant, as long as you’re sincere. Once you’ve prayed the sinner’s prayer, you’re good to go. God is supposed to abide in you and guide you, but really your ‘ways’ don’t matter. Your name is written forever in the Lamb’s book of life.’ It seemed evident that evangelicals were padding their rosters.” (Atheist Gina Welsh: In the Land of Believers: An Outsider’s Extraordinary Journey into the Heart of the Evangelical Church, Metropolitan, 2010, p. 254)

It's a shame when atheists have a better grasp of Christian truth than nominal Christians.

The Knowledge Of God Part II

2010-04-20T12:05:00.007-04:00

The God of Knowledge

"...in [Christ] are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." (Colossians 2:3)

“If minds are wholly dependent on brains, and brains on bio-chemistry, and bio-chemistry (in the long run) on the meaningless flux of the atoms, I cannot understand how the thought of those minds should have any more significance than the sound of the wind in the trees. . . .” .(C.S. Lewis, They Asked for a Paper - London: Geoffrey Bles, 1962, 164–165.)

Pontius Pilate asked "What is Truth?" (John 18:38). Jesus Christ proclaimed Himself to be the truth (John 14:6). This clash of worldviews provides a glimpse into the folly of unbelieving epistemology (theory of knowledge). By rejecting the Christ who is the foundation of all knowledge, the unbeliever has no objective defense of his own ability to know anything. The result of consistent unbelief is utter skepticism, and even then, unbelievers must know something about their lack of knowledge in order to be skeptics.

Man the Measure?

So what is truth, and how do we justify what we know to be truth? The naturalist is hard pressed to justify any sort of human knowledge, since he holds that knowledge is the product of the human brain, and the brain a product of a cosmic accident. By rejecting the need for divine revelation concerning knowledge, the unbeliever must either become intellectually autonomous, or else deny that knowledge itself is possible or meaningful (skepticism). In relativism, the idea of absolute truth is rejected. The father of modern relativism is (apparently) Protagoras, who was famous for stating that "Man is the measure of all things: of things which are, that they are, and of things which are not, that they are not". Truth and falsehood are dependent on individual impressions, and truth is relegated to mere belief. Modern religious pluralists have invented a "subjective truth" that does just that. Socrates countered Protagoras with the classic "recoil argument", along the lines of this declarative:

A Everyone believes what is the case.

A--->B If everyone believes what is the case, than those who deny that everyone believes what is the case also believe what is the case.

B=~A The belief that everyone believes what is the case and belief that everyone does not believe what is the case cannot both be the case. (Law of non-contradiction).

~A It is not the case that everyone believes what is the case.

As one can easily see, relativism's need to reduce true knowledge to personal belief is self defeating when applied to its most basic premise. Shooting an arrow into a barn door and painting the bull's eye around it doesn't make one a skilled archer, but rather makes the shot meaningless. The end result of relativism is sheer skepticism. The statement "there are no objective truths" cannot possibly be true, thus there has to be an objective form of truth independent of man, and relativism fails to account for or justify true knowledge.

Another option for the autonomous man is empiricism, the belief that true knowledge arises from sense experience. Aristotle tells us that “we prefer sight to almost everything else. The reason is that this, most of all the senses, makes us know and brings to light many differences between things.” (Metaphysics, Book I Section 980a21). This produces a dilemma for the father of logic, for we must inquire how he knows this to be true. If he uses sense experience to arrive at his conclusion, he has committed an argumentum ad circulum? On the other hand, if he uses any other justification for this belief, how can we know that it is the most authoritative knowledge of particulars? The empiricist’s dilemma can be illustrated as follows:

P1: All true knowledge must come from empirical evidence.

P2: There is no empirical evidence to support the idea that all true knowledge must come from empirical evidence.

Conclusion: The idea that all true knowledge must come from empirical evidence is not true knowledge.

William Clifford, in his essay "The Ethics of Belief", takes empiricism to another level, holding that man has a moral duty to forsake belief that runs contrary to empiricism. Clifford assures us that holding to a conviction without questioning it is "one long sin against mankind", and that skepticism is a moral duty until sufficient evidence becomes available to support a conviction. But a multitude of problems arise from Clifford's work. What amounts to "sufficient evidence"? How can one determine if evidence is sufficient without first having some sort of knowledge? As it turns out, evidence itself is a subjective matter. What a person accepts as evidence is determined by his own metaphysical presuppositions. Hinduism holds that the entire physical universe is maya, or illusion, and thus sense experience cannot be trusted. What type of sufficient evidence could free one of such skepticism? Furthermore, how does an empiricist find any truth outside of personal sense experience? Clifford examines the "limits of inference", and tells us that "we may add to our experience on the assumption of a uniformity of nature". We'll look more into this area when we examine the knowledge of God through science, but on what ethical ground does Clifford allow for such an assumption? Clifford writes,

"What this uniformity precisely is, how we grow in the knowledge of it from generation to generation, these are questions which for the present we lay aside..."

To my knowledge, Clifford never takes these questions up again. Clifford's skepticism is thus arbitrary, requiring some presuppositional knowledge in order to establish what he considers to be "sufficient evidence".

A third problem with Clifford's viewpoint is that it requires an a priori knowledge of morality, certainly something that mere empiricism cannot account for. Empiricism is a useful tool, but alone cannot account for true knowledge, since it not only cannot justify induction, but is also self-defeating, and requires some degree of knowledge before it can be used.

Closely related to the relativists are the sophists, who hold that the pragmatic view that truth is whatever works satisfactorily. William James suggests that belief at any moment can be passional, without any moral consequences, as long as there are no claims of absolute truth. Belief, according to James, can be shown by empirical evidence to be either more or less true, as the risk of error is small in comparison to the blessings of obtaining real knowledge. However, such a view of truth required some a priori knowledge of "whatever works", and suffers from the same recoil problem inherent in relativism. James, in response to Clifford, asks,

"Objective evidence and certitude are doubtless very fine ideals to play with, but where on this moonlit and dream-visited planet are they found?"

It's a fair question to ask of both the relativist and the empiricist, since neither can provide any foundation for epistemology. As it turns out, not only does the materialist worldview fail to account for human knowledge, but it also makes any appeal to reason and logic an exercise of futility. This can be seen in the last possibility for the autonomous man, realism. Secular realism seeks to establish consciousness as part of some (undefined) reality, but fails to establish how this can be known or how it can be the foundation of true knowledge. If the physical laws that govern the material world are all that exist, then they, of necessity, govern our thought processes as well. In that case, ideas such as free thought, rationality, or meaningful inquiry are but a pipe dream. Knowledge has no meaning apart from God, and thus the logical conclusions of an atheistic worldview are genetic and epistemological determinism. (We are what our genes say we are, and we believe what our neurons tell us to believe.)

As we can see, when a man becomes autonomous in his epistemology, he has no ground on which he can claim to know anything. The fact that man both obtains and acts upon knowledge as an objective truth is proof that he knows God. He lives in God's universe, and cannot even function apart from acknowledging him in some way. Knowledge is possible because God has enabled the mind of man to connect with reality, and gives him an understanding of the tools by which knowledge may be increased. Thus we can prove the existence of God by way of the following syllogism:

P1: If man can obtain meaningful knowledge, then God exists, since God is the precondition of human knowledge.

P2: Man can obtain knowledge.

Conclusion: God exists.

The common denominator of unbelievers of any stripe is the idea that God has not revealed Himself in the Holy Scriptures. The problem that the unbeliever has isn't a lack of proof, such as I have just offered up, nor is it a lack of evidence. The problem that the unbeliever has is metaphysical. He has precommitted himself to a materialistic worldview, and this precommitment alone will determine what the unbeliever will accept as "sufficient evidence". Yet we can see the groundless epistemology that results from the presupposition that man is the measure of all things. Truly, God has "made foolish the wisdom of the world". (1 Corinthians 1:20).

The Futility of Worldly Knowledge

The world seeks after wisdom. At no time has this held more truth, as worldly wisdom has been offered as the potential solution to every imaginable issue of our day. Just ask any politician what the answers are to the problems of AIDS, Terrorism, Racism, Poverty, Hunger, etc. The answer most often presented is "education". If we just become more "educated", or more "aware", then it is believed that we can fix these all of our problems and create a Utopia. Yet this has been tried before.

"And I applied my heart to know wisdom and to know madness and folly. I perceived that this also is but a striving after wind. For in much wisdom is much vexation, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow." (Ecclesiastes 1:17-18)

As it turns out, the more men know the more that we realize that we don't know. Rather than being the solution to all of our problems, knowledge "under the sun", i.e. in a godless world, is "but a striving after wind". In fact, such knowledge tends to increase sorrow.

Now clearly there is a benefit to obtaining knowledge, even "under the sun". "Then I saw that there is more gain in wisdom than in folly, as there is more gain in light than in darkness." (Ecclesiastes 2:13) There is no doubt that education has a purpose, and knowledge has practical benefits during life on earth. But when all is said and done, all knowledge "under the sun" is of no benefit. "For of the wise as of the fool there is no enduring remembrance, seeing that in the days to come all will have been long forgotten. How the wise dies just like the fool!" (Ecclesiastes 2:16). May we instead be seekers of the wisdom that comes from above, for "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom..." (Psalms 111:10).

The Resurrection of Jesus Christ

2010-03-30T15:12:00.004-04:00

"Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied." (1 Corinthians 15:12-19)

"On the constitutional grounds which we have before described, we are opposed to any attempt to elevate these five doctrinal statements, or any of them (including the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ), to the position of test for ordination or for good standing in our church." (The Auburn Affirmation of the PCUSA, Section IV)

Christianity is more than just a religion or a philosophy. It is more than just a few rules and platitudes to live by. Christianity is a worldview that is based upon the most important event in the history of the world, that being the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. The denial of this particular doctrine (as well as others) in the 1924 Auburn Affirmation was the beginning of the downfall of American Presbyterianism. Yet Paul correctly points this doctrine out as the most important of all. Without the bodily resurrection of Christ, we must conclude that we are still in our sins, that we have hope only in this vapor of a life, and that we are to be pitied. The resurrection of Christ is necessary for the new birth, which is the sole means by which one can see the kingdom of God.

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead," (1 Peter 1:3)

Time and again, unbelievers will ask for "evidence" of this event. How can we prove that Christ actually rose from the dead? The question, however, is usually slanted toward naturalism and rooted in a worldview of radical empiricism, for it can be readily established that no amount of evidence will be enough to convince the unbeliever. This is because the radical empiricism of the resurrection skeptic is a one-way street, as can easily be demonstrated by asking the skeptic for evidence that Christ is still dead. The desire of the unbelieving skeptic is always to establish his own worldview by default, and then debate Christian Doctrine based on that worldview. However, by denying the existence of God and the revelatory nature of human knowledge in the first place, the honest skeptic foregoes any basis for induction (Hebrew 1:3), and thus the lack of visible "resurrections" in history cannot be used to supplant the one-time event of Christ's resurrection.

As for empirical evidence that supports Christ's resurrection, there is no shortage of such (See the Resurrection Fact Sheet)¹. We have the empty tomb (Matthew 28:5-8; Mark 16:2-7; Luke 24:1-7), the post-resurrection appearances of Christ (Mark 16:12-14, Luke 24:15-41, John 20:14-31), seen by over 500 witnesses (1 Corinthians 15:5-8), the radical transformation of the Apostles from timid, fearful fishermen (Mark 14:50) into bold disciples who turned the world upside down (Acts 17:6), and the conversion of Saul of Tarsus (Acts 9:1-10). The resurrection of Jesus Christ is even recorded in secular history.

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day." (Flavius Josephus - Antiquities of the Jews, Book XVIII, 3, 3)

It must be understood, however, that such evidence is rejected a priori by the unbeliever, not for any logical reason, but because he has already precommitted himself to a naturalistic worldview. Therefore, the problem isn't with the lack of evidence, as we have just established. The problem with the unbeliever is metaphysical. The unbeliever has already assumed that God does not exist; therefore Christ could not have risen from the dead. The problem that the unbeliever has can be summarized in 1 Corinthians 2:14:

"The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Corinthians 2:14)

So we must conclude that attempts to convince the unbeliever of Christ's resurrection using naturalistic philosophy is folly, as Scripture itself indicates. The unbelieving heart needs much more than additional information. It needs to be born again so that it can see the Kingdom of God. On the other hand, it is quite unfortunate to see this line of reasoning among the modern Agrippa's of liberal denominations such as the PCUSA², who adopted the above Auburn Affirmation. In response, I would ask, "Why is it thought incredible by any of you that God raises the dead?" (Acts 26:8). One cannot serve two masters (Matthew 6:24), neither should Christians accept any naturalist reasoning regarding the resurrection. Instead, we must "in [our] hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy" so that we may be "prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you;" (1 Peter 3:15).

The blending of naturalistic philosophy into a concoction of pseudo-Christianity has brought forth several ideas that attempt to explain the aforementioned evidence. I won't, as many do, spend much time attempting to refute the following theories. Just an explanation of each should suffice in expressing their vanity.

The Stolen Body Theory
This theory is the original story concocted by unbelieving Judaists in the first century (Matthew 28:12-15). It holds that the very disciples who feared for their lives at Christ’s arrest hatched a plan to sneak past the Roman guards to steal his body and fake his resurrection. Then they arranged a host of false witnesses, began to boldly preach the gospel of the kingdom, and ultimately suffered martyrdom for what they knew was a lie. Variations suggest that the body was simply missing, or that Jesus followers went to the wrong tomb.

The Swoon Theory
Originated by Venturinni at the beginning of the 18th Century. Hugh Schonfield holds to a variation of this theory in his book “The Passover Plot”. This theory holds that Christ did not really die on the cross, but merely passed out or “swooned”. After the Roman soldiers beat him, crowned him with thorns, and crucified him, they somehow failed to make sure that he was really dead (a practice that they were very good at). After Christ was buried, he managed to roll the stone away from the tomb, sneak past the guards, and convince his followers that he was the victorious, resurrected Messiah. Variations include the idea that Jesus was drugged.

The Twin Theory
Appears to be a modern theory originated by Robert Greg Cavin. This theory holds that Christ had an unknown identical twin who, upon the death of Christ, appeared to the disciples as the resurrected Messiah. Amazingly enough, Jesus’ own mother was apparently fooled by this twin. Variations include the idea that someone who looked like Jesus was actually crucified on the cross. (Muslims hold that is was actually Judas who was crucified.)

The Hallucination Theory
This theory can be traced back to the Gnostic Heresies of the 2nd Century. It holds that the followers of Christ were so disillusioned at his death that they began to hallucinate and see Christ alive after His burial. Amazingly, these hallucinations affected over 500 people, including a Christ-hating Pharisee by the name of Saul of Tarsus (1 Corinthians 15:8). Variations include post-hypnotic suggestion and different “Spiritual Resurrection” theories.

Unbelievers, such as the Jesus Seminar³ folk, would be better served to totally reject the Bible altogether and call their assembly something other than a "church" instead of propagating such nonsense. Most of these theories would readily acknowledge that the tomb was indeed empty, and that the apostles indeed saw someone that they recognized as the resurrected Messiah. Yet the best explanation for these facts, that Christ actually rose from the dead, is rejected out of hand due to unbelief. Such is the real issue in attempting to argue for the resurrection by way of searching for evidence that will satisfy a flawed metaphysic. For "...If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead." (Luke 16:31)

The doctrine of the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ is taught plainly in the Scriptures, and has been at the heart of every Christian Creed and Confession for nearly 2,000 years.

The Apostle's Creed - "The third day He arose again from the dead"

The Nicene Creed - "the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures"

The Athanasian Creed - "rose again the third day from the dead"

The Waldensian Confessions of Faith (1120) - "That Christ ... rose again for their justification"

The Augsburg Confession - "truly rose again the third day"

The Heidelberg Catechism - "The third day he rose again from the dead"

The Belgic Confession - "he, by his resurrection, gave it (Christ's body) immortality"

The Westminster Confession of Faith - "On the third day he arose from the dead, with the same body in which he suffered"

As a Christian, one must hold that Scripture itself is the evidence needed to prove the resurrection, since it is God’s Revelation of Himself to mankind. The unbeliever must be brought to an understanding of Christ on that basis alone. As far as debating this doctrine within the church, let the debate end here. One may feel free to disagree with Christian Doctrine, but one is not free to redefine it. Anyone who rejects the doctrine of the resurrection is, by definition, not a Christian, regardless of denominational affiliation. Such a person does not qualify for church membership, let alone as a candidate for the ministry.

Footnotes:

1 I purposely avoided the ongoing debates over the alleged Ossuary of James and the alleged Tomb of Jesus. In actuality, both may very well be frauds (though it looks like the Ossuary may be authentic), and neither has any bearing on the resurrection debate short of finding Christ’s actual body. In the end, all evidence is subject to metaphysics, i.e. a person’s worldview will determine what will be acceptable as evidence.
2 I am aware of several godly members of PCUSA Churches, but it is disturbing that any Christian would continue fellowship with those who adopt the Auburn Affirmation.
3 The Jesus Seminar is a group of self-professed “scholars” who determine what “scholars” should think of Christianity, particularly of Jesus. Then they ignore the idea that dissenters can be scholars. Mark Roberts does a masterful job of exposing this on his blog.

Does Endtimes Theology Matter?

2010-03-29T20:58:00.000-04:00

FBI launches raids on Christian militia group which is 'preparing for battle against an Anti-Christ'

For comparison, see Antichrist: The Biblical View

The Knowledge Of God Part I

2010-03-26T05:17:00.002-04:00

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things." (Romans 1:18-23)

All men have knowledge of God. This may seem like a strange statement to make in today's pluralistic, unbelieving society. Yet as a matter of common observation, all men live in God's universe, and cannot function apart from acknowledging Him in some way. The seeds of the Holy Christian religion have been firmly planted in the minds of men, and God's handiwork has been made manifest to all (Psalm 19:1). All of men's endeavors rely on God's creative attributes and his Providence, without which knowledge as well as the ability to express that knowledge would be impossible. The myriad of false religions reveals that man has an innate knowledge of the divine, corrupted and incomplete though it may be. However, unless the mind is transformed by God Himself from it's depraved state, all ideas concerning God are, of necessity, based upon pure speculation. There is no shortage of idols that man may invent for himself in order to find a deity that will conform to the pleasures of his own deformed nature, even to the point of exchanging "the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things".

Yet the knowledge of the one true God is strong enough that failure to worship Him is inexcusable, placing both Jew and Gentile in the same dreadful mire, for according to verse 16, all men need the salvation which is revealed in the power of the gospel. "The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men", being revealed to Jews through the law, as well as the gentiles by their reason. The fact that pagan nations had not the revealed law at their disposal did not excuse their sinfulness, because "what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them". The unbeliever may not proclaim ignorance of God or His laws, because he has an innate knowledge of both. Paul tells us that they "suppress the truth", not out of ignorance, but rather "by their unrighteousness".

Man, in his very nature being unrighteous and rebellious, is bound to raise a multitude of objections to such knowledge. The atheist and the agnostic are bound by intellectual autonomy. They assume that a world governed by undesigned chance and blind fate may obtain enough order to allow for scientific inquiry, and that the natural laws of the universe can result in a mind capable of objectively realizing such order to obtain meaningful knowledge. While they often call themselves "free-thinkers", their minds are imprisoned by their metaphysical commitment to a material-only worldview from which it can find no escape.

The relativist attempts to hide behind the limits of human knowledge. Nietzsche formulated the relativist mantra quite nicely. "There are no eternal facts, as there are no absolute truths" (Human, All Too Human). Obviously, this statement is self-defeating. There is no way that it can be true. Relativist "do-it-yourself" religion (Pluralism) relies on the frailty of the human mind in comparison to the immensity of God in order to deny God's revelation of Himself, (ie. “God is incomprehensible”). Yet oddly enough, the pluralist expects to be taken seriously when he or she expresses any facts about God.

While all of these objections have ethical ramifications at their root, pure Moral Autonomy is the most common. Wicked men love darkness and hate the light, because their deeds are evil (John 3:19). By either denying God or recreating Him in their own image, men seek to loose themselves from Divine Authority, thus enabling themselves to do what is “right in his own eyes" (Judges 21:25). For them, no thought is more comforting than the idea that their sins will die with them in the grave.

There is an ethical element to how one uses his mind, for the failure to acknowledge God leads to a "debased mind" (Romans 1:28). We are commanded to love God with all of our minds (Matthew 22:37), relinquishing all pretense of intellectual autonomy and submitting to the One True and Living God. This autonomy may take many forms, from the Empiricism of William Clifford to the Relativism of Friedrich Nietzsche. Yet, as we shall see in this study, all forms of autonomy are built on the shifting sands of human wisdom and ultimately lead to an endless cycle of skepticism. The only option is for our minds to submit to the One who created it, the one who is Absolute Truth, in whom "we live and move and have our being". (Acts 17:28)

The Great Commission Demands Theological Study

2010-03-04T20:37:00.001-05:00

Many fundamentalists draw a false dichotomy between "saving souls" and sound doctrine. I am often asked how many people I have won to Christ with my strict adherence to biblical doctrine, as if somehow doctrine is a deterent to evangelism. Robert Reymond shows that the Great Commission itself demands theological study:

"After determining for his church the pattern and end of all theology, the glorified Christ commissioned his church to disciple the nations, baptizing and teaching his followers to obey everything that he had commanded them (Matt. 28:18-20). The Great Commission then places upon the church specific intellectual demands. There is the evangelistic demand to contextualize without compromise the gospel proclamation in order to meet the needs of every generation and culture. There is the didactic demand to correlate the manifold data of Scripture in our minds and to apply this knowledge to all phases of our thinking and conduct. And there is the apologetic demand to justify the existence of Christianity as the revealed religion of God and to protect its message from adulteration and distortion (see Tit. 1:9). Theology has risen in the life of the church in response to these concrete demands of the Great Commission. The theological enterprise serves then the Great Commission as it seeks to explicate in a logical and coherent manner for men everywhere the truth God has revealed in Holy Scripture about himself and the world he has created." - Robert Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, Introduction xxviii)

Book Review: Getting Off The Niceness Treadmill

2010-02-18T15:51:00.004-05:00

By Carol Noren Johnson

"For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ." (Galatians 1:10)"

Such is the great gulf between "niceness" and "godliness", a necessary distinction that Carol Noren Johnson can relate to. In "Getting Off The Niceness Treadmill", Carol (NewKidontheBlogg) shares her life's journey that began in Portland, Oregon in a Christian family. Like many Christians, Carol learned that Christian girls are supposed to be "nice", a lesson that made her subject to being a pawn for many self-serving acquaintances along her life's path. "Niceness", she writes, "is not always biblical kindness, but an ego need, or, in my case, a habit from early training". Carol relates how her "addiction" to niceness made her a pushover for many, especially during her years as a widow. Her combination of loneliness and "need to be needed" allowed room mates and relatives to take advantage of her, junk up her property, use her as a chauffeur, and play to her "Christian" sympathies while embezzling and stealing money for drug use.

Carol traces her own addiction to niceness back to her teenage years, from a desire to please her loving yet strict Swedish grandmother to her later guilt trip over not providing the grandchildren that her mother desired.

"Please others! Because of my mother's and grandmother's rules, I began to reason that pleasing is the way to live. Be nice, do nice, so it will be easy for everyone and everyone will like me. I didn't realize that people don't have to like me. I didn't realize that I don't even have to begin to please everyone. Yes, we should respect our parents, but we must realize that they may never be pleased entirely. The script I was to live was prepared and would be a problematic journey for me." (p. 15)

Niceness can really become a problem for Christians in regards to church activities, a fact that I can relate to. Churches aren't immune to taking advantage of those who "need to be needed" in order to fulfill perceived needs in their ministry. Conventional wisdom has it that Christians who care for the ministry of the church should always say yes to the leadership of the church, up and until the time when the services are no longer needed. When Carol lost her church position without any explanation, she was asked to tell no one in order to avoid a church split. While it may have been the right thing for her to do out of respect for the Church of Jesus Christ, such an approach caused Carol much emotional pain and anguish that would last for years. (p. 21)

As a result, Carol moved away from California out of a need to "regain psychological health", and began to attend Michigan State University in order to obtain her PhD in Educational Systems Development. There she faced many obstacles as a student trying to make ends meet via odd jobs, battling loneliness, financial struggles, and health problems. Yet through God's providence, it is also where she met her first husband Don, whose knowledge in pastoral counseling helped her "work through the hurt" that she felt. (p. 24)

Carol's life is evident of the fact that doctrine does matter, and she elaborates in Chapters 6 and 7 on how sound doctrine helped her to arrive at a proper "perspective on good works, obligation, reciprocation, and the glory of God". (p. 47) Carol's "niceness" was in fact a combination of self-obsession and a works-based worldview instead of self-denial and a God-centered worldview. Too many Christians unfortunately see doctrine as purely an academic or theological matter, with no real practical use (other than to cause division in the church). But it was Carol's introduction to the Reformed doctrines of Sovereign Grace and Providence that began her migration off of the niceness treadmill. Mainstream evangelicalism, at some level, puts an emphasis on man's works, and that emphasis can only lead to either pride (a denial of the depths of ones sinfulness) or dispair (realizing that we can never do enough good works). Returning the focus to the finished work of Jesus Christ, however, can free us from the need to be needed, and thus give us the ability to walk in the good works that God has ordained for us, without becoming addicted to being nice. Sound doctrine teaches us that, as Christians, we are called into the fellowship of Christ's sufferings. The fact that all the we face in life has been ordained by a sovereign and loving God enables us to face hardships, even if those hardships are caused by others.

"It's kind and honest to tell the truth. We put on kindness and honesty, not niceness, when we go through the process of forgiving. We forgive because He first forgave all of our unrighteousness and self-righteousness." (p.25)

Having a proper view of God and man also helps give wisdom in providing for the needs of others. The opposite of niceness is not meanness, but living a life glorifying to God through biblical kindness, meeting needs as God provides without being a pushover. Though it may sound a bit odd, Carol relates how "niceness" is often built upon the sinful foundations of self-obsession.

"My sins were bitterness and self-pity, and then I shared the "poor me" story [about my previous church experience] with selected others. I kept busy with church, reading my Bible and praying. When I laid down self-pity, I had taken up another strategy -- give money, take people in who needed lodging, make gifts, do whatever people expect a nice Christian to do. Would that bring peace? Not really because of the expectations that I had. Certainly it didn't bring respect. It was self-righteous humanitarian behavior. I thought that life should go well for the nice person, and this notion was crumbling all around me". (p. 61)

Through years of growth, Carol was finally delivered from her niceness addiction, and thus she was able to chart a new course with a more godly, biblical attitude.

"_The ultimate gift is that God gave His Son to take our punishment and secure our reward in heaven. "Thanks be to God for His inexpressible gift." (2 Corinthians 9:15 RSV) Our humanitarian efforts are nothing in comparison to His gift.

_God, not Carol Johnson's efforts, supplies the needs of others. Now it sounds silly, doesn't it, that I had this nurturing need to help any and all who came to me.

_Let Him guide me when I feel generous. Am I being generous for a reward or to make my life easier? Don't expect a reward in this life "knowing that your labor is not in vain in the Lord". (1 Corinthians 15:58)

_I can be intolerant in an age of political correctness for causes I am led to support, even if it is not nice.

_Give the gift of time and attention to others. Have front porch discussions with others." (p.43)

True Godliness is not always "nice", and there are many things that Christians should not be nice about. Chapter 8 gives a brief list of such items, and particularly focuses on Carol's work with Drunk Drivers). Unlike many of the books reviewed on Covenant Theology, "Getting Off The Niceness Treadmill" is focused primarily on a particular life application of the doctrine of God's Sovereignty, putting man's works into proper perspective. Whether you or someone you know struggles with a need to please others in order to satisfy their own self-obsession, "Getting Off The Niceness Treadmill" is a helpful resource, particularly for those who are manipulated by niceness as a need to display his or her "Christian Faith".

Published by Genie Publishing Co. 2009
109 Pages
Easy Reading
Highly Recommended
Buy It Here

Let the Dead Bury the Dead

2010-02-04T13:25:00.000-05:00

There are two opposing schools of thought concerning evangelism. The modern pragmatist holds that it is the duty of the church to change it methods (as well as it's message) in order to meet the "felt needs" of the unsaved. There are even churches who send out questionaires asking unbelievers what it would take to get them into church. Such methods may be good for growing large churches, but that's all that they are good for. Dead people (Ephesians 2:1) are a poor judge of their own needs.

According to the Scriptures, it is the unbeliever who needs to be changed, it is the gospel that effects such change, and it is the "foolishness of preaching" that God has ordained as the means by which this gospel is spread. Try as we might, we cannot improve upon God's methods or His message.

Concern for the lost does not mean that we should capitulate to their excuses. They should serve Christ, and there is no excuse for them not to serve Christ (Romans 1:20). Every unbeliever has a self-justified reason why they don't serve Christ. For some, the church doesn't entertain them enough. For others, there are too many "hypocrites" in the church. Still others may justify their unbelief through science or philosophy. Whatever the reason, we must approach the sinner with the idea that he needs to be born of the Spirit of God, not the idea that we need to satisfy his excuses. Our Lord's response to excuses was sharp and pointed. "Let the dead bury the dead" (Matthew 8:22).

Book Review: Presuppositional Apologetics - Stated and Defended

2010-01-19T07:57:00.017-05:00

by Greg L. Bahnsen
Edited by Joel McDurmon

"A truly Christian defense of the faith must never fail to exalt Christ as Lord over all, including argumentation and reasoning. An apologetic that builds on any other rock than Christ does not honor the greatness of divine wisdom; it is foolishly and audaciously erected on the ruinous sands of human authority".

What originally began as two chapter contribution to a collection of essays on Van Til's Reformed apologetic grew to Bahnsen's magnum opus on apologetics. However, the manuscripts of this work were lost until after Bahnsen's death in 1995, and have recently been published posthumously by a combined effort between American Vision and Covenant Media.

Part One contains three chapters. The first chapter, Introduction: God In The Dock? focuses on the necessity of the presuppositional method and exposes the insufficiency of traditional apologetics. The "charter" passage of Christian apologetics. 1 Peter 3:15, begins by telling us to "Sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts...", a commandment that is unwittingly ignored by non-presuppositional methods. The chapter seems to be quite repetitive, but as such reveals Bahnsen's passion for the church at large to adopt what we know to be the truth in our apologetics, that Christ is Lord, and that the Holy Scriptures are the best evidence for that fact, since it is God's revelation to us. As such, man has no place to stand in judge of God or His Word, since his own intellectual efforts can only be meaningful in a Christian, theistic worldview. When Christians try to "prove" the Christian Faith using non-believing metaphysics, they not only give the unbeliever a free pass in defending their autonomous metaphysic, but at best they can only show that God "probably exists", hardly enough to convince the unbeliever to submit to God's authority.

Instead, Scripture tells us that all men know God, because he has plainly revealed Himself to them. (Romans 1:19). Yet unbelievers "suppress the truth in unrighteousness" (Romans 1:18). In other words, the problem that the unbeliever has isn't intellectual, it is ethical. He is commanded to submit to the revealed word of God, but instead has claimed some sort of intellectual autonomy, assuming without any reason whatsoever that the human mind is capable of meaningful thought processes outside of the creative and providential attributes of God. "Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and shrewd in their own sight!" (Isaiah 5:21) What the unbeliever needs isn't simply "additional information" in regards to science, philosophy, history, etc. A good Calvinist should know better. What the unbeliever needs is a new way of thinking that relinquishes any claim to intellectual self-sufficiency. He needs to be born again. It is this innate knowledge of God which resides in fallen creatures that the apologist must appeal to, not some non-existent "neutral" stance that puts God in the Dock.

Developing a faithful apologetic is a question of ultimate authority. Does all knowledge proceed from the Sovereign Creator or the fallen creature? Bahnsen thus criticizes the basis for traditional apologetical methods because "It does not at base present the intellectual challenge of the gospel, but makes fatal concessions to the unbeliever's desire for intellectual self-sufficiency." (Bahnsen - PA, p. 13.) Bahnsen adds:

"It is futile to appeal to standards which are allegedly intelligible apart from the truth of God's Word. No fact can be understood, and no reasoning can be meaningful, apart from Christ as Creator and Redeemer of men. Scripture provides the interpretive context within which fact and logic can be intelligible and used aright."

This is a truth that all Christians believe at some level, and honor such in their proclamation of the faith. Yet we have a tendency to forget this in our apologetic task of defending that same faith.

Bahnsen closes the chapter by examining the foundation of Van Til's apologetic, showing how it drew from the disagreements between Abraham Kuyper and B.B Warfield, while avoiding the pitfalls of both.

Chapter Two, The Christian Mind and Method provides a more scriptural defense of Van Tillian apologetics, expounding Colossians 2:8 and examining Paul's apologetic approach in Lystra, Rome and Athens. In no case did Paul seek religious common ground with unbelievers, nor did he evangelize using mere "natural" revelation. Rather he appealed to their ignorance, vanity, and foolishness (p. 44). Bahnsen presents the natural antithesis between the standards of Christian knowledge and the sandy ground of human wisdom, and how Christians should never argue in a way that grants knowledge to the unbeliever.

"The Word of God should not be treated as a hypothesis to be proved by rational-empirical testing; it must never be reduced to the level of probability. It is the unquestionable Word of Christ our Lord; we must begin with its veracity and argue accordingly. It is the thinking of the rebellious sinner, not the Word of the Lord, that must be brought into question. Our defense of the faith does not work toward an honoring of Christ's lordship; it works under that lordship!" (PA, p. 27)

"...our apologetic must not call the Word of Christ into question, but must challenge the unbeliever to the impossibility of knowledge outside of Christ." (p. 28)

Scripture itself never takes the time to debate the existence of God, but rather proclaims it in a self-attesting, authoritative manner. So should we also develop an apologetic that is faithful to the true and living God of Scripture instead conceding to the "worldly wisdom" of those who cannot even account for the very tools that they used to argue against the Christian Faith. The unbeliever needs more than good arguments, or solid "evidence" based upon his own worldview. He needs what Bahnsen dubs "Redemptive Revelation", the type that Peter received in Matthew 16:16-17. He needs to be born again.

"The change from unbelief to belief is not merely a matter of degree or the addition of a few further steps in reasoning, but rather a radical change of mindset." (p. 47)

The problem that unbelievers have is that they are spiritual "schizophrenics", because they both know God and don't know God. As a result, the unbeliever is always battling against the image of the one true God that he has ingrained in him. As one created in the image of God, the unbeliever has adequate knowledge of God has Creator, and thus he is able to obtain some knowledge of his world in spite of himself. Yet "Without the Word of Christ there is no theoritical basis for logic, history, or science; so when the unbeliever fights against the gospel he is working toward ruining his very tools of destruction! His "wisdom" becomes folly." (p. 49) Thus a good and faithful apologist must presuppose the Word of God and use it as the basis for all reasoning.

Bahnsen closes the chapter by putting man in his place in terms of knowledge. When Job dared to question God, he found himself to be the one on trial (Job 40:1-8). Thus we should use the Word to judge the thought patterns of the unbeliever, not vice versa. Indeed, according to the Scriptures, a repentant faith is a prerequisite for true knowledge (2 Peter 1:5, Proverbs 1:7, Proverbs 9:10, Proverbs 15:32, Job 11:12). We should faithfully use such knowledge "to overthrow reasonings and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God" (2 Corinthians 10:3-5).

Chapter 3, Neutrality & Autonomy Relinquished examines the groundless epistemology and metaphysics of unbelief. It includes Bahnsen's doctoral thesis on Self Deception, which explains how man can both know and not know God. It is possible for man to be wrong about his own knowledge, such as "knowing" a shortcut and getting lost, or being surprised at how he is able to pass a Calculus exam. In one sense, all men know God, because they live in God's universe, and cannot even function apart from acknowledging him in some way. God the Creator is known, because He has made Himself known in Creation (Romans 1:18-22). At the same time, they do not know God as Redeemer (and ultimately as Father) unless God Himself reveals it to him (Matthew 16:17).

By rejecting the need for revelatory epistemology, the non-believer is caught in a "subjective guessing game" about what he knows. Epistemology (What do we know?) and Metaphysics (How do we decide whether we know?) are mutually interdependent, and thus we are left with begging the question on every issue unless we can appeal to an ultimate authority. Thus there is really no such thing as an "unbiased" opinion on anything, because "one cannot gain an epistemological position untainted by metaphysical commitment" (p. 81). Neutrality is impossible, because we all have an "ultimate authority". As such, the real problem that an unbeliever has with Christianity is not a lack of evidence, for he has the same evidence that the believer has. The problem is with metaphysical commitment. Bahnsen goes on to explain how epistemology and metaphysics are, in fact, moral issues (obedience or disobedience to God's Word - see Romans 1:18.)

"Whether most philosophers like it or not, Scripture assuredly tells us the way a man uses his intellect is an ethical matter (e.g., rebellion against God leads to a darkened mind). Irrespective of the way in which men respond to it, God's clear revelation is the only escape we have from the skepticism that would otherwise result from the necessity of coordinating metaphysics and epistemology, and it is this revelation that provides both the epistemic ground and metaphysical content for the foundation of all of man's intellectual endeavors."

One of the most valuable contributions that Bahnsen's arms the Christian with is the ability to pull the rug out from the atheist concerning the tools he uses to debate. He summarized Thomas Kuhn's exhibit of the non-objective character of science and Kurt Godel's demonstratration of the non-neutrality of logic itself (p. 89). Both works beg further study, and I look forward to delving into these.

By expressing the need for revelational epistemology and exposing the end result rejecting Divine revelation, Bahnsen shows that the non-believers worldview ultimately leads to relativism in knowledge, failure in relevance and justification, chaos and subjectivism in history, and an irrational and unpredictable universe which makes science impossible (pp. 98-109).

At the end of Part One, Bahnsen makes us aware of the importance of the use of language, and how this use differs between different people, especially between believers and unbelievers (pp. 117-122). To quote Van Til:

"The basic falseness of this [traditional] apologetics appears in the virtual if not actual denial of the fact that the natural man makes false assumptions...Anyone who says "I believe in God," is formally correct in his statement, but the question is what does he mean by the word God? The traditional view assumes that the natural man has a certain measure of correct thought content when he uses the word God. It is his most effective tool for suppressing the sense of the true God that he cannot fully efface from the fibres of his heart... [The traditional apologist] must tie on to some small area of thought content that the believer and the unbeliever have in common without qualification when both are self-conscious with respect to their principle. This is tantamount to saying that those who interpret a fact as dependent upon God and those who interpret the same fact as not dependent upon God have yet said something identical about that fact" (Van Til's Defense of the Faith, cited by Bahnsen on p. 117).

In Part Two, Bahnsen deals with three Christian apologists (Gordon Clark, Edward J. Carnell, & Francis Schaeffer) that he charges with not using "Consistently Applied" Presuppositional Apologetics. While Bahnsen finds much to agree with in the presuppositional statements of these men (listed at the beginning of each section), he find that, as a whole, their apologetic is inconsistent.

In evaluating Gordon Clark, Bahnsen criticizes Clarks' invalid starting point, probablism, skepticism of sense experience, and Clark's "coherence test". In terms of Clark's starting point and probablism, Bahnsen cites Clark in a statement that is clearly not presuppositional, and requires some level of intellectual autonomy.

"That religion or Christianity in particular furnishes a better method than secularism is a possibility not to be dismissed without discussion" (cited by Bahnsen, p. 142)

So how would Clark arrive as such a conclusion? By tests of "logic" and "self-consistency".

"If the Biblical doctrines are self-consistent, they have met the only legitimate test of reason. This test of logic is precisely the requirement that a set of propositions be meaningful, whether spoken by God or man (p. 151)

Not only does Clark have an invalid starting point (intellectual autonomy), but such coherence tests require omniscience. However, the fatal flaw in such tests is that, when combined with Clark's skepticism of empiricism, Christianity fails Clark's test. Read the book for one example.

One final criticism of Clark's apologetic is that his skepticism of sense experience is irrational (we learn God's Word by sense experience) as well as unbiblical, (Faith cometh by hearing).

In the end, God Himself must be presented as the necessary precondition of "logic" as well as "sense experience". Clark fails to do this on a consistent basis.

Edward J. Carnell's apologetic works suffer the same shortcomings as Clark's, with a few additional problems. Carnell denies that God's Word is self verifying, and is repleat with rationalism and contradictions (ie. asserts the mind's depravity but not it's corruption). As with Clark, Carnell has an invalid starting point:

"a man of character can believe nothing until it is established by sufficient evidences" (p. 204)

Francis Schaeffer falls into the same error. His starting point leads to a surprising statement regarding the sufficiency of God's Word in evangelism:

"There must be a pre-evangelism before evangelism is meaningful to twentieth century people... This pre-consideration falls into two areas: the first is in the area of epistemology and the second, in the area of methodology" (p. 246)

Schaeffer views science as "incomplete", but fails to challenge naturalistic presuppositions.

While all three men were effective in their own right, they have a tendency to, on occasion, assert some sort of autonomy in human knowledge as the ultimate basis for their apologetic.

The book includes two valuable appendices:

1.) The Necessity For Revelational Epistemology

2.) The Pragmatist's Rejoinder And The Christian Alternative

Not only is the book highly recommended for those who wants a better grasp of Van Til and his apologetic method, but it is a must read for any Christian in dealing with our postmodern world and needing to develop a faithful, God-Centered apologetic. The failure to recognize the antithesis that exists between the believing an unbelieving worldviews lies at the root error of traditional apologetic methods, and thus those who use those methods are forced to make fatal concessions to those worldviews.

"The traditional method...is based on the assumption that man has some measure of autonomy, that the space-time world is in some measure "contingent" and that man must create for himself his own epistemology in an ultimate sense.

"The traditional method was concessive on these basic points on which it should have demanded surrender! As such, it was always self-frustrating. The traditional method had explicitly built into it the right and ability of the natural man, apart from the work of the Spirit of God, to be the judge of the claim of the authoritative Word of God. It is man who, by means of his self-established intellectual tools, puts his "stamp of approval" on the Word of God and then, only after this grand act, does he listen to it. God's Word must first pass man's tests of good and evil, truth and falsity. But once you tell a non-Christian this, why should he be worried by anything else that you say. [sic] You have already told him that he is quite alright just the way he is! Then Scripture is not correct when it talks of "darkened minds," "wilful ignorance," "dead men," and "blind people"! With this method the correctness of the natural man's problematics is endorsed. That is all he needs to reject the Christian faith." (Cornelius Van Til - cited by Bahnsen, PA. pp. 13-14)

Published by American Vision and Covenant Media Press 2008
314 Pages
College Reading Level

Purchase it Here

Elements Of Reformed Worship #8

2009-11-11T12:34:00.004-05:00

The Sacraments

Even redeemed saints, tainted by remnants of their carnal natures, find it impossible to have their hearts and minds totally and consistently worshipping "in Spirit and in Truth" (John 4:24). Therefore God has condescended to us by providing physical signs for our spiritual growth and nourishment. These sacraments have been given to the church as a sign and seal of the covenant of grace (Genesis 17:11, Exodus 12:13, Romans 4:11).

In our modern age of individualistic, do-it-yourself spirituality, more teaching is needed on this particular subject, for the sacraments have long been the object of corruption and strange superstition, and modern evangelicalism is no exception. The elements of the sacraments in scripture, be they the cutting of circumcision, the lamb of the passover, the water of baptism, or the bread and wine of communion, have no magical power in and of themselves. They do not change into the body of Christ, nor serve as physical healing potions. They have no ability to provide justification or impart faith. Abraham received circumcision as a sign of the righteousness of faith (Romans 4:11), yet the sign itself did not impart such faith into Esau, Ishmael, and any number of Israelites. Likewise, baptism failed to impart such faith to Simon Magus, and the Lord's Supper only increases the condemnation of unworthy partakers (1 Corinthians 11:27) such as Judas Iscariot (Matthew 26:23-25). The sacraments are made useful only by faith, though they do have in them nourishment for those of the faith.

"Wherefore, let it be a fixed point, that the office of the sacraments differs not from the word of God; and this is to hold forth and offer Christ to us, and, in him, the treasures of heavenly grace. They confer nothing, and avail nothing, if not received in faith, just as wine and oil, or any other liquor, however large the quantity which you pour out, will run away and perish unless there be an open vessel to receive it. When the vessel is not open, though it may be sprinkled all over, it will nevertheless remain entirely empty." (John Calvin - Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV, Chapter 14, Section 17)

The sacraments belong only to the church, and are not for individual use (1 Corinthians 4:1, 1 Corinthians 11:20-24). As it is God Himself that establishes His covenant, so only one who ministers in His name may administer the external signs of that covenant. Christ's physical presence does not join any of the physical elements of a sacraments. To promote this myth is to assign ubiquity to Christ's physical body, and is thus incompatible with Chalcedon christology. Nonetheless, Christ's spiritual presence is just as real, and acknowledged by those of the true faith.

There are only two sacraments in biblical Christianity, those being baptism and the Lord's Supper. It is these only that have been instituted by God, contain the presence of a visible and tangible element, signify Christ and his death and resurrection, and are used as a sign and seal of the covenant of grace. May the church return to both a proper teaching and a proper practice concerning the sacraments, properly discerning the Lord's body.

Recommended Reading: With Reverence and Awe: Returning to the Basics of Reformed Worship by Hart and Muether

Elements Of Reformed Worship #7

2009-10-27T19:51:00.009-04:00

Preaching The Word

"I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. As for you, always be sober-minded, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry." (2 Timothy 4:1-5)

"Preaching is broken...Why do I get to speak for 30 minutes and you don't?...A sermon is often a violent act, it's violence toward the will of the people who have to sit there and take it." (Doug Pagitt - Leader of the Emergent "Solomon's Porch".)

Westminster Shorter Catechism Q. 89

Q. How is the Word made effectual to salvation?

A. The Spirit of God maketh the reading, but especially the preaching of the Word, an effectual means of convincing and converting sinners, and of building them up in holiness and comfort, through faith, unto salvation. (Neh. 8:8, 1 Cor. 14:24–25, Acts 26:18, Ps. 19:8, Acts 20:32, Rom. 15:4, 2 Tim. 3:15–17, Rom. 10:13–17, Rom. 1:16)

In many of today's pragmatic churches, preaching is viewed as increasingly archaic, being either an optional part of worship, or something that snuck in amongst the throngs of church entertainers, hoping that a nugget of that Word might sneak into a few hearts along the way. This type of thing happens when the zeal for church growth over rides the need for truth. The deceptive part of "evangelism by entertainment" is that it does appear in individual cases to increase church attendance, but at what cost? Is merely an increase in church attendance the sign of a true conversion? A church that does not rely on the preaching of the Word has given up on "the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes..." (Romans 1:16). Oddly enough, many such churches proclaim a strong desire to be "apostolic" in terms of Spiritual gifts and ecclesiology, but have forsaken the apostolic message and method of spreading that message. Preaching is not optional, nor it is a church sideshow, but rather a crucial part of worship, the means by which God has ordained to save the lost as well as feed the saved.

"How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!" But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says,"Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?" So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ." (Romans 10:14-17)

In order to fulfill his ministry, Paul charged Timothy to "preach the Word". It stands to reason that preachers who refuse to "reprove, rebuke, and exhort" via the preached Word are not faithful in fulfilling their ministries. What a shame that the preaching of the Word has been abandoned by many churches in favor of fluffy, pragmatic messages on successful living! The Word that is preached must be the "whole counsel of God" (Acts 20:27). A good preacher will preach on the glories of Heaven, the horrors of Hell, giving admonishment as well as encouragement to the saints, all with equal effectiveness. He will "labor in Word and Doctrine" (1 Timothy 5:17), seeking to be orthodox, doing his best as an uninspired prophet to remove any error from his exposition by diligent study, holding fast to sound doctrine (Titus 2:1), and "rightly handling the word of truth." (2 Timothy 2:15). A good preacher is not concerned with pleasing man, but rather God. (Galatians 1:10). As such, the hard truths about man's sinfulness and God's wrath cannot be ignored. It is God's will that people are saved through the folly of preaching (1 Corinthians 1:21), not by skits, clowns, and concerts.

“The pastor is called upon to feed the sheep. (Now that may seem quite obvious.) He is called upon to feed the sheep even if the sheep do not want to be fed. He is certainly not to become an entertainer of goats. Let goats entertain goats, and let them do it in Goatland. You will certainly not turn goats into sheep by pandering to their goatishness”. (William Still, The Work of the Pastor).

We live in a day when a person can send a $25 check to a web company and become an ordained minister. This is merely a symptom of a larger problem. The expectations, even among Christians, of preachers and the words they preach are at an all time low. However, the Word that is preached faithfully, is not only "the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes..." (Romans 1:16), but is also "profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Those who insist on the practice of "bait and switch" entertainment evangelism would do well to meditate on these passages, and renew their confidence in both the Word and the preaching of that Word as the effective, Biblical model of both evangelism and worship.

Recommended Reading: With Reverence and Awe: Returning to the Basics of Reformed Worship by Hart and Muether

Elements Of Reformed Worship #6

2009-10-07T15:47:00.009-04:00

Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual Songs

"Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God. And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him." (Colossians 3:16-17)

So what kind of music is fitting for Biblical Worship? Does style matter? Should we use modern songs, old hymns, or a mixture of both?

I am of the private opinion that any church interested in music that is pleasing to God should always have a Psaltery available. The Psalms are superior to other songs in terms of worship, because they are divinely inspired worship songs. How better to worship God other than with songs that He has inspired? It is a shame to see so many churches eliminating the Psalms from their worship.

However, the Bible does not demand exclusive Psalms, and there is a vast richness of great songs that declare the glory of God.

Regarding musical instruments, Scripture allows them to be played in worship (Psalm 150:1-6), and skillfully (Psalm 33:3). Many of the Puritan mindset would disagree, adopting what appears to me to be a "dispensationalist" mindset when it comes to worship (ie. "The New Testament doesn't mention instruments".) Neither however, does it forbid them.

Having said that, it should be God who is glorified in our songs, not musicians or singers. The lyrics of many modern songs demand very little in the area of engaging our minds for worship, ranging from the theologically illiterate "I Have Decided To Follow Jesus" (Compare to Moses' Song "The Lord... Has Become My Salvation" - Exodus 15:2), to the empty repetitions of songs like "Celebrate Jesus". The emptiness of the repetitive lyrics in these songs must often be filled by Van Halen-like guitar solos, robbing God of the glory due to Him alone.

Those who would defend the "rock concert" atmosphere of modern worship often point to it's effectiveness in drawing unbelievers to church. However, the purpose of worship is not to entertain unbelievers, for what good does it do to simply get them to church for entertainment purposes? The purpose of worship is to worship, and it does matter how this is done.

Others would suggest that we just don't like the "style" of their worship. However, style being an aesthetic issue, my main objection to many modern "worship" songs is that so few of them actually worship God (Note: There are some good modern songs). A great many songs today are either songs about worship (ie, "I will praise Him", "we will worship Him") that never actually get around to worshipping, or else they are human centered songs about "how Jesus makes me feel". Consider these lyrics from a popular "Christian" song that I heard in a church I visited some time ago:

I waited for you today
But you didn't show
No no no
I needed you today
So where did you go?
You told me to call
Said you'd be there
And though I haven't seen You
Are you still there?

I cried out with no reply
And I can't feel You by my side
So I'll hold tight to what I know
You're here, and I'm never alone

And though I cannot see You
And I can't explain why
Such a deep, deep reassurance
You've placed in my life
We cannot separate
'Cause You're part of me
And though You're invisible
I'll trust the unseen

I cried out with no reply
And I can't feel You by my side
So I'll hold tight to what I know
You're here, and I'm never alone

We cannot separate
'Cause You're part of me
And though You're invisible
I'll trust the unseen

I cried out with no reply
And I can't feel You by my side
So I'll hold tight to what I know
You're here, and I'm never alone

The lady who performed the song was very talented, but as she finished singing, I had one obvious question. Who is she singing to? Since the song was sung in a church, I'm assuming that this was a Christian song. Otherwise, I would have never guessed. This song could just as easily have been sung in a nightclub about her boyfriend.

Contrast these with the lyrics to Martin Luther's "A Mighty Fortress Is Our God", fast becoming my favorite hymn.

A mighty fortress is our God, a bulwark never failing;
Our helper He, amid the flood of mortal ills prevailing:
For still our ancient foe doth seek to work us woe;
His craft and power are great, and, armed with cruel hate,
On earth is not his equal.

Did we in our own strength confide, our striving would be losing;
Were not the right Man on our side, the Man of God’s own choosing:
Dost ask who that may be? Christ Jesus, it is He;
Lord Sabaoth, His Name, from age to age the same,
And He must win the battle.

And though this world, with devils filled, should threaten to undo us,
We will not fear, for God hath willed His truth to triumph through us:
The Prince of Darkness grim, we tremble not for him;
His rage we can endure, for lo, his doom is sure,
One little word shall fell him.

That word above all earthly powers, no thanks to them, abideth;
The Spirit and the gifts are ours through Him Who with us sideth:
Let goods and kindred go, this mortal life also;
The body they may kill: God’s truth abideth still,
His kingdom is forever.

It's not "style" that separates these two genres of music, but rather substance. May the church once again seek to please God in its worship music rather than using it as a church growth gimmick.

Recommended Reading: With Reverence and Awe: Returning to the Basics of Reformed Worship by Hart and Muether

Elements Of Reformed Worship #5

2009-09-29T15:10:00.005-04:00

Tithes and Offerings

"Bring the full tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. And thereby put me to the test, says the LORD of hosts, if I will not open the windows of heaven for you and pour down for you a blessing until there is no more need." (Malachi 3:10)

There are few subjects as controversial in the church as that of money. It is unfortunate that many pastors will avoid the subject altogether for fear of offending the greater part of their congregations, who mostly react as a backlash against the robber-barons on TBN. Nonetheless, the Bible has much to say about subject of money, and particularly the subject of giving as part of our worship. One cannot proclaim the whole counsel of God and ignore this subject.

A proper view of the tithe consists of acknowledging the Lordship of God over all things. God owns everything (Psalm 50:10-11), and thus our giving is not for His benefit, but for ours (Psalm 50:12-15). The tithe is to be brought (not sent) into the local church, "that there may be food in my house" (Malachi 3:10). God has designed his church to function financially off of the tithe, in both the Old and New Testaments. A common argument from those who rejecting tithing is that the practice was part of the ceremonial law, and thus should not be observed today. Nothing could be further from the truth. David Chilton responds,

"It is commonly held that we are no longer under any obligation to tithe in this "dispensation." There is not a shred of evidence to support such a position: the law of the tithe has never been revoked. And, it should be noted, while the modern abandonment of tithing has a superficial appearance of freedom, it has actually been replaced with a tyrannical legalism. Listen to any radio or television preacher-or perhaps your own pastor-appealing for funds. If he rejects the tithe, what is the basis for his plea? LOVE. He does not, of course, define love as the Bible defines it- keeping God's commandments (Romans 13:10; 1 John 5:3) - but rather according to the perceived "needs" of his own ministry. God's simple requirement is that we give ten percent of our income; once we have paid His tax, we know that no more is demanded. The modern preacher, on the other hand, defines your love for God in terms of how much you give. ("How much do you love God? Only ten percent? Only twenty? Only thirty? Shame on you! You should love God lots more than that! If you really, completely love Him, you'll sign over your next paycheck to me and drop it in the plate. And don't worry about taking care of your family. How selfish of you. God will take care of them. After all, He's taking care of me, isn't He?") - (David Chilton - Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt Manipulators, p. 52)

Those who honor the law of tithing are free from the manipulation techniques of money hungry charlatans posing as gospel ministers. The tithe is NOT part of the ceremonial law (as some "red-letter Christians" would suggest), because Abram paid tithe before there ever was a ceremonial law. (Genesis 14:20). The writer of Hebrews sanctioned the tithe collected by Melchizedek (a typology of Christ) as being superior to the tithe collected by the Levites (Hebrews 7:8), all without the slightest hint that such practice was to be stopped. Jesus commanded the Pharisees not to neglected tithing in addition to obeying the weightier matters of the law (Matthew 23:23). Finally, Paul clearly tells us that the New Covenant Church was to operate financially in the same way as the Old Covenant Church.

"Do you not know that those who are employed in the temple service get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in the sacrificial offerings? In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel." (1 Corinthians 9:13-14)

The New Covenant church is designed to function financially "in the same way" that the Old Covenant church functioned, via the tithe. A healthy church whose members tithe is a church that should not have the need to beg for money.

Throughout the Scriptures, the giving of tithes are offerings is an intrical part of the saints' worship. The tithe belongs to God (Leviticus 27:30), and therefore we have the duty to render it to Him (Matthew 22:21). Nonetheless, we should not give merely out of duty, but in thanksgiving toward the One who has blessed us to begin with. Other offerings, such as missions offerings, may be given in addition to the tithe as each person sees fit. These are given cheerfully, not begrudgingly (2 Corinthians 7:9).

As fallen creatures, we are constantly being drawn in by the cares of this world, thus the giving of our financial bounty is a good remedy to thwart the world's attempt to draw us away from the things of God, "For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." (Matthew 6:21). Giving is a good test of one's true allegiance, whether we serve God or Mammon. Therefore, giving is an act of confessing your faith in the One who promises to provide the needs for his covenant children. (Matthew 6:25-30).

"Men trust good stewards with larger and larger sums, and so it frequently is with the Lord; He gives by cartloads to those who give by bushels. Where wealth is not bestowed the Lord makes the little much by the contentment which the sanctified heart feels in a portion of which the tithe has been dedicated to the Lord. Selfishness looks first at home, but godliness seeks first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, yet in the long run selfishness is loss, and godliness is great gain. It needs faith to act towards our God with an open hand, but surely He deserves it of us; and all that we can do is a very poor acknowledgment of our amazing indebtedness to His goodness." (Charles Spurgeon on Haggai 1:9, from Morning and Evening)

Elements Of Reformed Worship #4

2009-09-22T08:08:00.006-04:00

Confession and Absolution

"In the year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and the train of his robe filled the temple. Above him stood the seraphim. Each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. And one called to another and said: "Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory!" And the foundations of the thresholds shook at the voice of him who called, and the house was filled with smoke. And I said: "Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts!" Then one of the seraphim flew to me, having in his hand a burning coal that he had taken with tongs from the altar. And he touched my mouth and said: "Behold, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away, and your sin atoned for." And I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" Then I said, "Here am I! Send me."” (Isaiah 6:1-8)

"Accordingly, until God reveals himself to us, we do not think that we are men, or rather, we think that we are gods; but when we have seen God, we then begin to feel and know what we are. Hence springs true humility, which consists in this, that a man makes no claims for himself, and depends wholly on God." - John Calvin

How easy is it to pronounce “Woe” to those who live wicked lives in rebellion to the Lord, and not consider our own deformity? Isaiah, prophet of God, spent five chapters prophesying two sets of triple “Woes” against Judah and Jerusalem (Isaiah 5:8-23). In Hebrew, repeating a word is tantamount to a superlative (ie. Holy of Holies), and using a word 3 times has special emphasis beyond the superlative. The woes of Judah can be contrasted by the “Holy, Holy, Holy” description of God given by the seraphim, a God whose majesty is such that even sinless angels must cover their faces.

When Isaiah experiences this awesome presence, the focus of his pronouncement of judgment changes to himself; “Woe is me!” Isaiah, being a lowly creature, keeps his eyes low, and thus can only describe the activity at the feet of God, the train of His robe. At this point, Isaiah cannot but confess his sin, because “... my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts”. Thus I would think it fair to surmise that any “worship” service where confession of sin is not made either has no knowledge of God’s holiness, or just doesn’t take sin seriously.

“When you come to appear before me, who has required of you this trampling of my courts?...Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean; remove the evil of your deeds from before my eyes;” (Isaiah 1:12, 16)

The “confession” of sin need not be made to an earthly priest, but to the one and only High Priest. In many Reformed Churches, the corporate confession of sin is proceeded by the Reading of the Law, since it is by the law that we can clearly see our unworthiness. This confession may be silent meditation, or a reading of Scripture such as Psalm 51, or another corporate confession.

O Lord,

My every sense, member, faculty, affection is a snare to me,
I can scarcely open my eyes but I envy those above me, or despise those below.
I covet honour and riches of the mighty, and am proud and unmerciful to the rags of others;
If I behold beauty it is a bait to lust, or see deformity, it stirs up loathing and disdain;
How soon to slanders, vain jests, and wanton speeches creep into my heart!
Am I comely? What a fuel for pride!
Am I deformed? What an occasion for repining!
Am I gifted? I lust after applause!
Am I unlearned? How I despise what I have not!
Am I in authority? How prone to abuse my trust, make will my law, exclude others’ enjoyments, serve my own interests and policy!
Am I inferior? How much I grudge others’ pre-eminence!
Am I rich? How exalted I become!
Thou knowest that all these are snares by my corruptions, and that my greatest snare is myself.
I bewail that my apprehensions are dull, my thoughts mean, my affections stupid, my expressions low, my life unbeseeming;
Yet what canst thou expect of dust but levity, of corruption but defilement?
Keep me ever mindful of my natural state, but let me not forget my heavenly title, or the grace that can deal with every sin.

(Self-Deprecation from “The Valley of Vision”.)

While our sin is ever before us, all of this is a precursor to the good news, and assurance of pardon. Immediate after Isaiah confesses his sin, he receives absolution. “Your guilt is taken away, and your sin atoned for". As such, it is befitting to read a portion of the gospel that speaks wondrously of this assurance.

“Blessed is the one whose transgression is forgiven,
whose sin is covered.
Blessed is the man against whom the LORD counts no iniquity,
and in whose spirit there is no deceit.
For when I kept silent, my bones wasted away
through my groaning all day long.
For day and night your hand was heavy upon me;
my strength was dried up as by the heat of summer. Selah
I acknowledged my sin to you, and I did not cover my iniquity;
I said, "I will confess my transgressions to the LORD," and you forgave the iniquity of my sin. Selah” (Psalm 32:1-5)

As glorious as Isaiah’s vision was, we have even a more glorious revelation through Christ, who is “… the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature” (Hebrews 1:3). “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” (1 John 1:9). It is then that Isaiah may answer the call of God "Here am I", or literally "Behold Me". What a change, from "Woe is me" to "Behold me"!

"he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him," (Colossians 1:22)

Elements Of Reformed Worship #3

2009-09-16T11:44:00.005-04:00

The Confession of Faith

"Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you— unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me." (1 Corinthians 15:1-8)

Reformed Worship is Confessional. In today's "do-it-yours-own-way" church environment, one may wonder about the importance of confessional worship. Confessional worship serves as a reminder of the gospel, as well as clarifies what the church believes.

Paul was addressing the above passage to Christians. He was writing "To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours:" (1 Corinthians 1:2). Yet even though they were Christians, Paul saw a need to "remind" them of the gospel that they received. Furthermore, Paul also received it. The gospel is not a human invention, but it is that which is received and passed on to others. As such, a biblical confession of faith is invaluable.

The corporate confession of faith is also an answer to the question, "Christian, what do you believe?" The confession of faith identifies who we are, and separates those who do not believe. As such, confessions of faith are a great tool to guard against errant doctrine. It is quite possible to sit in many churches today for months without knowing exactly what the saints there actually believe. The confessions of faith make clear what the Christian believes, and is to be professed corporately in public worship.

"The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart" (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says,"Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame." (Romans 10:8-11)

The Church has a vast and rich collection of confessions of faith that have been passed on to us by saints of the past, and we should not hesitate to use all or part of them as corporate confessions in our worship. Some of the best and most popular are as follows:

The Apostle's Creed

The Nicene Creed

The Athanasian Creed

The Council of Chalcedon

The Heidelberg Catechism

The Belgic Confession

The Westminster Confession

Recommended Reading: With Reverence and Awe: Returning to the Basics of Reformed Worship by Hart and Muether

Elements Of Reformed Worship #2

2009-09-06T15:29:00.008-04:00

The Prayer of Invocation

"Then Solomon stood before the altar of the LORD in the presence of all the assembly of Israel and spread out his hands toward heaven, and said, "O LORD, God of Israel, there is no God like you, in heaven above or on earth beneath, keeping covenant and showing steadfast love to your servants who walk before you with all their heart, who have kept with your servant David my father what you declared to him. You spoke with your mouth, and with your hand have fulfilled it this day. Now therefore, O LORD, God of Israel, keep for your servant David my father what you have promised him, saying, 'You shall not lack a man to sit before me on the throne of Israel, if only your sons pay close attention to their way, to walk before me as you have walked before me.' Now therefore, O God of Israel, let your word be confirmed, which you have spoken to your servant David my father. But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain you; how much less this house that I have built! Yet have regard to the prayer of your servant and to his plea, O LORD my God, listening to the cry and to the prayer that your servant prays before you this day, that your eyes may be open night and day toward this house, the place of which you have said, 'My name shall be there,' that you may listen to the prayer that your servant offers toward this place. And listen to the plea of your servant and of your people Israel, when they pray toward this place. And listen in heaven your dwelling place, and when you hear, forgive." (1 Kings 8:22-30)

When God calls us to worship Him, His people respond with a prayer to invoke the presence of the Lord. While God is omnipresent, He has times and places where He is present in a special way. Thus we summon this special presence of the Lord in our worship, our new and redeemed hearts agreeing with our Lord's Call to worship in His presence.

What an awesome privilege it is to approach the throne of grace! It is not something to be taken lightly and casually. Proper Biblical worship is honoring to God, and irreverent worship displeases Him. For the redeemed, there is joy in the presence of the Lord, but we are also told to "Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling." (Psalm 2:11). It sounds strange for someone to "rejoice with trembling", but that is what a redeemed sinner does in the presence of a holy God.

Invoking the presence of the Lord is a serious matter indeed, and one who is truly aware of God's nature, and his own, cannot but be in awe. Even as those who are predestined to adoption, God should scare us. He is too big. We are too small. He is too Holy, and we are too wicked. The idea that we could approach him in a careless, irreverent manner is unthinkable to the sober man.

"The LORD reigns; let the peoples tremble! He sits enthroned upon the cherubim; let the earth quake!" (Psalm 99:1)

When we hear the universal call to worship each sabbath, let us respond in agreement with our Lord with a prayer of invocation, doing so soberly as we prepare to meet the true and living God, ready to beseech Him to "listen in heaven your dwelling place, and when you hear, forgive".

Recommended Reading: With Reverence and Awe: Returning to the Basics of Reformed Worship by Hart and Muether

Elements Of Reformed Worship #1

2009-08-31T07:26:00.005-04:00

The Call To Worship

"Make a joyful noise to the Lord, all the earth!
Serve the Lord with gladness!
Come into his presence with singing!
Know that the Lord, he is God!
It is he who made us, and we are his;
we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture.
Enter his gates with thanksgiving,
and his courts with praise!
Give thanks to him; bless his name!
For the Lord is good;
his steadfast love endures forever,
and his faithfulness to all generations" (Psalm 100:1-5)

"It is a throne of grace that God in Christ is represented to us upon; but yet it is a throne still whereon majesty and glory do reside, and God is always to be considered by us as on a throne." – John Owen

Man, due to his deformed nature, tends to worldliness and carnality, so much so that even the redeemed must be called by God to worship Him in a way that is acceptable and pleasing to Him. Thus the reading of Scripture, such as the Psalm above, serves to call God's people to Reformed, Biblical worship. It is no accident that those churches which stray away from Reformed worship tend to be man-pleasers in their worship, even to the point of using entertainment as a church growth gimmick, never considering that worship belongs to God, and He alone has the right to determine how he is to be worshiped.

When one considers that God, the Sovereign Creator of the Universe, has called us into His presence, a certain awe and reverence is bound to overtake us. When sinful man stands in the presence of a righteous and omnipotent God, what else may be our response other than "Woe is me, for I am undone". (Isaiah 6:5). In such a presence, there is no room for jugglers, clowns, silly skits, rock concerts, or whatever other irreverent items that are included in modern "worship". For the God who demands our worship tells us that we may not do these things (Deut. 12:32).

Needless to say, much of what is done today in the "presence of the Lord" has little to do with God's presence. Many churches have reduced their worship to mere "celebration" services, never giving thought to their own sinfulness or to God's holiness. While the Christian should rejoice at his redemption, he must be mindful of the fact that God's throne of grace is still a throne, and an almighty and sovereign Judge sits upon that throne.

"You must never come into God’s presence but as a poor worm, and if there is any difference that is made between you and others in outward respects, it is nothing to you. When you are in the presence of God, you are as a base, vile worm though you are a prince or an emperor." (Jeremiah Burroughs - Gospel Worship, Soli Deo Gloria, p. 137)

The call to worship, being God's call, is not merely an invitation, but an authoritative commandment. The call is a universal call, going out to all people every sabbath, and there is no excuse for not heeding the call. The beauty of God's call to worship is that He calls us, as he did Adam and Eve, despite or fear and unworthiness. May we give attention to the importance of God's call to worship Him, and do so with reverence and awe.

Recommended Reading: With Reverence and Awe: Returning to the Basics of Reformed Worship by Hart and Muether

The Problem of Evil Answered

2009-08-13T14:00:00.018-04:00

Introduction

One of the oldest, and still most popular, arguments against the Christian God is the so-called problem of evil. Dr. Walter Kaufmann, who tragically lost family members in the Holocaust, refers to the problem of evil as his strongest argument against Christianity, a "complete refutation of popular theism". H. J. McCloskey, in a 1960 Philosophical Quarterly article, wrote that "Evil is a problem, for the theist, in that a contradiction is involved in the fact of evil on the one hand and belief in the omnipotence and omniscience of God on the other."

Perhaps the original problem of evil argument was attributed Epicurus by Lactantius (See Lactantius - A Treatise on the Anger of God; Chap. XIII. - Of the Advantage and Use of the World and of the Seasons; AD 260-330). Although it is debatable if Lactantius chose the correct philosopher, it is clear that the "problem of evil" argument existed very early in Christendom. The Apostle Paul, in some rhetorical measure, dealt with the problem of evil in regards to the doctrine of unconditional election (Romans 9:14 - See Jay Adams' answer below).

The problem of evil is presented as a logical problem in regards to an omnipotent and omnibenevolent Deity. With a few variations, the arguments is stated as such:

P1: If God were omnipotent, He would be able to prevent all evil.
P2: If God were omnibenevolent, He would want to prevent all evil.
P3: Evil exists.
Conclusion: There is no omnipotent, omnibenevolent God.

The Atheist's Problem of Evil

While the problem is presented as an obstacle to Christianity, it must be pointed out that it presents two huge (and I would say, insurmountable) challenges to atheism. The first is the premise P3: Evil exists. The entire argument is based on the idea the evil is an objective reality. However, such a reality cannot be accounted for in an atheistic worldview. A judgment of "evil exists" requires an absolute moral standard, an objective "right and wrong" that goes well beyond simply subjectivism and "conventional wisdom". But how can a moral absolute come into existence in a materialistic universe? In an atheistic world, complete with its "survival of he fittest" ontology, there may be things that are painful, tragic, and grate against our sensibilities. However, such a worldview logically leads to genetic determinism, thus no grounds for proclaiming that evil exists. Yet, aside from Stoics who deny the existence of evil, every man has an innate and inescapable knowledge of evil, because they "by nature do what the law requires" (Romans 2:14), proving their knowledge of the one true God. And even if variable "secular" ethical theories could provide an objective moral standard, there is no grounds for demanding any life form to subject themselves to that standard. Materialism cannot produce morality, and "is" cannot justify "ought". C.S. Lewis explains this problem by looking back on his days as an atheist:

“My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?... Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too--for the argument depended on saying the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies." (C. S. Lewis Mere Christianity - Touchstone: New York, 1980 p.45-46)

The second obstacle is that the problem of evil argument presupposes, not just a god, but the one and True Christian God. To suppose any other deity would eliminate evil as being a problem. From a standpoint of "general theism" (whatever form it may take), there are many logical reasons why evil may exist. There could be an evil god, who loves to do evil things. There could be an irrational god, who cannot tell the difference between good and evil. There could be a weak god, who is unable to prevent evil.

So we must concluded that, if the problem of evil is a valid problem, then atheism is refuted, and the Christian God is presupposed a priori. Nonetheless, the Christian is commanded by His Lord to answer the problem (1 Peter 3:15), though the problem itself is proof of the unbeliever's suppressed knowledge of God (Romans 1:18).

Past Answers Attempted

There have been many attempts throughout history to answer the logical problem of evil, yet without examining the truth of it's premises. Irenaeus suggested that evil is necessary and useful for men to seek God. Variations consider that evil is necessary for free will to exist (Plantinga). Justin Martyr attributed evil to angels who "transgressed their appointment", but does not explain how this idea is compatible with God's omnipotence. Dionysius echoed the Stoic view that evil does not exist. Augustine suggested that evil was simply an absence of good, but unwittingly denies the omnipresence of God in the process. Various "Best Possible World" Theories have abounded. C.S. Lewis holds to a combination of the "best possible world" and "free will" theories. He suggests that "Perhaps this is not the 'best of all possible' universes, but the only possible one" (C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain, p. 26). In Lewis's view, evil is a result of a "fixed nature of matter" (pp. 23-25), and is necessary for free will to exist. He writes, "We can, perhaps, conceive of a world in which God corrected the results of this abuse of free will by His creatures at every moment,...But such a world would be one in which all wrong actions would be impossible, and in which, therefore, freedom of the will would be void." (p. 24)

However, The Christian Doctrine of a perfect heaven is a death blow to "free will", necessary evil, or "best possible worlds" arguments. No Christian truly believes that this is the best possible world, for we all look for a better world yet to come, where evil will finally be defeated, and man's "will" shall truly be free of it's sinful nature.

Other theories tend to compromise God's attributes, making Him less than God. Monism holds that God is above good and evil, thus denying God's omnibenevolence. Dualism denies God's sovereignty, teaching that God produces only good, but a separate power (usually Satan) produces evil. Process Theology ("open" theism) flatly denies the omnipotence of God. The unthinkable result is that, in order to satisfy a weak intellect concerning the problem of evil, these poor deluded souls have no rational hope that evil won't eventually triumph in the universe. Those who hold that evil is "necessary" deny the solitariness of God, who does not need "anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything." (Acts 7:24-25). Whatever answer we come up with for the problem of evil, we cannot let that answer make God to be anything less than God.

The Problem of Evil Answered

Lactantius' answer to Epicurus' alleged statement over 1700 years ago was very close to the correct answer.

"For God is able to do whatever He wishes, and there is no weakness or envy in God. He is able, therefore, to take away evils; but He does not wish to do so, and yet He is not on that account envious. For on this account He does not take them away, because He at the same time gives wisdom, as I have shown; and there is more of goodness and pleasure in wisdom than of annoyance in evils. For wisdom causes us even to know God, and by that knowledge to attain to immortality, which is the chief good. Therefore, unless we first know evil, we shall be unable to know good." (Lactantius - A Treatise on the Anger of God; Chap. XIII. - Of the Advantage and Use of the World and of the Seasons.)

Thomas Aquinas expounded this line of thought even further, holding that God is the primary cause of evil (as penalty), but not the secondary cause (as fault) (See Summa Theologica: Question XLVIII - The Distinction of Things in Particular.) Jay Adams was short to the biblical point, Evil exists for God to show his wrath on evildoers and "in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory" (Romans 9:23). While this is true, (as well as the broad argument that everything, including evil, exists for the glory of God), it doesn't provide a direct answer to the logical problem presented. Using a combination of the arguments above, let us re-examine the premises presented in the problem of evil.

P1: If God were omnipotent, He would be able to prevent all evil.
P2: If God were omnibenevolent, He would want to prevent all evil.
P3: Evil exists.
Conclusion: There is no omnipotent, omnibenevolent God.

Premise 1 is sound, God is clearly omnipotent and "he does all that he pleases." (Psalms 115:3). "...he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, "What have you done?" (Daniel 4:35). These passages can be considered God's job description.

As we saw earlier, Premise 3 poses a problem for atheists, thus is a good starting point for discussion with one who uses this argument. But from the Christian perspective, it is quite obvious that evil does exist. Unbelievers are aware of evil, though they have issues defining it or accounting for it.

The real issue is Premise 2. Does an omnibenevolent God necessarily want to prevent all evil? How does this premise match the God of Scripture?

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." (Isaiah 45:7 KJV)

Therefore Premise 2 is false. The Bible teaches that the omnibenevolent God does not want to prevent evil, but actually creates evil and uses it for His own ends. It will come as no surprise that many Christians are uncomfortable with this rendering, thus many translations substitute "calamity" in place of "evil", as though it really makes any difference (See also Amos 3:6). But why would a omnipotent, omnibenevolent God create evil? Based on the clear teachings of Scripture concerning God's omnipotence and His omnibenevolence, we may propose the following correction to Premise 2:

P2: If God were omnibenevolent, He would have a good purpose behind the evil He creates.

With this corrected premise, the problem of evil ceases to be a problem. The premise is biblical, and solves the logical problem with evil in God's universe. We may conclude that evil exists, therefore there is an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God who uses that evil for his own good purposes. We have also established that, without God, there can be no evil, only a material world governed by undesigned chance or blind fate. So it is the atheist worldview that has the real "problem with evil".

One may object to my correction of Premise 2 by asking what precisely is the "good purpose" for evil. That I have no answer for, nor do I need to in order to validate this answer for the problem with evil. "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law." (Deuteronomy 29:29)

We have clues as to why God sovereignly works in certain evil events. The kidnapping and enslavement of Joseph was a direct act of God (Genesis 45:7), yet while Joseph's brothers meant it for evil, "...God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive...". (Genesis 50:20). The most evil act in history was the death of God's own Son, delivered into the hand of wicked men according to the "determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God" (Acts 2:23), for all these did nothing but "what the hand and counsel of God had decreed" (Acts 4:27-28). Yet the good that has come about by the evil act is wondrous indeed, the redemption of poor, deformed sinners, deserving of God's wrath, into adopted sons who have the promise of an inheritance.

We may not know what the ultimate "good" purpose for evil is in God's most wise and determinate counsel, for He has not revealed that to us. However, let not this keep us from the One who has all power and authority, and guarantees "that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose." (Romans 8:28)

Atheism's Groundless Epistemology Exposed

2009-07-25T18:58:00.003-04:00

"Tim The Teacher" tries to build his case against God by using arguments based on radical empiricism. In the end, he has no ground on which to stand. Let's pray that he will treat his own materialistic worldview with equal skepticism, and that the Master will claim Tim for His own.

See A Question Of Faith.

Eternal Security and Sanctification

2009-07-10T22:30:00.004-04:00

“… In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,” (Ephesians 1:4-5)

It is often said by the critics of the doctrine of Perseverance of the Saints that such security trends to lead to lasciviousness. There is some cause for concern in this area, especially when this doctrine is mixed with “free will” salvation. I’ve met more than one poor deluded soul who, despite living a godless life, considered himself saved on the basis that, at one point in his life, he went to an altar and repeated a prayer (more on this tragic practice in a few weeks). In such cases, the problem with the “once saved, always saved” approach isn’t with the “always saved”, but rather with the “once saved”. Eternal security is not meant to be fire insurance for the wicked, and abuses of doctrine are not the cause of the doctrine itself. Those who profess such a vain religion would to well to heed the words of our Saviour.

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'" (Matthew 7:21-23)

For the believer, however, the Doctrine of Eternal Security should lead to greater sanctification, for it is the secure believer who has the freedom to dig deep within his wicked heart and purge whatever great deformity he may find. He may pray as David did, with confidence:

“Search me, O God, and know my heart! Try me and know my thoughts! And see if there be any grievous way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting!” (Psalms 139:23-24)

In contrast, those who fear losing their salvation are rarely led to greater sanctification. They are dangerously relying on what Charles Spurgeon referred to as “Carnal Security”. Rather than take joy in their adoption, they rely on their own works to maintain their justification, and then foolishly think that they have succeeded. They must lower God’s standard of perfection, and cannot be honest about their own sinfulness. They think well of themselves if they attend a church service, say a few prayers and devotions, and avoid any “big” sins. I would ask such a person, “How much is required in order to maintain ones justification? How many sins does it take to lose it? Do sins such as gossip and private, lustful thoughts count?” Indeed, “Cursed is the man who trusts in man and makes flesh his strength…” (Jeremiah 17:5)

Look at these beautiful words. “In love he predestined us for adoption as sons…” (Ephesians 1:4-5). What glorious confidence that should provide for us as we continue to examine our hearts! Friend, there is no reason to hold anything back, for the Lord already sees it. Let us approach the Great Physician as a son approaches a father, allowing Him to perform the necessary heart surgery, confident that He is preparing us for glory.

Egalitarianism: An Examination of the Alleged Supporting Scriptures

2009-07-08T21:32:00.003-04:00

“For those things which I have already mentioned might easily be performed by many even of those who are under authority, women as well as men; but when one is required to preside over the Church, and to be entrusted with the care of so many souls, the whole female sex must retire before the magnitude of the task, and the majority of men also… The divine law indeed has excluded women from the ministry, but they endeavor to thrust themselves into it; and since they can effect nothing of themselves, they do all through the agency of others; and they have become invested with so much power that they can appoint or eject priests at their will; things in fact are turned upside down, and the proverbial saying may be seen realized —“The ruled lead the rulers:” and would that it were men who do this instead of women, who have not received a commission to teach. Why do I say teach? For the blessed Paul did not suffer them even to speak in the Church.” (Chrysostom - The Priesthood 2:2 , 3:9).

“In the New Testament the Holy Spirit, speaking through St Paul, ordained that women should be silent in the churches and assemblies (1 Cor. 14:34), and said that this is the Lord's commandment? In the congregations or churches where there is a ministry women are to be silent and not preach (1 Timothy 2:12).” (Martin Luther - Infiltrating and Clandestine Preachers, Works 40:390-91).

In light of the recent close vote (446 to 427) in the PCA concerning the ordination of “deaconesses”, as well as the increasing number of female pastors in many denominations, I thought it would be profitable to examine some of the Scriptures that are commonly used in support of women in ordained ministry, despite the very clear commandment of 1 Timothy 2:12. The following arguments appear in a publication by a well known Pentecostal denomination which practices the ordination of women ministers.

1.) “Junia was a female apostle” (Romans 16:7).

Romans 16:7 does not state the Junia was an apostle, or any type of church leader. Some translations say that she was “of note among the apostles” (ASV. KVJ, etc.) The meaning is clarified by the ESV, that she was “well known to the apostles”. For that matter, it’s not even clear that Junia was a woman, since the Greek “Iounian” could also be translated “Junias” (a male name), as some early transcripts read.

In any case, there were only 14 Apostles (the original 12, plus Mattias and Paul). The term “Apostle” here referring to the church office, not the generic term that many try to cause confusion with.

2.) “in Christ, there is neither male or female” (Galatians 3:28).

Clearly a misused text (See Most Misused Bible Passages Poll). Taken to its logical extreme, this sort of exegesis could be used to support gay marriage (Don’t laugh, this is being done). The passage is clearly used to emphasize the fact that salvation is not dependent on social standing. The passage is not meant to blur the clear distinction between men and women, and thus their qualification for church office or teaching in public ministry.

3.) “Paul also allowed women to “teach” in (Romans 16:1-6; Philippians 4:2-3). Thus he presumably addressed 1Timothy to the specific situation in a specific community.”

The cited passages do not suggest that women are allowed to teach (not to mention that those who use this argument never manage to explain what the “specific situation” in 1 Timothy was). There are many ways that a woman can (and should) be “workers in Christ Jesus” without holding an ordained office or teaching in public worship. That same is true with Philippians 4, and there are many ways to “labor…in the gospel” without holding an ordained office or teaching in public worship.

The clearest passage regarding women teaching is 1 Timothy 2:12, and Paul really leaves no ambiguity in his statement. To suggest that Paul was addressing a “specific situation in a specific community.” is presumptuous indeed. Especially when Paul was clearly addressing Timothy in regards to “all people” (without distinction) (v. 1, 4, 6). Paul goes on to suggest that “in every place the men should pray” (v.8). Does that apply only to the specific situation in Timothy, or to men in every place? On what basis, then, would anyone suggest that Paul suddenly shift gears and applies vs. 12 to “a specific situation”? Certainly not sound biblical exegesis.

4.) “Joel explicitly emphasized that when God poured out His Spirit, women as well as men would prophesy (Joel 2:28-29).”

This is the most common argument, with another misused passage, though not quite as clear, since preaching is a form of prophesying. When Peter was citing this passage, he was applying it to what had just happened on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:16-21). There were 3,000 people with him, and yet he was the only one “preaching”. No one else was preaching, and no women had been ordained to church office. It’s best to let the Bible apply its own meaning to a passage rather than try to make it say something that it doesn’t.

5.) “Slaves can be saved and also receive gifts for ministry equally, so can Gentiles, so can women.”

Gifts for ministry do not necessarily entail preaching or ordination for church office. Over and over again, those offices are strictly limited to men. In 1 Timothy 2:12, God left no wiggle room for interpretation, nor did He contradict Himself on the other passages that we just dealt with.
I would ask those who voted “yes” in the GA, as I have often asked in regards to 1 Timothy 2:12: Let’s suppose, just for a second, the Paul had actually meant that he does “not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man”, and that “she is to remain quiet” in church. How else could he have expressed that sentiment any clearer than he did here? Versa ipsa loquitur.

6.) “Women ministers have led many to Christ”.

True or not, this is a common argument adopting a pragmatic worldview, that the end justifies the means. It is used to support everything from altar calls, church clowns and jugglers, Rock and Roll “Worship” services, and false TBN preachers. I would ask those who use this argument to consider if what Judas Iscariot did should be justified on the basis that it has saved so many people. Truth should never be expendable for perceived successful results. The ends never justify the means, especially when those means are unbiblical.

If it make anyone feel better, there are very few men that are qualified for ordained office as well, but those who do qualify are exclusively men. This last vote was a bit too close for my comfort.

Justification by Calvinism?

2009-07-03T18:04:00.002-04:00

And I thought I was a doctrinal hardcase...

There is an interesting discussion on the Puritan Board concerning Arminianism and Salvation. Not a few posters have expressed the belief that Arminianism in any form disqualifies one from the kingdom of God.

As a former "saved Arminian" who knows quite a few saved Arminians, I needed to take exception to such a broad sweeping statement. The difficulty comes in trying to define what Arminianism is. Granted, the classic historical Arminian belief system is incompatible with Biblical Christianity. Fortunately, there are very few pure Arminians today. The vast majoity of those who call themselves Arminians would be shocked at what Arminianism actually teaches (ie. Christ death offered no payment for sins, etc.)

The question is whether one can obtain saving faith and still be in error about how that faith was obtained. I would answer in the affirmative. The Galatian Church taught justification by works. Paul unapologetically refuted the error, but never once suggested that the Galatian Church was anything other than a true church. We need the grace to recognize that "The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error" (WCF Chapter XXV:V.).

Arminianism in any form is a gross error, and we should do all in our power to correct it. But there is an equal danger of adding "Belief in Calvinism" to the Ordo Salutis, and teaching "Justification by Calvinism". I'm just not there.

Be Thankful That Satan Treats You As His Enemy!

2009-06-16T08:13:00.003-04:00

(A Letter from John Newton - November 13, 1772)

My dear Miss,

I am glad that you complain of evil thoughts and temptations; for, though these things are grievous, they always accompany a saving work of grace. Though every Christian does not suffer greatly by persecution, poverty, and worldly troubles--yet they all suffer much from indwelling sin, temptation and Satan.

As to evil thoughts, they as unavoidably arise from an evil nature--as steam arises from a boiling tea-kettle! Every cause will have its effect--and a sinful nature will have sinful effects. You can no more keep such thoughts out of your mind--than you can stop the course of the clouds!
But if the Lord had not taught you--you would not have been sensible of them, nor concerned about them. This is a token for good. By nature your thoughts would have been only evil, and that continually. But you find 'something' within you that makes you dislike these thoughts; makes you ashamed of them; makes you strive and pray against them.

Now, this 'something' that resists your evil thoughts--what can it be? It cannot be human nature; for we naturally love our vain imaginations. It is the grace of God! The Lord has made you sensible of your disease--that you might love and prize the great Physician! The knowledge of His love for you--shall make you hate these thoughts! Yet you will be pestered with them more or less, while you live in this world. For sin is wrought into our bodies, and our souls must be freed from our bodies--before we shall be fully freed from the evils under which we mourn!

Your other complaint of temptations is likewise a good one. If you were to visit some young ladies who know no other end of living--but to dress and dance and socialize; and if you were to ask them if they are troubled with Satan's temptations--they would think that you were out of your wits! Poor things! They know no better! They are blinded by the god of this world; they go on quietly in the way of sin and vanity, careless of their souls, and mindless of eternity! While they continue in this course, you may be sure that Satan will not disturb them! They are asleep, and it would not be for his interest to do anything that might awaken them out of their pleasant dream!

And if you yourself were thus asleep, Satan would be content that you should sleep on--and take your rest. But, when he sees anyone awakened out of this deadly sleep, he probably tries first to lull them asleep again. And, if the Lord prevents that by His mercy, then Satan alters his measures, and roars like a lion which has lost his prey! Be thankful, my dear, that he treats you as his enemy! For the state of those to whom he behaves as a friend, is miserable indeed! And always remember that he is a chained enemy! He may terrify--but he cannot devour those who have fled for refuge to Jesus!

You cannot be too jealous of your own heart, or too cautious of the snares which you are exposed to. But the Lord is able and faithful to keep those from falling, who, sensible of their own weakness, cry daily to Him, "Hold me up--and I shall be safe!" Continue in prayer, that you may be preserved humble and abased in your own eyes--and then I am sure that you will not fall.

"Finally, be strong in the Lord and in His mighty power. Put on the full armor of God, so that you will be able to stand firm against all strategies and tricks of the Devil!" Ephesians 6:10-11

I am sincerely, your affectionate friend and servant,
John Newton

What Does It Mean To Believe?

2009-05-22T16:15:00.006-04:00

"…Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household." (Acts 16:31)

Errors concerning belief

There are many errors among Christian concerning “faith” and “belief”. In the broad evangelical world, true Christian belief is often associated with anti-intellectualism, or as Mark Twain’s schoolboy resounds, “Faith is believing what you know ain't so.” In Arminian/Pelagian thought, belief is something that we obtain through our own virtuous resources, or an act of our “free will”. If we exercise our “seed faith” the correct way, we can be saved. The Rhema/Word Faith movement uses “belief” as the means by which one can force God to submit to our every desire.

What is belief?

The term “believe” has a variety of meanings, not only in biblical Greek, but in everyday English usage as well. One could say, “I believe in Santa Claus”. In this case, “believe” refers to mental assent, acknowledging a statement of fact as valid or true. The Bible uses the term this way as well, such as in James 2:19. It is this mere assent to knowledge that the Cheap Grace (No Lordship) movement relies on for salvation. However, this form of belief is less profitable than the belief devils have, for at least the belief of devils causes them to tremble. Simon Magus believed (Acts 8:13), yet his belief was apparently no more than mental assent, since he was not saved (Acts 8:18-23). While assent to the facts of the gospel are necessary for salvation, mere assent is not saving faith.

In terms of salvation, the word “believe” requires one to completely entrust himself to the matter. In fact, the Greek word πιστεύω (pisteuō) is often translated “to entrust”.

“If then you have not been faithful in the unrighteous wealth, who will “entrust” (πιστεύω) to you the true riches?” (Luke 16:11)

“but just as we have been approved by God to be “entrusted” (πιστεύω) with the gospel, so we speak, not to please man, but to please God who tests our hearts.” (1 Thessalonians 2:4)

In both cases, we can see that πιστεύω refers to more than just mental assent. It requires a heartfelt trust in the work of Christ alone for salvation (Psalm 78:22). We often here of a sports superstar who finally wins a championship because he “believed” in his teammates. Obviously, the term does not mean that he simple acknowledged the existence of his teammates, but that he actually entrusted his hope of winning to their work. It is one thing to believe that a person can scale Niagara Falls in a barrel. It is quite another thing to climb into the barrel. Saving faith requires one to entrust their eternal salvation to the finished work of Christ.

What are we to believe?

We are to believe that God exists and that he rewards those who seek him. (Hebrews 11:6). We must believe in Christ's divinity, "...for unless you believe that I AM you will die in your sins" (John 8:24). We must believe the truth, having no pleasure in unrighteousness, lest we be condemned (2 Thessalonians 2:12). We must believe in Christ’s resurrection (Romans 10:9) and our own coming resurrection (1 Thessalonians 4:14). We must believe in the signs and wonders recorded in Scripture (John 20:31). We must believe God’s Word, and have it abiding in us (John 5:38). We must believe in the grace of God (Acts 15:11), which not only redeems us from the penalty of sin, but it’s dominion as well (Romans 6:14). Christ is both your savior and your Lord, or He is neither, for “if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord AND (καί – “and also”) believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” (Romans 10:9)

How is belief obtained?

Faith is not obtained by raising hands, altar calls, or vain repetition of a “sinner’s prayer”. Neither may it obtained by baptism, confirmation, or any other work. If one desires saving faith, let him seek salvation in the Word of God. Let the Word convict him of his sinfulness, and make him tremble at God’s wrath upon that sinfulness. Let the Word convince him of his hopelessness sans Jesus Christ. It is the foolishness of preaching by which true belief is obtained. Let the sinner read God’s Word, meditate on it, and find a church where it is faithfully preached, since “…faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.” (Romans 10:14-17). “And many more believed because of his word” (John 4:41). And do not be deceived into thinking that one may be saved by mere assent to the truths of this Word, being no better off than the devils who believe, but rather fully entrust your soul to Christ, not relying on your own flesh. We aren’t merely to acknowledge the truth of God's Word, but we are to live “…by every word that comes from the mouth of God” (Matthew 4:4).

Sola Fide, an Apostolic Tradition

2009-03-30T14:31:00.000-04:00

James Swan has an outstanding post defending Sola Fide, using Apostolic Tradition.

"We Have Apostolic Tradition"- The Unofficial Catholic Apologist Commentary #8

The Lord’s Supper

2009-03-13T18:25:00.007-04:00

“But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part, for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. When you come together, it is not the Lord's supper that you eat. For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk. What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not. For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. But if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged. But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world. So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another-- if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home--so that when you come together it will not be for judgment. About the other things I will give directions when I come.” (1 Corinthians 11:17-34)

A Multitude of Mystical Errors

In an age where individualism is prized over corporate worship, there abounds a serious abuse of the Lord’s Supper among Christian’s today. Strange mysticism has been tied to this sacrament, and this is nothing new. In the middle ages, the Communion table became surrounded by the mysticism of “Transubstantiation”, where it was believed that the bread and wine actually became the literal body and blood of Christ. Though the elements appeared to still be bread and wine, it was believed that Christ was being sacrificed yet again for sins. Shreds of this Roman ignorance found its way among the early Reformers, as the Lutherans held to “Consubstantiation”, where Christ’s physical body was present, hiding under the physical elements of the bread and the wine. Both Romanism and Lutheranism hold these erroneous views to this very day.

Aside from being nothing more that sheer cannibalism (as well as gross idolatry), these views of the Lord’s Table give attributes to Christ’s humanity that are not human. Giving ubiquity to Christ’s physical body is not compatible with Chalcedon Christology, and denies the fact that Christ has “entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.” (Hebrews 9:12).

In today’s evangelical world, strange mysticism continues to surround the Communion Table. Perry Stone has taken it upon himself to teach that the Lord’s Supper, instead of being a sacrament in remembrance of Christ’s death and burial, is actually a “Meal that Heals”. Stone boldly proclaims that “this revelation of daily Communion has been lost in the traditional church” (backcover), so he takes it upon himself to correct the church and share this “life-changing spiritual revelation of God’s healing covenant through the bread and fruit of the wine”. In all humility, Stone declares that he is “not interested in convincing a theologian, or receiving applause from a denomination, or debating those folks whose unbelief is founded upon tradition and not upon truth” (Introduction, p. vii). So despite the fact that there is absolutely nothing in Scripture that suggests that the Lord’s Supper is to be used for physical healing, Stone has declared it to be truth, and those who disagree are in “unbelief”. As a compliment to this book, the “The Healing Room” advertises a home communion set where believers can “at home or away, participate in all the blessings of daily communion.” (Of course, with no money back guarantee if one is not healed.)

A Proper View of the Lord’s Supper

In the orthodox, biblical view of the Lord’s Supper, there is nothing mystical about the bread and the wine. They don’t mysteriously change into Christ’s body, nor do they provide a magical healing potion for ones physical ailments. Christ’s presence at the Lord’s Supper is Spiritual, yet very real. The elements are external signs of the Covenant of Grace, done in remembrance of Christ, not in order to become Christ. A proper practice of the Lord’s Supper must be void of all charismatic superstitions and popish delusions.

Paul addresses the church at Corinth concerning the proper manner to worship in the Lord’s feast.

The Church alone has the authority to oversee Communion. The individual members of the Corinthian Church, like Perry Stone’s audience, were treating communion as a regular meal in their homes. This treatment of the Lord’s Supper is exactly what Paul was condemning in the opening passage. God gave Communion to His Church, not to individuals or families. The communion is to be taken “when you come together in one place” (1 Corinthians 11:17, 18, 20). We are instructed to “wait for one another” (1 Corinthians 11:33). Communion is not to be done in a family or individual setting. Home was distinctly presented as a place for the regular meal, not Communion (1 Corinthians 11:22, 34). (In fact, the word “communion” itself denotes togetherness). Great care must be taken not to usurp the authority of God’s ecclesiastical government (His Church). Paul asks “do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing?” (1 Corinthians 11:22). The elements were blessed by church leadership (1 Corinthians 10:16), and the whole body of partook of one bread (1 Corinthians 1:17). R. J. Anderson explains:

“Every place in God’s Word where we are told any thing about the observing of "The Lord’s Supper" it is a local church (and there is no other kind) that meets together to observe it. There is not a case in the Scripture; I have ever been able to discover, where messenger bodies or groups of Christians other than a local church ever observed "The Lord’s Supper." In as much as "The Lord’s Supper" is a church ordinance we must agree that all who are not members of a Scriptural church are scripturally barred from the Lord’s Table.” (R. J. Anderson – Vital Church Truths)

Communion is not for the purpose of filling the stomach. This is not a “meal that heals”, nor is it for the purpose of satisfying of one’s physical body. Instead, the purpose of the Lord’s Supper is to “discern the Lord’s body” (1 Corinthians 11:29). The Corinthians, instead of sharing Communion with the Lord’s body, were eager to stuff their faces in disregard for “those who have nothing” (1 Corinthians 11:22). Because of this “one is hungry and another is drunk” (1 Corinthians 11:21). (The Lord’s Supper consists of wine, as “grape juice” is a mid-19th century invention). Paul instructed the Corinthians to eat their own meal at home, but when they come to the Lord’s Table, they were “to wait for one another” (1 Corinthians 11:21)

Communion is a Token of the New Covenant, and is only for His people. Communion is Covenant Renewal, and therefore is exclusive. Where baptism is the initial sign of the Covenant, the Lord’s Supper is the continuing sign. The meal is not open for just anyone. It is only for those who have been accepted as part of the New Covenant (1 Corinthians 11:25). Ray Sutton explains the importance of a “demonstration” of faith.

“Paul says, “Let a man examine himself” (I Cor. 11:28). The command means demonstration of faithfulness. The word ‘examine” should be translated demonstrate. In other passages Paul uses the same Greek word where it is translated “prove.” He says, “But let every man Prove his own work, and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another’ (Gal. 6:4). This is a fundamental aspect of Christian self government.” (Ray Sutton – That You May Prosper: Dominion By Covenant, p. 306)

In is in this area that Communion is distinct from Baptism. Communion is tied directly to the work of Christ at Calvary, and requires self-examination. Baptism, on the other hand, is more passive, as no one can baptism themselves, even a professing adult.

It is no coincidence that Satan entered Judas Iscariot immediately after he received the Lord’s Supper as a Covenant breaker (John 13:26-27). Each person needs to examine himself before coming to the Lord’s Table (1 Corinthians 11:28).

The Lord’s Supper is not to be refused by Christians to whom it is offered. There is a gross misunderstanding that surrounds the “worthiness” spoken in Scripture, as if we needed to be sinless before coming to the Lord's Table. Do not assume that one is unworthy of Communion because he is battling sin, for that is when it is most needed. Rather it is the one who is not battling sin that is truly the unworthy one. To reject this sacrament is to suggest that Christ’s work is not sufficient to overcome sin.

The Lord’s Supper is a time for sharing a meal with the corporate body. Communion is a time of corporate judgment (1 Corinthians 11:31), not just for individual contemplation or meditation. As the token of Covenant Renewal, Communion is a time for sharing. Otherwise, “it is not the Lord's Supper that you eat…each one goes ahead with his own meal.” (1 Corinthians 11:20-21)

Communion separates us from the world. This is the positive result of internal judgment. “But when we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world” (1 Corinthians 11:32). Communion, like baptism, is a ceremonial cleansing, setting us apart from the world. Yet in order to be taken in a worthy manner, it also requires a moral cleansing as well. “For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself” (1 Corinthians 11:29).

A Proper Practice in Observing the Lord’s Supper

The Bible prescribes no set time for partaking of the Lord’s Supper. Some churches honor this sacrament monthly, some bi-monthly, and some weekly. Scripture's only admonition is that “as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.” (1 Corinthians 11:26).

Wilhelmus a’Brakel outlines the proper practice of those who participate in the Lord’s Supper.

1.) Preparation: consisting of…

A strong desire to be among God’s People.

An examination of self.

Spiritual Adornment by a quite and contemplative reflection on Christ’s redemptive work.

2.) Celebration: Consisting of…

Letting our heart distance itself from the world on the way to church.

Letting Holy Reverence arise upon entering church.

Let your heart be focused upon joining God’s People during the reading of God’s Word, singing, praying and preaching.

Reflecting upon the aspects of Christ’s suffering while approaching the table.

Considering oneself to be in the presence of God while at the table.

Enlivening ones heart to remain dear to Jesus upon departing from the table.

3.) Reflection: Consisting of…

A Reflection upon what your condition has been.

An Expression of Gratitude.

An Anticipation and enjoyment of having fellowship with God.

A Despising and Abandonment of the world.

A Public Manifestation of one’s Christianity.

A Public Confession of the Lord Jesus.

When Should One Leave A Church?

2009-02-12T08:04:00.003-05:00

Churches are more or less apostolic, that is, doctrinally pure or orthodox, according to the degree the gospel and doctrine of the apostles are taught and embraced by them; and while some churches are more faithful than others in confessing the system of doctrine taught in the holy Scriptures, even the purest churches are subject to error and do indeed err at times.

Error in the church should always be of concern to the Christian, and he should charitably labor to rid the church of error. But a Christian should not lightly repudiate his church even when there is perceived error in it. Differences of opinion over nonessentials should not be made the basis for division in a local congregation or denomination. Such division for light causes is "schismatic," schism being understood here as formal and unjustified separation from the church. Paul speaks against such unjustified separation in 1 Corinthians 1:10: "I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions [schismata, schismata] among you" (see also 1 Cor. 11:18; 12:25). If a Christian's church is faithfully proclaiming the Word of God, administers the sacraments according to the institution of Christ, and faithfully exercises discipline, his church is a true church of God, and a repudiation of it is wicked and a denial of God and of Christ, even though it may have some error in it.

But the Bible recognizes that there are some circumstances that may arise in a church which will compel the Christian to separate himself from the church. The Greek New Testament employs two nouns in the main to describe dreadfully sinful situations in the church: apostasy (apostasia, apostasia) and heresy (airesiV, hairesis)

2 Thessalonians 2:3: "Don't let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion [apostasia, apostasia] occurs."

1 Timothy 4:1: "The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon [aposthsontai, apostĕsontai] the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons."

2 Peter 2:1: "[False teachers] will secretly introduce destructive heresies [aireseiV, hairesis]." (see also 1 Cor. 11:19; Gal. 5:20; and Titus 3:10)

In general usage "apostasy" has come to refer to total renunciation of the Christian faith, with "heresy" being viewed more atomistically as any subversive doctrine professing to be Christian (of course, "systemic" heresy is hardly distinguishable from apostasy).

The New Testament lays down the following principles to protect the church in such a situation and to maintain its doctrinal purity:

1. Elders are charged to guard the church by guarding the truth (Acts 20:28-30; Tit. 1:9; see 1 John 4:2-3). The New Testament is realistic about the problems the church will have with false teachers. The passages cited presuppose that the Christian faith has a definite content, and that there are certain pivotal truths which are absolutely necessary to it.

2. Apostates and heretics ought to leave the church (1 John 2:18-19). It is not schismatic, indeed, it is quite appropriate, for antichrists to separate themselves from the Christian church. But more often than not, they set themselves up in the church. What is to be done with them then?

3. Unrepentant heretics who do not leave the church should be disciplined (Rom. 16:17; Tit. 3:10; 2 Pet. 2:1-3; 2 John 10-11; Rev. 2:2, 14-15, 20). As there were false prophets in Israel, so there are and will be false teachers in the church. As the former were subject to discipline, so the latter should be as well, mutatis mutandis, that is, by excommunication rather than execution.

4. Separation from one's local church or denomination is appropriate if it will not discipline heretics (2 Cor. 6:14-18). If a church rejects discipline for theological errors that subvert the foundation of the gospel and becomes theologically pluralistic in practice (even though it may retain an orthodox confession by which it promises to be guided), that church has become "heretical" in that it no longer stands under the authority of God, and the orthodox are compelled to separate from it to bear witness to the marks of the church.

(from Robert Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, pp. 890-891)

Dispensationalism vs. the Bible

2009-02-05T16:23:00.004-05:00

I have stated on many occasions that the Dispensationalist approach to Scripture, if consistently applied, would eventually lead one away from Christianity altogether in favor of Christ-rejecting Judaism. Rodney J. Decker's latest article (Why Do Dispensationalists Have Such a Hard Time Agreeing on the New Covenant?) related to the September 2008 Council on Dispensational Hermeneutics, is a classic case in point. Decker has come to the conclusion that the church is not in covenant with God. Instead, Decker concludes, the new covenant is made only with the Christ-rejecting nation of Israel.

The disagreement between Dispensational and Covenantal Theology can be best solved by asking the following question. Whom shall we trust when it comes to the correct interpretation of Old Testament prophecy? Shall we trust the inspired writers of the New Testament, or should we trust Bible Baptist Seminary? Decker, Professor of NT and Greek at Bible Baptist Seminary, makes some surprising claims that put Dispensationalism clearly at odds with Scripture.

After assuming a priori that the Mosaic law has a "lack of legal standing in the church" (p.1), and that the fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant is yet future¹ (p. 1 - see Acts 2:25-32), Becker ask a series of questions concerning the method of Bible exegesis. "Does the text determine our theology or does our theology determine our understanding of the text? How does our hermeneutical framework - our theological system- affect (and sometimes effect!) our exegetical conclusions? Which takes priority, text or theology? We all know the "correct" answer to such questions: the text must determine our theology." (p. 2). All good so far, but this approach dissolves into mere rhetoric once he begins to delve into Old Testament Prophecy. He writes, “If God does not fulfill the promises of the new covenant with Israel exactly as he promised and as the prophet understood God’s promise, the God has failed.” (p. 20). This statement clearly begs the question. Becker never tells us how we are to determine the way "the prophet understood God’s promise". What insight does he have into the mind of the Old Testament prophets? Does he have any more than Jesus, John, Peter, or Paul? By rejecting the New Testament fulfillment as the actual fulfillment, Becker has clearly let his theology determine his understanding of the text. In addition, the Dispensational hermeneutic fails to focus on all of Scripture as a story of Christ's redemptive work. It pits Scripture against Scripture, and focuses on Old Testament shadows instead of the substance in Christ. (John 1:45, John 5:46, John 8:56, etc.). Furthermore, if we were to apply Becker’s standard to the Messianic Prophecies of the Old Testament, we would become Judaist, who were blind leaders of the blind (Luke 6:39).

If nothing else, Decker should get props for consistency in terms of the new covenant in Dispensational theology. He also soundly refutes the modern "dual covenant" heresy propagated by John Hagee and others. Perhaps I can answer the question as to why Dispensationalists have such a hard time agreeing on the New Covenant. Because, contrary to Galatians 3:28, they insist on erecting racial walls in order to separate fleshly Israel from the Church. As such, they cannot figure out how to include both in the New Covenant. Like other dispensationalists, Decker cannot come to grips with the fact that there is no covenant without Christ, and there never has been. Thus Decker concludes, based on his flawed hermeneutic, that the New Covenant is made only with the present nation of Israel, not the church. However, he does suggest that the church participates in the blessing “in some way” (p. 19). He further defends the exclusion of the church from the New Covenant by boldly telling us that “...the church is never mentioned in the OT" (p. 17). Hmmm...

The redemptive work of Christ is the center of both the Old and the New Covenant, both covenants being made with the elect and them only. As for the correct interpretation of Old Testament Prophecy, why do we need to go any further than the interpretation given us in the New Testament? Indeed, Dispensationalism has been weighed in the balances and found wanting.

Footnotes:

1 I give Becker the benefit of the doubt concerning this approach, as he was addressing fellow dispensationalist concerning his view of the new covenant. He didn't address Covenantal views, which I have done many times here.

The Marks of a True Church

2009-01-09T12:19:00.005-05:00

How does one identify a true church? There are many groups of people today who refer to themselves as the ekklesia, the church (literally "called out"). For those who are new in the faith, or for those who get confused about the many factions that exist, there are ways to identify which is the true church and which is the false church.

Those things that are NOT Marks of a True Church

1.) CHURCH NAME - Some feel that the name "church" makes one a true church. Calling an organization a "church" does not make one a church. The church at Sardis had a name that they were alive, though they were dead (Revelation 3:1). Therefore, nothing in the "name" of a church can be considered the mark of a true church.

2.) AGE AND DURABILITY - Some suggest that that a true church is one who can establish a long history for its specific organization. However, the Devil's kingdom has been on earth since the fall. At the beginning of the "Reformation" of the church in New Testament times, age and durability were of no benefit to the false church of Judaism, who were agents of the Devil (John 8:44). Therefore, age and durability are no marks of a true church.

3.) NUMBER OF PROFESSING CONVERTS - This is especially apropos in light of today's church growth movement. A church that is growing rapidly in numbers doesn't necessarily correspond to a true church. In fact, more often than not, the reverse is true. In the first Century, Judaists and Pagans both outnumbered the true church. In Noah's Day, the true church failed to grow at all. In contrast, we read that the whole world followed after the Beast (Revelation 13:3). The New Testament Church is addressed as a "little flock" (Luke 12:32), as we are warned in Scripture that "the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few". (Matthew 7:14). Therefore, a large number of professing converts is no mark of a true church.

4.) APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION - Some have suggested that a line of succession for bishops and clergy is a mark of a true church. However, the Apostles themselves warned of false prophets and teachers in their own time (Matthew 7:15; 2 Peter 2:1), and proclaimed that they would grow abundant in latter days, "having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power". (2 Timothy 3:1-5). We have seen a multitude of churches in our own day, with a good succession, degenerate into heresy. Judas Iscariot was first in line in terms of Apostolic Succession, yet was a Devil (John 6:70). Therefore apostolic succession, even if it could be proven, is no mark of a true church.

5.) EXTERNAL LUSTER AND PROSPERITY - Some have suggested that fame, riches, and prosperity are a sign of approval from God, and therefore are marks of a godly faith and a true church. What a deceitful scheme that the Devil has laid at the feet of the simple! The church at Laodicea was rich, prospered, and in need of nothing in terms of temporal blessings, but did not realize that it was "wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked". (Revelation 3:17). Asaph was envious when he saw the wicked prosper (Psalm 73:3), until he saw their end (Psalm 73:17-19). In contrast, the Son of Man had no place to lay his head (Luke 9:58), and the apostles were lacking in silver and gold (Acts 3:6). Therefore prosperity is not a mark of a true church.

Those things that are the Marks of a True Church

The Nicene Creed espouses belief "in one holy catholic and apostolic Church". The true meaning of these words have been misrepresented by false churches who, just by importing these words into their name, market themselves as rightful heirs to the kingdom. Therefore, we must gain a right understanding of what it means to be a holy, catholic, and apostolic church.

1.) HOLY - The term "Holy" is most accurately defined as "set apart". The true church consists only of Christians, those who are set apart from the world in Covenant with God. Those who are unbelievers are not of the church, although they may be in the church (1 John 2:19). The church is holy in the eyes of God, not by its own works, but because of the work of Christ, who is its sanctification (1 Corinthians 1:2). Those to whom Christ has joined himself were chosen “in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him” (Ephesians 1:4). As a result, Christians are commanded to be holy (1 Peter 1:16), and to constantly pursue and grow in holiness (Ephesians 4:24, 2 Corinthians 7:1). The church uses of the Word to Instruct in Holiness (John 17:17, Ephesians 5:26), the sacraments to discern the Lord's Body (1 Corinthians 11:29), and Keys of the Kingdom to discipline those who are unholy (Matthew 16:19).

2.) CATHOLIC - This term is the cause of great confusion in modern times, and is used by papists to promote their organization as well as the accompanying fables as truth. The term means "universal" and was used long before Romanism began to ostracize those of the Apostolic Faith. The church is universal (Ephesians 2:12-13) in that it includes not only Israel, as was the case in the Old Covenant, but "the children of God that were scattered abroad". (John 11:52). The Roman Church, however, is not "catholic" in spite of its use of the term, nor ever has been.

3.) APOSTOLIC - Some have used this term to promote the myth of Apostolic Succession as being the mark of a true church. However, true meaning of the term "Apostolic" refers to adherence to Apostolic Doctrine, which is the Word of God as contained in the Holy Scriptures. Note that it is not merely the “use” of the Word that identifies the true church, for even the Devil uses the Word in corrupt ways to suit his own ends. (Matthew 4:6). Rather the true church rightly handles the Word of Truth (2 Timothy 2:15), for that Word is the only standard for life and practice. The true church is "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets" (Ephesians 2:20), and cannot depart from "the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;" (Jude 1:17). Even the verbal preaching of the Apostle Paul was subject to testing by way of the Holy Scriptures (Acts 17:11), so that anyone who preached another gospel, including apostles or angels, was anathema (Galatians 1:8). Hence the church is Apostolic in terms of doctrine, not by "fables and endless genealogies" (1 Timothy 1:3-4). No pope or archbishop can claim Apostolic authority while shunning Apostolic Doctrine, for "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work". (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

Dual Fulfillment and a Future Tribulation

2008-12-29T16:07:00.005-05:00

As an increasing number of Christians are beginning to recognize value of the historical context in interpreting Bible Prophecy, those who hold to a futurist view are pushing for a "Dual Fulfillment" principle. This enables Dispensationalists in particular to honor the imminent fulfillment recognized by Preterists, and yet apply them to future events at the same time.

The "dual fulfillment" principle is not new. At first glance there seems to be some basis for this methodology. There were certainly Old Testament prophecies that had dual fulfillments. One need look no further than the numerous Messianic prophecies in the Psalms, which applied to David's life as well as foretold of the Messiah. Isaiah 28:11 speaks of the Babylonian Conquest of the Holy Land, yet Paul uses it to describe Pentecost with the same type of judgment from the Romans (1 Corinthians 14:21). There is also a sense in which the judgment of Jerusalem in AD 70 is a picture of the final judgment. However, using such a principle to push specific New Testament Prophecies into the future is a questionable practice at best, especially when applied to the Great Tribulation.

For one, this principle ignores the fact that the focal point of all prophecy is the work of Jesus Christ. Because the Judaists of the First Century failed to see Christ in the Old Testament, they were blind leaders of the blind (Luke 6:39). Yet these things were revealed to the children of God, and a "dual fulfillment" of these events would demand a continued sense of blindness. Christ's first advent brought the gospel which was "to bring to light for everyone what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things" (Ephesians 3:9).

Besides, it is impossible for certain prophecies to honor this principle. Will there be two Millenniums? Two Great Tribulations? Jesus' own words concerning the Great Tribulation demand that it can be only a one time event.
"For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be." (Matthew 24:21)

By this very description, a dual fulfillment of this prophecy would make it a false prophecy. The same is true for Daniel 2:44, as a kingdom that is established forever can only be established once.

Some prophecies, if pushed into the future, would require a triple fulfillment. Consider the charismatic application of 1 Corinthians 14:21 in regards to the Latter Rain movement. Since 1 Corinthians 14:21 is a dual fulfillment of Isaiah 28:11, any futuristic application would in fact be a triple fulfillment. The same is true with Daniel's "abomination of desolation". It was fulfilled during the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, but was also applied by Christ in the Olivet Discourse to the armed invasion of Jerusalem by Titus and the Romans (compare Matthew 24:15-21 with Luke 21:20-24). Thus any futuristic view of the abomination of desolation would require a triple fulfillment. The same can be said for the fall of Babylon in the Old Testament (Isaiah 13:1-22) applied to Jerusalem in the New Testament (Revelation 14:8, Revelation 17:5).

In short, using the "dual fulfillment" principle to warn of a future Great Tribulation is a practice of sensational desperation, not sound Biblical exegesis. Dispensationalism in any form is a theology with an exiled Christ, with no kingdom today relevant to the earth in which we live. While we may not know the exact order of events leading up to the Second Advent, we can know that the Great Tribulation, as well as the other events of the Olivet Discourse, is past history. They happened within the apostle's generation (Matthew 24:34), never to be repeated.

On the Incarnation

2008-12-12T22:25:00.004-05:00

“But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” (Micah 5:2)

As the trees light up and the sounds of Carols resonate through the cold night air, millions worldwide will reflect upon a baby boy in a manger, a cultural icon of peace and good will towards men.

However, the real miracle of Christmas goes way beyond a mere human baby boy who was born in Bethlehem. The real miracle surrounds the hypostatic union of very God and very man. This is the ONLY orthodox Christology, that Christ was the very God (100%) and the very man (100%) in one person. To err in this area is to err to the destruction of your soul, for “...if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.” (John 8:24). The word “he” does not appear in the original Greek. Therefore the MKJV rendering of this passages correctly reads, “…if you do not believe that I AM, you shall die in your sins”, with the phrase “I AM” being a claim to Deity (Exodus 3:14). The temptation to worship Christ’s human nature is one of the most deceptive forms of idolatry.

Jesus Christ was the very God, and was also very man. He was not “God changed into a man”, nor was He some mixture of God and man. Christ did not relinquish any of His Divine Attributes during his Incarnation (Colossians 2:9). Christ’s divine nature was “been from of old, from everlasting” (Micah 5:2), for “before Abraham was, I AM.” (John 8:58).

Christ’s human nature was born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14), the seed of a woman (Genesis 3:15), “God…manifest in the flesh” (1 Timothy 3:16). The idea of “celestial flesh”¹ is an Anabaptist morbis mentis. Christ was not a created being, as the ancient Arians and modern Jehovah’s Witnesses teach, nor was He a “mode” of God, as the ancient Socinians and their modern Oneness deceivers would proclaim. Christ is one person with two natures, divine and human, being distinct from each other, yet clearly united to each other. Wilhelmus a’Brakel reflects the importance of meditating on the Incarnation of Christ.

“…let the incarnation of the Lord Jesus also be the frequent subject of your meditation, for the manifestation of God in the flesh is a “mystery of godliness” (1 Tim. 3:16). All true godliness proceeds from the knowledge of, and a believing union with, the Lord Jesus. This generates love and all that proceeds from love. Whatever does not proceed from this source cannot be called godliness. Even though nature may give us an impression of God and religion, it does not reveal this mystery. He who has only been illuminated outwardly is also ignorant of the frame of heart which proceeds from knowing Jesus (that is, as both God and man).” (Wilhelmus a’Brakel – The Christian’s Reasonable Service, pp.512-513.)

This Christmas, let us not fall into the idolatry of worshipping a human baby, but let us wonder at the miracle of God, in all of His Glory, being united to human flesh.

Related Article – The Orthodox Doctrine of the Trinity

Footnotes:

1 “Celestial Flesh” is the belief among Mennonites and certain Brethren groups that Jesus did not derive his humanity from Mary, but from Heaven. The results are that Christ’s deity and His redemptive work become less important than His humanity, thus the focus is on Jesus as a good example as opposed to a Savior. The question for the Christian is not so much “What Would Jesus Do?” as opposed to “What Has Jesus Done?”

The Law and Offices of Jesus Christ

2008-12-06T20:43:00.002-05:00

“And going into the house they saw the child with Mary his mother, and they fell down and worshiped him. Then, opening their treasures, they offered him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh.” (Matthew 2:11).

A reflection on the gifts of the magi can give one an understanding of the offices of Christ, as well as how the law relates to these offices.

Gold represents the Kingship of Christ. Christ is the Almighty King, superior to all others. “On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords.” (Revelation 19:16). It is this particular office of Christ that is the most ignored today. If Christ is the Almighty King, then He should be obeyed. "Why do you call me 'Lord, Lord,' and not do what I tell you?” (Luke 6:46). What a travesty it is that professing Christians view God’s law with distain, implicitly deny Christ’s reign over their lives. “…You are not your own, for you were bought with a price...” (1 Corinthians 6:19-20). The kingship of Christ flies right in the face of the spirit of our age, which focuses on the importance of self. Such self exaltation and self deception leads to antinomianism, and against such Christ duly warns us.

“And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments. Whoever says "I know him" but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him,” (1 John 2:3-4).

A call to obedience is not legalism. Obedience to God’s commandments is legalistic only when it becomes the grounds by which we consider ourselves justified. Therefore, reflect on the authority that Christ has in both heaven and earth (Matthew 28:18), and, as His subjects, give Him the honor and obedience due an Almighty King.

On this point, we turn to the frankincense, representing the high priestly office of Christ. Just as antinomianism denies the kingly Office of Christ, legalism denies His priestly office. As high priest, Christ is superior to all other priests. “The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office, but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever. Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.” (Hebrews 7:23-25). However, the high priestly office of Christ only merits value to those who understand their miserable condition, who feel the burden of sin, and perceive its due justice. For that, the law serves as a mirror (James 1:23), showing us that condition accurately. It is then and only then that one tastes the sweetness of Christ, who administers His priestly duties through His once for all sacrifice (Hebrews 9:12) and His intercession (Hebrews 7:25).

The prophetic office of Christ is confirmed by the myrrh, a rather strange gift to give to a child. It was a burial spice, confirming the prophecy of Christ's death and burial (Isaiah 53:8-9). Christ was confirmed as the prophet promised in Deuteronomy 18:15 by Acts 3:22. It is a proper understanding of this office that undergirds the authority of the written word, as the words of the prophet were directly spoken from the very mouth of God (Deuteronomy 18:18). As Christ is the very God Himself, He is superior to all prophets. He is the end goal of all prophecy (Hebrews 1:1-2), and today administers His prophetic office by the written Word, being preached and expounded. "This is my beloved Son; listen to him." (Mark 9:7)

Egalitarianism: A Theology of Rebellion and Unbelief

2008-11-19T21:05:00.004-05:00

Dr. Bruce Ware has published an article summarizing “the Egalitarian and Complementarian Positions on the Role of Women in the Home and in Christian Ministry”. As there has been some discussion of female “deaconesses” in the PCA, I thought it necessary to address this issue with Sola Scriptura.

Women are highly esteemed before the Lord, and have very important roles in both the home and ministry. However, there is no such thing as egalitarianism in either the home (Ephesians 5:22-24) or the church (1 Timothy 2:12).

Note well, however, that the Bible gives no such limitations regarding civil government, as Deborah (Judges 4-5) bears this out. (Say it with me – Sarah 2012!!!). But with the home and the church, the Bible is quite clear.

Regarding 1 Timothy 2:12, let’s suppose, just for a second, the Paul had actually meant that he does "not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man", and that "she is to remain quiet". How else could he have expressed that sentiment any clearer than he did here?

Egalitarianism is a theology of rebellion and unbelief.

Your Miserable Condition

2008-11-03T20:33:00.007-05:00

Wilhelmus a’Brakel reflects upon man’s miserable condition before his conversion, with respect to his sinfulness, his deserving of punishment, and his impotency. Guaranteed not to be a best seller.

Our Misery: A Reflection upon our Sinfulness

Thus we have demonstrated to you the misery of man from various perspectives. We have done so in reference to the fall of Adam, original sin, actual sin, man’s impotency, and punishment upon sin. Do not rest in a mere external knowledge of all this, but make practical use of it, applying it all to yourself, and view yourself as such. Be it known to you, and impress it upon your heart, that you are the most miserable creature upon the face of the earth. If you could but perceive a glimmer of your misery, your hair would stand up straight from terror, your eyes would never fail to weep, and you would continually gnash your teeth and wring your hands. Therefore listen attentively to me as I address you. May the Lord cause you to see and feel all this, for you are miserable in many respects.

First, you are miserable in respect to your sinfulness. Go to Paradise and behold how ingeniously and gloriously you were created in Adam, enjoying sweet communion between God and your very own nature. Behold how willfully you have fallen away from God and have joined ranks with the devil. Having thus sinned, you have forfeited the glory of God. The image of God in which you were created in Adam has departed from you. Neither life, truth, love, holiness, nor glory are to be found in you. Instead, the appearance of a wretched black devil is within you.

Your soul is in an evil, devilish condition, and is blind and unable to receive the things of the Spirit of God. It is alienated from the life of God through ignorance, dead in sin, capable of devising and committing all manner of evil, having no other desire but for that which God hates, and having no contempt for anything but that which God delights in. Your soul wallows in filth, stench, abomination, and in that which is despicable and intolerable. Your soul is a pool teeming with all manner of hateful, envious, wrathful, evil, impure, unrighteous, deceitful, and proud thoughts—thoughts by which you forget, depart from, and despise God, all of which are abominable in nature. Your throat is an open sepulcher; with your tongue you use deceit. The poison of asps is under your lips, and your mouth is full of cursing and bitterness. Your eyes, ears, hands, feet, and all the members of your body are instruments of unrighteousness; you are a servant of sin in the fullest sense of the word. You are of your father the devil, a prisoner of Satan, and the property of the devil. You are thus separated from God, desiring also to remain separated from Him, finding delight in your evil frame and deeds. In one word, inwardly and outwardly you are in a state of direct opposition and enmity towards the high, holy, and glorious God.

What aggravates the abominable nature of your existence, however, is that there is not one honest person to be found in your generation, but rather you belong to a generation which is despicable, hateful, evil, and impure. There is not one single individual in your entire genealogy—even if you trace back your genealogy for five thousand years, and thus to Adam— who by nature is not a liar, a murderer, a thief, a fornicator, and a horrendous monstrosity at heart. You are an unclean thing out of an unclean (Job 14:4), of the earth earthy (1 Cor. 15:47), by nature a child of wrath (Eph. 2:3), evil from your youth (Gen. 8:21). Give careful attention to these and similar passages of Scripture, and come into the presence of God. Hear these words as coming from the mouth of the Lord, hearing Him declaring you to be such a person.

Impress this upon your heart, and be convinced beyond any doubt that this is descriptive of you, since He declares you to be such. It is necessary that the view of your sinfulness exceeds that view which is the result of a mere believing in the Word of God. In order to be truly humbled and to be a suitable recipient of grace in Christ, there must be a sensible perception of this. For this purpose it is essential that you do not merely examine yourself in the mirror of the law of nature, measuring your deeds by that which nature teaches to be good or evil, but that you seek to acquire a thorough knowledge of your virtues and vices in light of the law of the ten commandments. For this purpose you should carefully read Lord’s Days 34 through 44 of the Heidelberg Catechism. Do not merely seek to acquire an extensive knowledge of the subject matter itself—that is, do not merely seek to discern what are good or evil thoughts, words, and deeds—but also consider their very nature as commandments, and consider that every deed must proceed:

(1) from a consciousness of being reconciled and united to God, so that one does not serve Him as a strange God and provoked Judge, but rather as an appeased Father;

(2) from a conscious submission of one’s self as creature to Him who only is Lord, who by virtue of His and our natures obligates us to be subject to Him in all things;

(3) from joyful willingness and obedience;

(4) from pure love;

(5) from a view and consciousness of His supremacy and majesty, and thus in the fear of His Name;

(6) from a joyful embracing of His will, solely because it is His will, so that our will is also swallowed up in His will;

(7) from an intense yearning that He alone be glorified, and that He alone is worthy of all honor and service, this being our sole objective;

(8) from an earnest zeal and devotion, until each deed be accomplished in all its particulars.

In one word, all things must be performed as proceeding from God, in dependence upon Him, and as before His countenance; and all must end in Him. With this in mind one will not be satisfied with the mere performance of one good deed, but will perceive how dreadfully one has fallen short—even in his best deeds, and thus how dreadful every sin is.

Be frequently engaged in this fashion, and examine your entire conversation both as to its internal and external dimensions. During the entire day give heed to your thoughts, words, and deeds, and sit down every evening to review the history of your behavior on that particular day. Proceed from hour to hour, from place to place, from one person to the next person with whom you have been in contact, from incident to incident as it occurred, and then consider your behavior in all these circumstances in view of each commandment. Identify the corruption of your nature as the fountain of all these things, and consider all that would have proceeded from this fountain if opportunity and inclination had given occasion for this. Add to this the aforementioned qualifications which are required for every action, in order that you may become acquainted with yourself. However, even that will not engender a truly perplexed, sensitive, and contrite frame, unless the Lord were to give you a view of His majesty, holiness, righteousness, and truth. He must cause you to see that sin is an act of denial, rejection, and contempt towards God, while simultaneously giving you an impression of the dreadfulness of its punishment. Only then will sin truly become a reality, and the sinner be perplexed. Only then will he need help and be driven to the Mediator, Christ. Behold, thus you are a horrendous and abominable monstrosity smothered in your sins.

Our Misery: A Reflection Upon the Punishment to Which We Are Subject

Secondly, you are miserable in view of being deserving of punishment. Proceed further to the consideration of the temporal and eternal punishments which are the consequences of sin. Contemplation upon the state in which you have come due to sin ought to make you shudder and tremble, considering that therefore you are not worthy to walk upon the face of the earth. It is a wonder that the earth still bears you and does not open its mouth to devour you alive. It is a wonder that fire does not come down from heaven to consume you with Sodom and Gomorrah and that the devil is not permitted to tear you to pieces and to drag your soul to hell. You are not worthy of inhaling air through your nostrils, of seeing the sun, and of having the canopy of heaven stretched out over you. You are not worthy of having a piece of bread to put in your mouth, nor a thread to cover your skin.

Lift up your eyes and think for a moment about God, the majestic, holy, and glorious God who is a terror to the sinner. Consider what David said regarding Him: “For Thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness: neither shall evil dwell with Thee. The foolish shall not stand in Thy sight: Thou hatest all workers of iniquity. Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing: the LORD will abhor the bloody and deceitful man” (Ps. 5:4–6). Paul spoke likewise: “But unto them that . . . do not obey the truth . . . indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish [shall come] upon every soul of man that doeth evil” (Rom. 2:8–9). Hear the thundering declaration in Galatians 3:10, “Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written . . . to do them.” Consider also 2 Thessalonians 1:8, “In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Oh my unconverted fellowman who does not wish to be drawn and wooed by the goodness of God, may God once cause you to perceive what His wrath is, to which you are subject, in order that you may be saved with fear!

Let me present this in more detail to you, hoping that in some measure it may move you.

(1) Take note of God’s own expressions in this regard. “Thou, even Thou, art to be feared: and who may stand in Thy sight when once Thou art angry?” (Ps. 76:7); “Who knoweth the power of Thine anger? even according to Thy fear, so is Thy wrath” (Ps. 90:11); “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (Heb. 10:31).

(2) Consider the anxiety of the saints when God hides His countenance from them and when He causes but a glimpse of His anger to be seen by them. David feared this and therefore prayed, “O LORD, rebuke me not in Thine anger, neither chasten me in Thy hot displeasure” (Ps. 6:1). Jeremiah could endure anything, but he feared the wrath of God, for he said, “Be not a terror unto me” (Jer. 17:17). How Job complained of this! “For the arrows of the Almighty are within me, the poison whereof drinketh up my spirit: the terrors of God do set themselves in array against me” (Job 6:4). Heman expressed his anxiety as follows, “Thy fierce wrath goeth over me; Thy terrors have cut me off” (Ps. 88:16).

(3) Observe and consider how the Lord Jesus, the Surety of the elect, became a curse, and how He endured all misery and anxiety. Consider how He was assaulted by the devil, was rejected, despised, and mocked of men, was condemned and put to death on the cross. Consider how the wrath of God pressed Him down and caused Him to be sorrowful unto death. He was engaged in a fierce battle, and was sorrowful and very heavy. He sweat an abundance of blood which fell in drops from His face to the earth; He crawled as a worm upon the earth. He prayed and mourned, “My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?” Such was the heaviness of His task in atoning for the sins of His elect.

(4) If this does not move you, proceed to observe the dreadful pit of damnation, and listen to the gnashing of teeth, the weeping, the frightful shriek, “Woe, woe, woe,” the terror, and the violent raging of the conscience of the damned in the eternal fire. Consider that to all eternity they will never enjoy one beam of light, nor one quiet moment, but will eternally be overcome with inexpressible despair knowing they will never be delivered as well as be subject to an inexpressible perception of the wrath of God.

In all quietness you ought to meditate upon the state of damnation. First of all, what will it be to have a soul and body which cannot find fulfillment within itself and thus cannot be satisfied unless this fulfillment comes from elsewhere, which, however, will be lacking to all eternity. There will not be the least refreshment, neither will there be food, drink, light, sleep, nor companionship by which one could find some delight in conversation. On the contrary, there will be an infinite separation from God, angels, the godly, joy, and glory. At the present time one may be able to forget his unhappiness and sorrow by a variety of means and thus feel no sorrow concerning that of which he is deprived. Then, however, it will be unbearable when these various means are removed. What dreadful despair will this yield for the unfulfilled and sorrowing soul!

Secondly, consider how the soul, against its will, will continually be compelled to think upon all the benefits which it had received of God in this life as far as the body is concerned. He will also be compelled to think upon the means of grace received, and the sermons and ministers by which he was admonished and rebuked, exhorting him to repent, and indeed, constraining him to do so. The soul will think upon all divine conviction within the conscience, as well as the deliberate rejection, despising, opposition towards, and contradiction of all the means of grace, as well as towards those who with words and deeds convicted them.

Thirdly, consider how dreadful it will be when all committed abominations will continually come to mind, and when these, one by one, will be vividly recalled together with all the abominable circumstances attending each of them.

Fourthly, consider what it will be when the ungodly will blame God for not having converted them as others, and for not having ushered them into heaven as others, but instead depriving them eternally of all grace. Consider what it will be when, in their wickedness, they will lash out at God with every imaginable blasphemy.

Fifthly, consider how dreadful and terrifying it will be when the eternal wrath of God will continually overwhelm the soul, causing it unbearable pain, and all the perfections of God will simultaneously manifest themselves against the soul. How dreadful and terrifying this will be! What eternal despair this will engender!

Behold, you who hear or read this, you have deserved all this. Perhaps many of you, due to your failure to repent and the hardness of your hearts, will experience this and have your portion in this lake which burns with sulfur and brimstone. Perhaps this will be your portion within a few days. Be alarmed, tremble, and repent, in order that you may escape the manifestation of this wrath. Perhaps all of this may not even affect you. This one or that one may perhaps think that he is too strong mentally to be seriously disturbed by all these things.

Perhaps such a person can rationally respond to all this and quiet his conscience. I assure you, however, that when God causes one’s heart to tremble, he most certainly will become aware that a terrified conscience alone will cause him unbearable distress. Even a rustling leaf will cause him to tremble. Oh that you would quietly and intelligently consider and believe these things, applying all this to yourself if you are still unconverted—in order that your heart might be appalled by all this, as to whether it would please the Lord to grant you conversion!

Perhaps someone else, in response to the presentation of these matters, may think, “since God is gracious and merciful, I hope for better things. I hope that He will keep me from hell.” My response to this is that, first of all, mercy must have an object which is pitifully miserable. You, however, are hatefully miserable, and there is nothing in you which would move God to be merciful. You are Lo–ruhamah: no more to have mercy (Hosea 1:6), hateful (Titus 3:3), “the generation of His wrath” (Jer. 7:29), to be loathed and not to be pitied by anyone (Ezek. 16:5), an abhorrence (Ps. 5:6), and a generation of vipers (Mat. 3:7). Who would have compassion upon an injured toad or snake? Man either continues to kill them or at least gets rid of them. In like fashion you are hateful and abominable, and therefore you are not to comfort yourself with the mercy of God. God is just and cannot allow any sin to go unpunished. God’s grace does not consist in permitting any sin to go unpunished. Grace is God’s ordination and sending forth of a Surety whom He has punished in the stead of His elect. It is grace that He, by means of the gospel, causes this Surety to be proclaimed and offered. It is grace that He bestows the gift of faith on someone, enabling him to receive this Surety. It is grace when He converts someone and sanctifies him. It is grace when He, by virtue of the merits of this Surety, leads someone to eternal felicity in the way of sanctification. Therefore you who are not upon this way have no reason to comfort yourself with grace, for that is deceiving yourself to your eternal damnation. In addition to your hatefulness, God can also not tolerate you because you neither cease from sinning, nor from provoking, reviling, and despising Him continually. Furthermore, you also exalt yourself above God. By all this you demonstrate that you ignore God’s threatenings, and rather continue boldly in sin. It is as if you are saying, “God may do whatever He wishes, but I don’t care. I will live as I please, and I will refrain from or do whatever I wish.” In addition to this you show that you desire to be honored, feared, loved, obeyed and served by men—desiring that with all these deeds they would end in you. Do not you thus establish yourself as a god? Therefore, abominable and intolerable creature, do not imagine that your misery will move God to be merciful.

Secondly, God’s justice will not permit sin to go unpunished. God’s majesty, which you have trampled under foot, His holiness, and His truth demand satisfaction by the bearing of punishment. Therefore the sinner can neither hope for grace, nor for mercy—and he will certainly find himself deceived in his hope—unless he has an interest in the Surety Jesus Christ. Therefore, oh man, be alarmed about your condition and be convicted of your abominable and damnable nature, for to be sensible of this is the initial manifestation of grace.

Our Misery: A Reflection upon our Impotency

Thirdly, you are miserable in view of your impotency . Your condition is that you are abominable, condemnable, and forsaken of God and all creatures. Come then, be a hero and save yourself if you can. This is, however, absolutely impossible, for your salvation requires the perfect satisfaction of God’s justice by the bearing of all temporal and eternal punishments, and a perfect holiness. This the justice of God requires, for God can only justify a just man and can by no means clear the guilty. He cannot grant the right to eternal life to a man unless the conditions of the covenant, upon which eternal felicity was promised, have been fulfilled. And now, oh miserable one, what will you do? What can you give as a ransom for your soul? You cannot bring that which is eternal to a conclusion, neither by suffering punishment can you make full satisfaction and be acquitted as one who has satisfied the requirements of justice. You are not able to deliver yourself from the pollution of your sinful state and adorn yourself with internal and external holiness which is both perfect and pure. Thus you cannot present yourself before God as pleasing in His sight, saying with boldness, “Here I am; enter into judgment with me and judge me according to Thy justice.” If only you may perceive this to some degree (I do not even mention the things which precede this), you must be convinced of your impotency and cry out, “Oh, wretch that I am! I cannot help myself, and I sink away in my misery. Where must I go? Woe unto me!”

Now consider all this together, and take some time to meditate on how completely abominable, condemnable, and hopeless your situation is. If you are unconverted, it may be a means to stir you up to seek and to ask, “Is there yet help? Is there no hope? Is there yet a way whereby I may be saved?” If you are then directed to Jesus Christ as the way, He will become precious, and you will earnestly seek to become a partaker of Him by faith. If you are converted, the contemplation upon the state of sin, no matter what it may have been for you prior to your conversion, will make and keep you humble; it will teach you to esteem Christ highly and to make use of Him continually. It will motivate you to glorify God, this being an expression of gratitude for sending His Son to deliver poor sinners through Him and to lead them to eternal felicity.

(From Wilhelmus a’Brakel, "The Christian's Reasonable Service", pp. 417-425)

Book Review: Counterfeit Revival by Hank Hanegraaff

2008-10-22T20:54:00.004-04:00

Man is, by nature, a spiritual being. In western society, particularly in America, that sense of spiritual longing too often leads to a desire for fleshly manifestations. Having previously been part of the charismatic movement myself, I can easily identify with the ease that these manifestations can delude those who forsake the use of Scripture as the only infallible rule of faith and practice in favor of esoteric experiences, thus mistaking those experiences as genuine encounters with the living God.

Using the appropriate acronym FLESH, Hanegraaff outline the pretenses and methods on which these counterfeit revivals are based.

Fabrications, Fantasies, and Frauds
Lying Signs and Wonders
Endtimes Restorationism
Slain in the Spirit
Hypnotism

Hanegraaff's expose is a tough indictment against many of the founders of Counterfeit Revivals; names who are considered to be Spiritual giants in the world of Pentecostalism including Parham, Wigglesworth, Seymore, and MacPherson. Hanegraaff traces the movement from those early roots to modern day false prophets such as Hinn, Kilpatrick, Hill, Arnott, and Wimber. While most charismatics are familiar with many of the aforementioned names, they are not familiar with the selective book keeping that attempts to make saints out of these charlatans. Hanegraaff's historical study takes us on a journey of deception, phony miracles, historical revisionism, questionable teachings, lifestyles of excess, drugs, sex scandals, millennial heresies, false prophets, and just plain old skinflintary.

One common thread in counterfeit revivals is the ridiculous theology and practice surrounding the "anointing" of the Holy Spirit. Vineyard founder John Arnott explains:

"Many times Carol and I will be praying for people, we're soakin' 'em, soakin' 'em, soakin' 'em, feel the anointing going in. Next thing you know the guy that's supposed to be catching goes flying back 'cause it just kind of, it's got to go somewhere. If the person doesn't take it, it goes to the catcher, or it rebounds back on the person praying, or something where they can't take it." - CR p. 50

So rather than being the powerful God who created the universe, the Holy Spirit is reduced to some sort of cosmic energy looking for a person to rest in. False prophet Benny Hinn can constantly be seen on TV throwing the Holy Spirit at people like a dodgeball. In contrast, John's wife Carol actually claims to have a conversation with the person of the Holy Spirit, where "the spirit that spoke with her communicated sorrow over being separated from Jesus:

"You know, the Father, and Jesus and I have been together for all of eternity. But when Jesus went back to heaven to be with God the Father, I came to earth." And he said, "I am so lonely for Jesus." He said, "So that when people really, really love Jesus, and really honor him, and really worship him," he said, "I love to be around those kinds of people.. . He misses Jesus, and he misses the Father" - CR p. 125

Hanegraaff boldly chronicles the nonsense being pushed forth by counterfeit revivalists who claim to be led by the Spirit of God, while taking the full blunt of the charges leveled by these false prophets that he is "resisting the Spirit". Consider the following televised "prophecy" from John Kilpatrick.

"I got a word from the Lord last night. . . . The Lord gave me a word last night that I'm going to share with you in a few minutes. . . . It's what he said to me last night. And I heard the Lord, friend. If I didn't hear God I'd tell you, but I heard the Lord... I want to say something this morning to Hank Hanegraaff.... If you want to keep any kind of a semblance of a ministry, you better back off from this revival and what God is doing. You better back off, because I am going to prophesy to you that if you don't, and you continue to put your tongue and your mouth on this move of God, within ninety days the Holy Ghost will bring you down. I said within ninety days the Holy Ghost will bring you down. And I speak that as a man of God. I don't speak that out of vengeance, I don't speak it out of selfishness, and I don't speak it out of a hurt feeling, because my feelings are not hurt. I feel as normal today as I've ever felt. I don't have a chip on my shoulder, I don't have an ax to grind, but this is a move of God and you better leave it alone... And I want to tell you something else, if you don't want your head to start shaking—you make fun of someone in the choir shaking—come here a minute, girl. Come down here a minute. Hurry up. Hurry up. If you don't want your head to do like this, you better lay your mouth off of her... Mr. Hanegraaff, and all other devils, listen up..." - CR pp. 279-80

Kilpatrick later apologized to Hanegraaff and admitted that this was not a word from the Lord. Such prophecies, however, are quite common among Charismatics against their critics.

Learn the truth about...

How unbiblical practices such as Holy laughter, "passing the anointing", acting and sounding like animals, and being "slain in the Spirit" have more in common with Hindu Ashrams and mesmerism than with Christianity.
How false revivalists revise history by appealing to the preachers of the Great Awakening and fabricating justification for their unbiblical practices.
How false revivalists rely on esoteric experiences over the authority of Scripture, despise the church of Christ, and compromise essential Christian doctrines such as the Trinity.
How Benny Hinn receives "the anointing" from the bones of the false prophets Aimee McPherson and Kathryn Kuhlman by visiting their graves.
How a lady was killed during a false revival when someone was "slain in the spirit" and fell on her.
How counterfeit revivalists see numbers, football scores, and cartoon characters as omens by which Scriptures should be interpreted.
How false revivalists manipulate their followers by accusing critics of "resisting the Holy Spirit" in an effort to shield themselves from the biblical mandate to "test the Spirits".
How missionary A.G. Garr, after receiving the "gift of tongues", moved to India in an attempt to preach to the natives in their own language, but unlike the Apostles, he was unable to do so.
How false revivals have disillusioned many, resulting is people being pushed away from Christ as opposed to being drawn in.

As important as it is to identify false prophets, Hanegraaff also gives us the all important characteristics of true revival:

"...While the Counterfeit Revival is founded on fabrications, fantasies, and frauds, genuine revival always rests firmly on the foundation of faith and facts...While the Counterfeit Revival finds its validation in lying signs and wonders, genuine revival always finds its genesis in the Living Word...While the Counterfeit Revival presumes an endtime restoration, genuine revival is predicated on earnest repentance...While the Counterfeit Revival is fixated on sensational manifestations like being "slain in the spirit," genuine revival is focused on salvation and sanctification in the Spirit...While leaders of the Counterfeit Revival enslave devotees through hypnotic schemes, leaders of genuine revival enlighten disciples through Holy Scripture.” - CR pp. 14-17

The new expanded edition includes several useful Appendices where Hanegraaff responds to critics, of which there is no shortage of. In a biblically illiterate culture where people are eager to grab anything that seems "spiritual", and where snake oil salesmen like Benny Hinn can still sell out an auditorium, Hannegraff's book "Counterfeit Revival", however unpopular it may be to the sensitivities of American evangelicalism, is much needed medicine. I would encourage anyone involved in the charismatic movement, and love the truth, to take it.

Easy Reading.
375 pages.
Highly Recommended.

Postmillennialism vs. Amillennialism Part IV

2008-10-09T20:53:00.003-04:00

Romans 11 and the "Fullness of the Gentiles"

“The Jews now remain, as it were, in death for lack of the Gospel: but when both they and the Gentiles shall embrace Christ, the world shall be restored to a new life.” (1560 Geneva Bible Notes on Romans 11:15)

What are we to make of “Israel after the flesh”? Amillennialists would say “nothing”, holding that Israel is the Church, for “it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.” (Romans 9:8).

Luther and Calvin saw no future conversion of Judaists, holding that the Israel of Romans 11 referred to the universal church, consisting of both Gentiles and Hebrews yet to be converted. A great many Reformers, however, disagreed, most notably Peter Martyr and Theodore Beza. The vast majority of the Puritans followed suit. Jonathan Edwards wrote, "Nothing is more certainly foretold than this national conversion of the Jews in Romans 11" – (Jonathans Edwards Works, vol. I p. 607)

On the point of defining the children of Abraham as those of the faith (Galatians 3:7), Postmillennialists would agree with the Amillennial view. However, defining Israel in this way doesn’t quite work on Romans 11. The “Israel” in this chapter is distinguished from “the elect” (Romans 11:7). When Paul explains that Israel had been given “a spirit of stupor, eyes that would not see and ears that would not hear, down to this very day," (Romans 11:8), this can hardly refer to the church? Paul goes on to explain that he magnified his ministry to the gentiles “in order somehow to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them.” (Romans 11:14). Thus he is clearly referring to his own countrymen. Richard Sibbes explains,

“The Jews are not yet come in under Christ’s banner; but God, that hath persuaded Japhet to come into the tents of Shem, will persuade Shem to come into the tents of Japhet, Gen. 9:27. The “fulness of the Gentiles is not yet come in”, Rom. 11:25, but Christ, that hath the “utmost parts of the earth given him for his possession”, Psa. 2:8, will gather all the sheep his Father hath given him into one fold, that there may be one sheepfold and one shepherd, John 10:16.
The faithful Jews rejoiced to think of the calling of the Gentiles; and why should not we joy to think of the calling of the Jews?" – (Richard Sibbes, The Bruised Reed)

There is much confusion today in trying to define “Israel after the flesh”, but the phrase in the Bible refers the religion of new covenant Judaism. The Christian faith blurs any line of distinction between races and countries (Galatians 3:28). It was the Christ-rejecting religion of Judaism that was the focus of the blinding that both Jesus and Paul spoke of, though most of them were of Hebrew origin. However, Paul looked forward to a day when the natural branches would be grafted back into the vine (Romans 11:23). Contrary to dispensational theology, there is only one Olive Tree, that being Christ. However, Paul explains that “a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.” (Romans 11:25). This unfulfilled prophecy speaks of a time when the Great Commission will be completed in the gentile world, turning its focus on Paul’s “fellow Jews”. In doing so, there will be an age of Revival among the Judaists that will bring greater blessings to the Gentiles.

“Now if their trespass means riches for the world, and if their failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean!” (Romans 11:12)

During that time period, the Christian religion will be the majority worldview, “For the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the LORD as the waters cover the sea.” (Habakkuk 2:14), “And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest.” (Hebrews 8:11).

"Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.” (Matthew 5:5)

This age will be a time of unprecedented material blessings. There will “be abundance of grain in the land; on the tops of the mountains may it wave; may its fruit be like Lebanon; and may people blossom in the cities like the grass of the field! May his name endure forever, his fame continue as long as the sun! May people be blessed in him, all nations call him blessed!” (Psalms 72:16-17). Expounding on the 72nd Psalm, David Brown writes,

“We need not have recourse to the miraculous fruitfulness of the earth which Papias feigned, in order to fulfill this prophecy. Plenty is the natural consequence of the moral change which takes place in the world at the millennium. The universal righteousness of that happy period will prevent despotism in government, anarchy in the people, as well as the devastations of war, by which the earth is left uncultivated, or its produce destroyed. The religion of that period will civilize savages, and destroy among civilized nations the numerous occupations that minister to the lawless passions of men; thus directing a great multitude of the human race to the useful arts of agriculture, who had been formerly idle and a burden upon the labor of others. The love universally felt and practiced in that period will lead those who have abundance to distribute cheerfully and freely to the necessities of those who may be in need". (The Second Advent, p. 400 - cited from Loraine Boettner's "The Millennium").

It is this postmillennial belief that was the foundation for the Christianization of Europe, the age of exploration, and for most of world’s missionary societies. It is this belief that sparked both the London and Scottish missionary societies, and it is this belief that will see the ultimate fulfillment of the Great Commission. The command for the church to “make disciples of all nations” cannot fail, for Christ has promised to be with us “until the end of the age”.

Postmillennialism vs. Amillennialism Part III

2008-10-02T16:24:00.005-04:00

The Extent of the Kingdom

"The LORD sends forth from Zion your mighty scepter. Rule in the midst of your enemies!" (Psalms 110:2)

What is the nature of Christ’s Kingdom, and what does it exist for? In looking over the works of prominent Amillennial authors, one common theme resonates. Christ’s kingdom is “other-worldly”, and is not the age of the triumphant church. Consider this quote from Walter Chantry:

“ . . . the kingdom of God is preoccupied with eternal and spiritual realities. It has to do with a presently invisible world. Its focal point is the inward man . . . The gospel of the Kingdom completely absorbs men in the eternal rather than the temporal . . . The gospel of the kingdom absorbs men in the spiritual rather than the material” (Walter Chantry - God’s Righteous Kingdom (1980). pp. 15, 19).

R. Scott Clark writes,

“There are forms of partial preterism, however, which often go hand-in-glove with triumphalist postmillennialism and theonomic ethics and Christian Reconstructionism that has to make the messiness of a semi-realized biblical eschatology go away in order to facilitate their program of cultural transformation and their own version of an earthly glory age….Both the preterist/postmil/reconstructionist glory age and the dispensational premil glory age are manifestations of what Luther called the “theology of glory.” The confessional Protestants, however, at least in the 16th century, taught a theology of the cross. It’s true that in the early 17th century forms of chiliasm became disturbingly popular in Reformed circles. We can be thankful today that we are neither saddled with some of the old views of science (geocentrism etc), politics (theocracy), or eschatology (chiliasm). Scripture teaches no future earthly golden age.” (The Heidelblog – Dismantling the Rapture).

John Seay adds,

“Christ's Kingdom during this age is not of this world, but is a spiritual Kingdom” (Is Postmillennialism Taught In the Bible?)

Amillennialist Kim Riddleberger agrees, and points to the area of contention concerning political activism:

“No political pep rally and no amount of political activism will ever "bring about the kingdom" on this earth. This is a bad example of an over-realized eschatology and an all too secularized understanding of the kingdom. Didn't Jesus say something about his kingdom being "not of this world?" (From The Kingdom on Earth? Now? Obama Thinks So . . .)

Of course, no orthodox postmillennialist would suggest that God’s Kingdom will be realized by political activism. But does that excuse Christians for being lackadaisical concerning politics, as many would have us do? Does the Word of the Living God not have clear instructions for civil rulers? What about being salt and light? Truly, an over-emphasis on being “other-worldly” makes modern Christianity “no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people's feet.” (Matthew 5:13).

Christ’s statement regarding His kingdom being “not of this world” relates to the source of authority, not the extent of His reign. Christ taught His disciples to pray “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven” (Matt. 6:10). After His resurrection, Christ claimed “all authority”, not just in Heaven, but on Earth as well (Matthew 28:18). It is this authority that is the basis for the Great Commission to “make disciples of all nations” (Matthew 28:19), not just convert individuals. Christ’s reign in all-encompassing, not just “other-worldly”, but "on earth" as well (and that includes the earth's politics).

Jay Rogers offers this critique of “Optimistic Amillennialism”.

“Postmillennialism stresses that there will be a Golden Age of Christianity in time and history prior to Christ’s return. Postmillennialism is sometimes called optimistic amillennialism for this reason. In reality, an amillennialist who is optimistic about the end-times is a postmillennialist.”

Based on the quotes from prominent Amillenialist above, I would have to agree. Romans 11, which we shall examine soon, would probably be the dividing point.

The Nature of the Kingdom

A Psalm of David. The LORD says to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool." (Psalms 110:1)

Like Premillennialists, Amillennialists view the culmination of the Kingdom to be ushered in by some cataclysmic event. Amlllennialist Professor David writes,

“Unlike postmillennialism, which has a gradual or evolutionary aspect to it, amillennialists proclaim the biggest discontinuity of all the millennial views. The present church age, is the Kingdom of God. Satan is already bound although not completely powerless (hence the paucity of demonic possession?). Throughout this age, a diminished (but strengthening) kingdom of evil will coexist with the kingdom of god. Both will be replaced virtually instantly with the eternal dispensation.” (Lesson 8: Amillennialism: A Golden Age Beyond Time (part 1))

Those who await this “virtually instant” replacement of both kingdoms usually confuse passages that refer to the destruction of Jerusalem and apply them to the Second Advent. According to Scripture, however, the kingdom was established during Christ's First Advent, and will continue to grow like leaven until it fills the whole world.

“He put another parable before them, saying, "The kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard seed that a man took and sowed in his field. It is the smallest of all seeds, but when it has grown it is larger than all the garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and make nests in its branches." He told them another parable. "The kingdom of heaven is like leaven that a woman took and hid in three measures of flour, till it was all leavened."” (Matthew 13:31-33)

"Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver, and the gold, all together were broken in pieces, and became like the chaff of the summer threshing floors; and the wind carried them away, so that not a trace of them could be found. But the stone that struck the image became a great mountain and filled the whole earth...And in the days of those (Roman Emperors) kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, nor shall the kingdom be left to another people. It shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand forever." (Daniel 2:35-44)

The spread of Christ’s Kingdom through the Preaching of the Gospel will have global impact before the end of the age, “on earth as it is in Heaven”, as the list of Scriptures in the previous post suggests.

“Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death.” (1 Corinthians 15:24-26)

Postmillennialism is not universalism

A common objection to postmillennialism is based on the flawed belief that postmillennialism removes the tares from the kingdom before the end of the age. This is not true. Biblical postmillennialists agree with Amillennialists that “Evil and good co-exist together during this age before Christ's second coming”. David Chilton explains:

“Biblical postmillennialism is not an absolute universalism; nor does it teach that at some future point in history absolutely everyone living will be converted. Ezekiel's prophecy of the River of Life suggests that some out lying areas of the world — the "swamps" and "marshes" — will not be healed, but will be "given over to salt," remaining unrenewed by the living waters (Ezek. 47:11).” (David Chilton – The Days Of Vengeance, p. 519)

It seems that postmillennialism is superior to Amillennialism when it comes to the fulfillment of earthly promises concerning the Kingdom of God, and the ultimate fulfillment of the Great Commission in this “church age”.

Postmillennialism vs. Amillennialism Part II

2008-09-22T15:18:00.003-04:00

Reasons for Optimism

The adoption of a more optimistic outlook among modern Amillennialists with regard to the Gospel is not without biblical foundation. Postmillennialists have long held that the Gospel of Jesus Christ would eventually hold sway in the world. Indeed, it is a guarantee in the New Covenant.

"But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more." (Jeremiah 31:33-34)

Considering the following passages, many of which concern the outgrowth of the First Advent of Christ, being completely absent of an earthly millennium.

Numbers 14:21
"But truly, as I live, and as all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the LORD,"

Psalms 2:6-9
"As for me, I have set my King on Zion, my holy hill. I will tell of the decree: The LORD said to me, "You are my Son; today I have begotten you. Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession. You shall break them with a rod of iron and dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel."

Psalms 22:27-28
"All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn to the LORD, and all the families of the nations shall worship before you. For kingship belongs to the LORD, and he rules over the nations."

Psalms 72:8-11
"May he have dominion from sea to sea, and from the River to the ends of the earth! May desert tribes bow down before him and his enemies lick the dust! May the kings of Tarshish and of the coastlands render him tribute; may the kings of Sheba and Seba bring gifts! May all kings fall down before him, all nations serve him!"

Psalms 102:15
"Nations will fear the name of the LORD, and all the kings of the earth will fear your glory."

Psalms 110:1
"A Psalm of David. The LORD says to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.""

Psalms 138:4-5
"All the kings of the earth shall give you thanks, O LORD, for they have heard the words of your mouth, and they shall sing of the ways of the LORD, for great is the glory of the LORD."

Isaiah 2:2-4
"It shall come to pass in the latter days that the mountain of the house of the LORD shall be established as the highest of the mountains, and shall be lifted up above the hills; and all the nations shall flow to it, and many peoples shall come, and say: "Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob, that he may teach us his ways and that we may walk in his paths." For out of Zion shall go the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. He shall judge between the nations, and shall decide disputes for many peoples; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore."

Isaiah 9:6-7
"For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this."

Isaiah 11:6-10
"The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the young goat, and the calf and the lion and the fattened calf together; and a little child shall lead them. The cow and the bear shall graze; their young shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. The nursing child shall play over the hole of the cobra, and the weaned child shall put his `hand on the adder's den. They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain; for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD as the waters cover the sea. In that day the root of Jesse, who shall stand as a signal for the peoples--of him shall the nations inquire, and his resting place shall be glorious."

Isaiah 45:22-25
"Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other. By myself I have sworn; from my mouth has gone out in righteousness a word that shall not return: To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear allegiance. Only in the LORD, it shall be said of me, are righteousness and strength; to him shall come and be ashamed all who were incensed against him. In the LORD all the offspring of Israel shall be justified and shall glory."

Habakkuk 2:14
"For the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the LORD as the waters cover the sea."

Zechariah 14:8-9
"On that day living waters shall flow out from Jerusalem, half of them to the eastern sea and half of them to the western sea. It shall continue in summer as in winter. And the LORD will be king over all the earth. On that day the LORD will be one and his name one."

1 Corinthians 15:24-26
"Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death."

Amillennialists have a tendency to "spiritualize" these texts as being symbolic of the church age. Postmillennialists hold that these promises are guaranteed in the Great Commission, where Christ commands us to “make disciples of all nations” and promises to be with us until the end of the age.

Postmillennialism vs. Amillennialism Part I

2008-09-16T15:02:00.004-04:00

Historic Differences

In discussing the differences in Reformed Eschatological views, I’ve been asked to defend the postmillennial view against the more popular Amillennial view. The challenge here is to clearly define views that, over time, are slowly evolving into each other, particularly with the rise of "optimistic Amillennialism". The similarities are as follows:

1.) All modern Amillennialists (with the exception of Hyper-preterists) are Postmillennial in the sense that they believe that Christ will return after the “millennium” which they would define as the current church age.

2.) Most (if not all) modern Postmillennialists are Amillennial in that they don’t believe in a literal “millennium”. However, they do hold to a future millennial age (not necessarily 1,000 years) in which the conversion of “Israel after the flesh” will lift part of the curse on Creation.

In the past, however, these two schools had greater differences. Amillennialists have historically been pessimistic about the future of the gospel. In the early church, both chiliasts and amillennialists held that the Roman Empire would wax worse and worse, until the last and worst emperor of all (antichrist) would eventually be destroyed by Christ's Second Advent.

A similar timeline would be suitable for classic postmillennialism as well, with two major differences. The first is that early postmillennialists were more likely than Amillennialists to suggest a date for the Second Advent due to the belief that they were already in the literal millennium. The second difference is, unlike the other eschatologies, postmillennialism was optimistic about the effects of the gospel in the "church age" (though most did hold to a future antichrist).

Preterism Unites

Preterism in some form had advocates among the earliest Christians such as James the Just, Mathetes, and Clement of Alexandria. However, it was Eusebius who first wrote the most complete work of systematic Preterism. As a backlash against some of the dispensational folly in much of evangelicalism today, Preterism has made huge inroads in Reformed circles. As a result, both Amillennialism and Postmillennialism have made huge strides toward becoming one eschatology. Postmillennialists have long since abandoned their chiliastic roots. Very few believe in a literal millennium today. Much of Amillennialism has adopted a more optimistic view of the gospel, realizing that "tribulation" of the First Century saints was the greatest that shall be faced by the church. The cause for this optimistic view of the future was a return to Scripture as the source for eschatology as opposed to newspapers.

Therefore, modern postmillennialism and “optimistic Amillennialism" are almost indistinguishable, yet there are still some differences, particular with nature and role of God's kingdom in this world, as well as the future state of the world at the Second Advent.

As we examine these differences, perhaps some Amillennial Preterists will find themselves agreeing with the postmillennial camp, and thus objecting to my "broad stroke" labelling. Be assured that the conclusions I have drawn come from leading amillennial authors, and direct quotes will be given as much as possible.

Wisdom: The Cure For "Self-Esteem"

2008-08-28T13:53:00.003-04:00

From J. C. Ryle, "The Gospel of Luke" - 1858

"Humility may well be called the queen of the Christian graces. To know our own sinfulness and weakness and to feel our need of Christ is the start of saving religion.

Humility is a grace which has always been a distinguishing feature in the character of the holiest saints in every age. Abraham and Moses and Job and David and Daniel and Paul were all eminently humble men.

Above all, humility is a grace within the reach of every true Christian. All converted people should work to adorn with humility the doctrine they profess. If they can do nothing else, they can strive to be humble.

Do you want to know the root and spring of humility? One word describes it. The root of humility is right knowledge.

The person who really knows himself and his own heart, who knows God and his infinite majesty and holiness, who knows Christ and the price at which he was redeemed, that person will never be a proud person.

He will count himself, like Jacob, unworthy of the least of all God's mercies. He will say of himself, like Job, "I am unworthy." He will cry, like Paul, "I am the worst of sinners" He will consider others better than himself (Philippians 2:3).

Ignorance--nothing but sheer ignorance, ignorance of self, of God, and of Christ--is the real secret of pride.

From that miserable self-ignorance may we daily pray to be delivered. The wise person knows himself and will find nothing within to make him proud."

Poll: What role should science play in interpreting Scripture?

2008-07-07T16:26:00.005-04:00

“To the choirmaster. A Psalm of David. The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.” (Psalms 19:1)

There is an interesting post on the Creation controversy regarding the age of the earth on the Omnipotent Grace Blog. Although I'm a presuppositionalist, I am sympathetic toward Old Earth Creationism, due to the enormous body of evidence provided by God’s own handiwork. It is a view that is obviously controversial to the vast majority of those who hold to the inerrancy of Scripture. Consider the words of John MacArthur:

"...clearly from the words of Scripture, God created the universe in six literal days. And Christian leaders can't deny that that's what it says cause that's what it says. You can translate it any way you want, it all comes out...the word yom means day and you have six of them.

But they believe somehow that scientists have proved that the age of the earth must be billions and billions and billions of years old. So they believe you've got to go back to Genesis and fix it. And in so doing they have allowed the authority of the Bible to be undermined, right? It's serious stuff." ("Creation: Believe it or Not--Part 2")

Young-earthers like MacArthur are to be commended for their high view of Scripture. At the same time, however, the scientific evidence for an old earth and an old universe are overwhelming. (The 1992 Cosmic Background Explorer pretty much sealed the deal). Should science, as flawed as it may be, ever to be considered when interpreting Scripture?

There are many who adamantly declare "no". MacArthur writes, "I'm never going to get caught in the trap of trying to prove to you that Genesis is true by science. I'm just going to proclaim to you what Genesis says and let science bow its knee to that explanation." ("Creation: Believe it or Not--Part 2")

Fair enough. Science certainly has no place to rest outside of a theistic worldview, and Scripture itself is the only ultimate truth. But Scripture itself declares, "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handiwork" (Psalm 19:1). Theologians have historically agreed that there exists a "natural revelation" of God's existence in addition to Scripture, though such a knowledge merely renders us to be "without excuse" (Romans 1:20).

I would have to ask MacArthur and others who share his view if they believe in geocentricism. If not, on what basis would it be rejected, since a straightforward interpretation of Scripture would certainly support it? MacArthur gives us a clue to his answer when he quotes Edward Young on the "more poetical accounts of creation, such as Psalm 104":

"Genesis is not poetry. There are more poetical accounts of creation in the Bible, such as Psalm 104, certain chapters of Job, and they differ completely from the first chapter of Genesis. Hebrew poetry has certain characteristics and they are not found in the first chapter of Genesis." ("God: Creator and Redeemer")

To clarify, we "old-earthers" do not necessarily treat Genesis 1 as poetry; we just aren’t convinced that the days of creation were 24 hours days. In any case, while I fully agree that Psalm 104 is poetic, I must ask again how MacArthur and Young arrived at this conclusion. Are they not, in fact, using science to interpret Psalm 104:5?

To put their view into historical perspective, consider the following statement, written by Wilhelmus a'Brakel in 1700.

"The truth is that God states in many places in His Word that the sun is in motion, her circuit resulting in both day and night, and that the world remains both motionless and stationary. Nowhere does God speak to the contrary, ... Since God states it to be so, it is truth and we are to embrace it as truth. Is not God the Creator, maintainer, and governor of all things, who is much better acquainted with His own work than is man with his limited and darkened understanding? Should men not subject their judgment to the very sayings of God? Or should one attempt to bend and twist the clear declarations of God in such a way that they agree with our erroneous thinking? Whatever God declares, also concerning things in the realm of nature, is true. God says that the world is motionless and stationary, being circled by the sun, and thus it is a certain and incontrovertible truth." (Wilhelmus a'Brakel, The Christian's Reasonable Service. pp. 64-66)

a'Brakel was certainly a learned man for his day, and like today’s young earth creationists, sought to be faithful to the Scriptures. However, those who would actually hold to a'Brakel's geocentrism today are very few in number. Certainly, modern astronomy has affected our interpretation of Psalm 104:5. Should it not affect Genesis 1 as well? Free polls from Pollhost.com

Satan's Slaves

2008-07-03T21:57:00.001-04:00

He welcomes them to hell
(From Thomas Watson, "The Lord's Prayer")

"The prince of this world." John 16:11.

The devil has a kingdom. His throne is set up in the hearts of men. Satan does not care for their purses--but their hearts! Satan's empire is very large. Most people in the world pay tribute to him. His kingdom has two characters:

1. Satan's kingdom is a kingdom of IMPIETY.
Nothing but sin goes on in his kingdom. Murder and heresy, lust and treachery, oppression and division--are the constant trade driven in his dominions. He is called "the unclean spirit." Nothing else but iniquity is propagated in his kingdom.

2. Satan's kingdom is a kingdom of SLAVERY.
He makes all his subjects--slaves. The sinner is held captive under the grim tyranny of the devil!
Satan is a tyrant--and a worse tyrant than any other!

Other tyrants do but rule over the body: but Satan rules over the soul! He rides his captives--as we ride upon horses. Other tyrants have some pity on their slaves. Though they make them work in the galleys; yet they give them food, and let them have their hours for rest. But Satan is a merciless tyrant--who gives his slaves poison instead of food, and hurtful lusts to feed on! 1 Timothy 6:9. Nor will he let his slaves have any rest--he wearies them out to do his drudgery. "They weary themselves to commit iniquity." Jeremiah 9:5. When men have served him to their utmost strength--he welcomes them to hell with fire and brimstone! Thus he is the worst of tyrants.

Men are willing slaves to Satan! They will fight and die for him! Therefore he is not only called "the prince of this world," but "the god of this world" (2 Corinthians 4:4), to show what power he has over men's souls.

O let us pray that "they may come to their senses and escape the Devil's trap, having been captured by him to do his will." 2 Timothy 2:26.

Examining Baptist Misunderstandings Concerning the Covenants

2008-06-07T00:18:00.008-04:00

I may be too busy to open this particular can of worms now, but...

There have been some interesting blog debates recently concerning the subject of infant baptism. (See here, and a whole series on the subject here).

One encouraging sign is that more and more Baptists are coming to the realization that Baptism is to the New Covenant what Circumcision was to the Old Covenant. Colossians 2:11-12 spell that out pretty clearly. The difference now, it appears, is the nature of the covenants themselves and who was included in them. While I have no hopes of settling this 400 year old debate this side of eternity, I thought that it would be worthwhile to examine some of the objections that have been offered concerning the inclusion of children and infants into the New Covenant.

1.) Judas at the Supper, but Not Included in the New Covenant.
This is a correct observation, but doesn’t adequately explain why Judas was presented the Lord’s Supper. Jesus very clearly established the Lord’s Supper as the continuing sign of the New Covenant (Luke 22:20), and proceeded to give it to one (Luke 22:21) that He acknowledged was “a devil”(John 6:70). Likewise, Simon Magus (Acts 8:13) was baptized by Peter, yet was unregenerate (Acts 8:20-23). Just stating that these men were not in the New Covenant does nothing to support the Baptist argument, but does just the opposite. They are faced with the reality that two men in Scripture were given the sign and seal of the New Covenant who, by their own admission, were not part of the New Covenant. Since this is a biblical reality, why would we exclude the holy children of believers from this practice?

2.) There are no specific verses in the Bible commanding infant baptism.
This is both presumptuous and arbitrary. It is presumptuous because of the thousands of baptisms that occurred in the New Testament, such as the 3,000 baptized on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:41), no age is given for the object of Baptism. While it’s fair to state that Paedobaptists have no basis for assuming that any of these 3,000 were infants, it is equally true that Credobaptists have no basis for assuming that all 3,000 were professing adults.

It is arbitrary because the “specific verse” standard is selectively applied. Most churches who reject infant baptism have no problem holding a “baby dedication service”, despite the fact that there is no scriptural warrant for such practice. There are no examples in Scripture of women partaking of Communion, yet allowing such today is all but a universal practice.

The commandments to go and baptize are sufficient enough to warrant infant baptism. It is up to the Baptist to show why the holy children of believers (1 Cor. 7:14) should be excluded from this commandment. I dare say that “there are no specific verses in the Bible forbidding infant baptism.”

3.) Going to Church Doesn’t Put You in the New Covenant.
Again, a true statement, but it was equally true in the Old Covenant. While the Baptist hopes to use this observation to establish that the New Covenant was only for the elect, he fails to see that the Old Covenant was only for the elect also. Just having the DNA of Abraham did not put a person in the Old Covenant.

“…For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, …" (Romans 9:6-7)

Yet it cannot be denied that the sign and seal of the Old Covenant was given to infants (Genesis 21:4), despite the fact that this Covenant was only for the elect. Why change it in the New Covenant? Both the Abrahamic Covenant and the New Covenant are prone to admitting false converts. Just as the Old Covenant had it’s Esau, the New Covenant had it’s Judas. Neither were in Covenant with God, yet both were given the sign.

4.) Paedos equate those in the new covenant with the visible church, and Credos equate those in the new covenant with the body of Christ.
Again, this is not true. Paedos equate the New Covenant with the elect, just like the Old Covenant. The Credo, on the other hand, wants to reserve the sign and seal of the New Covenant for the elect only. This, of course, results in quite a few problems. First of all, if this assumption is true, then we could never rightly baptize anyone. How do we determine if a candidate for baptism is truly elect, for that ultimately is the credobaptist standard? How do we know if a profession of faith is genuine? If salvation (referring to those within the Bride of Christ) is the prerequisite for baptism, then how do we determine who is a member of this bride? If the answer is that merely a profession of faith is what is required for adult baptism, then one must agree with the covenantal view of the visible church. If not, then what?

Second, it is clear from Scripture that the signs and seals of the New Covenant were applied to unsaved people in the visible church, which I have already noted.

Thirdly, Baptist theology fails to adequately explain the fact that God views the children of believers as “holy”, whereas the children of pagans are “unclean” (1 Cor. 7:14). What does the term “holy” mean here, if not being set apart in the New Covenant? While Baptists make the assumption that a profession of faith is evidence of regeneration, the Paedobaptists makes the assumption that the children of that household are elect as well, for they are God’s children up until the time when and if evidence shows otherwise. Of course, it’s quite possible for both assumptions are wrong, but I’m waiting for the Baptist argument to show how we can truly know who is among the elect.

5.) "Circumcision was applied to babies in the Old Covenant, because they were in the Old Covenant, as it was with the physical nation of Israel. But the New Covenant is made with individual believers of the Spiritual nation of Israel."
As I demonstrated earlier, the Old Covenant was not given to the physical nation of Israel, but to the elect only. And again, how do we determine who is a member of the Spiritual nation of Israel?

6.) The New Covenant “is not conditional and performance based like the Old Covenant with the physical nation of Israel.”
This was a surprising statement from a Calvinist brother. I won’t presume what he meant by “performance based”, but the Abrahamic Covenant was never based on works. The only Covenant that was based on works was the Adamic Covenant, and even that covenant was full of grace and sealed by the work of God Himself. Besides, the Scriptures are quite clear that God chose Jacob over Esau “in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call” (Romans 9:11). Furthermore, Abraham himself “…received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith…” (Romans 4:11). The Doctrines of Sovereign Grace are not just a New Covenant Reality, and neither should the sign and seal of that grace be denied to the children of believers.

7.) The New Testament pattern is that Baptism is performed only on those who have professed their faith.
Correction: The New Testament pattern is that Baptism is performed on those who have professed their faith, as well as their entire households (Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33-34, Acts 18:8, 1 Corinthians 1:16), just like the Old Covenant. In particular, Acts 16:34 has been the object of some questionable renderings, but the correct translation suggests that the entire household of the Philippian jailor was baptized, because “he had believed in God”. While it may be possible that all of his household consisted of professing adults, it is quite clear that the basis for their baptism was his own belief in God.

In conclusion, Baptist theology cannot seem to make the case as to why children in the New Covenant should be treated any differently than those of the Old Covenant. If they insist that Baptism should only be performed on the elect, then they must offer a better method of determining who the elect are other than that of a profession of faith and being born in a Covenant household.

Check out the Baptism debate between James White and William Shishko.

Part I

Part II

Ten ways to help the American Church cease to stink

2008-06-02T12:10:00.005-04:00

OK, some of these may be a bit over the top, but I have to give a hearty "AMEN!" to his descriptions.

From The Detergent Church: Salt and Light or Slop and Tripe? by Doug Giles.

1. Get men who dig being rowdy back in the pulpit.

2. Could we have some sound doctrine, por favor?

3. Preach scary sermons (at least every fourth one).

4. Get rid of 99.9% of “Christian” TV.

5. Quit trying to be relevant and instead become prophetic contrarians, I’m talking contra mundus, mama!

6. Put a 10-year moratorium on “God wants you rich” sermons (yeah, that’s what we need to hear nowadays, you morons, more sermons about money, money, money!).

7. Embrace apologetics and shun shallow faith.

8. Evangelize like it’s 1999.

9. Push lazy Christians to get a life or join a Satanic Church. (Ouch!! I said some of these were over the top).

10. Demand that if a Christian gets involved in the arts that their “craft” must scream excellence and not excrement.

I could add many more, but this is a good starting point.

Calvin's Rules of Prayer

2008-05-28T20:18:00.003-04:00

Being raised in a church culture that promoted God's servititude to man's prayers, I have found these rules to be most helpful in effectively praying while honoring God's most wise and determinant counsel.

1.) First, reverence to God. “Have our heart and mind framed as becomes those who are entering into converse with God”. All giddiness of mind must be excluded, and all our feelings seriously engaged. This confirmed by the form of lifting the hand in prayer. We must ask only in so far as God permits. To help our weakness, God gives the Spirit to be our guide in prayer. What the office of the Spirit in this respect. We must still pray both with the heart and the lips. Ask only in so far as God permits, not according to foolish and depraved affects.

2.) Second, a sense of our want. Truly feel our wants, seriously consider what we ask (not perfunctory, and have an ardent desire of receiving them. This rule violated
a. By perfunctory and formal prayer
b. By hypocrites who have no sense of their sins.
c. By giddiness in prayer.

3.) Third, the suppression of all pride. Divest oneself of all vain thoughts, lay aside all sense of self-worth, and pray seriously and earnestly. Advantage of thus suppressing pride. It leads to earnest entreaty for pardon, accompanied with humble confession and sure confidence in the Divine mercy. This may not always be expressed in words. It is peculiar to pious penitents. A general introduction to procure favour to our prayers never to be omitted.

4.) Fourth, Pray with a sure hope of succeeding --a sure confidence of being heard animating us to prayer. The kind of confidence required, viz., a serious conviction of our misery, joined with sure hope. From these true prayer springs. How diffidence impairs prayer. In general, faith is required. This faith and sure hope regarded by our opponents as most absurd. Their error described and refuted by various passages of Scripture, which show that acceptable prayer is accompanied with these qualities. No repugnance between this certainty and an acknowledgment of our destitution.