Concerning Prophet Fatigue

There's been a video circulating in Christian circles that is funny and at the same time calls out someone's erroneous teaching. It has 1.8 million views, and picks on a popular teacher. You know what's coming... a lecture on humility.

Every time that something sweeps through the Reformed blogosphere, whether it be the video of Bill Cosby telling Victoria Osteen what he thinks of her senseless babbling, or whether it's respectfully reported news of Mark Driscoll stepping down for a short period of time at Mars Hill, the response is predictable. A few days after the social media life-cycle has run its course, the humility contests begin. Blog post after blog post, social media post after social media post from guys who want you to remember that even if you do have good theology you're still no better than Victoria Osteen or even arguing that Christians are keeping people from coming to Christ with our public mockery of error when it happens.

There is almost a cottage industry of guys whose seeming job is to give everyone a lecture soon after any stretch of time when error gets publicly called out. Calling out the guys who call others out is a predictable (and absolutely ironic) part of the life cycle of any controversy in modern theological discourse, and I must confess, I'm fatigued by it.

We should want to be balanced in how we respond to errors within the Christian community, and I don't want to be known as a nasty old grump any more than the person next to me does. I also understand the desire of some to create balance in the world. After all, there's nothing classy or winsome about a dog-pile. We also do know that there are people out there who are just downright mean and give the healthy well balanced folks a black-eye. At the same time, in the book of Acts, after Paul called out Peter for his destructive decision to give the Judaizers the time of day, Paul didn't sit down and go, "Now listen, everyone. I know that was some nasty business back there, but let's just remember that we're all Judaizers deep down, etc..."

We get it, we get it... you're very humble and you want us to be as humble as you are. And someday we'll hopefully get there. But in the meantime, remember that in our own day and age, it's hard to be one of the "Truth Guys." Not only is it tremendously counter-cultural to care about truth (at all!) or to call out error, but when you do so you often risk get sniped by your very own or accused of pride. Just remember, "Humble Guys," you're no better than the "Truth Guys" when you call them out for calling others out.

The "Hot Mess" of Modern Day Prophecy

I'm glad that Stephen Altrogge wrote his latest blog post over at The Blazing Center. The post is titled "How the Heck Does Modern Day Prophecy Work?" and the reason I appreciate the post is not that I am a Charismatic and want to know the best way to hear from the Lord. I am decidedly un-Charismatic and already know how to hear from the Lord (hint: the Spirit working through the Word). The reason I appreciate the post is that it is absolutely clear, and to a fault. I say to a fault because the post makes plain the agonizingly obvious problems with a form of prophecy in a protestant context that insists on retaining the principles of sola scriptura.

"Prophecy Is Not New Revelation About God"
Altrogge is trying to be balanced. He insists, in order to safeguard sola scriptura, that "Prophecy is never, ever, ever new revelation about God." Commendable. But what is it, then? Altrogge: "[M]odern day prophecy is God-given insight into specific circumstances which could not be known otherwise and which in turn enables a person to bring God’s word to bear on those circumstances."

Notice that he says it is not new revelation about God. But it must be new revelation from God. As I understand it, men like Wayne Grudem don't even like using words like "revelation" to refer to these "insights," (he insisted on this, repeatedly, in a public debate with Richard Gaffin some years ago) and one could certainly understand why. In a protestant, sola scriptura context, if you say that you've received new revelations from God, you're going to get punched in the nose by Martin Luther (with every other non-Anabaptist, Marcionite, or Montanist standing in line behind him). If you try to stop them by saying, "No, no, no... I did receive a new revelation from God, but it wasn't about Him, it was about me," they're still probably not going to pull their punches.  Altrogge is being careful, but not careful enough. And even if I try to be charitable and say, "Okay, it's not 'revelation,' I'll just call it 'insight' for the sake of discussion," this doesn't seem to help things much. After all, he's still hearing new words that were "not known otherwise" (how is this not Ἀποκάλυψις?) from a God who has already given his moral will and committed it absolutely and infallibly in the writings of the Apostles and Prophets. The maneuvers in place here to safeguard sola scriptura are absolutely inadequate.

What's The Point?
But even the practical results of this sort of attempted half-measure prophecy end up being impractically unhelpful. He gives the example of a woman who had a vision, and the vision ended up showing Altrogge, during a particularly difficult and tumultuous period, that "God will lead us one step at a time exactly where we need to go." Now, I am happy that Altrogge found something helpful or edifying on a personal level from this, but I am absolutely confused how someone would not learn the same principle from Scripture? Or from common experience? This woman did not need to come to them with the authority of God behind her for them to know that God doesn't tell us everything we need to know at once. The Bible says "thy word is a lamp unto my feet," not that it is a lamp unto "the road that leads ever onward." My point here is not to demean this person or the value that hearing this had for Altrogge, but simply to say that if this is the best that "modern day prophecy" can do for the church, then it would be better to just learn Scripture better (reading Deut. 29:29 ought to do the job) or pick up Poor Richard's Almanac once in a while. He even seems to understand this in a later section of his post when he says, "I don’t make major life decisions based on prophecy, I make major life decisions based upon the Bible." What good is a prophecy that you can't even take seriously? I mean, seriously!

"Prophecy Is Not Infallible"
Elsewhere, he speaks of the fact that prophecy is not infallible. He says that "If a person prophesies something which contradicts the clear revelation of God’s word I immediately discard it as false." That's a great principle. But what about prophecies that don't clearly contradict God's word? I remember clear as day, I had a friend who played for me a cassette tape of a recording from his church. In this recording, a "prophet" was speaking a prophecy over my friend and his wife. Their marriage was on the rocks. She had cheated on him, he had tried and tried to repair their marriage for years, and they needed encouragement. I listened to the audio of this prophecy, and this man, claiming to speak for God, told them that God was going to draw them back together and that God was going to repair their marriage and use her to minister to women all over the world. It has been 12 years since that prophecy. They are divorced, he is remarried, living on the opposite side of the country from his ex-wife, and she is carrying on a decade-plus long affair with a married man. The prophecy could not have been more wrong. He is remarried. Their marriage is over. In Israel they would have thrown rocks at that "prophet" until his brain stopped telling lies. What good is simply holding a prophecy up to Scripture in order to decide if it is true or not? Here's the answer: It isn't. Simply not contradicting Scripture is not the same thing as speaking truth on behalf of God.

Another problem with this principle that prophecy is not infallible is in the principle itself. Just say it out loud: "Prophecy is not infallible." The principle is not "We don't always know, perfectly whether God is speaking in a particular instance." The principle is that "prophecy is not infallible." Think about it: "Words from God can be wrong." And then he does the same thing I have heard Wayne Grudem say: that Agabus made a false prophecy in Acts 21:10-12. This is a nightmarishly uncharitable reading of Agabus' prophecy. It is far more charitable to understand Agabus' words as being a conditional prophecy (of which there is certainly precedent in Scripture) and not a wrong prophecy from a true prophet (of which there is certainly no precedent in Scripture).

Another problem with this principle is that it posits Agabus as using this newer form of "fallible prophecy" before the Apostolic era of spiritual gifts has ended. Even Altrogge sees a difference between prophecy "back then" and "modern day prophecy." And yet he is treating Agabus, in his failed prophecy, as if he were a modern prophet coming up to someone after church for a word of "insight." Agabus is called "a prophet," not merely an average Christian who sometimes gets a bit of insight here and there. As mentioned before, for a prophet to prophecy wrongly would have meant getting stoned (and not in the Bob Dylan sense of the word). We know when the food laws were done away with (Acts 10), but when does Altrogge (or Grudem for that matter) think the bar for prophecy was dropped so embarrassingly low?

Concluding Thoughts
I like Altrogge. I read his blog. I prayed for him during his transition from being a pastor. I care about him and respect him. But let's face it: this modified form of prophecy that has been toned down to conform with sola scriptura is an inadequate half-measure. It neither benefits the church, has precedent in Scripture, nor safeguards the sufficiency of Scripture. In fact, in order to establish its own precedent it has to say that God can inspire wrong prophecy.

Christopher Hitchens the Van Tillian?

Debates between atheists and Christian apologists have come a long way. I remember a few years ago hearing the debate between Greg Bahnsen and Gordon Stein and thinking, "Geez, Stein doesn't even understand the argument that is being put forth!" A few years later, I listened to Doug Wilson's debate with Dan Barker and thought exactly the same thing.

Fast forward to 2008. Doug Wilson, a Van Tililan Presuppositionalist tours the country debating atheist Christopher Hitchens. Spending lots of time debating, Hitchens is exposed repeatedly to the transcendental argument.

Fast forward to February of 2009. Hitchens debates William Lane Craig at Biola University. What strikes me about Hitchens' opening remarks is that Hitchens must have gained the profoundest respect for Doug Wilson, because he implements - albeit somewhat sloppily - a form of presuppositionalism into his attack against Craig. At the 6:40 mark in the video, Hitchens begins to set forth his argument against the theistic worldview, but he almost seems to be using the presuppositional method to show Bill Craig that his evidentialist approach is inadequate and inconsistent.

According to Hitchens, "Retrospective Evidentialism is a concession made to the need for fact. 'Maybe we need to have some evidence to go along with our faith.'" He is using presuppositionalism to show that Craig still presupposes the truthfulness of the theistic worldview in his critique. All Craig had to do was turn the tables and address Hitchens' own presuppositions, which Hitchens concedes a number of times during the debate. Hitchens is apparently determined not to commit what Greg Bahnsen called in his debate with Gordon Stein the "Pretended Neutrality Fallacy." Unfortunately, Craig lets these opportunities for engagement pass him right on by, instead opting for his specialty.

Hitchens is absolutely right in his critique of Craig's evidentialism, of course. It is this extraordinary interaction which has left me somewhat surprised. I know that for some this brief discussion by Hitchens might not seem like much. But to me, it's remarkable to see presuppositionalism pass from being misunderstood and written off by atheists as "a non-argument" (as Stein put it) to now being given the nod during the course of debates with evidentialist apologists.

Sadly, the rest of the debate did not touch on the inconsistency of Craig's apologetic methodology. By granting the atheist his autonomy, Craig by his method has given all of the ground to Hitchens and then spends the rest of his time attempting to show that God can, in fact, measure up to the atheist's expectations of the universe and that they can both stand in the same place. What a profound contrast to his interaction with Doug Wilson as chronicled in Collision.

Red Beetle is Up to it Again

I was looking around youtube today and ran across the following video titled "A Van Tilian's Analogical Testimony Before A Calvinist Elder" under the label "The Heresy Of Van Til." Red Beetle, the creator of his and other videos we have posted, mainly goes after Van Till's emphasis on the Creator/creature distinction. He argues that unless we know the exact same way God knows, we cannot know anything, even the gospel. Of cource I disagree with him on this, as you would have guessed, but even if I agreed with Red Beetle, why this is heresy, I do not know.



(Also, I am not sure why one of the guys is in a cage when he is examined for church membership? My church does not practice this, does yours?)

How Not to Apologize

Our readers will surely know that I am not an advocate of the Federal Vision, but this video is ridiculous. This is a prime example of how not to engage in a theological debate.

Trueman's Second Law

In a recent article on Reformation 21 by Carl Trueman, titled Is Hurt Mail the New Hate Mail, he lays out a principle that I, for one, know is true from personal experience. He calls this principle "Trueman's Second Law," which "would be formulated something like this: in any exchange of views, sooner or later one or more of the participants will describe themselves as hurt or in pain as a result of somebody else's comment; and at that point it is clear that they have lost the real debate."

He then goes on to expound his views on "pain" and "hurt."

I confess that I have a serious problem with all this alleged pain and suffering because these terms and associated words are, by and large, being used in vacuous and trivial ways. What, for example, should I do when I receive a note from someone who claims to be "hurt" by something I have written which she described as a "personal attack," despite the fact that I have never heard of her and was completely unaware of her existence until she chose to contact me? Now, I am no philosopher, but it would seem to be logically necessary for me to know of the actual existence of somebody before I can launch a personal attack upon them. Thus, to respond as this person did would seem to point to one of two possible explanations: she was a narcissist and thus incapable of understanding that articles written by another could possibly not be aimed at her; or (and frankly, more likely), she was clueless about controversial discourse and unable to separate critique of a particular viewpoint from a malicious attack on any person who might hold to said viewpoint.

After further discussion on the nature of "pain" and "hurt," he closes his article this this paragraph.

Expressions of hurt are too often really something else: cowardly attempts by representatives of a cosseted and self-obsessed culture to make themselves uniquely important or, worse still, to bully and cajole somebody they dislike to stop saying things they don't want to hear or which they find distasteful. My advice to such is akin to that of the counselor in the Bob Newhart sketch: Stop it! If somebody's writing or speaking hurts you, ask yourself "Why?", don't whine about the discomfort. Get a grip, get yourself some trousers, stop feeling sorry for yourself, and please, please, please, don't hide behind the aesthetic pietisms of the tiresome and clichéd `feel my pain while I process my hurt' posse. Have the backbone, have the decency - nay, have the honesty - to take your licks and move on, either to addressing the substance of the argument or to some area of endeavour that is, well, perhaps less painful and hurtful for you.

The Unprofessional Music Review: Derek Webb's Stockholm Syndrome

Apparently the long fight between Derek Webb and his record label, INO Records, has reached a conclusion. No sooner had I decided his album would never be released than I got an email from Webb stating that his new album Stockholm Syndrome was available for pre-order and immediate download (even though the album doesn't officially hit until Sept. 1). Being the loyal Webb fan that I am, I grabbed it up and want to share what I've heard with all of you.

First, for those unfamiliar with the controversy, here is what I have been able to ascertain about the album's controversial release. I should initially mention that Webb is no stranger to controversy. When his first solo album came out, some retailers refused to carry it because of the song "Wedding Dress," where he introspects: "I am a whore I do confess / I put you on just like a wedding dress" in reference to being covered by Christ. Some people apparently think "whore" is an inappropriate word.

Anyway, it has been a few years, but on May 12th, Webb sent the following to those of us on his email list:

"It seems I've finally found the line beyond which my label can support me, and apparently I've crossed it...At this point we're not sure when the record will come out and in what form. The majority of the controversy is surrounding one song, which I consider to be among the most important songs on the record …. Because of various legal/publishing issues we're having to be rather careful with how we do what we're going to do next."

The rumor was that Webb had written a song about the christian church's treatment and ostracization of homosexuals, and in the context of the song had used the truly forbidden "s-word" (all of this turned out to be absolutely true). Considering it too much for the label to handle, they refused to release the album without its being censored and Webb refused to release the album without the language, since he deemed it necessary for his artistic vision. Both Webb and INO were at an impasse, it seemed, until today when the news that the album was available for pre-purchase and download. Apparently, the album is now available in two versions: Webb's original uncensored version, and INO's cleaned-up retail version.

So how is the album? In my opinion, it is his finest work. Being a rock-n-roll man myself, I was a bit put off by the clearly experimental and electronic direction Webb has employed for this album. I'd almost call it a purely pop album if it didn't have so many splashes of Radiohead/Wilco-esque experimentalism to it. It took a complete listen through the album for me to be comfortable with this directional shift, and now I like it. Alot. Interestingly, the album veers between two seemingly distinct sounds - the digital and the analog - and marries them together very coherently.

A good example of this is the song "What You Give Up To Get It," where the digital drums initially launch the song into its full-blown beat before the hard-hitting bass guitar hits the mix. The production on the bass is such that you can almost hear the fingers snapping the bass strings, reminding you that this something beyond electronica. From time to time during the song you will be in the nitty-gritty drum-beat and then suddenly the song is awash in shimmering synths without sounding like a retro 80s throwback sound. Meanwhile, some of the songs struck me as being more hip-hop sounding. For example; track two is a song called "Black Eye," and I could swear the production sounded like it was done by famed DJ, Madlib.

So the album is experimental, in terms of Webb's back-catalog. But what are we in for lyrically? Well, thematically speaking, Derek is still a protest songwriter. By my own estimation, 10 out of the 14 songs on the album are protest numbers. The themes that he tackles are varied.

In "Freddie Please," Derek sings as a deceased homosexual watching a certain hateful reverend from Topeka protest at his funeral, lamenting, "Freddie Please/Why do you tell me you love me/When you hate me/Freddie Please." The same topic is up for discussion in "What Matters More" when Derek condemns the modern evangelical obsession with homosexuality: "You say you always treat others like you wanted to be/You must love being hated for your sexuality." This is the same song where Derek utters the terrifying "s-word," which was the source of so much controversy for his label. I'm not really interested in dialoguing on the whole question of whether profanity is ever acceptable in art, because I've already tread that ground several times before. However, if you're interested in someone's opinion that I happen to agree with, you can read someone else's post on Jeff Wright Jr.'s blog.

Webb also tackles the issue of the Christian and the state on the song "The State," where he laments the evangelical agenda attempting to marry church and state in an unholy matrimony. Webb seems to be saying in the song that people used to appeal to their neighbor's sense of morality and persuade them on the level of conscience, but now people try to pass laws enforcing goodness and morality. "There were no eyes/Up in the skies/Looking down into my bed/There was no government/Without our consent/That was the day before/I married my conscience to the state."

On "The Spirit vs. The Kick Drum," Derek deals with a cavalcade of contemporary problems in the church. On "false fire" in the church service:

I don't want the Spirit/I want the kick drum/I know how it works, so I'm not dumb/Like sex without love/Like peace without the dumb/I don't want the Spirit/You know I want a kick drum"

On contemporary hopes that God does, in fact, grade on the curve:

I don't want the Son/I want a jury of peers/Like lies without the truth/Like wine without the fruit/Like a skydive without the chute/I don't want the Son/You know I want a jury of peers"

On the love of God's benefits over the love of God himself:

I don't want the Father/I want a vending machine/Like heaven without gates/Like hell without flames/Like life without pain/I don't want the Father/You know I want a vending machine"

My opinion is that Derek Webb's songwriting has never been wiser or more tightly focused. I know that many in the church will be offended by what Webb has to say and by the way that he often says it, but he is dealing with a very conservative and very stuffy bunch of people who take a lot of shaking for them to wake up.

On the personal side of things, I am simply excited to have a theologically Reformed, politically libertarian singer/songwriter out there with whom I can consistently agree in nearly every controversial area and be entertained by. I hope there is a lot of interaction in the church because of Derek's album, and my hope is it will create more light than heat.

You can get the album from Derek's website.

The Shock Jock of the Evangelical World

In light of Mark Driscoll's recent sexual innuendos in his series on The Song of Songs titled The Peasant Princess, I have been pondering if Driscoll is the Howard Stern of the Evangelical world.

N.T. Wright on the Wrath of God

"The biblical doctrine of God's wrath is rooted in the doctrine of God as the good, wise and loving creator, who hates--yes, hates, and hates implacably--anything that spoils, defaces, distorts or damages his beautiful creation, and in particular anything that does that to his image-bearing creatures. If God does not hate racial prejudice, he is neither good nor loving. If God is not wrathful at child abuse, he is neither good nor loving If God is not utterly determined to root out from his creation, in an act of proper wrath and judgment, the arrogance that allows people to exploit, bomb, bully and enslave one another, he is neither loving, nor good, nor wise."

-N.T. Wright

HT: Sibboleth

Book Review: Tactics by Greg Koukl

For anyone who is familiar with Greg Koukl, they know that he is a very thoughtful man. This book is no exception. Tactics is basically a handbook on how to be an ambassador for Christ. It is broken up into two parts: The Game Plan and Finding the Flaws.

The first section deals primarily with an overview of his approach. The most helpful chapter is the one on the "Columbo Tactic." This tactic, named after the famous T.V. lawyer, is to ask questions. Asking questions in an evangelistic/apologetic situation will disarms the person you are talking to and help remove unneeded barriers and emotions. Further "[a]sking question enables you to escape the charge, 'You're twisting my words.'" Koukle provides different questions that will guide his reader in using the Columbo Tactic effectively.

The second half of the book deals with different ways to spot flaws in someone's arguments. One of my personal favorite tactics in the "Suicide" one. This tactic is uses to show that a particular view or argument is self-destruct, i.e. it kills itself. As a presuppositionalist, this is one argument and tool that I find extremely useful in discussions about the Christian faith. Koukl does a great job in illustrating just how to use this tool, which can be a powerful weapon when wielded properly.

This book is well written and easy to understand. I would have no problem handing this book to a new or young believe to equip them in sharing their faith. Koukl takes an evidentialist approach to apologetic, but that is not on the surface of every page and when it does come to the front, he does not linger on it for long.

Nestorianism and Gordon Clark

I have been in dialogue lately with many followers of or people who are at least influenced by Gordon Clark. I would like to start a blog series on dealing with the philosophical positions of Clark, specifically, his epistemology. However, before I begin a review of his theory on knowledge, I need to deal with a few issues that will clear the way for a clear conversation on these issues.

To lay all my cards on the table up front, I am squarely in the Van Tilian school of epistemology. As soon as a Clarkian hears this they want to throw the charge out that Van Til was a heretic (I know this because it has happened to me about 15 times) because of a comment he made about the Trinity. I do not believe that Van Til is a heretic and further, I think he is completely orthodox in his understanding of the Trinity. However, I do not wish to defend Van Til on this point here. Rather, what I want to do, is point out that Clark made many claims about the Trinity that are as troubling, if not more troubling, than Van Til's comment that God is three persons in one person. My goal in doing this is to disarm the Clarkian claim about Van Til by showing that Clark was not as "squeaky clean" on issues of the Trinity as the Clarkians let on.

In his book The Incarnation, Clark deal directly with the theological issues surrounding the second person of the Trinity becoming a man. After raising may valid questions that the Incarnation raises, Clark begins to answer these questions. It is in these answers that Clark allows his desire to be "logical" to lead him astray. "On the cross Jesus said, 'I thirst.' No Trinitarian Person could have said this because the three persons are pure incorporeal spirits and thirst is a phenomenon of the body" (Page 73). Notice that Clark claims that no Trinitarian person said "I thirst." However, Jesus made this statement. Thus, Clark concludes that Jesus must be both a human person and a divine person (he affirms the divinity of the Logos in earlier sections). This view of Christ being two persons is known as the heresy of Nestorianism. Clark know that he was flirting with the line between the orthodox understanding of the Trinity (which states that Jesus is only one divine person) and Nestorianism. "Some unfriendly critics will instantly brand the following defense of Christ’s humanity as the heresy of Nestorianism" (Page 75). Clark is right that people will call his view Nestorianism, because it is. However, notice Clark's use of the fallacy of poisoning the well when he says that those who will call his view Nestorianism are "unfriendly critics." Whether or not a person is friendly is irrelevant to the accuracy of labeling a view, if your view is Nestorianism, it is right to call it that.

I realize that this discussion is brief, however, that is the nature of a blog. But, I think that this post is sufficient to at least show that Clark made some troubling statements about the Trinity. I hope that this will disarm the ready response of the Clarkians to call Van Til a heretic and will allow us to discuss the merits and/or demerits of both Clark and Van Til's epistemology in the future.

The Upper Register Looked Upon on Me

I opened my email this morning and found my inbox flooded (well, for me it was flooded) with comments to a blog I wrote back in May, Federal Vision's Trajectory. Upon reading the comments I discovered that Lee Irons (who I mentioned in the post as an example) commented on this post on his blog, The Upper Register. I am grateful that a theologian of Irons caliber thought one of my posts was worth commenting on, even if it was to disagree with me. I have responded in the comment section of the original post, you can find my comments, as well as other's, by clicking here.

Can We Pray For Our Muslim Enemies?

The following is a short film about the Quran from a conservative Dutch filmmaker. Apparently this is a big deal that we can even see this, because he could find no one in Holland who would broadcast it, and it took him sometime to even find a website who would host the video.

These are our enemies. They are enemies of our Savior and enemies of the cross. After watching this video, I want you all to think about something very difficult: what does it mean to love our enemies? Can we bring ourselves to love people who hate us so much?

[Warning: The video has some disturbing images, and an even more disturbing ideology.]



"You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven" (Matthew 5:45). The calling to be a Christian is the calling to rise above the methods and hatred of our enemies. The message of Islam is in direct contrast to the content (i.e. grace) and the method of spreading (i.e. peace/love) the Gospel.

[As you can now see, Liveleak was pressured by threats and intimidation to remove this important example of free speech from the internet. Truly, we now live in a world where people cannot say what they feel in a public forum. Part of respecting the opinions of others is honoring their right to be heard, even when you disagree. Silencing them through threats of violence is no victory at all, because no hearts or minds have been changed. I am proud to belong to a religion which believes in causing change through affecting the heart and mind through arguments and persuasion; not through threats of violence.]

Calvin and Lent

ST. PAUL hath shown us that we must be ruled by the Word of God, and hold the commandments of men as vain and foolish; for holiness and perfection of life belongeth not to them. He condemneth some of their commandments, as when they forbid certain meats, and will not suffer us to use that liberty which God giveth the faithful. Those who troubled the church in St. Paul’s time, by setting forth such traditions, used the commandments of the law as a shield. These were but men’s inventions: because the temple was to be abolished at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. Those in the church of Christ, who hold this superstition, to have certain meats forbidden, have not the authority of God, for it was against His mind and purpose that the Christian should be subject to such ceremonies.

Then he goes on to say this:

Shall it then be lawful to observe what men have framed in their own wisdom? Do we not see that it is a matter which goeth directly against God? St. Paul setteth himself against such deceivers: against such as would bind Christians to abstain from meats as God had commanded in His law. If a man say, it is but a small matter to abstain from flesh on Friday, or in Lent, let us consider whether it be a small matter to corrupt and bastardize the service of God! For surely those that go about to set forth and establish the tradition of men, set themselves against that which God hath appointed in His Word, and thus commit sacrilege.

John Calvin
The Word Our Only Rule

Ecumenical Discussions

There are many, as of late, who think that unity in the Church should be found in the first four ecumenical councils. Besides the fact that this is arbitrary (why not the first five? Or the first three? Why only the first four?), it misses the point that the person and work of Christ can never be separated.

Allow me to explain. The first four ecumenical councils deal primarily with the person of Christ. That is, they develop who Christ is. Is he divine or human or both? What is his relation to the father? How many wills does the person of Jesus have? These are but a few of the questions that these ecumenical councils sought to answer.

Whereas, questions about his work (what he did) were given a cursory treatment in relation to the depths these councils went with the person of Christ. They did not develop the significance of the cross, for example. What was the death of Jesus for? Why did he have to die on a cross? Why all the blood? What is justification? What is propitiation? Most of these questions were not dealt with at these councils and if they are the answers are hardly as deep as the Christian Church needs them to be.

This raises the question, why are we to be united on the person of Christ and not on his work? Or even more fundamental, how can Jesus be separated into these parts? Sure we can make the distinction between the person (who he is) of Christ and the work (what he did), but we cannot separated them—they are two sides of the same coin. Those, I would submit, who try to find unity in the ecumenical councils are in fact separating Christ’s person from his work. Since we are to have unity (which I am a huge advocate for), I suggest that we have unity around the whole Jesus, his person and his work.

Gordon Fee in his new book, Pauline Christology, discusses this very point that Jesus cannot be broken into parts.

The attempt to extract Christology from Paul’s letters apart from soteriology is like asking a devout Jew of Paul’s era to talk about God in the abstract, without mentioning his mighty deeds of creation and redemption. Although one theoretically may theologize on the character and “person” of God on the basis of the revelation to Moses on Sinai, a Jewish person of Paul’s’ era would hardly imagine doing so. What can be know and said about God is embedded in the story in such a way that God’s person can never be abstracted out of the story. Whatever else, God is always “the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob.”

On the Death of Heath Ledger

I am not sure if this video has made its rounds on the blogs yet, if not, let me be the first to say that Fred Phelps does not speak for all Christians. In fact, I personally do not know of a single Christian that thinks and acts the way that he does.

Alright look, yes homosexuality is a sin. There I said it, however, there is NO biblical or moral reason to elevate this one sin above all other sins. Lying is a sin. Lust is a sin. Not loving your neighbor is a sin. I do not see the people from Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) holding up picket signs about these sins. Why not? Why are these people so one sided and out of balance?

We need to stand up for biblical truth. All Christians agree on this. However, we need to be as gentle as doves and as wise as serpents (Matthew 10:16). The people from WBC do not show either of these qualities. They are not gentle. I mean come on, picketing people's funerals. Talk about bad timing. And they are not wise. Using inflammatory language about homosexuals is not wise. All it does it put up walls and closes lines of communication.

Watch this video to see Fred Phelps being unwise and ungentle.

General Impressions

As the Christian blogoshpere gets bigger and bigger, I see that there is a trend, by many, to shy away from biblical exposition. People would rather deal with their views and argue about their thoughts, rather than go to the texts of our holy book. Even scarier is the fact that many explicitly state that they do not want to deal with the Bible.

For the life of me I cannot understand why a Christian would not want to wrestle with the text of Scripture in formulating and resolving differences in their theologies. Here at Bring the Books…we have had commentators state that they do not want to get into a proof texting war. On one level I agree with this. I do not want to throw a Bible reference out there and then have you throw two more and then I throw three more and so on. But I do want to give texts that prove my view (proof text). I want to show why the text in question does in fact teach the doctrine I am claiming it teaches. I want to give a solid historical-grammatical exegesis of the passage. I want to show that my view is the same as the authors. We cannot do this by arguing about our own thoughts or reasons. The only way to know what God things about this or that subject is to go to his Word.

On another blog I frequent, the author states that he rarely solves theological disputes by exegesis. He thinks that we need to resolve conflict on the level of our presuppositions. I agree that in a dispute our presuppositions often can be the reason for the dispute, but even if this is the case, are we not to get our presuppositions from the text itself? Are we not to let the Bible set the agenda? Should we not have the same presuppositions that the Bible has? The only way to do this is to go back to the text! Even if that means we have to get our exegetical tools dirty. Even if that means we have to set Calvin or Murray or Hodge to the side for a moment. Anyone who knows me, knows I have a high view of tradition and I value the fathers of our faith very much. But you do ultimately settle theological dispute by saying, “My theologian can beat up your theologian.” Or by erecting a balance scale and setting all the fathers on their perspective sides and see which side out weighs the other. As reformed Christians (reformed with a little “r,” those whose theological roots are in the Protestant Reformation) we need to remember sola scriptura. I am not arguing for solo scriptura (only the Bible), but I am arguing that the Bible is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice and we need to take our theological disputes to the text. Back to the Bible!, ought to be out battle cry.

The Federal Vision Heats Up

A recent blog article at the Green Bagginses points to some comments that James Jordan has made on this blog. Many of the comments by Jordan have been deleted, but a few are still there at the original site. Either way, Andy Webb from the Green Bagginses has them posted on his site.

Now, before reading anymore, you must read Jordan's comments. Some of them are so outrageous that my commentary will be of little help if Jordan's remarks are not squarely in view.

Go read it...

Did you read it???

Good, you can proceed.

There are two main thoughts that come to my mind in this situation. The first is that we have moved way beyond discussing the issues and have clearly moved into the ad hominem phase of this controversy. Now clearly not everyone involved in this controversy is 'throwing mud.' There are men on both sides of this issue who are handling this with great respect and integrity. One such man is Dr. Guy Waters. It seems that everyone feels like he is the 'whipping boy' of the TR's. At every turn people are taking shots at him. The recent article in the Westminster Theological Journal that reviews his book on the FV is a great example of this. But despite all the attacks against him, I have never heard, see or read him say anything negative about the so-called 'FV guys.' Sure he has said thing about their views, but there has never been one personal attack that I am aware of. I am sure that he has not said anything close to the level of James Jordon's most recent comments. I think that everyone in this debate could learn a few things from Dr. Waters. If you agree with his views or not, he has constantly shown Christian character throughout this controversy.

The second thought I have is that I am, on one level, glad that Jordan said what he did. Before you jump on me for this comment, let me explain. There are many on the FV side of this issue that seem to think (and the repeat over and over) that the TR's are the only ones 'throwing mud.' Clearly Jordan is not the first FVer to lower to this level, but those who are sympathetic to the FV always find a way to see their guys in a positive light and the TR's in a negative light. With these comments by Jordan, there is no way that they can be spun to not look like mud throwing.

Now given the big picture, I wish all sides, including Jordan, could carry this discussion on with Christian character. Remembering that the greatest of these is Love. When I first read Jordan's comments, I was truly saddened by them. I was saddened to see the discussion come to this level. But to Jordan's credit, it appears, that he did delete many of the comments. This may be the lowest point in the debate, but it could be on a up swing. We can only watch and pray.

Jonathan Edwards: Advice in Controversy

I am grateful to John Piper for including this quote from Edwards in his section on dealing with controversy in his new book The Future of Justification. This represents a delightful middle-ground which is surprisingly charitable. Maybe I've always just pictured Edwards as more of a hard-head than this:

How far a wonderful and mysterious agency of God’s Spirit may so influence some men’s hearts, that their practice in this regard may be contrary to their own principles, so that they shall not trust in their own righteousness, though they profess that men are justified by their own righteousness—or how far they may believe the doctrine of justification by men’s own righteousness in general, and yet not believe it in a particular application of it to themselves—or how far that error which they may have been led into by education, or cunning sophistry of others, may yet be indeed contrary to the prevailing disposition of their hearts, and contrary to their practice—or how far some may seem to maintain a doctrine contrary to this gospel-doctrine of justification, that really do not, but only express themselves differently from others; or seem to oppose it through their misunderstanding of our expressions, or we of theirs, when indeed our real sentiments are the same in the main—or may seem to differ more than they do, by using terms that are without a precisely fixed and determinate meaning—or to be wide in their sentiments from this doctrine, for want of a distinct understanding of it; whose hearts, at the same time, entirely agree with it, and if once it was clearly explained to their understandings, would immediately close with it, and embrace it:—how far these things may be, I will not determine; but am fully persuaded that great allowances are to be made on these and such like accounts, in innumerable instances; though it is manifest, from what has been said, that the teaching and propagating contrary doctrines and schemes, is of a pernicious and fatal tendency.

Jonathan Edwards, "Justification by Faith Alone" in Sermons and Discourses, 1934-1938, The Works of Jonathan Edwards, Vol. 19 [New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2001], 242.