One Very Good Reason For The Rising Popularity of John Piper

I am acquainted with numerous non-Calvinists who are baffled by the rising popularity of Calvinism, and almost all of them believe that John Piper is responsible in a large part. Watch this video for a taste of Piper's approach. It may help some to understand the beauty of the Calvinistic worldview, and its holistic, fulfilling, God-centered worldview. Mark Driscoll posted this video on his Resurgence blog, but I liked it so much, I just had to share it here.



I want this for myself, and for those around me.

Tyndale and Original Languages

In the Church today there is little desire to learn the original languages of the Bible. Though a love for Greek and Hebrew is not John Pipers main point is this lecture on William Tyndale, it is a point that comes through with power and passion. I would recommend this lecture to all who love and cherish the Word of God.

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 False Revival vs. Kandalini Yoga

This video compares the behavior of those in the false revival with the practices of this weird style of yoga. It's pretty striking, I think.

The Pleasure of Disagreeing With Movies

I'm currently in the process of finishing an article which (I hope) Reformation 21 will be running in the future about watching films to the glory of God. One surprising theme which is emerging in my writing is the incredible privilege we have to hear points of view which we disagree with. This happened in St. Paul's time on Mars Hill in Athens as often as the philosophers and religious leaders would meet. It still happens every day on the internet, it occurs whenever religious thinkers meet together to debate with one another, it happens when arminians and teetotalers read this blog, and it even happens when we go to the movie theater.

What got me thinking about this again is that my wife and I decided to watch the movie Contact, starring Jodie Foster; now I had seen this movie a hundred years ago, back when I was an atheist. I remembered greatly enjoying it and finding it a great reinforcement to my already skeptical worldview. Now, however, I see the movie as being full of horrible arguments and misrepresentations of a more robust and complex Biblical worldview than the filmmakers were willing to offer forth as its own counterpoint.

One of my favorite quotes from the film is from Ellie: [Referring to Ockham's Razor] "So what's more likely? That an all-powerful, mysterious God created the Universe, and decided not to give any proof of his existence? Or, that He simply doesn't exist at all, and that we created Him, so that we wouldn't have to feel so small and alone?"

Interestingly, Carl Sagan (the author of the story the movie is based on) has invented alien species in the film so humans don't have to feel so small and alone. Consider this quote from the alien who meets with Ellie in the machine: "You're an interesting species, an interesting mix. You're capable of such beautiful dreams and such horrible nightmares. You feel so lost, so cut off, so alone, only you're not. See, in all our searching, the only thing we've found that makes the emptiness bearable is each other." So couldn't we just as easily turn the tables of Ockham's razor and ask the question whether the aliens don't exist at all, and that we created them, so that we wouldn't have to feel so small and alone?" It seems likely.

Actually, I have no problem with the existence of aliens. I believe that if they do exist, they will have been created by God, and therefore answerable to Him. I grew considerably more open minded about the compatibility of God's existence and extraterrestrial life since reading C.S. Lewis' space trilogy, but this is all a moot point.

On the subject of disagreeing with movies, I saw Wall-E on Friday with my wife and daughter, and thought it was a delightful movie which I recommend to everyone. I only wish I could disagree with Pixar's seemingly grim and horrifying dystopian future for Earth. Once I saw the space ship full of massively overweight white Americans living without the use of their muscles, I knew they were spot-on pessimists, just like me. The horrific dystopia which Wall-E presents actually rivals other dystopian visions (such as Children of Men or even Orwell's 1984) in terms of sheer realism and terror. With the exception of Mike Judge's brilliant Idiocracy, I don't know if I've ever seen a darker vision for humanity's future wrapped in such sweet, well-made candy coating. And yet I call it delightful; that probably tells you more about me than it does about the movie.

My Turn For a U2 Post

Master Stellman may have claimed the honor of biggest U2 fan involved with Bring the Books (Josh certainly isn't in the running). Though this post will probably not be a successful bid, it is, I am afraid, my own attempt at throwing my hat into the U2-loving race. Rather than write something original or insightful about my favorite U2 album (Achtung, Baby!), I instead want to share an interesting quote from Bono about the struggle to stay faithful to his wife, Ali, while he was out on the road - particularly during the rather riotous Zoo TV tour:

But it's not easy to deal with money, it's not easy to deal with fame, it's not easy to deal with women throwing themselves at you, even being married, perhaps especially being married. No matter how strong you are, no matter how upright, these are real hurdles that you have to figure out how to get over. I will never forget the time Adam saw me in a headlock with some starlet and said to me, "It's fun. It's exciting having sex with someone you don't know. Don't let anyone tell you it isn't. It's a great adventure getting to know somebody. But as rare as it is to fall in love, it's not as rare as real love, I will die for you love, I will be there when you're sick and when you're frail love. Now that's rare. I would give everything, all these experiences that I'm having, all these different and extraordinary women, I'd give them all up for what you have." I remember Adam telling me that. And if there was one reason for having him as best man at my wedding, that was it, that one conversation.

I can't speak from my own experience, since I literally married the first woman I ever dated, but the more I observe people around me, the more I think Adam Clayton's words to Bono are true. I am surrounded by people who are single, and they're looking for love, and they're discontended being alone. And these people compromise themselves, they sleep with their girlfriends, they date and they date and they date, and there is literally nothing but depression and regret. There is no real satisfaction in using God's gifts improperly, and I don't have to experience it for myself because I see it demonstrated for me day in and day out.

I try to avoid sentimentality as much as possible (irony provides a certain safety net), but the more I see the single people around me living promiscuously and settling for third best in their lives, and giving up on their standards and ideals, the more convinced I am that I am married to the greatest woman on the planet. The more convinced I become that marriage really works.

For Those Interested in 2K

There is an interesting conversation taking place between two bloggers I respect and love to read, Lane Keister of Green Baggins and our very own Jason Stellman. The discussion started with Lane's post on How to Avoid a Recession. This post prompted a response by Jason, Speaking Prophetically to the Church. After Jason's response, Lane wrote a Response to Jason. These are all relativly short posts. I would recommend reading them for anyone who is interested in understanding the Two Kingdoms idea in action.

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.

Jesus the Connoisseur: He Got That Party Kickin'

I am surrounded by people (this is absolutely true) who dismiss Jesus' making wine at the wedding of Cana as evidence of Jesus' approval of alcohol consumption, because they says that Jesus did not make alcohol, but rather, grape juice. On what basis do they deny the alcohol content of Jesus' brew? Their rationale ties into the statement of the man running the party. After trying Jesus' impressive batch of wine, this is what he says:

"Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: [but] thou hast kept the good wine until now."

Now, the rationale follows thusly:
A: Jesus made 120 gallons of wine, and if it was alcoholic, he would have been aiding in people getting drunk, because 120 gallons is a whole lot of drinkin'.
B: The "good wine" is non-alcoholic, because non-alcoholic tastes better than alcoholic.
C: Some argue that to make fermented wine would be no miracle at all, because new wine was harder to come by (since juice fermented quickly in the heat).

Well, in response to argument A, the moderationist agrees that Jesus would not have helped people get drunk, and so - assuming the wine really was alcoholic - there is no reason to suppose this was a small wedding. In fact, it must have been either very large, or Jesus intended to waste a massive quantity of drink. In either case, there is no reason to believe that Jesus was making wine for a small gathering.

In response to argument B, Jesus is in strong disagreement with the notion that non-alcoholic wine is thought to be the better wine. In Luke 5:39, Jesus declares that "No man also having drunk old [wine] straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better." Clearly, if the headmaster of the wedding thought Jesus' wine was better, his taste would be strange and out of step if he actually preferred new wine instead of old wine. And let me also say, he would not be much of wine connoisseur today, either. In fact, they probably wouldn't let him be a contributing writer for Wine Enthusiast magazine. Maybe he could be editor for Grape Juice Quarterly, but I hear their circulation is very small (not a whole lot of demand for grape juice enthusiasts, I suppose).

Finally, I can only say in response to argument C that turning water into alcoholic or non-alcoholic wine still looks like a miracle to me. After all, water doesn't just turn into a pinot noir on it's own.

Get over it, people: the Lord God Himself made 120 gallons of good, moderate drinking.

PS: Yes, I did have to look up the correct spelling of "Connoisseur."

The Unspeakable Horror Of Sin: A Question for Annihilationists

I was led to question the traditional belief in everlasting conscious torment because of moral revulsion and broader theological considerations, not first of all on scriptural grounds. It just does not make any sense to say that a God of love will torture people forever for sins done in the context of a finite life . . . It's time for evangelicals to come out and say that the biblical and morally appropriate doctrine of hell is annihilation, not everlasting torment.
-Clark Pinnock

Emotionally, I find the concept [of eternal conscious torment] intolerable and do not understand how people can live with it without either cauterizing their feelings or cracking under the strain . . . Scripture points in the direction of annihilation.
-John Stott

Sin manifests itself in a lot of horrifying ways in our world. Every time that a bomb drops, a police siren sounds, or a door locks behind someone, we are reminded that we live in a fallen world full of depraved people just like ourselves. I consider myself a pessimist in the short term and an optimist in the long-term (because God's glory is the ultimate reason for all of this), but even I am occasionally surprised by the wicked things that my fellow humans are capable of (and I try to expect everything from them).

Read this news story, if you can bear it. Personally, since I have a 2 year old, this story stirs something within me I never knew until fatherhood. I was just thinking that someone like this can never be treated as badly as he deserves. What can men do to him that would right the wrong which he has done to this poor innocent (albeit fallen) child? My answer is, nothing. "Do not fear those who kill the body and after that have no more that they can do. But I will warn you whom to fear. Fear him who, after he has killed has the power to cast into hell" (Luke 12:4–5). For Jesus, the suffering which men can cause to the body is nothing compared to what the infinite God is capable of. Temporal suffering will always end, one way or another. But, Jesus says, there is another kind of suffering which will literally never have a termination point.

The thought of it is too much to bear for some, as you see with the quotes from Pinnock and Stott, above. But would Stott and Pinnock still tremble when reflecting upon the suffering of those in Hell and individuals such as Sergio Aguiar (the man mentioned in the above story)? This is a man who mercilessly and savagely stomped his 2 year old son's tiny body until it was beyond recognition; the justice for something like that will literally never be filled up. I charge that those who deny the eternity of Hell minimize a) God's hatred of sin and b) the heinousness of sin. To devalue these two things is the only way to make a temporal hell make any sense (not even allowing for the overwhelming Biblical testimony which others are better equipped to deal with).

So which is it, annihilationists? Is Aguiar's crime not nearly as bad as I say it is, or am I simply not being understanding enough? In Heaven, I will not shed any tears for Aguiar, but I wish I could muster up some today, while my feet are still on the ground. They simply aren't coming.

The Unprofessional Beer Review: Calvinus Bière Artisanale Blonde Bio

A gift from one of my church elders upon his return from Geneva, Switzerland, this beer not only sports the image of Reformed Theology's elder statesman, but it bears instructions that it is to be consumed at "4° - 6° C even outside the hours of devotion." I don't want to hype this beer up too much, but I was a bit timid about trying it, considering how it was brought by hand from the Fatherland and it has the image of Calvin on it. But I had a home-grilled hamburger for dinner, and decided this was the right moment to break open this intimidating brew.

The initial appearance of the beer, once poured, is golden and cloudy with a nice half-inch head on it. Calvinus is lightly carbonated with small bubbles throughout. I didn't care too much for the smell of it, to be honest, but I was pleasantly surprised by the sweetness of it. There are strong hints of citrus and barley; I almost felt there was too much of a sweet/citrusy presence, really, but it also seems to have a lot of complex flavors going on that I am simply too inexperienced to identify. The aftertaste was very faint, and not at all bothersome. I remember remarking to my wife after drinking it that it didn't leave a stinky funk in my mouth like Guinness tends to do. All in all, it is very easy to drink and an extraordinary refreshment after a long day of hard work.

Writing about it makes me want to drink the second bottle I have saved, but alas, I'm saving that one until the world collapses around me or until Jesus returns and decides to have dinner with me before blowing everything up.

Forgiveness

I have, as of late, been doing a lot of thinking on the topic of forgiveness. There is a common idea in the world today that when a person is wronged he must simply "let go" and forgive the person who wronged them, regardless of the offenders actions or repentance. This idea of forgiveness has made its way into the Church. I cannot count the times I have been told to forgive so and so for something even when that person is still unrepentant over the wrong committed. I want to respond to this understanding of forgiveness by showing that: 1) God does not forgive this way and 2) God does not tell us to forgive this way.

It seems pretty basic that God forgives sinners based on condition. The most obvious one is the death of Christ. Christ had to die in order for God to forgive sinners. God did not, because he cannot, simply sweep sin under the proverbial rug. I think this condition will be without any objections. The next few conditions, however, might be.

Before I get into the next two conditions I want to make it very clear that I am a Reformed Christian who holds to all five solas of the Reformation. The reason I begin this way is because when I list the next two conditions for divine forgiveness, some might think I am going against the five solas. But to the contrary, I am in fact holding them up and putting them on display by affirming the next two conditions.

So what are these conditions? Simply put these conditions are faith and repentance. To my mind the Bible seems very clear that a sinner must repent and believe in Jesus Christ in order to be forgiven of sins. Luke 24 sets forth this idea, "Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem." Many more texts could be given to show that sinners must respond to the gospel in order for forgiveness to take place. After all, is this not the point of sola fide (through faith alone)? Indeed, we are justified through our faith alone.

Another qualification is in order. These two conditions, repentance and faith, are in no way meritorious. That is to say, the conditions do not in any way earn or merit forgiveness for the sinner. These conditions are gifts given by God to the sinner. However, these gifts are nevertheless conditions that the sinner meets to be forgiven. The sinner must exercise faith in Christ to be forgiven; the sinner must repent to be forgiven. Both of these are done by the sinner as preconditions (things that must happen before) for divine forgiveness.

With this short sketch of the conditional nature of divine forgiveness, we turn to a key text on personal forgiveness. Luke 17:3-4 speaks directly to the way Christians are to forgive. “Pay attention to yourselves! If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him, and if he sins against you seven times in the day, and turns to you seven times, saying, 'I repent,' you must forgive him.” The first thing of note from this passage is that the Christian posture should always be a readiness to forgive. As people who have been forgiven so much, we ought to be quick and ready to forgive. However, this text also points that there is a precondition to personal forgiveness (actually it gives a few), namely repentance. In other words, in order for true biblical forgiveness to take place, the offending party must repent of the sin committed. If true repentance takes place, then the Christian is obligated to forgive.

However, based on the divine example and the words of Jesus, a Christian is not obligated to - and I would argue cannot - forgive unless the person who has wronged them repents of the offense. This seems to be the teaching of the Jesus and the example set forth by God himself.

Sacraments and the PCA GA

This year at the PCA general assembly there was a culoquium (an academic "get-together") on the Sacraments. The audio for all five sessions can be found here. All and all the papers that were given were good (a few points that I did not agree with, but they were addressed in the Q & A time) and the atmosphere was very Christ exulting.

During the Question and Answer section of the culoquium Dr. Ligon Duncan made a passing remark about the nature of the sacraments. He said that the sacraments, baptism and the Lord's supper, are not "justificational;" rather they should be understood as "sanctificational" (as a side note, one of the coolest things about theologians is the fact that they get to make up new words!). This language and understanding of the sacraments is a good way to understand the efficacy (the "working-ness") of the sacraments. However, some do not think the sacraments are "simply concerned with 'sanctification.'"

Those who want to understand the sacraments as more than sanctification agree that there is an aspect of justification to the sacraments.

Baptism does not just convey the message of “You are holy.” It does not only say, “You are set apart from the world.” It also says, “Your sins are forgiven.” So too with the Eucharist. “This is my body, broken for you.” “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for the remission of sins.”

Those are “justificational” ideas.

The problem, as I understand it, with this view is it misses the role of justification in our sanctification. If you notice in the argument that our "sins are forgiven." This is in the past. In other words, baptism reminds us, if we have faith and repent of our sins, that we are forgiven. This is not properly understood as justification, but rather as reminding us of our justification, which is sanctification. It seems to me to be misunderstanding that fact that part of sanctification is being reminded, daily, that we are justified. This is not the same thing as saying that sanctification has aspects of justification in it. It is right to say that these are "justificational" ideas, but it still remains that the the sacraments are dealing with sanctification, and not justification proper.

All New Column: Listen To a Nerd Complain

Ladies and gentlemen, I submit to you that a great tragedy has descended upon those of us in the Western world who enjoy the immense privileges of Cable TV, the internet, Big League Chew, and the George Foreman grill. What is this tragedy, you ask? What could so compel me to rise up in righteous indignation on behalf of my silently ashamed but nonetheless inflamed army of dorky brethren? I will tell you: the tragedy is that we have to wait until 2009 for the final half of season four of Battlestar Galactica. We waited one year for them to complete only ten frakking episodes? You've got to be kidding me. And now we must wait another year to see the final ten episodes? It's almost unbelievable.

[*Spoilers ahead; don't say I didn't warn you*] Setting my fury aside, I found the last episode of the summer season (which just aired on Friday) to be totally fulfilling, and entirely shocking. It leaves me wondering just where the show will be going, now that they have found the destination they have been seeking for the nearly four seasons this show has been on the air. I must confess, I did not personally expect such a pessimistic conclusion for this chapter of the show, but it does leave me wondering:

-Is it possible that humanity located to somewhere on the planet besides where the fleet landed?
-Could humanity have moved to other planets, such as Mars?
-Or could the humans of Caprica actually be descendants of Earthling explorers who left Earth after it became uninhabitable (which would mean the entire show takes place thousands of years in the future from present-day)?

One little bright spot I think we should all reflect on regarding the long break before the show resumes: take this time to get your friends into this amazing show before it comes back on the air.

Unrelated Postscript: I just received an incredible gift from one of my church elders. Two bottles of Calvinus beer, which were purchased while he was in Geneva, Switzerland. I sense that these are hard to come by in the states, and I am feeling too intimidated to drink them. They may just have to sit in my refrigerator like a pair of unapproachable trophies until I have the courage to break their seals and see what sorts of sundry delights these precious bottles might contain. Any recommendations on foods I should eat, perhaps days in advance, in order to cleans my palette and prepare me to do these beers proper justice when the time for tasting comes around? Any input is appreciated, because I thought I was ready for this, but I am not yet even close in my beer tasting experience to deserve to open a bottle with the image of Calvin himself on it.

Van Pelt on Canon and Covenant

As most of our readers know, I was in Washington D.C. last week for a class on exegesis taught by Dr. Miles Van Pelt. During part of this class Dr. Van Pelt gave his lectures on the Canon and the Covenants. These lectures are fantastic. You can hear him give this lecture at Biblical Training.org. Pay particular attention to the Old Testament section to hear him on this topic. You have to register before you can download the lectures, but it is fast and, best of all, free. I highly recommend these lectures. They give a great framework for understanding the overall theme and structure of the Bible.