Reformed Reasons

Modern Christianity’s Biggest Problem: It is too Easy!

2012-02-16T18:00:00.001-05:00

The biggest problem with Christianity in the present age is its lack of definiteness. What do I mean? I mean that saying you are a Christian is about as much meaning as saying you are political. When a person says they are a sports fan, the first question that comes to mind is, “What kind of sports fan?” Are you a football fan? Are you a professional or college football fan? You get the point. To say one is a sports fan tells you something, but not much more than that. Today, Christianity has become so broad in its definition that saying you are a Christian, in modern culture, here in the West at least, is nearly meaningless. Now, for those in other parts of the world, that may seem shocking. In many places on this little dot we call earth, calling yourself a Christian could get you killed. You see, in those places, when you say you are a Christian; that means something very specific. And in the Greco-Roman culture, and especially in Palestine, around the first and second century, it meant something very specific then as well.

What do I mean when I say that Christianity’s biggest problem is that it is too easy? Well, apart from a little hyperbole to arrest your attention, I mean that Christianity has become, for the most part, one of the world’s most undefined religions. There was a time that becoming part of the Christian group was the most radical thing a person could do. I can remember when I was a young teenager; even then, becoming a Christian was an extremely serious step. It meant that your life was going to be significantly different. It was a very big deal. Today, being a Christian is not really a big deal. Everyone is a Christian. Even people in other religions are Christians in the mind of some. When you think about it, it really is stupid, but that is the way things are in modern, American, western culture. What is the cure? Some say that we don’t need a cure. Some say we are making progress. You see, I work out in the real world. I am not hid in some seminary teaching future pastors how to exegete the text. I am not a full time pastor living a life predominately surrounded by the white walls of the church. Every day, I am down in the pits with people who unashamedly hate Christianity and are not shy about it, as well as with people who say they are Christian without having the first clue what a Christian is. I am with folks who are simply unregenerate men and women living their lives the best they know how – according to the lusts of their own heart. I have conversations with people all the time who say Christianity is a joke. Other people have the “to each his own” attitude. Some are downright hostile. However, most think they are Christian because they give Jesus a wink and a nod.

Christian Leaders – Pastors and Scholars

As with any other problem with followers, the blame can be assigned, to a large degree to the leaders. We have seminary professors teaching future pastors how to be pastors when they themselves do not believe the gospel. You can send a young man filled with enthusiasm about the rewarding work of the ministry off to seminary where he will be taught by lettered men who deny the virgin birth, a literal bodily resurrection, the miracle of the six-day creation, the exclusivity of Christianity, and the truthfulness of Scripture. These wolves work at seminaries who claim to be conservative. Moreover, the church does next to nothing about them. We treat these differences as small ancillary matters that we must navigate with kindness and respect. It is no wonder they produce the kind of pastors we see filling the pulpits today. The truth is we should them from the community once we discover their faith is false.

Pastors are just as bad and even worse than the professors who taught them. They view the ministry as a career. They see themselves as “in charge” of things. They love the attention people pay them. They love being the “go-to” person. They love their ability to influence people. It is a massive ego trip for them. Such is human nature. It is a nasty temptation with which they have to do. Yet, resist it they must. Many pastors spend their time working on their style, their delivery, their gravitas. They are not unlike previous political administrations that lead by straw poll. They try to figure out which way the political winds are blowing and that is how they make decisions. They are more concerned with fads and fashions than they are with true faith and godly living. They have tied their material possessions to their income which is tied to their ministry. And they are not willing to place those things are risk in order to defend that which is right and true and just. They deny Scripture, pervert dogma, invent programs, and do all they can to retain that which they have come to love: their status.

The Christian Community – The Scourge of the Church

Leaders and pastors who fail in their duty to preserve, promulgate and procure the truth of Scripture inevitably produce communities that do the same thing. They end up with members who reject that idea of an infallible Scripture. They deny the authoritative nature of the Bible. They reject the miracle truth-claims of the text. When Scripture threatens their lifestyle, the come up with numerous ways to contort and bend it just the way they need to in order to retain the comfort level they so enjoy. Today, Christians engage in homosexual relationship, they live together outside the bonds of marriage, they engage in sexual promiscuity without flinching arguing that God knows that no one is perfect. Christians are engaging in and supporting abortion on demand. They deny an eternal hell. They use language that would make many unbelievers blush without hesitation. They lie, cheat, steal, hate, slander, gossip and just about every other deviant behavior you can dream up. You see, these are no longer viewed as intolerable, ungodly acts of pernicious evil, but simply as imperfections that God understands.

Christian leaders and their communities no longer have the stomach to remove reprobates from among them. They no longer have such high regard for Christ and for His one true church that they are willing to keep her pure. Moreover, they do not love those caught in sin enough to actually give them the real medicine that makes a real difference in their life. You see, that is unpopular, risky, and hard. Today’s leaders would rather excuse this behavior and, as a crutch, call on the supposed grace of God who supposedly understands Christians that live a lifestyle of predominant sin without the slightest regard for the Christ they offend with their behavior. He understands must understand.

The Cure – Old Fashioned Persecution more of a blessing than we realize

Some of this behavior can be traced back to what I call the great apostasy. I am not convinced that the apostasy prophesied by Paul has not already taken place. Before you go accusing me of being a Preterist, let me explain. Paul warns the Thessalonians about a coming apostasy that seems to be a quite a large scale. This is an event that must see the visible church moving away from sound teaching and praxis in preference for wanton pleasures. Up until the fourth century, the Christian movement suffered tremendous persecution. This persecution helped to guard the church from developing predominant appetites for worldly behavior. In essence, persecution was a blessing in disguise. While it did not keep all heresy at bay, it certainly helped the church keep her focus on the things that really matter, like the gospel and discipleship. Enter Constantine who, in an attempt to keep the Roman Empire together, converted to Christianity and outlawed persecution with the Edict of Milan. While many rejoice in this move, I think it may have been the first move toward paving the way for the wholesale apostasy of many in the visible church. Not long after this, in fact within 100 years after this event, Theodosius I made Christianity the state religion and actually outlawed paganism. This event served to transform the church from a humble, spiritual religious entity to a political power. The focus shifted from simple preaching and Christian praxis to power and politics. Men began to buy bishoprics and there are cases where children as young as 10 and perhaps younger were appointed as bishops due to the political importance of their family. This imperialist structure soon enveloped the church. The church continues to suffer from this philosophy seated deep in our thinking.

There are pastors who pound their chest from the pulpit saying they would die for Jesus. They would rather die before compromising the gospel. Yet, when given the opportunity to step out from behind the pulpit and actually execute on doing the right thing as opposed to just sounding pious, they wilt. There are men who say they would die for Jesus but won’t even remain sexually pure for Him. There are women who say that Jesus is their Lord and Master, and that they would die for him but somehow can’t even remain married to their husband for Jesus. How does this work?

Maybe if we began to experience real persecution, the visible church would once against begin to move a little closer to the true church. There will always be those in the church who are hypocrites and who are wolves in sheep’s clothing. The point is that when we see them, we must act. We move in love to correct and reprove those who are in doctrinal error or moral failure. We humbly and lovingly confront, seeking to restore. In the end, if those we wish to restore reject our efforts, we must insist on the purity of the Christian community. We do this by removing rebellious and impious individuals from the group so that others might realize that Christianity is not as broad as some think.

Double-Mindedness

2012-02-07T22:14:00.000-05:00

ἀνὴρ δίψυχος, ἀκατάστατος ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ὁδοῖς αὐτοῦ. In other words, like, in English words, and as your Bible probably reads, “a double-minded man is unstable in all his ways.” Double-mindedness is no small behavior according to James. Now, before I engage in the worse kind of anachronism, I need to place James’ comments in their proper context. James’ audience is the scattered tribes. James is writing to Jews who have been scattered abroad. These Jews are those who live outside of Jerusalem, most likely because of Agrippa’s persecution. The letter was likely the very first NT document, written sometime during in the mid to late 40s. Some may wonder about the identity of the author James. Without going into arguments for or against, consensus is that James, the just, the brother of our Lord wrote this letter.

Δίψυχος, or double-minded is used twice in the NT, both occurrences are in James. According to James, double-mindedness and doubt are identical. This man, as one looks at v. 6 is one who doubts. This goes to certainty. The Greek word translated doubt here means, “to think that something may not be true or certain.” Clearly, James is telling us that to engage in διακρινόμενος is sinful. In this context, doubting has to do with one believing that God will respond to a petition for wisdom. But the lecture James delivers seems to extend beyond just this immediate context. The idea being expressed here is one of a soul that is caught between the world and faith. This is seen in Augustine’s famous prayer, “Lord, grant me purity, but not yet.” Double-mindedness does not only lead to despair or lend itself to despair, but it is despair.

The idea emerges again in James 4 where James talks the source of divisions within the Christian community. What causes these ugly divisions? What causes sin? What causes immorality? James says it is an antithetical lust against the things of God. He says in 4:4 that anyone who wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. Is that what you want? Nevertheless, in our culture, pastors and churches busy themselves day in and day out in their attempts to win the world to their church. They seek out those who could be classed as nothing short of despisers of God and they bring them in, suit them up, baptize them, and pronounce them saved by the blood of the lamb because they made a decision for Jesus. Over the course of time, given enough time, you end up with a 1,000 member church, filled mostly with practical atheists for all intents and purposes. These are double-minded hypocrites who seek to befriend the world, all the while attempting to retain their friendship with God. James said this will simply not do. In v. 5 he says, “or do you think that Scripture speaks in vain?” Regrettably, I do think that practically speaking, many of these churches and pastors act as if the Scripture actually does speak in vain. Steve Furtick’s code-orange revival is a perfect example of this. James MacDonald’s T.D. Jakes controversy is another example of this. Any church that does not take relationship, discipleship, discipline, unity, and Scripture seriously practically treats Scripture is if it does speak in vain.

Scholarship is filled with double-minded men. They want to hold to a high view of Scripture and evolutionary theory at the same time. They have engineered a variety of strategies designed to support their aspirations over the years. They want God and the idols within science so-called as well. There are those who wish to hold to the Christ event while at the same time finding a way to accept the homosexual choice as morally legitimate. They want the world and God at the same time. There are those who have even found a way to justify the murder of innocent babies through abortion, and they call it respect and love and being sensitive to the victim, I mean mother. The baby is the real victim. Modern leaders desire popularity within the culture. They desire to loved, approved and accepted. This is what the sin of self-love does to us. It is a problem for all of us. Modern scholars lust for academic respectability and willfully compromise fundamental truths of Scripture in an effort to attain it.

The opportunity for double-mindedness is everywhere. John commands us to love not the world, nor the things that are in the world. And then he issues this ominous description of those who ignore his words: “if anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is no in him.” This love of the world that John is talking about is a love for anything that opposes of the law of God. Whatever oppose the law of God, opposes God. One cannot love God and oppose God at the same time. Such a man is guilty of being double-minded. This man is without control. He has no control over anything is the Greek sense. He is unstable, or without any control whatever. He cannot make up his mind if it is God or the world that is the object of his loyalty.

John Calvin, in his writings on the life of the Christian man had this to say:

“For it is a doctrine not of the tongue but of life. It is not apprehended by the understanding and memory alone, as other disciplines are, but it is received only when it possesses the whole soul, and finds a seat and resting place in the inmost affection of the heart.”

He continues,

“With how much better reason, then, shall we detest these trifling Sophists who are content to roll the gospel on the tips of their tongues when its efficacy ought to penetrate the inmost affections of the heart, take its seat in the soul, and affect the whole man a hundred times more deeply than the cold exhortations of the philosophers!”

T.D. Jakes and Tolerance: A Pernicious Evil (2)

2012-02-03T18:04:00.000-05:00

Let us suppose that T.D. Jakes has actually repented on his Modalism and actually adopted the biblical teaching on the trinity. Now, I do not think this is actually the case, just so you know. However, let us assume this actually happened or if it makes you happy, suppose it does happen. If, after examination Mr. Jakes passes the test of orthodoxy on the doctrine of the trinity. How is the church to respond to Mr. Jakes? Is she to open her arms, invite him in and all is forgiven? That is the next “elephant” in the room. If Jakes does his part and satisfies the church that his repentance is genuine, then the church has a responsibility and duty to respond positively, does she not? Well, if this were the only issue with Jakes, the answer would be “of course.”

The problem here is that Modalism is not the only heresy T.D. Jakes has embraced, historically. You see, Jakes embraces another vile and pernicious heresy. T.D. Jakes is one of the most outspoken advocates for the prosperity gospel. This gospel actually teaches that Jesus will make accelerate your life to the top of the charts from a material and temporal perspective if only you have faith. Jesus is viewed as the cure for poverty, sickness, broken marriages, career, or whatever else your heart desires. This gospel teaches that all believers have a right to full health and prosperity in God. If you don’t experience a life of luxury and plenty, the devil or sin must be getting in the way. I suppose unbelief could also be one of the reasons for this lack.

The prosperity gospel is one of the most pernicious forms of Christianity ever to emerge in the history of the Christian church. Many unwitting souls have been duped repeatedly by cavalier preachers who are, at bottom, self-proclaimed prophets, bishops, and pastors. They see themselves as “God’s anointed and their congregations are warned not to question God’s servants! They repeated command their followers not to touch God’s anointed. They manipulate and bully people into going along with everything they want. They are God’s leader and they have an open line with the heavenly Father. God talks to them on a regular basis, after all. Extra-biblical revelation is a weekly occurrence with these heretics. They claim to hear God speak, receive dreams, visions and any number of extravagant supernatural experiences that no one else has.

In order for the Christian community to receive T.D. Jakes, he has to do two things. He must stand up openly and confess that his past views on the godhead were heresy, unacceptable, and sinful. It should explain why he thinks this to be the case. Next, Jakes should explain what has led to his change of heart on the issue of the trinity. Finally, Jakes should provide an explicit statement on how he now understands the nature of the triune God. In so doing, it would be wise for Jakes to cite the church creeds and councils that now reflect his convictions on the doctrine of God.

Finally, Jakes must also repent of the heresy known as the prosperity gospel. Mr. Jakes must follow the very same pattern. He should stand up and leave no room for ambiguity regarding how sorry he is for propagating such a false view of the gospel, of Christ, and of Scripture. He should apologize to the millions who have been deceived into thinking this way as a direct result of his influence in their lives. He should outline what led to his change of heart regarding the prosperity gospel. He should the outline what he thinks about such teaching, why it is wrong, and urge fellow ministers in that camp to follow him in his repentance.

These actions would leave little doubt that T.D. Jakes has been given light and granted repentance. At a minimum, the church would be able to come along side Mr. Jakes and love him and provide him with strength and counseling as he repositions himself in the Christian community. In so doing, the church would be wise to assign mentors to watch over Mr. Jakes and ensure that he continues to progress and grow in the faith, less he find the path too difficult and succumb to pressures from the enemy and old acquaintances. Unless these path is followed, we are left wondering what really happened and where Jakes really stands, and if it is really such a big deal after all. This process highlights the importance of truth and guards against any tendency toward indifference regarding doctrine and praxis in the Christian community.

Now, once we get through the heresies of Modalism and the prosperity gospel, we can begin a conversation around the egregious error of extra-biblical revelation predominant in Pentecostal theology. Mr. Jakes will have to make the necessary adjustments here as well. But that is another conversation for another time.

T.D. Jakes, Thyatira and Tolerance: A Pernicious Evil

2012-02-01T22:54:00.002-05:00

In our culture, repeatedly we hear that tolerance is the highest of all virtues, or at least that is the impression one has upon surveying the virtues, so called, that receive the most attention. In fact, folks in our culture are constantly bragging about how tolerant we are. Tolerance is perceived and even portrayed as being kind, loving, and even sophisticated. On the other hand, people who reject societal norms defined for certain behaviors are maligned as intolerant bigots that are full of hate. Oftentimes they are characterized as simpletons or overly naïve with a bend toward religious superstitions. In fact, many atheists enjoy classifying all religious zealots in the same category as Islamic fascists that desire, on their foundation, to destroy everyone else’s freedom. The purpose of this blog is to ask the question, “what is tolerance and should Christians practice it?”

Prior to discussing the practical implications of tolerance, we should begin with a working definition of the word. Since we are thinking about tolerance from a biblical perspective, it is only reasonable to examine the word in the Greek text in order understand its use. Since we are working with a specific text located in Rev. 2:20 ἀλλὰ ἔχω κατὰ σοῦ ὅτι ἀφεῖς τὴν γυναῖκα Ἰεζάβελ. My gloss of this text is simply, But I have against you that (you) tolerate the woman Jezebel. This letter is written to the church in Thyatira. I do not wish to get into the background and setting of Thyatira. What I want to focus on is one word in this personal rebuke issued by Christ. And that is the Greek word apheis. This is a form of the word aphiemi. This word appears some 143 times in the NT. Most of the time it is translated “forgive.” It has the sense of release, or dismiss. Louw-Nida tells us it means to leave it to someone else to do something, with the implication of distancing oneself from the event. BDAG says it has the idea of to cause someone or something to undergo separation. When we think of being forgiven of our sins, we think of having those sins released in the sense that God no longer sees them adhering to us. We are separated from our sin. Think of it this way: as an unbeliever, people are forgiven, released from God. They are separated from God. As believers, we are now separated from sin. We are released from the penalty and power sin in order to be joined to God.

The Church in Thyatira is on the receiving end of a stern rebuke from our Lord. This church has an excellent reputation with one exception: she is tolerant. She has a strong predilection for tolerance and The Lord is moved to issue a strong rebuke. This church tolerates false doctrine and immoral living. Notice that she is not charged with either of these sins. It is not that false doctrine or immorality actually have taken root in her midst. That is not her breach. Rather, her failing is her proclivity not to take a strong stand against the evil existing in the culture at the time. The church is tolerating others, apparently outside her community to engage in false teachings and immorality without taking a stand against it.

For past few weeks, the controversy over T.D. Jakes has waged on. People have come down on all sides of the issue. T.D. Jakes has preached and taught for years against the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. He has never recanted his views or announced publicly that he has repented from this heresy. Mr. Jakes has appeared on James MacDonald’s Elephant Room panel to discuss, well, I am still not sure what they were trying to discuss. From my perspective the only thing that happened was a fist bump and group hug. Many have criticized MacDonald for referring to Jakes as a brother. Many have criticized those who have criticized MacDonald. I am not writing to talk about the heresy modalsim or to defend orthodoxy, per se. I have little regard for the willfully uninformed reformed and the just plain old uninformed as far as that goes. Unlike many, I do not think we need to revisit every single dogma the church has discovered since the beginning, wipe the slate clean and start over. Moreover, any man who would ignore the theologians of decades past is a fool. The wise man gathers to himself many counselors. The fool stands alone.

What should the church do with men like Jakes? It is really quite simple: the church should discipline him and if he refuses to repent after much counsel, she must shun him for the heretic he is. MacDonald and Driscoll have earned just about every ounce of criticism that has been leveled against them. John tells us not to even eat with men who bring such abominable heresy with them. We are not to even bid them God-speed. Yet, just like the church at Thyatira, we tolerate them in the name of grace, in the name of love, in the name of kindness. However, God tells us we must rebuke and shun them, all in the name of grace, love, and kindness. Perhaps God will use this shunning to bring them to repentance. Who are we to say otherwise?

What would it look like for T.D. Jakes to repent? He would stand up in his church and confess publically before everyone and explain in great detail that he was wrong about the doctrine of the trinity, how and why he was wrong, and that he has repented of that view. He would then explain, in great detail how he now understands the doctrine as taught in Scripture. He would respect the truth of Scripture enough to realize the dangerous heresy he has been teaching for years and this would lend itself to a very sobering and official public repentance that would leave no doubt in anyone’s mind. What we saw in the Elephant Room recently is very familiar to all of us. We see in Washington D.C. every day we listen to our spin doctors speak.

I am not making any assertions about the faith of Mark Driscoll or James MacDonald. I am asserting that their judgment is out of bounds from where it should be, from where it needs to be. Association with known heretics who pervert the one true God is no small matter and we are not in a position to make it out to be one. It is what it is: exceedingly serious!

Worth Repeating - Lessons on Church Discipline by Tom Ascol

2012-01-31T20:42:00.001-05:00

The real difficulty in corrective church discipline is not so much in knowing what to do or even how to do it--though those questions can at times be problematic. The hardest part of church discipline is in the actual administering of it. It is painful. There is no easy way to confront a brother in his sin. If he persists, there is no easy way to take one or two others with you to confront him again. If he still refuses to repent, there is no easy way to tell it to the church, and if he refuses to hear "even" the church, it is absolutely excruciating to remove him from membership--to "deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus" (1 Corinthians 5:5).

Coming to terms with the fact that there simply is no easy way to carry out these steps has been one of the most sobering yet helpful lessons that I have learned as a pastor. When leading a church to take the final step of discipline certain questions always lurk in the shadows, "Isn't there another way? Is there anything more that we can do to avoid this?" They are provoked, I think, out of a proper desire to avoid taking the most serious step a church can take in dealing with a person's soul. By reconciling myself to the fact that doing what Christ commands in such a case is unavoidably painful, and by teaching the church to view it that way, we are encouraged not to shrink back from our duty but to take up this cross with a view to God's glory and the welfare of the wayward member.

In His kindness, I have had the privilege of seeing the fruit of church discipline born out not only in the restoration of brothers and sisters who have submitted to it but also in the strengthening of the church in the fear of the Lord and in the conversion of unbelievers. I fully identify with the following words of Robert Murray M'Cheyne as he describes his own pastoral grappling with the exercise of church discipline.

When I first entered upon the work of the ministry among you, I was exceedingly ignorant of the vast importance of church discipline. I thought that my great and almost only work was to pray and preach. I saw your souls to be so precious, and the time so short, that I devoted all my time, and care, and strength, to labour in word and doctrine. When cases of discipline were brought before me and the elders, I regarded them with something like abhorrence. It was a duty I shrank from; and I may truly say it nearly drove me from the work of the ministry among you altogether. But it pleased God, who teaches his servants in another way than man teaches, to bless some of the cases of discipline to the manifest and undeniable conversion of the souls of those under our care; and from that hour a new light broke in upon my mind, and I saw that if preaching be an ordinance of Christ, so is church discipline. I now feel very deeply persuaded that both are of God--that two keys are committed to us by Christ, the one the key of doctrine, by means of which we unlock the treasures of the Bible, the other the key of discipline, by which we open or shut the way to the sealing ordinances of the faith. Both are Christ's gift, and neither is to be resigned without sin.

My Commentary
Few things are more sad than a church that is altogether ignorant of how to execute church discipline. Learning this practice is relatively easy. Applying takes a little more tact. Withholding it entirely is an indication that the church in question is suspect of apostasy. I am not saying it has apostasized, but only that the danger may be lurking in nearby in the shadows. On the other hand, leaders that use church discipline as a power tool to abuse members who dare to disagree with their teachings or praxis are no less wicked than those who care so much about the truth that they intentionally ignore it altogether. Balance is the key. Love demands the practice of church discipline, for all the right reasons.

Biblical Repentance - Worth Repeating by Thomas Watson

2012-01-29T22:41:00.000-05:00

COUNTERFEITS of Repentance

To discover what true repentance is, I shall first show what it is not. There are several counterfeits of repentance, which might occasion that saying of Augustine that "repentance damns many". He meant a false repentance; a person may delude himself with counterfeit repentance:

1. The first counterfeit of repentance, is LEGAL TERROR.

A man has gone on long in sin. At last God arrests him, shows him what desperate hazard he has run—and he is filled with anguish. But after a while, the tempest of conscience is blown over, and he is quiet. Then he concludes that he is a true penitent because he has felt some bitterness in sin. Do not be deceived! This is not true repentance! Both Ahab and Judas had great trouble of mind. It is one thing to be a terrified sinner—and another to be a repenting sinner. Sense of guilt is enough to breed terror in the conscience. Only infusion of divine grace, breeds true repentance. If pain and trouble were sufficient to repentance, then the damned in hell should be most penitent, for they are most in anguish. "Men gnawed their tongues in agony and cursed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, but they refused to repent of what they had done!" Revelation 16:10-11. Repentance depends upon a change of heart. There may be terror—yet with no change of heart. "I preached that they should repent and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds." Acts 26:20

2. Another counterfeit about repentance, is RESOLUTION AGAINST SIN.

A person may purpose and make vows—yet be no penitent. "You said, I will not transgress" (Jer. 2:20). Here was a good resolution. But see what follows: "but still you would not obey me. On every hill and under every green tree, you have prostituted yourselves by bowing down to idols!" Notwithstanding her solemn engagements, they played fast and loose with God—and ran after their idols!

We see by experience what protestations against sin, a person will make when he is on his sick-bed, if God should recover him again. Yet if that person does recover—he is as bad as ever. He shows his old heart in a new temptation. Resolutions against sin may arise:

(1) From present extremity; not because sin is sinful—but because it is painful. This kind of resolution will vanish.

(2) From fear of future evil, an apprehension of death and hell. "I looked, and there before me was a pale horse! Its rider was named Death, and Hell was following close behind him!" (Rev. 6:8). What will a sinner not do—what vows will he not make—when he knows he must die and stand before the God in judgment? Self-love raises a sickbed repentance. But if he recovers—the love of sin will prevail against it. Trust not to a such passionate resolution; it is raised in a storm—and will die in a calm!

3. The third counterfeit about repentance, is the leaving of many sinful ways.

It is a great matter, I confess, to leave sin. So dear is sin to a man—that he will rather part with a child than with a lust! "Shall I give the fruit of my body—for the sin of my soul?" (Micah 6:7). Sin may be parted with—yet without repentance.

(1) A man may part with some sins and keep others. Herod reformed many things which were amiss—but could not leave his beloved Herodias.

(2) An old sin may be left in order to entertain a new sin—as you get rid an old servant to take another. This is to exchange a sin. Sin may be exchanged—and the heart remained unchanged. He who was a profligate in his youth, turns to be a miser in his old age. A slave is sold to a Jew; the Jew sells him to a Turk. Here the master is changed—but he is a slave still. So a man moves from one vice to another—but remains an unrepentant sinner still.

(3) A sin may be left not so much from strength of grace—as from reasons of prudence. A man sees that though such a sin is for his pleasure—yet it is not for his best interest. It will eclipse his credit, harm his health, or impair his estate. Therefore, for prudential reasons, he dismisses it. But true leaving of sin, is when the acts of sin cease from a principle of grace infused into the soul—as the air ceases to be dark from the infusion of light.

The Antithesis of Human Reason and Biblical Faith

2012-01-20T08:41:00.002-05:00

For it is written, “I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE, AND THE CLEVERNESS OF THE CLEVER I WILL SET ASIDE.” (I Cor. 1:19)

What exactly was Paul getting at in his letter to the Corinthians? The more I interact with believers, and the more I read evangelical authors, the more convinced I am that evangelicalism has drifted into an open sea, ranging from Pelagianism to Arminianism on its doctrine of man. As a result, men are constantly tweaking doctrines and practices that require the use of this doctrine in order to fit the overarching scheme of a view of anthropology that is more and more unbiblical with each passing day and each new book that reaches publication. The impact of this abhorrent view of fallen man is nowhere more prominent than in the area of apologetics and the modern presentation of the gospel, so-called.

With all due respect to much of the work that William Lane Craig is doing, his views do not reflect the biblical revelation on the nature of man and sin, not to mention God. His middle knowledge and rejection of the sensus divinitatis place him at odds with the orthodox understanding of God’s nature, man’s nature, the devastating consequences of sin, and even the creation account of Genesis 1-3. With this attitude, Craig builds an apologetic empire that has a questionable foundation because it abandons Scripture on several occasions and it is satisfied merely to show that Christian theism is probably true. The disturbing trend is that more and more conservative scholars are satisfied with this approach. This too indicates a great downgrading in our understanding of the nature of man and sin.

Not only is Christian apologetics severely impacted by these false views of man and sin, but as one might imagine, the gospel has been sorely impacted by them. I was once a member of an independent Baptist church that grew from 300 to 1100 in less than 3 years approximately. The pastor had adopted the seeker sensitive model. His idea was to bring the people in through a variety of means in order to give them the good news. Once the church grew to a certain size, the pastor, without admitting it realized he had created a problem. He failed to recognize that what brought them there is what will keep them. In other words, you can’t change the game once the church is full. Otherwise, these selfish, unregenerate, Jesus hedonists will just find somewhere else to go. Secondly, people that were loyal to Scripture and to a right understanding of man and sin left the church. The mature based deteriorated. Without a mature base, it is difficult to help 1100 people grow spiritually. In time, the trend chasers demanded the church adopt and integrate other new trends that were emerging. When the pastor set some limitations, those who wanted more simply moved on.

These things happen when we fail to take into account the fundamental difference between unregenerate human reason and biblical faith. God has set the gospel over against the rational thought process of the unbeliever, in effect destroying their wisdom. The true gospel of Christ is not attractive to unregenerate man. The unbeliever thinks the gospel, the real gospel is scandalous and foolish. This upsets modern Christians. We don’t like to be made fun of or stigmatized as fools and idiots. No one likes that. However, that is exactly what we look like to an unregenerate world.

The apostle Paul, writing to one of the most philosophical cultures to ever exist, ancient Corinth, quotes Isaiah the prophet when he sets out to describe what the gospel actually looks like and what it does to unbelieving minds. First, Paul says that God destroys the wisdom of the wise! The Greek word translated destroy is apollymii. Its root means to ruin, perish, or destroy. It is translated lose, destroy, lost, ruined, perish, and even kill in the NASB. It appears some 90 times in the NT. The idea is that it is brought to nothing. What is God said to destroy by the gospel? The ability of man to understand so that they may act prudently. In other words, human wisdom. The gospel is antithetical to human, earthly, fleshly wisdom. Since man reasons from his nature, which is where the intellect resides, how do we get him to reason against his nature? In order to get man to make sense of the gospel, we have to penetrate his intellect and get him to think differently! And that is the problem of the gospel. So long as man has the nature that he has, he will continue to reason the way he reasons. The gospel is the power of God that explodes this reasoning by regenerating man’s heart, hence giving him a new nature by which his entire faculties are changed. Unless God works on man’s nature, man will continue to reason against God and hold the gospel in extreme contempt.

Secondly, Paul says that God rejects unregenerate man’s faculty to comprehend and understand things. God rejects the intelligence of the intelligent because it is untrustworthy. Unregenerate man desires to take credit, not only for his own salvation, but for plotting how the kingdom may grow. The seeker sensitive pastor deludes himself into thinking that God’s kingdom expands, in part, because of his genius strategy and eloquent messages. We see this everywhere. The emergent church is producing young pastors who are subject to no one for anything and they are taking their crass style and using it to attract young Christians, so-called. They are building empires of 10,000 member, multi-site churches where people gather together, enjoy loud rock music and hear sermons about how awesome they are and how the power of their God is going to help them rule the world and control their own destinies. Doctrine is vilified, orthodoxy mocked, and the true gospel is absent. Nevertheless, this fits in well with the idea that human reason is somehow able to grasp God on its own. It fits in well with the Roman scheme that man is not totally depraved after all, but rather just sick and can still find his way to God through a natural theology.

Paul could not disagree more in 1 Corinthians 1-3. He contends that unregenerate human reason is antithetical to Christ, to the gospel, to Christian theism on every level. That unregenerate men need is the foolishness of the preaching of the cross. What they do not need is some rock concert with Jesus’ name tossed about here and there in the auspices of a code orange, Holy Ghost revival. Entertaining? Perhaps to the unregenerate and the rebellious. Biblical? Not even on paper is it biblical, let alone in practice.

Pastors and elders are responsible for the spiritual growth of their churches. They are responsible for establishing indoctrination programs and preaching and teaching the Word in such a way that God becomes, in the heart of the members, their all in all. When Christians who have been saved 10 years and longer, are unable to articulate the gospel, can’t tell you who God really is and what He is like, and they have little or no grasp on doctrine, the pastors and elders are obviously failing to carry out their responsibility before God. For this, they will certainly give an account. This is not to remove individual responsibility, but we can talk about that after we get churches to at least care enough about their people to at least have a serious discipleship program in place. It is mind-boggling to me how many churches simply don’t bother with it. I have been in several churches that have no discipleship program, no small group program, and very little accountability. People divorce with NO consequences unless someone really pushes the envelope. There is little to no intimacy in these communities. In fact, in some of them, people are filled with hatred and freely engage in malicious gossip and slander while the pastors and elders sit on the sideline and almost nothing to correct the community. It is a pernicious evil for pastors and elders to permit such individuals to deceive themselves into thinking they actually love God, all because they are good tithers, piano players, and deacons. Their hearts rage with vain and ungodly speculations about others with the full knowledge and consent of their spiritual leaders. Still, these pastors and elders talk about how much they love God and care for His word and His church. I guess they don’t love God and His Church enough to implement real programs that are designed to make a real difference in the spiritual growth of the covenant members under their care. Every pastor and elder on this planet will have to answer to God for why this is the case, if in fact it is the case with them. If you are a pastor or elder reading this blog, perhaps my words don’t set well with you. Then open Scripture and refute them in your mind. See if you can find God’s revelation justifying your actions or lack thereof. If you cannot, then maybe you should direct your irritation toward the mirror rather than the author of this blog. Can you really expect others to take you seriously when it is clear you don’t even take your high office of elder seriously? If you are spending more energy over the temporal aspects of your covenant community, then your energy is misplaced. Get to those things once you have addressed the more important ones.

To the apologist who wants to boast about how intellectually powerful and clever his argument is I say it is for nothing. The most powerful intellectual argument in the world will not convert one man to Christ. But there is a darker aspect here. Yes, it may be true that God converts men despite the shallowness of our attempts to be the “best” apologist on the planet. And that is the problem. How many more could we give the simple gospel to if we were not wasting our time attempting to address every ungodly objection against the cross? God saves men by the power of the message of the gospel. It is not in eloquence of speech, nor in intellectual strategy, nor in wise and clever arguments that men are led to Christ. If He uses them, He uses them in spite of their folly. How many men have been truly converted by a less than perfect presentation of the gospel? Yet because the imperfect presentation has within it a grain or seed or truth, it is enough for God work His miracle. This truth, by no means serves as an excuse for men to engage in the sloth of poor presentations in preaching or in apologetics. Rather, it illustrates just how powerful the truth of the gospel is, even when it is mostly hid by foolish strategies. When we defend and preach, the question is not personal effectiveness in making converts. Rather it is in personal effectiveness in accurately handling God’s word God’s way. We preach God’s word, God’s way. We defend God’s word, God’s way. If we do that, we are successful even if God never converts the first person in our ministry. Conversion is God’s business. Preaching and defending He gave to us. Let us be faithful in how we carry them out.

Beyond Revelation: The Sin of Intellectual Speculation

2012-01-15T14:47:00.000-05:00

Some four-hundred plus years ago, John Calvin wrote these words:

Not to take too long, let us remember here, as in all religious doctrine, that we ought to hold to one rule of modesty and sobriety: not to speak, or guess, or even to seek to know, concerning obscure matters anything except what has been imparted to us by God's Word. Futhermore, in the reading of Scripture we ought to ceaselessly to endeavor to seek out and mediate upon those things which make for edification. Let us not indulge in curiosity or in the investigation of unprofitable things. And because the Lord willed to instruct us, not in fruitless questions, but in sound godliness, in the fear of his name, in true trust, and in the duties of holiness, let us be satisfied with this knowledge. For this reason, if we would be duly wise, we must leave those empty speculations which idle men have taught apart from God's Word concerning the nature, orders, and number of angels. [Calvin's Institutes: I.XIV.4]

John Murray has this to say about Calvin's views on unrestrained or undisciplined speculation:

No one has ever fulminated with more passion and eloquence against “vacuous and meteoric speculation” than has Calvin. And no one has ever been more keenly conscious that the theologian’s task was the humble and, at the same time, truly noble one of being a disciple of the Scripture. “No man,” he declares, “can have the least knowledge of true and sound, doctrine, without having been a disciple of the Scripture. [John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997).]

In case you are wondering, I am working with two different versions of Calvin's Institutes (just so you know).

It seems that undisciplined and unrestrained intellectual speculaton have so permeated the Christian academy that we have forgot two things: first, all predication and intellectual inquiry are subject to the Christian ethic. Somehow, it just feels like scholars and theologians continue to forget this. Second, Christian inquiry into revelation must always retain as it's primary goal, sanctification. John Calvin wrote,

The theologian's task is not to divert the ears with chatter, but to strengthen consciences by teaching things true, sure, and profitable.

A curosry survey of books shows there to be no lack of inquiry into matters that seem to me to be clearly beyond human grasp. This is so because God has chosen not to reveal them. God's revelation is designed to transform our life. God revealed what He revealed in order to transform the human mind, thus, leading to a transformed life. There must be some limit placed on matters of theological and philosophical speculation.

If I Cor. 1:18-2:5 does NOTHING else for us, it should cause us to realize the great deal of humility involved in the message of the cross. We have scholars so-called who reject knowledge of God, the miraculous nature of Christianity, the creation account, all miracles recorded in Scripture, the inspiration, inerrancy, and authority of Scripture, and a multitude of other heresies too voluminous to mention. Rather than setting down requirements for participation in the Christian community, we are busy doing our best to push down the few remaining walls that exist. We have even reached the place where some supposed Christian pastors and theologians have decided that salvation can exist outside of Christ. When these men have finished their work, there will be no need of Scripture whatsoever. And if we do not need Scripture, then we do not need the church, her clergy, the academy or her experts. Look to the east, across the pond at the plight of Christianity in Europe and this is where the west heads. But in Asia, word has it that Christ is performing a marvelous work in the body.

Faith without Evidence – Taking God at His Word

2012-01-13T10:09:00.000-05:00

Ἔστιν δὲ πίστις ἐλπιζομένων ὑπόστασις, πραγμάτων ἔλεγχος οὐ βλεπομένων. Heb. 11:1

Now faith “IS” the basis, or support, or structure of the things hoped for, the evidence or proof for the truth of the things we are not seeing. In continuing my response to J.P. Holding and other apologists who oppose presuppositional apologetics, it seems to me that Hebrews 11:1 provides a good description of faith. If it is true that faith needs proof, then does it not follow that such proof needs proof? If this were true, would not an infinite regress of a need for proofs logically follow? However, the writer of Hebrews seems to think otherwise. Faith, rather than requiring evidence as a ground, is itself evidence and proof. Hebrews tells us that faith is the basis for our hope. Faith IS the evidence or proof for the truth of the things we are not presently seeing. What is the content of this faith? Who is the object of this faith? Orthodox Christianity has always maintained that the content of faith is Scripture while the object of faith is God. Since God’s word serves as the content of faith and God serves as its object, what more does faith require?

According to alternative forms of apologetics, faith rests on the evidence provided it by human reason. That is to say that unless faith is deemed “reasonable” by human method, then it is no longer faith, but rather, fideism. This is exactly the opposite of Christian theism. According to the Christian worldview, reasoning is no longer reasoning, but vain and empty speculation unless and until it is reformed by faith. The proposition that belief without evidence is irrational is an unsupportable proposition. It is impossible to locate this deontological notion in human reason. Who says that belief is “wrong” without evidence? Perhaps there are some cases, to be sure, where this is the case. However, it is not the case, universal. I need no evidence to believe that I have a mind. I have no right to demand evidence for the belief that tomorrow, the earth will continue its rotation around the sun. I do not require evidence in order to believe other people exist. “Belief” in and of itself does not require evidence for its justification. If every belief requires proof, then so too does this belief. Where is the evidence for the belief that every belief requires evidence? The proposition that every belief requires evidence is self-referentially incoherent.

Not only has the writer of the Hebrews told us that faith IS THE EVIDENCE or proof for the truth of the things we are not seeing, he also says that faith is how we understand creation. The term “pistei nooumen” which is translated “by faith we understand” tells us that the instrument of understanding creation is faith. This construction is an instrumental dative, signifying that the instrument of understanding in this phrase is faith. Therefore, the writer to the Hebrews falsifies the proposition that faith logically follows from human reason.

In addition, the Apostle Paul had something to say about faith. Here is the idea posited by J.P. Holding and others from that school of apologetics: humans examine the evidence employing autonomous human reason, which calls upon a variety of tests and judgments to determine if the evidence is sound. After arriving at a judgment, belief in the matter is either justified or not, depending upon the evidence. Paul tells the Corinthian church to think exactly in opposite terms. Paul intentionally avoided rhetorically impressive speech and human wisdom. In contradistinction to this, Paul’s message came, not with persuasive words of human reason, but rather in demonstration of the Spirit and of power. Why would Paul speak in this manner? He knew that humans insisted on having things their way. If they were going to bow to God, and believe in Him, they would at least do so based on their own steam! Their own intellectual predication would be the basis of their faith. The power of the Christian argument, from an intellectual standpoint would be the basis of their faith. In short, their faith would rest on their own ability to reason to Christian theism. However, Paul would not permit this sort of thinking to stand. Rather, Paul said he used a foolish method (preaching) to deliver a foolish and offensive message (the cross) to fools SO THAT their faith would not rest on human reason and predication, but rather on the power of God. That is the gospel delivered to us by the apostles.

If one were to read a variety of publications by men like J.P. Holding, one would have to conclude that Christianity is not a supernatural work of God at all. Rather, it is the product of men, over the years that reasoned their way to God and made a natural decision, using natural reasoning, placing their natural faith in Christ. One cannot help but feel the impact of naturalistic social science methodology throughout Holding’s theology and apologetic. I suspect it was not always this way. For whatever reason, Holding decided to embrace a method of criticism that orthodoxy views with a suspicious eye and make it his primary means of interpreting Scripture. The architects of this method that Holding most often calls upon for their “expertise” deny the inerrancy, inspiration, authority, and self-attesting nature of Scripture. They deny the supernatural origin of Christianity in preference for a social science explanation instead. This has led to voluminous errors in Holding’s theology and has resulted in an apologetic method that is at best seemingly schizophrenic. Such a result is predictable if one desires to hold to orthodoxy on one hand, all the while using hermeneutical method that deny it’s very foundation on the other hand.

Does this mean there is no evidence for faith in Christian theism? Absolutely not! The evidence for Christian theism is overwhleming. Evidence follows from faith, never before it. Reason must serve as Faith's minister, never her magistrate!!!!!!!!!!

Is J.P. Holding Correct that Faith is Founded on Evidence? We Deny.

2012-01-09T13:54:00.000-05:00

In his essay on faith, J.P. Holding states:

Peter's primary appeal here was threefold:

He appealed to the evidence of the wonders and signs performed by Jesus; he appealed to the empty tomb, and he appealed to fulfillment of OT prophecy.

In short, his appeals were evidentiary. One of course might wish to dispute the validity of the evidence, but in context this is beside the point. The point is that Peter grounded belief in Christianity on evidence -- or, as the definition of pistis in Acts 17:31 would put it, proofs.

In his article on biblical faith, J.P. Holding asserts that Peter grounded his belief in Christianity on evidence. This is in keeping with the Roman Catholic/Arminian concepts of God, man, and sin. Holding refers to Acts 2:22-36 to support his argument. In so doing, Holding leaves out the beginning of Peter's sermon, which begins at v. 14. Peter begins his sermon by referencing Joel 2:28-32. Step one, Peter argues to the crowd that the phenomena they see was prophesied by Joel. A startling new work of God is progress. The Messiah has come! This Messiah, Jesus Christ as Peter exclaimed in v. 22 was attested by God among you, using signs and miracles that no man could do. God worked these miracles through Christ! Peter begins with Scripture, not pure miracles. Miracles prove nothing outside of the presupposition of God's revelation. These miracles served to show that God's prediction in Scripture of the Messiah had been fulfilled in Christ! Peter's evidence was not evidence in a vacuum. The evidence of miracles had its PROOF in Scripture. The evidentialist's argument for probabilities is nowhere present in Peter's argument. Peter begins his sermon with Joel 2:28 and exclaims that Jesus is the reason for the event they are now witnessing.

Secondly, Peter then claims that Jesus was raised from the dead and this serves as proof that He was the Messiah! Why? Was it merely because a resurrection had taken place? It was not! It was because David had long ago prophesied that the Messiah would be resurrected. In other words, God promised to raise the Messiah from the dead. God has raised Jesus from the dead. Again, Peter calls on Scripture to prove that Jesus was the Messiah. In the first place, the Messiah would come, perform many miracles according to Scripture, He would be rejected by His people, He would be killed, and He would be raised from the dead according to Scripture! Jesus of Nazereth came, worked these very miracles, was rejected and killed and raised from the dead ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE. Then, and only then, Peter proclaims "Therefore, let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ - this Jesus whom you crucified.

Now, autonomous human reason, still captive to sin could argue that just because the Scriptures speak so of the Messiah, it does not follow that Jesus was the One! From a logical standpoint, that is a valid argument. One could say that the Messiah may still be yet to come and that Jesus just happened to resemble him a great deal. They could have taken up an attitude of wait and see who else comes along. And that is exactly what most of them did then and for different reasons, it is what many do today.

Was it the signs and wonders that served as the ground of Peter's faith? I think not! Of the 22 verses mentioned in this pericope, 13 were direct quotes from Scripture! First Peter calls upon Joel to prove his point. Then He pulls David into the conversation and shows David's words of God to be certain proof that Jesus was the Messiah. Holding's view of faith exposes his Roman Catholic/Arminian orientation through and through. Holding's faith is a natural faith, something existing in fallen man. It is not the supernatural gift of God mentioned in the NT, given to God's elect in the process of His gracious conversion. Holding takes the simple word faith and overlays on it the Greco-Roman cultural understanding of faith. This faith was a natural faith, a simple trust between human beings in various relationships. Biblical faith transcends such human notions and is far more than that. Biblical faith takes as its obect, God, its ground, Scripture, and comes to us through the redemptive act of Christ in the atonement, being itself a gift, given to us as the Holy Spirit applies that redemptive work of Christ to our hearts. More than once Scripture talks about faith as a gift and the idea that belief in the Messiah is something that must be granted by the Father! If this is true, how can natural faith or trusting be the equivalent of biblical faith? (John 6:65; Phil 1:29; 2 Tim. 1:9; 2 Tim. 2:25; 2 Pe. 1:3-4)

The miracles of Christ were enough to cause anyone to pause, and closely examine this Person in light of God's revelation. These miracles should have provoked faith, grounded on Scripture, that God had sent His promised Messiah! Unfortunately, they did not. Rather, they served as grounds for God's indictment of men whose fallen sinful nature preferred rather to serve the creature more than the Creator who is blessed forever. Man knows that God is there and this knowledge is clear enough. However, man sinfully prefers to worship himself by surpressing his knowledge of God and perverting the image of God into something he can live with as opposed to the God of Scripture. Man has no interest in an authoritative God with full right and power to judge him for his sinful acts. That sort of God simply will not do.

The gospel presentation along with apologetics has been clouded by a distortion of the God depicted in Scripture. Men like Holding have conjured up images of a god that is far different from that revealed to us in the text. Ideas like libertarian freedom, middle knowledge, open theism, process theology, and others have flooded evangelicalism and have served to downgrade God, elevate man, and devalue the atonement. Human reason is exalted above all things and even Scripture itself is subjected to the bar of human reason. Man sits on the bench while God and His word are in the docket. This is even true with supposedly evangelical ministries like Tekton Apologetics.

What is the difference, the deciding factor in those who believe and those who do not? Since it is not sinful, fallen man, it must be something else. It must be God's gracious act of regeneration. Sinful men do not conclude and decide that Jesus makes all the sense in the world. The world, by its wisdom does not know God. To them, this Christian message is offensive and foolish! (1 Cor. 1-3) God has sovereignly determined to display His glory, justice, and grace by punishing evil while also choosing to save the undeserving, according to His divine plan and for His own good pleasure.

The Biggest Problem with Southern Baptists by Dave Miller - An Observation or Three

2012-01-04T12:04:00.001-05:00

Over at SBC Voices Dave Miller makes the following observations about the biggest problem with Southern Baptists:

First, two observations:

1) Southern Baptists (at least the blogging kind) are often kinda angry people. I observe blogging and I am simply amazed at the anger that comes through. From all sides at all sides.

2) Just about everyone considers themselves the victim of the other side. Calvinists are being pushed out by the anti-Calvinists. The non-Calvinists are offended at the arrogant and aggressive Calvinists. The hipsters are “marginalizing” the traditionalists and the traditionalists are excluding the younger generation from leadership. It just goes on.

Now to be fair, I am not a Southern Baptist. However, I could not help but notice that Dave's observation, while partially true seems to miss the point entirely. It would seem to me that Dave thinks the problem is the in the existence of disagreements. Some may respond by saying, no! It is in the manner in which people disagree. Well, to be sure, there are better and worse ways to disagree. There are Christian principles that guide the manner in which we treat one another, sure. If one reads this blog, they walk away from it saying, ok, so what is the biggest problem again and more importantly, how do we solve it? Some things we have to live with, others, not so much. In all things we should demonstrate light and grace, but in nothing is truth to be compromised. The biggest problem I have with Dave's observations is that they seem to marginalize the real problem: doctrinal truth. This seems to be the same old tired "doctrine divides" argument from my perspective.

If the pervasive wave of liberalism should have taught the SBC anything, it should have been that there is more to the Calvinist charge that Arminianism leads to liberal theology when taken to its logical conclusions, than previously appreciated. The SBC was nearly swallowed up by a tidal wave of liberal theology and it is my view that that threat still exists. Liberal theology will simply change it's cloak and return with a different look, perhaps as what Dave calls the "hipsters." This is the younger generation that has swallowed, hook, line, and sinker postmodern philosophy and as a result rebelled against all things orthodox simply because someone else did the thinking. Truth is, hipsters for the most part don't think. They have a cultural aversion to the practice. "Thinking" is for old people and legalists. I have little patience for ignorant young people who demand to be respected for thier uninformed, uneducated, ill-formed opinions. Earning a seat at the table requires experience, education, and wisdom. The younger generation's primary objective should be to learn from the older generation, not turn their nose up at everything we say as if we are old, out-dated, and irrelevant. That attitude is unwise, uninformed, and foolish, not to mention ungodly. Why do we permit such attitudes to prevail in the church? Have we stopped reading Proverbs? Sometimes I think we have completely thrown out Scripture and replaced it with Emergent Church best sellers.

To reduce the serious theological differences that exist in the SBC to simply a problem of how we disagree without recognizing that, for the most part, our beliefs are prior to how we go about disagreeing in the first place is a much bigger problem than Dave observes. In fact, he seems to miss that point entirely. Like it or not, the Calvinistic view of God and Arminian view of God are serious issues that lead to serious consequences. I realize we don't like the tags, Arminian and Calvinist. If it were left to some, we would have no way of distingushing one theological system over another because we don't like labels. A word of advice: get over your arrogant self. Labels are means we use to be able to identify a theological system so that we don't have to write a book about it every time we encounter it.

Libertarian freedom logically leads to views of God that are not orthodox. Moreover, it elevates human ability above that described in Scripture. In addition, the authority of Scripture is devalued for, how is it possible that God could work with libertarian freedom to produce a perfect, self-attesting revelation? As for the hipsters, their first order of business is to subject themselves to the older men in the church for doctrinal instruction and discipleship. If they are found to be of constantly rebellious disposition and obstinate regarding the orthodox tradition of Scripture, then they should be dealt with for their contumacy.

I am not a SBC member. I am a member of the PCA. Our problems are not so different from the SBC. We too have men arguing for an old earth and even Catholic mysticism in our ranks as well. We have illicit divorce with no real consequences in many congregations as well. Basically, I think Dave's observations represent a bigger problem in the SBC than the ones he points out. What do I mean? I mean the lack of critical thinking using Scripture as the authority for idenfying the biggest problems in the SBC is really the biggest problem I see in his article. He makes the problem one of school yard clubs. The Arminian club needs to be nice to the Calvinist club and the Hipsters club, and et cetera. That is not the biggest problem in the SBC. The biggest problem in the SBC is the same as it is for the PCA and any other denomination: the authority and perspecuity of Scripture. This problem was dealt with some 500 years ago but we seem to be in a state of perpetual backsliding on the issue. God's revelation is clear and it is authoritative. Doctrine is critically important. Arminians need to think about how their understanding of God and man impacts the rest of their theology. Calvinists need to be more interested in applying Christian doctrine to Christian praxis. Hipsters need to keep their mouths shut until they learn something from the older men who are responsble to teach them as is God's design.

A bigger problem in the SBC would be not having the discussion at all. Truth matters and we are all sinners. When you bring these two together, there is bound to be disagreement. If we aren't talking about it, that can only mean truth isn't that important to us. There is nothing wrong with healthy disagreement or debate. It is more wrong not to point out what we believe is error than it is to keep quiet. That is not a biblical virtue, it is an American one. Yet, in speaking up, we should do so passionately, but always in love. Our comments should concern views and teachings, not personalities. Silence is a much bigger problem than the one Dave Miller observes in his blog about problems in the SBC in my personal opinion.

Recovering Piety

2012-01-01T12:41:00.000-05:00

Pious or Piety occurs over 350 times in John Calvin's Institutes. For men of this era, the word was held in the highest esteem. Unfortunately, for modern men, almost everything held in such regard by that generation is held in contempt by this one if for no other reason than that generation held it to be so. In modern times the word "piety" has been recast and held in ill-repute no thanks to the foolish souls who have unwittingly swallowed the intellectual poison of postmodern philosophy.

For to begin with, the pious mind does not dream up for itself any god it pleases, but contemplates the one and only true God. And it does not attach to him whatever it pleases, but is content to hold him to be as he manifests himself; furthermore, the mind always exercises the utmost diligence and care not to wander astray, or rashly and boldly to go beyond his will...Because it acknowledges him as Lord and Father, the pious mind also deems it meet and right to observe his authority in all things, reverence his majesty, take care to advance his glory, and obey his commandments. [Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion, I.ii.2]

The Christian community is in sore need of a recovery of piety. In the 1560s existed a group of Protestants who thought the reforms of Queen Elizabeth did not go far enough and, they called for a further purification or what moderns might refer to as "additional reforms." These Protestants were intensely focused on the authority of Scripture, the Trinitarian character of theology, the significance and purpose of Christ, the national life present by the crisis of their day, and individual conversion. J.I. Packer says,

Puritanism was an evangelical holiness movement seeking to implement its vision of spiritual renewal, national and personal, in the church, the state, and the home; in education, evangelism, and economics; in individual discipleship and devotion, and in pastoral care and competence. [Beeke & Pederson, Meet the Puritans, xviii.]

The church has talked about the need for reformation on and off for decades now. The problem with this language is that it usually refers to a reform in praxis -or- a reform in doctrine. The trouble with this dichotomy is that you cannot have the former without the latter and you will not get the latter without the former. All too often, reform in doctrine proceeds in the wrong direction. For instance, I read a review of a book on inerrancy recently and one reviewer criticized the author because he considered the author's thesis to be a devotion to "the traditional evangelical view of the sacred cow in evangelicalism." The reviewer demonstrated that he has not grapped with the conseqences of an errant Scripture. An errant Scripture is a non-authoritative Scripture. This makes the Scripture anything but self-attesting. If this is the case, what fills the vacuum created by this lack of epistemic authority? It must be human reason! Ultimately we end up with a subjective approach to truth which is where the non-Christian lives. On these grounds, we are no better off than the ungodly. Indeed, the church is in dire need of recovering pietistic living. By pietistic living, I mean our manner of living, thinking, doing church, how we do philosophy, scholarship, eldership, etc. I mean there is no area in the Christian community and the Christian individual in most modern cultures that is not in serious need of reformation.

Notice that Calvin says a pious mind does not merely dream up a god of its own choosing. Yet, our own projections of god are as corrupted by cultural productions as they have ever been. We see this in the lack of pious living in the Christian community. On the one hand, we have antinomians who presume upon God and abuse His grace daily by not paying any attention to how they live their lives. We divorce at will, without consequence. We shack-up, we lie, cheat, steal, backbite, etc. Pastors do NOT take the sin of their communities seriously in any sense whatever. I recently had a pastor tell me that hate in the congregation was no large matter. He made light of the fact that there were people in his own congregation that hated him. Church discipline has vanished and where it does exist, it is primarily used as a political tool to support the selfish ambition of carnal elders and pastors. On the other hand, we have the legal moralists whose self-righteous ambitions and haughty opinions of themselves know nothing of grace and mercy for they are too busy judging the motives and retaining the sin of others to give a second thought to the concept of Christian love. There is almost no middle ground between these two.

The fields of theology and apologetics are not unaffected by a lack of piety. For many scholars, piety in thought has been rediculed and reduced to "uncritical" and naive approaches in hermeneutics and philosophical inquiry. For many theological and philsophical societies, one of the quickest ways to lose credibility is to articulate a high view of Scripture. These are the men who are training our pastors folks. Scripture is not silent on the matter of piety of mind. We have been over this ground before. There are clear warnings regarding the practice of allowing the intellect to wander from the practice of godly discipline. Paul says we are to take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ. (2 Cor. 10:3-6) We are not free to consign Genesis 1-11 as myth. We are not at liberty to discard the warnings of Scripture about the deraved condition of the fallen human intellect. It is not our place to categorize the teachings of Paul on the role of women and men and his teachings on sexual behavior to cultural bias. It is beyond our authority to whimsically discard the ethics of Scripture and to launch out into the sea of life as if we are free to navigate on our own accord.

It is an act of love and devotion to God for us to resist the natural urges of the senses and of the intellect alike. Neither can be permitted to roam freely upon the plains of the culture as if it were an open prairie where our senses and intellects are free to take their desired course. Devotion to Christ in those who are inclined to sensuality can be seen in their fight against lust. Rather than cohabitation, they marry in order to avoid the burning of sexual desire. Odd though it seem to our culture, it is not odd according to divine revelation. Rather than fulfilling homosexual tendencies, they direct their affection toward the opposite sex in accord with God's design. The liar disciplines himself daily so as to be a person of honesty and reliability though his sinful desire rests in deception. Grace rescues Him. The married in the Lord remain so, not disuaded by modern, western notions of a shallow and foolish romance, but out of a sense of awe for the covenant that serves to govern the arrangement. The gospel means more to them than all else. The godly recognize the sinful, selfish idoltary in divorce and put the thoughts far from them. The scholar recognizes that he will never be able to satisfy the intellectual demands of sinful humans. They will sit in judgment of Scripture and place God in the dock relentlessly. His faithfulness to divine truth is far more important to him than academic respeectability before the god-hating academy. It is a price he will gladly pay in order to show his love and devotion to Christ. Given the current state of the Christian communities, the eldership, and scholarship, can there be any doubt that we are in dire need of recovering piety from end to end?

The business of religion is, from time to time, compared to those exercises, wherein men are wont to have their hearts and strength greatly exercised and engaged; such as running, wrestling, or agonizing for a great prize or crown, and fighting with strong enemies that seek our lives, and warring as those that by violence take a city or kingdom...yet every one that has the power of godliness, has his inclinations and heart exercised towards God and divine things with such strength and vigour, that these holy exercises prevail in him above all carnal or natural affections, and are effectual to overcome them: for every true disciple of Christ "loves him above father, mother, wife and children, brethren and sisters, houses and lands; yea more than his own life." [Edwards, Jonathan. Concerning Religious Affections.]

Concealing, Revealing and Christian Apologetics & Philosophy

2011-12-31T13:09:00.001-05:00

"The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law." Dt. 29:29

The Hebrew word str appears five times in the Hebrew text. It is translated hide in Dt. 7:20 and Is. 45:15; hidden in Ps. 19:12; concealed in Pr. 27:5; and secret here in Dt. 29:29. The subject here is "the secret things." Hence, it follows that secret things exists. What are they? Well, since they are secret, it is hard to speak about the content even though we may be able to talk about categories or questions, the answer to which we do not possess. In the nifal it means hide oneself, be hid, concealed. The answer to the question regarding the identity of secret things is found within the text under examination. We know things in reference to other things. In fact, it can be said that we know what things are by knowing what they are not. Here, we know what "secret things" are because we know what has been "revealed," and we know that "secret things" are not "revealed things." The secret things belong to the Lord, but the things revealed belong to us.

The Hebrew word "revealed" in this text is glh. It is translated exile in 2 Sa. 15:19; Is. 49:21; Am. 6:7. It is translated open in Pr. 27:5; Je. 32:11; Je. 32:14. It is translated uncovered in Nu. 24:4; Nu. 24:16. Finally, it is translated revealed in Dt. 29:29. HAL defines the word as, to penetrate, to go to, to leave, to uncover, to open, to make public, to emigrate, to make clear, to become clear. In the nifal it means to expose oneself, to be uncovered, to be exposed, to appear, show, to let oneself be seen, to become visible, to announce information, revealed, what is disclosed. The idea goes to a clear unveiling or revealing. What is interesting is that these things, the things revealed are said to belong to us. The purpose of this revealing is so that the children of Israel may keep all the words of the law.

Some things God reveals, others He keeps secret. The things God reveals, we should see as given to us to know. They are given to us to know so that we may do something with them. They are given to transform our lives. The point of revelation is transformation. We are transformed from creatures that do not seek God's glory into creatures that seek to glorify God in every way. God reveals His glory so that we may behold it and in turn give glory to him in return. God extends His glory to us so that we may return it with honor and humility in awe of His condescension. What are the implications of God's act of revealing and concealing in apologetics, philosophy, and theology? If you listen to some apologists and theologians, you would wonder if there is anything left to mystery when it comes to religious thought. They speak as if everything is revealed and nothing is concealed. On the other hand, if you listen to other theologians and philosophers, they think nothing is revealed and skepticism and doubt are the highest of virtues. The fact remains that God, in His providence and for purposes known only to Him has determined to reveal some things to His creation while concealing others. We would do well, in all our philosophizing and theologizing and apologetics to start by acknowledging this truth. From here, and only from here can we begin to engage in the act of noble inquiry into divine truth. Just as every human action comes under the scrutiny of the Christian ethic, so too does intellectual inquiry. There is an ethical as well as an unethical way to think about God and undertake inquiry concerning His truth. However, we have so elevated the power of human reason and our intellectual capabilities, that simplicity is not only avoided, but ridiculed as if the very idea of the simple and clear are without virtue.

All knowable truth has been divinely revealed by God.

"We have taken the final standard of truth to be the Bible itself." [Van Til, The Defense of the Faith. 32] This includes all things epistemologically. Christian theism, biblical philosophy, contends that all human knowledge is revelational. Unless the Christian God had revealed Himself to us, we would be incapable of possessing knowledge in any conceivable sense whatever. Christian thought does not take issue with the idea that all knowledge is revelational and that the Bible is the standard of truth. Unbelieving thought, however, is entirely hostile to this view. It is sad to confess that more and more Christian apologists are adopting the idea that man is capable of arriving at truth apart from God's revelation. In the process, God's essence and being is reduced, human reason elevated, sin downgraded, and the cross of Christ devalued. It is not that these apologists intentionally seek to do harm to the God that is. It is a lack of theological congruency and exegetical acumen coupled with naive optimism and rationalistic philosophies that leads to significant ineptitude in how we frame up what it is that Christian theism actually believes and defends. As a result of this gap in our theological systems, we end up retreating to ground that actually bears little resemblance to the teachings of historic Christian orthodoxy. Libertarian freedom is a perfect example of how this happens. We adopt certain postulations about this sort of freedom in man in an attempt of make God more palatable to the unbeliever challenge. As a result we construct views like middle knowledge where God does not know the acts of free creatures in advance. His plan essentially depends on what the creature will do at point x. Some Christian philosophers speculate that the reason evil exists is because God could not have created a world in which evil would never obtain! This is the best He could do, they say. How do they know this? There is current specualtion raging over God's relationship with time. We cannot understand how God could have ever come to create unless He was in some way constricted by time. Really? How do we know? And this is my point about all this speculation. I love theology, exegesis, hermeneutics, apologetics, and philosophy. However, my proclivity for those things can serve to draw me into deadly sin. The intellectual seduction that theological and philosophical speculation tends to ignite can lead to views of God, man, Christ, sin, and other doctrines that result in outright sin.

If revelation is not the means by which we arrive at truth, then some other source must serve as the foundation. At bottom, all knowledge is revelational. That is my point. Moreover, God determined what He would and would not reveal. What He revealed belongs to us for the purpose of sanctification, essentially. God's revelation has perlocutionary intent. It is given to change us, so that we may observe all of the law of God. God revealed in order to change us. God's revelation was not given to satisfy intellectual lusts and ungodly speculation. As with every action God takes, revelation has a very specific purpose: TRANSFORMATION. Conversely, what has not been revealed does not belong to us. The fact that it does not belong to us means it is off limits. God retained them for himself. Since all knowledge comes through revelation, and God has chosen to reveal them to us, then if follows that we cannot know them. Our intellectual lust to know what has not been revealed is nothing short of idolatry. From my perspective, Christian scholarship is saturated with this sort of behavior because scholars somehow have missed the fact that Christian ethics also deal with intellectual behavior. I think it is time we begin to remind ourselves of this fact.

Turning Away from ??? [Apologetics in the Hotseat]

2011-12-28T14:02:00.001-05:00

I recently received a comment on the blog from a professing Christian who basically said that presupposing the truth of Scripture, in apologetics, is really just begging the question. In other words, it is poor apologetic method to begin your answer for the reason of the hope that is in you with Scripture. Now, the first question we must ask concerns what Peter would have expected from his audience. After all, Peter is the one who penned what has become the "apologetic imperative." Immediately, Peter turns to God's sovereign control over all things, to include the prospects of suffering for the gospel. He actually says it is better to suffer for doing what is right than for doing what is wrong. Here we have no reference to Plato, Aristotle, or Socretes. Rather, reference is made to God's divine control over all things. Peter then retreats to the cross of Christ. He references the glorious truth of redemption in Christ and instructs the believers to arm themselves, or prepare for similar suffering. Again, no appeal to the reasoning of these opponents comes into view. Peter says their opponents are surprised that the believer does not accompany their opponent in sensuality, lust, drunkenness, carousing, drinking parties, and idolatry. He then encourages these believers to be of sound judgment and sober for the purpose of prayer, keeping fervent in love for one another.

Nowhere does Peter call on autonomous human reason to aid in providing this answer to the demand for a reason of the hope that is in the believer. Yet, in modern apologetics, even in evangelicalism, this is not only seen as useful, it is viewed as the superior approach to providing the answer. I could not disagree with this position more. Scott Oliphint points out that the unbeliever is"day and night suppressing the constant and persistent truth that bombards him from God whom he knows. Then he asks, "How reasonable is it to approach such a one and ask for an honest inquiry? How ratonal can it be to ask someone to make a moral judgment who, by virtue of his very nature, has an ax to grind against God?" There is a reason Peter does not fall into the trap that many in modern Christianity do: his theology was the foundation of his apologetic and philosophy. Peter understood the nature of God, he refers to God's sovereignty. He understood the nature of man, he refers to the cross. Somehow, modern apologists seem to have skipped those pesky theology classes and jumped right into that philosophy of religion class. And that has far reaching consequences as we can see.

The second question we have to ask is, "if not Scripture, then what is it that we must presuppose in order to defend the Christian worldview?" It is as if there are brute facts and that all men are neutral. This is categorically false! The facts of creation exists as facts created and interpreted by God prior to His creating them to be what they are. This is what the Christian worlview believes and teaches and has from the beginning. If God created everything, why would we grant the possibility that perhaps He did not do so, only to play the actor in apologetic dialogue? This is a fool's game in my opinion. Oliphint comments, "Because reason and philosophy are thought to be of ministerial use in theological argumentation, theology is the higher truth in relation to philosophy. As a higher truth, theology is not to fall lock-step behind philosophy's pronouncements, especially its pronouncements with regard to the things of the Christian faith." [Reasons for Faith, 88]

Not only are there no brute facts, neutrality is a myth. I am going back and forth on Twitter with a man who seems to believe in naturalism while at the same time denying the existence of presuppositions. He apparently wants to indict my approach of presupposing the falsification of naturalism all the while presupposing it to be true himself. It is a perfect example of the myth of neutrality. The man who commented that assuming the authority of Scripture merely begs the question is guilty of the same error. He presupposes that all men reason the same way, that they are neutral and that the evidence will lead them to the truth of Christian theism. One is left to wonder, if this is true, why these apologists continue to have such trouble convincing atheists to adopt Christianity. The theist and atheist can examine the very same evidence and arrive at violently contradictory conclusions about it. They may have even grown up on the same street and graduated from the same university with degrees in the same field. Turretin comments, "Men are not only destitute of righteousness, but also full of unrighteousness; incapable of good, but also inclined to evil; turned away from God, as the immutable and eternal good, but also turned toward the creature and inclined to every vice." [Turretin. Institutes of Elenctic Theology. I. ix. xi. x. 637] A loss of faith in sacred scripture is a loss of faith in God. A rejection of Scripture is a rejection of God.

When we adopt any method that calls into question the nature of God's word, we are calling into question God Himself. We see this in apologetics at multiple points. When scientific method is elevated above Scripture, we abandon a literal interpretation of Gen. 1-11. When human reason is elevated above Scripture, it displaces Scripture as the source of reliable truth and places the nature and content of Scripture in the dock. Unregenerate men set up standards by which Scripture is judged. If Scripture fails to meet the rational challenges of the unbeliever, it is dismissed as false. This makes man the measure of all things. However, it is no better if Scripture passes man's test and man decides to accept it. In that scenario, man is still the measure of all things. Scripture has been judged by man to be worthy. This is not the biblical order. Scripture is authoritative, not because it passes man's tests of reason, science and history. It is authoritative because of what it is: the very Word of God. We must begin with Scripture if we are to preserve it's place. It is authoritative, not because we say it is. Scripture is not self-attesting because that is the status we give it. Scripture is self-attesting because that is what it claims for itself. All reason, all science, all history, all philosophy must humbly submit to the authority of Scripture in every way. They are servants of theology, not magistrates over it.

Francis Turretin, in his 8th question in his Institutes of Elenctic Theology, asks:
"Is human reason the principle and rule by which the doctrines of the Christian religion and theology (which are the objects of faith) ought to be measured? We deny against the Socinians.
"Rather the question is whether it is the first principle from which the doctrines of faith are proved; or the foundation upon which they are built, so that we must hold to be false in things of faith what the natural light of human reason cannot comprehend." [Turretin, Francis. Institutes of Elenctic Theology, I.25] Yet, we have turned away from our faith in the self-attesting nature of Scripture and exchanged it for human reason or, in other cases, scientific method. This entire turning betrays a compromise in the orthodox teachings on the nature and attributes of God, as well as the noetic effects of sin on the human intellect. You see, if you had not skipped those theology classes, perhaps you would have been armed with Scripture to refute those views the minute you heard them and subjected them to the critical process as you should have. As you can see, we are not suggesting that reason should be abandoned. Rather, I am suggesting that it be born again. For unless you are born again, not only can you NOT enter the Kingdom of God, you also cannot reason rightly.

Peter's Apologetic Imperative

2011-12-26T16:43:00.000-05:00

The challenge of Christian apologetics is to present the Christ of Scripture without compromise as it engages in the effort to provide a reasonable answer for the hope that gives rise to the Christian worldview to all who ask, with reverence and gentleness. Peter’s audience was under attack. Actually, the Christian worldview is what was under attack. Peter’s audience just happened to be the indirect object of the assault. Peter issues a word of encouragement and a command for the believers to hold the Christian line: no retreat, no surrender. What is the aim or goal of Christian apologetics? Is it to persuade, convince, and influence? Is this what Peter had in mind? Probably the greatest apologetic example we see in Scripture is Moses. Moses believed that Yahweh was God and that Israel was God’s covenant people and that Pharaoh should believe this and let God’s people go. I wonder how Moses must have felt when confronted with the notion that he would engage Pharaoh in one exchange after another, all the while knowing that Pharaoh was not going to listen. Is apologetics for the unbeliever, to convince them of the truth of God’s existence in the system of Christian theism? Is it possible that when Peter issued his word of encouragement and command, that he was not actually thinking so much about persuading others as he was about reinforcing the faith of the believer? After all, when one reads Paul in I Cor. 1 & 2, one wonders how we can persuade men to exchange their entire worldview for a system they conclude to be radically irrational.

The Lordship of Christ

Peter begins by encouraging the believer to sanctify Christ as Lord in their hearts. The believers are under serious and sobering pressure to return to their unbelieving communities or groups. One gets the sense that imminent persecution is in view. Hence, Peter issues the encouragement to reinforce the sanctity and significance of Christ as Lord in their hearts. Now is not the time to shrink back. Just as important as any argument they may provide in answer to their inquisitors is their resilience of faith and determination of conviction.

Prepared Answer

Peter instructs his recipients to always be ready. The phrase is hetoimoi aei. The condition speaks to a state of readiness. There is nothing left to prepare. This is the state of the attorney the night before the trial is set to begin. She is finished with her preparation. She is ready to argue her case. It is the state of a football team on game day. Practice and preparation are in the books. The game plan is finished, the men know what it is, how to execute it and are ready to engage. Jesus used this word when He spoke of the large upper room where the last supper would take place. He described the room as “ready.” (Mk. 14:14) Paul used this word in II Cor. 12:14 when he said he was ready to come to the Corinthians. Preparations had already been made and he was not ready to come to them. It takes energy and effort to move to a place of preparedness. A boxer trains for hundreds of hours for a fight that lasts 36 minutes at most. Unfortunately, American Christians are not unlike other Americans. They are, in general, lazy. They focus on the easy things in life. Moreover, since doctrine doesn’t really matter and truth-claims are reserved for the mean-spirited and critical, there is little to no motivation for American/Western Christians to prepare a Christian apologetic. It comes down to Peter’s previous encouragement to sanctify Christ as Lord in our hearts. How important is it to us that we obey our Lord?

Giving an Account

After firming up their loyalty to Christ as Lord, which is actually not entirely a separate act from being continually prepared to provide an answer, Peter instructs the believer to give an answer, or provide a defense. What is this defense? The believer is commanded not to betray the righteous cause. The word is apologia, and it is the act of making a defense. Paul used the word in Acts 22:1 where he made his defense before the Jews. He also uses it in I Cor. 9:3 concerning his defense of those who examine him. Hence, the idea is that we are to be continually ready to give a defense of the Christian worldview. Mouton & Milligan say the ordinary meaning of this word is “to make a request.” Of the 70 occurrences in the NT, it is translated “ask” 66 times in the NAS. BDAG and Louw-Nida both point out that this word is closer to demand or to ask with urgency. The idea is that the “asking” comes with an almost entitlement to the answer. The mode of this defense is speech.

For those who give no attention or thought to this command, I have no words to offer other than, shame. What shall we say? That Christianity is worth believing, it is worth living, it is worth sharing, but it is not worth knowing well enough to defend? We want the easy way out, and for Christians, there is no easy way. Christianity involves discipline and focus top to bottom. There is no such thing as serving Jesus from the lounge chair! Laziness is a sin.

Putting Slanderers to Shame

The question about Peter’s command and the idea of putting your opponents to shame now comes into view. What makes for a good or sound apologetic? Does apologetics aim at being persuasive or is a biblical apologetic ipso facto persuasive? I tend to think that a biblically sound apologetic is both persuasive and offensive. I look at apologetics like I do preaching and teaching. I am interesting in change the minds and lives of the audience, but more than that, I am interested in proclaiming God’s word, God’s way. We have wrongfully separated apologetics from proclaiming and teaching the word. They are the same thing with a slightly different emphasis. Preaching and teaching is typically viewed as taking the initiative in speech while apologetics is usually a response. However, both must include the same content and presuppositions to be biblical. They both presuppose the existence of God, the truthfulness of the Christian worldview, and the authority of Scripture. They both assume a Christian metaphysic, revelational epistemology, and a biblical ethic. They proclaim and defend the Christian worldview as a whole rather than trying to piecemeal it together. Christian apologetics argues within the worldview that it seeks to defend.

What, then is Peter saying? Is he saying that we are to put together a philosophically complex system designed to actually persuade men of the truth of God and the legitimacy of Christian claims? While many, many apologists would answer in the affirmative, I have my doubts. By nature of the audience Peter is addressing, such a postulation would seem far-fetched. He is not giving believers a pass to be lazy, nor is he requiring a Harvard education in philosophy in order to be a good apologist. I should mention that, while every believer is not called to be a pastor, evangelist, teacher, etc., every believer is commanded to be an apologist. If you listen to some apologists, you are left wondering how an ordinary believer with a job and family could ever hope to obey Peter’s simple imperative. The prevailing idea is that a successful apologetic means persuasion. In other words, the measure of your success in apologetics is located in the power of your argument to convince others. Nowhere is this concept every presented in Scripture. In fact, since unbelievers are depraved, and reason entirely differently than Christians, such a postulation is utterly incongruent with Scripture. What then is Peter’s apologetic imperative? What, by God’s standards, is a sound Christian apologetic?

First, it involves a fearless defense of the truth claims of the Christian worldview. Peter says “do not be afraid of their intimidation!” It is likely that threat of physical harm was in view. Peter does not excuse the believer, even in the case of potential physical harm. If that is true, how can American/Western Christians excuse themselves under the guise of possibly offending others? How can we excuse ourselves over threat of loss of employment? Peter implies that loss of life is no reason for believers to excuse themselves from their apologetic duty. Therefore, loss of friends, loss of employment, loss of luxury, and loss of any comfort or convenience cannot serve as a legitimate reason for Christians not to fiercely engage in the Christian duty of defending the faith with all those who make such a demand. Pastors who neglect to equip their communities accordingly fail on a very fundamental level. Apologetics should be as much a pastoral concern as sanctification.

Second, Peter’s imperative has everything to do with reaffirming the Lordship of Christ in the life of the believer. Only if the believer acknowledges the lordship of Christ will they be able to make the sacrifices that Christian apologetics may demand of them. After all, if Christ is not Lord, why should I lose anything for Him, especially my health or even perhaps my life?

Believers are to provide a reasoned or reasonable account of why they have placed such confidence in the Christian worldview. Many apologists mistakenly think that Peter is saying that this “answer” must satisfy the reasoning of the unbeliever. In other words, many apologists assume that the reason (logos) Peter references is that which is employed by the world. If they do not make that mistake, they make the mistake of failing to distinguish between reformed or regenerate reason and unreformed reason. This raises the centuries old question of the relationship between faith and reason. As Augustine and Anselm said in their own way, I believe so that I may understand. Believers and unbelievers do not reason in the same way. How a Christian reasons must necessarily differ from how an unbeliever reasons due to the born again nature of the Christian. If this is true, then we have to ask by what standard of reason then should the Christian provide an answer for the hope that is in them? The answer is quite simple: it is God’s standard of reasoning. To assume that the world reasons in accord with God’s standard for reasoning is naïve and foolish. The unbeliever begins his reasoning on entirely different and even hostile ground than the believer. What makes us think they would permit godly reasoning in the course of this answer? Yet this is precisely what God demands.

How do we put the unbeliever to shame with our answer? First, it should be noted that to shame a Greco-Roman person was far more serious than it is for modern, Western or American persons. While it is far more stinging, the shame is not altogether so foreign that we are unable to attain a sense of it. We know very well what shame feels like. We can imagine what it feels like to be shamed by our group. The difference is the importance placed on honor and acceptance by the group. The manner in which we put the antagonist to shame is located in the mode of our answer, not the content or structure of the answer. In other words, we do not shame our opponents because they find the force of our reasoning irresistible. The only time that happens is when God regenerates the heart of the sinner. Otherwise, they are bound to find our reasoning empty and foolish. See Paul’s argument in I Cor. 1 & 2. The light has shined into the darkness and the darkness did not comprehend it because men loved darkness rather than light, because men’s deeds are evil. The courtesy and respect displayed in our answer serves to separate the believer from others.

It is one thing to understand how the reasoning of the unbeliever operates and where and how it departs from Christian theism. It is quite another to adopt that style of reasoning in an attempt to demonstrate the truthfulness of a worldview that such reasoning begins by dismissing at the outset. Unregenerate reasoning is hostile toward God. It is a sworn enemy of Christian theism. Worldly wisdom is antithetical to Christian wisdom. The world never comes to know God through its own wisdom. Their minds are darkened and without understanding. (II Cor. 4:4, Rom. 3:10-18)

A sound Christian apologetic begins with the truth of God’s existence, the validity of the Christian worldview, and the authority of Scripture as self-attesting. It does not begin with unreformed reasoning and move to that conclusion. It begins with God’s truth and proceeds along these lines, refusing to bow to the ungodly idol of autonomous human reason. A sound Christian apologetic does not, for the sake of argument, pretend that God might not exist, that Christian theism may not be true, or that Scripture is not necessarily the word of God, and then employ unreformed “type” reasoning in order to establish the likelihood of the truthfulness of these claims. Such an approach seems to me to be inconsistent with Peter’s apologetic imperative.

Christopher Hitchens: Let's Be Honest

2011-12-23T16:11:00.000-05:00

It is indeed a tragedy that any human being should depart this life rejecting God. It is even more tragic that some men take up the arduous and impossible task of erasing the very idea of God from society. Nothing is more disturbing than a human being openly, aggressively, and arrogantly putting forth extreme amounts of energy to destroy his or her Creator. No work is less noble, less honorable, less worthy, less ethical, less valuable than the work of erasing God from the conscience of human society. Not only is such work sheer folly, it is wrought with an arrogance unrivaled by any other known to man. To engage in the task of erasing God from human conscience is like standing under a waterfall while arguing that there is no such thing as water, that it doesn't fall, and that it does not make humans wet when contacting them.

I have read many kind remarks regarding Christopher Hitchens over the past few days. Most of these remarks coming from Christian quarters. The nicities are pouring forth like compliments at the King's birthday party. I cannot help but think about what Jesus said regarding His command for us to love our enemies. Does loving your enemies mean that you call them your friend? Can you love an enemy without saying wonderful things about him at his death? What does "loving your enemy" actually look like? How should Christian leaders be responding to the death of Hitchens? On one hand, I respect Hitchens' directness. You did not have to guess what he thought about God, the Bible, Jesus Christ, or those irrational and anti-intellectual Christian fruitcakes! Hitchens was a straight-shooter from what I can see. I wish more Christians were as honest and direct as he was. On the other hand, I destest the manner in which he blasphemed God.

What should we say about Hitchens? In American and Western culture, when people die, we have a tradition of saying only good things about the person. I understand why we have this inclination. I am not saying it is necessarily a good or bad thing. From my perspective, what really matters is Christ. What really takes precedence or should, is the gospel. What we should really be talking about is the truth. If you want to compliment Christopher Hitchens, then at least be honest with your compliments. Find something good that was actually good. Hitchens had a very powerful intellect. Perhaps he was a brilliant writer. But to say that any mind who aggressively denies God is a brilliant one is, in my opinion as a Christian, disengenuous. Truly brilliant minds do not deny their Creator. Men with powerful intellects may. Men with high IQs may. But to earn the description "brilliant" for me as a Christian means that this person's mind humbly submitted to the God who is there. Hitchen's did not! Any reasoning that concludes God is not is radically unsound. For Christians, how could it be otherwise?

The legacy of Christopher Hitchens was blasphemer par excellence. I do not think Hitchens would object to this description, given that it is coming from an irrational Christian such as myself. At least irrational as far as Hitchens is concerned! This is a very sad and frightening truth. Few men have blasphemed God as often and as indignently as Christopher Hitchens. His denial of the Creator and the arrogance with which he paraded his own intellectual abilities represent the worse kind of blasphemy. Do we honestly believe that Jesus would put his arm around Christopher Hitchens, call him a good friend and shrug his shoulders saying we disagree about God, all the while having a good laugh about it? Christopher Hitchens spent his life blaspheming God and making fun of the only true religion in the entire world. Does God have anything at all to say to men like Hitchens? I think so.

Let's be honest: Christopher Hitchens perverted the gift of reason and turned this God-given gift against the gracious Giver Himself. Christopher knew God existed, deep in places that atheists don't like to talk about. They all know that God exists. In lock-step, to one degree or another, these god-haters all take the gracious gift of knowledge and surpress it, exchange it for something far less than the beautiful gift it is. And with that subversion, they set about to protect, with every ounce of intellectual energy they can muster, all the autonomy their wicked hearts desire. Mr. Hitchens, while an accomplished author, an excellent speaker, and a good representative of the antitheistic view, was not a brilliant thinker if for no other reason than he refused to think God's thoughts after him. In so-doing, he ipso facto placed himself squarely in the camp of the irrational. If you are truly a consistent, critical Christian thinker, you must arrive at no other conclusion. We leave you to God, Hitch. Every man must face his Maker. I would rather do so with Jesus Christ as my Attorney as opposed to engaging in the folly of trusting in my own self-appointment.

Christian Arguments: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

2011-12-22T06:00:00.003-05:00

One Amazon Reviewer writes:

Hi, Just want to make the point that while many Christian apologetic arguments are weak and badly thought out, the same can be said of atheistic ones. Some arguments in the book are mirror images of ones Christians use and thus many of the criticisms of Christianity can be turned back. The argument that we can't trust our brains leads to futility for atheists and theists. Also, atheists are [rightly] offended when Christians accuse them of publicly denying their own inward awareness of God, but they don't think it offensive to suggest that Christians are generally deluded and too stupid to change, that the only reason they continue to believe is that they have not understood atheist arguments, rather than that they have understood and found them wanting.

RESPONSE

The basic problem in apologetics is that most arguments for Christian theism are far too influenced by enlightenment theories of human reason or the arrogance of postmodernism. In other words, just as atheism lives off the borrowed capital of Christian theism in its attempts to preserve some semblance of a rational defense of its views, so too, many modern Christian apologetic methods borrow from views whose presuppositions do not themselves cohere with basic Christian belief. When they attempt to weave together an internally consistent and persuasive argument, they trip over themselves. This is because they depart from orthodox Christian views of God, ultimate reality, the role of revelation in epistemology, the relationship between faith and reason, and the clear teachings of the impact of sin on the human mind. Unless apologists begin with the clear teachings of God in Scripture and proceed along those lines, they are likely to come off as strikingly incoherent and even inept in their presentation and defense of Christian theism.

A sound argument is a valid argument with true premises that result in a true conclusion. By definition then, there are no sound arguments against the truthfulness of Christian theism. Why? Because Christian theism is true. Did Jesus or any one of the Apostles EVER pretend that Christianity was false for the sake of argument? To do so is not only irrational for those who truly do purport to subscribe to the Christian worldview, it is without question a violation of Christian ethics to pretend that views which blaspheme the Creator could possibly be true, even for the sake of argument. As Aquinas once said, "A small error at the outset can lead to great errors in the final conclusion."

As Edward Leigh said, "The weightiest testimony only that can be brought to prove that there is a God, is to produce the Testimony of God speaking in his own word. None other in the world can have equal authority." God speaks to all men through His speech-act of Creation along with the sensus divinitatis not to mention Scripture! God testifies of Himself and His testimony is so clear, so pronounced that it leaves all men culpable. (Rom. 1)

"We are given to know the divine attributes or essential properties by revelation and rational reflection on revelation in such a way that God's nature is truly known by means of the revealed attributes."

-Francis Turretin

“Reason” and the Word of the Cross, cont.

2011-12-19T18:00:00.001-05:00

As I stated previously, God, in His own reasoning, chose not to bring the world to Himself through the world’s reason. Rather, God chose to use that which the world finds to be foolish, divine reasoning to save the lost. God reasoned to save the lost through means that the lost would find most unreasonable. Nowhere in Scripture are we ever commanded to believe because it makes good sense to us. Conversely, nowhere are we let off the hook because we found a thing unreasonable or offensive to our senses. Francis Turretin writes, “Faith is not referred ultimately to reason, so that I ought to believe because I so understand and comprehend; but to the word because God so speaks in the Scriptures.” [Turretin, Francis, Institutes of Elenctic Theology. 25]

Paul says, “For since in the wisdom of God the world through wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.” (I Cor. 1:21) It seems rather clear that the ones who came to believe did not do so from human reason. The Greek construction clearly demarcates the message preached against human reason. The world did not come to know God διὰ τῆς σοφίας. Conversely, God saves the believing ones διὰ τῆς μωρίας. The world does not come to know God through her wisdom. On the other hand, God saves through the foolishness. Again, who thinks that the preached message of the good news is foolishness and nonsense? Men like Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, and Sam Harris think so. Yet God confounds the wise, the scribe, and the rhetorician with His simple, but powerful, life changing, earth-shattering gospel. The world considers the gospel a preposterous scandal.

Paul says the Jew seeks a sign and the Greek for wisdom. It would seem to me that if we used the logic presented to us today by a good many theologians, apologists, and Christian philosophers, that God should have come up with a way to reach these people by meeting them where they were. For Jews, He should give them just the right signs. And for the Greeks, if He could just help them get to the ultimate reality behind the forms by use of reason, perhaps He could win them. However, God has not taken up utilitarianism, contrary to Rick Warren and other seeker-sensitive, felt needs gurus. What does God offer the Jew and the Greek?

Paul says God brings them a message: Christ crucified! However, to the Jews, this is a stumbling block, and to the Gentiles foolishness. The Greek word scandalon was literally a device for catching a live animal. It was also an action that caused one to violate a deeply held set of beliefs. A stumbling block was something that caused offense or revulsion and resulted in opposition, disapproval, or hostility. In other words, the Jews found the preaching of the cross repugnant, and revolting in every way imaginable. It was as unattractive as any message could be. How could any Jew embrace and believe such a message, held in such contempt even to certain death in some cases? One could offer up many answers, but claiming that it was because the Jew found it so aligned with their basic beliefs about God that it was rationally compelling would not be one of them. The same can be said of the Greek. To the Greek, the gospel had to sound like the most foolish message they had ever heard. Greek dualism held to a view that the material world was evil, corrupt, and contaminating. How is it that this Christian God, the Savior of us all, this completely and perfectly holy God could or would ever become human flesh. The thought of such a thing is absolutely foolish. Yet, this is precisely the message God gives to the Greek. The apostles do not look for a way to make the word of the Cross more palatable or rational or less seemingly absurd to their audience. They make no modifications whatsoever to the message of the cross. They are just silly enough to proclaim it. They don’t get lost in the myriad of competing deities or the potential distractions of Greco-Roman rhetoric. They engaged the culture, not with rational faith, but with baptized “reason.” They engaged the culture with reformed reason in the service of faith in the Christian gospel. The apostles accepted and embraced the idea that their message was going to offend the Jew and appear foolish to the Greek. Their faith did not rest in the will of man. Their faith did not rest in their ability to construct sophisticated complex apologetic arguments to persuade men to believe. If ever such was needed at any time in any culture, it was at that time and in that culture. The faith of the apostles was in God Himself. They were convinced that God’s plan would not be, no, could not be thwarted by any one at any time in any place. God’s plan was entirely dependent on God, not the libertarian freedom of the creature. Perhaps, if we can shift our faith from the creature back to the Creator, we too can return to a biblical apologetic that rests on the revelation of Scripture rather than autonomous human reason. If reason is the gift from the enlightenment, perhaps it is time to re-gift.

Reason serves as an instrument of faith, not as a foundation of it. This is the problem introduced long ago with natural theology, going back to the Platonists of Cambridge when confusion about the role of reason and the supposed illumination of natural theology slipped through the cracks by one Benjamin Whichcote. I am a huge proponent of reason. I wholeheartedly believe in a rational defense of the Christian worldview. However, I insist that any reason used in the service of faith be reformed by the faith it seeks to serve.

"Reason" and the Word of the Cross

2011-12-17T06:00:00.002-05:00

Ho Logos tou staurou is an interesting phrase. The word of the cross is both foolishness from one perspective and powerful from another. The word of the cross is synonymous with preaching the gospel. Paul says in I Cor. 1:18, “For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.” Notice the epexegetical “for.” This word serves as an explanation for the statement Paul just made. So, move your finger up the page to v. 17. There, Paul says, “For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void.” First, notice that Paul came to preach the gospel. It is this preaching of the gospel that Paul also calls, “the word of the cross.” There can be little doubt that Paul thinks of the gospel of Christ as the word of the cross. Read these two verses again and note how Paul draws a distinction between human reason and the gospel. There can be little doubt that Paul intentionally set up his argument to proceed along these lines.

Human beings are supposedly rational creatures. We have a “way of thinking” about things in order to make sense of them. God created human beings with the propensity to think in an orderly way. Reason imposes on all human cogitation norms that govern the orderliness of human thought. Rationalist are so enamored with human reason that they contend that all knowledge comes through it. Over the centuries, philosophers and theologians have undertaken the task of understanding how human reason and biblical faith relate to one another. Since reason is the human behavior of thinking in a certain sense, it follows that one must ask the question, how then does faith and regeneration impact how we reason as Christians? Is “reasoning” a neutral activity, unaffected by the sin nature? Reformed theologians and philosophers would answer in the negative as would I. Unbelievers and believers reason differently. The presuppositions that support the foundations of thought in the believer are antithetical to those that support the foundations of thought in the unbeliever. It is along these lines that we will proceed to discuss I Cor. 1:17-20.

The context in which Paul writes has to do with worldly group associations within the Christian community. The Corinthian believers were proud to be associated with Peter, Paul, or Apollos. Somehow, they thought such identification improved their social status. Paul is pleased to say that he had baptized almost none of them. Now, the Corinthian church was located near Athens and as one might expect, she came with all sorts of philosophies and speculations. Wisdom was elevated to a very prominent place in this society. This is not unlike our own culture. Humans have desired to elevate human reason from the time of the fall to present day. There are apologetic methods that place reason at the center of their argument. They wrongly believe that eloquent arguments based on sound human reason should be used to compliment the preaching of the gospel and that these methods increase the effectiveness of the gospel. I am going to argue that Paul does not leave us with the impression that he would have agreed with such methods.

Paul actually infers that human reason, apart from Christ has little to commend it when it comes to the Christian message. He argues that he deliberately did not engage in Sophia logou, wise words or words of wisdom, or cleverness of speech. Why not? He tells us clearly why not! So that he would not render void the cross of Christ! What does he mean, “render void.” The word void kenoo and it means to make powerless, to divest of privilege. Paul appears to say that the methods of human reason if employed to spread the gospel actually make the gospel powerless. This runs contrary to many apologetic methods, but this is not the only place Paul speaks in this manner. Moreover, this position makes complete sense in the light of other truths asserted in various portions of the sacred text. Paul preached a simple message so that the cross would be not be made powerless.

Why is this so? Paul tells us in v. 18. He explains the reason for why this stunning revelation. It is because the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing. The Greek word is moria. It means nonsense, foolishness, senseless. In other words, the preaching of the gospel makes absolutely no sense to those who are perishing. We see this is the Athenian response to Paul’s assertions about a resurrection! “Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some began to sneer.” (Acts 17:31) We spend a great deal of time attempting to make the gospel more reasonable to people that the gospel itself says will find it foolish. This raises the question around the need to make the Christian message more reasonable. Do we need “the word of the cross” to sound more reasonable or is it a legitimate goal to make it more reasonable to those that the gospel itself admits would find it foolish. I think more needs to be said about this subject, but space requires that I save that thorny issue for another post.

There are three types of people that are put to shame by the “word of the cross:” the wise man, the scribe, and the debater. These three groups likely refer to very specific groups in Greco-Roman culture. The wise man, likely refers to the Greek philosophers of the day. Their impetuous search for wisdom and even new views is described by Luke in Acts 17:21 where he says they spent their time in telling or hearing something new. Paul says the Christian message leaves the great Greek philosopher without anything to contemplate. God has demonstrated that for all his philosophizing, he knows nothing. His complex and exhaustive or exhausting inquiries have been brought to nothing.

The second, group, the grammateus likely refers to Jewish lawyers, who were the experts in all matters pertaining to the Law, or Moses. It word refers to a person who has attained a high level of education or expertise in a certain field or discipline. It occurs 63 times in the NT and once it refers to the town clerk. The remainder of the time it appears to refer to the Jewish experts of the Mosaic Law. These were the religious experts par excellence in Paul’s day. They were the top scholars in the land. According to Paul, the word of the cross demonstrated precisely what they did not know about God and His divine revelation.

The final group Paul calls, sudzetetes. The word appears only once in the NT. It also appears once in Ignatius to the Ephesians as he quotes this verse. The word means a disputant, or debater. The verb means to contend with persistence for a point of view. Whether or not Paul intends this to be a separate group from the previous is debatable. Rhetorical skill was highly valued in this culture and it is possible that Paul had such in mind when he mentioned this last group. The point is that these men are closely associated with ten sophian tou kosmou, the wisdom of the world. The very foundation upon which the existence of these groups thrive, God has made foolish. Literally, God has caused the wisdom of this word, its method of reasoning, its intellectual prowess to become nonsense, devoid of meaning.

I will continue in Paul’s polemic against worldly reasoning in my next post. Suffice it to say, that if we are going to interact with the world in apologetic fashion, we must come to grips with what Paul is asserting to the believers at Corinth regarding the world’s capacity to reason in a way that can make sense of the gospel without reforming their reason. It would be proper to say that there is nothing wrong with the world concluding that your Christian message is absurd. Paul contends that part of the Christian message is that the world will find the Christian message nonsensical. This is not necessarily proof you got it right of course. However, if the world considers your message very sensible and agrees with it, this is a serious indication that you have got something wrong. Perhaps making the “word of the cross” more sensible to the world has more to do with our own insecurities and uneasiness about the gospel and its relationship to our ego that it does about honoring God by effectively presenting His truth. Think about that.

Pastoral Care

2011-12-15T06:00:00.002-05:00

There are a number of individuals engaged in the pastoral ministry or career these days. Estimates are above 600,000 in total. Being a pastor is a very difficult job indeed. What is the job description of a pastor and how do we know that we have the right description? Now, when I use the word “pastor,” I am speaking of those men who compensated to provide for the spiritual well-being of a Christian community or congregation. What is pastoral care? There have been many books written on the subject and I suppose I could write a blog with several parts in order to cover the meaning of pastoral care. However, I would prefer to keep it at the high level and cover the basics so that you might be able to glean something from this post. If you are a pastor, I hope to make you think about how you provide this pastoral care to your congregation. If you are not a pastor, I hope to provoke you to think about whether or not your pastor is providing you with the right kind of pastoral care.

To begin with, the pastor is a gift from God to His church. God gives the pastor to the body for a purpose. Think about the function of gifts. They have a role. They do not own their recipient. They serve some purpose of the recipient. God defines the purpose of the pastor. God owns the recipient as well as the gift of pastor. The attitude of the recipient should be one of gratitude. In response to this gift, the recipient fulfills the purpose God has in mind for them in the first place. There are a number of texts in the NT that deal with the role of pastor. For purposes of this blog, I wish to focus our attention on Eph. 4:11-16.

Paul tells us unambiguously that God gave pastors for a very specific reason (Eph. 4:11). First, God gave us pastors for the equipping of the saints for the work of the service or ministry for the building up of the body of Christ. The pastor has a very substantial role in the body of Jesus Christ. He is here to equip the saints for the work of ministry and for building up the body of the Christ. It is the saint’s function to engage in the work of ministry service and to edify and build up one another. It is the pastor’s function to make sure they are equipped for that end. If the Christian is not equipped for service and edification, it is the fault of the pastor. The pastor is not here to make sure the Christian remains entirely dependent on him for everything. The pastor’s function is to create Christians who are equipped, who have the talent, ability and resources for ministry service and edification. This is the primary function of the pastor. This is no small task. When I survey the typical church in America and the typical activities of the pastor, I ask the question, is this objective even receiving any attention? If you attended the typical conservative church in the West, you would conclude that the pastor’s primary job is to prepare a light or high-level sermon that lasts for about 30-45 minutes on Sunday. He may have a counseling session here or there. He has numerous meetings and church business to attend. Of course, there are the hospital visits that make him feel like he really cares about his people. There are a host of dozens of activities and behaviors that pastors are involved in week in and week out. But how many of those activities are actually designed to equip the saints for ministry service and edification of one another? Moreover, how are we doing?

The Greek word katartismos. It is used in The Tebtunis Papyri, “the things for the furnishing of the guest chamber.” Louw-Nida says it means, “to make someone completely adequate or sufficient for something.” It is used in Lu. 6:40 to describe someone who is “thoroughly qualified.” In 2 Cor. 13:9, it is translated “fully qualified.” In 2 Tim. 3:17 is describes one who is “completely qualified.” The pastor’s job is to furnish the saints with the ability to perform ministry service, and to edify. He is to make the body completely adequate or sufficient, thoroughly qualified, fully qualified, completely qualified to carry out ministry service and edification to the body. The idea of the Greek word for ministry, diakonia, is service. It means to provide for something! The Christian is to serve, above all else, God. And in serving God, he/she is to serve the body. But she needs to be equipped to that end. Her service is invaluable to the body. The body requires her service. Without her service, the body will suffer greatly. It is the pastor’s function to ensure that she is able to fulfill her specific call to serve. Specifically, this service is seen in her building up of the body!

The Greek word oikodomeo means to increase the potential of someone or something. We are busy increasing the potential of one another to fully carry out their service to God and to one another. This is seen in our loyalty to the Christian ethic and our love for one another and the world. This potential, realized is seen in our knowledge and sanctification in Christ, our love for the body and our outreach to the lost. We stand for truth with passion. We rescue one another spiritually and materially, and enjoy rich fellowship with one another in Christ. We confront the world with the miracle of the gospel of Christ. How do pastors produce these kind of Christians? Well, they don’t do it by focusing on programs and brief sermons that really don’t get at the heart of those issues that are keeping us from becoming the equipped saints God has called us to be. It takes a deliberate plan on the part of the pastor to produce Christians like this! These are Christians who meet regularly with one another outside the two services we have each week. They share and pray and fellowship. They call you when you go missing for a service or two. They come after you. They confront you when you sin! They don’t let you slide in the name of “love.” They are always talking about Jesus and Scripture and the battle we find ourselves in. They are never satisfied with the status quo. They care about you and their behavior leaves no room for doubt that that is the case. But how do pastors produce Christians like this?

For starters, pastors have to really want Christians like this. The truth is that most pastors do not! You see, Christians like this have an odd way of insisting that things are managed a particular way: according to Scripture. A church filled with this kind of Christian is, by nature, a self-accountable church. This can get in the way of goals that may not be quite in line with Scripture. On the other hand, it could be that certain pastors just don’t like the idea of not being able to do as they please without much accountability.

Secondly, a church like this takes a lot more work than its counterpart. The need for a discipleship program is essential if you want a church like this. Someone needs to put that in place and manage it. It needs focus and lots of attention, serious attention. Nothing is more important to the health of a church than a sound discipleship program. Show me a church without a discipleship program and I will show you a spiritually unhealthy church every time. It never fails. There is an extremely high correlation between the spiritual health of a church and the quality of its discipleship program.

Paul says that the pastor has been given to the church for a specific purpose. However, more than that, the pastor has been given to the church for a certain period of time. The Greek word mechris is a conjunction that serves as a marker of continuance, up to a period of time. What is that time period then? The time period until we all attain to the entoteta tes pisteos and tes epignoseos tou huiou tou theou. Until we all reach the unity of the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God. There are three things that measure how the pastor is doing in respect to his job of equipping: the unity of the church in the faith; the extend of the church’s knowledge in Christ; the spiritual maturity of the congregation. These are the things the pastor should be monitoring on a regular basis. But is that the attitude of the modern pastor? Does he busy himself with the spiritual maturity of the congregation collectively as well as individually? Conversely, does he take the view that their spiritual growth is really up to them? Has he convinced himself that all he has to do is preach a 30-40 minute sermon and his work is finished?

Most pastors, from what I see, are not nearly as concerned about the spiritual growth of their sheep as they are the growth of their church (empire, success). For some, as long as there are no scandals, no divorce, no cheating, etc., etc. they are content, thinking they are doing their job. Others are not even concerned that these sins are taking place. One pastor I know of has had three divorces in his church in three years and he has yet to act to excommunicate a single person responsible for these unbiblical divorces. He is well aware of individuals that are hateful of one of the divorced parties, engaging in malicious gossip and he does very little to deal with the matter directly. Somehow he thinks a sermon or two vaguely touching on the matter is enough. He even advised one man to attend elsewhere because this group of individuals did not like him and it would bring disunity to the church if he returned. Folks, I have news for you: there is no unity in a church filled with groups of haters. Paul is not talking about keeping the peace in the church by allowing people to hate one another and keeping those they hate away for unjust reasons. Paul is talking about the unity of the faith. I think Paul would remove men like this from ministry because they simply don’t belong.

As a result of this work of the pastor, there is a state that the Christian community should reach. One, we should not be tossed about by every wind of doctrine and trickery of men that comes along. There should be stability of doctrine and praxis. Yet we see younger men coming along and attempted to undo everything that has been accomplished in the name of a postmodern arrogance. I call them young blind fools who are so simple in their thinking skills that they consider our current state intellectual and even spiritual progress. Second, we should be speaking the truth in love. The most important thing in our lives should be a burning passionate love for the truth. We should love God’s truth more than anyone or anything else. The Christian community should be a solid rock of age-old tradition soundly speaking God’s truth, demonstrating God’s love, without shrinking back from the tasks before her. She should be a group of closely-knit God fearing, truth honoring, gospel preaching individuals holding one another accountable, singing songs and hymns, and lifting one another up in the grace of God by the power of the Holy Spirit. The most talked about program in the church should be the discipleship program.

Finally, the body of Christ is fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part. It is the role of the pastor to equip each individual part so that the body may be fitted and held together, causing the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love. This is the primary duty of the pastor, as well as the other gifts of ministry given to the church. The apostles and prophets have done their work. I will follow this post by talking about the virtue of submission to those holy men of God who are executing the office of pastor from the standpoint of biblical integrity. How does a mega-church pastor accomplish his primary function? Good question!

The Offensiveness of Offense

2011-12-13T06:00:00.002-05:00

Because we live in such a non-thinking or uncritical culture, we often fail to ask the right questions. I am not sure how we change that at this point, but we would be better off as a society if we could manage to pull that off. In a recent blog I talked about how some people are offended by Tim Tebow's religious expressions on the football field. In doing so, I posed the question, is it always acceptable to be offended? In other words, are there some things that just should not offend us? We are so busy "not thinking" in our culture that we simply don't slow down long enough to consider these sorts of questions. So, let's consider this question in this brief blog post.

What does it mean to be in offended? If you look the word up in Webster, it means to transgress the moral or divine law. But that is not quite the definition we are getting at here. If you look at the etymology of the word, you discover it is Middle English > Middle French offendre > Middle Latin offendere to strike against, offend. It means to violate or transgress, to cause pain or hurt, to cause vexation usually by violation of what is proper. The word has a sense of personal affront, to hurt literally or figuratively. The concept of offense is located in the idea of violating a moral standard. In modern vernacular, it carries the connotation that one has violated accepted norms of behavior and thereby has offended the senses of others.

It is obvious then that offense is indelibly connected to norms. Norms, by nature are ethical or moral. The question then that I am posing concerns the normative standard that serves as the basis for offense? We live in a culture that, out of one side of its mouth loves to deny moral absolutes, but out of the other side of its mouth loves to talk about how offended it is by, well, you name it. Let me see if I can spell it: irrationality. Now, since by definition, offend means to violate some norm, it would follow that some things should not offend us since no normative standard prohibits all human behavior. In other words, since some human behavior is considered normative, it should not offend us. Make sense? If not, I don't know what to tell ya.

In order to understand what should and should not offend us then, we have to identify the normative standard by which we all should behave. However, in our culture, we find such absolute norms repugnant. This is because we are a non-thinking culture that wouldn't recognize an irrational argument if we paid $20 dollars for a ticket to watch one at the local iMax theatre. Yet, without normative standards for human behavior, offense is not a rational possibility. So what is a society to do? We invent our own! And they are different for each person!

And there you have it. Cultural relativism lends itself to the idea that no human behavior is safe from offending someone, somewhere. But isn't there some behavior that even a pluralistic and relativistic culure like our own can agree should not offend anyone? I think so. What about saving a human life? Do we think that would or should offend anyone? I think it is safe to say that acts of genuine nobility should not offend anyone. What about loyalty to one's friends and spouse? Should that offend anyone? Probably not! What about talking about one's belief in God? Does it offend anyone? Yes! What normative standard does it violate? The one that says you should never talk about religion publicly. And who created that standard? It certainly was not a religious person. You get the point.

Sometimes we confuse disagreement with offense. We think that disagreement with a person's actions, behavior, or beliefs is the same as being offended because we don't like them. It is not. There are some things that simply should not offend us. That is the question we should present to anyone who is offended by anything we say or do. For example, I once offended a person with my view that homosexuality was unnatural. She responded that my view was highly offensive to her. My response was, "really, that is fascinating. Tell me specifically what it is about my view that is offensive." Of course she said I was judging them for their behavior. I then said, so is it wrong for me to judge them? She said yes. I said, is it wrong to judge just homosexuals or is it wrong to judge at all? She said it is wrong to judge at all! I then said, so you think what I am doing is wrong! She said yes! I then asked her why she was judging me. The look on her face was priceless!

Christians should be offended by those things that offend God! Where do we find things that offend God? In the Scripture! If it offends God, it should offend the believer! The unbeliever desires autonomy. She will be offended by anything that she recognizes as a threat to that desire. This is true even if she has to go through complex inferences to understand the threat. All she has to do is realize that a certain behavior threatens her autonomous desires and she will be offended. Her self-proclaimed norms have been violated or they are under threat of violation and therefore she is offended. I hope this post will help you work through how you should think about the presupposition behind the belief and not just stop at the stated belief. The Christian needs to challenge unbelieving thought everywhere we encounter it and use it as an opportunity to present the gospel.

J.P. Holding on Perseverance of the Saints

2011-12-10T18:00:00.004-05:00

J.P. Holding calls himself a 1.5 pointer in terms of his adoption of TULIP. He adopts a completely redefined doctrine of total depravity and then perhaps accepts the inconsistent view of conservative Aminianism on limited atonement. As it turns out, Holding is a zero point Calvinist. We come to his views on eternal security, which are muddled and unorthodox in my estimation.

Holding argues that libertarian freedom must mean that men can truly become born again and also truly throw off their salvation. At least he is better than most because he asserts that such an act of apostasy is unforgivable. What I mean is that Holding at least attempts to be consistent in a way. In other words, if you commit this act, you can never repent of it. You have sealed your fate. Upon examining the texts Holding references, it seems to me that only two merit serious (as serious as one can be in a blog I suppose) treatment. Many of the texts Holding uses simply do not even address the issue of apostasy in my opinion. Moreover, one of the clearest texts in all of Scripture on the subject is left untreated by Holding and that is Matt. 13:18-23.

Holding has a very serious problem in establishing his position. To begin with, if genuine apostasy is possible, and if Holding’s view of apostasy is correct, then apostasy is indeed an eternal sin. The two texts that speak to this issue are Hebrews 6:4-6 and 10:26-39. In addition, Holding has a real issue with contradiction in the texts of Scripture. Why is this? This is because Jesus said there was one sin and only one sin for which man could not be forgiven: the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Holding has built his case in such a way that if it can be demonstrated that apostasy is not the same thing as blaspheming the Holy Spirit, then his view collapses. Holding will have to abandon his claims, or he will have to accept the view that Scripture contradicts itself. Of course, since Holding buys into the idea of block logic so thoroughly, perhaps he is fine with believing that the Bible contains contradictions. If this is where we end up, then we can write Holding off as an irrational. It would be odd to be in the business of “argument” while at the same time contending that logic fails.

The Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit

This seems like the best and least complicated place to begin. The texts in the NT that talk about blaspheming the Holy Spirit are located in: Matt. 12:31-32; Mark 3:28-29; Luke 12:10. The second question that would follow pertains to whether or not unbelief can be forgiven. Finally, the object of atonement is worth mentioning before we complete our critique. That is, did Jesus die for sins in general or sinners in particular? The atonement is indelibly connected to perseverance as we will show later in this post.

In Mark 3, Jesus has an interesting exchange with His religious opponents. The chapter begins with the healing of the man with a withered hand on the Sabbath. Of course this did not set well with the Pharisees and they conspired how they might kill Him. So Jesus goes down to the sea and multitudes follow him. He heals many and casts out many demons. This further infuriates the religious crowd. He then chooses the twelve, and enters into a house. The crowds follow yet again so much so that they cannot even eat. Jesus own family thought He had lost His mind. It is here that that scribes, the specialists in the Mosaic law accused Jesus of casting out demons by Satan Himself. Jesus responds to this challenge by saying that, “all sins shall be forgiven men and whatever blasphemies they utter, but the one who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness!

Immediate Texts

Frist of all, Mark connects the sin of blasphemy with speech with the phrase, βλασφημίαι ὅσα ἐὰν βλασφημήσωσιν•. The connection of the noun with the verb goes to speech. However, there can be no doubt that speech is the betrayer of what lies in the heart. Jesus said as much in Matt. 12. In an honor-shame culture such as this one, the people would readily understand the issue with speaking words of shame about the Holy Spirit. The charge would resonate with them immediately. Not only this, the scribes were thoroughly familiar with the expression of blasphemy. It fell under the rubric of “the profanation of the Name.” In general, this was speech which defied God’s power and majesty. In fact, it was part of the tradition that the scribes viewed all sin as pardonable except profanation of God’s name, or blasphemy. [Lane, William L. NICNT, Mark. 144-145] Therefore, it must be understood that Jesus’ charge was familiar and exceedingly serious. It was one thing not to recognize Jesus as the Messiah. Their eyes were veiled. However, the judgment that these men were delivered over from demonic possession by the spirit of Satan rather than God was blasphemy. After all, it was the responsibility of the scribes to be aware of the redemptive acts of God. [Lane, 146] Finally, Mark makes it clear that the reason Jesus responded with this charge was specifically related to their statement that Jesus had an unclean spirit. The scribes had committed blasphemy, the eternal sin!

Matt. 12:31-32 also links blasphemy with speech when he uses the parallel between blasphemy and speaking in v. 31 and 32 respectively. Who speaks against the Son will be forgiven is paralleled with whoever blasphemes against the Son. Whoever speaks against the Spirit is paralleled with whoever blasphemes the Spirit will not be forgiven. Jesus goes on to demonstrate how words that people use reveal their true character. From the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.

Luke 12:10 uses speak and blaspheme interchangeable when he says whoever speaks a word against the Son it will be forgiven, but whoever blasphemes the Holy Spirit it will not be forgiven him. Based on the three texts recorded in Mark, Matthew, and Luke, it would seem readily apparent that to blaspheme, while it does involve a condition of the heart, in this context most certainly involves speech. What is in the heart will proceed out of the mouth. And what proceeds from the mouth reveals the truth about what is in the heart. Of course I mean the preponderance of what comes out of the mouth. One should take care not to force a single definition onto this Greek word based on these three texts. The word blaspheme will certainly have other meanings that perhaps do not necessarily involve speech. However, we are concerned with J.P. Holding’s contention that the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit in Matt. 12, Mark 3, and Luke 12 do not mean slanderous speech. Obviously Holding is wrong.

Broader Textual Considerations

The Greek word blasphemeo appears 34 times in the NT. Paul uses it 8 times. It could be argued that in every instance, speech is considered. At least on six occasions speech is certainly the context of Paul’s writing. James uses it to refer to speech. Peter uses the word four times and he means slanderous speech in every instance. Jude uses it twice to refer to slanderous speaking.

Lexical Considerations

BDAG tells us it means to demean through speech. To speak in a disrespectful manner. In human relations, it means to revile, slander, or defame. In relation to transcendent or associated entities, it means to slander, revile, defame, speak irreverently, impiously, disrespectfully of or about. Louw-Nida says it means to speak against someone in such a way as to harm or injure his or her reputation (occurring in relation to persons or divine beings). One way in which these words were used to blaspheme God was when they were used in such a way as claiming equality with God. Any such statement was regarded by the Jews of biblical times as being harmful and injurious to the nature of God. According to the EDNT, the word group appears a total of 56 times in the NT: 34v, 18n, and 4a. In the EDNT, the kind of blasphemy that appears in the texts of Matt. 12 and Mark 3 is “absolute blasphemy.” This is direct blasphemy. Suffice it to say that the immediate context of our discussion along with the broader context of the NT as well as the lexical evidence demonstrate that blasphemy in the NT involves speech more often than not. Moreover, the immediate context of our passages certainly indicates that speech is in play in blasphemy. Hence, based on the context of Matt. 12:31-32, Luke 12:10, and Mark 3:28-29, there can be no doubt that this blasphemy involved speech. In addition, the broader use of the word throughout the NT indicates that it involves speech in the overwhelming majority of uses. Finally, the lexical considerations support the view that bound up in the definition of blasphemy is the idea of slanderous or defamatory speech. J.P. Holding’s view that blasphemy is merely unbelief does not hold up. It also does not follow that all unbelief or apostasy is blasphemy. Of course, blasphemy is one indication of an unbelieving heart. But surely it is not the only indication. Blasphemy is one of many sins that can be spawned by the sin of unbelief. In fact, most scholars would agree that all sin has its root cause, to one degree or another, in the sin of unbelief. Holding’s failure to understand this is shocking. The immediate context, the lexical evidence, and the broader textual evidence throughout the NT indicate that blasphemy has an indelible connection with speech. Moreover, there is no connection whatever between apostasy and the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Of this, we can be certain.

Apostasy

For Holding, it is the clear: heartfelt repudiation of belief is apostasy. Has Holding succeeded where others have failed? Is the doctrine of eternal security, whatever form one posits, unbiblical? Holding refers to several texts that he believes support his position. Space will only permit a limited treatment of the texts in question. I will treat Holding’s positive proof first and then I will come back to His rebuttal of selected texts along with some that he omits.

Holding mentions Gal. 5:4 as an example of actual apostasy. The problem here is that the offenders were not throwing off Christ. They were not denying His deity. They were not even turning away from Him. They were adding requirements of the Law to Christ. This is far from Holding’s definition as heartfelt repudiation of belief. There is no suggestion of any kind that Judaizers were committing blasphemy against the Holy Spirit in this text. Holding seems to have introduced evidence that is more of a problem for this thesis than it is for the doctrine of perseverance.

Hebrews 6:4-6

Holding responds to MacArthur who argues these were not genuine Christians, saying that this language is used of genuine Christians elsewhere in the NT. Perhaps this is so. However, simply because the language is used to describe true believers in other texts, this does not ipso facto indicate it does so here. Unbelievers can receive the Word of God with joy. They can give the appearance, for a time, that they are indeed saved. On that basis it is reasonable to view such as having been enlightened and even having tasted of the good Word of God, at least outwardly. But after a while, Jesus said they will fall away, having no root in themselves. Holding neglects to take this verse into consideration. I will come back to it.

Holding then argues against the view that this verse is purely hypothetical. He argues that there is no conditional sentence in the text. I am not sure which English version Holding is referring to when he says there is not if in the Greek text in verse 6. The trouble is that the conditional aspect of this text is located in v. 9, not verse 6. It is there the ei appears. Verse 9 says, “But, beloved, we are convinced of better things concerning you, and things that accompany salvation, if even (though) we speak like this (we are speaking this way).” The writer then says, “For God is not unjust.” This language clearly indicates a hypothetical component and this is not merely supported by the presence of the conjunction ei, but the entire context of the chapter. I will come back to that point.

Holding then spends considerable time talking about repentance but says nothing note that would require response as far as I can tell.

The overall context of these three verses falls within the immediate context of progressing in the faith. The writer of Hebrews is clearly not pleased with the lack of spiritual growth of these Hebrew Christians. He urges them to grow up. He argues that they should not be concerned about laying the foundation again and again. Move on is his imperative. However, he says this we will do if God permits and then he introduces our text. After the text, an analogy, and a disclosure that he is not worried about the salvation of the Hebrew Christians, being convinced that God is not unjust, even though he is speaking in this way. Calvinists and others argue that God uses warnings as His means to providentially oversee the perseverance of His saints. Holding nowhere refuted why such a view is misguided. He simply made fun of it and moved on. Given the strong hypothetical in 6:9 “though we are speaking in this way,” is literally, if we speak like this. Hebrews 6:4-6 is best viewed as a hypothetical because of how it is situation contextually, because of the conditional clause that appears in v. 9, because of the convicting view of God’s justice in v. 10, because of the restatement of the unshakable promise to Abraham, and because of the hope mentioned in v. 19. Moreover, Scripture is its own interpreter and there are plain texts that indicate that salvation can never be forfeited once given.

Heb. 10:22-39

Holding argues that this sin is the sin of unbelief. Holding selects v. 22 as the context for v. 26. But the writer mentions love, good deeds and continuing to assemble together. There can be no doubt that the writer is concerned with the sin of apostasy. But once more, there is nothing to indicate that genuine believers who were truly saved actually tossed away their salvation. The warning goes out to all, as a means of perseverance, that turning back to the sacrificial system of the law will not provide forgiveness and cleansing any longer. Of the sanctification language, I do not take the phrase literally. Just as Peter talked about the false teachers who have supposed been redeemed, so the writer of Hebrews uses the same literary device concerning those who were turning back from that very covenant that had supposed sanctified them. The view that this text makes a significant different between those who turn back and those who preserve is located in v. 39. Once more, Holding misplaces the limits of the text and the results are disastrous. The writer could not be more clear about the existence of two groups and which group “we” belong to. He says, “But we are not of shrinking back into perdition, but faithful into preserving of the soul.” The writer says “we” are not of those who turn back, but of those who continue to life.

The intent of this blog was not to lay out an argument for the perseverance of the saints, a doctrine to which I am firmly committed. Rather, it was simply to explore the contentions of J.P. Holding that this doctrine is not taught in Scripture. Holding’s view required a logical connection between the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit and Apostasy. If he could not make that connection, his entire argument fails. As I have shown above, Holding failed to provide adequate evidence to support his definition of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. He also failed to show any Scriptural evidence connecting the sin of unbelief or apostasy with the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. In addition, Holding failed to show any proof that the texts in Hebrews 6 and 10 addressed the loss of salvation given. Finally, Holding never interacted with Matt. 13:18-23. Here Jesus talks about several types of responders to the Word of God. One of the groups takes the Word and receives it with joy. But after a while, because of affliction or persecution, he falls away. This describes perfectly the situation with the Hebrew Christians. They were facing persecution and some were defecting. These are the ones that Christ mentioned in Matt. 13:18-23. They were never good ground. They were never really saved. The only ones who are genuinely saved are those who bring forth fruit, 30-60-100 fold. Why Holding does not make this connection I do not know.

Based on the context of the incident of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, the lexical evidence, and the broader context of the NT, it would seem that Holding is wrong to identify it with unbelief or apostasy. Since this is the only sin that cannot be forgiven, the texts in Hebrews must be taken differently, otherwise we have a violent contradiction. Given that we clearly know that only one sin is eternal, and that that sin is not throwing away one’s salvation, it must be held that Hebrews could not be talking about the literal throwing away of one’s salvation. The immediate context containing the conditional clause, and the corpus of Scripture would mandate a hypothetical interpretation of Hebrews 6. Hebrews 10 clearly does not leave us hanging as the author tells his audience that we are not of those who draw back. All of this indicates that Holding’s criticism of how P in TULIP is understood has little to commend it. When you couple this with a positive presentation of the doctrine of perseverance [HERE], Holding’s entire criticism seems rather unconvincing. You can find excellent articles on these texts here and here.

The Hostility of Homosexuality

2011-12-08T20:00:00.005-05:00

I have written about the homosexual choice in the past and talked about how I believe it is a veiled tool of secularist strategy to eliminate free thought and religion. I have said that the homosexual choice was primarily a choice steeped in radical narcissistic philosophy. I would like to point out three stories that emerged over the last week that serve to illustrate my point better than I ever could. The homosexual choice is radically a selfish and hedonistic choice and it is in fact used as a tool to shut down religious freedom in the world.

Boycott the Salvation Army
After the loss of his roommate and best friend, Ron Shank was devastated. Being developmentally disabled, Ron was unable to express and deal with his grief. But thanks to the Salvation Army Developmental Disabilities Program, he's back on track. Ron, who is 65, has been part of the DDP since 1987. Previously he had been institutionalized since age 8. Thanks to the Salvation Army, Ron gets the special attention he needs to grow and learn. He is doing much better now and is able "to develop his true talents and abilities,...which he wouldn't have been exposed to in another program.

One night, Marcial Figueroa, out of funds to finance his long-time drug addiction and besieged by threats from those whom he owed money, decided he was fed up with his destructive lifestyle. He broke down, cried, and asked God for help. "If you really want to change, you got to look to the Lord," he said. After participating in several different recovery programs including Alcoholics Anonymous, Figueroa arrived at The Salvation Army Reed House in 2005. "If I didn't find this place, I probably would have turned back to drugs," said Marcial, who has been drug-free for three years now. "I thank God that The Salvation Army opened their doors to me."

"I grew up in a house full of people," says Noemi, "but I was lonely." When Noemi was three, her mother and baby brother died of tuberculosis. Noemi was sent from Puerto Rico to live with her aunt, who ran a house of prostitution in Florida. Throughout her childhood, Noemi was molested by the men who visited her aunt. She was beaten when she tried to reveal the abuse to her family. Desperate to escape her situation, when Noemi was 10 ½ she ran away with a much older man. By the time she was 14, she bore him 3 children.

Enter the story:
Gay-rights groups are urging a boycott of donations to the iconic holiday bell-ringers, saying the Salvation Army has a history of discriminating against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people -- a charge the charity denies.

It seems that the only thing that matters to the gays is that everyone heartily agree with, accept and endorse their sexual behavior, no matter what! They simply cannot tolerate the fact that some people actually disagree with how they live their lives. It does not matter how much good the Salvation Army actually does, all the people that are blessed by the kind and gracious work of the SA is summarily tossed aside. What matters is that the Salvation Army disagrees with the homosexual lifestyle. Therefore, you should not help anyone through the Salvation Army. I am going to go out on a limb and say that there have been thousands of homosexuals benefit from the charity of the Salvation Army. Here is the novel idea for the gays who want to boycott the Salvation Army: just go give to your own organizations who engage in the same sort of charitable work. Why try to force the Salvation Army to stop being who it is.

Mom Uses 8 yr. old Son in Political Strategy
Did you see the lesbian mother of an eight year boy who pushed her son toward Michelle Bachmann in an effort to use her cute little son to defend her lesbian lifestyle. This kind of vile behavior demonstrates that there are some in the homosexual community who will stop at nothing to preserve their narcissistic lifestyle. This is an extremely shameful move on the part of this mother. This calls into question the qualifications of this woman as a parent. What kind of a mom would use her son to do something so outrageous and shameful? When I first saw this story, it was on Yahoo. The headline read something like: 8 yr-old with gay mom silences Michelle Bachmann as if he had some brilliant little comment that was indefensible. It was absurd that Yahoo would play that angle. What was Mrs. Bachmann to do? Debate a child on the issue of homosexuality? She did exactly the right thing. My point is that the homosexual community will stop at nothing to eliminate religious freedom because it is the one thing that stands in their way of achieving their desired state.

Secretary of State Hilary Clinton
In remarks on Tuesday in Geneva to the United Nations, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said religious and cultural beliefs are standing in the way of homosexual human rights worldwide.

“Now, raising this issue, I know, is sensitive for many people and that the obstacles standing in the way of protecting the human rights of LGBT people rest on deeply held personal, political, cultural, and religious beliefs,” said Clinton.

It seems clear that the politicians in Washington have lost their minds. About 2% of the total population has decided to be gay. How is it that protecting the rights of that segment is more important than protecting the rights of the rest of the culture with its deeply held religious beliefs? The homosexual community has deeply held religious beliefs that their lifestyle is normal and healthy and endorsed by God. Therefore, society should accept it. Or, at a minimum, they hold that there is nothing morally wrong with their lifestyle and therefore society should accept it. Why is it that people like Hilary Clinton cannot see the folly in this sort of thinking. Why is it not violently contradictory to think that the homosexual beliefs are somehow in a different category from other opposing beliefs? Moreover, why don't conservatives point this out when the opportunity presents itself? Why is it acceptable to destroy the religious freedom of the majority in order to appease the tiny sliver of the minority? I wonder about that.

Unrelated but related was a segment about Tim Tebow on the O'Reilly Factor this week. Bill had a female attorney on that thinks that Tim Tebow's religious outspokenness is inappropriate and offensive. I admire Bill, but sometimes he just doesn't ask the right question. As a Christian, if you were sitting there watching this segment, I wonder what you were thinking? I know what I was thinking. I was wondering about this idea of undisciplined "offense." The idea is that people are entitled to be offended over anything they want. If that is true, then let's play it Hitler's way: the existence of the Jew was offensive to Hitler and he decided to fix it! What am I getting at? Here is the question: are there some things that we should not cause offense? To put it another way, is it EVER wrong or even unreasonable to be offended? One more time; is it always, under any and all circumstances reasonable or permissible to be offended? It would seem to me that any honest and reasonable person would have to say that there are times when it is actually offensive to take offense. (hahahaha). The point is that once you turn the discussion in this direction, you can then begin discussing what those things are and why they should not offend us. You get at the basis for offense if you take that approach. It will open to door to good conversation and an opportunity to present the gospel.

The Hypocrisy of Gulnare Freewill Baptist Church (and Many of Their Litigants)

2011-12-08T18:00:00.003-05:00

Before I share my thoughts on this situation, let me say without hesitation or reservation that any church that practices racism is without question, guilty of covenant breaking and egregious sin before a holy God. There is no place for racism in any form in the Christian community. At the core of racism are hate and pride. To hold such a view of our fellow man is violently incongruent with the Christian ethic. To say I love Jesus and to hate your brother makes one a liar of the first order. The hypocrites in this situation will say they love people of different races from their own. They will piously explain that they are taking this stand for all sorts of irrational reasons. I know, I have probably heard of them. I grew up 60 miles or so from this little town. I have heard every argument imaginable to justify this ignorant and hateful position. That being said, I want to use this case to illustrate the hypocrisy that is taking place in churches and Christian conversations all over the country as a result of this situation.

Many, many Christians are simply stunned by the actions of this tiny group of people (40 approximately). And they should be. Outrage is a proper response. However, what is it that makes racism wicked? The problem I have with many in the Christian community is that they will never get to the crux of the sin itself. That is unfortunate because this is an excellent opportunity to shine the light of God’s righteous character onto our own lives and churches and see where it is we are playing the fool as well. Somewhere, there is a man or a woman who divorced their spouse for what they think was justifiable reasons. It could be that he drank too much or she spent too much. It could be that they fought all the time and neither of them was happy. It could be that they just “fell out of love.” They attend church every Sunday and Wednesday and even Sunday school as well. His friends, Christian friends support him or her Christian friends support her. They all come together and sing kum ba yah every week and everything is just fine. They will read this story in the news and respond with outrage the same as most other decent folks have. They will criticize this church, and their criticism will probably be right, or at least mostly right. Their pastor and leaders will do the same thing. Everyone will be so “terribly disturbed” by the actions of this church. How dare they decide to bring such hate into the church? This thinking is certainly justified according to Scripture’s teaching on love and unity.

Others are going to gather in churches all over the country and criticize this act by this small church, all the while endorsing same-sex marriage. They will contend that the homosexual decision is based on genetics, that God made it so, and therefore they should be allowed to share their love with whomever they please. They will gather together, man with man, woman with woman, and they will criticize the actions of this small church, probably for days and even weeks on end. And they are right to do so. This small church has no defense for its egregious actions.

Still others will gather together and join in condemning this church, but then will go home to their “significant other.” They live with someone outside the bonds of marriage and attend church just the same. They think that because they “feel” love for God that this equals love for God. They may even have children together. They will rail against this small church and condemn each and every member as a hypocrite. They might be right! Certainly I could never remain in a church that engaged in such hate. Everyone there has a responsibility to stand up for the truth and love of God. To remain and do nothing is just as scandalous as those who are pushing the item of hate through to a vote.

Then, there is yet one more group. This group knows about the practicing homosexuals in their congregation. They know of folks who are living together; they know of folks who are guilty of malicious gossip and slander and they do absolutely nothing to confront the sin that is right in front of their face. They too will go to church and, criticize this little church. They will talk about how hateful it is to take up such a policy and think in such terms. They will even voice their opinion in Sunday school and at bible study. But, when the chance comes for them to be devoted to Christ, they scurry away, hiding in the crevices under the guise of keeping their nose out of the matter. They are cowards. They are hypocrites. They speak out openly about matters that even the world can agree is wrong, but when it comes time to actually make a real difference in their own community by doing the right thing, they abandon ship like a weak, pathetic, unbelieving wretch without even the slightest backbone whatsoever. They are much like a person whose feet have left the deck of the ship in abandonment, yet before his feet can hit the water he speaks of his love and devotion to the ship and crew and passengers. No one takes him seriously.

Racism is wrong because it violates the nature and character of God. Racism is not wrong because it is racism. It is only wrong in the context of the Christian worldview. Could an atheist ever argue, with any rational compunction whatever, that racism is wrong? How? We are all accidents without value or purpose. In what sense could an atheist ever give a persuasive argument that anything is wrong, let alone racism? The Christian worldview can condemn racism in the strongest of terms and it does. Racism is wrong for the very reasons these other sins are wrong: they violate the character and nature of the holy God. I have news for those who divorce without biblical grounds, those who make the choice to practice homosexuality, abortion, malicious gossip, sexual promiscuity, all the while claiming to know and love God: YOU are Gulnare Freewill Baptist Church. You are no different than the church that excludes interracial couples from her membership! I know, you think that you are different. You feel like you are different. You are NO different. You violently break the covenant of the same God they break. You break it in one point, they break it is another point. So what! You are a covenant breaker no different from them. You practice your sin and love it! But to you, your sin is respectable and theirs is not! So that is alright. I have shocking news for you: no sin is respectable. All covenant-breakers will pay their due. You are either in covenant under Christ or you are in covenant under Adam. Those who practice sin are in covenant under Adam. You do not know God and are still in darkness. You are a dressed up moralist who has stamped Jesus on your own set of rules and because you attend service each week, you think this makes you a Christian. Just as Nathan the prophet said to David about the cruelty that he had engaged in: YOU ARE THE MAN! You who are invovled in a church where these various sins are winked at or tolerated, God says to you: YOU ARE THAT CHURCH! So too, think about the vile behavior of racism in a supposedly Christian church. It turns your stomach, doesn’t it! In the same way, those who practice illicit divorce, adultery, sexual immorality, homosexuality, abortion, lying, slander, and those who tolerate those who do these things, you turn God’s stomach. If you want to talk about anything in Church as a result of this incident, talk about that.

Irresistible Grace and J.P. Holding - Part II

2011-12-05T18:00:00.003-05:00

Grace

Holding says that good behavior is an expected result of grace and not required for it. The implication is, of course, Greco-Roman culture’s client-patron relationship serves as the basis for how NT Christians understood God’s miraculous work of salvation in the hearts of men. Not only does Holding fail to prove this is the right model for understanding the God-man relationship, he fails to show how cultural norms serve as theological imperatives in the NT. Frist, it does not follow that men absolutely and always responded to the patron with good behavior. The dance was sometimes cut short. The description of those who reject God makes this plain. Paul says men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, unloving, etc. (II Tim. 3:2-3) Paul says men will be acharistos. Jesus uses this word to describe God’s kindness toward acharistos men. The word means a complete lack of thankfulness. Secondly, Jesus this word to describe the general condition of all men in Luke 6:35 when He says that God is kind to ungrateful and evil men.

Holding, under the spell of social science criticism once more, says, there is no such thing as an isolated act of grace. Yet Jesus changes the client-patron game in this sense as well when he says to His followers, I want you to do it differently. First, love your enemies. Second, continually do good deeds. Third, lend to those who ask expecting nothing in return. Jesus added to this that God is kind toward ungrateful and evil men, implying that we should do the same. Holding apparently presses the client-patron model too far.

Holding then comments that gratitude is always the right response toward the patron-- these were courses of action to be avoided by an honorable person at all costs. Of course they were. No one disputes that. And for efficacious grace, this is absolutely the case. What Holding fails to recognize is that it is God that makes the unregenerate person honorable, and therefore, always responding with gratitude. There are parallels in the client-patron relationship that can enrich our understanding of the NT audience when they heard these new teachings and that is beyond dispute. However, Holding continually presses this model into service in a most radical way and the result is disastrous.

Holding now brings it home for us. From these insights it is clear that the paradigm of prevenient grace fits much better what the ancients would have understood to be the nature of the relationship between God and man. God gives grace; man responds -- if favorably, more grace is bestowed; if unfavorably, less is received. And this is precisely the point of the Calvinist. The ancients could not understand the relationship between God and man on his own. Holding’s bent toward natural theology and the influence of the Enlightenment in his writings is glaring. Scripture repeatedly says the truth that Jesus is revealing has been hid from most. Men are described as ignorant, without understanding, blind, and worthless. The client-patron relationship may add some insight into how the audience would have thought and perhaps it provides us with some details that help us better explain the text in some cases, yet it does not, as Holding attempts to do, turn the doctrine of efficacious grace on its head in any sense whatsoever.

Holding says, And therefore, Sproul's observation that "if grace is obligated it no longer becomes grace" becomes essentially of no relevance once we are beyond the first round of "gracing". The question of whether regeneration precedes faith would be answered, "Yes, it does, and faith is followed by more regeneration if accepted; then by more faith, and on it goes." And oddly enough, this is the picture we have always been given of sanctification in the life of the believer. Grace enacted creates obligation and initiates a relationship of mutual obligation.

Once more, in his grand conclusion on grace Holding demonstrates that he clearly does not understand how to use social science criticism in enriching his understanding of the text. He begs the question rather than contradicting it when he says that Sproul’s objection is of no relevance after initial “gracing.” Gracing? The whole point is what happens from the start to begin with! Holding glosses over it. He never addresses it. If regeneration precedes faith, as Holding admits it does, then he has relented to efficacious or irresistible grace! Perhaps he does not realize that irresistible grace is the view that regeneration precedes faith! If he is going to write about Calvinism and refute certain points, he should realize this and not to do so is inexcusable. Secondly, Holding’s final comments on regeneration are terribly confusing. He says that “faith is followed by more regeneration if accepted.” Regeneration is not progressive sanctification. The relationship between regeneration and faith is interesting indeed. Faith is the natural and immediate result of becoming regenerated. It serves as proof of genuine regeneration and shows itself in immediate conversion. Conversion is followed by good works which indicate outwardly that one’s faith is genuine over time. Holding seems to have confused progressive sanctification with regeneration. The concept of “more regeneration” is not a biblical one and one that I have never heard of before. I am uncertain where it comes from. Regeneration is the new birth. It is the miracle of being born again and this happens one time and one time only. From there we grow in our knowledge, and understanding, and faith, and sanctification.

Faith

Holding then begins to focus on revamping the definition of faith, saying, A key question is what "that" refers to -- what is the gift of God? Just grace? Or grace and faith? Calvinists conclude that "that" refers to both items, grace and faith, and there is nothing wrong with that grammatically (it is one option, not the only one), but in terms of the client-patron relationship, it simply doesn't wash. A patron gave a client grace; the patron did not give the client faith. Faith was the client's response to the patron's grace -- or, it referred to the "fidelity" and trust held by the client in his patrons.

In referring to Eph. 2:8-10, Holding challenges the view that both grace and faith are the antecedent of “touto” and therefore may not be viewed as the gift of God that Paul references. He says that grammatically, that is one option, but not the only one. What is the other option? He does not tell us. It would seem to me that if Holding is going to demonstrate why this particular way of understanding the text is wrong, he would spend some time showing us, exegetically of course, why that is so. Apparently he does not think exegesis is that critical to refuting the traditional view.

Once again, Holding returns to the magic of social science interpretation to enlighten us. He says that faith was the client’s response to the patron’s grace! Then he begs the question: he says the patron did not give the client faith. Yet again, Holding assumes the client must have had faith prior to the gift of grace. He does not show us how the client-patron model demonstrates this. He just assumes it.

Holding rightly anticipates direct refutation, One other verse pointed to in this regard is Phil. 1:29, which says "it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake..." "Believe" is the same Greek word used to refer to faith; hence faith is "given" or granted to us. But in the client-patron context, what would be granted to us is faith in the sense of depending on God, our patron.

Holding does not even make it through his diatribe against efficacious grace without violently contradicting himself. In his comments on Eph. 2:8-10 he argues that faith is not given by the patron, it is the client’s response to grace. But here he admits that faith is in fact given by God. But then he wants to provide us with more social science magic and define faith differently in this text. According to Holding’s holy grail of biblical interpretation, social science criticism, faith refers to the social glue that binds one person to another. This bond is the social, externally manifested, emotionally rooted behavior of loyalty, commitment, and solidarity. The words bond, commitment, and loyalty are good ones when it comes to describing faith. From an impersonal perspective, it is the acknowledgement of the reliability of what one believes in, hence, the assent to something or to something somebody says. In sum, faith primarily means personal loyalty, personal commitment to another person, fidelity and the solidarity that comes from such faithfulness. [Malina, Bruce J. Handbook of Biblical Social Values. 72-75]

Note that Holding’s contrasting conjunction “but” is never followed with an argument for why Paul has in mind “this” kind of faith as opposed to “that” kind of faith mentioned in Eph. 2:8-10. The theological bias with which Holding strong-arms the biblical text seems obvious at this point.

Eph. 2:8-10 is unambiguous in its teaching that salvation is not synergistic in any sense. Holding focuses on the wrong thing when he tries to say that the demonstrative pronoun does not refer to the faith and grace that precede it. There are two other phrases that serve to drive Paul’s point home. The first one is οὐκ ἐξ ὑμῶν which is “not from yourselves.” The contrast of grace and faith is with the phrase “not from yourselves.” However, Holding’s definition of faith would certainly make it internal to the unbeliever. Hence it would be from us. We decided to believe or respond in faith. That is from ourselves. Holding’s view fails miserably to treat this text with sound exegesis. The second phrase has the identical construction: οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων which means not from works. One can only conclude that salvation comes not as a result of anything in us or anything we do! It is not me nor my actions, but God’s work. Paul follows these points with the epexegetical, “for.” For we are His workmanship! What we are in Christ we are by God’s work, not because of who we are or anything we did. Holding misses this entirely. Now, Holding says there is a response component in the client-patron relationship and this is true. Without pushing it too far, we can understand that there is also a response on our part to God’s gift of faith and grace! There is a response to God’s saving act! What is it? Paul tells us in v. 10. He says that we were created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them! That is the client’s response to the work of salvation extended to us by the divine patron, God!

Holding then comments, Neither Calvin nor Arminius, as far as may be seen, knew anything of Hebrew block logic or of client-patron relationships, which look to be essential keys to understanding important texts in this debate.

First and foremost, I have shown in this blog as well as previous ones that Hebrew block logic and social science criticism are not silver bullets in the interpretive process of Scripture. Holding has continually raised such methods to the most lofty of positions, and that, without proper justification. He refuses to acknowledge the fact that scholars are not in agreement on the so-called science in the model, not to mention there seems to be very little humility in how he uses the tools. Is there any value in SSC? Of course there is some value. I have admitted this repeatedly. It can deepen and enrich our understanding of certain issues addressed by NT writers. Nonetheless, it cannot nor should it serve to replace the rock that is grammatico-historical hermeneutics. It serves as a complementary tool at best. Secondly, Holding has apparently adopted the postmodern approach to tradition, much like the emergent church in that he seems willing and ready to dismiss theologians like Calvin, Luther, and Augustine because they are old and antiquated now. That is very unfortunate.

Conclusion

Holding fails to provide any exegetical evidence from Eph. 2:8-10 to overturn the reformed teaching of irresistible grace. He appeals to social science criticism in an attempt to force the client-patron model onto biblical hermeneutics. Moreover, that model fails to show how Holding’s view coheres with the biblical evidence. SSC does not help him in this case. Holding fails to do justice to Paul’s proposition in Eph. 2:8-10. He leaves out important clauses in his treatment of that text. In addition, Holding contradicts himself when he introduces Phil. 1:29, perhaps anticipating refutation. His handling of that text demonstrates more theological bias on his part. He simply says faith means something different here than it does in Eph. 2. Holding never refers to the Westminster Confession or the Canons of Dordt in his explanation of irresistible grace. Holding’s explanation does not call on the lexical evidence, fails to treat the numerous other passages that teach what Holding denies, and he refuses to engage theological material readily available on the matter.

Irresistible Grace and J.P. Holding

2011-12-03T10:53:00.000-05:00

J.P. Holding of Tekton Apologetics has shared his views on Calvinism here. This blog deals with Holding’s treatment of irresistible grace. Holding contends that irresistible grace is out of accord with Scripture. In his attempt to dispense with irresistible grace, Holding leans heavily on social science criticism to redefine words like “faith,” and “grace.” My response concerns the legitimacy of Holding’s use of social science criticism to radically alter such fundamental concepts as mercy and grace. Holding implies that salvation can be synergistic without it leading to works-based salvation. But that is not quite the point. The contention of orthodoxy is that there is nothing in man, his will, or his action that serves as the final determinant of his salvation. If there is, then man can take credit and boast. That is the main point. Holding asserts that simply to receive something is not the equivalent of a works-based soteriology.

All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, He is pleased, in His appointed and accepted time, effectually to call, (Rom. 8:30, Rom. 11:7, Eph. 1:10–11) by His word and Spirit, (2 Thess. 2:13–14, 2 Cor. 3:3,6) out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature to grace and salvation, by Jesus Christ; (Rom. 8:2, Eph. 2:1–5, 2 Tim. 1:9–10) enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God, (Acts 26:18, 1 Cor. 2:10,12, Eph. 1:17–18) taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh; (Ezek. 36:26) renewing their wills, and, by His almighty power, determining them to that which is good, (Ezek. 11:19, Phil. 2:13, Deut. 30:6, Ezek. 36:27) and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ: (Eph. 1:19, John 6:44–45) yet so, as they come most freely, being made willing by His grace. (Cant. 1:4, Ps. 110:3, John 6:37, Rom. 6:16–18)

So says the Westminster Confession of Faith.

Faith is therefore to be considered as the gift of God, not on account of its being offered by God to man, to be accepted or rejected at his pleasure, but because it is in reality conferred upon him, breathed and infused into him; nor even because God bestows the power or ability to believe, and then expects that man should by the exercise of his own free will consent to the terms of salvation and actually believe in Christ, but because He who works in man both to will and to work, and indeed all things in all, produces both the will to believe and the act of believing also.

So says the Canons of Dordt. [III & IV. 14]

Why are some men saved and others not? The answer is either something within man or something external to man. Now, Holding will say that is a false dichotomy. He will say God brings the forces to bear and man responds. To which I will answer that if God brings those forces to bear equally on all men, then the answer remains that the difference is located in the man, not external to the man. This is a logical necessity. Holding fails to interact with this question in his treatment of efficacious grace and it is this question more than any other that the doctrine seeks to address. The question could be shortened to: Why is anyone actually saved as opposed to no one?

A Word about Social Science Criticism

First of all, the manner in which Holding parades social science criticism around as a silver bullet is unwarranted. Holding, as far as I know, portraits himself as evangelical, believing in the inspiration of Scripture and the miraculous nature of the Christian religion. The model known as social science criticism denies both of these, contending that the doctrines of inerrancy and inspiration are the products of man. It comes as no surprise then that the interpretive model of social science criticism treats the Scripture as the product of man, rather than God. In addition, the model seeks to explain the rise, spread, and success of Christianity by sociological rather than spiritual means. Almost all evangelicals would agree that while socio-critical methods to biblical interpretation offer value, it is better to view such as interdisciplinary tools rather than authoritative models. To elevate the method to the level of exemplar or model is a critical mistake. It seems to me that Holding wants to elevate this critical method to the level of a model while saying that he does nothing of the sort. Yet, in his critique of irresistible grace, it is obvious to all that he repeatedly calls on socio-critical theories to prop up his view.

In a previous exchange, I charged SSC with a tendency toward Marxism. Holding took great offense to this charge, which, quite honestly, I anticipated. V. Philips Long comments about SSC, saying, “Many (though certainly not all) social scientific treatments of biblical issues are explicitly or implicitly Marxist in perspective, and this inevitably influences the way in which the actions of past individuals, and the texts that report them, are assessed.” [Long, V. Philip. Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation, 368] A survey of the comments and theories of SSC, it seems obvious even to the untrained eye in my opinion that Marxist philosophy is present in many of its adherents.

The theory that individual conscience did not exist in Mediterranean cultures seems at best to be an overstatement. After all, man was an individual long before he was part of a group. It is hard to see how his individual conscience would have been engulfed by the group to the point that it had been squeezed out of existence. Moreover, the group depends on the individual for its existence rather than vice versa. Group mentality requires individual mentality for its existence. How can I sense shame or think it right to pursue honor unless the group has instilled such thinking into my individual conscience? It is one thing to say that emphasis in one culture is on the group and less the individual. It is entirely another matter to postulate the extreme idea that certain cultures are completely unacquainted with the process of introspection. God commanded the Hebrews to teach their children the Torah, to keep it, to meditate on it, to memorize it, etc. This is impossible outside some sort of framework of individual conscience. This is precisely the kind of nonsense we see in some of the radical conclusions of SSC.

There are cultural nuances and idiosyncrasies that existed in the Greco-Roman world of the NT that we are better off understanding. However, to contend that somehow, the SSC scholars have found a way to avoid their own projections and biases in creating the SSC model is simply naïve. Bengt Holmberg comments on the problem of the individual in SSC,

“The tendency of modern sociological theory is to minimize the part played by cognitive interests in social actions, such as generating and sustaining religious commitments. The religious viewpoint of the actors is registered but not accorded any validity or effect, which is reserved for social factors (level of education, family background, relative deprivation, etc.). Thus the implicit claim of the sociologists is that they understand the basis of religious belief and action better than religious people do.” [Holmberg, Sociology, 147-148]

“What we don’t know and can’t find out far exceeds the valuable information available to us; consequently, we must always make modest and realistic claims for any of our historical-cultural reconstructions.” [Klein, Bloomberg, Hubbard. Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, 175]

Social Science Criticism insists that the bible is merely a product of the human mind and as such cannot be understood apart from a knowledge of socio-scientific processes. Holding implies as much when he belittles men like Calvin and Augustine for their lack of sociological acumen. Moses Silva comments,

“To my mind, the differences between modern Western (especially American) culture and first-century Mediterranean society are often exaggerated. Many of the examples used to prove the distinctiveness of ancient culture – such as the use of proverbs or the tendency to stereotype – can be found on any street corner in the United States today. Similarly, the assumption that there is far greater continuity between the ancient world and twentieth-century Mediterranean culture than there is between the latter and Western society needs to be proven.” [Silva, Moses. Interpreting Galatians. 111]

A couple of quick examples will suffice to demosntrate my point. In the “Handbook of Biblical Social Values,” B. J. Malina refers to the God’s elect as “his arbitrarily chosen client.” He also refers to the favor demonstrated by the patron toward clients as always “a donation-with-strings-attached.” Now it is easy to think this way because the genuine Christian has a duty to live out life in a certain way. But this is not the same as saying that the grace of God comes with strings attached. What strings? Faith conferred produces the fruit it is naturally intended to produce. Christians do not see their service to God as repayment for a favor received. Rather, Christian service and duty are out of a love and devotion to Christ that results from regeneration.

Holding, in my opinion commits the fallacy of selective and prejudicial use of evidence in his definitions of grace and faith. He only appeals to those sections that seem to support his thesis regarding these words. More about that in part II of this subject.

The Line to See Jesus

2011-12-01T18:04:00.001-05:00

A friend sent me this video and while I am always skeptical of anything that appeals to the extremely radical emotional orientation of western culture lately, I decided to watch it. Now, I did not have the privilege of going to the mall or large department store when I was a child to wait in line and sit on "Santa's" lap. Don't worry, I am not going to bash Santa. Sorry, I am not a Santa basher. Rather, my aim is to exalt Christ always, and since we are approaching that time of year when the Church along with almost every hypocrite on the planet decides to stop what their doing, hold hands, sing kum ba yah, and talk about baby Jesus, I thought it would be good to use this video to say a thing or two, that is, about Jesus, the real Jesus. No, not the Jesus the world has in mind. Nope, not the postmodern Jesus! Nope, not the politically correct Jesus! Nope, not the academically respectable Jesus! Nope, not the emergent Jesus! Nope, not the secular Jesus! Wow....how many of them are there? America has become like a dingy apartment infested with roaches. Every Christmas, someone gets up in the middle of the night and turns on the light, and like cockroaches, there are a million Jesus' and they are all over the place. You never see them until you turn the lights on, in the middle of the night that it. So, every year, we turn on the Christmas light, and bam! There are all kinds of Jesus' running all over the place. And everyone, including the most profane and treacherous among us, loves Jesus.

Now the song is very touching and I would encourage you to watch it. It is nearly impossible not to tear up. There are lines all over the place for Santa Claus, but never any for Jesus. Of course, this is to be expected. Is this not how our Lord was ushered into human flesh some two-thousand years ago? And if there was a line for "Jesus," do you suppose it would be the real Jesus that people were waiting to talk to? If it were, I would imagine He would have a thing or two to say to us, don't you? What gift would Jesus offer you today, if you were to stand in His line? What would your heart attitude be? Would you approach Him, bow down, admit that you are not worthy to be there? Would you say to Him: Lord, I ask not for anything for myself, but only for those who are hurting and without? Would you say: Jesus, you know better than me what I need to serve God to the very best of my ability so that He is glorified in my life - give THAT to me! Give me THAT thing or THOSE things that will cause me to produce as much fruit as I possibly can for the kingdom of heaven.

What gift would Jesus give you? I can tell you: He would not hand you a brand new car, home, gigantic portfolio, huge savings account, name brand suits, or other expensive material items for you to consume them upon your lust. We are filled with lust in the west and we are so terribly blind to it. But lust is not just lust for material things. It is lust for how we want things to be in our life. We lust for a certain type of church, a perfect one. We lust for certain types of friends, perfect ones. We lust for certain types of children, the kind that make US look good, like good people, like good parents, like we know what we are doing. We lust for divorce from relationships that are not giving us exactly what we think they should. We wait in Jesus' line to ask him to change our husband or wife because surely, the reason the relationship is as unsatisfying as it is must be because of them. It could NEVER be me!

Jesus is going to give you the gift of repentance! He will gift you repentance from adultery if you are an adulterer. He will gift you repentance from homosexuality if you are a homosexual. He will gift you repentance from lying if you are a liar. He will gift you repentance from slander and malicious gossip if that is what you are. He will gift you eternal life if indeed you are still dead in your tresspasses and sins. Jesus is not going to give you some emotional experience that will make you feel good about your rebellion against God. Yet that is precisely what so many people in western culture want from Jesus. They want approval and acceptance of their chosen lifestyle even though that lifestyle is detested by God: be it homosexuality, illicit sex, illicit divorce, malicious gossip, you name it.They reason, "I know I am rebelling against God, but God understands that in my heart, I feel badly about it and He loves me." So He is going to embrace me and accept me for who and what I am. No, He is not! He has one word for this sort of hypocrite: REPENT!

If you go stand in the real line for the real Jesus, He is going to give you a real gift that will make a real difference in your life for the rest of your life.

J.P. Holding, Unconditional Election, Middle Knowledge (Part II)

2011-11-29T06:00:00.005-05:00

Abridged Exegesis in Romans 9

Holding contends that Romans 9 should best be understood in terms of the rubric of primary causality. Holding then tells us that we should not expect to find the answer to the objection that he is reading into the text something that is not there. He then explains this away with an obscure reference to Paul’s high-context Hebrew mind versus our low-context western mind. Holding then contends that the Hebrew would have no interest in issues of free will and predestination. I wonder how Holding reconciles this with the fact that Paul was a Roman citizen writing to a Roman church that had a predominantly Gentile composition with a Jewish minority. Yes, Paul was treating an issue that was closely related to Hebrew thought, but he was doing so in a predominantly non-Jewish culture. Holding then parades out something he calls “block logic.” First of all, Wilson (Holdings source for this block logic) is an ecumenist and a staunch anti-Calvinist. Therefore, it is clear that he comes to this subject with a specific axe to grind. He wants to flatten the distinction between the church and the synagogue on the one hand, and take a swipe at Calvinistic theology on the other. I am amused at how quickly Holding is ready to dispense with logic where it suits his purpose and to use it in other cases where it equally suits his purpose. This is consistent incoherence at least. He does the same sort of thing in hermeneutics. If one examines Wilson’s supposed evidence from Scripture in support of his “block logic” thesis, they find a radically contorted interpretations of the biblical text. It follows that if Wilson’s theory around “block logic” fails, then Holdings argument again falls short.

To demonstrate Wilson’s fallacious understanding of Hebrew block logic, we will look at a minimum number of examples. These are texts that Wilson’s claims are paradoxical in nature. The question is are they really paradoxical or are they something else?

1. The book of Exodus where Pharaoh hardens his heart and God also hardens Pharaohs heart. Wilson would contend these two units of thought are both true but appear to contradict one another. Therefore he concludes the Hebrew thought process would not be so ready to worry about such apparent contradictions due to how the Hebrew mind thought. However, this simply does not hold. There are two perspectives here: God’s perspective and man’s perspective. We see Pharaoh hardening his heart in fulfillment of God hardening His heart. Moses was told clearly that God would harden Pharaoh’s heart.

2. The prophets teach that God is wrathful and merciful. This is a fascinating assertion. How is this a paradox? God can be wrathful and merciful. He can even pour out wrath while showing mercy at the same time. David is a perfect example. He could have killed David, Bethsheba, and the baby. He did not. He executed wrath, tempered with mercy.

3. Wilson considers Jesus’ description as Lion and Lamb as a paradox. This is only true if one insists on a silly wooden interpretation of clearly metaphorical language.

Mr. Wilson is a gentile attempting to get into the Jewish mind. He does not bring some internal insight that any other gentile might be lacking. There are a number of examples like the ones above, some of them more absurd, some not as absurd. Clearly, Hebrew block logic is in no way a satisfactory answer to what is taking place in Romans 9. There are no apparent contradictions in Romans 9. The apparent contradiction only exists if you concede the Pelagian idea that ‘ought’ requires ability. We reject such Pelagian nonsense. That issue has been thoroughly treated repeatedly and Holding has the burden of demonstrating why we should side with Pelagius against Augustine on the matter.

We begin our shortened exegesis at Romans 9:9 with the epexegetical preposition “for.” The concern has to do with the question of failure as it regards God’s promise. Any question regarding the failure or not of God’s promise is a question concerning God’s sovereignty. Paul clarifies the promise of God in v. 9. He indelibly ties the promise to Sarah with the promise to Rebekah who conceived Jacob and Esau. Paul attaches again the epexegetical “for” in v. 11 as he gives the basis for his selection of the individuals to begin with. “For though the twins were not yet born and had done anything good or bad” hearkens back to v. 8. The children of the flesh bring to mind Ishmael. There was nothing in Abraham that God should have chosen him. There is nothing in Isaac that God should have chosen him. The whole point is that it was not the child, or anything about the child, but the promise and everything about the promise. Israel had a very rich heritage, having been God’s chosen people. The temptation to boast and think that there was something about the nation would naturally have been great. Paul spends considerable time pointing out that it was the promise. Moreover, it wasn’t just a promise, but it was a specific promise of a sovereign God that helps us understand the present circumstances in which we find ourselves. This is exactly where Paul brings us back to in v. 11. It was not the children of flesh, it isn’t Abraham, it isn’t Isaac. Moreover it isn’t Jacob or Esau which is why Paul goes out of his way to say the twins were born of one seed. There was no material difference in these boys. Moreover, there was nothing in their character or actions because they had not even been born when God chose.

What was it then? Why Jacob and not Esau? At a minimum, we see Paul going to great detail to trace his argument and even anticipate potential responses from reason. The purpose clause “so that God’s purpose according to His plan would stand” would ordinarily follow the clause it modifies. If we reconstruct the statements, it makes for smoother reading: for though the twins were not yet born and had not done good or bad, it was said to her, The older will serve the younger so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls. Just as it is written, Jacob have I loved but Esau have I hated. We simply moved the sentence that the hina clause modifies in front of the hina clause which helps give the text a smoother reading in English. The focal point is not man, it is not Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, or Esau. The focal point is God’s choice. It is God’s promise. It is God’s sovereignty.

V. 14 then provides us with a very logical and easily anticipated objection to Paul’s argument. The Greek, “What then shall we say?” “No unrighteousness with God?” If you can read Paul’s argument and feel this very tension, you have read Paul rightly! Good job. You are on the right track. How does Paul answer this question of fairness? He gives the strongest Greek negation possible! Me Genoito! Absolutely not! Unthinkable, unimaginable is Paul’s response. One would expect Paul to explain why not! And he proceeds to do exactly this! He does not let the tension stand. Perhaps for the Pelagian and Arminian he allows the tension to stand. But for those who are not afraid to accept the truth of Romans 9, Paul explains how this works. “For” he says to Moses! Another explanatory preposition! Again, there is nothing generic about Paul’s argument. He is going to great lengths to explain his position and help the church understand how sovereignty, election, and responsibility work. The answer is that it is entirely God’s prerogative to have mercy on whom he wills to have mercy. God selects Jacob for reasons known only to Himself. The objection is made! God answers by saying election, mercy, grace, whatever the case may be, is my prerogative. I will extend it to whomever I desire. Even in the face of the client-patron relationship, God introduces a new concept. Mercy is something I will extend by my own sovereign choice. The Greek “hara” is a logical inference conjunction. This is a resultant clause inferred from Paul’s answer. The NAS translates it “so then.” It means, consequently then, or as a result of this then…” It does not depend on the man, but rather on God. It does not depend on willing men nor on acting men or men’s actions or wills, but rather on God who chooses to exercise His freedom to chose and elect so that his choice according to his purpose might stand. We return to this idea again and again. It is not Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob, but it is God. It is the sovereign God behind a specific promise.

For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, for this reason I have raised you up. Initially, Paul talks about the promise. He moves to God’s choice of Jacob and His rejection of Esau. He defends God’s choice. And now he demonstrates from history an example of God’s freedom to choose men for glory and men to dishonor. Again, it is difficult to miss the fact that Paul is spending a great deal of time on the details of God’s sovereign choice according to His divine plan. The phrase eis auto touto is used five times in the Greek text of the NT. This is a very emphatic phrase pointing out that it was this very purpose that God had raised up Pharaoh. We then have another preposition of logical inference. Paul draws the logical conclusion, based on the Scriptural evidence that God has mercy on whomever He desires and whom He desires, He hardens.

Well, if it is true that God raised men up for this purpose, and he chooses men before they are even born, how is it that He is justified in finding fault with their actions since He ordained them in the first place? In other words, if God determines things in this manner, how can Pharaoh be culpable? How can God raise Pharaoh up to show His glory in him in this way and then still judge Pharaoh for doing what God raised him up to do? If you are wondering about this, you are not alone! However, pay very close attention because Paul is about to answer this reasoning and even tell you if such reasoning is in accord with Christian ethics. God’s norms not only govern how we live, and speak, they govern how we think. According to Paul, not only is such thinking wrong, it is out of accord with God’s standards for Christian thinking. In other words, thinking along these lines is off limits to believers. I realize that opponents like Holding will recoil over this response and contend that it is little more than naïve, uncritical nonsense from a stupid fundamentalist. Perhaps he wouldn’t say as much openly, but he will certainly do so behind the curtains of Theology Web. So, what do I mean that God forbids this kind of reasoning?

Paul’s response to this line of thinking is a bold one. He basically says, enough! Paul says, on the contrary, who are you to answer back to God? Paul then compares such a riposte to the foolish idea of a pot complaining to its molder about how it was molded! In other words, Paul is saying you are foolish to raise such an accusation against God. After all, Paul had already provided an emphatic answer to the question of unrighteousness with God. One gets the sense that Paul’s patience is wearing thin in this hypothetical argument. Paul is actually rebuking anyone and everyone who dares to say that the fact of God’s hardening Pharaoh and choosing to have mercy on whomever He pleases and to harden whomever He pleases is unfair! Such thinking must be put far away from the believer. The Greek word in v. 20 is ἀνταποκρινόμενος and it means to express disapproval in return, to criticize. The only other time it is used is in Luke 14:6 in a challenge-riposte between Christ and the Pharisees. This is precisely what Paul warns against. In other words, Paul is cautioning the Roman Christians that challenge-riposte with God is forbidden. In modern vernacular, we would say that it is forbidden to debate with the Divine. Paul has given us the answer to this question and that is as far as we can take it. I realize this offends the modern quest to subject every proposition to critical human reasoning and demand harmony within our dearly held basic beliefs. If this answer violates or offends your basic beliefs, perhaps it is time for you to reconsider the truthfulness of them. Calvin often warns against the wicked pride of philosophical speculation. I leave you with one of his many warnings:

Still, however it will be our principal study to provide a sure footing for those whose ears are open to the word of God. Here, if any where, in considering the hidden mysteries of Scripture, we should speculate soberly and with great moderation, cautiously guarding against allowing either our mind or our tongue to go a step beyond the confines of God’s word. For how can the human minds which has not yet been able to ascertain of what the body of the sun consists, though it is daily presented to the eye, bring down the boundless essence of God to its little measure? Nay, how can it, under its own guidance, penetrate to a knowledge of the substance of God while unable to understand its own? Wherefore, let us willingly leave to God the knowledge of himself. In the words of Hilary (De Trinit. lib. 1), “He alone is a fit witness to himself who is known only by himself.” This knowledge, then, if we would leave to God, we must conceive of him as he has made himself known, and in our inquiries make application to no other quarter than his word. [Institutes, 1.13.21]

JP Holding, Unconditional Election, and Middle Knowledge

2011-11-27T14:00:00.001-05:00

As I return to JP Holding’s views on Calvinism, I think it better to select those very foundational beliefs of Holding, that, if proven false, accomplish my primary purpose: defending the biblical truth of Calvinism. In this post, I will defend unconditional election against Holding’s assault. According to Holding, unconditional election is the most controversial of all the points. Moreover, he thinks that people have more of a problem with the idea of election itself than they do the unconditional piece. In response to these two statements, I would contend that Holding is wrong. Most people consider “limited atonement” to be the most controversial point in Calvinistic theology. Secondly, it is not election that people find offensive, but rather the fact that the basis of election is wholly and entirely located in God, and not some outward work or decision or foreknowledge of some work or decision man makes.

Holding leans on middle knowledge coupled with a method of exegesis known as “Hebrew block logic” to contradict the reformed teaching of unconditional election in Romans 9. I address middle knowledge in this post in response to Holding and then I provide an exegetical treatment of Romans 9 in a second post in asnwer to Holding's contention that unconditional election is an unbiblical doctrine.

Middle Knowledge a.k.a. Molinism

Space prohibits a full treatment of the concept of middle knowledge. Therefore, I will be as brief as possible in my response to Holding’s use of middle knowledge. In the traditional view, God’s knowledge is seen as necessary or natural in one sense and free in another sense. God’s knowledge of counterfactuals for example would fall into the category of necessary knowledge while His knowledge of actual events is free. Under Pelagian thinking, God’s knowledge, or better yet, His omniscience seemed to pose real problems for libertarian freedom. Therefore, the Jesuits came up with the concept of middle knowledge. Actually, it has its roots in Origen and Pelagius. This is knowledge somewhere between God’s necessary knowledge and His free knowledge. The idea was to create a system in which God could know the future acts of libertarian free creatures. This media scientia means a divine knowledge of contingent events that is logically antecedent to God’s decrees. The object of this knowledge is the possibilities that depend for their realization on one condition or another. At bottom, God’s future actions are determined by the decisions of creatures in certain conditions. God knows what He will do should the creature freely do X as opposed to Y. If the creature does X, God will do A but if the creature does Y, God knows He will do B. If the creature decides for Christ, God will elect Her to salvation. But if the creature rejects the gospel God leaves her for reprobation. If Jacob does A, God knows He will love and choose Jacob and hate Esau. Perhaps it is better stated that if Jacob does A and Esau does B, then God knows He will choose Jacob, not Esau because He knows if He chooses Esau under these conditions, God’s desired world would not be obtained. Moreover, God’s knowledge of these contingent events is prior to His decree concerning the absolutely free events.

Now, as an example of this media scientia, Holding points to a hypothetical example of conditions around Jacob’s election resulting in 178 million saved versus Esau’s election resulting in 155 million being saved. Holding then says, Is there unrighteousness with God? Hardly. "Why not choose me?" -- Esau. At the very least it may be said in reply, "Because look what happens if you do." Although he may not see it, and perhaps he would not admit to it, Holding’s unavoidable conclusion is that the basis for God’s election of Jacob really rests in Jacob. Jacob’s free actions were superior to Esau’s because they produced a “better” possible world, one that God found more attractive. Holding’s burden is to demonstrate that his thesis is congruent with an exegesis of Romans and the rest of Scripture. Second, Holding has to demonstrate that this is coherent with the idea of free will. As one will see, middle knowledge does nothing to support the notion of free will as defined by Pelagianism, nor does this theory support a straightforward exegesis of Romans 9. In fact, Romans 9 directly contradicts the notion of middle knowledge by locating God’s basis for election outside the creature in every way.

The first problem for middle knowledge is that it fails entirely in its attempt to harmonize free will with divine foreknowledge. Free will is “will” that is free from any and all external causes. In other words, free will means that its acts are purely arbitrary. There is no causal relationship between the will and anything else. This would make predictability impossible even for God. There is no basis upon which to test the “what if.” This is like an algorithm whose inputs change with every trial. No intelligible pattern is possible. This view of the will of course is in contradistinction to the Augustinian/Calvinist view that the will carries out the greatest desire of the creature. As Bavinck says, “The Reformed reject the theory of a “bare foreknowledge” (nuda praescientia) and “middle knowledge” (media scientia). [Bavinck, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics, Vol 2, 200] A will such as this can never be harmonized with the decree of God. There is no mediating position. The only other possibility is that God has to watch to see what the autonomous will does, and then react accordingly. Now to be fair, the adherents of middle knowledge would say that God always knows what all the possible contingencies are and what he would do if any of them obtained. What God cannot know in this system is what the free creature will actually decide, due to the nature of freedom he possesses. It becomes obvious that omniscience is drifting into open theism and process theology in this arrangement.

This is the case with middle knowledge. The doctrine of middle knowledge, however, represents contingent events as contingent and free also in relation to God. [Bavinck, 201] This is similar to Origen’s view of foreknowledge. Things do not happen because God foreknows them. God foreknows them because they are going to happen. In middle knowledge, God does not derive his knowledge of the free actions of human beings from His own being, His own decrees, but from the will of creatures. [Bavinck, 201] In this system, grace is dispensed according to merit; predestination depends on good works. [Bavinck, 201] Holding says as much in his own words when he says that God did not choose you, Esau, because, “look what happens if I do!”

If an event is only a possibility and will never be realized, it belongs to God’s necessary knowledge. If an event will one day be realized, then it belongs to God’s free knowledge. There is nothing in between. There is what will not be realized, that which is only possible, and there is that which will be realized. There is no middle ground between these two. If a contingent is never realized, then it is only possible. If a contingent is realized, then it is actual. The former belongs to necessary knowledge and the latter to free knowledge. Hence, unavoidably, middle knowledge collapses.

Free will, in reformed theology does not consist in indifference, arbitrariness, or change. Rather it consists in rational delight. [Bavinck, 202] As Dr. Edwards put it, “The determination of the Will, supposes an effect, which must have a cause.” If Holding agrees with Edwards, well then, we have little in dispute. Such a view would be compatibilist freedom and with this Calvinism would have no problem. But Holding seems to be a man of many conveniences. He adopts a convenience of hermeneutics when it suits his purpose, and a philosophy of convenience to compliment it when he feels like it.

In order for middle knowledge to harmonize free will with foreknowledge, it must show how the will can be entirely free and predictable at the same time. The open theists and process theologians have already given up on this idea long ago. For them, free will was more important than preserving sovereignty and so they sided with the creature over against the Creator.

Summary

Middle knowledge was an attempt on the part of the Jesuits to harmonize the Pelagian concept of free will with omniscience. Middle knowledge fails for two basic reasons: (1) Possibilities also referred to as counterfactuals, belong to God’s necessary knowledge. Actual events belong to God’s free knowledge. The last time I checked, there are only two kinds of events: possible and actual. Middle knowledge has no basis for its existence. What else is there to know? (2) Pelagian freedom is indeterminate freedom. The will is an island unto itself. Essentially, libertarian freedom is uncaused. That is what “free” means in this scheme and it is this freedom that middle knowledge attempts to harmonize with omniscience. However, one could never predict or know what a free creature such as this would do because of the indeterminate nature of its will. Hence, it follows that middle knowledge fails to harmonize freedom and omniscience. If what is desired is a harmonization of compatibilist freedom with omniscience, well, just about any Calvinist theologian can help you with that. That work was done long ago.

How Do You Know that You Know God

2011-11-26T12:32:00.000-05:00

I was listening to some recent stats on the percentage of people in America who claim to be Christian. The number was staggering. 82% of Americans claim to be Christian! I must say, that is astounding. Perhaps Jesus was prophesying about America in Matt. 7:21 when He said, "Not everyone that says to Me, Lord, Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven." Really America? Over 8 out of 10 people claim to be Christian. Yet, at the same time we have more sexual promiscuity, more corruption, more materialism, more hedonism, more homosexuality, more divorce, lower views of Scripture, lower views of sin, lower views of hell, and higher views of ourselves than at any point in our history. In addition to this, we are killing unborn babies at an alarming rate, all the while saying we love Jesus! Homosexuals are bent on destroying the institution of marriage, not to mention the church and religious freedom along with it and we cower in fear and go along with it as if God were asleep. We marry people of the same sex, ordain people who have made the homosexual choice, and allow them to become members in the church. Yet, all these people claim to know God. They claim they have a viable relationship with the eternal Son of the living God, Jesus Christ. Does a claim to be something make it so? Are there norms that transcend mankind to which we can look that will help us know when a claim to knowledge is true or false? Do we have an obligation to confront these issues or does God allow us to bury our head in the sand? Can we do as we please?

If it is true that many people will falsely claim to know Christ, does the church bear any responsibility to identify them? Jesus Himself said many people will come to Him at the judgment and claim to have known Him and they will even point to their works as evidence of that knowledge. Yet, despite the existence of works, Jesus will soundly reject their claim to knowledge of Him as patently false. They will be ushered into certain judgment and condemnation. Do you know Jesus? How do you know that you know Jesus? Is your knowledge based on what your parents told you when you were a child? Have you listened to some pastor who doesn't even know the gospel convince you that all you have to do is say a prayer and go to church and this is how you know and love God? This is not the gospel! It is a lie from the very dungeon of Hades! It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God. (Heb. 10:31) God will not be mocked! God is not the tender old grandpa in heaven whose eyes you can pull the wool over. He knows the wickedness that lies in the center of our heart. No, He does not sympathize with our wicked disobedience! He commands you to repent of it. He does not "understand" you, that you are more attracted to the same sex than the opposite sex and therefore He "feels" your conflict. He demands you submit to His will now, today, immediately, or suffer His wrath. You are already under His divine wrath as you walk in your sin and rebellion every day. We convince ourselves that God is like us! He understands our wicked rebellion as mere imperfections! Sin is no longer a wicked vice that we freely choose to endulge. It is an accident. It is a mistake, kind of like misspelling a word. Opps, I got it wrong. God understands. Such a frippery view of sin is indeed sinful itself. Do we really know God? How can we know that we know God? It isn't by some internal witness alone! Nor is it by some emotion floating around in our hearts and minds. Some people think they know God because they have a moral standard and hate it when particulars of those standards are violated. Others think they know God because they punish themselves for their own sin as if that could ever win them favor with God. They think God sees how much they hate themselves for sinning by the punishment they inflict upon themselves and therefore God knows they must love Him. Such thinking is veiled self-righteousness.

Jesus said that those who "do the will of my Father in heaven" will enter heaven. The one who knows God loves God. And he who loves God keeps His commandments. Jesus said, "If you love me, you will keep my commandments." (John 14:15) But we don't do this! We want to embrace abortion and love Jesus even though He forbids it and in most cases the activity that created the problem to begin with, unlawful sexual intercourse. We embrace homosexuality and claim to love Jesus. We embrace divorce right along with the rest of the culture and claim to love Jesus! I heard about one woman who was going to leave her husband without biblical cause and the church initially was able to convince her otherwise. A year later, she left him anyhow. In leaving him she said, "Last year I was bibled out of it. That isn't happening this time." In other words, her church used God's word to keep the marriage in tact. But now, the Bible isn't enough to get her to honor her covenant of marriage. And she claims to "love" Jesus. Jesus said not so! Jesus thinks such people are wicked hypocrites when they call Him Lord and do not do what He commands! (Luke 6:46) Jesus says those that are in covenant relationship with Him as Lord do as He commands. It has nothing whatever to do with human emotion. People reading this post from other cultures may find my remarks somewhat confusing. In western culture, especially in America, Christians think they love God because they have warm and soft emotions about Him. That is their measure of whether or not they love God. How they live is completely incidental to their love for God. But this is not the biblical picture at all.

The text that teaches us how we can know if we have come to know God most clearly, in my opinion is 1 John 2:3-4, "By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. The one who says, I have come to know Him, and does not keep His commandments is a liar and the truth is not in Him." It really is that simple. Anyone who says they know God while living a life that exemplifies commandment breaking is a liar. The homosexual who says I love God and practices the homosexual lifestyle is a liar. The person who says they love God all the while living with someone or practicing an on-going life of sexual immorality is a liar. The one who says He loves God and refuses to repent of His lying, stealing, adultery, drunkeness, etc. is a liar. I am not saying Christians never fall into these sins! I am also not saying that we should kick those who do in the head. If that were true, we would all require a swift kick in the head. If two people are dating and having trouble abstaining from sexual relations, Scripture has a clear answer for them: repent by getting married. Paul says in 1 Cor. 7:9 that if two people cannot control themselves in that situation, they should marry. But there are Christians who do not struggle with this at all. They have sex regularly, just like a married couple would, and think nothing of it. That struggle does not at all cause them to move to marriage in genuine repentance of such behavior. They think God understands this behavior. After all, they love one another. And these people think they love Jesus! There is a difference between Christians who struggle with sin and Christians who simply excuse it. Sex is a very powerful urge that is not easy to control. It can get out of hand before you realize it. Marriage is the only biblical answer for such a situation. On the other hand, there are sins that have no passionate component whatever. The sin of divorce is one such sin. Christian husbands and wives claim to love Christ and claim to understand the covenantal nature of marriage engage in divorce for ungodly reasons all the time. They make conscious decisions to reject the covenant, to reject the clear teachings of Scripture and in some instances, they reject the admonition and discipline of their church, preferring to follow their own desires as opposed to desiring what is right in the sight of God. They do this all the while claiming to love and know God. They do not! If they love God, they would repent of such sin and reconcile with the spouse God covenanted them to have. What is regrettable in many of those circumstances is that most churches do nothing to help these people avoid this sin. In fact, in some cases, the friends (Christian in word only) of these people support their wicked actions of sin and rebellion. In additon, the pastors and elders do very little. What can be said about friends who support illicit divorce all the while claiming to love and know Jesus? What can be said about a church that sits by and does very little to intervene? All the while claiming to be a church of Jesus? What can be said about a pastor and elders who witness such atrocities in the Christian community? All the while claiming to be called by God to promote and defend His Word! If a pastor can't lose a few congregants over the truth, how are we to believe He would die for the truth? All the while claiming to know and love Jesus!

Jesus said that people who take up a lifestyle of practicing lawlessness will experience eternal judgment. They will not enter the kingdom of God. He said that you should not call Him Lord unless you are doing the things He said. John said that those who claim to know God while living a life of commandment breaking are liars. They do not know God and they certainly do not love Him.

What is then is the duty of the church in such cases? First, it is to lovingly correct. Matt. 18:15-18 could not be more clear on this account. They church has a duty to go to anyone in sin and lovingly confront and correct them. It is not left to the church not to do this. She has no right to refuse this service. Christ commands it! If the person listens, the brother or sister has been won. If repeated attempts to turn the individual from the sin fails to produce results, the church must act to excommunicate the individual, treating them like she would any other unbeliever, loving them, but making it obvious that the Christian community rejects the individual's claims to Christ as invalid. The church is responsible to love individuals and seek their spiritual growth and well-being. In addition to this however, the church is also responsible to keep sin out of the body. She must not permit leaven to exist in her midst. Leaven speads to others. If the sin of promiscuity, homosexuality, lying, divorce, fornication, etc. are permitted to exercise free hand in the community, it won't be long before the church is filled with unrgenerate men and women. Such a condition is not actually a church. But this is precisely the condition of most churches in western culture and certainly in America. We allow celebrities to divorce their husbands, key members' homosexual children to participate, unlawful sexual promiscuity among the youth, malicious gossip among the old, along with hate, division and a multitude of other sin to prevail without lifting so much as a finger to address it.

Paul said that by declaring the full counsel of God, the blood of all men was cleansed from his hands. Pastors, those of you who turn a deaf ear to the existence of these conditions in your churches, all the while doing absolutely nothing to put them out or change them, the converse is true: the blood of these people is on your hands. If you are an elder and you do not understand this or you disagree, this is a sure indication you should not be an elder. Do yourself a favor, run, don't walk to church and resign immediately. The judgment for men who tolerate this kind of nonsense is going to be far heavier than it is for the rest of those who are not in leadership roles.

Pastorate, Politics, and Pragmatism

2011-11-24T06:00:00.002-05:00

We live in a highly political and pragmatic culture. The heightened awareness that exists around image, self, success, and the political sophistication necessary for self-preservation is painfully obvious even to the obtuse spectator. I have been in the Christian community for 32 years now. I was converted to Christianity, having been regenerated by God’s work, in 1979 at the Crawley Creek Church of God in the coalfields of southwestern WV. Well, that is at least where conversion became visible. I have a little experience under my belt in the Christian community now. I spent some time in the Church of God, an independent Baptist, and more recently, the PCA. The one constant that I have to say exists in every church I have ever been in is the political atmosphere. I do not blame certain failures in the Christian community on politics or pragmatism. Rather, I see these elements as symptoms of far greater problems in the community of faith.

Politics

Politics comes from the Greek word politikoV. It means “the total complex of relations between people living in society.” The word politics has come to be used as mostly a pejorative term as of late. It has evolved in use and is now employed to describe situations in which favoritism rather than objective reason justly applied appears as the controlling factor in decisions and policies. Understanding the meaning of the term politics immediately causes one to wonder how we could ever avoid it. There is an old saying that perception is reality. The perception by most people in western culture is that politics is ruining our society. The truth is that the founding fathers unavoidably did politics to found our nation, and it will be what guides it into the future, good or bad. The issue we have with politics is not de facto politics. As is true with every other human practice, ethical neutrality does not exist in politics. If political actions are necessary, then the Christian must search for, discover, and employ Christian ethics in their practice of politics. Again, politics is the art of managing the collective concerns of a society in general. There is an ethical manner in which to carry out that management, and of course, there are numerous unethical ways to carry it out. When people in positions of power do politics for the sole purpose of remaining in power or for direct or indirect personal benefit, we classify such politics as unethical. From a secular standpoint, politics is managing the affairs of social concern for the greater good of the society in question. That which benefits society as a whole may in fact be detrimental to certain people already holding power. At a minimum, societal benefit may be derived from policies that actually limit the power-holder’s own endeavors. In essence, the one thing that stands to get in the way of politics more than any other single factor is “self.” We do not have a problem with politics. We don’t even have a problem with politicians per se. We have a problem with unethical men in positions of considerable political influence. Because ethics controls how one does politics, it is critical that we have ethical people doing politics. Because politics seeks to good of the overall society and because western society is highly individualistic, the challenge to engage in ethical politics is great. Ethical politics requires self-sacrificing service. The more individualistic our society becomes the more challenging ethical politics will be. This cultural phenomenon has the tendency to leak through the very porous walls of the Christian community.

What is true in secular society is ever more so in the Christian community. We do politics in the church. By definition of what the church is, of the role of Scripture, and the general meaning of the term, politics is unavoidable. The ethical standards for politics in the church is far greater than what we could ever expect to experience in secular society. While the primary concern of secular politics is the collection of society as a whole that is not the case in the church. Secular politics may require a decision that benefits 80%, 90%, or even 95% of society as a whole while having a negative impact on a small minority. Not so in the Christian community. The church is not left to draft policy and decide what will benefit the community as a whole. Pastors, elders, and deacons do not share the same kind of power or influence that secular leaders do. The policies and direction of the church have already been decided. God has made the call. What He says will benefit the body of Christ benefits the entire body. Yet, we see unethical politics in the church, don’t we. We see high contributors getting the ear of the pastor and the elders more than the small contributors. We see pastors deciding not to discipline people for egregious sin because of their connections with key contributors and influencers in the church. We see elder boards engineered in a way that favors the current administration and makes sure that the key initiates of the pastor are protected and preserved because he has men in his pocket. We see pastors make false accusations against those who represent a threat, destroying their credibility so that his power is preserved. We see high contributors get the color of carpet they prefer. We see Sunday school curriculum used because the author or source is a favorite of a particular contributor. We see denominations make decisions based on the popularity of a particular pastor because he is a highly published author or a highly visible personality. There are cases where homosexual members are allowed because they are the son or daughter of prominent members of key contributors. We see all these behaviors because, first of all, we are sinners. But this is no excuse to ignore the fact that the church of Jesus Christ is not our church.

The church does not belong to us. It does not belong to you. It does not belong to the highest contributor. It does not belong to the pastor. It does not belong to the elders. It belongs to Jesus Christ who purchased it with His own blood.

The Jerusalem conference is a perfect example of NT politics in the Christian community. Read Acts 15 to understand what Christian politics in the church should look like. Now read Acts 20:17-38 to see what Paul thought the basic job of elders/pastors is. This is doing politics. This is managing the Christian community over which God has placed these men in charge. Pastors and elders have way too much power today over things they should not. They can decide, in and of themselves, who to discipline and who not. They can refuse to correct those who need it because of their connections and actually defame others who are less connected and there is no one to stop them. Worse, if the person attempts to defend themselves, they look all the more guilty. If you ever find yourself in such a position, leave it to God. Speak your peace according to Scripture in love with conviction and leave it to prayer. Love those who don’t love you back. Whatever you do, avoid retribution, and avoid unethical politics. You only hurt yourself when you do that. The church is the last place that unethical politics should exist. Nevertheless, it exists in the church as well. Christ will purge it where we cannot. Evil men who look after themselves will be revealed in the last day. God will show the rest of us who they are. Their shame will be deeper than anything they could ever have imagined. God will bring to light the deeds of evil men committed in darkness.

Pragmatism

We have seen lot of this philosophy in the church, especially since the Rick Warren craze began. I saw a pastor slowly begin to move his church toward a seeker-sensitive model under the guise that if we can just get them in the door, we can help them with the gospel. Of course this never happens. What happens it just the opposite! The message is transformed to further support the overarching pragmatic goal of numeric growth. Therefore, whatever threatens the numbers is itself a threat. Initially, this strategy is usually very subtle. Over the course of months and years, it becomes less so. Pastors and elders end up teaching and preaching differently. Subjects are avoided or modified so as not to threaten the overall goal of numeric growth or of retaining key contributors. This pragmatism is also seen in scholarship. Scholars adopt, as their goal, academic respectability, forgetting that the foundation of the very reason for their existence is the approval of a holy God. Many, if not most in academia are despisers of God. Therefore, these despisers of God view as unfavorable, strong arguments for God and His revelation and treat any threat to intellectual autonomy with utter contempt. This places the scholar in the very precarious position of choosing “either” God’s favor “or” academic respectability in most cases. For those scholars who are hostile to the faith, the self-attesting authority of Scripture and its acceptance at face value is a position they find exceptionally offensive and label as extremely naïve and uncritical. In the name of pragmatism, many conservative scholars seek a mediating position. We see these efforts even in the PCA where the young earth creationists are losing ground year over year in their efforts to preserve and protect a straightforward exegesis of Gen. 1-3. The inerrancy of Scripture is at stake even though many compromisers do not see how. Unregenerate thought in politics and pragmatism within the Christian community will eventually flush out biblically reformed thinking and seek to extinguish it because it is by nature a very real and present threat to its desire for autonomy. Unregenerate thinking is not content to get along with its counterpart. Unregenerate thought realizes that regenerate thinking represents a threat to its very existence. In order to eliminate that threat, it convinces the regenerate mind to compromise in the name of pragmatism until it can establish a stronghold large enough to eliminate the threat.

Pastorate

For the Christian pastor living in western culture, few temptations are more challenging than the temptation to unethical politics and pragmatism. Pastors have temptations to sin like any other human being. They are no different in their material make-up. Ontologically speaking, these men are sinners like the rest of the church. In fact, the temptations and pressures of the pastorate introduce an entire array of temptations that most of the rest of us are not likely to be as familiar with as the typical pastor. The pressure to maintain the numbers in many cases is not about raw pride, although, in many, many cases, it is. It can be about budgets and poor money management or bad financial decisions. Churches are so enamored with their pastors that they give them carte blanche on anything they wish to do. Personality worship is alive and well in western culture. A pastor may fear budget shortfalls, and therefore, take a very pragmatic or politic approach to sermon topics and even content. I watched a building campaign begin once by using the manipulative tool of painting anyone who disagreed with the initiative as grumbling or complaining Israelites. The entire Sunday school department began a series geared toward silencing all dissenters by placing them in this category. At the end of the day, when you boil it down to the fundamental job of the pastor, I think the modern, western Christian community is radically wide of the mark concerning the role and function of the pastor.

John MacArthur

Godly pastors deserve our honor and respect. I admire those men who make the sacrifice of ministry service to people who, in great measure, are mostly ungrateful. In our culture, the things that matter most are the things that receive the least amount of attention and appreciation. Conversely, the things the matter the least receive the greatest amount of attention and appreciation. The man who stands in the pulpit with flair, looks, and charm is lauded and adored. It matters very little if the content of his message is biblical or not. All that matters is that his “style” floats your boat. This is not surprising, given the individualistic orientation and narcissism of our culture. This is just as true for the country church as it is for the suburban mega-church. Let a trained orator who is used to lecturing seminary students enter a country church and preach a sermon on salvation using his typical style and see what happens. He could preach accurately and faithfully exactly what God says on the matter, but that will not matter. His style is not a fit. I do not see this as a cultural issue. It is an issue of ungodliness in the hearts and minds of people, many of whom are unregenerate. The problem for pastors in an individualistic culture such as ours is their own proclivities for individualism and autonomy. Far too often, the pastor sees himself as CEO, executive, or managing director of Jesus, Inc. It is his job to make things happen and get things done. His individualistic bent sees disagreements or challenges as obstacles to be overcome. If someone gets in the way of his goal, whatever that goal might be, he may try to “sell them” on his objectives at first. If that strategy fails, oftentimes the modern pastor will resort to ungodly manipulative tactics to get his way. These are the hirelings! They stack the deacon board or the session with men they know they can easily influence to move in their direction. In effect, this destroys the plurality of leadership that is designed to protect against the sinful proclivities of dominant personality types. It looks good on paper, but in reality, it is all too easy to circumvent. I listen to sermons from a certain pastor once in a while that I know does not practice what he preaches from the pulpit. He is not the only one. I am in utter amazement how you can stand up and talk about things week after week and not actually believe them yourself. You only believe them if you practice them!

We need men in the church who are going to respect the office of elder/pastor more than ever. The social pressures to compromise are greater than ever. The pastor’s job is really quite simple to describe at least - declare to your people the whole purpose of God while guarding yourself from vain and worldly aspirations. Paul gave the Ephesian elders the formula for successful pastoring in Acts 20:17-38. Pastor, toward all men you are to be: above reproach, no womanizer, temperate, wise, high social standing, hospitable, a skilled teacher, not addicted to alcohol, not eager or quick to argue, gentle, peaceable, unconcerned with material possessions. The pastor sees himself as a servant-leader, not the man in charge of everything. You know you have the wrong man when he has a sign in his office that says, “The buck stops here.” The hardest job for the pastor is loving the saints. This does not mean it is difficult to love the difficult to love. Rather, it is draining for the pastor to care so much about people. People make a mess of their lives because they are sinners. Loving pastors are relentless in their pursuit of these types. They are us! For pastors who are more concerned with their numbers, status, prestige, there are more challenging occupations. However, for pastors who are passionately in love with God, truth, and his people: a more difficult job is not.

J.P. Holding's Total Depravity: A Calvinist Responds (III of III)

2011-11-22T06:00:00.000-05:00

Holding

Acts 16:14 And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul.

Palmer tells us of Lydia, "Only after the Lord opened her heart was (Lydia) able to give heed to what was said by Paul. Until then, her understanding was darkened, to use Paul's description of the Ephesian Gentiles (Eph. 4:18)." [Palm.5P, 15]

Granting this -- for no such description is applied to Lydia at all by Luke -- I can see no reason why this cannot be an example of the paradigm I have outlined above whereby the Holy Spirit, drawing upon all men's hearts, now gives them what they need to make the decision of their own accord. If I may hypothesize a moment, it now appears that we will be leading into another petal off the TULIP doctrine -- that of Irresistible Grace -- and we found that to be lacking here.

Response
I do not know which version Holding is using here to give us Acts 16:14. I will provide the NA27 Greek text, my own rough translation, and then the superior NASB translation so that you can see what the text is actually saying.

καί τις γυνὴ ὀνόματι Λυδία, πορφυρόπωλις πόλεως Θυατείρων σεβομένη τὸν θεόν, ἤκουεν, ἧς ὁ κύριος διήνοιξεν τὴν καρδίαν προσέχειν τοῖς λαλουμένοις ὑπὸ τοῦ Παύλου. And a certain woman named Lydia, a merchant in purple cloth, in the city of Thyatira one fearing God, was hearing, whom the Lord opened the heart to respond to the spoken words of Paul.

This is the rough translation of the Greek text. The NASB says, A woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshiper of God, was listening; and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul. The semantic function of the Greek word prosechein is purpose. The Lord opened her heart to respond to the things being spoken by Paul. Again, at the risk of sounding redundant, the semantic use of the infinitive here clearly is purpose. In this case, it functions as an adverb, modifying dienoizeni. Lydia’s heart was opened to respond. Christ opened Lydia’s heart for the purpose of responding. God’s work on the human heart is the prerequisite to a positive response to the gospel. Holding would contend that God may open the heart, but the response may still be negative. Nowhere is this process ever documented in Scripture. The heart of the unbeliever is everywhere pictured as hardened, blind, ignorant, and bound by the sin nature. This goes back to John 6 where Jesus informs us that the reason people reject the gospel is because God has not granted them the ability to believe and accept it. This is also seen in John 10 where Jesus says that the unbeliever is not his sheep and this explains why they don’t believe. He says you don’t believe because you are not my sheep, not, you are not my sheep because you don’t believe. In other words, it is the status of being or not being God’s sheep that is seen as the cause of belief or faith, not the other way around. Moreover, we are God’s sheep, not because of anything we do or are, but because of His choice and His choice alone.

Holding then refers to Eph. 4:18 which describes the unbeliever’s state of mind as darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God. It is interesting that Holding does not interact with this text. I shall return to this in my summary of Holding’s supposed treatment of Total Depravity.

This word is used in the very same semantic structure in Luke 24:45. This time to present active infinitive is the Greek word sunienai and it means to understand. It is used 26 times in the NT and every time it means to understand or comprehend. In this case, Jesus is said to open the minds of the disciples for the purpose of understanding the Scripture. This theme emerges throughout the NT. It is unfortunate that Holding chose the path he did. He pointed to various texts that, perhaps, he felt could easily be viewed in from a different perspective and seemingly intentionally left the rest untreated. It is quite interesting to see so many texts on the subject of depravity missing from an eight page paper on the subject.

Holding began his paper by stating that he believed that Scripture taught the doctrine of total depravity. This statement begs the question why he found it necessary to spend so much time attempting to deny it for the remainder of his paper.

Holding's Brilliant Conclusion

After all of this criticism of those who favor the doctrine of total depravity, I would remind the reader that I have indeed come to the conclusion that it is Scriptural -- just not found clearly in a majority of verses usually cited in favor of it. Those verses are perhaps persuasion, but only the one in John 6 that we began with, of those we have examined, is clear proof.

Response and Conclusion
First of all, it is difficult to say what this paper is about. One would assume it concerns Holding’s view on Total Depravity. That is the hook Holding uses to reel you in. However, any Calvinist recognizes immediately that Holding’s restatement of total depravity is lacking and filled with gaps that leave the door open for Arminian revisionism. Why Holding thinks it is right to state that he adopts the doctrine when he redefines it to suit his own purpose and then spends most of his paper denying it is puzzling. Granted, Holding could merely be attempting to deal with those Scriptures that he thinks do not teach total depravity in order to correct those poor Calvinists that think they do. Why such a paper is necessary, I do not know. Moreover, I highly doubt any Calvinists are going to read it and be convinced. If that is his goal, he even falls short on that account for he manages to mangle several texts that do teach total depravity as mentioned above.

My conclusion is that J.P Holding has redefined total depravity. His definition of the term is actually not the reformed doctrine of total depravity at all. If he wished to define it and affirm it, he could have easily selected a number of sources to quote from and simply affirm its truthfulness. He did not do this because he really does not accept the doctrine and the number of statements he makes throughout this paper indicating his belief in unregenerate ability prove this is likely the case. It is my opinion that this is the reason he chose the texts in this paper that he did. He did not select texts such as Eph. 2:1-10, 1 Cor. 2:14, Romans 8:6-8, 2 Cor. 4:4, Rom. 1, 3:10-18 or even Eph. 4:18 and a variety of others. These texts are far more difficult for anyone attempting to rebut the doctrine of total depravity. J.P. Holding seems to be one more intellectually dishonest synergist that wants to muddy the waters and confuse the issue of total depravity with his use of a hermeneutic of convenience and Arminian revisionism.

So says the Canons of Dort in III & IV:

Article 1

Man was originally formed after the image of God. His understanding was adorned with a true and saving knowledge of his Creator, and of spiritual things; his heart and will were upright, all his affections pure, and the whole man was holy. But, revolting from God by the instigation of the devil and by his own free will, he forfeited these excellent gifts; and in the place thereof became involved in blindness of mind, horrible darkness, vanity, and perverseness of judgment; became wicked, rebellious, and obdurate in heart and will, and impure in his affections.

Article 4

There remain, however, in man since the fall, the glimmerings of natural understanding, whereby he retains some knowledge of God, of natural things, and of the difference between good and evil, and shows some regard for virtue and for good outward behavior. But so far is this understanding of nature from being sufficient to bring him to a saving knowledge of God and to true conversion that he is incapable of using it aright even in things natural and civil. Nay further, this understanding, such as it is, man in various ways renders wholly polluted, and hinders in unrighteousness, by doing which he becomes inexcusable before God.

Article 11

But when God accomplishes His good pleasure in the elect, or works in them true conversion, He not only causes the gospel to be externally preached to them, and powerfully illuminates their minds by His Holy Spirit, that they may rightly understand and discern the things of the Spirit of God; but by the efficacy of the same regenerating Spirit He pervades the inmost recesses of man; He opens the closed and softens the hardened heart, and circumcises that which was uncircumcised; infuses new qualities into the will, which, though heretofore dead, He quickens; from being evil, disobedient, and refractory, He renders it good, obedient, and pliable; actuates and strengthens it, that like a good tree, it may bring forth the fruits of good actions.

Article 12

And this is that regeneration so highly extolled in Scripture, that renewal, new creation, resurrection from the dead, making alive, which God works in us without our aid. But this is in no wise effected merely by the external preaching of the gospel, by moral suasion, or such a mode of operation that, after God has performed His part, it still remains in the power of man to be regenerated or not, to be converted or to continue unconverted; but it is evidently a supernatural work, most powerful, and at the same time most delightful, astonishing, mysterious, and ineffable; not inferior in efficacy to creation or the resurrection from the dead, as the Scripture inspired by the Author of this work declares; so that all in whose heart God works in this marvelous manner are certainly, infallibly, and effectually regenerated, and do actually believe. Whereupon the will thus renewed is not only actuated and influenced by God, but in consequence of this influence becomes itself active. Wherefore also man himself is rightly said to believe and repent by virtue of that grace received.

Closing

While I have interacted somewhat with JP Holding’s view of depravity, my main purpose for these posts has been to argue that total depravity has a specific definition given to it by the Reformed churches. This definition is best left to those who actually subscribe to it. Moreover, it is better to travel back in time, to those theological giants that helped frame up the biblical teaching on the subject to begin with. For that reason, I referenced men like Bavinck, Dabney, the Westminster Confession, and even the Canons of Dort. It should be obvious that these sources are superior in their ability to define what is mean by human depravity in the Calvinist system of theology. Abraham Kuyper, another theological giant within reformed theology says, “Setting entirely aside this queer idea (as our fathers would say, “very curious” opinion), we state therefore – once again unequivocally and in the clearest terms possible – that the confessions of the Reformed churches (including the 37th question of the Catechism) actually teach such a deep corruption of the human heart through sin that they unquestionable deny a power in the sinner’s heart to accept the offered Christ.” [Kuyper, Particular Grace. 62]

For this reason, JP Holding’s “supreme point” following from his premises is terribly misguided. According to Holding, Total Depravity, in sum, teaches, “We are unable of ourselves to turn to Christ to be saved.” This understanding of Total Depravity is so vague that even a staunch Universalist could subscribe to it. Holding fails to understand and articulate the reformed doctrine of total depravity. Therefore, any criticism he offers of the doctrine is a straw man. Moreover, his claim to adopt the “T” in TULIP is not adoption at all. If a person desires to know what Reformed churches mean by Total Depravity, it is best to look to the Canons of Dort, the Westminster Confession, and theologians such as Augustine, Calvin, Warfield, Hodge, Kuyper, and Bavinck. From an ethical standpoint, it is only right and fair to ensure that you understand precisely what “total depravity” is before saying that you affirm its truthfulness. What is very draining is the unethical practice in the Christian community of men who say they accept the Calvinist teaching of total depravity when they do not understand it, or worse, when they intentionally revise its meaning and then say they affirm it. Bonk!

J.P. Holding's Total Depravity: A Calvinist Responds (II of III)

2011-11-20T06:00:00.062-05:00

Holding

John 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

I would also note as well that John 6:65, which I previously included in the above, does not say that God enables people to believe -- I think that that is a Calvinist reading of the verse. Indeed the connection between belief and the Father's permission is not specified -- it's just as well to say that the Father has to act as an access-granter because people can and will join the movement under false pretenses that no man can discern, which would make much better sense under the client-patron relationship understanding.

Response

A discursive review of James Patrick Holding's writings reveals that he is radically enamored with social-science criticism to the point that it is almost an idol. Holding fails to realize that Jesus did not adopt the mindset of the cultural mileu in which He found Himself. While it is true that understanding the social context of Scripture can help enrich our understanding of the text, it is nowhere near the silver bullet Holding seems to think it is.

The client-patron relationship has nothing whatever to do with rightly understanding what Jesus is getting at in John 6. First of all, the assumption is that people actually want to join, but do so under false pretenses. Such an understanding of “joining” the Christian group not only contorts total depravity, but flattens membership in the Christian community to some sort of sociological expression. This is not anywhere close to orthodox soteriology. A look at John 6:64-65 clearly indicates that Jesus is explaining why some men do not believe. Jesus says, I have given you the truth, but some of you do not believe. The reason you don’t believe is because it has not been granted to you by my Father to believe. In other words, the only way men can believe in Christ is if God grants them faith! That is simple, basic exegesis 101. The Greek phrase “dia touto is well attested in the NT, showing up some 64 times. Perhaps Mr. Holding would be well served to take a discursive look at this construction before he introduces social science theories into his interpretation of this passage. Nonsense!

Holding

I can honestly interpret Genesis 6:5 under no different principles. This is undoubtedly exaggeration for effect, for of course one cannot literally have thoughts of the heart that are continually evil (for we must all sleep sometime); certainly the hearts of these antediluvians were wicked and depraved, but whether this means that they were depraved to the extent that total depravity requires simply cannot be determined from this verse -- much less can it be said that this automatically applies to all men throughout history, although it offers persuasive evidence that it is so. Nor does this verse say anything either way about whether men were unable to behave otherwise.

Response

Holding demonstrates severe inconsistency here. In this case, he allows room for hyperbole but in John 12:32, he insists on a more wooden-literal approach. It seems abundantly clear to me that Holding’s hermeneutic is a hermeneutic of convenience. He switches up his method wherever he finds it convenient so that he can hold to his theological bias. If he were consistent, he would insist on a literal approach to this text the same as he did on John 12:32. The truth is that context determines the meaning of a text more than any other single factor. Suffice it say the inconsistency is obvious in Holding's methodology. There is no rhyme or reason why we should take John 12:32 quite literally and why we should not do so here.

Holding

Psalms 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.

This verse offers a standard Ancient Near Eastern exaggeration for the purpose of expressing a point: That we're sinners and we express it from even the youngest age; in this case, David expressing the utter depth of his own sin, in light of events with Bathsheba. While I in no way mean to imply that our sin is not serious or extensive, it is no more legitimate for the Calvinist to use this verse as they do than it is for the Skeptics (who make the same arguments using it), and the verse in no way says that we can't make a right choice.

Response

The comments here are quite obscure. I am not clear what Holding is arguing this text means. Is this a denial of original sin? Is Holding a full-blown Pelagianist? It is hard to say based on these comments. David is not exaggerating his sin to express a point. He is uttering a divinely revealed truth: he was born in iniquity. Before he was even out of his mother’s womb, he was a sinner. Moreover, Calvinism does not contend that we cannot make a relatively right choice. It contends we cannot make right choices as God sees right choices. Our choices, while unregenerate, always contain an element of idolatry and self-worship in one way or another. Our righteousness is as filthy rags before a holy God. What is Holding saying here? It is not clear. This interpretation is another product of social-science criticism. This method has a very strong tendency to ignore the divine nature of Scripture and impose on the writers of the text the same rules one would impose on every other text. The Scriptures are not like every other text. The Scriptures are God revealing Himself to mankind with the goal of transforming the lives of men who read the divine revelation that is Scripture. Holding fails to account for this fact repeatedly.

Holding

Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

As we know, Jeremiah is known for his hyperbole for the sake of emphasis, as is quite the norm in an oral culture; moreover, this verse has the structure of a proverbial saying and should therefore be read in that light. It cannot carry the absolute sense that a Calvinistic argument requires. (This also applies to two other verses from Jeremiah that have been used [Jer. 4:22, 13:23].)

Response

Once again, Holding displays his hermeneutics of convenience to argue that we are not all that bad. The heart really isn’t deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked! Jeremiah is merely using hyperbole. This verse is not a proverb and should not be read as such. It is in the middle of a prophetic utterance.

Feinberg comments, "In OT usage the heart signifies the total inner being and includes reason. From the heart come action and will. Notice the connection between "heart" and "deeds" in vv.9-10. Some think v.9 is a personal confession of the depths of Jeremiah's heart (so Cundall); others refer the text to Jehoiakim or Zedekiah. Actually, the passage best fits all humanity. The human heart is desperately corrupt and, humanly speaking, incurable...Who can plumb the depths of the heart's corruption and sickness? Even its owner does not know it." [Feinberg, Charles. TEBC w/NIV. 486]

Holding

-Oliver Wendell Holmes

John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

Palmer [Palm.5P, 17] points to this verse and argues:

A baby never desires or decides to be born. He never contributes an iota to his own birth. In the whole process from conception through birth, he is completely passive and totally unable to control his birth. In a similar fashion, the unbeliever cannot take one step toward his rebirth.

Though this relates to the "U" aspect of TULIP as well as "T", let's consider it now. I asked here at one point whether Palmer is getting his biological facts straight; I have never understood that a baby is a totally passive bystander in the birth process, but rather, does a little struggling of its own instinctually, which would rather reduce the impact of Palmer's analogy, since no one thinks instincts have anything to do with conversion.

As it turns out, a science-minded reader has told me that, indeed, Palmer is wrong: A baby even determines when it will be born, for it secretes a hormone that induces labor.

But I rather think the analogy Palmer draws is stretched anyway. The metaphor of new birth is appropriate; how else would the idea of a new creation be better expressed? In order for this argument to work, Palmer has to show that there was no better analogy available which would have illustrated both a new creation and a active choice behind the matter. Otherwise, he is simply stretching the analogy for his own purposes -- and we may next ask questions like, "What is conception analogous to?"

Response

I have to admit that I laughed out loud when I read these comments. These have to be some of the most incredible comments I have ever read. A baby secretes a hormone that causes labor to begin. So this secreting of the hormone is an act of the will? The baby actually cogitates that it is now time for me to leave this place and enter the world. Let’s see, where did I leave that packet of hormone I was given a while back? Really? Can anyone take such a statement seriously?

I am curious as to what exactly is a “science-minded” reader? If this person were a scientist, I am sure Holding would parade his credentials around for all to see. We are left wondering what a "scientific-minded" reader is. My guess is that a “science-minded” reader is someone who is curious about science and that is about the extent of it. In that case, I would be inclined to say that many of us are “science-minded” readers. I know I am. Dr. Craig Bissinger, a Gynecologist admits that they are still not certain what actually triggers labor. Science is nowhere close to reaching a consensus on what really triggers labor. One thing seems abundantly clear: it is not the will of the baby that actually triggers labor and to infer that it is seems to me to be quite ridiculous. Even if it were true that the baby secretes a hormone to begin the process, that is not at all an active role in the birth process. The release of the hormone is outside the infants control. Moreover, if one really wanted to use Holding's analogy, they would have to say that the born again experience is in deed initiated by man and he only needs to doctor's help completing the birth process. Is that biblical soteriology? I would submit that such an analogy is the equivalent of full-blown pelagianism.

By now it is painstakingly obvious that whatever view J.P. Holding has regarding total depravity, it is not the view shared by the reformed community. We conclude our views of J.P. Holding's views on depravity in our next blog. Holding says he is going to write a book about Calvinism. That is exactly what we need: one more person who does not understand Calivinism writing about why something they don't understand is wrong.

"We more frequently require to be reminded of the obvious than informed."

-Samuel Johnson

"We need education in the obvious more than the investigation of the obscure."