Secular vs secularism

With the now-ended AWARE saga, the anti-Christian liberals with their allies in the Media had been playing the religious card to discredit the ex new exco. A common mantra parroted over and over again was the need to keep religion out of the secular sphere, and that the ex new exco had violated the secular nature of a secular NGO. However, is that really the case?

What exactly do we mean by the word "secular"? According to Dictionary dot com, as based on the Random House Dictionary, a good definition of secular is:

not pertaining to or connected with religion (as opposed to sacred)

To say something is secular means that it has nothing to do with religion; it is blind to religion and does not take religion into consideration. It does not therefore mean that it is anti-religious or opposed to religion. Rather, that describes the philosophy of secularISM, which can be defined in either or both of these two ways:

1. secular spirit or tendency, esp. a system of political or social philosophy that rejects all forms of religious faith and worship.

2. the view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the introduction of a religious element. (Dictionary.com)

Secularism is a philosophy which focus on meta-ethical issues as like developed philosophies and religions. As such, it is a partisan philosophy and is not neutral at all. Under the guise of "neutrality", it imposes its view of what is right or wrong even if their values contradict the beliefs and values of other religions. Thus, secularism is NOT secular at all, but a "religion" defined broadly-speaking in the sense of it being a comprehensive worldview (Weltenshauung) for life. (A belief in deity is not necessary for a belief to qualify as a religion, otherwise Buddhism would immediately disqualify as one). As defined in the broadest sense of the term, religion is:

a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects (Dictionary.com)

When the idea of not regarding religion is absolutized into a positive censoring of religion, then the line has been crossed from being a virtue in a multi-religious society into a totalitarian anti-religious paradigm, as we can see happened very clearly in the AWARE saga.

Confusing the issues of "secular" and "secularism", the liberals attacked the religious beliefs of the ex new exco, as if that should be an issue in the first place. Being a secular NGO, the religious beliefs of the leaders and members should be of no concern whatsoever. As it has been excellently said:

"Secular" does not mean atheism or "no religion"; it simply means "not religion-conscious", i.e., the individual's competency should not be judged by his religion.

So in a secular organisation like Aware, why should Exco members' religious affiliations matter? But The Straits Times disregarded this and emphasised daily for the 35 days, that 6 (and not even all!) Exco members attend the same church. Try emphasising the religion/race of a particular cabinet minister and see what happens to you in this country where an ISA code is in effect.

The end result of this false neutrality is totalitarianism and fascism, in which the reigning philosophy is Secular Humanism, with all others tolerated as long as they do not violate the tenets of Secular Humanism. With regards to the Christian, what this translates to is persecution under the guise of "tolerance". The results of such secular humanism can be seen as written in this article at the Faith Defenders website:

Modern humanists do not believe in the historic meaning of the freedom of religion. If the humanists have their way, the freedom of religion will be limited to believing what you want but not the freedom to practice it!

As we document in The New Atheism and the Erosion of Freedom, modern humanists do not believe that Christians have the “freedom” to teach their religion to their children, witness, pass out tracts or show any public signs of religion. The only “freedom” they will allow is freedom from religion.

Modern laws which legalize such things as abortion come from humanists who are legislating their view of morality. They are legalizing their pagan life style while trying to criminalize Christian education, church camps and orphanages, personal evangelism, Christian TV and radio programs, etc. Their understanding of religious freedom is the same as found in the Soviet Union!

God help us before society degenerates into such a state.

Rutherford: Rebuttal as if in anticipation of the "faith" and "grace" heresies

While reading Rutherford's excellent but extremely taxing book, The Covenant of Life Opened, I came across a rebuttal which Rutherford apparently meant to use against the Antinomians of his time, which is still relevant, in fact more relevant, for us today:

21. It were good to pray much, and to be dead to prayer; One of the main causes why we cry and pray much and are not heard, Psalm 22:2; Psalm 69:-3, is, because that which is proper to God the hearer of prayer, to wit, confidence and hope, we give to prayer which is not God. We pray to our own prayers and to our own wrestling [in earnest prayer] often, rather than to God: and we believer [sic believe] praying does the business and works the charm, as if prayer were Omnipotency itself.

22. Nor are we dead to faith and hope, but we believe in faith an [sic] in believing, and we hope in our own hoping in God. But [sic] was crucified for you? How many fetch peace, pardon and righteousness, not from Christ, but from their act of believing? Hence a case, whether some may not fervently pray and believe strongly, and yet be disappointed in the particular they pray for and believe they shall have? Certain it may be, especially when we are dead to Omnipotency and alive to praying and believing, and lay more weight on faith in God than on God, and on praying to God then [sic] on God himself. What Antinomians say unjustly we give to works, to wit, or peace with God, they and many unduly give to faith, not to Christ.

— Samuel Rutherford, C. Matthew McMahon (Ed.), The Covenant of Life Opened (New Lenox, IL, USA: Puritan Publications, 2005, Original 1654), p. 397

Sounds like an exact description of the "faith" (Word-faith) and "grace" (Joseph Prince and NCC) movement today, doesn't it? Truly, there is nothing new under the sun (Eccl. 1:9).

See also:

On the efficaciousness of Prayer— Does prayer operates Ex Opere Operato?

Rutherford: Why justification in James is not by works

The Puritan Samuel Rutherford has a very interesting argument on why James 2 cannot teach that we are justified by works:

How could the Scripture conclude from Abraham's being justified by works, whence he offered his Son [sic] Isaac, unless by works here we understand a working faith, the Apostle must mean the same by works, [James 2] verse 21, that he meant by faith, verse 23, for he cannot say in verse 23 the Scripture was fulfilled (in Abraham' being justified in the work of offering his son, verse 21) which said, Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness: Except it must be meant, that the work of offering his son Isaac was counted to him for righteousness. Now the letter of the Text expressively verse 23 saith that believing God was counted to Abraham for righteousness, then the work of offering his son must either be the believing declared by offering his son, and faith working by that act of offering, or if they be two sundry things, he must then say this in effect, Abraham was justified by the work of sacrificing, verse 21, causatively before God, Ergo, the Scripture is fulfilled, verse 23, and Abraham is justified by believing causatively before God, verse 23, which we cannot ascribe to the Apostle, according to their mind who make faith and works the two collateral and joint causes of Justification before God: as if one would say Peter wrought the miracle. So Abraham was justified by works, verse 21. Ergo, Abraham was justified by faith, verse 23.

— Samuel Rutherford, C. Matthew McMahon (Ed.), The Covenant of Life Opened (New Lenox, IL, USA: Puritan Publications, 2005, Original 1654), pp. 239-240

What Rutherford did here was to construct a reductio ad absurdum argument to prove that the justification in James is not the legal justification which Paul talks about. For if that were so, then according to verse 21, Justification would be because of works, while according to verse 23, justification would be because of believing, and this would lead to a contradiction. Since such is the case, the justification in James cannot be a legal justification, but the outward manifestation of true faith in a working faith.

An "Evil as Entertainment" watchblog

It is no secret that I find Tim Challies' criteria for "evil as entertainment" watchblogs to be totally subjective. However, since the New Calvinists want to play the game of subjectivity, two can play the game.

I have just discovered the blog of a Driscoll fan, who has published quite a lot of posts denouncing the Faith Defenders blog and Stephen Macasil in particular. Between fawning over Mark Driscoll and attacking the Faith Defenders, I guess such stuff make up about 70-80% of his blog. As of today May 3rd 2009, I have counted (with some overlap) 16 posts attacking Dr. Bob Morey, Faith Defenders and the Biblical Thought blog, 16 posts promoting Mark Driscoll, and 4 neutral from Apri 3rd 2009 onwards. That turns out to be 44.4% on Dr. Bob Morey et al, 44.4% on Mark Driscoll and the remaining 11.1% on other issues.

According to Tim Challies' criteria therefore, the "True Faith Defender" blog is a watchblog which dispenses "evil as entertainment". I'll let the New Calvinists and their allies play catch-up here if they so wish to.

[Come to think of it, I sortof like playing the AODMers' role for once. All thanks to Tim Challies for his "enlightening" posts]

The ridiculous arguments in Local Church centrism

For quite a long time, I have been hearing a clamour in the mainly Baptist dominated calvinist blogosphere of the primacy of being and serving in the Local Church, with Frank Turk even stating that the focal point and center of discernment ought to be in the local church. At the expense of probably being misunderstood, let me pose a few questions to these Baptists.

Given that

1) The Baptists at their inception during the time of the Reformation were never regarded as true churches by either the Roman Church or the Protestant churches. Anabaptist clergy appointed themselves, while the situation was not better for the Particular Baptists. I don't think it need to be reminded that the American Puritans weren't too kind to these itinerant unordained preachers either.

2) The Baptists, especially the Anabaptists, form Local churches by gathering a group of like-minded Christians of which they became the pastor for that group. Needless to say, there was no ordination involved at all.

Therefore,

1) If the emphasis is to be placed on importance of the Local Church, what is there to stop person X from gathering probably 10 like-minded friends, give themselves a church name, call himself the pastor and appoint two others as elders, practice the 'ordinances' and voila! You have a new church! What argument(s) can Baptists who over-emphasize on the importance of the Local Church muster to say that this is wrong? Or perhaps they have no problem with such a scenario?

2) Since Mr. Turk and his fellow Baptist ecclesia localis centrists says that if a person wants to practice discernment, then they should do so in the context of the local church, so therefore would he accept the scenario of "watchbloggers" follow the example of person X in forming new churches "ex nihilo" (as many churches as needed), and then Mr. Turk will then allow them to exercise discernment? Will Mr. Turk then keep quiet if such were to happen?

In other matters, ...

On a blog post attacking my [Baptist] friend Stephen Macasil, it is written:

Since the closing of FCCOC, the Biblical Thought blog has become local biblical church-less not that FCCOC was ever a true local biblical church in the first place due to its lack of a true biblical church government (lack of elders). Too many of the mad attack dog postings on Biblical Thought are done by individuals that are not accountable to any local church and that now includes Stephen Macasil.

So can I surmise that all FCCOC has to do is find some Christians who they think fit the criteria of eldership as stated in 1 Tim. 3 and Titus 1, appoint them elders, and then "rzhblog" will stop attacking Biblical Thought and Stephen Macasil? Somehow I doubt it.

Anti-religious bigotry of the MSM

In the AWARE (Association of Women for Action and Research) saga, which ended last night with the ouster of the (ex) new exco by the liberals and their supporters, a common method that is used to attack the ex new exco is that they are Christians fundamentalists. One such variant goes as follows:

The [newspapers] rightly give prominence to the AWARE saga BECAUSE the takeover of a secular NGO by the Christian fundamentalists... (Source, in comment)

Now, let us deconstruct that statement, and expose it for the anti-religious bigotry it espouses.

The AWARE saga started off because the Old Guard (and now new new exco) were voted out of office and replaced with a group of people who did not share their views on the promotion of lesbianism. In point of fact, the ex new exco decided to expose the old guard for the promotion of such sexual perversion. The liberal Mainstream Media (MSM), in a rare move decided to undertake investigative journalism on former president Josie Lau and her (ex) new exco, while some outraged liberals issued death threats to them.

The charge is made that the ex new exco were trying to mix religion into the secular sphere. The question is then asked: Did the ex new exco quote Scripture etc in their work? NO. So who was the one who brought up the topic of religion to begin with? It was the MSM and her liberal allies. So who was the one who is responsible for bringing in religion into the secular sphere, except the MSM and the liberals!

The sad fact of the matter is that one side has given to itself rights which it denies to the other. It is the liberals who have violated the secular clause, who have attacked and discriminated against Christians and Christianity. If the ex new exco were all Buddhists or all Muslims, can we state that there is a takeover by "Buddhist fundamentalists" or "Muslim fundamentalists"? Guess the outrage if the latter were to happen? Imagine the headlines: "Muslim fundamentalists take over secular NGO"? In fact, since the new new exco is pro-LGBT, why can't we broadcast this headline: "pro-LGBT fundamentalists take over secular NGO"?

The liberal hypocrites are on the march in Singapore. Unless we do something about it, this country will be lost. Singapore in her creed professes to believe in meritocracy "regardless of race, language, and religion". Judging by the anti-Christian hatred on display recently, perhaps a suggestion could be made to modify it into "regardless of race, language and sexual preferences, and most definitely with regards to religion".

New Evangelical Calvinism: Ambassador for Christ or embarrassed of Him?

[continued from here, here, here, here and here]

---

All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. (2 Cor. 5:18-20)

As Christians, we are called to be ambassadors for Christ; to represent our King as His messenger to proclaim His Word. In the secular world, ambassadors represent not themselves or their interests but the interests of their respective countries. Even if they personally feel a certain way, they do not express their personal feelings (or at least aren't supposed to do so), but only such as benefits their countries' interests.

The Christian is an ambassador for Christ, and thus represent Christ to his fellow men. This of course has many implications for our behavior, including how we live our lives and our witness for Christ to those who do not know Him. We will however focus on the aspect that is at contention here in the New Calvinism: The focus on being an ambassador in our attitudes in Gospel and Truth proclamation.

An organization that has became the de facto flagship of the New Calvinism, The Gospel Coalition Network, epitomized the mood of the New Calvinism in its handling of the truth, an improvement over the older New Evangelicalism half a century ago which jettisoned the importance of truth in her outreach. Instead of the perceived opposites found within "Fundamentalism" and the Postmodern Emerging Conversation, the Gospel Coalition has came up with a "mood" or approach to truth which they call a "chastened correspondence theory of truth", as stated

We adopt a “chastened” correspondence–theory of truth that is less triumphalistic than that of some in the older evangelicalism. But we also reject a view of truth that sees truth as nothing more than the internally coherent language of a particular faith– community. So we maintain, with what we hope is appropriate humility, the principle of sola Scriptura. (I.4.1) [42]

The older evangelicalism is considered "more triumphalistic" with its uncompromising proclamation of the Truth which is perceived to not take into account the fact that we perceive the Truth only partially and infallibly. Since our perception tints our view of the Truth (perspectivism), we are to be humble in our proclamation of the truth as we may be wrong. Such humility or a chastened attitude precludes the prophetic proclamation of Truth as being definitely THE truth, unless it be accompanied by disclaimers that we may be wrong and therefore invite others to correct us if they are able to; to show us that our perception may not be totally true. So says the New Calvinism and the Gospel-centered movement. However, is this view of ourselves and our knowledge of truth biblical?

First of all, it must be conceded that we are most definitely not neutral with regards to Truth, and therefore we may not be definitely true. Sometimes even what we strongly think is true may be wrong, and we should welcome criticism and evaluate our theories accordingly. However, to extrapolate this fact "We are not always definitely true" to "We are always not definitely true" is a logical fallacy, a fallacy hat the Gospel-centered movement and New Calvinism are in fact committing.

How do we Christians come to know biblical truth? We know biblical truth through God's revelation in the Scriptures, which are objective and absolute truths free from all human perspectives. The Truth therefore is present with us, and this truth being free from human perspectives and biasness will never be wrong and needs no apologizing. After all, this is what is meant when we say that Scripture is the ultimate authority for all of life.

The next step has to do with internalizing the external Truth into our minds, which of course is not an infallible process due to sin. In point of fact, the unregenerate cannot receive the truth of Christ, and are not able to perceive them as truth but only as seeming folly (1 Cor. 2:14). However, the same passage informs us Christians that we can and do definitely understand God's Truth. As it is written:

Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. ... The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. “For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ. (1 Cor. 2:12, 15-16)

Those who are truly believers, the regenerate, will have the mind of Christ and the Holy Spirit (cf Jn. 16:13; 17:17) and understand God's truth. No doubt new believers have to grow in Christ and renew their mind (Rom. 12:2), but definite knowledge of the truth can be achieved, otherwise the passage in 1 Cor. 2 makes absolutely no sense, giving us the contradiction that even with the mind of Christ and being able to judge all things, the truths we obtained through having the mind of Christ are not necessarily true. We must here differentiate between definite and exhaustive knowledge of the truth: Definite knowledge of truth deals with the quality of our knowledge of the truth as being 100% confident to be true, while exhaustive knowledge of truth deals with the quantity or depth of our knowledge of the truth. We most definitely cannot obtain exhaustive truth since we are finite and God is infinite, but there is nothing to prohibit the definite acquisition of truth especially since we have the mind of Christ.

All of this ties back in to the issue of being an ambassador for Christ. Ambassadors are to represent their countries, not themselves. Similarly, in Gospel and truth proclamations, we represent God and not ourselves. We are still not perfect and are still sinful, but we are NOT representing our own human frailties but the perfect, infallible and sinless God whose greatness surpasses our puny human frames. Having given the mind of Christ, and thus able to definitely know truth, are we then to shrink back and adopt a "chastened" attitude with regards to truth? We are jars of clay containing the truth of Christ (2 Cor. 4:7). Is the value of the treasure fundamentally affected by the type of jar it is in? So why are we so focused on ourselves rather than the Christ who uses us weaklings to proclaim His truth?

We are therefore to be bold in our proclamation, because the message we have does not depend on the state of the vessel for its existence and truthfulness. Our job is in presenting it clearly through faithful exegesis of Scripture, and thus let the Scriptures speak for themselves, and we need not ever apologize or try to be humble in its proclamation. In fact, since this is God's truth we are talking about, humility is portrayed in proclaiming it authoritatively, and the "chastened" attitude is in fact false humility which devalues the Word of God by making its proclamation less authoritative than what it actually is.

Will the New Calvinists reject this new "chastened" attitude towards the Truth of Scripture? Will we rather let Scripture and Scripture alone dictate to us the relative definiteness of the various truths of Scripture, and react accordingly, instead of allowing philosophical and cultural analyses to shape our epistemology?

Conclusion

We have seen five major issues of concern with New [Evangelical] Calvinism. All of these are serious in their own right and have the potential to derail the entire movement from the Scriptures. On top of this, the issue of pragmatism (part of New Evangelicalism) has lately reared its ugly head, seen especially when it comes to defending Driscoll and Keller from criticism by pointing to how successful they have been in reaching the lost and church planting. Now each one is a serious concern in its own right, but compounding them all together and it seems that the New Calvinism is fraught with many problems as they continue in the errors of their predecessor the conservative wing of New Evangelicalism. Will we and the New Calvinists be willing to listen to Scripture and be willing to biblically re-evaluate New Evangelicalism, or will we continue in the deluded thinking that as long as our doctrine and our Gospel narrowly defined is orthodox, our larger worldview and ministry philosophy are irrelevant? Will we learn from Scripture and from history, or will we repeat the same mistakes over again?

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. - George Santayana

May God be with us and open our eyes to see the truth and rejects the errors in the New Evangelical Calvinism. Amen.

References:

[42] Theological Vision for Ministry, The Gospel Coalition Network (http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/about/foundation-documents/vision)

---

Check out the full article available in PDF format here.

New Evangelical Calvinism: The New Evangelical infatuation with positivity

[continued from here, here, here and here]

This is a more extensive section evaluating the New Evangelical idea of positivity compared to the review of Challies' articles here.

---

The idea of being positive or seen as positive was one aspect of the New Evangelical movement [33] which is however not as easily recognized as demarcating New Evangelicalism per se. The New Evangelical/ Fundamentalist divide is remembered more for the divide over the doctrine of separation, if it is remembered at all. The apostatizing mainstream "evangelicals" in our day have long since jettisoned treasuring and proclaiming the truth, and therefore the New Calvinists do not seem to be New Evangelical in the aspect of truth as compared to the "Evangelicals" nowadays. However, this has not been the case. The early New Evangelicals like Harold Ockenga and Edward Carnell personally treasure the truth [34] and desire that biblical Christianity experience a revival in the land. Trying to have their cake and eat it, the New Evangelical strategy of infiltration backfired and it was the world that turned the church upside down instead of the other way round. But it must be remembered that the early New Evangelicals do indeed treasure the truth and were appalled by the fruit of their compromise [35].

The desire to be loving and positive, both New Evangelical traits, have never been repudiated by the New Calvinist movement, a successor of the conservative wing of New Evangelicalism. In fact, these twin related traits manifests themselves in the blogosphere in New Calvinist Tim Challies' blog post attacking so-called watchbloggers [36], of which the false accusations are soundly refuted by both Phillip R. Johnson [37] and Steven J. Camp[38]. We would not be doing a lengthy rebuttal of his attack and his subsequent clarification here [39], but just to focus on his attack post as a microcosm of the New Calvinist seeming infatuation with positivity.

The most revealing passage in this regard is seen as follows:

I want to say a word today about watchblogs or discernment blogs or whatever you want to call them. I am referring to blogs that specialize in sharing bad news. ... They may vary what they offer a little bit, but what is true of them is that they offer a steady diet of negative content related to the church in general or perhaps related to just one person or one ministry. [40]

These statements by Challies perfectly illustrate the New Evangelical and now New [Evangelical] Calvinists' infatuation with positivity. Negativity is to be shunned as much as possible, while being positive is extolled as a virtue, all without biblical proof for such an assertion. Worse still is the fluid notion of what constitutes "positivity" and "negativity" as utilized by Challies, concepts which he did not and have not elucidate. With such a dynamic notion of "positivity" and "negativity", Challies' attack becomes wholly subjective and comes across as a holier-than-thou self-righteous proclamation of how "positive" and thus good he is compared with the "watchblogs".

What then does the Scripture teaches about our attitude? Doesn't the Scripture tell us to think about what is good, as it is written:

Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. (Phil. 4:8)

Indeed it does, but it is a false assumption that focusing on what is good necessarily implies positivity. The former denotes our attitudes and focus as Christians, while the latter denotes the way we act and conduct ourselves. Certainly, having an attitude which focuses on God and on what is commendable would have an impact on the way we ourselves act, but to absolutely correlate attitude with behavior is fallacious, as we cannot judge a person's motives based upon the appearances of his actions. This is especially so since appearances can be deceiving, as a cursory look at the prophetic books in Scripture would show. Would we when reading the book of Lamentations or Jeremiah for example think that the prophet Jeremiah was focusing on what is bad; that his attitude was to treat "evil as entertainment"? Most certainly not!

So how then should we act and conduct ourselves in light of Scriptural exhortations like Phil. 4:8? Personally, we are to strive to praise God in our lives and to proclaim the glory of His Name, treasuring the good things of Scripture and of God in our hearts. Our actions however are determined not according to some arbitrary standard of "positivity", but on how we can bring glory to God and honor Him. If praise is needed, we praise and glorify our Lord. If refutation of errors is needed, we do such a seemingly "negative" action for the positive defence of God's truth so that He would be glorified as error is overthrown and truth is enthroned. The biblical focus therefore is not whether an action is "positive" or "negative", but whether we "positively" do all for the glory of God and the defence of His truth, even as we treasure His name and glorify it in our lives and actions, whether positive or negative.

Scripture itself shows us that we must be both positive and negative in antithecal living, as it is written:

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

Note the pattern here: Verse 1-2 are "positive" verses, which is followed by "negative" verses in verses 3-4, and capped with a "positive" statement in verse 5. Such patterns are in fact found throughout the Scripture, and this antithetical teaching and lifestyle should characterize the lives of Christians. We are to be positive and negative; positive towards godliness and truth and negative towards ungodliness and error, but in all we should focus on and glorify God "positively".

Challies with his view of being loving and his infatuation with positivity manifests his New Evangelical convictions and has done damage to the cause of Christ, with legitimate discernment ministries de-legitimized and the enemies of the Truth emboldened [41]. Just like New Evangelicalism historically, such an infatuation with positivity will slowly but surely destroy the Church. Will we reject this infatuation with positivity? Historically, New Evangelicalism threw out the need to be negative, while Fundamentalism in general tend to throw out the need to be positive. Biblical Christianity is both, and may we therefore embrace both, to the glory of God.

References:

[33] Pickering, p. 8

Early New Evangelical leaders took great pains to emphasize the fact that fundamentalists were too much "against" and not enough "for". Their plea was "Let's be positive and not negative". While this statement has an emotional appeal to many, it is not a biblical philosophy. Scripture is both positive and negative — it is for some things and against others. We must strive for that same balance.

[34] Murray, p. 20

[35] Pickering, pp. 78, 96-97

[36] Tim Challies, Evil as Entertainment, Blog post dated April 6, 2009 (http://www.challies.com/archives/articles/evil-as-entertainment.php)

[37] Phil. R Johnson, Turning a Blind Eye to Evil is Evil Too, Blog post dated April 9th, 2009 (http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2009/04/turning-blindeye-to-evil-is-evil-too.html)

[38] Steven J. Camp, Blogging, Watchblogging and Ministry, Blog post dated April 8th, 2009 (http://stevenjcamp.blogspot.com/2009/04/bloggingwatchblogging-meta-and.html)

[39] See Appendix I for a fuller rebuttal to Challies' errors in both his posts and further proof of his infatuation with positivity.

[40] Challies, Evil as Entertainment. Bold added.

[41] One just need to glance at the meta of Challies' two posts to see Warren apologist Richard Abanes and Chris Lyons of the anti-Christian watchblog CRN.info praising Challies and attacking the watchblogs, to see the damage Challies has done

New Evangelical Calvinism: Rational and Lifestyle consistency

[continued from here, here and here]

---

Will we aim for rational and lifestyle consistency?

The inclusion of two emerging-leaning pastors in The Gospel Coalition, Mark Driscoll and Tim Keller, creates cause for concern as to what degree this Gospel-centeredness extends to. Will we aim for rational and lifestyle consistency even in our profession of the Gospel, or will we settle merely for outward compliance to the Gospel and perhaps agreements on the major flashpoints of the culture wars like homosexuality, complementarianism, racism and missions? What makes these flashpoints more worthy of contending for as compared to the other doctrines and practices of Scripture?

In terms of rational consistency, Keller is on the record of supporting the error of Theistic Evolution [25], an anti-biblical theory which undermines the Gospel [26], [27], especially in its belief in death before the Fall, thus falsifying the biblical teaching that death is a consequence of sin (Gen 2:17; Rom. 5:12) and destroying the foundation of the Christian faith. The internal evidence for the historicity of the Genesis account of Creation is so strong and the dependence of other parts of Scripture on the historicity of that account, including our Lord's teaching, that to deny its historicity is to severely undermine the authority of the entire Scriptures[28]. As Dr. Robert Reymond has said:

Scripture in its entirety regards the Genesis account of man's early beginnings and doings as reliable history. The Genesis account of creation is referred to many times elsewhere in the Old and New Testament Scripture ... To call into question the historical reliability of Genesis 1 and 2 is to call into question the trustworthiness of the entirety of Scripture testimony on the issue of origins. The fall of Adam is referred to in Job 31:33, Isaiah 43:27, Hosea 6:7, Romans 5:12-19, Corinthians 11:3, and 1 Timothy 2:14. Cain's murder of Abel is referred to in Matthew 23:35, Luke 11:51, Hebrews 11:4, 1 John 3:12 and Jude 11. Finally, the Genesis flood is referred to in Isaiah 54:9, Matthew 24:37-39, Luke 17:26-27, Hebrews 11:7, 1 Peter 3:20, and 2 Peter 2:5, 3:6. To call into question the historicity of Genesis 3-11, then is to call into question the trustworthiness of a great deal of later Scripture testimony..[29]

The Westminster Confession of Faith, which Keller is supposed to believe in since he is in the PCA, states:

It pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for the manifestation of the glory of his eternal power, wisdom, and goodness, in the beginning, to create or make of nothing the world, and all things therein, whether visible or invisible, in the space of six days, and all very good (WCF, Chapt IV, Of Creation, Para 1. Bold added)[30]

Keller is rationally inconsistent in his belief in Theistic Evolution. At the same time, what he believes is contrary to the official creed of his denomination, which incidentally brings up the issue of confessional integrity but we should not digress. Since Keller is obviously a leader within the New Calvinist movement, this is a serious issue to be considered. This is so especially in light of the call to be Gospel-centered, and the insistence that such would not lead to being Gospel-only. But if the claim is made that Gospel-centeredness precludes Gospel-onlyness because the implications of the Gospel precludes such, then the willingness to be rationally consistent is necessary since that argument (that Gospel-centeredness precludes Gospel-onlyness) assumes logical and rational consistency. The example of Keller in compromising the doctrine of Creation however should give us pause to ask the New Calvinists whether they will practice what they preach, or the proclaimed fidelity to being Gospel-centered is mere lip service than actual belief and commitment, and only has bearings on certain flash-point subjects while neglecting the other essential areas of the Christian faith and practice.

The issue of lifestyle consistency would come to the fore in the case of Mark Driscoll, the most controversial figure in American Christianity nowadays due to his penchant for inappropriate language. Just a cursory look at one of Driscoll's book [31] would be sufficient to cement on most people's minds the reputation of Driscoll as being crass, and Pastor John MacArthur's series on Pulpit Magazine[32] complete with actual links to and citations of Driscoll's sermons on the Songs of Solomon confirms it. Scripture calls us to be holy, as God is holy (1 Peter 1:16). What is the point therefore of professing orthodoxy when our lifestyles do not match our doctrines?

In both of these leaders in the New Calvinist movement, we have seen both rational and lifestyle inconsistencies which undermine the Gospel they claim to believe in, not to mention the authority of Scripture over all of life. Will the New Calvinists therefore strive to be consistent in both these areas, and not just pay attention to their profession of the Gospel and the flash-point issues they want to focus on?

References:

[25] Tim Keller, The Reason for God — Belief in an Age of Skepticism (New York, New York, USA: Penguin Group, 2008), p. 87-93

[26] Ken Ham, The Lie: Evolution (Green Forest, AR, USA: MAsters Books, 1987)

[27] Robert Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, 2nd Ed. (Nashveille, TN, USA: Thomas Nelson, 1998), p. 116-126

[28] Ibid., p. 118

[29] Ibid., p. 118

[30] Philip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom (3 Vol.) Volume 3, as accessed on e-Sword.

[31] Driscoll, Confessions.

[32] John MacArthur, The Rape of Solomon's Song: Part 1 (http://www.shepherdsfellowship.org/pulpit/Posts.aspx?ID=4168), Part 2 (http://www.shepherdsfellowship.org/pulpit/Posts.aspx?ID=4169), Part 3 (http://www.shepherdsfellowship.org/pulpit/Posts.aspx?ID=4172), Part 4 (http://www.shepherdsfellowship.org/pulpit/Posts.aspx?ID=4174), The Shepherds' Fellowship Pulpit Blog

The New Evangelical method of argumentation

Pursuant to my post exposing the New Calvinist infatuation with positivity as can be seen in Challies' two posts, I have received some feedback on the matter. It is sincerely hoped that my full article on New Evangelical Calvinism, which provides the foundation of my case, would help to change their minds, but I am not too optimistic about it.

From the interaction so far, the best that can be offered in defense of Challies' posts is that "Challies is correct", or that "Challies has a point". What has NOT been attempted so far is a biblical and historical refutation of the arguments in the article. Hopefully, with my full article online now, there would be a change in the way the topic is addressed. Honestly, if the only response is an appeal to the subjective sans biblical support, then my point is further proved; that New Calvinism is content to profess (and work on to a certain extent) unity on the material principle of Scripture, but it categorically ignores the formal principle of Sola Scriptura in the process.

With this, let us see how things work out. As it is, if this infatuation with positivity continues within the New Calvinist movement, then the only option left is to treat them the same as the New Evangelical movement; just as errant and as compromising of the faith as their predecessor, and we should expect that doctrinal compromise within the camp would soon come, as per their predecessor the New Evangelicalism with the crisis over the topic of Inerrancy in the 1960-80s.

New Evangelical Calvinism: Embracing the material principle while neglecting the formal principle

[continued from here and here]

---

Will we embrace the material principle of the Gospel without embracing the formal principle of Sola Scriptura?

During the Reformation, the material principle was the principle of Justification by Faith alone, while the formal principle was Scripture Alone or Sola Scriptura. In an interaction on a blog I have had with some New Calvinists [21], there has been the insistence that Gospel-centeredness is enough, for Gospel-centeredness will necessarily preclude what I call Gospel-Onlyness — the view that everything is decided with respects to its impact on and consequence of the Gospel. Does embrace of the material principle therefore necessarily implies the embrace of the formal principle? Why then does the Reformation consists of two principles instead of merely one, and the insistence on the supreme authority of the Scripture for all of life as much as the Gospel itself was the issue of contention?

The formal principle of Sola Scriptura deals with the epistemological foundation of the faith within which the Gospel will thrive. Without the foundation, there are no set boundaries on what the Gospel actually is limited to. This does not mean of course that the Gospel does not have implications on various sundry issues, but the fact of the matters is without an epistemological foundation, upon what authority can agreement on the major issues be made, and what basis can defence be made against sophisticated denials of the Gospel which professes to be Gospel-centered like for example New Perspectivism? Even within the current movement, is being Gospel-centered really sufficient? Prof. D.A. Carson is part of The Gospel Coalition, an organization that is supposed to be Gospel-centered and supports Sola Scriptura in its confessional statements [22], yet he is also for the usage of gender-inclusive Bibles[23], which has a practical impact on the doctrine of Sola Scriptura by making such "Bibles" less literal and more importantly, conveying less of God's truth thus practically undermining the authority of the Scriptures in the lives of those who use such "Bibles" [24]. So is it really true that embracing the material principle, of being Gospel-centered, will necessarily cause the full embrace of the formal principle of Sola Scriptura? The case of D.A. Carson certainly does not seem to prove so. While it is true that emphasizing belief in Sola Scriptura does not necessarily preclude anyone from denying it in word or action, at least Scripture can function as a safeguard within which all matters of life and doctrine can be settled, instead of an authoritative appeal to the Gospel without its corresponding epistemic foundation.

References:

[21] Gospel-centered or Gospel-only?, dated January 17, 2009 (http://ephesians310.wordpress.com/2009/01/17/gospel-centred-or-gospel-only/), and Gospel-centered or Gospel-only? A brief response, dated February 2, 2009 (http://ephesians310.wordpress.com/2009/02/02/gospel-centredor-gospel-only-a-brief-response/)

[22] "Revelation", Confessional Statement, The Gospel Coalition Network (http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/about/foundationdocuments/confessional)

[23] D.A. Carson, The Inclusive-Language Debate: A Plea for Realism (Grand Rapids, MI, USA: Baker, 1998)

[24] Vern Poythress and Wayne Grudem, The Gender Neutral Bible Controversy, Updated Edition (Ross-shire, Scotland, UK: Christian Focus Publications, 2003)

New Evangelical Calvinism: Repeating the errors of New Evangelicalism

[continued from here]

---

Armed with God's Word and transformed by the Holy Spirit, these churches' leaders faithfully proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ week after week, through tragedy and triumph. Culture has conspired to give their message a wider audience. Desire for transcendence and tradition among young evangelicals has contributed to a Reformed resurgence. [1]

A phenomenon is growing and spreading within the churches in the USA. Spurred on by the degradation of culture, the downgrade of [New] Evangelicalism, the passion and appeal of charismatic personalities such as Pastor John Piper, C.J. Mahaney and the Sovereign Grace Movement among others, and above all to the providence of God, a renewed interest in Calvinism and the reformed worldview is spreading within the Evangelical movement. Journalist Colin Hansen has researched this phenomenon and published his results in his book Young, Restless, Reformed, truly an illuminating book which shows us the growing resurgence in Calvinism in myriad sectors of the Visible Church.

As Reformed (and reforming) Christians, the current resurgence in Calvinism surely is cause for gladness. Believing with Spurgeon that "Calvinism is the Gospel and nothing else" [2], the turning away from the destructive errors in modern-day bankrupt Evangelicalism with its embrace of semi-Pelagianism and Pelagianism is indeed cause for joy. Nevertheless, as I have observed the movement, many areas of concerns, some serious, have came up and it in this spirit that these concerns are brought up for our consideration.

Concerns:

Will we learn from history? — The New Evangelical failure to heed the doctrine of separation

On pages 13-16 in the first chapter, the example of an Adventist student named Robin attending a Passion conference was highlighted.

I asked Robin how Calvinism meshes with the Adventist church he attends. "It doesn't," Robin answered. He spent his first semester of college studying theology at Southern Adventist University in Tennessee. His increasing unwillingness to go along with unique points of Adventist theology led to conflict with faculty. He returned home to Orlando rather than cementing an unwanted reputation as the only non-Adventist theology major.

But if he's not Adventist, why does Robin still attend an Adventist church? Because that's where he can make a difference and maybe even teach others with his Calvinist theology. Besides, since Adventists meet on Saturdays, he can spend his Sunday mornings in Saint Andrew's Chapel in Sanford, Florida, where R.C. Sproul preaches. [3]

As it can be seen, this student Robin has one leg in Seventh-Day Adventism (which is not orthodox) [4], and one leg in Christian orthodoxy. This sounds exactly like the New Evangelical practice of non-separation from those manifestly in error and thus a violation of Scriptural principles as stated in 2 Cor. 6:14-18, which says

Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said,

“I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Therefore go out from their midst, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch no unclean thing; then I will welcome you, and I will be a father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to me, says the Lord Almighty.”

(2 Cor. 6:14-18)

Just like the Billy Graham crusades whereby new converts went back to their Gospel-denying churches [5], Robin apparently did not see any need to separate from his Seventh-day Adventist church and join a Bible-believing church. Instead, a reason with the aim of evangelism was given, which is the exact same reason given to excuse the same New-Evangelical practice half a century ago

new converts with a genuine experience of grace are planted in those liberal churches as a New Testament witness.... Furthermore, Christ, Paul, and all the great evangelists followed a similar pattern. [6]

There is a reason why the doctrine of separation [7] exists, and it is not because Reformed folks delight in disunity within the Body of Christ, but that true biblical unity only occurs among those who believe the Gospel, NOT all who profess to be Christian [8]. The failure to realize what true biblical unity is and pursue false ecclesiastical unity proved disastrous for the Church in the second half of the 20th century, as both Iain Murray [9] and Ernest Pickering [10] demonstrates, the former coming from a Reformed perspective and the latter coming from a Fundamentalist perspective. Neo-Evangelicalism has evolved in the last 50 years of church history, and its fruit is anything but good. It has given us serious doctrinal compromise and the blurring of what the Gospel is, of which a significant error was in considering Liberals and Roman Catholics Christians. The doctrinal rot precipitated the Inerrancy controversy of the 1960s to the 1980s as Evangelical students came back from liberal colleges tainted with the error of Liberalism [11]. Fuller Theological Seminary embrace the error of Feminism soon after [12], and New Evangelicals found a new openness to the pseudo-scientific theory of evolution [13], and even sexual 'liberation' [14]. This is not to mention the pragmatism and market-drivenness that has crept into Christian ministry, best seen in the Seeker-Sensitive [15] and Purpose Driven [16] brands [17] which can be found even within the 'conservative' wing of modern-day so-called "Evangelicalism". All of these are the bad fruit of the New Evangelical movement, with her failure to practice the biblical command of separation in her attempt to 'win the culture' resulting in little change towards orthodox Christianity outside while she loses her soul in the process.

Will we therefore learn from history? Already in the early stages of the Calvinist Resurgence, this doctrine of separation does not seem to be practiced. Besides the case of Robin, it should be remembered that the author of the book Collin Hansen himself is an editor with the largest New Evangelical magazine, Christianity Today. In an article for Reformation21 [18], the online magazine (ezine) of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, Hansen has written

As for fundamentalists, I have heard testimonies of college and seminary students who tell me something big is stirring. Perhaps there is hope that these young Calvinists will rebuild the bridges burned generations ago between evangelicals and fundamentalists.

It is definitely a good thing that largely Arminian Fundamentalists discover the biblical truths of the Reformed faith. Nevertheless, notice what Hansen has said with regards to the "bridge burned generations ago". The historical fact was that the bridge was burned by the New Evangelicals, not mere evangelicals, who repudiate the biblical doctrine of separation. This failure to understand the initial issue of contention half a century ago, together with his work as editor for the New Evangelical flagship magazine Christianity Today seems to show that Hansen himself is a New Evangelical.

Seeing the destructive fruit of New Evangelicalism in the second half of the 20th century, it is sad that New Evangelical Calvinism, what Hansen calls the New Calvinists or New Calvinism, is moving in the exact same direction as New Evangelicalism half a century ago. Similar to New Evangelicalism [19], modern-day New Evangelical Calvinism talks about redeeming the culture [20]. Both ignore the doctrine of separation, and time will tell how strong the present emphasis on the Gospel and being Gospel centered would last. If the history of New Evangelicalism is any guide, the focus on the Gospel would last only one generation, with the next generation running into various errors though still claiming to be Gospel-centered.

References

1] Colin Hansen, Young, Restless, Reformed: A Journalist's journey with the New Calvinists (Wheaton, IL, USA: Crossway Books, 2008), p. 156

[2] Charles Spurgeon, A Defense of Calvinism. Accessed online at http://www.spurgeon.org/calvinis.htm

[3] Hansen, p. 16

[4] "The issue of the Seventh-Day Adventists" in Daniel H. Chew, Book Review: The Kingdom of the Cults (http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/ddd_chc82/articles/thekingdomofthecults_review.html#SDA)

[5] See Ernest D. Pickering, The Tragedy of Compromise: The Origin and Impact of the New Evangelicalism (Greenville, SC, USA: Bob Jones University Press, 1994), p. 66-67.

[6] W. R. White, "Modern Pharisees and Sadducees," Baptist Standard, 2 July 1958, p. 5. As quoted in Pickering, p. 67

[7] Daniel H. Chew, The Doctrine of Separation (http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/ddd_chc82/theology/separation.html)

[8] This point was succinctly put by Dr. Martin Lloyd-Jones in his address to the Evangelical Alliance meeting in 1966, as narrated by Iain H. Murray in his book Evangelicalism Divided: A Record of Crucial Change in the Years 1950 to 2000 (Carlisle, Pennsylvania, USA: Banner of Truth Trust, 2000), p. 44-46.

[9] Iain H. Murray, Evangelicalism Divided.

[10] Ernest D. Pickering, The Tragedy of Compromise.

[11] To gain intellectual respectability, bright students from evangelical churches were sent to liberal theological colleges, where they were contaminated by Liberalism. On the inerrancy controversy, as recounted in Murray, Evangelicalism Divided,

With some subtlety and slight dealing with crucial texts, [James] Dunn presented a case that the Bible does not teach that it is inerrant and that it is indeed more honoring to Scripture and to the Holy Spirit to recognize that fact. He also saw the text of the Bible as 'historically relative'. He argued that because some of its teaching was once true it does not necessarily follow that it is true for all time. Further, the Holy Spirit may give a text a meaning for us now which was not the original meaning, and to accept this, he claimed, is to 'exalt the Spirit' over the letter. Simply to be bound by 'the letter' is 'Pharisaic legalism', and when evangelicals attribute to Scripture the authority which belongs only to God they are guilty of 'bibliolatry'. As far as the teaching of Warfied and Princeton on Scripture was concerned, Dunn's language was unmeasured. It was 'exegetically improbable, hermeneutically defective, theologically dangerous, and educationally disastrous'. (p. 182)

[12] Pickering, pp. 78, 83

[13] Ibid., pp. 81-81

[14] Ibid., pp. 86-87

[15] For example, see Lee Strobel, Inside the Mind of Unchurched Harry and Mary: How to Reach Friends and Family Who Avoid God and the Church (Grand Rapids, MI, USA: Zondervan, 1993)

[16] Bob DeWaay, Redefining Christianity: Understanding the Purpose Driven Movement (Springfield, MO, USA: 21st Century Press, 2006)

[17] A good book exposing the false "Christianity" of modern times would be Michael Horton, Christless Christianity: The Alternate Gospel of the American Church (Grand Rapids, MI, USA: Baker Books, 2008)

[18] Collin Hansen, Reflections on Young, Restless, and Reformed, Reformation21 ezine, Feb 2009. Accessed online at http://www.reformation21.org/articles/reflections-on-young-restless-and-reformed.php .

[19] Pickering, pp. 9-10

[20] Mark Driscoll, Confessions of a Reformission Rev. — Hard Lessons from an Emerging Missional Church (Grand Rapids, MI, USA: Zondervan, 2006, 15-16. Also Mark Driscoll, Times Magazine names New Calvinism 3rd Most Powerful Idea, The Resurgence (http://theresurgence.com/new_calvinism)

New Evangelical Calvinism: An Analysis of the Calvinist Resurgence

After much thought, and feedback from my good friend and brother Stephen Macasil, I have finally came up with a paper on the New [Evangelical] Calvinism. The full article has now been uploaded to my website here [removed], of which I will post sections of it in the near future since the subject is clearly important as the New Calvinist train picks up steam.

I have found FIVE points of concern on the New Calvinist movement, some of which are quite serious. They are:

1. Will we learn from history? — The New Evangelical failure to heed the doctrine of separation
2. Will we embrace the material principle of the Gospel without embracing the formal principle of Sola Scriptura?
3. Will we aim for rational and lifestyle consistency?
4. Will we reject the New Evangelical infatuation with positivity?
5. Recovering the role of being an ambassador for Christ

In subsequent posts, each of these five points will be further elucidated, and through them, the New Calvinist movement would hopefully be examined in light of Scripture and secondarily through the lens of church history. It is further hoped that the article would show the foundation behind the recent rebuttal to Challies' attack posts and the (rather amateurish) poster I have made.

So stay tuned for the analysis, or read the full article if you cannot wait for them to be posted in parts.

Soli Deo Gloria.

Poster: Negativity

I always wanted to try my hand at poster-making (although I am not too familiar with graphic design software), especially since a picture is said to be worth a thousand words. Anyway, this is a very interesting poster I have made which sums up nicely one point of contention against Tim Challies' attack post.

See:

A Belated Response to Tim Challies' article attacking watchblogs.

Old AWARE exco prove to have promoted lesbianism

For background information, see: AWARE and the homosexual agenda.

The new leadership of the feminist organization AWARE in Singapore has released an interesting information sheet entitled On AWARE’s Changing Slant Towards Homosexuality and Comprehensive Sexual Education in Recent Years, proving beyond doubt the radical homosexualist agenda of the Old Guard, who after being voted out of power have engaged in a smear campaign against the so-called "coup leaders".

[HT: Isaiah Chua]