CREDO500 article on the PD paradigm

I have just came back from a good holiday. In my absence, Pastor Jonah has been taking care of the CREDO 500 blog conference. Yesterday saw the publishing of my CREDO500 article on the Purpose Driven paradigm, which is a more thought-out article on the entire PD paradigm than my book (being after all written this year instead of 2006). The article can be found here. An excerpt:

The center of Christianity is the person of Jesus Christ, and His Gospel by which we are being saved. Apart from Christ, there is nothing but darkness and death. In Him we have life (Jn. 6:35) and hope (Mt. 12:21; Rom. 5:2) and peace (Jn. 14:27). As wicked sinners who are by nature justly under the wrath of God (Jn. 3:36; Rom. 1:18, 3:10-18), we have now been justified (Rom. 5:1) and changed by the Holy Spirit who now resides in us (2 Cor. 3:18). Such love as this should birth in us gratefulness and love unto our Lord, that Christ “may dwell in [our] hearts through faith”, that we “being rooted and grounded in love, may have strength to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, that [we] may be filled with all the fullness of God” (Eph. 3:17-19). Amen.

In recent times, a new wave has swept up upon our shores. From the pen of Evangelical pastor Rick Warren has come the best-selling books The Purpose Driven Church [1] and The Purpose Driven Life [2]. Together with readily available resources from pastors.com, Pastor Rick Warren has created a movement around the world in an attempt to grow the Church and impact the world for Christ. Serving to promote this movement are the teachings and programs (such as the 40 Days of Purpose, the 40 Days of Community, and the 40 Days of Vision) from Warren, Saddleback Church and her associates, which together promote a ministry paradigm hereby entitled the Purpose Driven paradigm. Attempting to so impact the world, Warren has even engaged in a crusade to fight what he calls the ‘Global Giants’, as outlined in his P.E.A.C.E. plan [3].

Within Evangelicalism, many churches have for various reasons embraced in part or the whole of the Purpose Driven paradigm within the life of the Church. As Christians, we are to evaluate everything according to the Word of God (Acts 17: 11-12; 2 Tim. 3:16-17; 1 Jn. 4:1), so how does this paradigm measure up to Scripture? More importantly, since Christianity is about Christ and the Gospel, how does the Purpose Driven paradigm measure up to Scripture in this respect?

[more]

Pastor Peter Wong, a graduate from London Reformed Baptist Seminary, who is currently a minister of Brunei Reformed Baptist Churh, has reviewed my paper and his response can be seen here.

The illogicity of those who promote the WMO

I am currently reading a book by David H. J. Gay entitled Particular Redemption and the Free Offer (Biggleswade, UK: Brachus,20008), a book written to promote the theory of the Well-Meant Offer, or the Neo-Amyraldian position that God desires the salvation of ALL MEN. I guess I shouldn't be expecting much in terms of logical consistency, but this eats the cake.

In attempting to refute the "Owenite" position of "sufficient for all because of the worth of Christ's person", but "efficient only for the elect" (of which I hold to a variation), Gay states:

Of course, as I have noted, the work of Christ is of infinite worth, and of course he is an all-sufficient Savior — a perfect Redeemer for all the elect, for all their sins, for ever. But this does not mean we can — or should — speculate about its 'sufficiency for all'. In fact, I repeat, however fine it sounds, the concept is, in the end, illogical and meaningless (p. 101)

Gay might as well says that he believes that the sky is blue and not blue at the same time in the same place. Such illogicity shows the utter intellectual bankruptcy of the position of the Well-Meant Offer men.

Introduction to the CREDO 500 blog conference

The CREDO 500 blog conference is just days away now. My co-organizer and the founder of this conference Jonah Tang has written a short succinct introduction to this upcoming two months blog conference, which can be read here.

For those of us who are either not fluent enough in Chinese, those who prefer to read it in English, and those who do not read Chinese, I have spend some time translating the text, as we wish to make this conference by and large available to non-Chinese speakers as well. Without further to do, here is my translation, which is also posted on the blog site itself here:

---

INTRODUCTION:

Knowing and glorifying God, whom John Calvin served

by Jonah Tang

trans. by Daniel Chew

Name and beginning

On July the 10th 2009, Christians in the Reformed tradition around the world gathered in the city of Geneva, Switzerland, to commemorate the 500th anniversary (1509-2009) of the birth of the French Reformer John Calvin, breathing new life into the embers in this once thriving spiritual center of the Reformation. Although not everyone had the opportunity to attend this ceremony, churches around the world have resounded with various events to be held in remembrance of this iconic figure of the Reformation era.

The CREDO 500 blog conference is initiated by this present author and co-organized together with brother Daniel Chew, with Dr. Stephen Chan (陈佐人), Dr. Zhi Yong Wang (王志勇) and Dr. Keng Ann Lee (李健安) graciously agreeing to be the project’s guides and advisers. On the one hand, the weak faith of many suffer from the onslaught of postmodernism and the rapid growth of all manner of heresies, while on the other, the 21st century is witnessing the rapid increase in the Church as many ethnic Chinese are coming to the Lord . In order to provide a platform for the exchange of ideas in light of these facts, and in the hope of continuing the proclamation and development of Calvinist theology and the rich heritage of the Reformed tradition, this conference has been organized.

The original meaning of the word in the Latin, “Credo”, is “I believe”. “CREDO 500” get its meaning from the first five centuries of the early church, linked together with the Reformation and Post-Reformation era of the recent five centuries to make up a pair of two five centuries of faith, which can be termed as the “ecumenical Reformed faith and tradition”. At this blog, the CREDO motif is developed further as the acronym for “Chinese Reformed Evangelical Discussion Online”, with the goal of planting the Reformed faith in the new generation of Chinese Evangelicals. It is hoped that the strict confessionalism and godly piety of the 16th and 17th century Reformers and the English Puritans, together with the faithful witness of the Apostles and the believers of all ages, will find new adherents. Utilizing the ability of the Internet to flatten the world, believers are enabled to interact and learn together this Christian historical orthodox faith. For unless we know and understand the Reformation and its necessity and beginning, we will never be able to be one substantive household of faith founded on the Truth of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Objective and Purpose

This author strongly believes that the influence of Calvin did not end with the Modern and Western world, but continues to impact and transform the Post-modern and Chinese-speaking world. We are honored to be able to invite Christians around the world from different denominations and backgrounds: be they scholars, pastors, researchers and theologians, to contribute to this blog conference and engage in interaction and mutual guidance on various technical topics. The conference would be done in the following format: Every other day a paper would be uploaded together with its attendant response, after which all and sundry are invited to actively participate in the discussions on that paper. All are invited to affirm, ask for further clarification or suggest points for more thought and reflection, with regards to the content and manner of writing of any of the papers. We eagerly anticipate creative engagements and constructive responses, to aid the authors in correcting and improving their articles.

In principle, all discussions are to be purely factual and objective. However, all attendees are to abide by the proper attitude of glorifying God. In expressing one’s thoughts and opinions, one is not to compromise on the foundational truths, but also to respect differences of opinions over minor points of doctrine. In all things, we are to be loving and speak words of edification to build up others. In this light, this author desires and exhorts the practice of the following beliefs and principles of Reformed orthodoxy: 1) To be based on the Bible, 2) To be Christ-centered, 3) with the sole aim of glorifying the triune God, 4) to be done for the good of the Church. These are also the desired result for the conference: that through studying the legacy of John Calvin, we may glorify God, whom Calvin served.

The theme of this blog conference is “Calvin to the modern Chinese Churches” 「从加尔文看今日华人教会」. We have collected a total of 20 papers to be spit into two sections, the first being “The legacy of Reformed Theology” and the second being “The Reformation and John Calvin”. Lord willing, we plan to publish the results of this conference in a volume, which is to be separately published in English and Chinese. Listed below in the next section are the short biographies of the authors and reviewers of the papers for this conference.

Lastly, we would like to express our appreciation to all who have contributed to this conference in one way or another. We look forward to this historical blog conference, and hope it will provoke thought to edify the Chinese churches, to bring about a unity between the intellect and the spirit, and to narrow the distance we have from our Reformed forefathers such that we are connected to our past. Amen.

[NOTE: I have not included the bio in this post because I have not translated them. I will include that in a later post]

Shall we show deference to false pastors?

Interesting short article by Phil R. Johnson on this topic here.

Matt Redman on romantic language in worship

Matt Redman weighs in on the isse of using romantic language in worship.

I couldn't agree more.

[HT: Worship Matters]

Article: Countering 10 arguments against the Law-Gospel Paradigm

Lee Irons has written a good article here refuting the Federal Vision's denial of the principle of works in the Mosaic Administration, and thus the Law-Gospel paradigm characteristic of Reformed Covenant Theology. As both a defence of the principle of works in the Mosaic Administration and a defence against certain arguments of the Federal Vision, this would be a good article to read.

[HT: Between Two Worlds]

On the CREDO500 conference

During my trip to Sibu, Sarawak, Malaysia over the weekend, I met up with Pastor Jonah Tang to discuss various issues, especially the upcoming CREDO (Chinese Reformed Evangelical Discussion Online) 500 blog conference to be held over the months of September and October. With less than a month left, and many things still to be completed, I would be focusing my energies on that task, thus leaving little time for anything else. This blog therefore would be less frequently updated especially in this month.

With this, here is the latest announcement (translated) on this upcoming CREDO500 blog conference:

---

The schedule of the 500th Calvin anniversary blog conference has been tentatively proposed. The 19 articles we have received for the conference will be distributed into two groups — the first group having the theme 'The legacy (lit. continuance) of Reformed theology', and the second having the theme 'The Reformation and John Calvin (lit. The Reformation era's John Calvin)'. The conference will now be prolonged till October 2009, with the intention of giving at least two days for discussing each article, and having a rest from our discussion on the Lord's Day (Sunday).

The names of our contributors have been mostly finalized, barring unforeseeable last minute changes. Also, a new article by Daniel Chew analyzing the 'New Evangelical Calvinism' is specially included. [Note: The inclusion was suggested by Pastor Jonah, not me - DHC]. The names of the reviewers on the other hand would be confirmed and listed in the near future. All reviewers are to hand in their reviews before 1st Sept. In the event that more time is needed, please get back to us at credo500@gmail.com.

The Chinese section of the conference would be headed by Pastor Jonah Tang, while the English section would be headed by Daniel Chew. Publication wise, both articles and reviews would be separately published - one volume in Chinese and a separate volume in English, for the convenience of our Chinese and English readers. [Note: A mixed language volume would only be accessible to readers of both English and Chinese, which is not ideal - DHC]. It is hoped that we would be able to publish the articles in a book by the end of this year; all who desire to help out in the English to Chinese translation work are welcome to contact us.

Part I: The legacy of Reformed Theology (7th - 28th Sept 2009)

I. Scripture and Tradition

Sept 7th Mejlina Tjoa, Scripture and Tradition (Response: To be confirmed)

Sept 9th J.J Lim, The Place and Necessity of Creeds and Confessions in The Modern World (Response: To be confirmed)

II. Scripture and Theology

Sept 11st Daniel Chin Choy Wong, An Analysis and Critique of Signs and Wonders (Response: Daniel Chew)

Sept 14th David Chong, Evaluate the "New Perspective" on Paul's Exposition of the Doctrine of Justification by faith alone (Response: Tsun-En Lu)

III. Scripture and Counseling

Sept 16th Gideon Teo, The Tradition of Counseling and Physiology through the eyes of Richard Baxter and Archibald Alexander (Response: Andrew Teo)

Sept 18th Andrew Teo, Reclaiming The Biblical Care of Souls in The Body of Christ (Response: Gideon Teo)

IV. Scripture and Apologetics

Sept 21st Benjamin Ho，Francis Schaeffer and Reformation (Response: Mejlina Tjoa)

Sept 23rd Daniel Chew，Evaluating The Purpose Driven Paradigm: Recapturing The Vision of The Centrality of The Gospel (Response: Peter Wong)

V. The Gospel and Culture

Sept 25th Linus Chua, Reformation and Education (Response: David Chen)

Sept 28th Tsun-En Lu，John Rawl’s Justice as Fairness and The Pluralistic Society (Response: David Chong)

Part II: The Reformation and John Calvin (5th - 23rd Oct 2009)

I. The historical legacy of John Calvin

Oct 5th Yao Hing Wong, Calvin's life and place in history (Response: To be confirmed)

Oct 7th Jack Sin，The Spiritual Influence and Legacy of John Calvin to The Modern World (Response: To be confirmed)

Oct 9th Daniel Chew, New Evangelical Calvinism: An analysis of the Calvinist Resurgence (Response: To be confirmed)

II. Joh Calvin's theology of God's Sovereignty

Oct 12nd Alex Tseng, Karl Barth's Doctrine of Election (Response: Joel Tay)

Oct 14th Ang Lai Hoe, Biblical Consistency of Calvin’s Work on Election (Response: To be confirmed)

Oct 16th David Chen，Has Turretin been faithful to John Calvin’s Doctrine of Election? (Response: Alex Tseng)

III. The practical theology of John Calvin

Oct 19th Fook Seong Ten, Calvin's Institutes and the Practices of Piety (Response: Lemuel Hii)

Oct 21st Zhi Yong Wang, Calvin and the Psalms: Singing the songs of Jehovah (Response: To be confirmed)

Oct 23rd Cathy Tan，The quest for Calvin's essence of worship: Passion and love of God — A journey away from ritualistic worship (Response: Paul Gao)

---

Do note that translations of Chinese article titles are tentative and liable to change.

Off to Sarawak

I would be flying over to Sarawak over the weekend to meet Pastor Jonah Tang, so this blog will be quiet until earliest Monday.

Misquoted verses: Jn. 17:20-21

“I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. (Jn. 17:20-21)

Jn. 17:21, located in the midst of Jesus' High Priestly prayer, has Jesus praying for the unity of all believers, that they may be one. It has thus been used by the ecumenically minded to promote their ecumenism, supposedly to fulfil Jesus' prayer that believers will be one.

It cannot be denied that Jesus did indeed pray that believers are to be united, and we are exhorted to maintain the unity in the Spirit (Eph. 4:3) and have unity of mind (1 Peter 3:8), living in harmony with each other (Rom. 12:16). Unity therefore is a good thing that Christians are to have.

As we look into the context however, we can see a few points which undermine the ecumenical movement, and show us the biblical way in which such unity is to be achieved.

The first thing to note in the context is that such unity is to be achieved and grounded in the truth (Jn. 17:17). Therefore, taking a stand on God's truths is important and is in fact the basis of the unity Jesus prayed for.

Secondly, Jesus in His High Priestly prayer makes a sharp distinction between those who are His (the elect) and those who are of the world. Jesus explicitly states that He did not pray for the world (v. 9), and therefore the prayer of unity only encompasses believers (those who are His) and not unbelievers (the world). The call for unity therefore presupposes that those involved are truly believers, as the world is NOT to be united with. Elsewhere in Scripture, we are told to separate from the world and all ungodly partnerships (2 Cor. 6:14-18). This leads us to two sub-points with regards to the call to unity.

1. The ecumenical movement err in attempting to find common ground with the world of unbelievers.
2. Discerning whether the other party is a Christian is logically prior to seeking unity with that party. For if the other party is not really a Christian, then attempting such unity is not in line with Jesus' prayer in distinguishing believers from the world.

Lastly, true biblical unity is to be maintained, not created. Jesus in His prayer is heard by the Father and since He perfectly knows God and His will (Mt. 11:27), his prayer is in line with God's will and will be answered. And even if it is to be created, the prayer is offered to God not to us, so God the Father is the one who will answer and fulfil the prayer request. Nevertheless, Scripture tells us that this unity is indeed already present in Christ and we are to maintain it (Eph. 4:3), not to create it. The ecumenical movement therefore is in error for seeking to create a semblance of unity instead of preserving the already present unity in the Body of Christ, around the common confession of the Faith (Eph. 4:5-6).

John 17:20-21 therefore does not in any shape reformed support any form of ecumenism. Rather, we are to strive to maintain the unity around the truth with fellow believers, not attempting to create bridges where there are none and are forbidden.

Misquoted verses: Mt. 18:18-20

Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven (Mt. 18:19)

The poll which started this series was done quite some time ago. Thus, especially for this verse, I took some time to recollect the exact reason why it was placed in the poll in the first place. This is since the previous verse Mt. 18:18 is just as abused as verse 19, especially in the sacerdotal and charismatic circles.

After some thought, I have decided to exegete both verses plus verse 20 and address the abuse of all three texts in this one post, so here goes.

---

Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them. (Mt. 18:18-20)

In context:

“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.” (Mt. 18:15-20)

Exegesis

Mt. 18:18-19 is situated in the context of verses 15 to 20 — a passage primarily focused on the issue of conflicts in the Church due to personal sin against another. The larger Matthean context for this passage is the issue of people and relationships, and thus verses 15-20 focuses on the aspect of conflicts within the Church.

In verse 15, Jesus starts narrating to us the scenario of such an interpersonal conflict. This conflict is not caused by doctrinal errors of any sort, which are treated differently and more severely (cf 1 Tim. 5:19-20, Titus 1:13b; 3:10), but rather of personal practical sin of one Christian against another ("sins against you"). Such sins are non-public in nature since if they are public, then by definition the offender would have sinned against many people in public, whereas the context here talks about personal sin.

In the context of such personal and private offences, the offence should be settled privately and personally. Verse 15b calls one to tell him his fault and settle the issue between the both of you. Obviously, this is to be done with love as all other actions are to be (Mt. 22:39, Jn. 13:34), but the issue must be resolved, not glossed over.

Verse 16 continues our Lord's dictate in the case when such a person refuses to listen and repent of his sin. Such a one is to be confronted by two or more people being there as witnesses. This is to create witnesses of the obstinate brother's unwillingness to repent is such was to happen, and also to ascertain whether it is indeed true that the fault lies in the other brother's unrepentance. Verse 17 continues with the scenario that such a brother is still unwilling to repent. The whole church is then brought in to exhort him to repent. Further unrepentance causes the judgment of the church to be passed on the person, and he is to be regarded as an unbeliever not to be fellowshipped with but to be called to repentance as if he is an unbeliever, yet in so doing with the hope that he finally repents and is saved (1 Cor. 5:5).

It is in this context that verses 18-20 are to be interpreted. Verse 18 follows verse 17 and thus the subject matter is with regards to church discipline. Binding someone is accomplished by church discipline and excommunication from the Church due to his unrepentant sin, while loosing is the converse act of accepting the penitent back after he has repented of his sin (cf. 2 Cor. 2:5-8). The binding and loosing in verse 18 operates therefore with regards to being inside and outside the Church. The Church is to to represent Christ on this earth (1 Tim. 3:15, Eph. 2:20; 3:10 cf Acts 15:6, 1 Tim. 3:1-5), and thus what the Church does is to be like as if Christ Himself has actually pass the same judgment. The judgment of binding and loosing by the Church is to therefore function as if Christ Himself has actually did the same.

Practically, this means that someone who is legitimately excommunicated from the Visible Church is de facto similarly not regarded as being in the Invisible Church of believers, and apart from repentance, such a one is lost. Unrepentant excommunicated professed Christians therefore prove themselves to be not true believers at all, since true believers are saved while unrepentant excommunicated professed Christians are not.

In this modern time with high mobility and low church and denomination affiliation bonds, the text of Mt. 18:18 should sober us Christians. The idea that one is fine merely by changing church at the first sign of trouble, or that even after being excommunicated one can join the next church down the road who will welcome him with open arms, goes against the plain teaching of the Scriptures here. The latter attitude, especially if one scorns the legitimate sentence of excommunication from a true church, may well be a symptom that one is in fact unregenerate and not saved. With regards to the former, if in fact this passage teaches anything at all which we must remember, it is that conflicts of any kind with fellow believers should be attempted to be resolved, and that leaving at the first sign of trouble is not the Christian way.

This correlation between the judgments of Christ and the church occurs only when the judgments are legitimate and true according to the proper application of God's Word, for God does not contradict Himself. The Pharisees who function as the rulers of the OT church wrongly threw out the man born blind (Jn. 9:34-35), which shows that false judgments by the church are not binding and are no more correlated with the judgments of Christ than the Phariseees' judgments were.

Mt. 18:18 thus does not teach sacerdotalism, or the belief that the Church or the leaders of the Church (Bishops, Priests etc.) function in some sense as mediators between God and the normal laity. In fact, Jn. 16:2 teaches us that false judgments by people who claim to act on behalf of God in the church would happen, thus falsifying sacedotalism. Mt. 18:18 teaches the work of the Church when she functions exactly as how she should be functioning as the representative of Christ, and her judgments are to be treated seriously as true and binding on all Christians insofar as they are true and legitimate according to the Scriptures, and are to be ignored if they are not. Scripture's message to the modern "church shoppers" therefore is that judgments of the Church are to be taken seriously, while its message to the sacerdotalists is that such judgments are not true by fiat and thus they do they act ex opere operato.

A most appalling eisegesis of verse 18 can be heard in some charismatic circles which couple verse 18 together with Mk. 3:27, and then appropriate this verse for the purpose of spiritual warfare. Needless to say, the context is not even close to the topic of spiritual warfare, so wrenching this verse out of context and connecting it to Jesus' teaching of the binding of the strong man (which depict Satan) is definitely in error.

Verses 19-20

Verses 19-20 are two verses that have been used as an encouragement for prayer, especially in teaching us how God will be with us in corporate prayer since "two or three are gathered" in His name as per the dictates of Mt. 18:20 so He will hear our prayers.

Now, certainly praying together with other believers is definitely good and is in fact taught in Scripture (cf Acts 2:42. See the numerous examples in the OT of corporate prayer), but that is not what the passage here is teaching in context. Verse 18 is on the subject matter of the judgments of the Church and church discipline. Verses 19-20 therefore are telling us that God will be with His church as they pray for His wisdom and will be with them as they pass out the judgments of the church. It is a promise of God to His Church that He will be with them in their judgments and deliberations as they pray to Him in this regard. Following on with the "representative of Christ" idea as seen in verse 18, this means that the promise is not meant to function ex opere operato ("will be done for them"), as if God will rubber stamp whatever proceedings and judgments that the Church passes, but that the Church when functioning properly will experience God's promise of His aid and presence among us in this regard.

Such being the case, Mt. 18:19-20 cannot exactly be used to promote prayer except in a very loose inferred sense. To use them as proof-texts to promote corporate prayer is therefore not optimum.

Song: Your Grace is Enough

YOUR GRACE IS ENOUGH
by Matt Maher and Chris Tomlin © 2003 spiritandsong.com (BMI)

1:

Great is Your faithfulness oh God
You wrestle with the sinner's heart
You lead us by still waters into mercy
And nothing can keep us apart

Pre-Chorus:

So remember Your people
Remember your children
Remember Your promise oh God

Chorus:

Your grace is enough
Your grace is enough
Your grace is enough for me

2:

Great is Your love and justice, God
You use the weak to lead the strong
You lead us in the song of Your salvation
And all Your people sing along

Chorus 2:

Your grace is enough
Heaven reaching down to us
Your grace is enough for me
God, I see Your grace is enough
I'm covered in Your love
Your grace is enough for me
For me.

The Logical Coherency of the Intellectual Triunity of God

My friend Joel Tay has just posted his interesting seminary essay The Logical Coherency of the Intellectual Triunity of God on his blog here. It is certainly an excellent article [which would be better with better formatting], though I do not think I would agree with [Dr. Gordon H.] Clark's definition of "person" as "a set of thoughts" or "a man is what he thinks". While logic and thinking is indeed necessary, it is not ontologically primary. As Dr. C. Matthew McMahon wrote in his book with regards to the relation of God and logic, The Two Wills of God (New Lenox, IL, USA: Puritan Publications, 2005),

Epistemologically, logic precedes God. Ontologically, God precedes logic (p. 24, footnote 5)

So for man the imago dei, while it is indeed impossible to separate thoughts and reasoning from a person, yet to collapse ontology into epistemology is I think in error. So rather than defining "person" as "a set of thoughts" or "a man is what he thinks", "person" could be better defined as "an entity which thinks" or "a man is an entity formed by what he thinks".

Monica Dennington: Heretic and schismatic

It seems that Monica Dennington (a 'zealous Christian' Youtube apologist) has decided to attack the biblical doctrine of Calvinism in " calling them to repentance".

Lutheran (non-Calvinist) Chris Rosebrough has reviewed the severely divisive and heretical "message" by Arminian Monica Dennington in the video here:

This anti-Calvinist anti-biblical screed would be hilarious if the issues aren't so serious. So if we *follow* the teachings of John Calvin and hence worship John Calvin, doesn't that mean that those who are convinced of Dennington's position worship Monica Dennington and should be called "Denningtonites"?

Kirby Wallace has been working on a response here on his blog, which should be quite interesting to read. As of now, the following Scripture come to mind:

Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. (1 Tim. 2:11-14)

Dennington stands in direct violation of the commands of Scripture in usurping the role of teacher/pastor. Regardless of the content of her message, her mere activity violates the Law of God. Coupled with her heretical system of Arminianism (or maybe it is Semi-Pelagianism), she is doubly in error. Since she takes it upon herself to "call Calvinists to repentance", she is hereby in turn called to repentance for her manifest defiance of Scripture in usurping the role of teacher/pastor and in teaching heresy.

[HT: The Crumbs Which Fall]

Posts of interest (July 11 '09)

Here are some interesting articles:

"Apostle Troy Brooks" condemns Dr. James White to hell

Question: Who ordained Brooks as an "Apostle" and by what authority does he condemn Dr. White?

Calvin on Birthdays: Don't overdo it

By the way, happy belated 500th birthday to John Calvin

A Guide to Godly disputations by John Newton

Rick Frueh and the issue of Phil R. Johnson

The Arminian Rick Frueh has decided to attack Calvinism through my anti-Amyraldian post, on the anti-Christian watchdog CRN.(mis)info in a comment there. While I can understand that he as an Arminian does not like the Doctrines of Grace, the ad-hominem and straw-men that he threw at me was astonishing. As I have suspected for very long, in that anti-Christian environment, Rick feels free to join in and attack other Christians, an action he generally will not do in other settings like my blog and that of my friend Mike Ratliff. Here is Rick's comment in all its glory:

OK, here is a post which is…well…absurd to the point of risible. Besides taking something simple and constructing a theological labrynth [sic], I could not help but notice this swipe at Phil Johnson.

“…the Amyraldian-symphatizing Phil. R. Johnson…”

Of course the post title, “The Pernicious Error of Theological Academic Intellectualism”, becomes ironic when the post itself drills caverns of doctrinal intellectualism that we Arminians find inane and without gospel purpose. How is it that men have taken the glorious simplicity that is the gospel of Jesus Christ and created a doctrinal monstrosity?

Calvinism now has more flavors than Baskin Robbins. It’s like explaining how to place a plug into a wall socket using a one thousand page manual. We Arminians have three basic “clubs”.

The shallow club.
The Biblical club.
The works club.

Calvinism is way too complicated and necessitates far too much intellectual energy than I am willing to give, which reveals its unscriptural essence. These are not unconverted ministers; many are now doctrinal professors that strain at gnats and swallow camels. Five point, four point, 3.5 point, and 6 point Calvinists are consumed with over sifting the nano-parts of doctrinal truth.

However, I think I would have become a Calvinist had it not been for Calvinists.

Firstly for Rick: Attacking me on mis.info while not doing so on my site is called gossip and backbiting. I think you as an ordained Baptist minister should understand the Bible enough to know whether gossip and backbiting are considered sins.

With regards to the issue of complicated theology, please do not be sanctimonious, as if Arminians DO NOT write theological books promoting their position. The issue rather is that it seems complicated to you because you reject Calvinist thought fiat, even though for us who read the Scriptures, it seems so clear to us in the passages of Scripture. So what does this prove with regards to the truth or falsity of Calvinism or Arminianism? Nothing! Feelings do not prove truth at all.

Lastly, with regards to Phil R. Johnson, I find it simply amazing that this one statement would be seen as an attack on Phil. That is a factual statement since Phil sympathizes with the Amyraldian position at the very least. That does not mean that I am "taking a swipe" at him, anymore than calling Pastor John MacArthur a Dispensationalist is "taking a swipe" at him. [I respect both men although I disagree with them on various issues]

I do not normally glance through that tabloid cesspool, and only did so because of traffic directed from there to my site. It is very regrettable that Rick would do such an action. Unlike him, I would be [openly] posting this and notifying him through email to desist from such un-Christlike actions.