How biblical-minded Christians and Theists reason differently about God

In a riposte to this post, we note here how "theists" supposedly argue. According to this post (which is an excerpt from his forthcoming book),

Regardless of the course taken by naturalists, most sophisticated Christian theists refrain from dependence on a god-of-the-gaps form of reasoning. Rather, Christian scholars tend to appeal to God as an inference to the best explanation. This form of logical reasoning resembles the way detectives, lawyers, historians, and scientists reason. For example, scientists sometimes postulate ideas that are unobservable in order to explain the data that is observed (consider for example dark matter and dark energy). This approach posits the biblical God as the best explanation for all the significant realities in life.

Besides suffering from the fallacy of induction, and affirming the consequence, can anyone imagine the Bible stating:

"I am the best explanation and approximation of the way, the truth and the life" - Jesus

"In the beginning the best explanation is there was the Word..."

The Scriptures do not endorse this type of illogical nonsense, for good reason. Samples has not managed to escape the charge of "god-of the gaps" argumentation, for the primary method is still the same. God and His Word is not taken as the foundation, but rather autonomous reason is taken as the foundation for Samples' reasoning.

Inference to the best explanation works in historical and judicial fields because these fields are not about proving true truth, but rather constructing a plausible case. That is why supposed established history can be questioned if new discoveries are made, and legal cases re-opened if new evidences are found. To drag the Christian faith down to that level is to reduce it to a mere hypothesis, and a hypothesis no matter how solid is still a hypothesis which may be wrong.

The "god of the gaps" argument begins with autonomous reason, thus whatever is not open to reason or the senses (empiricism) or whatever combination of the two, is disregarded a priori. In such a rationalistic mentality, any mention of "god" is placed within the rationalistic framework, and therefore "god" is seen either as a crutch to inhibit further understanding (thus "of the gaps"), or as the author behind everything, which is seen by atheists as a crutch still. After all, having conceded the foundation of autonomous reason, why stop there?

Biblically minded Christians therefore do not reason like "theists." We start with God and His Word, not Man and his mind(s). We do not reason to God, but reason from God.

Credo ut intelligam

[HT: Triablogue]

Psalm 109 and imprecations

Structure of Psalm 109

• vv. 1-5: Trials of David
• vv. 6-20: Call for judgment upon wicked men
• vv. 21-26: Call to YHWH for help
• vv. 27-29: Call to YHWH for salvation and vindication
• vv. 30-31: I will praise YHWH for my salvation

יִֽהְיֽוּ־יָמָ֥יו מְעַטִּ֑ים פְּ֜קֻדָּת֗וֹ יִקַּ֥ח אַחֵֽר׃ (v. 8)

Let his days be few, and let another take his office

γενηθήτωσαν αἱ ἡμέραι αὐτοῦ ὀλίγαι καὶ τὴν ἐπισκοπὴν αὐτοῦ λάβοι ἕτερος (v. 8 LXX)

Let his days be few and may another take his office

τὴν ἐπισκοπὴν αὐτοῦ λαβέτω ἕτερος (Act 1:20ff)

let another take his office

Psalms 109 is an interesting psalm which I had the opportunity to teach this Lord's Day. It is a psalm of trials, call for justice, help and salvation, and ending with praise for the Lord's salvation. As a psalm, it gives us the manner to call unto God in times of trial for His help, salvation and vindication.

If as we believe that the psalms are the inspired songs of praise in the Bible, and thus we are to sing them, then Psalm 109 should be sung. The problem however comes when we approach verses 6-20. Should we sing these verses? Perhaps some people would sing it with gusto, but would you think it is proper to sing verses such as the following?

Let his sons be orphans, and his wife a widow (v. 6)

Let his posterity be cut-off, in another generation wipe out their name (v. 13)

Imprecations are found in other psalms as well, so the question before us is how to deal with them.

In Psalms 109, we can see how a redemptive historical reading of the psalm could shed light in the issue. Verse 8 of Ps. 109 is cited by Peter in Acts 1: 20 in choosing a replacement for Judas Iscariot into the Apostolate. Peter applied the verse, and thus by synecdoche apply the entire section to Judas Iscariot as the cursed wicked man, a type of the one who oppress the godly (in his betrayal of our Lord Jesus Christ).

Imprecations are therefore directed against the reprobates, not our personal enemies, of which Judas Iscariot is foremost (Jn. 17: 12). Redemptive historically, the wicked in David's psalm are the type of the reprobates in eternity.

In David's time, the wicked are dealt with by strict justice, thus the Church in the form of Israel yielded the sword against evildoers. In our time, the Gospel is being proclaimed and the execution of God's judgment is held back. Yet, such restrain will be removed in the last day when Christ comes again, and God's justice at the Eschaton will be meted out.

The imprecations for us therefore is eschatological in nature, as opposed to the present reality under the Mosaic economy. The singing of the imprecations is meant to proclaim God's justice in the eschatological judgment against the reprobates, those who manifest their wickedness in rejection of God and Christ.

It is therefore not surprising that the modern effeminate churches do not sing the imprecations, but that is for another day.

On publicity

First of all, then, I urge that ... we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. (1 Tim. 2:1-2)

For quite some time, it seems that the Straits Times newspaper in Singapore has been periodically running up stories on the churches in Singapore. Singapore is a multi-religious society, and it is understandable that newspapers may decide to cover Christianity in the newspapers. Notably absent however is any coverage of Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims and other religious groups, a fact which I find strangely disquieting.

Regardless, the main issue that I would like to address is that of publicity. The most recent coverage featured some Reformed churches and as per the Press, the story has been spun to support their desired narrative.

Should Christians desire publicity? We should desire that the Gospel be known to all, and in that sense publicity by the world of the Gospel is fine. However, the world spins whatever we say. The power of mass media is such that reporters and editors can spin anything they are given to support their desired narrative. They are not necessarily lying or even trying to lie, but the fact that they have to synthesize a story from disparate sources means that spin is unavoidable even if the editor desired to be objective, which I am doubtful in this instance.

How should Christians deal with the issue of publicity? We should make the Gospel message public, but that does not mean we should desire publicity by others, lest of all those with an agenda. Those interviewed for this piece I have heard were disappointed, and I am not surprised.

Christians therefore should not court the media. Any publicity should be done by us for us. We are to desire to lead a peaceful and quiet life, not one that draw attention to ourselves. Draw attention to Christ and the Gospel, but not to ourselves. The last thing we want is for the media to come in and spin things for our detriment, and I wouldn't trust the media not to do that.

Pre-prolegomena: The Church

The Church

As we have mentioned earlier, we are saved into the community of believers, the Church, through baptism. Once foreigners to God and to God's people, we are now brought into communion with God and with the people of God.

This community of believers, the Church, certainly consists of all believers everywhere. It is therefore true that whoever believes the Gospel is already part of the church. However, this universal Church is expressed in physical assemblies of believers for the purpose of worshiping God and hearing the proclamation of God's Word.

Faith in Christ is expressed in joy, gratitude and desire to please God. Likewise, being now in communion with God and with God's people will be expressed in the desire to physically be a member in a local Church. Therefore, anyone who believes in God will naturally desire to join his new brothers and sisters to worship God, to hear His Word, and to support each other in their journey of faith.

Just as faith without works is shown to be dead or not a true faith (Jas. 2: 18-20), therefore anyone who has no desire to join a local Church is not part of the universal Church. The evidence of being part of the universal Church is shown in the desire and the act of joining a local Church and being a member in it. This is what we have interpreted the Church Father Cyprian to mean when he says, "Outside the Church there is no salvation." (Extra Ecclesium Nula Salus Est).

Since joining a church is necessary, we must find out which church to join. There are countless buildings and assemblies of people calling themselves churches, but does having the name "church" necessarily mean that these are true churches believers should join? Most certainly not!

Joining a church is supposed to be the expression of our membership in the universal Church. Therefore, all assemblies of people if they are to be true churches must be an expression of the universal Church. If any assembly of people do not exhibit the signs of a true church, they are not an expression of the universal Church and we should not join them.

The marks of a true church are: the proper proclamation of God's Word, the proper administration of the sacraments, and the right exercise of church discipline. By the proper proclamation of God's Word, we mean that the preacher preaches God's Word and explain the text of Scripture to us. If the preacher goes up and uses the Word of God as a launchpad to lecture on something that interests him but is not taught in the text of Scripture, that is not a proper proclamation of God's Word.

The sacraments are Baptism and the Lord's Supper. If any assembly that calls itself a church does not do these sacraments and them only, they are not properly administering the sacraments. Therefore, both the Roman Catholic church (with its 7 sacraments) and the Salvation Army (which do not administer any sacrament) are not true churches.

The third sign is the right exercise of church discipline. Positively, church discipline is exercised in discipleship of believers in the faith. Negatively, church discipline is exercised in rebuke, censor and as a last resort, excommunication of any unrepentant member who commits grievous sin. Many churches are liable to be disqualified on the basis of this third sign as they do not discipline members who commit grievous sin.

God calls us into the Church, and therefore we should seek out a true church and join it. In the church, we are in a place to be cared for and nourished by the Word of God, for the glory of God.

James White called T4G's position on the Bible inaccurate

I am not as sharp as I should be on this issue, plus of course I did not look at Together for the Gospel's Statement of Faith in detail. Dr. James White however has picked up on the language that the T4G Statement of Faith uses as describing the Bible as "the sole authority for the Church," as an expression of Solo Scriptura a la "me and my Bible alone in the woods." Dr. White's comments on this topic is certainly illuminating and can be read here.

Tim Keller and the problem with "Mere Christianity"

In a video interview, Tim Keller made the issue of orthodoxy and heresy a matter of affiliation to the Apostles' Creed, and vaguely implies acceptance of the Nicene Creed as well in the allusion to acceptance of the Ecumenical Councils (which for at least the Reformed mean the 4 councils of Nicea, Constantinople -1st, Ephesus and Chalcedon). This sort of "mere Christianity" comprise the essentials of the faith, and therefore Keller believes that Christianity should be a broad enough tent to accept theistic evolutionists of all sorts.

The problem of course is that nobody actually practices that kind of "mere Christianity." Even Tim Keller does not. The whole idea of having a "Gospel Coalition" implies that they are making something i.e. the Gospel, a matter of orthodoxy. Where exactly is the Gospel explicated in any of the ecumenical councils? The Gospel was assumed by the church fathers and kept to the basics of belief in Christ, but beyond that there was not much development on what the Gospel actually is and what belief in Christ means.

The doctrine of Justification by Faith alone is not mentioned by any of the ecumenical councils. In point of fact, the Late Medieval Franciscan Pactum of Gabriel Biel (Facientibus quod in se est Deus non denegat gratium) is a denial of Justification by Faith alone. If Keller was truly aiming for "mere Christianity," he should say that the entire idea of the Gospel Coalition is a charade and embrace not only the rest of professing Evangelicalism (including the National Association of Evangelicals) but also the liberals (National Council of Churches), the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox. After all, all of them except perhaps a few radical liberals profess belief in the ecumenical councils of the Church.

So is Keller serious about his idea of "mere Christianity"? If he is serious, he should just stop the charade. Leave the Gospel Coalition, leave the PCA, and be an all out ecumenist! Be honest to your beliefs. Either fully embrace the idea of "mere Christianity," or man up and state clearly a position which one will live consistently by.

C.S. Lewis, for all his literary genius, is not an authority on the Christian faith. One can benefit from critically reading his works, but Lewis is not an authority on a lot of issues, the idea of "mere Christianity" being one of them.

To put it as simply and bluntly as possible, choose this day which one you will embrace: the Gospel (and all that comes with it), or "mere Christianity."

Peter Enns and a different god

While waiting for inspiration to come for my papers, I decide to go back to my neglected blog. And it seems that Peter Enns has provided some material to comment on.

Enns has recently written a blog post with the title "You and I Have a Different God, I Think." I must say I concur with his statement, but for different reasons.

According to Enns,

The reason for the differences is not simply that people have different theological systems or different ways of reading the Bible. A more fundamental difference lies at the root of these (and other) differences.

I think we have a different God.

Christians are supposed to think about God they way Jesus showed us to think about him.

That God does not hesitate to participate in the human drama, to encounter humanity within the limits of the human experience. That means that biblical writers wrote about the God they encountered as they understood him within their cultural limitations.

True encounter with God, expressed in truly human, cultural, terms.

That’s why I have no problem reading the Adam story as a story of origins like other stories of the ancient world, or understanding Paul’s take on Adam as an outworking of his Jewish world (where biblical texts are molded to fit an argument), and calling this kind of writing “God’s word.”

The Gospel teaches me that this kind of Bible reflects the character of God. This kind of Bible is what I have come to expect.

The Gospel does not teach me that it is a problem for God to enter into the human experience and allow that human experience to shape–from beginning to end–how the Bible behaves. The Gospel teaches me exactly the opposite.

And the Gospel certainly does not teach me that God is up there, at a distance, guiding the production of a diverse and rich biblical canon that nevertheless contains a single finely-tuned system of theology that he expects his people to be obsessed with “getting right” (and lash out at those who don’t agree).

When it comes to things like Adam and I hear how people explain their position, the question I ask myself now is “what kind of God are you presenting to me here when you say X….?” Is it

an incarnating God–Immanuel, God with us, or

a Platonic god–where you have to peel off the obscuring “down here” hindrances to get to the untainted “up there” god, with the Bible as an encoded inerrant guidebook to get you there.

I don’t like the platonic god. I don’t think Jesus did either.

Enns caricatures those who reject his theistic evolution as those who believe in a Platonic "god" as opposed to the God who incarnates into the world. The question is not only whether this is fair, but what shall be said in response.

To be certain, no Christian will ever believe in a platonic "god." Christian Platonists are seriously in error in their philosophy, but none of them believe in a "god" where reality is all emmanations of some kind from his univocal and universal being. What Enns portray as Platonism has only surface similarity with true Platonism in the area of form, and even then the idea that the Bible is word-for-word dictation, a pure form of God's word, is a notion that only the most misinformed anti-intellectual Christian may hold, and more a caricature created by liberals than anything resembling true reality.

Right off therefore, Enns is pandering to the worse of liberal misrepresentation of the position taken by those he disagrees with. Maybe Enns have encountered them, but I really would love to meet this creature known as the dictation theorist. It seems that they are almost as visible as the emperor's new clothes, and almost as ubiquitous as true healing in a Benny Hinn's "crusade."

The problem with Enns is that his "god" does not control culture. Culture in his view is autonomous of God in some sense. Therefore, God cannot convey true truth because of the limitation of culture, but must convey truth in the form of myths. First of all, his "god" does not rule over the myths of ancient men. His "god" is apparently unable to stop the fabrication of creation myths like the Enuma Elish, the Gilgemash Epich and others like them as a total fabrication of what actually took place, which according to Enns is the evolution process. Instead, we have the sad spectator of a "god" who looks on in horror as the Sumerians and Babylonians and other ancient peoples created myths that speak of the creation of mankind when actually they have all evolved from monkeys.

Next, his "god" is apparently so tied to culture that he cannot portray reality to Israel but must rely on myths so that these ancient people continue to stay deluded together with all the other ancient peoples. Apparently, his "god" does not mind lying to the ancient Israelites, since the Hebrew language is perfectly capable of conveying evolution if that is what actually took place. (Whoever disbelieves them can go and find modern evolution textbooks written in Hebrew) Instead, incarnating in culture requires lying also. One wonders if when Jesus proclaimed that He is the way, the truth and life (Jn. 14:6), why is Jesus not using mythic language of his time to convey a deeper (read inclusivist) reality? After all, why stop at Genesis? Maybe all of Scripture is "mythic" language and an "analogy" of some deeper truth?

God certainly incarnates into the world, but the incarnation comes only in the form of the person of Jesus. Nowhere does the Bible teaches that God "incarnates" into language, but rather He rules over language and culture as Creator and through His Providence.

Enns' position is therefore the denial of God's lordship as Creator and His Providence. I would certainly think that denial of these two aspects/ works of God quality as believing in a different "god."

Does Rome possess the Gospel?

No.

Tim Keller the evolutionist

Few Christian colleges or seminaries teach young earth creationism (YEC), participants noted during discussion groups. But less formal, grassroots educational initiatives, often centered on homeschooling, have won over the majority of evangelicals. “We have arguments, but they have a narrative,” noted Tim Keller. Both young earth creationists and atheistic evolutionists tell a story tapping into an existing cultural narrative of decline. To develop a Biologos narrative is “the job of pastors,” Keller said.

(Evangelical Evolutionists meet in New Work)

Well, Keller has once against shown forth his position as a evolutionist. As I have mentioned before, embracing the Framework Hypothesis is not contrary to embrace of some form of Theistic Evolution. And don't anyone dare to play semantics here. As long as one thinks that the process and mechanism of evolution plays some role in the creation of species, that is evolution. To the degree that God is used as an ad-hoc "god of the gaps," to the degree that God is used as a crutch in the origins debate.

Evolution is a holistic system. There is no true fusion possible between evolution and Christianity. What "fusion" there is is a mongrel and mishmash of conflicting propositions, just as abominable as a hybrid between Protoss and Zerg.

If the PCA treats its ordination vows in the same way as the OPC does, Keller would be working in blatant violation of his ordination vows as a Presbyterian minister in which he swore to uphold the teaching of the Westminster Confession of Faith. Keller IMO should be charged, but I'm not holding my breath for that to happen.

[HT: Wes White]

VFT book review: Faith Unfeigned

The Valiant for Truth blog has recently put up my book review of Faith Unfeigned, which is a collection of four sermons by the Reformed John Calvin. An excerpt:

The 500th birthday of John Calvin (AD 1509-1564) has passed. Recently, the Banner of Truth Trust has re-published a new translation of a work by John Calvin comprising four of his sermons reworked for publication, an exposition of Psalm 87, and three letters from John Calvin on the necessity of an open and sincere profession of faith (p. ix). This theme of an unfeigned faith, its honest confession evident through practice, is one that permeates all of the texts in this re-published work.

[more]

Paper: Mainline Presbyterianism and Reformed Piety

I have been tied up with many things recently. Anyway, here is another paper which I have submitted entitled Mainline Presbyterianism and Reformed Piety. It is also a book review of the book by Ted V Foote Jr. and P. Alex Thornburg entitled Being Presbyterian in the Bible Belt: A Theological Survival Guide for Youth, Parents, and Other Confused Presbyterians. An excerpt:

In the Reformed tradition, piety is very important, being a major focus of the Reformer John Calvin’s concern. A book by Ted V. Foote Jr. and P. Alex Thornburg attempts to portray Presbyterian piety for us.

The book by Foote and P. Alex Thornburg, Being Presbyterian in the Bible Belt, is subtitled “A theological survival guide for youth, parents, and other confused Presbyterians.” In their preface, they reveal that their goal is to write a book to “respond to ‘outsiders,’ to address the questions non-Presbyterians ask us.” The authors therefore are attempting to help Presbyterians respond to the questions asked by those who come from “fundamentalist churches” and thus defend what they think is Presbyterian and Reformed piety against Neoevangelical piety.

[more]

Pre-Prolegomena: Love for the Brethren

Love for the Brethren

If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. And this commandment we have from him: whoever loves God must also love his brother. (1 Jn. 4:20-21)

The Scriptures are clear that we are to love our fellow brothers and sisters in the faith. The problem comes however as to what this love means.

In most of popular Christianity, love is defined by being warm and affirmative of the other. Over potlucks and celebrations, being open in sharing one's personal struggles, praying and offering support both material and/or emotional is seen as vital to loving others. However, is that what the Scriptures call us to?

Love is defined by God who is love (1 Jn. 4:16). Love therefore is whatever that is done for the good of the other as defined by what the Scriptures call good, not what we think is good.

It is certainly nice, warm and fuzzy to have "fellowship" with one another. But this by itself is mere socializing. Even prayer support does not necessarily mean anything truly spiritual.

Love desires that we want the growth of the other in Christ. Therefore, it is intricately tied up with the issue of growth in knowledge, affection and being/doing. In the area of knowledge, love means that one should seek for the other to grow towards greater knowledge of God and an embrace of the doctrines taught by Scripture. In the area of affection, love means that one should seek for the other to grow to love and honor the God of the Scriptures, and not the "god" created by one's own mind. In the area of being/ doing, it means that one should seek for the other to know and trust in Christ, in their identity in union with Him. From there, love seeks for the other to produce good works issuing from the gratitude that one is already saved by faith in Christ.

Love does not rejoice in what is wrong. It is not loving to tolerate serious errors of doctrine and life in another. It is not loving to celebrate their errors. It desires the godliness of our fellow saints, and as Christians, we should be thus loving to them.

Ministry and the attitude towards learning

Previous:

• Pastors and Seminary Education
• Why being a biblicist is wrong

The vocation of being a pastor/ elder is a tough one. To take care of the flock (Acts 20:28) implies that one knows the truth, and therefore what is not the truth. The shepherd has to lead the flock to green pastures and avoid poisonous plants.

Being a shepherd of the flock of God therefore requires training. God-fearing seminaries are meant to provide that training. Whatever one thinks of the role of a pastor-scholar, it is a fact that anti-intellectualism has no place at all in Christianity. The pastor's office was not called a study for no reason.

This especially means that shepherds and ministers are to be humble and teachable, more so those who are not seminary-trained. This is not to say that those seminary-trained are always correct or that untrained people are necessarily precluded from pastoral ministry, but to say that not being trained means that one must train oneself to the level of erudition needed for the task.

It is a travesty when pastors and elders are not humble and teachable. It is an even worse tragedy when they are both unteachable and wrong. At least if they are right, they would not lead others astray. But what can one do with someone who is convinced that he is right when actually he is ignorant and wrong?

Jas. 3:1 is a serious verse that all pastors and aspiring ministers and elders should always keep in mind. Remember that we are not the lords of the church but servants in charge of Christ's flock. The flock does NOT belong to us, and we are not given the permission to have lamb chops.

Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness. (Jas. 3:1)

Rick Warren the Anabaptist, on Twitter

Some time ago, Rick Warren tweeted the following:

I replied with the following tweets, following which it seems Rick Warren decided to block me from following him.

The Schleitheim Confession was the confession of faith of Anabaptists connected with Michael Slatter. As with many Anabaptists and their related documents, it is thoroughly moralistic in tone.

While Anabaptism is varied and diverse such that one should speak of AnabaptismS, yet a common motif is one of moralistic change. As opposed to the Magisterial Reformation, Anabaptists focus greatly on visible reform of practice and morals. Doctrine generally takes second place to that of moral reform, with the idea of "separation" from the world running amok in the Hutterites establishing communes distinct from the "evil secular" world around them. That is why I do not like the nomenclature of the Anabaptists as being part of the "Radical Reformation." It is radical alright, radical Medieval spiritualist revival that is.

The Schleitheim Confession is one such moralistic document. Looking at it one understands why Rick Warren loves it, because both of them are basically Semi-Pelagian legalists in orientation. Rick Warren, unless the Spirit works repentance in his heart, does not treasure sound doctrine. Rather, everything is all about having an immediate (i.e. without mediation) encounter with Jesus through "spiritual disciplines" and "40 Days of _____ (Purpose, Community, Vision etc)."

Those who wonder why Warren loves the Medieval mystics should not be surprised. In fact, I would be surprised if he does not identify with his spiritual forebears. Warren as a practical Semi-Pelagian share the same soteriology as the Medieval mystics. As the Reformation rejected the Medieval mystics (together with the trappings of Roman piety) and the Anabaptists, so also those of us who truly follow Christ according to the dictates of His Word should likewise reject Rick Warren.

Dr. Richard Muller's talks at WSC

The last two days (Feb 28th and 29th 2012) saw Dr. Richard Muller gave lectures at Westminster Seminary California (WSC), which I was privileged to attend. The talks can now be heard in the resource center here:

1. Was Calvin a Calvinist?
2. Calvin and Beza on Practical Syllogism (Calvin on Assurance)