Even an atheist can see through Biologos

The drive to adjust one's interpretation of the first few chapters of Genesis to the evolutionary paradigm and promote such a synthesis to Evangelicalism has been the raison d'etre of the Biologos foundation. Such a move is perceived to help the church to be not seen as dinosaurs, and thus help the church to reach the culture. Many who reject a 6-day creation narrative see holding to such an "outdated" view as wrong, and a major stumbling block to the church reaching out to modern Man. However, are holding variant views that are more accommodating to the prevailing evolutionary paradigm actually helping to reach people for Christ?

Recently, the Biologos Foundation has teamed up with the Templeton Foundation for funding Biologos'"Evolution and Christian Faith" program, a program to research how holding to evolution can function while holding on to some form of historic Christian orthodoxy. However, the atheists do not seem to be impressed. An atheist has lambasted Biologos' program as accomodationism which seeks to yoke two incompatible systems together. As he mocked,

These projects, but especially the one above [on stating that God must be hidden and utilize gradual creation in order to accomplish His purposes], are an insult to rationality. How can these scholars look in the mirror each day knowing that they’re taking money for such ludicrous projects? I can imagine Dr. Muller [sic], while shaving, telling himself, “Okay, today I’m going to make up more reasons why God is hidden.”

The translation of the above is that God should create gradually (i.e., through evolution) so that we can still remain naturalists about most stuff while the shy deity remains hidden. But God could still have done that by creating everything instantly and then leaving it unchanged. After all, we don’t have to have evolution to remain naturalists. And if God works miracles with Jesus, virgin births, and so on, doesn’t that dispel naturalism, too?

It’s amazing to me that, rather than interpret the “hiddenness of God” as evidence against God, theologians twist their brains into knots trying to explain why God would actually want to remain hidden.

As Delos McKown said, “The invisible and the nonexistent look very much alike.” Much as projects like this anger me, they make me even sadder, for it shows an irremediable credulity of some humans, who waste their valuable time on this planet trying to explain why an interventionist deity can’t show Himself too obviously.

Unbelievers are not stupid. Unbelief is a moral defect, not an intellectual defect. And on some issues, unbelievers see more clearly the truth of the issue. No matter how much one tries to parse it, there is simply no way to logically accept both evolution and the Christian faith. As the atheist implies, it is ridiculous "why an interventionist deity can't show Himself too obviously," or better phrased, it is ludicrous to say that a God who says that He creates in a certain way leaves behind evidences that show that no one was creating in any way as stated in the Scriptures.

People can see when Christians are denying or redefining what our Scriptures itself teaches, in order to be more like them, and they despise such compromisers. Why then do we want to tone down what the Scriptures teach? Instead of amending the plain teaching of Scripture, we should take the fight to them, and attack their false idol of evolutionism at its core as having a defective epistemology, a defective philosophy of science, and defective science.

Thomas Nagal the heretic from naturalism

This article at the Weekly Standard on Thomas Nagal is interesting on a lot of levels. An excerpt:

Last fall, a few days before Halloween and about a month after the publication of Mind and Cosmos, the controversial new book by the philosopher Thomas Nagel, several of the world’s leading philosophers gathered with a group of cutting-edge scientists in the conference room of a charming inn in the Berkshires. They faced one another around a big table set with pitchers of iced water and trays of hard candies wrapped in cellophane and talked and talked, as public intellectuals do. PowerPoint was often brought into play.

[continue]

PCA viewpoint: An Open Letter to James Kessler and the National Partnership

Over on the Aquila Report, TE Andy Webb has posted an open letter in response to the idea of a "National Partnership" that was being floated. The letter speaks for itself, and I will just highlight one portion of it here.

Let me give you just one example of that; the debate over creation. Most confessional conservatives are literal 6-day creationists and believe that should be the position held by the denomination. And yet, in 2000 the PCA General Assembly adopted a statement that allows for a “diversity of opinions” on creation to be accepted as long as they affirm the “historicity” of the creation account. The four views of creation that were to be considered acceptable were Literal six day, Framework, Day/Age, and Analogical.

At the time, everyone on the liberal/moderate side of the denomination arguing for diversity affirmed that theistic evolution would never be considered acceptable within the PCA, but 13 years later, Biologos, an organization that confesses they “believe that the diversity and interrelation of all life on earth are best explained by the God-ordained process of evolution with common descent” regularly meets at the offices of Redeemer PCA in Manhattan. PCA pastor Tim Keller is being quoted in Christianity Today as saying that it is “the job of pastors” to create a Biologos (Theistic Evolution) narrative.

Confessionalism: Unity in Diversity, and Diversity in Orthodoxy

[Previous post here]

There are two extremes in the Christian life with regards to the handling of doctrine in the life of the church. One is to so emphasize one's doctrinal rightness that soon the person becomes a church of one, because no two thinking people will agree on every single detail of doctrine. The other extreme is to de-emphasize the importance of doctrinal correctness, in favor of either the consensus view, or the view of submitting to the church leaders always on doctrine. The first extreme breeds the tyranny of the individual, while the second extreme breeds the tyranny of the many, or the tyranny of the (ecclesiastical) elite. The former can be seen in Dispensationalism and Fundamentalism with its many church splits, while the latter can be seen in broad evangelicalism (both types), the house church movement (tyranny of the many), and traditional hierarchical polity churches and also many charismatic churches (tyranny of the elite). As it can be expected, the pendulum almost always swing from one extreme to the other. The house church movement for example react against the tyranny of the elite, and end up having the tyranny of the many. Others reacting against anarchic church settings as seen for example in the house church movement move towards hierarchical settings, preferring the order of the one over the chaos of the many. Still others reacting against the anti-intellectual slant move towards the individualistic side, thus moving towards the tyranny of the individual.

To this mess, Confessionalism presents an alternate solution. Instead of making the individual, or the many, or the leader/elite as king, the Scriptures as interpreted in a Confession of Faith is king. The Confession of Faith functions as the constitution of the church, and sets forth the boundaries of what the Church thinks are orthodox, what is necessary to be believed, and what is not mentioned as being necessary to be believed. While dividing the local church or denomination from others who disagree with the church's confession, it unites all who hold to it as a true interpretation of the Christian faith.

In dealing with handling doctrine in the life of the church, being confessional means that whatever the Confessions teaches as necessary for the faith has to be believed. Thus, there is a true unity of faith among believers in a church. There is therefore an objective standard for measuring doctrinal issues, not a subjective and fluid standard as that of the individual, the many, or the elite. At the same time, what the Confession does not take a position on people are free to hold on to divergent views on the topic, without having the need to contend and split over the issue. If at any time, any person thinks that such and such a view ought to be proscribed by the church's Confession, then one could discuss amending the Confession of Faith the church holds to.

Now, of course, being confessional does not solve all problems. The system could be perfect, but Man is not. Nevertheless, such will work towards preserving unity in the church while allowing legitimate diversity in it, while minimizing tyranny of one sort or the other from taking root in the churches. Such unity in diversity, and diversity in orthodoxy, holds truth and love together, without trying to elevate one over the other, and thus makes for a healthier church.

On diverse tunes to be used for worship

In conservative circles which use psalters and hymnals, there is a tendency to use the same tunes to sing different psalms/ hymns. In one church, which I shall not name, the psalms weren't even tagged with any single tune. Rather, based upon the meter, a tune is chosen with the same meter as the verses to be sung, from a selection of tunes matching that meter.

Singing is an activity which engages the emotions, or at least it should. Worship should be from the mind, of the will, and then with emotions arising from the heart caused by the truths sung. We are after all to love God with ALL our heart, soul, mind and strength (Mk. 12:30), and while the intellect and will are primary, yet emotions are not therefore to be neglected. In this light therefore, matching different tunes to different psalms and hymns is actually a better practice. If music is to help us to praise God, then having a fixed tune to a fixed psalm/ hymn would make it easier for us to remember the particular psalm/ hymn/ song, and through this, it would be easier for believers to match them and so remember the psalms /hymns/ songs. After all, shouldn't the goal be for believers to internalize them so they can praise God throughout the week, and not just on Sundays since they can't remember the words and tunes of the psalms/hymns if there aren't holding psalters or hymnals with them?

During the Reformation, the Reformers compose new tunes to go along with their psalters. The new tunes were to facilitate the worship of God. Strangely, some of those in conservative circles cease to compose new tunes, but instead there is a tendency to reuse old tunes for new psalms or hymns. I have even heard of reusing hymn tunes for singing psalms. Historically, even the stricter Reformers who advocated for exclusive psalmody composed, or had someone composed, new tunes for the psalms to be sung in worship. This preference to reuse old tunes is strange, especially since it is not using an old tune which is no more in use, but using a tune for multiple songs.

While there is nothing inherently wrong about using one tune for two different songs, it is much better in my opinion to have one tune to one song. Such will make it easier for believers to own the psalms/hymns/songs as their own, and use it to worship God throughout the week.

Worship and Psalmody: Some thoughts

[Previous articles: Worship and the RPW?, Exclusive Psalmody, Ipsissima Verba and singing the name of Jesus]

Biblical theology - Systematic theology - Practical theology
Psalms - Hymns - Spiritual songs

Over on Twitter, I have been engaging in some sort of dialogue with my prof Dr R.Scott Clark, on the issue of Psalmody, or the singing of psalms. The issue is not about the singing of psalms, as I am for singing psalms. Rather, what irks me is the promotion of psalm-singing by elevating it as the summit of (true) worship, and/or to the denigration of hymns and spiritual songs.

While not wanting to denigrate the Psalms, for they are indeed God's Word, I would like to put forward and clarify from my previous posts on this issue one reason why elevating psalmody above other genres of worship is not in line with biblical truth, and can be extremely unhelpful in practice.

As I have said, paraphrase of the psalms is inevitable, in order for it to be sung in worship. No Exclusive Psalmodist (EP), no matter how much of a purist, ever sang the psalms as they are, but at a minimum they are arranged in metrical form. Some sort of interpretation therefore is always necessary, no matter how minimal the EP makes it out to be. Here I would like to add to my previous argumentation. If we say that the psalms have to be interpreted and paraphrased now in light of the fuller revelation of Christ in redemptive history, that would add more layers of interpretation to the psalms, with the addition of words and phrases not originally there in the psalms if we are to expound the fuller message of the psalms.

To be able to convey the meaning, and the fuller meaning of the psalms, would require even more paraphrase and interpretation. We must not forget that the psalms are more than 2000 years old, around 3000 years old. Such a historical gap cannot be easily bridged even if we translate the Hebrew with modern English (which is not the case with many Psalters). In order to bridge the distance, so that Christians can understand the fuller meaning of what they sing, hymns and spiritual songs should be composed based upon Bible passages like the Psalms to enunciate the fuller meaning of the psalms. Can Christians come to understand the fuller meaning just from the Psalms themselves? We certainly answer yes, for the Scriptures are perspicuous. But such takes time, lots of time.

It is probably a blind spot from those promoting EP, or its cousin the Scripture-only (S) position, for certainly many Christians today will be in no position to adequately comprehend psalms if they are sung in the form they currently are. I myself sometimes struggle to understand the psalms when they are sung, not that I cannot comprehend them given enough time, but singing does not give you the time to reflect on the words and understand what they are saying. Essays and papers do that, but in singing one is supposed to get the meaning of the words and phrases straight away, so that one can move from the cognitive stage to the doxological stage. How am I supposed to worship God with the Psalms when I don't speak like this, and neither do I mention 20 or more different concepts in two sentences like the two verses of the psalm? The reader is to understand that I am considered rather theological astute (not that I wish to boast) compared to quite a few Evangelicals. How would you expect THEM to read this, understand this and immediately sing this in praise to God from the heart, if I myself struggle at times? Those growing up in Reformed circles, or some conservative circles, have the privilege of being inculcated in this manner of worship. For them, singing the psalms is second nature. I ask you however to step back and think of those of us who are not from such traditions. Will you, in your zeal for psalmody, make me mouth words I may not understand? Such happened to me in a church I visited in Singapore for a few months that used a 17th century Scottish Psalter. Of what use is the promotion of psalm-singing, when such comes at the expense of understanding and thus true worship?

Now, I am appreciative of psalm-singing, and have no problems singing a Capella psalms if I visit such a church. But the problems of relaying the meaning of the psalms is still the main problem for me. I would rather sing a "praise song" based upon two verses of any psalm, and be able to understand and praised God through it, then to sing the entire psalm with a blurred understanding of its meaning. And such is why I placed the 2 triads at the beginning of the post. Singing the psalms is not enough, for the same reason that biblical theology by itself is not enough. The truths of the psalms need to be expounded (hymns) and applied (spiritual songs). Christians need to see what the psalms teach, and praise God for that. If we can preach an entire sermon on one psalm, why do we expect believers to be able to comprehend and praise God by singing that same psalm in under 5 minutes? And how can we praise and worship God without comprehension?

I would like to put here the lyrics to a song, "A Broken Spirit," based upon Ps. 51:17. I could sing this with understanding, but it is sometimes not possible to say this for some psalms which covers all of the verses or most of them in one go. Note the application of the biblical truths of that verse to us.

A broken spirit and a contrite heart
You will not despise, You will not despise
You desire truth in the inward parts
A broken spirit and a contrite heart

Lord my heart is prone to wonder
Prone to leave the Lord I love
Here’s my heart, Lord, take and seal it
Seal it for Your courts of love

Some Chinese Christian terms

Here are some Chinese theological jargon:

• Definition of Chalcedon: 迦克墩信经
• Nicea/Nicene: 尼西亚
• Docetism: 幻影说教
• sacrament: 圣礼
• reprobation: 遗弃（旨意）/（预旨）
• decree: 旨意 /预旨
• atone: 赎罪
• propitiate: 和解
• hypostatic union: 本质联盟
• nature: 性质
• catholic (adj.): 大公
• will (n): 意志
• [Christ's] humiliation: 降卑
• exaltation: 升高
• intercede: 代求/祷
• depravity: 腐败
• effectual calling: 有效的恩召
• assurance: 确信
• prologue: 序言
• commandment: 诫命

Jesus Culture?

Bill Johnson and Bethel Church, while on my radar, have never been my focus. But seeing this post by fellow CRN contributor Erin Benzinger on her blog, especially this video, disturbs me greatly. Anyone with the Spirit of Christ in them should feel a gut reaction to the demonic presence in that video clip.

The problem with Bethel Church and Jesus Culture is obvious when we see that nothing in there has any basis whatsoever from Scripture, and yet these false prophets lie and blaspheme God and especially the Holy Spirit in putting words into His mouth, claiming divine revelation where none is given. The Holy Spirit speaks (present tense) in Scripture and through Scripture, not apart from it. To claim divine revelation from God where none is given is the height of hubris, and anyone who knows their Bible knows what false prophets deserve from God.

There are many watchbloggers I am sure who are busy exposing the errors of Bill Johnson and the "New Apostolic Reformation." But we can discount all their heresies at its root: the charismatic claim of new revelation. God has revealed to us how He has and how He will reveal Himself to us (Heb. 1:1-2; 2 Peter 1:19-21; 2 Tim. 3:16-17). God will never contradict Himself. Since God has already told us how He has and will reveal Himself to us, to claim knowledge of God and His Will from any other source is to call God a liar. God will NEVER give us any more new revelation, because God does not contradict Himself. God has NOT given those visions to Kim Walker-Smith, for He will never promise us one thing in His Word and do another thing altogether just for her. Therefore Kim Walker-Smith is being deceived and not telling the truth. The entire Bethel and Jesus Culture movement is built upon something other than God, and we know there are essentially only 2 sources of supernatural power and visions in this world.

There is nothing much we Christians can do except to pray and evangelize. We should not treat these people as Christians, as they are even more deceived than the Roman Church is. At least the Roman communion strive for biblical accuracy, although they will never achieve it since they interpret Scripture through their (false) traditions. Those who belong to the NAR and the Bethel/ Jesus Culture movement are to be treated as objects for evangelism, and treated as worshipers of another God, for that is what they are in truth.

Reformation, Lent and the Church Calendar

Over on the Gospel Coalition, New Calvinist Colin Hansen has posted on the topic of the church calendar in general and Lent in particular. The overall slant of the article is towards the celebration of Lent, while giving room for Ligon Duncun to voice the lone case against the celebration of Lent. Given that people like Hansen are low church baptists, it is interesting to see them adopt what is essentially a high church ritual, but I digress,

The main argument brought up by Hansen is the idea that all churches practice a church calendar, just as all churches practice a liturgy (which is after all an 'order of service'). Since all churches practice a church calendar, the argument goes, why should we be against the celebration of Lent, especially since many churches celebrate Christmas and Easter as well?

Now, it is true that many low church Christians celebrate Christmas and Easter, and yet are against the celebration of Lent. But this is not the historic Reformed position. The Reformed with the Regulative Principle of Worship removed the celebration of Christmas and Easter, and all other holy days, as can be seen in the Westminster Directory for Public Worship:

There is no day commanded in scripture to be kept holy under the gospel but the Lord's day, which is the Christian Sabbath. Festival days, vulgarly called Holy-days, having no warrant in the word of God, are not to be continued. (Appendix)

The Reformed see that proper worship is to be centered upon the 52 Lord's Days per year, with the ceasing of all other holy days, which necessarily means removing the celebration of Christmas and Easter. Now of course, such did not happen in the Dutch churches for instance, because of various reasons including the fact that people do want to celebrate Christmas and Easter.

So, yes, Hansen is right in saying that all churches have a calendar. The Reformed at their best however see the calendar as speaking of the celebration of 52 Lord's Days, which are our "holy days." We can say that we have a "church calendar," but it is a church calendar centered around the 7 day creation week, not the circuit of the earth around the sun.

Now I personally have no issue with people wishing to celebrate Christmas or Easter, if they are not done as holy days. By all means people may decide in their personal piety to celebrate Christmas and Easter, but that is different from saying that the Church should celebrate them. Likewise, if some people want to fast during Lent season, that is their own prerogative. But Christians can fast any time they wish to, not just during the Lenten season. And Christians should be meditating upon the death and sacrifice of our Lord every time they partake of the Lord's Supper, which should be done frequently, not just during Lent leading up to Good Friday and Easter. So while I do think believers could choose to fast, and meditate upon Christ's death and sacrifice during the Lenten season, I do not see why they should be doing so, since they should be meditating upon it everytime they partake upon the sacrament of the Lord's Supper.

Instead of celebrating popish feasts like Lent, why not have a proper church service with frequent celebration of the Lord's Supper? Perhaps the impetus for the promotion of Lent is the fact that many evangelical church services have lost all sense of the sacred, and are more like rock concerts instead of covenantal meetings with our holy God.

DGM, Reformed and Charismatic?

There is a recent session at the Desiring God Conference 2013 where the speaker Tope Koleoso attempts to argue for his case that Reformed people should be Charismatics. The Cripplegate has analyzed his talk (Part 1, 2, 3), while Dr. R Sott Clark has responded to it from a historical point of view.

Perhaps the greatest issue that irks me about all these Charismatic arguments is that almost all of them totally misrepresent the opposing side. To disagree with Cessationism is one thing; to misrepresent it is another. I admit my still limited exposure to Charismatics, but I have not yet found one Charismatic who has adequately represented the Cessationist argument in its strongest form, and then show why he rejects it. Instead, we are treated to trite nonsense like "Cessationists fear the Holy Spirit." If I want to be polemical, I could very well state that Charismatics like Koleoso probably believes in a different Spirit than the one I and other cessationists believe in, because his description of the Holy Spirit certainly does not seem like the person I see described in the Scriptures. So I could very well counter that cessationists do not fear the Holy Spirit; we just fear that the Spirit Koleoso described is not the Holy Spirit at all.

There are many reasons why Reformed Christianity is antithetical to Charismatism, reasons which I cannot do justice to in this short post. My main contention has always been that Reformed Christianity believes in Sola Scriptura, particularly its teaching on the sufficiency of Scripture and thus the sufficiency of the means of grace ordained in God's Word for our growth in Chris, while Charismatism in every form denies this to some extent. In Charismatism, Scripture is not sufficient for the Christian life, for extra revelation of some sort (e.g. prophecy, word of knowledge, interpreted tongues) is necessary for the Christian life. Granted, reformed Charismatics do not consider such revelations on the same level as Scripture, but still they are considered necessary for the Christian life in some sense. In practice, the ordinary means of grace are deemed to be insufficient for the Christian walk. Rather, Charismatism must in some sense add practices like receiving "word of prophecy," "speaking in tongues," "dreams," "vision" etc as being needed for the Christian walk, even if they are needed merely to "enhance" one's spiritual walk. Charismatism therefore has a denial of the fullness of Sola Scriptura inherent within it. They could very well hold to parts of Sola Scriptura or even most of it, but in the final analysis they must depart from the Reformation slogan of Sola Scriptura, or cease being Charismatic in any real sense of the term.

There is thus no way for Reformed Christians to be Charismatics, for there is a fundamental difference between the two beliefs. Reformed Christianity cannot be reduced to the TULIP or the 5 points of Calvinism, for Reformed Christianity is not just Reformed Soteriology, but rather Reformed Christianity has its own pneumatology which is diametrically opposed to the pneumatology of the Charismatics. Koleoso's call therefore only makes sense in the shallow waters of New Evangelicalism, where doctrines are disjointed and not seen holistically.

There are Reformed, and there are Charismatics. There are 'reformed' Charismatics, but there will never be Reformed Charismatics. The whole term itself is an oxymoron, not even historically, as Dr. Clark points out, but doctrinally and logically. One might as well speak of a Oneness Pentecostal Trinitarian, or an Arian Modalist, all of which do not exist in the same logical sense that square circles don't exist.

Perhaps the day will come when 'reformed' Charismatics will stop having Charismatic altar calls. Perhaps the day will come when Continuationalists will finally adequately represent the Reformed objection to their position. But I'm not holding my breath for any of that to happen.

[See also: This is why Charismatics are simply not Reformed]

NT Wright and the Hebrew Law Court analogy

Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one who accuses you: Moses, on whom you have set your hope. (John 5:45)

Now Moses was faithful in all God's house as a servant, to testify to the things that were to be spoken later, but Christ is faithful over God's house as a son. And we are his house if indeed we hold fast our confidence and our boasting in our hope. (Hebrews 3:5-6)

In James R White's interaction with and discussion of NT Wright's doctrine of justification, Dr. White focuses on Tom Wright's idea of the "law court" analogy, in which NT Wright states that his "law court" analogy is to be that of the Hebrew law court where there is a judge and the defendant, 2 parties only. Dr White focuses on the idea of the newness of the New Covenant in his interpretation of Romans 8, in which clearly there is a third party, the mediator, present. From a Reformed (non-Baptist) perspective, do we or should we go along that line of argument? Or is there a better line of argument against NT Wright's portrayal of what the law court analogy in Scripture teaches?

It is my opinion that there is a better way to go about defending the historic reading of the law court analogy, through looking at the Hebrew law court itself. Is NT Wright true when he says that the Hebrew law court has only 2 parties? True, there seems to be only two parties present (the judge and the defendant), but is that really the case?

To truly understand the Hebrew law court, we must understand the Old Covenant. The Law or Torah was given by God to Israel. God's decrees, statutes and commandments were given to Israel as their covenant document (c.f. M.G. Kline, Treaty of the Great King). This was the way Israel ought to live her life as God's covenant people. Moses was the mediator of the Old Covenant or the Mosaic Covenant. He was the mediator between God and Israel, receiving the Law from Mount Sinai. What Moses received was the constitution of Israel, the basis for all of Israel's laws. As John 5:45 assumes, Moses was the covenant mediator of the Old Covenant. He who received the Law mediates Israel's covenant to God under that economy. Heb. 3:5-6 assumes that Moses was a covenant head and mediator just as Jesus is a covenant head and mediator, and then contrasts the two mediators and the two covenants they mediate.

If Moses is the mediator of the Old Covenant with its laws, then Moses is the mediator in the Hebrew law courts under the Mosaic economy. Moses' mediatory office however focuses on the principles of works found in Lev. 18:5: "You shall therefore keep my statutes and my rules; if a person does them, he shall live by them: I am the LORD." The Mosaic economy is strictly legal without mercy. The one who does the Law shall live, while the one who violates the Law dies. Moses in this sense mediates death. This is not to say that the Law is evil, as Rom. 7: 7-14 shows. Rather, because of sin and wickedness, all are under the curse of the Law.

Therefore, in the Hebrew law court, there are not just 2 parties. Moses is present as a mediator everytime the Law is used. The Law in the Hebrew law court therefore brings the mediation of Moses as the covenant head, in typological form, in its deliberations and judgments. If the accused is guilty, Moses "mediates" punishment to him. If the accused is innocent, Moses "mediates" life in the form of acquital. There therefore IS a mediator in the Hebrew law court, the head of the Old Covenant Moses. That is why the Pharisees could set their hope on Moses, while Jesus state that Moses will condemn them instead.

We could very well therefore grant NT Wright his appeal to the Hebrew law court. The problem is that Wright does not truly understand the Old Covenant, and thus his view of the Hebrew law court is defective.

Trueman on Confessionalism, and my reflections

Confessionalism (NOT confessionalization, which is the process of codifying church confessions) broadly speaking is the practice of confessing what one believes (Latin credo "I believe") and practicing this confession in church life. Church historian Carl Trueman has written on the benefits of confessionalism (here and here). In the first part, Trueman deals with how the confession without discipline is no real confession at all. In the second part, Trueman deals with the issue of having discipline without confession, which results in "the stage ... [being] set for potential pastoral tyranny. I would like to reflect here with regards to the necessary of confessions for the discipline of the church.

In churches which focus more on emotions and de-emphasize doctrine, problems related to doctrinal teaching within the church will not surface. Such a church however is not functioning as one, and will easily go astray, as being officially not concerned about doctrine just means that that church will fall prey to every wind of doctrine that comes its way.

Where there is doctrinal concern, what will happen however when doctrines are being introduced into the church by those not part of its "core" leadership? For example, if someone comes in and strongly advocates for Young-earth Creationism, while the church leadership does not take a position on the issue, can the church leadership stop the person from doing so? Upon what basis can they tell anyone to not teach doctrine X, where X can refer to any doctrine under the sun? The answer is that biblically, if they do not take a stand on the issue, they have no basis to forbid anyone to teach doctrine X. If the church does not state that this position is unbiblical, they have no right to forbid its teaching. To do otherwise is pastoral tyranny which is sin that needs to be repented of.

The benefits of confessionalism is that it functions as a basis for managing the teaching of doctrine. Abiding by one's confession means that one has an objective standard to allow or disallow the teaching of diverse doctrines. Doctrines not condemned by creeds and confessions that the church subscribes to have to be tolerated within the church. The pastor could very well disagree with it, and speak against it, but he has no right to forbid it. For example, both supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism are to be tolerated in Reformed churches, since the Reformed confessions do not take a side on this issue. To censure an elder for teaching infralapsarianism when one is supralapsarian, or vice versa, is tyranny, for going beyond what the church considers as orthodoxy and imposing it on your Christian brother.

Confessionalism helps safeguard orthodoxy and safeguards what is considers necessary for the functioning of the church. To the extent that churches desire discipline within the church but is not confessional, to that extent the discipline process in the church is ripe for pastoral abuse and tyranny. Furthermore, since discipline does not pertain to doctrine only, churches that desire to practice discipline without being confessional are extremely susceptible to all manner of abuse by those in leadership not only in discipline of doctrine but also in discipline of the (moral) lives of their congregation, and in conflict resolutions and counseling too.

No Compromise Ever: Episode 2

Erin Benzinger has posted the link to the second episode of the No Compromise Podcast, which focuses on the topic of Sola Scriptura, mysticism, and some interactions with John Eldrige's idea of masculinity.

Justification Debate: White vs Wright

On Unbeliever radio, James R White debated N.T. Wright on the issue of justification recently, which can be heard here. Dr. White has also started a discussion of NT Wright's JETS article on his Dividing Line here.

ADD: The second discussion by Dr. White on the JETS article can be heard here.

NT Wright wrong on the person and work of Christ?

Is NT Wright right on the person and work of Christ? While he strongly defends the resurrection, there may be more to Wright's Christology than meets the eye, as Rachel Miller muses.