Christianity, homosexuality, and the imperative to lurve

Derek Flood had posted an article on the Huffington Post on the issue of homosexuality, and only recently did I see it. I normally do not want to interact with such nonsense, except for the fact that there are professing believers who are taken in by such drivel.

Flood's essential case is that Jesus did not speak about homosexuality, but rather He stands on the side of the poor, the outcast and the rejected. Mentioning the problems self-identified homosexuals face in life, Flood calls us to empathize with them, and, with Jesus, defend and love them just as Jesus did the same with the woman caught in adultery as described in John 8:1-11. Christians therefore ought to change their priorities and "focus on the critical issue of communicating love and acceptance to people."

This article does make a good point in how we are to love people, homosexuals included. However, from there, everything quickly unravels.

The first point we want to note is that Jesus DID speak about homosexuality. In the supposed "red letters," Jesus is on record as saying that "from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female" (Mk. 10:6). The context is on the issue of marriage and divorce. What we want to see here is that Jesus grounded the whole idea of marriage, and thus the sexual relation, as being ordained by God in creation to be between a man (αρσεν) and a woman (θηλυ). If the sexual relation, which is to be consummated in marriage, is define as between a man and a woman, it necessarily implies that homosexuality is wrong, for homosexuality speaks about sex between two partners of the same gender, not between a man and a woman. But Jesus did not only speak in the "red letters" of the Bible. ALL of Scripture is Jesus' words, for Jesus is the Word made flesh, and this Word is inscripturated in the Scriptures, the God-breathed (θεοπνευστος) revelation for us in written words (cf 2 Tim. 3:16-17, 2 Peter 1:16-21). Paul's words against homosexuality as against nature in Rom. 1 is just as much Jesus' words as the "red letters" represent.

Secondly, Flood has a false view of the Gospel. The Gospel is not Jesus coming to stand on the side of the poor, the outcast and so on. Such a reading of the Gospels wrestle the Gospel narratives out of their biblical canonical contexts! It makes Jesus a modern man, not a Jewish man living in the theocratic era. Jesus was no revolutionary, but someone who agrees with the general teaching of the Pharisees, while denouncing their hypocrisy in not practicing what they know the Scriptures teach (Mt. 23:2-3), and in some places not seeing what the Scriptures do teach (cf Jn. 3:10). That Jesus "sided" with the poor, and outcast etc was because they responded to the Gospel, while the self-proclaimed teachers of Israel did not.

Once we look at the Gospels in their proper redemptive contexts, and read them as first century documents in a Jewish setting, and NOT 20th or 21st century narratives, our views of what the Gospel accounts actually teach will be different. Jesus today would be seeking those persecuted by the world, and denouncing the liberal theological academy as the modern-day equivalent of the Pharisees. They are the ones who add law upon law and erase the Gospel message for one that leaves people in their sins. They proclaim a message that does not and can not save, while putting barriers before the true Gospel message of Jesus Christ.

Flood appeals to the narrative of the woman caught in adultery as portrayed in John 8:1-11. First of all, this narrative does not have textual manuscript attestations that it was originally in the Gospel account, as any reputable version of the Bible will inform you. This does not mean necessarily that the narrative is not part of God's Word, but I would certainly be extremely cautious in putting all one's eggs in one basket.

The issue here of course is that Flood distorts the teaching of the narrative. Let's assume for the sake of argument that the narrative is authentic. What does it prove? Does it prove that Jesus was defending and loving the woman caught in adultery? Did Jesus defend her? Where in the text do we read that Jesus said, "Well, since no one is without sin, therefore your sin of adultery does not deserve death?" While one can say that such was a trap meant to snare Jesus, since capital punishment can only be executed by the Roman authorities, the issue is that Jesus did in fact tell them to execute the judgment of the Mosaic Law. In Lev. 20:10, the adulterers (both parties) are to be put to death. And in Deut. 17:6-7, the eyewitnesses are to be the first one to cast the first stone. So when Jesus told the scribes and Pharisees to cast the stone, he is calling for the right implementation of the Mosaic Law. When Jesus ask those without sin to cast the stone, he is not asking those who are sinless to cast the first stone, for otherwise the Mosaic sanctions could not be implemented against those who commit such sins. Rather, Jesus has in mind that whoever did not sin in this affair of bringing the adulteress to him, that they should cast the first stone as a sign of their innocence with regards to this affair. We must remember that Jesus said that he did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it (Mt. 5: 17). If Jesus said he would come to fulfill the Law, how can He go against the Law in this one case? Rather, in light of the scribes and Pharisees' desire to implement the Law, Jesus basically told them, "You want to implement the Mosaic Law? Fine. Do it properly in its fullness." Remember that in Deut. 17:6-7 the eyewitnesses were to throw the first stone. Conversely, if they did not throw the first stone, the death penalty could not be implemented. Such happened in the case of this woman who was caught in adultery. When Jesus asked her where are those who condemn her, he was not on her side. Rather, in the absence of eyewitnesses, the sin could not be punished. Does Jesus know that she was actually guilty of adultery? Of course he knew! But just because someone is guilty does not mean that he or she is to be punished until they have been proven guilty, and in this this woman was not found guilty in the eyes of the Law. It must be realized that Jesus did not tell her here that her sins are forgiven, but that he refused to condemn her, and then He exhorted her to sin no more.

As it can be seen, an a-historical, a-contextual reading of this text absent from its Old Testament background distorts the true teaching of the text. The text does not teach what Flood is making it out to mean.

Now, to the issue of the sufferings of homosexuals, we are certainly to empathize with them. However, we must also see that (1) the sufferings in bullying is not unique to homosexuals, and thus the question arises as to why bullying of homosexuals are elevated above all other types of bullying, and (2) sufferings are not necessarily wrong. If the homosexual feels suicidal because of his or her homosexuality, that could very well be his or her conscience working reminding him or her or his or her transgression of the natural law. Apart from Christ, the Law mediates death and condemnation. If the Law is working upon their hearts, the last thing Christians ought to do is to try to undo that by dressing up the wounds the Law inflict. Those who do such are like the false prophets of Israel who cry out "Peace, peace" when there is no peace (Jer. 6:14). The Christian response is not to "communicate love and acceptance to them." Such is dressing or healing the wound of people lightly (cf Is. 6:14). Rather, the true loving response is to affirm what their conscience is already saying, to allow the Law to do its work of condemnation, and then to show them the Gospel by which they can be saved.

To "stand alongside" LGBT people and affirm them in the manner prescribed by Flood, without doing the biblical thing (which they will label as a "hate crime") is to actually hate the LGBT people. LGBT people are sinners in the hands of an angry God, just as all sinners are. It is manifestly unloving to affirm them in their sins. To "communicate love and acceptance" to them apart from the proclamation of Law and Gospel is neither loving nor truly accepting. And such will not work ultimately to help them. The conscience of a sinner is not going to remain quiet if professing believers "communicate love and acceptance to them." The Law continues to condemn them in their conscience, and any affirmation they receive is just like a painkiller that temporarily dulls the pain, but the root problem remains untouched.

Should we love homosexuals? Yes, just as we should love all sinners. And just as all sinners have to repent of their sins, so likewise homosexuals have to repent of their sins. For those who have repented, they will be washed and cleansed from their unrighteousness, despite how depraved and wicked they formerly were.

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Cor. 6:9-10)

And

And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Cor. 6:10-11)

Challies and his continuous attack on "discernment ministries"

The New Calvinist Tim Challies has done it again, in offering a new article attacking "discernment ministries" in general on his blog. This post it seems has been precipitated by some negative experiences with some people or a group of people who weren't exactly very kind to Challies. Regardless, the main issue is that Tim Challies has decided that the best way to take revenge against the person who wronged him, is to condemn "discernment ministries" without distinction or exception, and smear them with the same broad brush as being essentially Pharisees.

With Challies' actions, I am beginning to suspect there is more to his reaction than just a New Evangelical mindset, although certainly that is a contributing factor. While not wishing to psychoanalyze Challies, seeing that he sees Josh Harris' paragraph in his new book as a slap in the face, of him being one of "those who trust in the rightness of our doctrine and look down on others," is he possible that Challies is projecting his own proclivities and temptations onto others? Just because Challies struggle with doctrinal pride does not mean that everyone struggles in the same way that he does.

As creatures who are not God, it is not up to us to judge the secret things of the heart. I cannot judge the motives of those who engage in "discernment ministries," whatever that may be. I cannot claim they are Pharisees, and that they are treating evil as entertainment, or whatever titles Challies throws at these people. Do I know ALL "discernment bloggers"? Am I, or is Challies God, that he can see into their hearts?

The tendency to want to psychoanalyze a person and discern his hidden motives is always present. Christians however who realize our own sins and the wickedness of our own hearts should be the last to judge the heart motives of others, unless they have openly made them known. We should accept what others profess, and only question it if serious incongruity emerges between one's profession and one's actions.

The problem therefore with Challies' posts are not the discernment bloggers, but Challies himself. Instead of praying to God about the issues, and pray for these people, Challies decided demonizing such people is the way to go. Such is the way of the flesh, and we Christians should not go that way. Why not suffer wrong for the sake of Christ (1 Cor. 6:7)? Let us pray to God for Challies, that he will learn to suffer and forgive those who hurt him.

Brief thoughts on the Peter Leithart trial

The final court of the PCA, the SJC (Standing Judicial Committee) has recently ruled in favor of dismissing the suit against Peter Leithart concerning his Federal Vision views. That this is a sad day for orthodoxy is surely the case.

The fact of Peter Leithart being a Federal Visionist seems rather obvious, especially in his public affirmation of documents like the Joint FV Profession. The Profession itself states "This statement represents the views of those who drafted it, contributed to it, and signed it." Therefore, by the fact that Leithart is a signatory, and that the statement itself claims that every signatory holds to the views expressed in the statement, it is very obvious that Leithart is a Federal Visionist. If Leithart claims to be orthodox in his theology, except he uses infelicitous language, then the question should be put to him whether he rejects FV theology? If he has a change of mind since he signs the statement, surely he should be the first one to request for his signature to be withdrawn, and denounce the FV theology as heretical. Why should anyone give him the benefit of the doubt that the meaning behind his "infelicitous language" is orthodox and in line with the Westminster Standards, when there is explicit evidence that he himself proclaimed himself as a FVist? If he has truly changed his mind, let him produce the fruits in keeping with his repentance from it.

With the Kellerites and the Federal Visionists flourishing within the PCA, one wonder how much worse it could possibly get.

ADD: Here is a reflection by a teaching elder on this ruling.

Baptism and Eschatology: Musings

In an interesting exchange I have had, the case for credobaptism was presented in terms of the redemptive historical paradigm of progressive revelation. In one line of argumentation, there is "this age," and there is "the age to come." The New Covenant belongs to the eschatological age, and since it is eschatological, the New Covenant continues to eternity. Infant baptism in this view belongs to this age, and thus should not be done under the New Covenant, since it does not continue to eternity. The Reformed view, according to this view, must believe that the New Covenant discontinues when Christ comes back, for after all those who enter heaven are those who believe in Christ. However, is such an argument sound?

First of all, it must be said that there are many things done in the New Covenant that will not continue to eternity. The special offices of the church will not be present in heaven, for there all will know the Lord (Jer. 31:34). There will therefore be no preaching, and there will be no Lord's Supper in heaven either. Why will we want to partake of the sign when the reality signified is present? Instead of the Supper, we will partake of the marriage supper of the Lamb, which probably does not consist of a small wafer and a small cup of wine. Therefore, the credobatist faces the same problem. Unless one wants to follow the Quakers, one cannot claim to be "thoroughly eschatological."

Secondly, this argument confuses the substance of the New Covenant with its administration. The substance of the New Covenant is the fullness of the Covenant of Grace, the revelation of the mystery once concealed. All of the Old Testament pointed to Christ and His work (Lk. 24:27), as a shadow to the brightness of the sun. The New Covenant will continue as to its substance, but its form and administration is adapted to the in-between times, the already and the not yet, since we are after all still living in this sinful world. The Eschaton will not usher in an even newer covenant, but rather will consummate the Covenant of Grace in the full redemption of His people.

One cannot claim the "newness" of the New Covenant as the automatic proof for credobaptism. Nobody disputes that the New Covenant is new. The question however is, "What is new about the New Covenant?" Just because the Old Covenant has certain practices does not mean that the New Covenant must necessarily change the practices done.

This line of argumentation therefore is not sound. While I respect my credobaptist brothers, they have to do better than this if they wish to convince us of their position.

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.