"Whiteness" and Christless

Here is an article by Samuel Sey, and a podcast by Darrel Harrison, on the topic of "whiteness" in the Christian Church.

The really "woke" person

If the references in your pastor's sermons, the books used in small groups, the resources passed between the laity, the music sung in worship, & even the reflection quotes in your worship bulletins are predominantly by White men, your church is promoting a truncated Christianity.

— Timothy Isaiah Cho (@tisaiahcho) January 31, 2019

Also, sadly, on the path to apostasy

The Young Gnostic Messiah (ADD)

It wasn't so long ago when radical liberals lined up attacks upon Christianity during the season of Good Friday and Easter. Liberals would be on media programs to promote (discredited) theories that Jesus didn't actually die on the cross, or that the resurrection did not actually happen, and other such nonsense. Now however, Satan does not have to rely on the liberals and their attacks, which were so outrageous the attacks convinced no one but their liberal proponents themselves. Instead, Satan dresses up as an angel of light and is now attacking the Christian faith from within.

So what is the Trojan horse? This Good Friday/ Easter season, we have the so-called Christian movie The Young Messiah. To say that the movie is unbiblical is an understatement. Just from the trailer alone, there is enough material to indict the movie and its producers as being agents of the devil, willingly or unwillingly. It is unbiblical, blasphemous and Gnostic. Yes, it is Gnostic, with a capital "G." It is astonishing that supposedly many Christian leaders have endorsed this movie. I know Evangelicalism has little if any depth in it, but these endorsements have stricken a new low for Evangelicalism, which is saying a lot since my estimation of the Evangelical movement was so low I thought I had reached rock bottom — even supporting the nativist and vulgar buffoon Donald Trump was not as bad as this!

The first and major problem with this (anti-) "Christian" movie is its Gnosticism. Gnosticism was an esoteric and eclectic movement in the first few centuries of the Church that attempted to fuse Eastern mystical religion, Greek philosophy, and elements of Christianity into a syncretistic religious soup. Gnosticism, like Neo-Platonism, elevates the spirit over matter. Matter is considered evil, and thus creation (matter, the universe) was made by a lesser and lower deity. The problem with man is not sin, but creatureliness. The body is the prison of the soul, and salvation is achieved by learning the path to liberation, towards pure spirit and towards the One, God. This path involves the gaining of secret knowledge (gnosis), and thus the movement is called Gnosticism.

As a false religion loosely affiliated with, and competing against Christianity, Gnosticism attempted to subvert the Christian faith and message. Spurious gospel accounts were written that made it seem as if Jesus were a Gnostic. Since the four Gospels were well distributed, Gnosticism tried to insert its message by "filling in the blanks" of Jesus' life and ministry, and the first 30 years of that life would prove an excellent place to embellish the character and teaching of Jesus in their favor.

One such Gnostic text was the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, an anonymous text falsely ascribing as its author the Apostle Thomas. The text claims to fill up some of the unknown years of Jesus, during his childhood. In the trailer to the movie, we see an enactment of, or an allusion to, the scene from the Infancy Gospel of Thomas 1:2-3. In that text, the Gnostic writer claimed Jesus fashioned birds out of clay and then they came alive. In the trailer, we see Jesus at the beach rising to his feet with clasped hands and then opening his hands to reveal birds which flew away, so, while it isn't clear in the trailer, it seems likely that the full scene in the movie will show Jesus making birds from clay, or rather sand.

The movie is thus Gnostic in its use of a Gnostic source, and in its "filling in the blanks" (basically lying) about the life of Jesus. This is not just plain artistic license and embellishment, but it is the whole movie, the creation/ adaptation of a totally fictional story about Jesus with no basis at all in the Scriptures and in real history. For the Christian leaders who endorse this blasphemous (in more ways than one) movie, is it their intent to state that the historicity of Jesus' actual life and work do not matter, since a fictional tale about him is evidently just as valid as the biblical truth?

The second problem, a theological problem, lies in its portrayal of the young Jesus as someone struggling with existential angst concerning his calling. There are so many things wrong with this portrayal of Jesus. First of all, the trailer seems to indicate that Jesus came to realize his calling not from himself but through Mary. Secondly, Jesus was portrayed as someone learning how to become the Savior. Yes, the trailer cited Philippians 2:6-7, but, as far as I know, even the worst of the kenotics (those who hold that Jesus emptied himself of his divine attributes in the Incarnation) would balk at this portrayal of Jesus! If the trailer is accurate, the movie's Christology is totally messed up. To say that Jesus learned to be the Messiah puts Jesus out as a man who became the Messiah, which is basically an Adoptionist Christology. This kind of doubting and angst, while making "Jesus" relatable to an angsty postmodern audience, is a practical denial of Christ's deity and a rejection of Scripture's actual portrayal of the young Jesus. The text misused in this trailer, Philippians 2:6-7, did not say that the Son ceased to be God in the Incarnation, but rather that He divested Himself of His heavenly privileges and glory, thus becoming a servant (as opposed to the Lord of heaven). The Son as a servant divested Himself of the exercise of his regnal authority, but He never ceased being the Son. Jesus continued to be God even while on earth! In the one section where we were given a glimpse into Jesus' childhood (Lk. 2:41-51), we are shown a Jesus who already knew of his calling even at the young tender age of 12.

Yes, a young "Jesus" struggling with angst might be more relatable, but it is a false idolatrous representation of the real Jesus. The real Jesus from young knew who he was and what he was sent to do. The life of the historical young Jesus would not make for a good movie, but then Jesus came not for our entertainment but for our salvation! While Jesus was indeed human and suffered on this world, that does not mean that he faced the same angst as we do. In fact, ancient civilizations tend not to face our postmodern angst, for most people in ancient times struggle daily to put food on the table, while living in constant fear appeasing gods and spirits among them.

I am sure the actual movie would yield even more problems, as the footage concerning the Romans seem to indicate. But just from the trailer itself, we see a person portrayed that behaves all too differently from the biblical Jesus. It is manifestly shameless for the director of the film to think that this movie has anything remotely to do with the true Jesus. In an interview with Christianity Astray Today, the director even had the gall to denigrate orthodoxy, stating that one just have to have an emotional connection to the people on firm. While that might be fine with normal movies, this movie is marketing itself as a Christian movie about Jesus, which means it should be truthful at the very least, which this movie isn't.

The Young Messiah is a work based upon false stories of Jesus. As such, all Christians should be warned against watching this Gnostic trash. If God did not see fit to give us details on Jesus' first 30 years, then perhaps we should likewise not peer into the secret things of God.

ADD: Dr. James White has posted a short review of the movie here. While it's good that the explicitly Gnostic elements are removed or toned down, that does not excuse the needless speculation of Jesus' early life. There is still no word as to whether this Jesus did in fact experienced angst over his calling

Article: Some practical problems with Cheung's heresies

I have consolidated and improved upon what I have written on the practical problems with Vincent Cheung's theology into an article, and you can read it here. Here is the conclusion:

Cheung’s heresy has produced poison fruits: the twin fruits of emotional resignation, and distrust in God. These are not the fruits of a God-centered ministry, and should be rejected as what they are: the works of the devil. May God open the eyes of Cheungians and grant them repentance and faith. Amen

Another instance of Cheungian heresy

I have lost a friend to Cheungism, and blocked by him on Facebook. Recently, I was given a glimpse at what he had posted on one of the Facebook forums, and to some extent I was glad for the block, because I would have torn my hair out in frustration at such nonsense. Introducing the writings of Vincent Cheung to him to read is one of my biggest regrets. I am grieved by his fall from orthodoxy, and especially since he refuses to change. I was told however that perhaps I was too hasty in my denunciation of his Cheungian ways, but after seeing what he had posted, I think that my concern is at least partially validated.

The provocative nonsense he had posted in the forum was a statement that God actually deceives people. In the meta, there was a link to this article by Vincent Cheung, which states that God does tempt people, since God is fully sovereign and therefore he controls everything directly. Here we see an even more toxic fruit of Cheung's hard-shell determinism. It is bad enough that God is said to be the direct cause of evil, but now God actually deceives and tempts people? Just because He Himself is not the agent doing it, but He sent agents to do it, does not make any real differences at all. If I were to tell someone to murder X, does that mean that I am not guilty of murder since I did not personally commit the act?

There is nothing in Cheung's article that I have not refuted already, except the biblical texts. With regards to these texts, here we see Cheung violating a basic tenet of good exegesis: which is that clearer texts are supposed to interpret the more obscure texts, and narratives are to be interpreted according to didactic texts. Cheung cites the narrative texts 2 Samuel 24 and 1 King 22 and uses them to contradict what James 1:13-18 explicitly teaches, all in service to his occasionalist philosophy. This kind of bad exegesis is not surprising, for Cheung has an a priori dogmatic system which must be preserved at all costs; what the Scriptures say must be always re-interpreted to serve that philosophy.

For most people, it is enough to show that Cheungism holds that God deceives people. But, like every cult around the world, Cheungians seem willing to bite all the bullets their position entails. My only counter-argument is the same argument that I have used against God being the Author of Sin, namely, that it may exonerate God at the expense of compromising His nature. Besides that, I am totally at a loss how to refute this nonsense. It's almost like trying to refute someone who insists he is Superman and has just flown to and fro the Alpha Centauri system yesterday. Cheungism is a sickness of the mind and spirit, and God is using it as judgment to delude those who seek to be wiser than God Himself. May God in His mercy deliver them from this strong delusion Cheungians have.

The "white captivity" of the Church

In the formation of Christian theology, we also see white privilege at work. Theology that prioritizes the individual and arises out of the Western, white context becomes the standard expression of orthodox theology. In our understanding of what is considered orthodoxy, we see the emphasis on the individual aspects of faith. What is considered good, sound, orthodox theology is a Western theology that emphasizes a personal relationship with Jesus with its natural and expected antecedent of an individual sanctification and even an individualized ecclesiology. The critical issues and discussion in theology lean towards understanding issues relevant to individuals and Western sensibilities. The seemingly never-ending debate between the proponents of Calvinism and Arminianism, between predestination and free will, revolves around individual salvation.

Theologies that speak of a corporate responsibility or call for a social responsibility are given special names like: liberation theology, black theology, minjung theology, feminist theology, etc. In other words, Western theology with its individual focus is considered normative theology, while non-Western theology is theology on the fringes and must be explained as being a theology applicable only in a particular context and to a particular people group. Orthodoxy is determined by the Western value of individualism and an individualized soteriology rather than a broader understanding of the corporate themes that emerge out of Scripture.

Because theology emerging from a Western, white context is considered normative, it places non-Western theology in an inferior position and elevates Western theology as the standard by which all other theological frameworks and points of view are measured. This bias stifles the theological dialogue between the various cultures. ... We end up with a Western, white captivity of theology. Western theology becomes the form that is closest to God. [Soong-Chan Rah, The Next Evangelicalism: Freeing the Church from Western Cultural Captivity (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2009), 77-8]

I believe in ... the holy catholic Church, the Communion of Saints .... (Apostles' Creed)

Soong-Chan Rah is a second-generation Korean-Amercan and founding senior pastor of Cambridge Community Fellowship Church in Cambridge, Massachusetts. In his book The New Evangelicalism: Freeing the Church from Western Cultural Captivity, Rah excoriates the predominantly white American Evangelical churches for a variety of things, grouped under the umbrella theme of the "Western white captivity of the Church." Now, not all of Rah's criticism is necessarily off. Some of them with regards to the materialistic, individualistic captivity of the modern American church is right on, and I wouldn't be too surprised if there is some discrimination involved against non-whites. It is also something I ponder whether there exists some form of implicit superiority complex such that Caucasians would not submit themselves to a non-Caucasian pastor.

That being said, most of what Rah writes is extremely provocative, unnecessarily so. Rah writes with an almost triumphalist perspective that since non-White Christians would soon be in the majority even in America, "white" Christians ought to sit up and listen to their non-White brethren and stop claiming a monopoly on theology. The whole way the discussion is framed is already problematic. Does numerical superiority necessarily implies the obligation to be heard? Does that mean that the "white" Churches can ignore any group just because it is "in the minority" and only interact with them when they threaten to be in the majority? This sort of race and power play is quite deplorable in my opinion. When I think of theology, I do not look and see what the skin color of the person theologizing is, so why do so just because the one theologizing is white-skinned?

First of all, Rah only attacks the modern Evangelical churches, which in general have lost their way. Reformed theology admits of no individualism, and we believe, modifying Cyprian's words, that outside the church there is no ordinary possibility of salvation (WCF 25.2). We also believe in a "corporate" Covenant Theology, a "corporate" imputation of Adam's sin to all, and so on. Reformed theology at its finest is alien to the modern American Evangelical church, which has lost its way.

Secondly, Rah is misguided when he claims that the other "theologies" (Liberation, black, feminist, minjung, etc) are theologies that are "applicable only in a particular context and to a particular people group." The fact of the matter is that those are called "theologies," but are in fact heresies against the one true catholic Church. Thus, they should not be even considered applicable to their particular contexts and particular people groups! This brings us to the third point, in that Rah does not have a sense of the one catholic and apostolic faith. The true faith is not some "Westernized, white faith," but rather it is the faith given once for all to the saints. Unbiblical accretions added on throughout the centuries ought to be excised, which is why the modern Evangelical church is desperately in need of reform. It is not some "white captivity" of the Church that needs to be remedied, but the removal of all flavors of race and ethnicity from the One True Catholic and Apostolic Faith that needs to be removed. The objective truth however is that "Western" theology has been more faithful to the catholic and apostolic faith than all the other so-called "theologies" that many non-Westerns have embraced. Much of non-Western Christianity is half-baked syncretism. For example, in Africa, Pastor Conrad Mbewe has written about the syncretic aspect of African Charismatism.

Should there be more non-Whites in the Church, doing theology and being respected by their Caucasian counterparts? I most definitely think so. But they should do so because they are actually biblical Christians who believe in the one catholic and apostolic faith, not because they are "non-Whites." Skin color should be absolutely irrelevant in the Church. The issue is not one's skin color, but one's beliefs. As it stands, many of these supposed "non-White" Christians are ineligible even for membership in Reformed churches, if they are similar to Rah with his liberal views. If there are non-White Christian ministers who are biblical in their theology, they should be treated with as much respect and honor as their Caucasian counterparts. However, Christians holding to the one catholic, apostolic faith should beware of non-White Christian ministers like Rah with questionable theology at best. Let's be clear: it is not their skin color or immigrant background that should disqualify them, but their theology. There is no "white captivity" of the Church with regards to her theology. There might be some discrimination against non-Whites, but such is a personal not a doctrinal matter.

Disclosure: I am writing this as a non-White, not that that should matter at all in the Church!

Back into history: An Evangelicalism that at least looks biblical

At the heart, then, of the eighteenth-century awakening was the question of what a Christian is. The evangelicals ('Methodists') believed that the clergy at large fell under the same condemnation as the false prophets of whom God said, 'You have strengthened the hands of the wicked, so that he does not turn from his wicked way to save his life' (Ezek. 13:22). Their opponents replied: 'Their doctrine is too strict; they make the way to heaven too narrow.' On which words, [John] Wesley made the all-important observation: 'And this is in truth the original objection (as it was almost the only one for some time), and is secretly at the bottom of a thousand more, which appear in various forms.'

It was certainly 'at the bottom' of the charge that the evangelicals were no true 'churchmen' They were said to be 'undermining, if not openly destroying the Church.' They were 'dividing the Church.' Their duty, they were told, was 'to have a greater regard to the rules and orders of the Church.' Such complaints were commonplace and to them all the evangelicals replied by asserting that an understanding of the church was not possible without first understanding what a Christian is. The real problem of their accusers was that they were wrong on that fundamental question. The Bishop of London, [George] Whitefield warned, was treating nominal Christians as being in 'a very imperfect state,' whereas the truth was that they were 'in no state of Christianity at all.' 'Church or no Church,' said Wesley, 'we must attend to the work of saving souls.' And when challenged about his allowance of lay-preachers, he replied: 'Soul-damning clergymen lay me under more difficulties than soul-saving laymen.' [Iain H Murray, Evangelicalism Divided: A Record of Crucial Change in the Years 1950 to 2000 (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 2000), 164]

In a denomination [Church of England] which, by [J.I.] Packer's admission was in 'doctrinal disarray,' the question which non-evangelical and ecumenical churchmen wanted evangelicals to answer [in the 1960s] was whether or not they stood by their old exclusiveness. To that question [the National Evangelical Anglican Congress at] Keele had given an emphatic answer in 1967, and if it had not done so it would have never have satisfied the non-evangelicals as it did. But what Keele left unexplained was how evangelicals could hold to the uniqueness of their gospel message and yet profess brotherhood with those whose teachings subvert that Gospel. As I have said, the new policy had to mean that evangelicals would be forced to deny in practice what they taught in theory. ... (Ibid., 117-8)

[David] Edwards, in due course Provost of Southwark and himself a liberal, was to demonstrate the existence of evangelical change in a book he co-authored with John Stott in 1988 entitled, Essentials: A Liberal-Evangelical Dialogue. Edwards rejected most of the essentials of the Christian faith, including the fall of man, the need for atonement by a divine redeemer and Christ's physical resurrection. Yet in this dialogue Dr. Stott held to the new inclusivenes. Those who deny the virgin birth and the bodily resurrection of Christ, he affirmed, do not 'forfeit the right to be called Christians.' This he underlined by a gratuitous reference to David Jenkins, Bishop of Durham, who had made headlines with his denial of the physical resurrection of Christ. ... Yet there was room, John Stott supposed, for evangelicals to agree even with Jenkins:

A year or two ago Bishop David Jenkins kindly spent a couple of hours with five of us Evangelicals who wanted to engage in questioning and discussion with him.... He was willing to concede that the bodily resurrection of Christ, although in his view 'historically unverifiable' (because the story of the empty tomb was probably not written until twenty years or more after the event), could nevertheless be termed 'theologically appropriate.' There I think, was a man speaking out of his catholic tradition, but we Evangelicals endorsed it.

(Ibid., 119-20)

Evangelicalism as a movement began with the Wesleys, George Whitefield and Jonathan Edwards in the First Great Awakening. This old Evangelicalism however was actually decent despite its pietistic and revivalistic background. The whole premise behind preaching for conversions in a supposedly "Christian" country in the 18th century is that being a church member or even a church leader does not save you. It means that, even if someone claims to be a Christian, one does not necessarily treat him or her as one, but inquire whether the person has put their trust in Christ alone.

Fast forward to the 1960s, as the situation had developed in both America and England. In America, Fuller Seminary was busy leading the way towards compromise, the turning of the guard towards "inclusivity" coming with the appointment of Daniel Fuller as Chief Academic Officer and David Hubbard as president in 1962-3. In England, that happened when the evangelical party of the Church of England voted themselves out of existence in the 1967 National Evangelical Anglican Congress (NEAC) at Keele, by "repenting" of sins against Christian unity. Soon, "Evangelicals" became just one more sect among many in the multitudes of groups that calls itself Christianity. The tragedy of the "evangelicals" left over is illustrated by John Stott's comment on counting liberals who are evidently non-Christians fellow brethren. I for one do not wish to be in Stott's shoes when he faces the accusatory gazes of liberals like David Edwards and David Jenkins on the Last Day, along with many others.

The saddest thing is not that evangelicals have capitulated. The saddest thing is that evangelicals think that to be evangelical means that one must affirm anyone who claims to be a believer, and the line of division is now ethics and not doctrine. To question the profession of someone who denies the doctrine of justification by faith alone is being uncharitable, but to question the profession of someone who endorses homosexuality is perfectly alright. That is the default setting among evangelicals in many places around the world. Case in point: The current bleeding of the PCUSA churches into EPC and ECO denominations. When Liberalism infected the PCUSA, many conservatives refused to join Machen in forming a true church. But when the PCUSA started to endorse homosexuality, howls of betrayal from the conservatives break loose. So denying orthodoxy is ok, but affirming homosexuality is not?

Closer to the Singapore context, there was the recent co-belligerency campaign among Muslims and Christians to wear white as a protest against the homosexual activist event "Pink Dot." Now, there is nothing wrong with participating in social clauses in one's personal capacity, but when it is supported by a Christian group, a psuedo-denoination called "Love Singapore," then we have a major problem. The president of Love Singapore is "Apostle" Lawrence Khong, who promotes the G12 shepherding error and is at least supportive of the heretical New Apostolic Reformation. What then does this say about "evangelicalism"? Those who promote false teaching are lauded as good Christian leaders, while any hint of homosexuality is condemned. Now, I am not for homosexuality, but can we have some balance here? Is homosexuality a worse sin than heresy? If anything, it is the other way round! There is more hope for a homosexual who repents than a straight heretic who doesn't! That's why I don't have a high regard for the "Love Singapore" movement, a movement that is leavened throughout with all manner of false teachings that are heterodox at best.

Before the advent of the New Evangelicalism, the Old Evangelicalism, while certainly flawed, at least does not have the problem of confusing the essentials of the faith. Now, anything goes, and one wonders why Christianity is not making an impact on the world. The Wesleys and Whitefield transformed much of Britain because they actually denied the profession of others who claim to be Christians. In a deconfessional era, the second best to a functional confessional Reformed church is better than nothing.

[PS: In Reformed circles, we do not question the profession of those who make a credible confession of faith, but we do of those who don't. The problem with Whitefield, and of pietism in general, is that a credible confession of faith to them must include a conversion experience. In the Reformed churches, it is verbal confession of faith, a desire to be baptized and attending to the other means of grace, and trusting Christ for salvation which is expressed as fruits of godliness. A conversion experience is not necessary in the Reformed churches.]

Dealing with the state of Evangelicalism

The Aquila Report has reposted an article by R.C. Sproul of Ligonier Ministries, Moving Evangelicals Beyond Idolatry. In this article, Sproul speaks about the issue of idolatry through aberrational and heretical theology in the movement called Evangelicalism today.

Besides the fact that Evangelicalism does not really exists except by marketing [see D.G. Hart, Deconstructing Evangelicalism (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2004)], the fact of the matter is that its self-created identity has within itself the seed of its own destruction. By pandering to the lowest common denominator, what constitutes the Christian faith becomes more and more restricted to agreement on less and less doctrines, and soon only adherence to the form or the "spirit" of the doctrines remains, which is what had happened in mainstream Protestantism. Many people forget that the Protestantism of the 19th century used to call themselves "Evangelicals," even the liberals, and that the liberals only abandoned the label some time after the Fundamentalist/ Modernist controversy.

So back to the present, what do we make of the current state of Evangelicalism? First, we have to reject the latitudinarianism and doctrinal minimalism endemic to the movement, and thus the movement itself. Loving as it sounds, those who trumpet "Doctrine divides, but love unites" and all its permutations, are to be seen as misguided, however good their intentions. Such attitudes historically result in the destruction of the Church's witnesses and the apostasy of the churches themselves, even if those who trumpet the "love" banner do not intend such to be the result of their attitudes.

Second, if Evangelicalism is that apostate (and anyone who thinks otherwise ought to ask themselves how the early church would have countenanced anyone holding to theories such as Open Theism or even "Evangelical Feminism"), it means that modern Evangelicalism should be seen by us like the (pre-Tridentine) medieval Catholic church. Not yet fully apostate, Evangelicalism is nonetheless hovering around the line between orthodoxy and heresy, between a true church and a false church. That means that Christians ought to treat Evangelicalism like how the Protestants treated the medieval Catholic church. It was a church almost false, desperately needing reform, yet with many believers within her. We accept their sacraments, but should reject many of their churches as being false or almost false.

Modern Roman Catholicism has apostatized even further from Trent, and should be regarded as no church at all. Her sacraments should be seen as invalid, as she has devolved from a false church to a false religion. Modern Evangelicalism has taken the place previously occupied by her. While Evangelicalism still profess the Gospel, we should acknowledge that elements of the true church are within her, though she is in danger of falling.

James White's latest response to Stellman's apostasy

I have been busy lately, but I will surely resume my series through the New City Catechism when I have more free time.

In the meantime, Dr. James White with Turretinfan has recently reviewed Jason Stellman's apostasy from the Faith here, here and here. It is surely illuminative and sad to see someone fall away from the Faith, and may God bring Stellman back to the true church and salvation in Jesus Christ alone.

Stellman and the failure to distinguish terms

I have come to understand the gospel in terms of the New Covenant gift of the Spirit, procured through the sacrifice and resurrection of Christ, who causes fruit to be borne in our lives by reproducing the image of the Son in the adopted children of the Father - Jason Stellman [Source]

Stellman's apostasy from the Faith has been saddening. In this quote, one sees the failure to properly distinguish terms and the different stages of redemption.

The Holy Spirit does give us the "New Covenant gift of the Spirit" and so on. But the fruits of the Gospel is not the same as the Gospel itself. Stellman does not seem to be properly distinguishing terms and concepts, but just mix everything into one big blur.

Terms are important in theological discussions. For example, Christians have always believed in salvation by works — Christ's work, not ours. Our Spirit-wrought works are a posteriori evidence of faith, and therefore it can be said that it is a posteriori necessary for salvation, while for Romanists Spirit-wrought works are co-terminus with grace unto salvation. The usage of terms and the order of the stages of salvation make all the difference between orthodoxy and heresy.

It is not enough for Stellman to say that the Gospel includes all these spiritual things which he mentioned. Stellman has to show that this constitute the crux of the Gospel and not the fruit of the Gospel. If Stellman merely shows that the Gospel message includes all these in the text of Scripture, it would only go to show that he continues to fail to properly distinguish terms.

A response to the Called to Confusion's criticism of Sola Scriptura

One criticism leveled at Protestants by the new Roman apoologists is that there is no essential difference between Solo Scriptura (Scripture Only) and Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone). This allegedly one of the reasons behind Stellman's apostasy, and likely behind Joshua Lim's and countless others' too. The sad thing is that the whole argument is rationalistic to the core and flawed throughout. As such, it shouldn't be given any credence by those who claim to believe in the power and presence of God and the Holy Spirit.

The neo-Romanist argument (Part 1)

According to these neo-Roman apologists, the difference between Solo Scriptura and Sola Scriptura is that in the former, the individual is directly "acting as his own ultimate and magisterial authority." In the latter, the individual does so indirectly, by submitting "to others only when one agrees with them."

As opposed to these, the Romanist claimed that he submits to an "objective" church which is marked by apostolic succession. Such a definition of the church is supposedly "objective" without the subjective looking for the "marks of a true church" which Protestants use. The argument presented to prove his case is as follows:

1. According to solo scriptura, Scripture is the only ecclesial authority. [def]

2. If solo scriptura is true, then each individual is his own final interpretive authority concerning what he considers to be essential. [1]

3. According to sola scriptura, Scripture is the only infallible ecclesial authority. [def]

4. If sola scriptura entails that each individual is his own final interpretive authority concerning what he considers to be essential, then in this respect there is no principled difference between solo scriptura and sola scriptura.

5. If apostolic succession is false, then no one’s determination of the marks of the Church is any more authoritative than anyone else’s.

6. If no one’s determination of the marks of the Church is any more authoritative than anyone else’s, then each individual is his own final interpretive authority concerning what he considers to be essential.

7. If apostolic succession is false, then each individual is his own final interpretive authority concerning what he considers to be essential. [(5),(6)]

8. The doctrine of apostolic succession is false. [A]

9. If sola scriptura is true, then each individual is his own final interpretive authority concerning what he considers to be essential. [(7),(8)]

10. There is no principled difference between sola scriptura and solo scriptura. [(4),(9)]

First response

Before we go on further, what are we to make of this argument? First, we note that God and the Holy Spirit is noticeably absent throughout the entire argument. The whole argument is naturalistic to the core.

When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. (John 16:13)

To the new Roman apologists, the decision of choosing a true church and the true Gospel is an autonomous decision. Since it is an autonomous decision, final authority ultimately rests upon the individual. But Protestantism has never claimed that the decision of choosing a true church and the truth Gospel is an autonomous decision. Rather, it is something that is done by the Holy Spirit working within a person. It is not a choice so much as an acknowledgment of what is already there.

We believe that the true church and the true Gospel is extra nos. We do not get to choose it. It is objective and spiritual, and thus spiritually discerned (1 Cor. 2:14). The person of the Holy Spirit works within an individual's heart to recognize (not create) the true church and the true Gospel.

Thus, in the Romanist constructed syllogism, premise 4 is wrong. Sola Scriptura does not entail that each individual is his own final interpretive authority. The Holy Spirit is the only final interpretive authority. Yes, on the surface it seems that one person (e.g. Martin Luther) is the final interpretive authority. But that only shows that the Romanists are materialists in this regard. Just because the Spirit's work is invisible does not mean that it is not real. That the blind do not see does not make what those with eyes see wrong.

In the same light, premise 7 is wrong. In fact, it so blatantly contradicts Scripture in Jn. 16:13 that it is not funny. The whole argument for apostolic succession is circular to the extreme. Where in Scripture after all is the notion of apostolic succession taught? A dubious interpretation of Mt. 16:18 does not count!

This brings us to our counter-charge. It is the Romanists who are actually indirectly making themselves the final authority. The only difference is that their leap of faith is supposedly a final leap. Thus, as opposed to those who practice Solo Scriptura, the decision to make Rome the final authority is supposed to stop after they have made the plunge into the Tiber.

The Romanists claim that they submit to the church which objectively has apostolic succession. The problem is that the very notion of a physical apostolic succession is disputed outside Roman (and Eastern Orthodox and Anglican) circles. Therefore, one will only think that apostolic succession is objective only if one is in either of these three groups. Aside from that, upon what basis should anyone accept that apostolic succession actually exists and is unbroken (think of the problems posed by the Avignon Papacy)?

True, Romanism does not practice an individual choosing the church "acting as his own ultimate and magisterial authority," directly. However, it does involve an individual choosing to accept the claims of apostolic succession through "acting as his own ultimate and magisterial authority." In other words, the choice to think that there is such a thing as physical apostolic succession is a leap of faith to make, not an objective fact that can be proven.

Solo Scriptura and Romanism therefore are actually two sides of the same coin of rationalism. Both sides (the Anabaptist and the Romanist) refuse to deal with the person and power of the Holy Spirit. The Pietist decides based upon "a burning in the bosom," while the Romanist decides based upon alleged "apostolic succession." The biblical Christian however decides base upon the Spirit working through the Word. To use R. Scott Clark's categories, the Pietist errs with QIRE (Quest for Illegitimate Religious Experience) while the Romanist errs with QIRC (Quest for Illegitimate Religious Certainty).

The neo-Romanist argument (Part 2)

The Romanists continue by claiming that Sola Scriptura is contradictory. Citing Matthison, they see a contradiction in saying that "all appeals to Scripture are appeals to interpretations of Scripture" (contra Solo Scriptura) and "Scripture is the final authority." It is then claimed:

But, if all appeals to Scripture are appeals to interpretations of Scripture, then it follows necessarily that either someone’s interpretation of Scripture is the final and authoritative norm of doctrine and practice, or Scripture itself cannot be the final and authoritative norm of doctrine and practice.

Second response

The problem with this argument is that it flattens the issues and thus present a false dichotomy. All appeals to Scripture are appeals to interpretation in the sense that there is no such thing as an uninterpreted naked text of Scripture. This is mere recognition that there is no such thing as a naked fact or naked text. But this is not to suggest that since there are no uninterpreted texts means that all interpretations of texts are equally valid, which is the postmodern position. Rather, by stating that Scripture is the final authority, we are saying as a synedeche that the Holy Spirit who breathed out the Scriptures is the final authority, and the Holy Spirit works through Scripture (Rom. 10:17, 2 Tim. 3:16-17). The Romanists think that putting forth this dichotomy would mean that one should chose for the insufficiency of Scripture. But the same argument can be used against Rome. Look at Rome's decrees and how many different ways they have been interpreted. Does Vatican II implies that people may be saved by earnestly seeking God without professing Christ? Do the many interpretations of Rome's decrees mean that Rome is not the "final and authoritative norm of doctrine and practice"? Let's say Rome issued a decree to clarify what she meant, the process is then repeated over and over again.

In the Roman church, it is ironic that one gets to say that other fellow Romanists (espeically liberal RC clergy) are wrong. Why should one think that one's interpretation of Vatican II on salvation of those who haven't heard of Christ is to be preferred over the interpretation of liberal RC bishops? The dichotomy applies even more to Romanists, since it cannot be denied that there are many interpretations of Rome's decrees.

Final remarks

In reply to the tu quoque objection on the nature of authority, the Romanist claims that the difference between Romanism and Protestantism with regards to authority is that Protestants do not find a Magisterium and thus they retain ultimate final authority. That is a truly astonishing claim, because it is false. Reformed Protestants do have a "Magisterium" to bind the conscience. This "Magisterium" is the Holy Spirit. Protestants are not free to believe whatever they want to, which is the problem with Solo Scriptura adherents. And this is what makes Rome such an abomination — the Roman Magisterium usurps the office of the Holy Spirit in binding the consciences of Man.

The next objection of an infinite regress in interpretive authority states that one needs an interpretive authority to interpret another interpretative authority and on it goes. The reply by the Romanists is that such is true for a book but not for a person, since one can put a person in the dock but not a book. First, this does not work as an argument against Sola Scriptura, since the Holy Spirit is a person! Second, this still works against Rome because the Magisterium is made up of fallible human beings, whereas the Holy Spirit is infallible. Putting together a bunch of fallible human beings does not an infallible institution make. The way to solve a leaking bucket is not to put 10 leaking buckets together one inside another and then think that the composite bucket does not leak!

In conclusion, the new Romanist apologetic has been tried and found wanting. It is utterly rationalistic and materialist, making Rome a usurper of the person of the Holy Spirit in binding the conscience with her "infallible" interpretation, instead of the Holy Spirit's infallible interpretation.

I would rather choose the Holy Spirit as my "Magisterium." At least He is infallible always, sinless, loving, and true. These cannot be said of any human magisterium no matter how learned they may be.

Jason Stellman has officially apostatized to Rome

It has been in the making, but finally former PCA pastor Jason Stellman has announced his apostasy to Roman Catholicism. Stellman has fought the lure of Rome, and the Devil has won. The Church did not win because Roman Catholicism is a false church with a false Christ and a false gospel. May God be merciful to his lost soul.

For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? (Heb. 10:26-29)

[HT: Aomin.org]

Follow up to Joshua Lim

Here is my follow up to Joshua Lim:

---

Dear Joshua,

I would prefer to interact directly with you. A setting such as the “Called to Communion” site is not as conducive for the type of discussion I prefer to have. Nevertheless, I will interact with what is written in the com box as it pertains to what I have written.

Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy

You claimed that they are very similar, but ultimately it was the “Petrine office that did it for [you].” The problem is you have only Rome’s word that Peter was even in Rome, Rome’s word that apostolic succession even exists, and Rome’s word that the Holy Spirit intended successors to the apostles to be infallible when they proclaim doctrine ex cathedra. You also have only Rome’s word that the Petrine office is limited to one location. In other words, you presuppose Rome to choose Rome. That is hardly a good argument for why one would choose Roman Catholicism over Eastern Orthodoxy.

Submission to authority

You claim that Roman Catholics submit to an external authority as established by Christ. But how do you know that such an external authority has been established by Christ? Again, you presuppose Rome to choose Rome. Eastern Orthodoxy will dispute that Roman Catholicism is established by Christ because they have fallen away from the patriarchs.

Next, you misrepresent the Reformed and Protestant notion of authority. We do not submit to “his/her own interpretation of Scripture.” I am surprised and sad that you did not even get the Protestant view of authority correct. How can you claim to be competent in rejecting Protestantism when you cannot even represent it correctly?The Holy Spirit is the one who brings people into the one true interpretation of Scripture. Your view denies the Holy Spirit and prefers a material authority over a spiritual authority. You cannot claim that such is totally subjective since Roman Catholicism claims to believe in the person and work of the Holy Spirit also. Similarly, you cannot use empirical evidence to attack Protestantism since the same empirical evidence of diversity works against the myriad views within Roman Catholicism.

The question is: Did the Holy Spirit promise to guide believers into the truth? Indeed, He has (Jn. 16:13). Therefore, your preference for Rome has absolutely no biblical authority at all, but rather you presuppose Rome to choose Rome.

You claim that “the moment a [Roman] Catholic disagrees with the Church, he goes against Christ’s own authority.” It sounds nice, but the problem is that you have yet to define who “the Church” is. Is the Church referring only to the present occupant of the Vatican? Or is the Church referring to the Vatican at the time of the Council of Florence? What happens when popes contradict each other, which is what we see with Pope Honorious who was anathemized by later popes? Or as I have mentioned: the contradiction between the inclusivism of Vatican II with the ecclesiastical exclusivism of Florence? Who is right? Vatican II disagrees with Florence, so regardless of what position is taken, all Roman Catholics disagrees with “the Church.” You either disagree with Florence, or disagree with Vatican II. Or will you settle for chronological snobbery in saying that the Vatican at the present time is right by definition?

The Nature of the Church

You claimed:

I joined the Catholic Church because I became convinced that if Christianity is true, then there must be a way to know and submit to its truth in a more than intellectual manner. In other words, there must be a historical and visible Church that is in substantial continuity with the Church from her inception at Pentecost, through the Early Church Fathers, through the Medieval and Reformation era, until today. Christ, after all, promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church.

The problem is upon what basis is this true? Why must there be a “historical and visible Church” &c if Christianity is true? You have further stated that Jesus has prayed for a visible unity, but why must a visible unity be an institutional one? I am united with my Baptist friends, even Charismatic friends in the Gospel, and such a unity can be seen in my fellowship with them. Why must I be in the same church to show forth unity?

Concluding remarks

You have consistently presuppose Rome to choose Rome. That is totally illegitimate argumentation. You have no real reason to prefer Rome over Constantinople. You don’t even have any real reason for not following Mel Gibson in his sedevacantism. Your whole argument is viciously circular, and the circle begins and ends in Rome, which has NOT remained the same throughout the ages.

Once again, I call upon you to repent of your apostasy from Rome. The Holy Spirit is available to all believers, and He is the only one who reveals the objective truth of Scripture to those who are His. You are sadly rejecting the Holy Spirit and rejecting Christ in choosing a material faith rather than one grounded in the Holy Spirit. For the sake of your soul, I implore you to turn from your present path towards perdition. It is not too late to repent now.

---

Ultimate, this is a spiritual issue, not a intellectual issue. Do pray for Josh Lim (and Jason Stellman) that the Holy Spirit will turn their hearts back to Him.

An Open Letter to recent WSC grad Joshua Lim

When I entered WSC, I came to know that one of the TAs (Teaching Assistants) for Greek was a more senior student by the name of Joshua Lim. It happens that I did not require extra help with my Greek and so I did not attend any of the extra sessions conducted by the TAs, and thus I did not really speak with Joshua Lim. Fast forward to today, and Josh Lim has apostatized from the Christian faith, publicly defecting from the Gospel at the "Called to Communion Confusion" website.

Here then is my open letter to Josh Lim:

---

Dear Joshua,

I have read your recent “conversion” testimony on the Called to Communion blog. As a current MDiv student at WSC, I am saddened by your public denunciation of the Faith and your entry to Rome. While I do not much know you while you were in seminary, I hope you will reconsider this action of yours and turn to Christ alone for your salvation.

Epistemology and Authority

The main issue that you have raised up has been epistemology and authority. You have found Reformed confessionalism highly dissatisfying, and think that you have found epistemic certainty and authority in Rome. According to you, Reformed churches stand as a “via media” and you find that the idea that the confessions having “’ministerial’ authority does not solve anything at all.” In your search for certitude, you have struggled through reading the writings of Protestant scholastics and Roman authors and even Karl Barth, and have finally decided on Rome.

I want to challenge you on the very idea of certitude that you are seeking in the first place, which you think you have found in Rome. Humans are not God. The Scripture has made it very clear that faith is the assurance of things hope for, the conviction of things not seen (Heb. 11:1). Absolute certainty cannot be found this side of heaven. One can have certainty, but only a certainty that is grounded on faith in the Word of God and the person of Christ.

You have searched long for certainty, yet you have searched in all the wrong places. Ultimately, Christianity is a religion dependent upon the Holy Spirit and His illumination of the truths of God’s Word (2 Peter 1:19), the Word which is the final revelation to us (Heb. 1:1-2). Christianity in this sense is a pneumatic religion. The Reformed Confessions are NOT the basis for the Christian faith, but rather they are what we think are the teachings of Scriptures codified in a format addressing various loci of theology. When we say that the Confessions have a ministerial authority, we mean that they have authority which is derived from the absolute authority of Scripture. Inasmuch as what they teach is biblical, and we certainly do believe that what they teach is biblical, their teaching is true and authoritative.

Hermeneutics

You mentioned that one cannot have a “pure theology” and you are right. But if you have taken the Modern Mind class, you should have known that. All humans are situated. We are all time-bound and place-bound and culturally-bound. The question however is not whether we have a “pure theology” but whether our philosophies are derived from the Scriptures or they are not. Interpreting Scripture is like a spiral, wherein one’s philosophy informs one interpretation of Scripture, which then corrects one’s philosophy. That is why Scripture commands us to be transformed by the renewal of our minds (Rom. 12:2) which is effected by the reading and meditating on Scripture (Ps. 19:7-9; 119, 2 Tim. 3:15-17). Note that we are told to meditate on Scripture. Scripture is its own interpreter. Scripture is not an encyclopedia which one reads for mere information. Scripture is not a philosophy textbook either. To read Scripture is to immerse oneself not only in the words of Scripture, but the cultures mentioned in Scripture. The context of Scripture is not transcendental philosophical categories of thought, they are rather historical cultures — time-situated and particular. By filling our minds with Scripture through meditating on it, the Holy Spirit transforms our minds so that we know God’s truth, the truth of God which in seeming weakness is wiser than the philosophies of Man (1 Cor. 1: 18-24).

You have misconstrued the attacks against Biblicism if you think they are against the possibility of interpreting Scripture apart from the Reformed Confessions. The problem with Biblicism is NOT that they are trying to interpret the Scriptures. The problem is that everyone has a worldview which he brings to the task of reading and interpreting the Scriptures. The problem with Biblicism is that biblicists think they are merely interpreting the Bible when they are interpreting the Bible uncritically in accordance with their unspoken and unreflective presuppositions. Paraphrasing Dr. James White, the problem with biblicists is that those who think they have no traditions often have the most traditions, and their traditions color their interpretations. I myself have seen many people like that who claim to be only “interpreting the Bible.” The critique against Biblicism does not mean that the Scriptures are unclear if not interpreted apart from the Reformed Confessions. In fact, if one can find a truly unbiased, objective and sinless person and he goes off into the woods and read the Scriptures by himself, I would venture to say that person could derive the true truths of Scripture on his own. The problem is that there are no such persons around. That is why we read Scripture, and read Scripture in interaction with other theologians and the confessions, because the problem is not with Scripture, but the problem is with us the readers. Others help us to see our blind spots in our interpretations of Scripture, but they do not interpret Scripture for us.

You mentioned that you were given the impression that “what the Anabaptists allegedly lacked was the tradition that Calvin and Luther as well as many other Protestant scholastics had never intended to let go.” I’m sorry if this is the only thing you have gotten out of classes. The problem with the Anabaptists is that as biblicists, they were interpreting Scripture with their own colored lenses and thus not truly interpreting Scripture as Scripture ought to be interpreted. By abandoning interaction with the other theologians throughout church history, they ended up interpreting Scripture according to their own preconceived ideas which is certainly not what Scripture teaches. The radical impulse has always created such errant interpretations of Scripture, not because they were wrong as they did not have tradition, but because in rejecting interaction with tradition, they ended up distorting Scripture by unreflectively utilizing the most [contemporary] traditions in their interpretation.

In your process of conversion, you claim that you “tried to understand how other traditions understood Scripture,” and that you “often found these competing interpretations to be, in their own right, very compelling.” While certainly understanding the other points of views are necessary to understand them, yet you have failed to question if the questions and answers that these other traditions bring to the text are themselves derived from the text of Scripture. As it was said, Scripture determines the context for our questions, and our questions and our answers. Scripture is not a philosopher’s handbook or an encyclopedia. Scripture answers the questions Scripture asks. It is absolutely irrelevant whether one can find an answer from Scripture for a question one has which is not asked by Scripture itself in any fashion. Likewise, you should NOT have read the Bible in such a manner, as if Scripture is an answer book for philosophical and theological questions.

I find it disturbing that your change in the way you read Scripture comes about by reading Karl Barth. To put it bluntly, Karl Barth is a heretic and certainly not Reformed, regardless of what he calls himself. First of all, our primary allegiance should not be to the “Reformed tradition” but rather to Scripture. Even if a Reformed minister or church should preach another gospel other than the one proclaimed by Paul (and Jesus), let him/ it be anathema (Gal. 1:8-9)! You should not be buying any argument by any Tom, Dick or Harry that calls himself Reformed in the first place. Regardless of whether Barth is Reformed, and certainly there is more than enough evidence to show that he is not, Barth’s writings should be first examined on the basis of whether his teachings conform to Scripture, and they don’t.^[1]

Historical issues

You have accused the doctrine of Justification by Faith alone as being something that proceeds from nominalism. First of all, you have to prove that nominalism is necessarily bad. Secondly, you have to prove that a “nominalist” interpretation of Paul’s writing on Romans and Galatians is false exegetically, not merely philosophically. You have also claimed that Protestantism is untenable as to its authority claims, as the “Here I stand” mantra could be repeated over and over again, leading to the multitudes of denominations.

Here I would challenge you as to your settling on Rome. You claim that Sola Scriptura leads to a plurality of denominations. How is that any different from the mess in Rome? Is institutional unity despite wide divergence in doctrine preferable from an honest acknowledgment of differences and a parting of ways? I’m sure you have heard of the Old Catholics and the Sedevacantists, who respectively rejected Vatican I and Vatican II. Within the Roman communion, you yourself acknowledge the wide divergence present within it. Why then do you have one standard for Protestantism and another for Rome? Why do you give Rome a pass on the multitudes of beliefs within her while you critiqued Protestantism about her multitudes of Protestant denominations, many of which are not even Protestant?

I will continue along this line. Why Rome and not the Eastern Orthodox churches? Rome is only one see. Eastern Orthodoxy traditionally has 4 sees (Jerusalem, Antioch, Constantinople, Alexandria). Eastern Orthodoxy boasts “apostolic continuity” and even use the New Testament in Greek, unlike Rome which uses the translated Vulgate. Why did you “come home” to Rome, which split from the Eastern Orthodox churches in the Great Schism?

You claimed comfort in Rome as the “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.” But how can Rome even claim any of these adjectives? Rome is not one, unless you redefine “one” as being institutional, and even then you have to argue from Rome as the true church in discounting the Eastern Orthodox, Old Catholics and Sedevacantists. In other words, you are arguing in a circle. How is your choice of Rome not arbitrary? Rome is not holy, with all the scandals involving pedophile priests and now financial scandal in the Vatican itself. I don’t think I need to speak of the pornocracy around the 9th to 10th century, of popes having children out of wedlock. How is Rome “catholic” unless you begin with the definition that Rome is the true church? Why are those who separate from Rome considered schismatic and not the other way around? Eastern Orthodox considers Rome schismatic, and if we want to count real estate and bishoprics, certainly Eastern Orthodox wins hands down. Eastern Orthodox even has the holy city Jerusalem, while Rome has the pagan city of Rome. How can Rome be considered “catholic” when it defines itself by fidelity to a particular see and not the universal Christ? At least Eastern Orthodox has a better case for catholicity than Rome, so upon what basis do you choose Rome?

Church and Gospel

The Church is defined by the Gospel, not the other way around (Mt. 16:18). Churches which compromise the Gospel message will have Christ warring against them (Rev. 2:14-15, 19-23). Visible churches do apostatize from the faith, with Rome asserting that of the Eastern Orthodox and the Protestants. Therefore, there is no true “objectivity of the Church” apart from the presence of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. Christ is where the Gospel is present. In your testimony, you claimed that Luther felt that it was necessary to separate from the Catholic Church, Zwingli from Luther, the Anabaptists from the Magisterial Reformed, the Calvinists from Arminians, and on and on–all on the conviction that I have the correct interpretation of Scripture.

But is the mere act of separation shows a church to be subjective? The Roman Church separated from the Eastern Orthodox Church in the Great Schism. How does that not disqualify the Roman church as being subjective? Does a mere assertion of objectivity or continuity qualifies a certain church as being objective? Rome is not even consistent with herself. Read for yourself the differences between the strict ecclesiastical exclusivism taught in the Council of Florence with the inclusivism promoted in Vatican II. How does such an inconsistency help buttress the romantic view of having one church that has always remained the same (semper eadem) throughout the ages?

Given that individual churches can apostatize, why is Rome exempt from the possibility of apostasy? Unless one argues a priori from the infallibility of Rome, petitio principii, there is no way one can show that Rome is objectively the Church.

Your quest for certainty sought the wrong thing. Christ has never promised that any particular church will not fall away. Christ only promised that the Church as a whole will not fall altogether (Mt. 16:18), and this Church is defined by the Gospel. Your quest for certainty should be to seek the true Gospel of Christ, not the external forms of religious unanimity. Where the Gospel is rightly believed and preached, there is the true Church where Christ is. The Gospel is transcendentally true, not based upon one’s own interpretations. Paul was not speaking of a subjective Gospel when he pronounced anathemas against the Judaizers and all who would pervert the Gospel (Gal. 1:8-9), for a subjective Gospel that has as many interpretations as there are people can never be perverted!

And here we come to the crux of the issue: your eternal state. The fact of the matter is that Rome’s gospel is a false gospel, and whoever knowingly submits to Rome partakes in her evil beliefs and deeds. Rome denies the Gospel in the sixth session of the Council of Trent, pronouncing her anathemas against biblical Christianity, as it was pronounced:

If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema (Canon IX, 6th Session of Council of Trent)

Or another one:

If any one saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ's sake; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema (Canon XII, 6th Session of Council of Trent)

It matters little whether you think that there is any “signal of that pride stemming from work-righteousness.” What matters is what the Scriptures say about the matter. Paul is very explicit in his epistle:

O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith (Gal. 3:1-5)

I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. (Gal. 5:3-4)

Regardless of the psychology of practicing Roman Catholics, the Scriptures are very clear that adding works to Christ’s work is an abomination to God and a repudiation of the Gospel, and earns one an eternity in hell, cut off from God and from salvation, devoted to destruction (which is what the term ἀνάθεμα, from the Septuagint usage of the Hebrew חרם means). It matters little whether Roman Catholics feel pride (or not feel pride) in their working towards their justification. Scripture is clear that Rome’s curse upon the Gospel means that Rome is accursed by God as preaching another gospel.

Ultimately, your quest for certainty is a failure. As many critiques you have of Protestantism is just as applicable or even more applicable to Rome. By not starting out with Scripture and to renew your mind according to Scripture, you are basing your knowledge and ultimately your salvation upon the philosophies of Man.

Josh, I hereby call upon you to return to Scripture for your knowledge, and to return to the Gospel for your salvation. It is not too late to return to the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3). As it is written,

Therefore, while the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us fear lest any of you should seem to have failed to reach it. For good news came to us just as to them, but the message they heard did not benefit them, because they were not united by faith with those who listened. …

Since therefore it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly received the good news failed to enter because of disobedience, again he appoints a certain day, “Today,” saying through David so long afterward, in the words already quoted,

“Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts.”

(Heb. 4:1-2, 6-7)

Repent, Josh, and turn to Christ alone for your salvation. Repent of your illegitimate quest for absolute certainty, and for institutional oneness, and turn to the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Respectfully,

Daniel H. Chew, M.Div student at WSC

---

References:

[1] On Barth, see for example Gordon H. Clark, Karl Barth’s Theological Method (Unicoi, TN: 1963, 1997) and Cornelius Van Till, Christianity and Barthianism (Phillisburg, NJ: P&R, 2004). Barth denies Sola Scriptura and redefines many Reformed doctrines like election, reprobation etc, so it is astonishing that Barth could be even considered as being Reformed

Ecclesiology and the Gospel

This past week we have seen the sad specter of the apostasy of Jason Stellman. While I have been working on something similar, Stellman's latest blog post interacting with Carl Trueman's article deserves in my opinion a brief rebuttal.

In his blog post, Stellman addresses the relation of the Church to the Gospel. In Stellman's new understanding, "closely identifying ecclesiology with soteriology" has "everything to do with Pauline theology." Stellman briefly gives two reasons why he comes to the conclusion he does. The first reason Stellman gives is that identifying a true church by the preaching of the Gospel makes the church a mere confirmatory agent of the Gospel that a believer already knows, instead of the church being the teacher of the Gospel. Stellman's second reason is that the mystery of the Gospel in Ephesians 3 is the collection of the Gentiles into the church, and thus the Gospel is the church and vice versa.

In response to Stellman's first point, we note two major errors he has made. Firstly, Stellman has confused the essence of the Gospel with the fullness of Scripture. Christians can discern the truth of the Gospel because of the Holy Spirit within them. But discerning the truth of the Gospel does not mean that believers know the fullness of what Scripture teaches. Herman Witsius had realized this difference and wrote thus in his book The Economy of the Covenants:

... it must be confessed, that in the present dark state of our minds, even the most illuminated are ignorant of a great many things; and that many things are believed with an implicit [tacit] faith, especially by young beginners and babes in Christ, so far as they admit, in general, the whole scriptures to be the infallible standard of what is to be believed; in which are contained many things which they do not understand, and in as far as they embrace the leading doctrines of Christianity, in which many other truths concenter, which are thence deduced by evident consequence, and which they believe in their foundation or principle, as John writes concerning believers, that they knew all things, 1 John ii. 20. ...

[Herman Witsius, The Economy of the Covenants between God and Man – Comprehending A Complete Body of Divinity. (trans. William Crookshank; Original printed 1822; Reprinted Kingsburg, CA: den Dulk Christian Foundation, 1990; Distributed Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing), III.7.9. - Vol. 1, 376]

Witsius' idea of "implicit faith" or rather what I prefer to call tacit faith solves Stellman's problem totally. Believers know the essence of the faith and of the Gospel, but they know it vaguely. They need to be taught by Christ, the Church and her ministers in order to grow into the fuller understanding of the whole Christian faith. Therefore, believes can identify a true church, and yet still continue to need to be taught from God's Word.

Secondly, preaching and teaching God's Word and God's truth is not merely done to inform the uneducated. The Word of God is living and active (Heb. 4:12), not merely a conveyor belt of cognitive information. The proclamation of the Word of God as a speech-act accomplishes what God has decreed for it to do (Is. 55:10-11). Such proclamation and teaching is of use to those who already know its truth, for believers need to be continually reminded of God's truth and continually need its encouragement, its reprove, and all its work in our lives. Therefore, even IF believers already know everything there is to cognitively know about the faith, they still require the Church to preach and teach them God's truth. Stellman's first point is therefore in error.

Stellman's second point confuses Gospel and Covenant. It confuses the Pauline Gospel with the goal of the Gospel. Just because the Gospel is intended by God to bring in the Church does not mean that the Gospel IS the bringing in of the Gentiles into the Church. Ontology is not teleology! The Gospel is not its purpose or effect. Stellman's second point is thus in error.

Stellman ends his post by saying that "After all, we're not evangelicals." But such is a strawman and betrays his ignorance of why Reformed are not Evangelicals. Reformed are not Evangelicals not because we disagree on the Gospel. The problem with Evangelicals is that they are not truly Gospel-centered enough! Their "Gospel-centeredness" as we have seen in Elephant Room 2 degenerates into a "Gospel-nomism" where merely mouthing the words "Gospel-centered" gives anyone a free pass to compromise the Gospel. The problem with Evangelicals is not that they are too individualistic, but that they are not at the same time ecclesiocentric. The Gospel is both individualistic AND corporate. The Gospel comes to each of us individually and then builds individual believers corporately into a church. Evangelicals gets the first part but not the second. We should not react to the errors of Evangelicalism by throwing the baby out with the bathwater!

Yes, we are not Evangelicals, but Evangelicals are not our enemy. We are not their exact anti-thesis! Are we so adverse to the term "evangelical" (which basically refers to the Gospel) that we want to disassociate ourselves from anything that sounds like Evangelicalism? Reformed is not Evangelical, but Reformed is NOT anti-Evangelical. Rather, Reformed is Evangelicalism come into its doctrinal purity and fullness. Reformed is to Evangelical what pure gold is to gold paint.

While Stellman wrote this post in response to Trueman's post, it can be seen that Trueman's analysis is not so wrong after all. Stellman's apostasy seems to stem from his deficient view of the Gospel and a deficient view of the Church. A "high ecclesiology" which does not come from a proper relation between the Gospel and the Church is a defective ecclesiology nonetheless, no matter how "high" it is. There is nothing meritorious about "high ecclesiology" if it does not actually stems from the Gospel and the teachings of Scripture.

Bryan Crawford Loritts and Black Racism

This has to be seen to be believed:

The racism of black "pastor" Bryan Crawford Loritts is shocking. On the one hand, he denigrates all people of his own ethic group by insinuating that they can only rise spiritually to the level of embracing heretics. On the other hand, he attacks discerning biblical pastors of his own ethnic group as being mindless ass-kissers to their white masters.

The depths of depravity and wickedness to which MacDonald and company are willing to descend to amazes me. But then, I guess this is what happens when you stick around with false shepherds such as Stephen Furtick of "Hey Haters" fame.

A Review of T.D. Jakes' sermon at the "CodeOrangeRevival" event

Daniel Neades has written an interesting review of T.D. Jakes' sermon at the Elevation Church's so-called "Code Orange Revival" event here. Even if we discount Jakes' Sabellianism, the entire message is disturbingly Christ-less, Gospel-less and God-less. As Neades wrote,

Jakes’ teaching is deadly to those who are enticed by it. They trust in God to fix the problems of this life, to keep them from trial and tribulation. And should He not accede to their arrogant expectation, their faith is shipwrecked, because it was founded not upon the sure and certain promises of God’s word in Christ as recorded in the Scriptures, but upon the false words of a self-proclaimed prophet.

This preaching gives people a transient emotional high. It scratches itching ears, speaking into them what they are eager to hear. It manipulates, it deludes, it defrauds. Afterwards, when tribulation or persecution arises, immediately its victims stumble. They are lost, innoculated [sic] to the true Gospel. They have tried Christianity, so they think, and found it full of empty promises – it doesn’t work.

...

For Jakes, salvation is deliverance from the problems and obstacles of this life. This is his beguiling message, for who would not want that? And, having heard his sermon, the fervent crowd has believed the lie that this is what God is offering them.

...

For Jakes, our problem is not that we have grievously offended an infinitely Holy and righteous God with our sin, and that He is therefore justly angry with us. For Jakes, our problem is not that we are deservedly facing an eternity in hell. No, for him, our problem is that we have issues in this life.

With his misdiagnosis of the human condition, Jakes’ gospel is necessarily false. His gospel is not that Christ died to bear the punishment for our sin and rose from the dead, but that Jesus died to show us our worth and to fix our problems.

HT: Apprising Ministries

Joseph Prince and Joel Osteen: Birds of a feather

It seems that the Word-Faith Prosperity preacher Joel Osteen has decided to invite Antinomian Prosperity preacher Joseph Prince to his *ahem* "church." Indeed birds of a feather flock together. You will pardon me for not wanting to waste my time listening to drivel although it is livecast in about 1/2 hour away from the time of posting.

The implosion of global Anglicanism and a falling away from the Faith

With the break-up of global Anglicanism due to the crisis in the ECUSA caused by the embrace and celebration of deviant sexuality by her leaders, the newly formed ACNA (Anglican Church in North America) and the Global South coalition are still trying to resolve the mess formed in the aftermath of the schism and total apostasy of the ECUSA (although it has already apostatized much earlier, but this it seems is the straw that broke the camel's neck for a lot of Anglicans — Says a lot about the importance they place on orthodoxy as compared to orthopraxy). The Roman Church, seeing an opportunity, has seen fit to poach some sheep as Anglicanism continues to fracture with the release of the document Apostolic Constitution ANGLICANORUM COETIBUS.

In response, the 'Global South Primates Steering Committee' has issued a statement as follows:

1. We, under-shepherds of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church of Jesus Christ, bring greetings to the faithful in the Anglican Communion. Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. For in his great love for us, we are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit (Ephesians 2: 19-22).

2. The Vatican announcement on Apostolic Constitution gives us an occasion in making the following pastoral exhortation.

3. We welcome Pope Benedict XVI’s stance on the common biblical teaching on human sexuality, and the commitment to continuing ecumenical dialogue.

4. At the same time we believe that the proposed Anglican Covenant sets the necessary parameters in safeguarding the catholic and apostolic faith and order of the Communion. It gives Anglican churches worldwide a clear and principled way forward in pursuing God’s divine purposes together in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church of Jesus Christ. We urge churches in the Communion to actively work together towards a speedy adoption of the Covenant.

5. In God’s gracious purposes the Anglican Communion has moved beyond the historical beginnings and expressions of English Christianity into a worldwide Communion, of which the Church of England is a constitutive part. In view of the global nature of the Communion, matters of faith and order would inevitably have serious ramifications for the continuing well-being and coherence of the Communion as a whole, and not only for Provinces of the British Isles and The Episcopal Church in the USA. We urge the Archbishop of Canterbury to work in close collegial consultation with fellow Primates in the Communion, act decisively on already agreed measures in the Primates’ Meetings, and exercise effective leadership in nourishing the flock under our charge, so that none would be left wandering and bereft of spiritual oversight.

6. As Primates of the Communion and guardians of the catholic and apostolic faith and order, we stand in communion with our fellow bishops, clergy and laity who are steadfast in the biblical teaching against the ordination of openly homosexual clergy, the consecration of such to the episcopate, and the blessing of homosexual partnerships. We also urge them, as fellow Anglicans, to continue to stand firm with us in cherishing the Anglican heritage, in pursuing a common vocation, in expressing our unity and common life, and in maintaining our covenanted life together.

7. In the closing words of the Anglican Covenant: With joy and with firm resolve, we offer ourselves for fruitful service and binding ourselves more closely in the truth and love of Christ, to whom with the Father and the Holy Spirit be glory for ever. Amen.

“Now may the God of Peace, who brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, the great shepherd of the sheep, by the blood of the eternal covenant, make you complete in everything good so that you may do his will, working among us that which is pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen.” (Hebrews 13.20, 21)

25th October 2009

Global South Primates Steering Committee:

Chairman: The Most Revd Peter J. Akinola, Nigeria
Vice-Chairman: The Most Revd Emmanuel Kolini, Rwanda
General Secretary: The Most Revd John Chew, Southeast Asia
Treasurer: The Most Revd Mouneer Anis, Jerusalem and the Middle East.

Members:
The Most Revd Stephen Than Myint Oo, Myanmar
Bishop Albert Chama, Dean of Central Africa

Compare this statement with the Response from the Council of Church Society which can be accessed here.

Response from the Council of Church Society to the plans by the Church of Rome to receive disaffected Anglicans.

According to its own doctrinal standards and history, the Church of England's true nature is that of a Protestant, Reformed, Evangelical and catholic (in other words, universal) church. Orthodox Anglicanism is therefore defined by reference to these characteristics only, which are set out in the Thirty-nine Articles and the Church of England's submission to the over-arching authority of Scripture alone. Church Society seeks to defend and promote these defining characteristics, especially the Gospel of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone which is at the heart of the message and mission of the Church of England.

While acknowledging the correct stand taken by Anglo-Catholics against theological liberalism (the features of which do not represent true, Biblical Anglicanism), it should also be noted that the true doctrine of the Church of England does not embrace any of the teachings or practices which characterise the Church of Rome. For instance, the Church of Rome is fundamentally flawed in its claims about its own nature and authority and in its teaching about the means of salvation.

A proper rejection of theological liberalism should therefore not be accompanied by a turning to the Church of Rome and its unbiblical teachings and practices. Rather, both theological liberalism and the unscriptural teachings and practices of the Church of Rome are contrary to the Bible and to the historic doctrines of the Church of England as a Protestant, Reformed, Evangelical and catholic church.

The longing of Church Society is that all Anglicans, whether in England or elsewhere, would see and understand both the destructive nature of theological liberalism and the false nature, teachings and practices of the Church of Rome.

We grieve that the Church of England, along with our nation, has fallen so low in its spiritual and moral condition. We pray that God would pour out His Spirit on both church and nation.

We rejoice that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone and we pray that the Church of England will return to full adherence to its doctrinal standards, acknowledging the supreme authority of the Bible as God's Word and seeking to shape its teaching and practices by what He has revealed.

The statement was agreed by the Council at its meeting on 4 November 2009.

No prizes for guessing correctly which statement is more in line with the teachings and tenor of Scripture.

[HT: Reformation Anglicanism, Reasonable Christian]

Charismatics and Pentecostal jumping onto the NPP bandwagen?

It seems that certain Charismatic and Pentecostal theologians want to jump onto the NPP (New Perspective on Paul) bandwagan. As stated:

Amos Yong, a charismatic theologian at Regent University, in his book review of Don Garlington's, In Defense of the New Perspective on Paul: Essays and Reviews (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2005), comments on Assembly of God scholar Frank Macchia's new book:

What I have observed is not that Renewal (by which I mean pentecostal-and-charismatic, broadly speaking) biblical scholarship has engaged the NPP--they might well have, but I am not as up-to-date in this area — but that pentecostal theologians and, especially, systematicians have made some recent proposals at least consistent with, if not presuming of, some of the basic NPP proposals as defended by Garlington. For instance, one of the main points in Frank D. Macchia's Baptized in the Spirit: A Global Pentecostal Theology (Zondervan, 2006) concerns the interconnectedness between the doctrines of justification and sanctification. For Macchia, the pentecostal theological emphasis on the Spirit means that justification can never be merely a forensic imputation of alien righteousness, but must also be a pneumatological impartation of the righteousness of Christ resulting in a transformed life. As an extension of this idea (although actually preceding Macchia's book by two years), pentecostal systematician Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen — although he prefers to call himself an ecumenical theologian — has argued in his One with God: Salvation as Deification and Justification (Liturgical, 2004) that justification is intimately tied in not only with sanctification but also with full salvation understood as glorification. [Bold in original post]

[more]