On abuse and the responses to the Ravi Zacharias scandal

In light of the Ravi Zacharias scandal and the responses to that scandal from within Evangelicalism, I would like to offer this article as a way to think more about the issue of abuse and Evangelicalism's failure to deal with abuse. An excerpt:

The Ravi Zacharias scandal rocked Evangelicalism, since Zacharias was a prominent Evangelical apologist until his death in 2020. In response to the scandal, Evangelicals reacted with sorrow and grief over the wickedness of Zacharias’ sins. The more common refrain from many leaders however is some variant of “there but for the grace of God go I,” as seen in Michael Brown’s article, and reposted on Charisma News, a leading news source for Charismatics. While they sorrow over the victims of sins, the focus is on “not throwing stones” and empathizing with Ravi Zacharias to some extent. The most egregious piece here can be found in Singapore by Rev. Edmund Chan of CEFC (Covenant Evangelical Free Church), who ended his note with a confidence that Ravi Zacharias is indeed in heaven now, an article which epitomizes a major problem within Evangelicalism

[more]

On the Ravi Zacharias scandal

In light of the Ravi Zacharias scandal, I have written my thoughts on the issue here. An excerpt:

Ravi Zacharias was a prominent Evangelical apologist and founder of the ministry that bore his name (Ravi Zacharias International Ministries – RZIM). His global reach means that his ministry was known worldwide, regardless of the merits or demerits of Zacharias’ apologetics. Zacharias passed away last year in 2020, seemingly a godly man who has reached many people for Christ. However, shocking revelations of sexual abuse have surfaced, and an investigation that has just been completed by Miller — Martin was shocking in its validation of the credible nature of many of these accusations. RZIM has in turn wrote an open letter apologizing for the misconduct of its founder, promising restitution and reform. These revelations have troubled many Evangelicals. With Zacharias’ reach being global in nature, the revelations of his immorality have resonated around the world.

[more]

Simon Chan and the assault upon the sufficiency of language

... The very being of the church cannot be understood apart from the narrative of the God who reveals himself by sending Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit

This point needs to be reiterated in our postmodern context. The problem is particularly acute for postmodern theologians who, having quite rightly done away with a positivistic view of doctrines as universal timeless truth, end up without any particular truth claims to make. (p. 12)

Perhaps Kevin Vanhoozer's idea of doctrine as drama provides a better way of understanding the relationship between the scriptural text and the ecclesial community that uses the text. According to Vanhoozer, "Doctrine is not merely a proposition, or an expression, but a prompt; a spiritual direction for one's fitting performance of the script."... (p. 13)

To use a different analogy, Scripture sets the initial trajectory for the subsequent development of doctrine in the Christian tradition. There is no separation between Scripture and tradition since Scripture is apostolic tradition. ... (p. 14)

As we have seen in the previous post, Simon Chan follows formally in the footsteps of the Roman Catholic Nouvelle Theologians in the way he goes about interacting with Scripture and tradition. We have a hint already in the manner by which he will discount Sola Scriptura through his framing of ressourcement as not just return to the past but creative engagement with those sources, or in other words interaction without necessary agreement with anything the sources say. All of this comes about through the postmodern linguistic skubalon Chan embraces.

Chan's philosophy of language is nihilistic to the core. He start off by denying doctrinal propositional truths through an attack against "positivism" as stating "eternal, timeless truths." First of all, propositions are not necessarily eternal or timeless, and they might not be true (there are after all false propositional statements). Chan and Vanhoozer and those like them doesn't even seem to understand what propositions are. Propositions are merely statements with a truth claim, which could be contingent or timeless. Chan's book is made up of all manner of propositions, like the statement quoted from Vanhoozer "Doctrine is not merely a proposition, or an expression, but a prompt; a spiritual direction for one's fitting performance of the script." Technically, it is four different propositions in one sentence. It is simply ludicrous when Chan attacks propositions when he is using propositions to do the job. Or does he even understand what the definition of "proposition" is?

As I have written, logic is epistemologically prior to even God, for one cannot even begin to say a single word without presupposing the basic laws of logic. Call me a "rationalist" if you so desire, but that is a fact. The minute you open our mouth or write a single word, you are already presupposing the rules of logic. Likewise, the mere act of refuting propositions requires the writing of propositions to do so. Even if one does not attempt a refutation of propositions, the mere act of stating what one believes uses propositions. Only postmodern linguists are so blind to what they are doing that they commit linguistic suicide over and over again. Chan, while disavowing postmodernism, does not seem to realize that he is doing the very same thing they do when he attacks propositions.

So yes, Scripture has poetry, and drama, and others. But all of these are conveyed using propositional sentences. Propositions stand behind the literary genres as the means through which they are expressed. The failure to recognize this is the fault of all who attack propositional truths, and as such deny the sufficiency of language to convey truth. Behind it all is the devil who first did the same when he questioned, "Has God said?".

"Asian theologies" and the Nouvelle trend

Singapore Nouvelle theologian Simon Chan has written a book on Asian "Grassroots theology," which I have just began to read. Right at the beginning we already see the beginnings of a shipwreck and the clear influence on this man's theology. Let me quote a bit from the beginning:

...Putting it another way, any healthy theological development requires holding together two processes in a healthy tension: ressourcement and aggiornamento. Ressourcement is not merely a return to the past; rather it is a creative engagement with earlier sources, the fountainhead of spiritual life. Only in this way can we begin to engage in the work of aggiornamento, or adaption and updating in light of the new situations in which the church finds itself. Without the prerequisite of ressourcement, aggiornamento could easily end up with the church capitulating to the spirit of the age. (p. 8)

Tradition implies a community with a history. For Christianity, the history of the church is a continuation of the history of Jesus Christ. ... Church and tradition, therefore, need to play a more critical role in the development of local theologies. We can no longer speak in terms of sola scriptura, at least not with qualification. (pp. 11-12)

— Simon Chan, Grassroots Asian Theology: Thinking the faith from the ground up (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2014)

The terms ressourcement and aggiornamento are terms derived from the Nouvelle Theologie, a theological movement especially within northern European Roman Catholic (especially France) that seeks a new way of doing theology in the turn of the 20th century. It was censored by the Roman curia for a long time before it triumphed at Vatican II. The terms themselves look sound: Ressourcement is a French word which roughly means return back to the (past) sources, especially patristic sources. Aggiornamento is an Italian word which simply refer to the updating of theology, based upon the insights gained from ressourcement. Who doesn't like the idea of going back to the original sources and reforming the church accordingly? But all is not as it seems. As I have critiqued before, ressourcement is not the same as the Reformational principle of ad fonts. Rather, this sort of "return" and "reform" is a back door for smuggling all sorts of philosophies into both Scripture and the patristic and medieval writers through the back door, under the guise of reading these original sources.

We note here that Chan rejects the basic Christian principle of Sola Scriptura. This is despite the fact that the patristic sources held to the principle both formally and materially (See David King's and William Webster's three-volume work Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of our Faith), and that the necessity of Scripture necessarily leads to the sufficiency of Holy Scripture. To claim otherwise is to say that the Scripture themselves were wrong when they proclaim its own sufficiency. So what kind of ressourcement is this when one claims to return to the Patristics yet deny what they teach?

We note also the absolute nonsense that "for Christianity, the history of the church is a continuation of the history of Jesus Christ." This is a blatant denial of the change in redemptive-historical eras between the apostolic times and our times. The closing of the canon and the cessation of special revelation implies a change in redemptive-historical eras. The Church is not Christ, the Church does not incarnate Christ, and the "body" language is federal language, not physical or essential language. The believer's union with Christ is mediated by the Holy Spirit, not an essential (i.e. esse, being) identification. In the times between the already and the not-yet, there is a real absence of Christ, so that believers yearn for the return of Christ. Maranatha (Our Lord come)! (1 Cor. 16:22) It is not "our Lord is already here." So much for Chan's ridiculous and unbiblical idea of tradition.

This attack against Scripture can only come about primarily by an attack on the sufficiency of language to convey truth, which is what I will discuss in my next post.

The New Faces of Christianity: Syncretism?

But other modern Christians [in the Global South] explore the Bible in order to justify coexistence and cooperation between faiths and cultures. ... When modern Christian thinkers consider these faiths (e.g. Hinduism and Buddhism), they find it difficult to believe that God was not in Asia before the missionaries brought the gospel. In various ways, it seems, perhaps the Spirit was working in the other religions. (p. 85)

Asian theologians commonly hold that Christianity needs to engage in a triple dialogue — with other religions, with other cultures, and (throughout the process) with the poor. (p. 86)

- Philip Jenkins, The New Faces of Christianity: Believing the Bible in the Global South (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2006)

Even when I was younger in the faith, the whole idea of "Asian theology" sounds absurd to the extreme. God is one; Christ is one; there is only one truth. In the Apostles' Creed, a creedal formulation of ancient origin, we confess the one, catholic (small "c") and apostolic church. Yet, it seems, we have in many places false Christians promoting falsehood and heresies against the Christian faith. No one for example can deny the exclusivity of Christ and be a Christian! Whoever do so are false believers and are not be treated as believers, but rather as pagans needing to repent of their sins.

In this section, Jenkins moved to the Asian context, whereby the existence of other ancient religions poses obstacles to the Christian faith. Jenkins speak about how some professing believers have decided to engage in syncretic dialogues with other faiths. Now, there is nothing wrong with dialoguing with other faiths. The problem is never with dialogue, but the goal and purpose of such dialogue.

If syncretism of any kind is part and parcel of the new face of Christianity, Jenkins can count me out of this new faith. I don't care what their motives are. The reason why the Gospel is exclusive is because God is. If one refuses to acknowledge the fact that God created the world and all cultures, including Asian cultures, if one refuses to acknowledge the making of a Covenant of Works with all peoples (inclusive of Chinese, Japanese, Malay, Indians, Vietnamese etc.) in Adam as their federal head, if one refuses to acknowledge the universality of sin and the inability of all peoples to be righteous before God, that is one's prerogative. But one shouldn't then call oneself a Christian. Call yourself something else, whatever you fancy, but a Christian you are not! And it is plain ridiculous that one thinks pluralism has never been encountered before in Church history. What else was the Greco-Roman world at the time of Christ, but a pluralistic world? Was the Apostle Paul a bigot in his sermon at Mars Hill, stating that he is proclaiming the unknown God to a people with many gods? If your religion is diametrically opposite Paul's, may I suggest you are the one who does not know what Christianity is? Perhaps, Paul does not need to repent, but you do?

So far, I have been totally unimpressed with Jenkins' trumpeting of the "Global South." Unless and until those people repudiates their false theologies for the one catholic apostolic faith, there is nothing more that can be added to the conversation.

No Compromise Radio: On the Elephant Room

The first episode of No Compromise Radio has finally aired. The issue is a bit dated, but the principles are still very important.

No Co Ever: Episode 1 from No Compromise Radio on Vimeo.

[HT: Aomin.org]

ER2 fallout: Bryan Crawford Loritts and Racism

It seems that Bryan Crawford Loritts has decided to write a hit piece in the Christian Post attacking those who continue to insist that Jakes is a modalist heretic. Very conveniently it seems for him, Loritts plays the race card to attack the critics, as he wrote:

Loritts also advised the "middle aged white Reformed guys" to be extremely careful of the messages they sent, both implicit and explicit.

Though he was not accusing anyone of racism, he found that the "Reformed crowd's" actions (refusing to come to the Elephant Room event or having an honest dialogue) sent an implicit message to the public – "theological bigotry."

This is very disturbing. Dr. White responds as follows:

5) I was unaware when I first read this blog that Loritts is a black man. I was shocked that the race card had been played here. It is absolutely, positively disgusting to me that this canard, so common from the left in political arenas, would be inserted into the discussion of Jakes' long-time standing as a modalist. I DON'T CARE WHAT COLOR THE MAN IS. It is pure distraction and absurdity to make reference to "middle aged white Reformed guys," and if there needs to be a call to repentance for Mr. Loritts, it is right there. And don't think that adding the obligatory "Oh, I'm not accusing anyone of racism" statement changes anything. He introduced race, period. THEOLOGY AND HERESY KNOWS NO RACIAL BOUNDARIES. Jakes' race is irrelevant to his modalism. Modalism was defined long before any white guys had a say in it. Period.

I absolute agree. To add: I as a non-white non-American non-middle aged Chinese stand with my white brethren in this regard. The use of the race card is disgraceful especially in the context of theological discussion. In fact, it is blatantly racist, as if to say that "middle-aged white Reformed guys" are racist in their rejection of Jakes as being orthodox.

As a non-white non-American, I hereby call upon Bryan Crawford Loritts to repent of (1) his racism and (2) his arrogance in taking to himself the authority of a church council/synod/general assembly which he does not possess.

ER2 conclusion: Jakes is a Modalist

The Elephant Room 2 is a farce, with independent reporters for the event having been kicked out. Not surprisingly, but sadly, Jakes came out seemingly as a Trinitarian, as he has no problems using the language of "persons," or so it seems.

The problem however comes when we dig deeper. Did Jakes actually proclaim that he is now a Trinitarian, or was it just theological sleight of hand?

In his Dividing Line radio broadcast here, Dr. James White addressed this issue head-on. Is Jakes actually Trinitarian, or is he just playing MacDonald and Driscoll as pawns? The latter it seems. For those who call themselves pastors trying to discern Jakes' orthodoxy or the lack therefore, MacDonald and Driscoll seem hopelessly naive. Driscoll's attitude here is sadly hypocritical, as Frank Turk helpfully says,

Someone needs to check the date for Mark Driscoll's shelf life as a reliable person. In the past month, he utterly disgraced himself on the "Unbelievable" podcast by interrogating this host, Justin Brierly, and accusing him and the whole British Christian church of being a flop because they also don't have a Mark Driscoll, and they have a few women pastors. But, when the other shoe drops and he has Bishop Jakes sitting before him in a place where there are supposed to be hard conversations, Bishop Jakes gets the velvet gloves - including a complete whiff at the issue of egalitarianism in Jakes' own theology and church

Dr. White in contrast shows the acumen that MacDonald and Driscoll should have possessed and used in the ER2. As Dr. White twitted earlier in a clear question directed as TD Jakes:

@BishopJakes Did the Son, as a divine Person, distinct from the Father, exist as a Person prior to the birth of the Messiah in Bethlehem? [Source]

Jakes did not say anything new in the ER2, but continue to use Modalist language, while departing from Oneness Pentecostalism only in his acceptance of the term "persons," though I don't see what the mere use of the term "persons" without the full biblical teachings concerning the divine persons within the Godhead means. What's the use of merely mouthing the word "persons"? One does not become orthodox by merely mouthing orthodox jargon, but by believing in the content of orthodoxy!

Jakes continues to be a modalist, and therefore not a Christian. As is noted by many, we haven't even touched on his embrace of the anti-Christian "prosperity gospel," which is enough to put him outside the pale of Christianity regardless of whether he is a Trinitarian.

Marcus Pittman: James MacDonald and Doctrinal Socialism

Marcus Pittman has posted an excellent and succinct post on the MacDonald-Jakes fiasco here. In the process, he deals with another issue: spiritual pride and the issue of the unteachability of the big-name pastors.

Here are some choice quotes:

This brings us to several recent events which both seem to encompass James MacDonald and his Elephant Room guests. In this attempt to make everyone’s theology on equal grounds we have entered into a form of laziness in defending the truth. So much so we can’t even stand on the courage of our convictions and call anyone to repentance anymore.

No one at the first elephant room conference believed in their doctrine enough to call the other to repent.

Apparently no one needs to repent of anything anymore and when someone does call them to repentance those guys are slandered with the title of “Discernment Blogger” who “sits in their underwear at home in their mothers basement.”

These sort of slanderous ad-hominem’s are loaded with pride and are easy to say to those who might not have as large of an audience as some of those on the top of the Evangelical caste system. It’s easy to just toss them aside because they don’t have as large of an audience as you. They’re not in the club, I got it and I understand. You guys up there are like the State, above rebuke and we’re to look at you for guidance. Not the other way around. Were [sic We're] never to question the Evangelical State.

...

We have Perry Noble flat out lying and we have no one willing to simply call TD Jakes what he is…a heretic and false teacher who will go to hell if he does not repent.

...

No one within this elite Evangelical State can be questioned. They automatically know what is best. TD Jakes is more then welcome to participate, not because his theology is worthy of hearing, but because he has a larger audience. has written more books and spoken at more conferences then you ever will.

John Piper and Rick Warren, the two popes of Evangelicalism can do whatever they want and any sort of rebuke goes completely ignored. After all they have sold more books then you, they fill stadiums and they have more followers on twitter than you will ever have. By the way who are you to question the Evangelical State. [sic ?]

His later comment to MacDonald is also very interesting, as follows:

No one is against pastors having a big influence, that is a strawman of our position.

We are against having a sort of Evangelical Caste System. A sort of evangelical socialist state where the leaders of this “celebrity group” refuse to listen to the commoners below.

When the lowly subjects of the evangelical state do speak out, they are slandered as “bloggers in underwear” which is just a really prideful way of saying “I got John Piper on speed dial, so I don’t have to listen to you.”

That’s the issue at hand.

You guys, because of your influence have created monsters and that’s a good thing. You have created hundreds, maybe thousands of individuals that believe doctrine is serious and worth fighting for. That’s your fault.

The problem is, that the monsters you have created now hold correct doctrine and are willing to die for it because most of them have come out of that doctrine.

They are angered, upset and confused that many Godly leaders would shake hands with the perpetrators of false doctrine that your ministries caused them to escape from.

You have created men willing to die for the Gospel, who are willing to do things your political correctness won’t allow you to do.

The problem is not influence, it’s celebrity. There is a huge difference between the two. Celebrity involves all sorts of compromise and politics. One can have influence, and never compromise.

Indeed!

Contra "Asian Theology" - We confess ONE holy and katholikos faith (Part 2)

[continued from here]

The truth behind the evangelism of the West

Implicit in Pagolu's article is the idea that "the West" as defined by those following in the Greco-Roman tradition was its culture of rationalistic and analytical philosophy. The West somehow was never truly "spiritual" in the sense that the East or Asia is "spiritual". Pointing to the fact that "there is the practice of the offering of joss sticks, meat and other kinds of food to ancestral and other spirits at home and at the workplace" in Asian culture, Pagolu had the idea that the West was never liked that at all. So the West is identified with rationalism and analytical philosophy, while the East is identified with spirituality.

The problem with such a dichotomy is that one wouldn't recognize it in pre-Christian Western culture. While Greco-Roman philosophy is indeed somewhat rationalistic and has some unique features, one can get similar philosophies in China (i.e. Confucious, Mencius etc) or India with her many philosophers. The Franks and Goths were animists, the Greeks were pantheists or polytheists, the Egyptians were also polytheists. Before Christ, are there really any features in the East that cannot be found in the West? Joss sticks? Incense are offered in almost every religion. Union with the divine? You can even find that in Eastern Orthodoxy in their doctrine of theosis. Offering food to idols? That is even addressed clearly in the Bible!

There is thus no real substantial difference between what the early church faced and what we see now in Asia. Yet we see the apostolic method remained the same. Paul preached the Gospel in Jerusalem among the Jews, he preached the Gospel to the Syrians in Damascus, he preached the same Gospel in Athens, he preached the same Gospel ... everywhere he went. Do we see Paul coming up with an "Asia Minor" theology, a "Roman" theology, a "Grecian" theology, or even a "Spanish" theology (assuming he really did go to Spain as he had desired to do so - Rom. 15:24)? Are we so ethnocentric and arrogant that we think we need a special "Gospel" for Asia, as the "old Gospel" is somehow insufficient for the task God has send it out for?

Although the secularists can deny it all they want, the fact is that Christianity or rather the Christian world-view is the mother of Western civilization. It is Christianity that turns the West from what it was to what it now is. Apart from Christ and His Gospel, the West would be no different from the East in terms of its worldviews and cultures.

The eternal Gospel is altogether sufficient for the task at hand

If we do not need a new theology for any and ever culture back then, we do not need any new theologies for our modern times either. The method of preaching of the Gospel is foolishness to many (1 Cor. 1:18-25), and it seems to Dr Pagolu too, as he insists on the need to "demonstrate the power of God in daily living". However, what exactly in Scripture is the power of God? It is to be found in the "foolishness of preaching" (της μωριας του κηρυγματος) (1 Cor. 1:21), which is for those who are called both power and wisdom of God.

It is the Scriptures that show us the way of engaging the culture, indeed any culture. It is not so much how much "the faith" was able or unable "to influence places". We are not to influence places period! The Gospel is to be proclaimed although it is regarded as the most foolish thing to do! It is God who will save His elect through the preached Word, not for us to attempt new methods to being in the goats. God's sheep hear His voice (Jn. 10:4); they will come to faith through the instrument of His preached Word without the blasphemous actions of tampering with both the message and the means God has ordained through the creation of such "disciplines" as "Asian theology".

Dr. Pagolu states that "even if Christians succeed in winning the argument, intellectual efforts alone are incapable of persuading people to embrace the faith". That is most evidently true, but what exactly is the Gospel method in the first place? What is conversion and what is evangelism? If we truly believe in the Scriptures which claim divine sovereignty over every new birth (Jn. 3:8), then we know that evangelism is never about converting souls. Only God can covert souls; we can't. Evangelism is always about proclaiming the Gospel and showing people their sins before a holy God, the wrath of God upon their sins, and their need to flee to Christ for their salvation. The revivalism (a Western American phenomenon by the way) and Arminianism present in Dr. Pagolu's sentence is striking and gives us a hint why the Church is not making much progress in Asia. How can progress be made when we have bad theology permeating the churches? Is God honored by falsehoods about Him?

One holy, catholic faith

I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth:

And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord:

Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary:

Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead and buried: He descended into hell:

The third day he rose again from the dead:

He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty:

From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead:

I believe in the Holy Ghost:

I believe in the holy catholic church: the communion of saints:

The forgiveness of sins:

The resurrection of the body:

And the life everlasting. Amen

(The Apostles' Creed)

The last nail in the coffin for "Asian theology" is the fact that Christ is one and His Church is one. We believe in one holy and katholic (καθολικος, -η, -ο) or universal church, and therefore one holy and universal faith. The Faith is one, not many. The last thing we want is to balkanize the church into competing theologies, one for every people group.

The same Gospel that is preached to the Jews is the same Gospel that is preached to the Greeks, the same Gospel that s preached to the Brits, to the Chinese, Japanese, Tibetans, Uighurs etc. There is one faith, one Lord, one baptism (Eph. 4:5), NOT many faiths, many baptisms and one Lord. This catholicity goes through time as well, and it is incredible how much is being embraced by the Asian churches that has neither basis in Scripture nor tradition.

An Alternate Proposal: Sound Doctrine is Critical to Christianity's Expansion

While anecdotal evidence is always fallacious, they can serve as good illustrations of the truth. The early church turned the world upside down with one Gospel, NOT many theologies. The Reformation destroyed the grip of the papacy over entire countries and was on its way to conquering France if not for the severe persecutions by the Romanists starting with the St. Bartholomew Day's massacre on to the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes among other factors. This same Gospel which is the power of God unto salvation will never fail in its task (Is. 55: 10-11, Rom. 10:17, Heb. 4:12) and it does not need our embellishing and "contextualization" at all. We do not need more "signs and wonders" and more "relational evangelism" (as if wordless evangelism ever existed). We need more Christians to understand the Gospel, to understand the whole counsel of God, and to live out these truths. Therefore, we need sound doctrine in the churches, not the mush that passes for instruction especially in Singapore churches. As God's people in the past perish for lack of knowing God's Word (Hosea 4:6), knowing God's Word will be critical for Christianity's very existence, nevermind growth.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this article is manifestly in error. There is no need for any "Asian theology" or "contextualization", both of which are manifestly unbiblical and ahistorical. Rather, the problem with Asia is that the churches are weak. Many are in the state described in Hosea 4:6 and have embraced many errors. False teachers and teachings permeate the churches. For how can we expect God's blessings on us when we tolerate [the equivalent of] Jezebels and Nicolaitans (Rev. 2:12-29) in our midst?

May God grant us a revival of His Word and of sound doctrines in the churches. Amen.

[THE END]

ADD: The response can now be found as one article here.

Contra "Asian Theology" - We confess ONE holy and katholikos faith (Part 1)

It has come to my attention that an article has been posted on the "Christian Post" on the topic of so-called "Asian Theology" here. In this post, I would like to analyze the article according to Scripture.

In this article, Dr. Augustine Pagolu's main thesis is that the only way that Christian mission is to make way in Asia is for more "contextualization" to be done in which Christianity is to jettison its "Greco-Roman" framework that is evidently prevalent today in westernized circles. Instead, just as Christianity contextualized its message to the Greco-Roman world then, Christianity is to be contextualized now for the Asian context, thus giving us the idea of "Asian Theology". Dr. Pagolu then suggests various ways such contextualization should be done in the so-called Asian context.

If it were not for the fact that friends read this article, I would not want to address this issue. So poorly is the case argued for any so-called Asian theology that I very much prefer to go back to my seminary readings of which I have quite a lot to read. After all, going to one of the best seminaries in the world means that the intellectual rigors of education would be very tough.

The Greco-Roman framework?

Dr. Pagolu's main argument rest on various assumptions which are unbiblical and unhistorical. The first major error can be seen in his historical revisionism of the Greco-Roman world. Pagolu claims that the Greco-Roman framework is "primarily rationalistic and analytical". This betrays an ignorance of the Greco-Roman culture. The Greco-Roman culture was very much "spiritual" with many gods who behave worse than humans sometimes. Paul at Athens was provoked within his spirit with the many idols in the city (Acts 17:16). Greco-Roman philosophy was more rationalistic and analytical, yet there is no such thing as a uniform theme of Greco-Roman philosophy as being rationalistic and analytical either. Gnosticism for instance was a very much spiritual yet philosophical religion. The idea of gnosis or secret knowledge was not an end in itself, but rather "passwords" which enable the soul to proceed towards the direction of absolute being^[1]. Such gnosis was not propositional knowledge, but rather esoteric empirical knowledge towards union in the divine.

As I have written in my review of the late Pinnock's et al book The Opennes of God, the whole idea of Greco-Roman framework is nonsensical. Refuting Sanders, I wrote^[2]:

One major problem with Sanders' thesis is that to postulate that the concept (not just the language) of immutability and impassibility as applied to God as being Greek concepts and not Christian concepts, it must be the case that in Greek thought there must be only one concept of God in these aspects. In other words, there cannot exist in Greek thought concurrently the concept of God being immutable and that of being mutable, or being passable and impassable. If that were to be the case, then either way Christianity can be said to imbibe on Greek thought either way, since both logically contradictory positions are covered by Greek thought. And this is what we will see to the case in Greek culture. The gods present in the popular Greek religion are mutable and passable, whereas the philosopher's Ideal or idea of God is immutable and impassable. Since this is the case, how then can Sanders prove his position? We could say that the Open Theists view is actually the Christianization of Greek popular religion, and that would be even more accurate, since the worldviews of both the modern age and during the times of the Greeks are very similar.

Similarly, the whole idea of the Greco-Roman framework is nonsense. No such common framework exists. There is the Platonic framework, the Stoic framework, the Greek popular religion framework etc, but no Greco-Roman framework. Much less is there a so-called unified theme of rationalism and of being analytical in the pluralities in the Greco-Roman frameworks. After all, Gnosticism is anything BUT analytical. Platonism and Neo-Platonism is analytical and rationalistic but it is also spiritual in nature.

Contextualization of the "Greco-Roman framework"?

The next error is the contention that the church contextualized her message towards the so-called Greco-Roman framework. We will address this by looking at (1) the Apostolic church, (2) the early church.

(i) Contextualization in the Apostolic church?

The prime example of such contextulization in the Apostolic church is normally taken to be Acts 17. Paul supposedly approved of the religiosity of the Athenians in his speech in the Aeropagus, and approvingly quoted from two of their religious poets in order to create "common ground" with them.

Such however is a misrepresentation of what actually happened in the Aeropagus.In Act 17:22, Paul mentioned that he looked at or perceived (θεορω; Lexical form θεορεω) the Athenians as being "κατα παντα ώς δεισιδαιμονεστερους". The adjective δεισιδαιμονεστερους seems to be a hapaxlegomena, yet according to the lexicon is based upon two words of which the second word is δαιμονιον or demon. This gives credence to the view that what Paul was actually describing was not being religious in a virtuous sense, but rather superstitious in a a weak negative sense — "Men of Athens, I see that [in] according to all things [you are being] superstitious" (literally translated).

In his book Presuppositional Confrontations^[3], apologist Vincent Cheung addresses the exegesis of this clause. Instead of being a positive commendation of how much they seek after God,

Rather, the point is that they did not know the true God at all. They may realize that there may be a divine existence beyond and other than what they were worshiping, and so constructed altars to these "unknown gods" just as a safety measure. One cannot conclude from this that they were already worshiping the God of Christianity. In fact, the point is that they were not worshiping the God of Christianity. Their altars to "unknown gods" merely constitute a confession of ignorance, and Paul's statement intends to exploit this confession without conceding anything positive about their present way of worship.^[4]

While it may not be a direct insult, Paul was negative about their religiosity and contrasts their admitted ignorance with the truths of Christ he positively knows and will proclaim to the Athenians. The only "common ground" seen here is to use their cultural artefacts to show forth their ignorance of God in order to launch forth the proclamation of the Gospel.

What about the two quotations of the pagan poets by Paul? Here however Paul gives no grounds to the Athenians. Rather, his quoting of the pagan poets was appropriated for the Gospel message, not an accommodating to the poets at all, in the same way as John used the word logos and turned the concept upside down from the Greek point of view.

The first quotation "‘In him we live and move and have our being" is stated to be from Epimenides of Crete^[5]. In its original context it is talking about Zeus. However, we can see in context that Paul uses the phrase to refer to the fact that we can come to know God; that "God is not far from each one of us". Paul is thus using the words of the pagan poet as an unconscious reflection of the truths of General Revelation which they consciously reject. Although the Athenians rejected God and are thoroughly pagan, yet remnants of General Revelation still remain (cf Rom. 1:18-23). The Greeks knew that God can be known, yet they twist that into a pantheistic idea of God permeating the creation. Paul eviscerate the quote (if it is one which I do think it is) of its original meaning to show the General Revelation that the Greeks have rejected in their sinfulness.

Such a reading can also be applied to the second explicit quotation in the later part of verse 28. The original intent was to say that the Greeks especially were Zeus' offspring. Instead, Paul took the same saying and showed that the Greeks had an idea of being created by God, although they twisted it into making an immanent finite deity Zeus their creator.

The whole sermon by Paul at the Aeropagus therefore was not in any way "contextualized". As much of the Gospel was preached by Paul before the Greeks could not stand it any longer. Even before arriving at the Gospel proper, the Greeks were offended by Paul's teaching of such ideas as [the highest] God [of spirit] being the Creator [of matter], the idea of bodily resurrection, of final judgment, of them not being special above other nations etc. The Gospel cuts and offends those who are perishing, while bringing salvation to those who repent and believe, and this two-fold response can be seen in verses 32-34.

Paul's sermon at the Aeropagus has nothing to do with contextualization with the Greco-Roman framework. His message was a thoroughly Jewish Messianic one which is indeed foolishness to Greeks

(ii) Contextualization in the early church?

As we move away from the apostolic era, error of course starts to creep in, thus the various controversies in the churches. The Gnostic error of Docetism came in early, of which it is likely that the epistles of John were written to combat it. The Gnostic heresies are the epitome of any capitulation to Greco-Roman religions and philosophies, and the church did not accede to it at any time, kicking out Marcion and the Valentinians from the church^[6].

Of course, it cannot be doubted that some form of syncretism happened especially in the person and teachings of Origen^[7]. However, even then there was controversy as some churches reject Origen's teachings. At the Reformation, the battle cry of ad fontes expunged as much as possible pagan teachings that has infiltrated the church between the apostolic age and then, and seeks as much as possible to obey Scripture alone.

So while there is some contextualization in the ancient churches, by and large the compromise was slow and not uncontested. Since the Reformation removed as much of pagan infiltration into the churches as possible, it is not true that there is a capitulation to any kind of so-called Greco-Roman framework within the Christian church in general.

[to be continued]

---

References:

[1] Class notes taken by me for ST501: Christian Mind, by Dr. Michael S. Horton

[2] Daniel H. Chew, Book Review: The Openness of God. (accessed Sept 16th 2010; Online http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/ddd_chc82/articles/openness_god.html)

[3] Vincent Cheung, Presuppositional Confrontations (Boston, MA: Reformation Ministries International, 2003). I do not necessaily endorse everything by Cheung but on this issue there is large agreement.

[4] Ibid., 35

[5] See Ibid., 56-57 for discussion regarding whether it really is a citation.

[6] Henry Chadwick, The Early Church (London, England, UK: Penguin, 1967, 1993), 33-41

[7] Ibid., 100-114, 180-181

Contra Tim Keller's paper advocating a compromise paper promoting theistic evolution

The New Calvinist leader Tim Keller of Redeemer Presbyterian (PCA) has recently authored a paper entitled Creation, Evolution and Christian Laypeople which can be found here. Over at Creation Ministries International, Lita Cosner has written a good rebuttal of Keller's paper and expose his astonishing ignorance of creationist arguments and literature, repeating arguments that have been refuted many times over. I mean, even if you were to take Keller's position, shouldn't academic integrity suggest that you at least address what has already been published instead of repeating old refuted arguments?

Carl Trueman on why polemics is necessary

Over at the Reformation21 blog, Carl Trueman has posted an excellent piece here on the necessity of polemics and defending the faith. It has become clear to me through this piece that the same attitude that decries polemics is actually the same postmodern attitude that permeates the culture we live in. As it states:

The criticism of polemics often comes from those who enjoy the space that polemics have carved out for them and the safety that polemics provides them. Such critics are like those who use their right to freedom of speech to decry the use of armed force by police and army, not realising that the very right they enjoy in this regard is positively connected to what they are attacking. Don't tell the world that the Trinity or justification by faith are important doctrines and then lament the existence of polemics; you can only have a coalition based on the gospel because every element of that gospel has been first hammered out in the furnace of controversy and then defended in the same way. ...

... Anti-polemic polemicists should reflect as much about how the events of the present -- not least their development of the next generation of leaders -- will impact the church for good or for ill -- as they do on the allegedly over-polemical attitude of some. Polemics in one generation are often as much, if not more, the fault of the lack of discernment or moral leadership in the previous generation as they are of any innately combative personalities in the present.

In the world, we can see this attitude at work in the world in various ways. Many people oppose war no matter what but without the threat of armed conflict, wicked men would come and conquer nations, pillage, rape and oppress their peoples. In the same way in the Environmentalist movement, industry is demonized but without industry of some sort, none of the environmentalists would be using and enjoying any of the modern goods and conveniences.

This postmodern zeitgeist has similarly permeated the churches in their deploring of polemics. The New Evangelicals (both the original and the new calvinist evangelicals) deplore the fact of polemics. Yet without such polemics, there is no evangel and definitely no Evangelicalism to begin with. The blanket attack on ODMers as seen for example in Tim Challies is one such anti-polemic polemic. Such people and movement should be seen for what they are: parasites. They fail to contend for the faith (Jude 4) when necessary, allowing compromise and apostasy to increase. When the issue has become too large and somebody decides to obey Jude 4, they attack the people who are doing what they should have done in the first place. In a nutshell, the fact that ODMers exist is the fault and failure of the (New) Evangelical churches who were negligent in their duties in the first place.

Let's move to an example in Singapore. The issue of Joseph Prince would be less of an issue if most churches were to openly reject Prince and his message as heresy, and teach their members the truths of the Gospel over and against Antinomianism. If majority of the churches do their job of contending for the faith, Prince would not be regarded as an evangelical at all and his message will not metastasized within the churches like a cancer. With the failure of the evangelical churches to do their job, those who decide to defend the Gospel against the likes of Prince now face demonization while people in the churches fall away from the faith. The pastors of the evangelical churches for this reason will be found negligent in their duties of protecting their flock and allowing the wolves to come in to devour them.

The same goes for any heresies, be it Neo-Orthodoxy, Liberalism, Word-faith, Dominionism, New Apostolicism or anything else. Pastors and elders who think that their job only extends to positively teaching and preaching truth, visiting and counseling members, officiating at weddings and funerals and a whole host of other things which are not found to be within their job scopes in the Bible, will be held accountable on the last day for having blood on their hands (cf Acts 20: 26-31). But you say, such would be very hard on pastors/elders and would tax their already busy lives and ministries. Well, isn't that why we are called to respect and honor our leaders (Heb. 13:17) and the elders as being deserving of double honor (1 Tim. 5:17), especially those who labor in preaching and teaching? Scripture does not tell us to honor them just because they have the status of elders but because they labor hard for our growth and edification. Being a pastor/elder is NOT a bed of roses and should not be one. Why is it that deacons are necessary to settle the daily administration of the church? Is it so that the pastors/elders can enjoy life while doing little physical work just like the CEOs of large companies? No, but rather it is because to truly be a shepherd is so time-consuming and tiring that faithful pastors/elders have no time and energy to be involved in the other physical and financial aspects of ministry.

May God raise up a generation of leaders who do not partake of the spirit of this world and reject the philosophy of New Evangelicalism in all its forms. Amen.

Phil Johnson on Socinianism at BioLogos

With the World Cup 2010 over, we can focus on better things than Paul the Octopus. Anyway, Phil Johnson over at the Pyromaniacs blog has an interesting article related to the attack of supposed "evangelical" BioLogos in its attack on Scripture entitled Socinianism in Lab Coats. The excerpts here are very revealing.

...

But my greatest concern [with BioLogos] — by far — is the blithe willingness with which they are prepared to trivialize, disregard, discard, or denounce the foundational doctrines of Christianity.

In every post I have made about BioLogos, I've been critical of two things in particular: 1) their relentless assault against the authority of Scripture, and 2) an attitude toward the doctrine of original sin that ranges from utter indifference to condescending dismissal.

The authority of Scripture and the doctrine of original sin are, of course, bedrock truths of all historic Christianity; they are not merely Reformed or evangelical distinctives ...

...

Incidentally, BioLogos's notion of "leading evangelical theologians" is revealing. Their theological headliners are men like Peter Enns, Greg Boyd, and N. T. Wright, not one of whom is truly evangelical in the historic sense of that term. Enns was dismissed from Westminster Seminary in August 2008 for his low view of Scripture. He and most of his supporters protested at the time that his views had been misrepresented and that he had been treated unfairly. But his contributions to BioLogos furnish ample proof that he did not, in fact, agree with Westminster's doctrinal standards. Boyd, of course, is well known as a cheerleader for Open Theism, which denies both the true omniscience and the immutability (not to mention the sovereignty) of God.

Having blended a low view of Scripture with an implicit denial of original sin, with a humanized view of God, and with a skeptical stance toward the miraculous elements of Scripture, BioLogos is actually peddling a brand of religion that has much more in common with Socinianism than with biblical and historic Christianity.

...

Let's face it: statements of faith aren't really a BioLogos "thing." The organization has no formal doctrinal standard and (as far as I can tell) no real theological boundaries at all. Everything is negotiable. Scripture is rarely if ever defended. Evangelical truth is not proclaimed at BioLogos. What does get aggressive promotion and a vigorous defense is anything that undermines a high view of Scripture. And why not? Open Theism, Sadduceeism, and neoorthodox notions about inspiration and inerrancy are rooted in the same kind of skepticism that underlies BioLogos's treatment of the early chapters of Genesis.

Here is the closest thing to an official statement of faith you'll find on the BioLogos website: "We believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God." Really? Perhaps if we posit an infinitely flexible definition of the word inspired, a claim like that might have a some thin thread of credibility. But search and see for yourself: BioLogos's website is full of articles attacking the accuracy, believability, authority, and verbal inspiration of Scripture. I can't find a single article where any of the contested claims of Scripture are defended against the attacks of secular materialists.

...

Scientism it is indeed, when people worship "Science" as the truth and nothing but the truth, not even knowing the methodology and limits of science, a topic which I hope to talk about sometime in the future.

Ergun Caner and the exposure of the Evangelical celebrity zeitgeist

I am sure many of my American readers would have known about the Ergun Caner saga, in which Liberty University president Ergun Caner has been outed for having embellished his testimony and biography at the very least, as serious contradictions have emerged from conflicting dates in his biography, exposed initially by a Muslim by the name of Mohammad Khan, whose Youtube account has since been deleted through pressure tactics from certain *ah-hem* 'Christian leaders'. The "evil bloggers" are here to stay as they attack... call Caner to come clean regarding the many contradictions he has made on various subjects.

The New Evangelical flagship magazine Christianity Today has proven itself again in its spin on the situation in an article by John W. Kennedy entitled Bloggers target Seminary President, where the typical New Evangelical spin machine worked overtime to cast the entire issue as one of the "nasty unaccountable bloggers" who have a personal grudge against poor Ergun Caner, persecuted by those who are supposed to be fellow Christians, a fact that Dr. James R. White (certainly no *mere blogger*) pointed out. Gene Clyatt aka "Squirrel" likewise pointed that out in his blog post addressing the biased CT article.

Since then, this story has been picked up the Huffington Post. With that the issue has now been gotten out of supposed Christian circles, and little good would come out of this mess.

Prof. R. Scott Clark over at the Heidelblog has posted an excellent piece addressing the Evangelical sub-culture of revivalism behind the entire Caner fiasco. The distrust in God's sovereignty in salvation and evangelism, the maturation of the [Charles G.] Finneyist Pelagian paradigm of salvation being brought about by the mere proper usage of natural means, and the emphases on the importance of strong antithetical conversion experiences and testimonies (a sharp contrast between the "before" and "after" of Christian conversion experience) — ideas that lie at the foundation of revivalism — has brought about the fertile soil necessary for the celebrity cult and the embellishment of Christian testimonies to come about. Caner is merely the person caught in the act this time around; the victim and perpetrator of the entire revivalist tradition that is sadly strongly based in the New Evangelical movement and has influenced others outside it as well.

On the other side of the Evangelical sub-culture, the celebrity cult and the lack of doctrinal teaching and discernment has created the vicious culture of "pastor/leader-worship" where defenders of Ergun Caner have decided to attack all have even the audacity (according to them) to raise questions about their hero. The entire cultic mentality prevalent in various segments of so-called Evangelicalism shocked Dr. White who posted quite a few of these responses that are basically variations of the theme "my hero Ergun Caner right or wrong". One person, Craig Daliessio, has even decided to personally attack and insult Dr. White (with profanity included), in a email message worthy of the AODmers — those self-styled watchblog of watchblogs.

The point in bringing up that particular sub-culture is that this is the prevalent "culture" in many unorthodox churches. Try criticizing the Antinomian Joseph Prince and his supporters react EXACTLY the same way, a fact I have personally experienced. Try criticizing the Word-faith movement, the NAR or whatever groups that are probably not on the radar screens of ill-informed Reformed folks and you would have stirred up a hornet's nest in their followers. Unfortunately, the effeminate Evan-jellyfishes have embraced more and more of this sub-culture, exacerbated by them having embraced the postmodern zeitgeist also. Is it any wonder that we find a significant number of such professing Christians around?

May God have mercy on us as the New Evangelical movement, and even it seems her sister the New Evangelical Calvinism, accelerates at full throttle towards destruction.

Add: TE (Teaching Elder) Brain Carpenter over at Scott Clark's post posted an excellent sarcastic comment on this issue as follows:

Not to go off on a tangent, but….

He was outed by bloggers. This is more proof that blogging is evil and “blog” is a four letter word! It is imperative that we throttle the flow of information and restore the information monopoly that those in power have always enjoyed. How else can we get anything strategically planned?

Anything less than a total return of information dissemination to those in power is to violate the Ninth Commandment, to engage in “blogsip”, and be unloving and just plain not nice. Especially if they’re Calvinists

Absolutely hilarious!

More articles on "Warrengate"

Over at the Pyromaniacs blog, Phil R. Johnson has finally posted his excellent and balanced take on the issue that has came to be known as "Warrengate" here.

Of course I think it's a bad turn of events, and I didn't find Dr. Piper's rationale for handing his platform over to Warren satisfying at all. I was surprised when I heard about it, but on second thought, I have to admit that it is consistent with Dr. Piper's modus operandi. Last year some people were appalled, others delighted, when Doug Wilson spoke at the conference. The year before that, the blogosphere was all abuzz with strong passions for months because Mark Driscoll would be the featured speaker. In 2007, it was John MacArthur, who (let's face it) is hardly a John Piper clone.

So Piper likes to feature speakers from outside the boundaries of his own circle of close fellowship, and that's a good thing, within limits. But Piper's choice of Warren as a keynote speaker proves his idea of where those limits lie is vastly—perhaps fundamentally—different from mine.

Furthermore, as much as I differ from Piper on the question of who deserves his imprimatur, there's at least an equal measure of difference between what I think is the proper way to respond to Piper and the way some of his most vocal critics have responded. I'm appalled and ashamed at how some on my side of this debate have expressed their disagreement with Dr. Piper.

It seems to me the whole controversy reflects in microcosm why the evangelical and fundamentalist movements of the 20th century have both failed so egregiously.

[more]

Dr. James R. White in his Dividing Line, for the first 15 minutes, similarly analyzed the Piper-Warren episode. Chris Roseborough in his Fighting for the Faith radio podcast on April 2nd also addressed the situation here. Lastly, Lane Chaplin lay out all his cards regarding the issue on his blog here, and give us practical steps we should take in how we can apply the doctrine of separation to Pastor Piper in not recommending him. As Lane says:

While I do believe Piper has many great things to say and I greatly respect him as someone who has a record of standing up for Biblical truth, nowhere do I believe we need John Piper. In other words, if I don’t send someone to John Piper that does not equate to I don’t send them to God. R.C. Sproul has said something to the effect that when you build a bridge, you can count on traffic coming from both sides. There are plenty of other preachers and teachers out there who do not see the need to receive traffic from the seeker-sensitive/Purpose Driven movement, and, if you agree that John Piper does not have the monopoly on Biblical truth, I can’t understand why you wouldn’t direct brothers and sisters to someone who refuses to receive that traffic and put it on your brother’s plate.

Finally,

So there are some of my main concerns regarding this issue. I can’t help but be reminded of a superstar basketball player who does something that would cause any normal person to be discredited from the eyes of the public, but, because he has a track record of making some good plays, producing some good stats, and making a few notable appearances, he’s given the go ahead because public opinion as a whole accepts him. I’m afraid that many are dealing with this Piper situation in the same way. I am the first to admit that Piper has written some wonderful stuff, I enjoy many of his sermons, and I think he’s made some key appearances on the social realm for things like anti-abortion and the like, but I also come from the camp that believes that the player shouldn’t be dictating the coach. In other words, if the player (even if he’s a superstar) messes up big time (and I do mean big time), you discipline him for the time being with hopes that he’ll come back from his mistake better than before instead of carrying on like nothing has happened because there's a chance your fan base will decrease and, hey, you've had some good times watching the guy. Folks, Christianity is not about superstars. It’s about Jesus Christ who is interceding for the sin of everyone who believes on Him at this very moment. If you need a certain pastor and his notoriety to substantiate your relationship with God, I’m afraid you have two options: 1) Go to Rome where you’ll fit right in. or 2) Get right with the Lord, confess your sins, and trust on Him for your spiritual edification. He’ll send you the teachers you need, but it may not always be the teachers you want.

Christianity indeed is not about superstars. It is disconcerting to read some of the responses from the "young, naive and impressionable" (to use Lane's words) and see how they defend Pastor Piper's actions without so much as examine them according to Scripture. It is as if Piper is somehow infallible, and even if he were to invite the Pope or the Antichrist to his conference, he is still correct.

Lastly, with regards to Phil's contention of those who are way over the top in their reactions, there may indeed be a few here and there. What those of us who disagree with Piper on this issue strongly should do is to think first and pray before uttering words we may regret later. It is natural to be angry and hurt over compromise within the camp, but such should not translate into personal insults or even curses on Piper. Do we not believe that God Himself cares about what is going on? Isn't Piper's sin first and foremost a slap on God's face not ours? Shouldn't we therefore come before the throne of grace and plead before God what is also on His, before we lash out irrationally in anger and thus harm our cause? Do we need to give the New Evangelicals more excuses than they already have in rejecting the clear teachings of Scripture by making our conducts an unnecessary offence?

So once again, let us obey Scripture in the need for separation, yet do so with sadness for Piper's sin and a desire that he repents and changes his mind on this issue. Piper is our brother who is in sin, let us not treat him as our enemy. Leave our hatred of sin at where it belongs: the Devil and the Flesh.

The nightmare that the New Evangelical Calvinism seems to be moving into

[continued from here and here]

At the CREDO500 conference last year 2009, I have submitted a modified paper of mine (one of two for the conference) on the New Evangelical Calvinism, which can be accessed here. In that paper, I have pointed out a couple of areas of concern in the New [Evangelical] Calvinism. Being one socially but not theologically, I sympathize with them and sincerely wish the best for them, not wishing for the movement to be derailed into compromise and apostasy.

Sadly, the recent incident regarding Piper and Warren shattered my hopes. My paper was written as a warning so that the New Calvinists would not repeat the errors of the last 50-60 years. Instead, it seems as if my paper has become a prophecy of the New [Evangelical] Calvinism. Not only do they seem intent on repeating the mistakes of the past, the doctrinal compromise has happened within the same generation as the "founding generation", in fact by the founding generation themselves. What took 10-20 years in the New Evangelicalism took less than 10 years or even 3 years (if one counts Hansen's book as the beginning) in the New [Evangelical] Calvinism. The trainwreck of compromise in the visible Church looms large. Federal Vision heretic Doug Wilson for DG2009, Semi-Pelagian and fork-tongued heretic Rick Warren for DG2010. What's next, Pastor John? Why not Ratzlinger (Pope Benedict XVI) for DG2011? After all, even Rome is not as heretical in her denial of the Gospel as supposed "evangelical" Rick Warren. Rome at least denounces (classical) Semi-Pelagianism as heresy! Wouldn't it be an interesting topic to know how thinking theologically informs Ratzlinger in his daily decisions as the Pope of a religion followed by millions around the world?

We can see one other aspect of this New Evangelical compromise which I have warned against in Piper's attempted defense of his invitation to Warren for DG2010. Near the end of the video clip of his, Piper states:

The way I have chosen to live my life for the sake of reformed theology and the supremacy of God, and the inerrancy of the Bible, and the importance of solid Reformation Gospel truths, the five Solas and so on, is to give ALL my energy to putting them in a positive, aggressively, uh, spreadable form, NOT to spend my time shooting at the people who don’t like them. ...

— John Piper (11:15 -11:47). Bold added.

In my paper I have argued that the New Calvinists are liable to repeat the same mistake as the New Evangelicals with their infatuation with the idea of positivity. In this same video, Piper it seems succumbs to this same error. While nobody is asking Piper to go around hunting for heresy and denouncing as many heretics as he can find (In fact, I doubt many people even do that), we are expecting Piper to follow Scripture which is both positive and negative in its proclamation.

Now, it is a well-documented fact that Piper does denounce the Word-faith prosperity "gospel", and for that we are appreciative. This makes his attitude in this video even more puzzling. We are not asking him to "shoot" people but rather to continue as he has already done in contending for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3).

Sadly, it seems as if Piper in representing the New Calvinists is moving along the well-trod path of New Evangelicalism. The move towards an infatuation with positivity is symptomatic of the New Evangelical compromise even up till today, and this attitude is what facilitate the silencing of the defence machinery God has instituted in the Church — that the Shepherds and Leaders of the church ought to function as watchmen and guard the flock against heresy and heretics (cf Acts 20:28-31). When such silencing is done, error creeps into the church unchallenged and unchecked, and it will overwhelm the Church like a tidal force of destruction, consuming all in its wake. The elect will be confused, the witness of the Church rendered uncertain, and many professing believers will turn away from the faith of which God has committed them to our care.

The New Calvinist experiment, if this sets a precedent, will become a nightmare for the Church or our Lord Jesus Christ. May our Lord have mercy and show the New Calvinists and Pastor John the errors of their ways.

Piper, Warren and the Doctrine of Separation

I'm not going to draw the circle there. And supposed you disagree with me on that. Now, you're faced with the question: "OK, I'm with John Piper theologically, I'm not with Rick Warren on a bunch of things, John Piper has just chosen to hang out with Rick Warren. What do I do with John Piper?" That's called secondary separation issues. There you are.

I hope, I hope, we can disagree about who we hang out with, ok? Because a lot of traditional fundamentalists have said: "No, if you hang out with somebody that I believe I should separate from, then I'm gonna separate from you." And I want to say: Look. Let's ... Can we disagree about whether he would come to your conference, and you'd still willing to ... eat with me? Talk with me? So I would encourage you to think through that issue of secondary separation.

( - John Piper, 10:20- 11:14 on a clip on the Desiring God blog here)

Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works. (2 Jn. 1:9-11. Bold added)

Amidst the shock that accompanied Piper's invitation to heretic Rick Warren for the Desiring God conference 2010, Piper's apologetic for such an invitation involved an implicit attack on the doctrine of separation. In light of this, there is a necessity to clarify the doctrine of separation and how it is supposed to work out in this case.

I have previously written an article on the doctrine of separation, which is indeed commanded biblically as per 2 Jn. 9-11. Those who refuse to separate from heretics are reckoned as being partakers of their evil deeds. As I have said on the issue of secondary separation:

Now, since these errant believers are not immoral, nor do they hold on to serious doctrinal error, such separation seemed strange and even sinful. After all, we as the body of Christ ought to be united, since Jesus did prayed for unity among believers, and that this unity is a testimony to the world that they may believe that Jesus is of God (Jn. 17:21). However, unity is not an absolute good, since unity with the world is an anathema before God. We are told in Rom. 12:18 to live peacefully with all, so far as it depends on us; or in other words, as much as we are able to. Unity is good, but unity is not something that we should work for, but something which we are to work towards. Put simply, unity is found in Christ, and we must be united to Christ, THEN united with each other, not the other way around.

The question is to be asked as to the rationale behind second-degree separation from compromisers of the faith. The rationale behind second-degree separation is the same behind that of first degree separation — holiness. Second degree separation is done because of holiness. As much as we should want unity within the body of Christ, unity is not to be purchased by compromising our obedience to God in holiness. When we collaborate with unbelievers in ministry, our witness for God is compromised, and that's why it is wrong to do so. Similarly, when we collaborate with compromisers in ministry instead of reproving them, we are sharing in their sins. Our witness for God is sullied, as we are then associated with the heretics they work with. Furthermore, by not rebuking them for their sins, we actually hate them rather than love these compromisers (Prov. 27:5-6).

Now, there are a few concerns with regards to this doctrine. The first is the example of the present-day group of Fundamentalists, who have embraced the doctrine of separation with an unnatural zeal, to the extant of distortion into separatism What, then is the difference between separation and separatism? Separatism is the promotion of the doctrine of separation to the extant that we are to cut ourselves off and isolate ourselves off from any taint of evil and/or compromise. In other words, for the separatist, the principle stated in Jn. 17: 11-16 should read "Be not of this world nor in this world " instead of "Be not of this world though in the world". Yes, to a certain extent, we should 'isolate' ourselves from the world (Jude 1:20-23), but such isolation is only with regards to holiness, not that we are to 'let the world go to hell'. What is the difference, then? We are to be holy in the sense that we do not compromise our own walk with God nor our witness before God, but we should be actively reaching out to others for God (Mt. 28:18-20; Jude 1:22-23), and the latter makes the difference between the two. Another thing distinctive of separatism is the fact that the doctrine of unity is neglected. Unity is important, and we are told to be united as much as we can (Jn. 17:21 ; Rom. 12:18). The working principle for all Christians is that we should be as united as much as it is possible to be so; not a unity at all costs, but we should desire unity if possible without compromise. Somehow, separatism neglects this and in fact may even promote schism, instead of asking us to preserve the unity of the church where possible.

The second legitimate concern is with regards to its implementation. If second-degree separation is practiced, then wouldn't this cascade into third-degree, fourth-degree, or higher degree separation, and if such, there would be no end and then wouldn't we have to separate ourselves from almost all Christians? This question, however, betrays a misunderstanding of the doctrine of separation in its implementation, which would be addressed here.

Remember earlier that the doctrine of second-degree separation is due to a need for holiness and the need for an unsullied witness before God and the world. Therefore, conversely, if something does not cause one to sully his/her witness for Christ, then there is no need to separate from the other person. How this works out is that we may need not separate from compromising believers in every situation, only in a situation whereby the compromise is made. For example, if a person compromise in the area of working with heretics in i.e. preaching ministry, then we should separate from the person in all forms of public ministry. However, this does not preclude that we could not meet up privately and we should definitely urge the person to repent of his/her behavior. If a person compromise in the area of collaborating with an organization which allows heretics in, then we should separate from the event itself, as joining it would link our witness with it and the compromise that is associated with it. However, that does not mean that we separate from them in other forms of ministry.

In all these things, it must be noted that our primary motive must be the glory of God in our witness for Him. This is what second degree separation is about, not a separation for separation's sake but for the glory and honor of our Lord Jesus Christ. Note also that all these is related to compromising leaders, since they are the ones who are publicly related to the act of compromise. For ordinary followers, since they are not publicly related to the act of compromise, we should not separate from them as there is no need to. If they are in error, following the stand of their errant leaders, we should all the more desire that they also turn away and reject such compromise as a blemish on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and thus teach and correct their errant ways, as obedience to Christ our Lord (Mt. 28:20; 2 Tim. 2:24-26), as an act of love for our brethren (Prov. 27:5-6), and all for the glory of God as His bride is edified and build up (Eph. 4:12-16).

Therefore, the question of third of higher degree separation is a red herring which misses the entire focus of the doctrine of separation We should not focus on how many degrees of separation is correct, but whether by being part of the event or by working together with a compromiser in this particular ministry, that our witness for Christ would be sullied. If so, we should separate; otherwise, we should not. When we embrace such a principle, the name of Christ would be exalted through our actions, and our testimony would not be dragged through the mud by deluded ministers who have an unbiblical view of unity and work for it at all costs.

Being a promoter of the doctrine of separation as biblically defined, we are strive to be biblical are caught between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, we would need to insist on this biblical doctrine against the attacks of the New Evangelicals and, as it seems to be the case now, John Piper. On the other hand, the error of separatISM worked out by capital 'F' Fundamentalists is an horror to be avoided at all costs.

First, with regards to the extreme of Fundamentalism, as I have mentioned on this doctrine, the issue of "degrees of separation" is the wrong question to ask. While rightly speaking secondary separation is correct, yet its implementation is to be done in a certain way. The error of separatism lies in its confusion of the doctrine of separation as a means in itself, thus they need refer to the idea of "degrees of separation". Separation is to be done unto holiness, not unto separation.

Therefore, the biblical view of Piper's actions in light of 2 Jn. 9-11 is to view Piper's actions as making him partakers of Warren's evil deeds. In this light, Piper is to be rebuked for this decision of his. Separation from Piper in this light would be along the lines of refusing to participate in the DG2010 conference, and a reticence in promoting Piper as a person of godliness and especially discernment.

Yet as contra Fundamentalism, we do not and should not treat Piper as our enemy. Piper after all is our brother in Christ. As 2 Thess. 3:15 states, we are to treat those who do not follow God's commands on such non-salvific issues as erring brothers who we are to take note of him and make him ashamed, but not treat him as our enemy. We are to grieve for his error and petition the throne of God with tears that our Lord will have mercy and grant to Piper repentance for his error. In this light, we are to continue to be willing to eat and talk with Piper. On this, Piper would have his wish.

Secondly, as contrary New Evangelicalism, "secondary separation" IS biblically mandated. There is simply no way to parse Scripture and spin it to avoid the conclusion of the plain teaching of 2 John 9-11. While we do not treat Piper as an enemy, we are to disengage with him on issues of ministry. Knowing as it is that the DG2010 conference is a Christian conference, NOT an academic forum, such an invitation is tantamount to giving Warren space at the pulpit to preach. The other DG2010 speakers should withdraw from speaking at the conference in this light. I would therefore also second Lane Chaplin's stance that "I cannot, in good conscience, endorse John Piper again". While Piper's books can still be recommended from an academic/ knowledge perspective, the person of John Piper cannot be endorsed after this episode unless he repents.

So, let us come before God in tears and ask him to grant Piper repentance for this terrible decision that he has made. Do not treat him as an enemy but as a brother in sin. Amen.

See also: Charles Spurgeon on fratenizing with heretics

Tim Keller compromising the Gospel

It seems that Tim Keller, a poster child of the Calvinist Resurgence, has came back from a conference held at Willow Creek, and blogged about how he appreciates "The 'Kingly' Willow Creek Conference". Using John Frame's "tri-perspectivalism", Keller states that Willow Creek has a "kingly" emphasis, Reformed churches have a "prophetic" emphasis, while Emerging churches have a "priestly" emphasis.

In response, Rick Phillips has responded to Keller's post in an irenic tone on the Reformation21 site here. Phillips asked the pertinent question:

Did one of the founders of the Gospel Coalition (of which I, like many of us at Ref 21, am a member) really just suggest that gospel clarity is non-essential to a church? (Bold added)

I would like to offer some additional thoughts on the matter; readers can read Phillips excellent response to Keller at the Reformation21 blog post.

In response to Keller's ecumenical post, the question we should ask ourselves is: What defines a true church? According to the Reformed tradition [It can be shown in Calvin's Institutes also but I do not feel like searching for the reference], a biblical church is defined by three essential marks: The pure preaching of the Word, the proper administration of the sacraments, and the exercise of church discipline. Before being mushy about the greatness of different "churches" and their different emphasis, do these churches first qualify as true churches?

With regards to sound doctrine, let us be as maganimous as possible. I can grant for the sake of argument that pure preaching refers to getting the Gospel correct, and that only. After all, since the whole idea is about being Gospel-centered, shouldn't this be the main emphasis? So how would the churches mentioned grade based merely on this one criteria?

The Emerging churches, and most definitely the Emergent churches will automatically fail the test. There are many examples of Emergents denying the Gospel outright, with the most recent case being that of Rob Bell. Instead of the biblical Gospel which proclaims the wrath of God against sinners, and the necessity of repentance from sin and belief in Jesus Christ as the only way of salvation, the Gospel is painted as social justice and ushering in "a new creation", or whatever liberal nonsense that can be recycled by the latest guru in the Emerging Movement.

Willow Creek church unfortunately fails the grade as well. A Gospel message without the depravity and wickedness of Man, the wrath of God against sinners, the necessity for sinners to repent and turn from their life of sin, the command to be holy as God is holy etc etc is NOT a biblical Gospel. Instead of preaching the biblical Gospel, Willow Creek through their seeker-sensitivity are only interested in reaching "unchurched Harry and Mary" through meeting their felt-needs. If a gospel, it is the "Gospel of Pelagius"; even Rome does not officially sink to that level.

So therefore, based upon the New [Evangelical] Calvinist idea of Gospel-centeredness, the churches mentioned by Keller (besides the Reformed churches), have all failed the test of being a true church. Such being the case, what kind of "kingly" and "priestly" ministry can false churches have?

Dr. Phillips has called Keller to task for implying that Gospel clarity is non-essential to a church. This is in fact the best reading of Keller's endorsement not only of Willow Creek (which is bad enough), but Emerging churches. I will go further to say that Keller's endorsement of such "churches" as being legitimate churches implies that the Gospel itself is non essential to a church. Is this what the "Calvinist Resurgence" is all about; that the Gospel is not essential to a church!?

[HT: BiblicalThought]

Rick Frueh and the issue of Phil R. Johnson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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