Confessions of a former Strict Confessionalist (Consolidated, with footnotes and conclusion)

I have completed my personal reflections on strict confessionalism and my time in it. The whole article with footnotes and conclusion can be read here. Here is an excerpt from the conclusion:

The promise of Reformed Confessionalism is to plot a path between Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism, to not pick fights on minor issues while keeping fidelity to the Christian faith. Evangelicalism has failed in its fiduciary duty to the faith once for all delivered to the saints. Fundamentalism has failed in its duty to love others, especially those of the household of the faith. Sadly, strict Reformed Confessionalism is no different from Fundamentalism, just more scholarly, more organized and institutionalized, and thus more powerful as they weaponize theology against their opponents.

[continued]

So, what's next? What's next is for me to continue in my Christian faith, free from the lies I had believed in. I need to focus on my walk with God, and to serve wherever I can. God will judge the wicked-doers; it is my call only to warn any who would listen to avoid the strict Reformed confessionalists, for the good of their souls.

Confessions of a former strict Confessionalist (Part 3)

The failure of strict confessionalism: Racism and the failure to love

Racism and the Reformed Tradition

With the main expression of the Reformed tradition currently in North America, the Reformed tradition unfortunately has to struggle with American history, specifically the history of slavery and racism. Americans in the late 19th century fought a civil war to end slavery, but ending racism proved more elusive.

During the American civil war, it is undeniable that Southern Presbyterian theologians like Robert Lewis Dabney promote racism under the Reformed banner. While I am not one of those who will reject everything someone says merely because of gross sin and wickedness, Dabney’s racism still needs to be called out and rejected. Unfortunately, Dabney continues to be promoted without qualification, and his ideas live on in the movement called “Kinism,” mediated by people such as R. J. Rushdoony, the father of the right-wing fringe movement Christian Reconstructionism, with which kinists have a natural affinity to. While not disagreeing with everything that the movement advocates for, the fact of the matter is that the Reformed tradition has a problem with racism from the right.

“Kinism” can be stated as the view that the “races” of the world are ordained by God to be kept separate, and thus the mixing of peoples and most definitely inter-racial marriages (miscegenation) are sinful. Spoken or not, it comes with the view that the “white race” is superior and should not be led by the “lesser races,” a view that permeates parts of Reformed Christianity in the US, even those not overtly kinist, despite it being verbally denied. In my experience, while one can certainly be members of and serve in Reformed churches, if one is not white ‘culturally,’ it is almost impossible to be treated equally and to be taken seriously. The “white man’s burden” continues to be a problem in many American Reformed circles, and the idea that non-whites are to be patronized instead of treated with respect as equals is something I have personally experienced.

American racism from the left

If one thinks right-wing racism is bad, the left-wing version is even worse. After all, society has made right-wing racism unacceptable in much of modern society. Embraced by liberals who believe they are really open-minded, loving and tolerant, and most definitely against racism, left-wing racism became popular as Critical Race Theory erupted into the scene after the election of Donald Trump as the 45th President of the United States in 2016. It seems that the key to solving the real problems of racism, the consequences of racism, and the Democrat mismanagement of America’s major cities, was to blame “white supremacy,” attack “whiteness,” demand reparations and affirmative action, and call for all forms of special treatment of “People of Color” (POC), which they interpret through Marxist lens to apply only to non-whites who are “oppressed” (so ‘Asians’ do not qualify). All of a sudden, you have those more liberal-minded Christians in the Reformed camp embracing aspects of Critical Race Theory and calling for the need for “racial justice.”

As with most theories, Critical Race Theory can be critically analyzed and engaged with, not rejected outright. However, the essence of Critical Race Theory is racist and antithetical to biblical Christianity. Critical Race Theory sees everything in racial categories, and attacks the very notion of “color-blindness,” the idea that one should not discriminate on the basis of one’s skin color and thus ethnicity. Many woke advocates see “color-blindness” as a rejection of their innate racial differences, which is a false interpretation of “color-blindness” – a rejection of innate racial differences only in the sense that they should not be used for discriminatory purposes. Color-blindness is a rejection of what racism is – discrimination based on one’s skin color and ethnicity, and thus a focus on our common humanity, all humans being equal in the eyes of God.

In my experience interacting with Americans as wokeness enveloped their nation, I was shocked at how people can be previously outwardly friendly yet react so vehemently when their embrace of left-wing racism was called out. Right-wing racism sees non-whites as “inferior races” to be patronized, as “converted heathen” who should be grateful for the “white man” bringing the Gospel of salvation to them. But if you think left-wing racists treat non-whites with respect, you would be sorely mistaken. In fact, it almost seems that left-wing racism allows one to suddenly vent one’s repressed racism in a socially acceptable way.

For the next section, it will be mostly anecdotal evidence, based on my “lived experience” (to use one of those neologisms), especially since I did not take snapshots of the incidents.

My personal encounters with left-wing racism were certainly eye-opening for me. One such encounter was back in 2018, as the staff at the White Horse Inn veered towards promoting “racial justice” issues. On one tweet on the Modern Reformation Twitter account back then, I had responded to it with a ping to Michael Horton pleading for him to stop promoting such trash. The response from whoever was behind the Modern Reformation Twitter account then was nasty, to say the least. Of course, I unfollowed the account after some attempts at communication.

On another incident on Facebook, I had attempted trying to get a former acquaintance from my seminary to veer away from such nonsense, to no avail. What made it sadder was that of another acquittance who mocked my comments, making it seem I am just calling wolf “to the left.”

That same acquaintance subsequently claimed I am too tightly wound, evidently thinking racism is no big deal and that the correct response was to do “triage” and ignore left-wing racism. He subsequently managed to block me before I could unfriend him, but this episode shows that for many white Americans, even those that call themselves Reformed (or for those who went full steam into the woke movement, “formerly called themselves Reformed”), racism is evidently not a big deal.

The failure to excise racism and American narcissism

What does this mean for Reformed Confessionalism? On the one hand, nothing. The failure of individual Reformed Christians, even Reformed Confessionalists, is the fault of the persons and not any one doctrine or movement. On the other hand, it matters a lot, because Reformed Confessionalism in its strict form claim to move Reformed Christians to being biblical in both faith and life, and to unity in the bond of Christ. For a movement that promised right living, is toleration of various forms of racism acceptable? What is the use of being “Truly Reformed” if one remains a racist? Jesus says that a good tree bears good fruit, and you will know them by their fruits (cf. Matt. 7:17-20).

In R. Scott Clark’s book Recovering the Reformed Confessions, he mentioned Charles Hodge, B.B. Warfield, Herman Bavinck, and J. Gresham Machen, who he claims would be excluded by a boundary marker that makes 6/24 creation necessary for orthodoxy. In his own words, “any boundary marker, however, that includes the Adventist and excludes Hodge, Warfield, Bavinck, and Machen should not commend itself to confessional Reformed folk as a way to mark out Reformed identity.” Well, many Reformed pastors and theologians in the past were racists, like RL Dabney, so I guess any boundary marker that includes the liberals and excludes Reformed theologians like Dabney “should not commend itself to confessional Reformed folk as a way to mark out Reformed identity”? Presumably, Reformed Confessionalism according to Dr. Clark can exists side by side with racism, although one can still assert that racism is a sin. But well, so is gluttony, which many Americans are guilty of, so I guess: What’s the big deal anyway? As one liberal I used to interact with (in a different context) used to say with regards to the presence of neo-Nazis, “Well, there are neo-Nazis everywhere, so what?”

The failure to excise racism shows the American captivity of the American Reformed churches, from which strict Reformed Confessionalism has emerged. This American narcissism is seen most clearly in my last experience on this topic I am sharing here. I had a friend who is doing church planting in the Chicago area. For whatever reason, he leans into the social justice movement while claiming that he rejects Critical Race Theory. When he had posted a video promoting the TGC AND campaign trying to seek a “middle way” embracing both Christianity and “social justice” concerns, I responded to it in a blog post. I pleaded with him not to promoted this kind of racist trash, but was rebuffed. One of the points I had conveyed was how promoting such racial stuff would cause problems in other countries including my home country of Singapore. In his response, he essentially told me that what such woke stuff does in other countries is not his concern. In other words, screw the world, as long as ‘Murica has “justice.” The fact that Christina Edmonson, wife of OPC pastor Mika Edmonson, was promoting racist trash without repercussion is indeed a serious point of concern, all while they were at one time serving in the Chicago area, a point I also made in response to him, without avail.

Strict Reformed Confessionalism, or basically Reformed Confessionalism in the hands of white American theologians, has proven itself unable to excise racism from her midst. Strict Reformed Confessionalism is also culturally bound to America, despite its claim to be just Reformed, and partakes of all the malaise infecting American society, including her narcissistic view of the world. In other words, strict Reformed Confessionalism is American, and not truly Reformed.

Confessions of a former strict Confessionalist (Part 2)

Into strict confessionalism

Reformed theology is rigorous, and precisely the type of spiritual food that appeals to one starved of biblical truth. It was not fast before I encountered what I now recognized as strict confessionalism, particularly as mediated by one of its foremost proponent R. Scott Clark.

In his book Recovering the Reformed Confessions, Clark argued for his idea of confessionalism, utilizing his expertise in historical theology to buttress his claims. According to Clark, situating the Reformed churches (in the United States) in the sideline denominations, the divisions in the Reformed churches comes about because people are tempted towards two errant paths: The “Quest for Illegitimate Religious Certainty” or QIRC, and the “Quest for Illegitimate Religious Experience” or QIRE. QIRC is “the pursuit to know God in ways he has not revealed himself and to achieve epistemic and moral certainty on questions where such certainty is neither possible nor desirable.” QIRE is the “quest to experience God apart from the mediation of Word and sacrament.” Utilizing these motifs, Clark addressed the issues of 6/24 creationism and theonomy under the motif of QIRC, and revivals and emotive worship under the motif of QIRE. The main point of Clark’s argument against 6/24 creationism is not whether it is right or wrong, but that the issue is not an issue addressed by the Reformed tradition in a way that excludes other views. In other words, with the Reformed confessions as boundary markers, we must not draw boundaries more tightly than them, leaving room for disagreement. Clark points out the diverse ways Reformed theologians have addressed scientific issues in the past, in order to buttress his assertion that 6/24 creationism is not a proper boundary marker but one imported from rationalistic fundamentalism.

Clark’s view of confessionalism, where the Scriptures are foundationally the ultimate source of authority, while the Reformed confessions became the secondary standards norming our faith, practice, and life, sounds indeed like that of confessionalism proper, and indeed it mostly is. Strict confessionalism is however lurking behind the scenes, when one reads between the lines, something I failed in my earlier days. For example, it sounded charitable to not want to draw narrow boundaries on the issue of 6/24 creation, which both the OPC and the PCA Creation Reports agreed upon. It seemed helpful to warn against moralism, and call for Christians to return to historic Reformed worship. The problem comes however when we question the use and breadth of these categorizations (QIRC, QIRE) and how it relates to differences among the Reformed who hold to the Reformed confessions as well.

On the issue of 6/24 creationism for example, Clark gives the impression that those promoting 6/24 creation are using these as boundary markers to throw Christians out of the church if they do not hold to 6/24 creation. There does not seem to be any discussion of the diverse ways one can or cannot hold to a belief in 6/24 creation and its application in the church context. In fact, on this issue, Clark shows a shocking ignorance of the modern creationist movement, citing Ronald L. Numbers’ false history asserting a Seventh-Day Adventist origin for modern day creationism. He then asserts that “proponents of 6/24 interpretation have been unable to explain the theological reason for making the 6/24 interpretation a standard of orthodoxy.” That Clark has not seen even one theological reason for such shows his ignorance of the writings and teachings of Young Earth Creationism. One can agree or disagree with these reasons, but for Clark to claim that there has been no theological reason ever given for making the 6/24 interpretation a standard of orthodoxy is a bad sign.

My focus on 6/24 creation is not to litigate whether 6/24 creation should be placed into the category QIRC per se, but rather to make it clear that there is no real discussion over whether the categories apply to any one thing and thus how one should place anything in any category. In other words, QIRC and QIRE are broad categories that Clark can use to place anything he disagrees with as long as he can link those doctrines or teachings to something resembling “rationalism” or “pietism.” The categories function as a rhetorical sleight-of-hand enabling Clark to discount anything he does not like as either QIRC or QIRE, hoping that the smear or association is enough to tar whatever he dislikes with the label of being contrary to the Reformed Confessions, without any argument over why that is so.

In my time over at Westminster Seminary California, Dr. Clark was a major topic of discussion among the students. While strict confessionalism calls for charity towards others who are Reformed, calling for unity around the Reformed confessions, one starts to suspect unity was not the goal here. Clark had asserted in his book that “it is not a belief that the Bible is true which makes one a fundamentalist; rather it is the belief that one’s interpretation of Scripture is inerrant which qualifies one as a fundamentalist.” Interacting with Dr. Clark, one gets the impression that he views his own interpretation of the Reformed tradition as inerrant, which qualifies him as a “Reformed fundamentalist” I guess. Dr. Clark absolutely detests Douglas Wilson, John Frame, and who knows how many other enemies he has. This is not to say that Wilson or Frame are right or wrong, but I find it really strange that the idea of returning to the Reformed Confessions can go hand in hand with such vitriol and hatred.

The suspicion that strict confessionalism is something separate from and going beyond confessionalism is seen in the book On being Reformed: Debates over a Theological Identity. In this book, Chris Caughey and Crawford Gribben wrote an essay essentially arguing that there is no such fixed identity of being “Reformed” in such a way that certain “Truly Reformed” (TR) people can use to exclude others from the Reformed tradition. Rather, there is indeed a Reformed tradition, but one that proceeds as branches of a tree throughout history, a “theological family tree” as it were. In their response to Caughey, Gribben [and Matthew Bingham], [R Scott] Clark and [D.G.] Hart argued that there is a real Reformed tradition and identity that is determined not by scholars but by the churches, and therefore Reformed identity is real and what they see as attempts by the other scholars to deconstruct the Reformed tradition have failed.

The problem with reading such a book is that there are valid points all around, and certainly Clark and Hart are correct in claiming the Reformed tradition is real and Reformed churches are the living legacy of what it means to be Reformed. But on the other hand, there is a deeper problem at play here, which ties in with one of Caughey and Gribben’s main point: the diversity among those that call themselves Reformed. If “Reformed” just refer to the body of Reformed teaching in the Reformed tradition, and “Reformed” is determined by the church, why not “Reformed” as defined by the PCUSA? After all, they are a church with a “Reformed” tradition of sorts. Of course, we can assert that the PCUSA has apostatized and so on, but those are not part of the criteria given by Clark and Hart. If the argument is made that they deviate from the “substance” of the Reformed faith, how do we find this substance as a canon within the Reformed “canon” of its own tradition, without at the same time assuming this “substance” to be truly its substance? Clark’s and Hart’s rejection of theocracy as part of the “substance” of the Reformed faith, for example, presupposes that theocracy is part of ethics instead of part of the third mark of the church (right discipline), a position which I personally agree but which has not been proven by either of them. After all, would Calvin or the Magisterial Reformers hold that theocracy is merely an ethical issue? I sincerely doubt it!

All this is to say that arguments for a “Reformed” identity, as defined by Clark and Hart, argue in a circle. Something is or is not “Reformed” because it is or is not part of the substance of the Reformed faith. Something is or is not part of the substance of the Reformed faith because it is traced to the Reformed Confessions. Something in the Reformed Confessions is part of the substance of the Reformed faith because it is traced to the Reformed churches and tradition. Something that is traced to the Reformed churches and tradition is Reformed, but other teachings or practices traced there are not, because … it is or is not “Reformed”? It can be seen here that attempts to claim a “Reformed” identity in the manner Clark and Hart do, even if they are correct, cannot work.

This is not to claim that confessionalism is wrong, but rather that this book makes clear Clark and Hart’s project of strict confessionalism, even if and where they get various things correct, does not work. Strict Confessionalism asserts definite ways of being confessional, promises unity and biblical fidelity around adherence to said principles, yet in the end it does not deliver.

[I have decided to put the footnotes in a consolidated document which will be published after this is done]

Confessions of a former strict confessionalist (Part 1)

[I am currently busy with work commitments and preparing for my next phase of life, so updates here will be sporadic]

My life has been quite a journey, and with my current progress in the Christian life, I thought it would be helpful to tell parts of that story here.

Introduction

How does one relate to God in this world? To the church? What should a Christian do in order to glorify God? All of these are questions that I struggle with, especially after I have been awakened to the things of God by the Spirit of God. Having brought up in staid traditionalism, I was exposed to Charismatic influences. It is admitted that there are many biblical problems with the Charismatic movement, and the particular strain that I was eventually exposed to, the Third Wave New Apostolic Reformation, is heretical. Yet, for someone raised in staid traditionalism, this was a breath of fresh air. In particular, it cannot be denied that, through focusing on the imminant and the practical, Charismatic Christianity preserve an important aspect of Christianity, which is that Christianity has to be practiced and not relegated to mere cognition. Christianity is a whole person faith. The idea that one can be Christian in mere intellect is not biblical, but more on that later.

As a biblically deficient movement, Charismatic Christianity left me feeling dry over time. God graciously led me to Reformed teaching and Reformed theology. Through seeing the latitudinarian approach in much of Singapore Christianity, I was led to reject New Evangelicalism, which I see as the movement allowing false teaching like the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) to infiltrate the church. In a sense, I became a Fundamentalist, Fundamentalist in approach not in doctrine. If New Evangelicalism is marked by toleration of false doctrine under the guise of charity and respectful disagreement, then the reaction is to be strict on doctrine. Laxity of doctrine is spiritual adultery, leading to spiritual destruction applauded by those going to heaven under the guise of charity. It was evidently clear that New Evangelicalism is a movement of spiritual negligence on the part of its pastors at best, so the way to combat it is to be its opposite.

I notice quickly of course that Fundamentalism does not work, noting the problems and church wreckages it has caused. If everything is important and one must separate from other Christians on almost every doctrine, then everyone will eventually form a church of one. Yet it is evidently clear that New Evangelicalism does not work either. The so-called triage method promoted by Albert Mohler, when I heard about it, does not work either. "Triage" presumes that one can rank doctrines in order of importance, but where is this ranking found? Who gave us this ranking list, and upon what basis should we grant that list authority? "Triage" is basically an intellectual version of New Evangelical compromise, allowing pastors to feel less guilty or not guilty while being indifferent about other people going to hell.

The Promise of Confessionalism

New Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism are a dialectical pair, with the one feeding into the other. Those who reject New Evangelicalism veer Fundamentalist, while those reject Fundamentalism veer New Evangelical. It is a zero-sum game either way, and in no way is Christ's church and Christians properly served. Believers are destroyed by false love and unity under the banner of triage or whatever term New Evangelicals use. Christ's sheep are broken by fundamentalist attack dogs slashing the sheep they were meant to protect, guide, and feed. While wresting with this dialectic, I came to hear of Confessionalism, which holds itself to be a third way in the dialectic.

What is the allure of Confessionalism? Confessionalism asserts that the problem with evangelicalism is that it does not have a true center of unity. Evangelicalism fails in its struggle to be coherent and proper because it is in some sense a false construct. By rejecting the historic creeds and Christian confessions, and trying to create a pan-"Protestant" movement, Evangelicalism cannot truly function as a Christian church. "Evangelicalism" as a movement must be deconstructed, argues historian D. G. Hart, because it has become a "seemingly large and influential religious body, but it lacks an institutional center, intellectual coherence, and devotional direction." [D.G. Hard, Deconstructing Evangelicalism: Conservative Protestantism in the Age of Billy Graham (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2004), 176]. Hart in that book was focusing on the New Evangelicals, but the issue of a true center of unity or lack thereof affects the Older Evangelicalism as well. The only difference is that Old Evangelicalism had denominational legacy and thus had a more stable identity despite their trans-denominational slant. The dialectic between doctrinal separation and doctrinal compromise exists because there is no real substantive center in evangelical churches. All claims to be centered on the "Gospel," whether of the older evangelicalism, the New Evangelicalism, or the New Calvinist version (e.g. TGC) have failed because the words "the Gospel" have no substance in themselves. Over time, as it has been shown time and again, a unity "around the Gospel" results in either doctrinal splits or doctrinal compromise and eventual apostasy. The former comes as one group found to their astonishment that error and heresy lies within the camp, and sought to eradicate it, as for example Charles Spurgeon and the Downgrade Controversy, and the various modernist-fundamentalist controversies of the early 1900s. The latter is seen in the evangelical moderates collapsing to the forces of Liberalism in the PCUSA and other mainline denominations. It is seen also in the modern horror story that is TGC, as it is currently capitulating to the anti-Christian lies of LGBTQ+ and wokeness.

Confessionalism's promise therefore is to re-orientate doctrines around a core, forming something that looks like "triage" without the triage. Instead of asking questions about what doctrines are core and what are not, believers are to understand the form of sound words (2 Tim. 1:13) and link themselves to the historic Christian faith. Christians link themselves to the historic Christian tradition, choosing the historic Confession that they hold best approximates to that tradition, the faith once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3). Christians unite around a common Confession of faith and the historic creeds of the church. What the Confession states is core; what it does not there is room for disagreement.

Of course, this does not solve every problem. There is a sense in which we argue from the Confession for logical deductions from that Confession. There is a sense in which inferences from the Confession partake in the derived authority of the Confession for us, yet are less authoritative than the Confessions themselves, especially when the inference is not direct. Nevertheless, the promise of Confessionalism is an escape from the dialectic between New Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism. In it, the believer can rest, more assured in the truths of Scripture and protected from wolves.

[to be continued]

My reflection on 2016, EFS and "The Rise and Fall of the Complementarian Doctrine of the Trinity"

Egalitarian Kevin Giles has published an interesting narrative book entitled "The Rise and Fall of the Complementarian Doctrine of the Trinity." The book is Giles' narration of the history of the EFS (Eternal Functional Subordination/ Submission) debate, leading up to 2016 and then the fallout from the controversy. The book is helpful for those who want to know the background behind the EFS controversy as well the response to it.

Speaking from my own personal experience, I have held to divine simplicity, immutability, and some version of inseparable operations back when I was in seminary from my doctrine of God class (around 2011-2). I have never once seen any dissonance betweeen these doctrines, and EFS. For me, it was always the fact that there is a difference between God in His being, and God in relation to us. As a Christian, I have experienced God in worship, Bible reading and prayer, although I do not normally talk about my experiences. Experience are after all subjective, therefore I have no wish to base any truths upon them. Yet, the FACT that part of the Christian life is a personal encounter with the living God, and that God is not some abstract metaphysical sovereign, is an objective fact and something I have always held to be true. Therefore, while not being Charismatic, I do believe that part of the Christian life is that Christians actually have real communion with Christ, and that includes feelings of encounter with the living God.

Fast forward to 2016. The eruption of the EFS controversy caught me by surprise. I was intially open to all sides on the topic, but was shocked and dismayed by the conduct of Liam Golligher and Carl Trueman, both men esteemed in the Reformed churches. As someone who was once involved in the whole online discernment ministries (ODM) thing through Christian Research Network under the late Pastor Ken Silva, I have seen how online polemics got out of hand. I agree with discernment and pointing out errors, but all conduct is to be biblical, including the pointing out of heresy and rebuking it. The nasty blowback to this by manifestly slanderous websites like CRN (dot info) is something we have to take yet we cannot dish out in kind, for the violation of Scripture by the other side does not give us the right to do so on ours. Of course, this is easier said than done. At that time (2007-2010), the impression I get is that the more established pastors assert that one should not be involved in such polemimcs, and that godliness is not about pointing out the errors of those whom you meet online. With years in the ministry and high credentials, they have the moral high ground on this issue, don't they?

Again, fast forward to 2016, and all these esteemed pastors and theologians were behaving exactly like those involved in the ODM or worse, the anti-ODM movements. So it seems that when they claim that one should not be waxxing polemical on the errors of those whom you meet online, what they actually mean is that the "unwashed masses" should not be waxing polemical about doctrinal errors, but only they the "superior," "credentialed," "experienced" pastors and theologians are allowed to wax polemical AGAINST other pastors and theologians. Only they are allowed to call others heretics and go on "heresy hunting." Only they are allowed to be harsh, rude, and full of insults against their opponents. Only they are allowed to think the worst of their opponents, and insist their opponents hold to certain positions even when their opponents did not say they believe in those certain positions. Needless to say, while I did not necessarily agree with the EFS side, specifically with regards to their biblicism, the conduct of those attacking EFS put me off.

The sad thing is that, as time went on, it became abundantly clear that the other side has already made up their minds. EFS is semi-Arian, and no amount of stating fidelity to the Nicene Creed by EFSers will convince them otherwise. I began to point out the problems with some of what they have said, showing how their version of Trinitarianism (which I know now is Thomistic Classical Theism) has lots of unanswered questions and questionable answers. But as I continue blogging about the issue, I let my feelings of outrage over the injustice of 9th commandment violations by the Thomists surface, culminating in an open accusation that Trueman et al have lied. A prominent West Coast Reformed Baptist pastor-theologian was not happy about that, and engaged me on the issue. By "engage," I mean he asked me to stop while I responded by challenging him to prove me wrong. Needless to say, the escalation that forced me to withdraw the accusation at that time was, I would think, a perverse abuse of pastoral authority. Without stating specifically what happened, I will say that church authority is valid, but it should not extend to under-handed pressure to withdraw a legitimate accusation based upon Scripture. It is a fact that many EFS critics misrepresent EFS, as I have shown in my book reviews of books on EFS. I have read EFS material after all, and I interpret their works not according to a hermeneutic foreign to EFS but one derived from the EFS books themselves. In other words, I hold to authorial intent and the necessity of letting the authors determine the meaning of their own words.

Reading Giles' book showed me a bit more of the background behind the issue as well as the responses by some to the controversy. Needless to say, keeping up with the tons of blog posts and stuff at the height of the controversy was next to impossible, although I tried. It was interesting for me to see how the accusation that EFS teaches subordination in the immanent Trinity came into being, as differing theological vocabularies result in a breakdown of communication prior to the 2016 fiasco. In line with the growing trend in Reformed circles towards theological retrieval and ressourcement, I can see why the controversy was inevitable now but not back in the 1980s. I of course have nothing against adopting a vocabulary more in line with the catholic (small 'c') tradition (assumming they are adequate to the task). What I am opposed to is demanding that everything must be understood in light of the vocabulary of that tradition and that alone. It is analogous to how one can be a supporter of the COVID19 vaccines while being opposed to vaccine mandates, while Thomists are more like those promoting vaccine mandates.

Giles showed how EFS proponents had tied EFS to their teaching of complementarianism, even though there is absolutely no need to neither it is logically warranted. This kind of rhetorical leveraging to short cut argumentation damages complementarianism, and the fallout from the 2016 EFS fiasco confirms that, something which Giles, as an egalitarian, is very happy about. Already, we see the 'Reformed' feminism of Rachel Green Miller and Aimee Byrd take shape, even though it is true that there is no proof that their feminism came about due to their rejection of EFS. It is also true that EFS proponents can learn to understand their opponents' concerns better, despite the fact that the other side is just as guilty of shutting their ears and monologing into their echo chambers. If one wants to be biblical, rigorous and even Reformed, one must not be content with simplistic formulae on the Trinity, but plunder the ancients as well as the moderns for a better understanding of the Trinity.

Musings on the circumstances of Harris' apostasy (Part 3)

Harris' circumstances

The two major events in Harris' life in recent times are issues with the church he was a pastor of, and his seminary education. Now, it is of course not possible to read Harris' heart, but I hope through looking at the circumstances in life, it will help us understand perhaps the struggles he might have had to face in his life prior to his apostasy.

With regards to church issues, it is very likely that the church issues faced by Harris, including the loss of his mentor C.J. Mahaney, was traumatic to him. I guess, I hope, that we all should know that it is Christ alone who is the head of the church, and that all pastors and theologians are but just men, fallible and sinful too. We are not Roman Catholics who believe in a special chrism (anointing) that separates the priest apart from the common folk as a class of "holy people." But it is natural to honor and respect your leaders, and to some extent you treat them with reverence. These are the people who bring to us the Word of God and who care for us, who visit us and pray for us, who comfort us, who marry us and bury us. If or when they fall, it will affect us. I wonder just how much Harris has been affected by what happened during that time, and perhaps things might have changed if there was someone whom he could seek biblical counsel who would have aided him at that time. The amount of spiritual and emotional devastation caused by church issues and conflicts cannot be under-estimated, and especially if it happens to someone who has been in that church for almost his entire life!

In this time of instability, Harris made a decision to go to seminary. While I am a firm believer in seminary training for the ministry, it seems to me that Harris probably wasn't in the best place when he made that decision to go to Regent College. Regent College in Vancouver, BC, is a broadly evangelical seminary. On top of the danger of seminary studies, Harris will have to contend with a broad evangelical teaching whereby a plethora of views held by professing evangelicals would be presented. In broad evangelicalism, the type of strong convictions seen in Calvinistic circles is extremely frowned upon. This ties in with the cultural clash that Harris would have encountered. First, he transitioned from a Calvinistic circle with strong convictions to a broad Evangelical circles with much weaker convictions. Second, he transitioned from a rather closely-knit conservative circle to a much more liberal circle. Third, he transitions into a very left-liberal city in Vancouver. Perhaps for the first time in his life, Harris met supposed "committed" LGBT couples, as people he has actual interactions with! With such instability and change, and no solid grounding in the Scriptures to fall back on, how would one go about dealing with the issues?

I am not putting this out there to "explain away" Harris' apostasy. And most certainly it is the Lord Jesus who will always preserve His own (c.f. Jn. 6:39). But even though it is ultimately God who decides His own, and God who preserves His own, God works through means. And these means are real means, instrumental in bringing about what God in His secret counsel has declared to pass. The circumstances surrounding Harris might probably have contributed to Harris' apostasy, and thus it is helpful for us to understand them.

Apostasy from the Christian faith of course is not a rare occurrence. Harris is not the first, and he will not be the last. Our attitude towards those who left the faith should always be grief and sorrow, especially so if the person had once strongly proclaimed his faith in Jesus and the Gospel of free grace. We do not know if Harris' apostasy is a real, final apostasy (c.f. 1 Jn 2:19), because that knowledge is of the secret counsel of God, not given to us. We cannot, we must not, treat Harris as definitively damned. As long as it is today, salvation is still at hand (Heb. 4:1). We are to pray to God for the repentance of all who had fallen away, with the desire that they return to the faith they had professed and then rejected.

And finally, as a response to some arguments, while it is true that apostasy does in some sense bring about some distinction between the sheep and the goats, we should not be applying this to Harris. The blessing of apostasy is primarily a blessing as false teachers will stop pretending to be believers and will leave the faith. The blessing of apostasy however is not the right category to think about someone who once taught and proclaimed the true Gospel, but who left the faith during times of instability. Remember, we cannot fully know, even if the person visibly runs from the faith, whether a person truly is or is not of Christ's sheep! What is lacking in such applications is compassion. It is the same virtue lacking in Trueman's response to Harris' apostasy. Let us consider and weep over the fall of one who was from our own.

[THE END]

Musings on the circumstances of Harris' apostasy (Part 2)

[continued from here]

Seminary

Many people, even myself prior to entering seminary, have the notion that somehow seminary is where you can truly learn about God, know God more deeply, and come out of it more mature in the faith. While certainly that is the stated goal of a biblical seminary, the fact of the matter is that such is a rosy picture of seminary that is not necessarily true. The truth is somewhat starker: Seminary is a place where one is supposed to learn more about God and His Word. However, since seminary is a place for the training of future leaders of the church, the Devil is there also. What better place to attack the Church than to attack her future leaders, when they are at one of the most formative points of their Christian life? Destroy a single Christian, and you get one soul. Destroy a pastor of a church, and you might get the entire church! Strike the shepherd, and the flock will scatter. Satan only knows this all too well. As much as a biblical seminary is a place of Christ, it is at the same time the place where the Devil works the most mischief.

The first point concerning seminary is that seminaries are not necessarily biblical. There are lots of liberal and apostate seminaries out there, where impressionable young men and women enter in as passionate Christians and come out of it cynical agnostics. Union Theological Seminary is one such workshop of the Devil. The second point concerning seminaries is that many of them, in the name of tolerance, will teach many alternate views (many unbiblical) without judging their relative merits. This second point holds true for many evangelical and evangelical-ish seminaries, where their goal is to not discriminate against viewpoints promoted by anyone who is even remotely an evangelical, for how can they judge another "Evangelical" to be unorthodox? Thus, under the label of "evangelical unity," errors and heresies are tolerated, as long as they do not seem to obviously heretical (a subjective judgment). Thus, theistic evolution is tolerated, death before the Fall is tolerated, and even Open Theism (in some circles) are tolerated. Now, evangelical seminaries do not necessarily believe that all views are equally biblical, and many theologians can somehow separate their internal convictions and priorities of doctrine from their external teaching and profession. But this is not the case for young impressionable men and women! The reason why we had joined seminary is because we do not know of all this. You cannot expect a young seminarian (or old seminarian) to distinguish between allowance of an error in a person, and an allowance of an error in a theological system! It is the tendency among those learning things for the first time, especially the bright ones among us, to run with something that has been taught, to its logical conclusion, or what we perceive to be its logical conclusions! That is why there is a strong tendency among those embracing the five points of Calvinism for the first time to be attracted to hyper-Calvinism, because they think that is the logical implications of the five points. Systematizing of one's theology occurs all the time, consciously or unconsciously, and exposing impressionable men and women to error without guidance, in the name of "evangelical unity," is probably one of the most egregious sins within Evangelical seminaries.

Thirdly, even in seminaries that have a stronger doctrinal commitment, like Westminster Seminary California, good teaching does not necessarily result in orthodoxy, because ultimately orthodoxy comes from the heart, the spirit, not the head. Orthodoxy is meant to be the intellectual expression of one's submission to God, but the substance of orthodoxy, the regenerate heart, is the Holy Spirit's prerogative to give. I personally know of two men during the time of my time in WSCAL who apostatized from the Christian faith, one to Roman Catholicism and another to Eastern Orthodoxy. One of my juniors has gone off the deep end into Critical Race Theory and I sincerely doubt his Christian faith. The point is that even the best seminary is no protection from the attacks of the Evil One. If Satan cannot get at you through your professors, he will get at you from others you interact with, in church, society, friends, and now social media. The seminarian has become the number one target for all of Satan's schemes to destroy the person's spiritual life. Spiritual warfare is real, and the seminarian is the target. Satan will throw everything he can, including messing with your relationships, emotions, friends, family and so on, including the kitchen sink, to destroy the seminarian. And the sins of pastors and professors are the best weapons Satan will use, because how better to destroy the church than from the inside? How best to corrode a future pastor's trust in biblical doctrine than to destroy the respect that seminarian has for his professor and his pastor? How best to destroy the future pastor's passion than by having the church embroiled in destructive tribalism and dirty politics in church (which does happen, sadly to say)?

As a former seminarian, I will gladly say that I treasure the experience and learning and will not give it up for the wealth of the world. BUT, I have realized just how tough seminary is, spiritually. Anyone who thinks he is spiritually strong is more than welcome to try out seminary, and see just how much of a tempest the Devil can cook up in his life!

The second part about seminary, that is common with many institutes of higher learning, is the community or lack thereof, which the Devil will exploit. Community is a good thing when done properly, but it is a most wicked and perverse force when it is not. If the society around a person is ungodly, it takes a significant amount of will-power (if that is even enough) to resist joining them in their ungodliness. Seminaries are not exempt from this social phenomenon. A good community will exhort each other to love and good deeds (c.f. Heb. 10:24-25). A bad community will drag the godliest person down to condoning the most wicked of sins, even if he does not do it himself. And lack of community makes one lonely and susceptible to temptation from the world, which is all-pervasive, all around us.

In seminaries, young men (and women) oftentimes come from all around the world and move to a new location, even in a new country, away from friends and family and their previous churches and church-fellowships. There is a potential for spiritual disaster if not handled properly, especially if the city one is in is a godless city. It is easier to be influenced by the prevailing culture than to stand apart from it. As the Devil is the "god" of this world, this is one tool that he will certainly exploit to the max, to destroy the souls of seminarians.

[to be continued]

Musings on the circumstances of Harris' apostasy (Part 1)

Joshua Harris' apostasy is very very sad, not merely because he was a pastor, but also because of the circumstances preceding his apostasy. As a recap, Sovereign Grace Ministry (SGM) was involved in a scandal regarding alleged child sexual abuse in at least some of their congregations. C.J. Mahaney, the Senior Pastor of Covenant Life Church, who was Harris' mentor, had some sort of dispute with other leaders in the Sovereign Grace churches around the same time. Due to either or both of these factors, Mahaney left Covenant Life Church. Harris resigned from his pastoral position soon after, and decided to go to Regent College for theological training. This current apostasy happened either after that. As of now, I am not sure whether Harris is still at Regent College, but I do know that he must have taken at least some courses there.

In this article, I will like to focus on two major events in Harris' life: church issues, and seminary training. I am not implying that either of these events must have had any kind of causative effect on Harris falling away from the faith, but I will just like to say something about these types of issues from my own experience.

Church Issues

First, church issues. I will not be rehashing the whole sturm und drang over SGM, especially since I am not even remotely associated with those issues. I will just briefly say that sexual assault of any kind is wrong, pastors ought to report sexual assault when discovered, and pastors may sincerely err if they do not believe that sexual assault has taken place. Also, it is possible for those alleging sexual assault to lie as well. All of these is just to say that, unless one is familiar with the details of the cases, I have no wish to further discuss the SGM scandals. What I want to focus instead is the effect such issues might have on Harris. We must also remember that Mahaney, who Harris must have respected, left SGM not under the best of terms. How would it feel like to have someone you look up to gone, under a cloud of possible misconduct?

I cannot speak for Harris, but I will like to share about myself. Up to the point of the ESS controversy in 2016, I took pride in being a Reformed confessionalist. I had looked up to people like Carl Trueman. In fact, I had attended a talk he once gave at Oceanside URC on John Owen, and then the attendees went for a drink later. I know of course that all are still sinners, but in my naivete, I thought that Reformed pastors and theologians will only sin on non-theological issues. Oh boy was I in for a rude awakening!

When the ESS controversy broke out, I was initially concerned, and then alarm grew as I began to realize what was going on, as well as the implications of what the rhetoric employed in the controversy would imply. I began to push back, tentatively at first but more aggressively as time went on. I was horrified not when Trueman first made his wild claims about ESS, but when I see people like Aimee Byrd blatantly misrepresent complementarianism as somehow promoting ontological inferiority of women. The misrepresentations grew leaps and bounds, and soon any pretense at being truthful evaporated! At that point, Byrd could have claimed that Grudem taught that the image of God in women was only present when a woman submit to all men, and I doubt anyone (not Trueman, not RSC) would bat an eye and even say even a word to correct her! Factionalism and tribalism has gained the upper hand. Grudem is so *obviously* wrong, so who cares if someone from *our* tribe makes up outrageous accusations against him? The more we can tar him with, the better our case against "Big Eva" would be. While the ordained pastors are slightly more careful, they allowed unordained women like Byrd free reign in her wild accusations, not to mention the madness that is the "Reformed blogosphere."

When all these happened, I was very much disillusioned. I cannot say that it did not affect my spiritual life, because it did. You can claim that I *should* not let my faith be unsettled by men, even Reformed pastors, and I know that in my head, but try telling that to my spirit! And the worst part of that is my pastor then (in Singapore) couldn't care less! I cannot speak of the time when I was still a licentiate of the OPC, because being thousands of miles apart is a real obstacle for pastoral care, but my then pastor (of a church which I have since left) couldn't care less about my struggles, which made it worse. In his eyes, who cares about some struggle in America? So here I was seeing all my world burn out around me, seeing supposedly faithful Reformed pastors and theologians lie and slander in the most shocking ways I did not think possible, and all I get was nothing! I felt alone, lost, and my faith shaken (again, not intellectually). I had looked up to these people, and they had betrayed my trust. Yes, I probably should *not* have trusted them in this manner. Thanks for the great advice in hindsight!! I had lost all respect for Trueman, all respect for Reformation 21 and the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, some respect for my former academic adviser R Scott Clark. I will say that my training in seminary and the power of the Holy Spirit sustained my faith during this trying time (2016-2017), but I cannot say it was easy.

This brings me to the next point: seminary, and we shall look at that next time.

[to be continued]

W. Robert Godfrey: Machen, Christianity and the Church

Audio—here

The last address is by our president W. Robert Godfrey, and he talks about Machen and his view of the institutional church, which according to Machen is the most important institution.

Quoting 1 Tim. 3:14-16, Godfrey has three points for us on the importance of the church. Firstly, the Church supports the truth by confessing the Truth. Secondly, the Church supports the truth by contending for the Truth. Thirdly, the Church supports the truth by comforting with the Truth.

We confess the truth. The Church must always confess the truths of God which she is entrusted with. If you don't build a hospital, somebody else might. If you don't build a school, somebody else might. But if the church doesn't preach the Gospel, nobody else will. We therefore must always confess the truths of the Gospel and proclaim them to all.

In light of the need for confessing the truth, Christian Education is crucial. In this light, there is a desperate need for biblical Christian pastors who are faithful in handling and teaching God's Word.

The Church contends for the Truth. In order to confess the truth, we must at the same time maintain that that which is false is not of the truth. In this light, we must not let kindness or niceness cause us to betray our loyalty to Christ and His Gospel. We must not yield even one inch on what the Gospel is, and refuse to compromise any part of that which Christ has entrusted to us and to His Church.

Paul in 1 Tim. 1:18 tells Timothy to wage a good warfare. Christian pastors and leaders therefore are similarly commanded by God to wage a good warfare in contending for the truth. For truth cannot be rightly taught unless it is set in opposition to error. In this light, it is humorously remarked that we should have a polemic red-letter Bible, whereby all polemical passages in Scripture are marked out with red letters. It is guessed that the Bible would be full of such passages both in the Gospel accounts and the epistles, with the reddest of them all probably being the Epistle to the Galatians.

Lastly, the Church supports the truth by comforting with the truth. Sadly to say, this is not easy. On the liberal side, true comfort is impossible. The slogan "God is the solution to your problem" is not only vacuous, but wrong. God cannot be the solution to any problem because God Himself is the problem for sinful human beings. Because of sin, we humans are alienated from God and face His Wrath against our sin. How can God be the solution when He is the problem?

We must be both loving and faithful. We must be faithful to the truth yet we should not be so "hard" that we cannot comfort those who are broken with the truth of the Gospel. The Church is to be therefore both loving and faithful, knowing that our main business is to bring souls to Christ.

David VanDrunen: Machen and Ethics

Audio—here

Dr. David VanDrunen continues with his lecture on Machen and Ethics. He starts off with the question: What is the relation of theology to ethics?

According to Machen, Christian living is based upon a message, fact and doctrines. From the sermon on the mount, we can see Jesus is the new legislator. Therefore, there is an intricate relation between theology and ethics.

The link between theology and ethic can perhaps be seen clearly in the reality between theological conservatives and theological liberals. During Machen's times, it was conceivable that theological conservatives and theological liberals unite together over social issues. Yet 75 years later, the liberals have drifted so far away from biblical moorings that uniting theological conservatives and liberals over social issues have become next to impossible. The Liberals have no biblical foundation for biblical ethics, and therefore the erosion in their principles has been nearly absolute. Now we have liberals promoting homosexual "marriage" and other such abominations, issues which the older liberals long since dead would probably be appalled at.

The fact of the matter is that any talk about ethics and especially biblical ethics is impossible without agreement on the fact of sin. Sin is perhaps the largest elephant in the room in discussions on ethics, yet it is routinely ignored to our detriment.

The ethics of the Christian life is faith working through love.

VanDrunen continued with pointing two issues in ethics which the Liberals fail at. The first one is honesty, and the second liberty.

Theological liberals especially in Machen's day were dishonest. In fact, they can only survive by dishonesty and lying. On their ordination, they have pledged to uphold the confessional standards of the Church, yet by their preaching against and believing contrary to the confessions, they lie. Although the standards of the Church states that those who do not believe the confessional standards of the Church are to resign and let their views be examined by the Presbytery and larger church bodies, these liberals do not do so but instead continue in the ministry and attack the standard they have promised in their ordination vows to uphold.

On the issue of liberty, Liberalism in politics is bound up with a certain form of utilitarianism and socially it moves towards socialism. Civil liberty however is a by-product of true Christianity.

The last form is ecclesiastical liberty, which is the liberty of church members not to be bound by the church on issues not pertaining to faith and practice. Here VanDrunen brings in the two-kingdom theory. The Church has no right to bind her members to support any specific social and political agenda. This does not of course mean that the church should not take a position on certain social issues (i.e. abortion is wrong etc), but specific policies are matters of wisdom not of revelation, something which VanDrunen clarified in the question and answer session, and therefore the church cannot bind members to support any one agenda but rather leave it to the members who should decide based upon the wisdom God has given them.

John V. Fesko: Machen and the Gospel

Audio—here

Dr. John V. Fesko is currently the academic dean at Westminster Seminary California. His talk is entitled Machen and the Gospel. He structured his talk under three sections: 1) the nature of the battle, 2) What Machen believed about the Gospel, and 3) Its abiding relevance for us.

In the beginning of the 20th century, a 7-volume study on missions was commissioned by John Rockefeller. The results of that study was the promotion of the Liberal missiology that 1) All religions lead to God, 2) Christianity has the fullest truth; other religions have a part of the full truth, 3) Missions therefore is about loving people and showing them that Christianity gives them the fuller truth compared to the truths they already have. The one volume summary of the series remained relatively obscure until it was promoted by a prominent media person (the Oprah of that time) upon which it was widely disseminated.

It is against the Liberal gospel as seen in that book that Machen responded to. While Liberalism is all about life (practical living), Machen claimed that Christianity first and foremost is build upon a message and upon doctrine. This doctrine then produced life, and without this doctrine so-called Christian living is impossible.

Machen belonged to the Reformed tradition which traces itself back formally to the Reformation [and materially to the Apostles, but that is for another time]. The Reformers re-discovered the Gospel in a time of darkness, and this Gospel impacted many for Christ.

So what is this Gospel? The Gospel which Machen believed is the full Gospel consisting of the imputation of our sin to Christ and Christ's righteousness to us. Adam as our representative head failed the probation in Eden and fell from his state of original righteousness. In him we too fell and are borned into this world sinful and under the wrath of God. We are helpless to save ourselves and were destined for hellfire. But God from eternity has chosen a people for Himself, and has sent His Son to be a propitiation for our sins, so that through Christ we are able to be saved. In Christ's suffering and death He paid the punishment that should be justly meted out to us. Through His life, He merited the righteousness that He can give to His people by imputing it to them. In other words, Christ died the death we should have died and lived the life we should have lived so that we can be saved from the wretched state we have inherited from Adam.

Machen therefore rejected the false gospels of his time. He rejected mysticism and pantheism as gospels. He similarly rejected general morality as there is no such thing as general morality, unless one wishes to agree that killing Jews in Nazi Germany during Hitler's reign was morally correct. Biblical morality he rejects as the Gospel because the Law only terrifies and cannot save. Synergism is the Galatian heresy and therefore wrong, as is salvation by character. The only Gospel that saves is salvation by grace alone through faith alone.

Fesko goes back to the idea of Christ's righteousness. Quoting Rom. 5:18-19, he says that it is no use for Christ to suffer in order that we are placed back in the same state as Adam in the garden of Eden to be tested a second time. We not only need Christ to pay for our sin but we need Him to bring us to heaven with His robes of righteousness. Turning to Gal. 3:12, we are reminded again that the Law is not of Faith. Salvation is therefore about faith, not works. Whereas Liberalism is about the imperative and is thus law, Christianity is about the indicative of the Gospel.

Fesko continues with one pertinent case whereby Machen and the Gospel is important today. Mark Noll's book Is the Reformation Over? has been answered in the affirmative. However, is that really the case? Fesko asked us to consider the following statements from the 2nd Vatican Council:

... But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans [i.e. Muslims], who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things, and as Saviour wills that all men be saved. Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. ...

(Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Chapter 1, section 16)

Again the most relevant portion:

... But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims ...

Is the Reformation really over? From the teachings of the 2nd Vatican Council, it is clear that the Reformation is far from over. In fact, as 2nd Vatican promoted the heresy of inclusivism, it can be seen that the Council of Trent was even more orthodox than 2nd Vatican.

In this light, the Gospel and its defence is still and is even more relevant today. We must therefore remain vigilant and valiant for the truth.

Joel E. Kim: Machen and the Bible

Audio—here

The first talk on Saturday morning, the second day of the conference, was by Prof. Joel E. Kim. I have gotten my free registration for the conference by volunteering as a student volunteer to help out in the event, so I was about 5 minutes late for this talk.

What was Machen's view of the Bible, and what relevance does it have today? In his talk, Prof Kim starts by outlining the academic conditions of that time. As knowledge increased in light of the Scientific and Industrial Revolution, there has been an increasing specialization of all fields of knowledge, even in theology. The idea of academic theology as being divorced from the church and from dogmatism (i.e. creedal and confessional formulas), and the idea of the academic circle came into being. The historical-critical method was being increasingly embraced by theologians and schools studying theology, a development that led to uneasiness among conservatives in the church.

The discipline of academic theology came to embrace certain core values, namely 1) the idea of probability, 2) the idea of analogy, and 3) methodological naturalism.

The first idea of probability is defined as that everyone must begin with methodological doubt. Nothing can be taken as certain and everything must be proven before it can be embraced as truth. This extends to everything, including the Bible, doctrines and creedal formulas.

The second idea of analogy is that all historical events must be analogous to present modern day events and therefore scientifically testable. This in other words is the philosophy of Uniformitarianism applied to the field of theology. Whatever happened in previous times must happen by the same processes that happen in present times, and therefore we can scientifically test the truth claims in the Bible.

The third idea is that of methodological naturalism. Everything that happens must happen through natural processes. The supernatural is therefore by default ruled out as being not possible.

Against the growth in such apostate "theology", Machen challenged Liberalism and the historical-critical method. This is done through the following: Machen defended the Bible as supernatural history and states that the Gospel as history is foundational. Against the Liberals, Machen questioned why is there doubt that the New Testament is a historical document. It seems strange that a supposed historical method fails to take into account the historical value of the New Testament as a strongly validated historical document. In this light, Machen charges that his critics are not the unbiased seekers of the truth that they claim to be. Rather, they are blinded by their presuppositions and are not using the historical method in their research, instead they are letting naturalism dictate their research. Machen claimed that using the historical method without preconceived philosophical bias would show that a supernatural account of events in Scripture is much more likely than naturalistic ones. As an example, Kim used the event of the conversion of Paul. The naturalistic explanations all fail to adequately explain how someone who is well-trained in Judaism and who breathed out murder threats against Christians could suddenly make a 180 degree in life and outlook. Another example was the boldness of the apostles. None of the naturalistic explanations could explain why the disciples of Jesus could suddenly become so bold in proclaiming that Jesus is the Christ to the point of dying for it. The mass hallucination explanation is insufficient to explain the event, as if hallucinations are strong enough to turn cowards into those willing to die for them.

In his opposition to modernism, Machen was rather unique in his time—an anomaly. Most Fundamentalists were anti-intellectual and show little understanding of the issues. Machen however understood Liberalism, had a sharp mind and yet oppose it.

In his controversy with the Liberals, we can see Machen's view of Scripture. Scripture is both divine and human, and both aspects of Scripture must be taken seriously. Fundamentalists tend to so emphasize the divine that there is little if any human element stated to be in Scripture. Yet Scripture is clearly written by humans with their own characteristic styles and at times no overt guidance of the Holy Spirit can be seen as they write it. The human writers of Scripture are thus not amanuenses of the Holy Spirit! It cannot be overstated that Luke when writing both Luke and Acts did not sit in his room waiting for the Holy Spirit to suddenly and mystically impart Scripture into his mind, but he got out, did his historical research and then put his research findings into what we come to know as the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles.

Scripture as supernatural history, both divine and human — Machen's relevance to us in his view of Scripture can be summed up in this. We must continue to have this view of the Scriptures, and therefore treat the text of Scripture as what it is—supernatural history.

D.G. Hart: The Perennial Machen

Audio—here

The second talk on Friday night is by Elder Darryl G. Hart, who prefers to title his talk The Prennial Problem with Machen. As a historian, Hart deals in this talk with the person of J.G. Machen in relation to conservative Christianity.

The key question that Hart deals with is whether Machen was a Presbyterian or simply a conservative Protestant with Presbyterian stripes. Quoting historians George Marsden and Mark Noll, the conservative image of Machen has been that Machen was arguing for a generic "mere Christianity". Hoever, is that so?

Hart's thesis is that we should read Machen's book Christianity and Liberalism in his ecclesiastical context. The writing of the book was precipitated by opposition to unionism and ecumenism within the PCUSA at that time. The book therefore was Machen's attempt to tell non-Presbyterians why the controversy he was engaged in happened. Machen does of course concede that certain evangelical truths were most vital, but that does not mean that other truths are not.

To prove his point, Hart points to two places in Machen's book whereby the opposition to some form of "mere Christianity" can be seen. The first place is Machen's last chapter about the church and the importance Machen placed on the visible institutional church, something about which many Fundamentalists would not be able to subscribe to. The second lies is his arguments against the liberals that they are cannot in honesty subscribe to the orthodox creeds and confessions. While most certainly applicable to the liberals, in force it applies equally to the anti-intellectual Fundamentalists with their anti-creedalism.

The kernel versus husk approach to Machen's book ignores his other works and struggles in life and is therefore in error. Machen never intended to stand on a platform of "mere Christianity" to critique modernism. Rather, Machen was standing on the platform of Christianity as understood within the Presbyterian tradition. It is not a compliment to Roman Catholicism such that it is within the pale of Christian orthodoxy, as Timothy George thinks it is, when he said that Romanism was more orthodox than Liberalism. Rather, it was an insult to Liberalism that even Romanism with her false gospel was more orthodox than it.

Hart closed with the doctrine of the church as he sees it as Machen's most vital difference with Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism. He has posted his closing statements on his blog, which we shall quote at length and end this review as follows:

The other part of THE BOOK’s last chapter on the church that deserves attention is the doctrine of the spirituality of the church. This conviction continues to be misunderstood, and is often denounced as a cover for Christians and churches who want to forsake their obligations to contribute to social well-being. To be sure, this doctrine became prominent among Old School Presbyterians at a time when American Christians debated slavery and the U.S. Constitution. But it was a teaching that extended back before the nineteenth century and tapped Augustine’s remarkable insights into the differences between the city of God and the city of man. What the spirituality of the church taught Machen especially was that the church was a spiritual institution with spiritual means for spiritual ends. Because of salvation’s fundamentally spiritual character, believers could not identify the fortunes of the kingdom of God with the empire of Rome or the industrializing republic of the United States.

This was the insight that prompted Machen’s conclusion to THE BOOK. The solution to the crisis over liberalism, as he argued, was for the churches to “face the facts, and regain their integrity while yet there is time.” This needed to happen immediately because so many of the denominational bureaucracies were under control by official either modernist themselves or indifferent to it. Another solution was to form new churches because the existing works could not satisfy “the fundamental needs of the soul.” Whatever the solution, he wrote:

There must be somewhere groups of redeemed men and women who can gather together humbly in the name of Christ, to give thanks to Him for His unspeakable gift and to worship the Father through Him. Such groups alone can satisfy the needs of the soul. At the present time, there is one longing of the human heart which is often forgotten – it is the deep, pathetic longing of the Christian for fellowship with his brethren. . . . There are congregations, eve in the present age of conflict, that are really gathered around the table of the crucified Lord; there are pastors that are pastors indeed. But such congregations, in many cities, are difficult to find. Weary with the conflicts of the world, one goes to Church to seek refreshment for the soul. And what does one find? Alas, too often, one find only the turmoil of the world. The preacher comes forward, not out of a secret place of mediation and power, not with the authority of God’s Word permeating his message, not with human wisdom pushed far into the background by the glory of the Cross, but with human opinions about the social problems of the hour or easy solutions of the vast problems of sin. Such is the sermon. And then perhaps the service is closed by one of those hymns breathing out the angry passions of 1861 . . . Thus the warfare of the world has entered even into the house of God. And sad indeed is the heart of the man who has come seeking peace. Is there no refuge from strife? . . . . Is there no place where two or three can gather in Jesus’ name, . . . to forget human pride, to forget the passions of war, to forget the puzzling problems of industrial strife, and to unite in overflowing gratitude at the foot of the Cross? If there be such a place, then that is the house of God and that the gate of heaven. And from under the threshold of that house will go forth a river that will revive the weary world.

The church as the house of God, the gate of heaven, a place for weary souls seeking refuge from the conflicts of this world through the cross of Christ – that is actually what the spirituality of the church begins with and it is precisely how Machen concluded his important book.

Mike S Horton: Christianity and Liberalism Today

[Disclaimer: This is my summary AND commentary on Dr. Horton's talk, not just a recount of the talk itself, of which viewers can see it when the video files are up on the WSCal website.]

Audio—here.

It has been almost a century since the rise of liberalism, a movement that Dr. John Greshem Machen exposed as being another religion altogether in his book entitled Christianity and Liberalism. In the last century, liberalism has been slowly dying, as seen in the free fall decline in the membership of "mainline denominations." Or has it?

In his talk entitled Christianity and Liberalism Today, Dr. Michael S. Horton takes up the theme of Machen's most famous book, and shows us that liberalism is far from dead. In fact, it is very much alive ... within professing Evangelicals! Like yeast in a dough of bread, liberalism has metastasized throughout Evangelicalism, rendering the churches sick. While outwardly all seems well, yet the body is desperately sick, and Dr. Horton in this lecture of his reveals the true ghastly image of the churches to us.

Horton arranges his talk of the state of Christianity today into two sections: a sociological analysis section and a theological analysis section. Sociologically, Horton quotes Barna research data and research done by sociologists like Christian Smith to show the beliefs and attitudes present in so-called "Evangelicals" (which in cases like Barna merely mean people who assent to certain propositions such as "My relationship with God plays an important role in my life" [certainly nothing Christian about that proposition] and "I have a born-again experience" among others like them). Not surprisingly, the belief of American Christianity has little if anything to do with true Christianity. The term "Moral Therapeutic Deism" has been coined to describe the phenomenon, which is defined as being the belief that 1) God created the world; 2) God wants people to be good, nice and fair to each other, as taught in the Bible and most world religions; 3) The central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself; 4) God does not need to be particularly involved in one's life except when needed to resolve a problem; 5) Good people go to heaven when they die.

Perhaps more shocking than this is the analysis of sermons in supposed conservative Evangelical churches. A sociologist took samples of sermons preached in the supposed conservative Southern Baptist Convention and compared it with sermons preached in mainline Presbyterian churches, and there was essentially no difference in the sermons preached. Oh sure, there were some differences all right. For example, the Evangelical sermons when preaching on the parable of the Prodigy Son made the younger profligate son the great sinner. The sins which conservatives deemed evil are imputed to the younger son who partied all day, get drunk, watched pornography etc. In the mainline churches, the wicked son was the older son who was just like the Pharisees in being judgmental and not loving. Yet despite the surface differences, what the sermons basically amount to are messages like "You need to change your life", "Stop sinning" etc.

In both cases, Christianity is defined as being about life transformation and sin is redefined. The younger son is not "sinning," but rather he is fulfilling good desires in a wrong way. He is not living up to his potential, or his way is so much less satisfying than God's way, which is to say that if only he lived God's way, he would be happier and more satisfied, or so it is claimed. For modernists, the fault of the older son however must be remedied by emphatizing with sinners and loving and welcoming them into our fellowship.

Sin in American Christianity [and in fact in many parts of the world influenced by the West] is always about others; it is always others that sin, not ourselves. Conservatives blame the liberals and liberals blame the conservatives. So everyone sinned and also no one sinned!

Part of the rise of Moral Therapeutic Deism comes in the recent idea of "authenticity." Everyone must find their own inner innocent child (whatever that is supposed to mean) and be free to be ourselves and be "vulnerable."

In all this, the Gospel message disappears. Horton shared anecdotes (earlier on) of friends who visited supposed evangelical churches on Easter and discovered that there was no Gospel message preached in the service on EASTER. There was no reading of the Law, no confession of sins or anything of that sort, so they reasoned that probably at least in the sermon they would get the Gospel message. Unfortunately, it didn't happen. The Easter messages went along the lines of "4 ways to improve your life" or something like that. All that was preached is the law of Do's and nothing of Christ's Gospel of what He has Done for us.

After this cultural analysis, Horton proceeds on to the theological analysis.

The two main heresies that are prevalent in American Christianity [and many parts of the world too] are variants of Pelagianism and Gnosticism. Pelagianism basically believes in the essential goodness of man and that Man can save Himself. Semi-Pelagianism believes that God take some steps while Man take some steps, a position best expressed in the statement "God helps those who help themselves," a statement which I may add is nowhere to be found in the Bible. Gnosticism on the other hand believes in salvation by knowledge, which in ancient times refer often to secret knowledge.

Together, a variant of these two heresies is formed which deny that we are created good but are now fallen, and that we are helpless to save ourselves.

Pelagianism broadly speaking can be seen in the teachings of people like Norman Vincent Peale and Robert Schuller and all self-esteem, self-help movements. The idea that we can save ourselves can be found in many other religious movements like the New Age movement for example. Revivalism with its mechanical idea of conversion from the times of Charles G. Finney imbibes deeply at this toxic well, and through Finney the heresy of Pelagianism infects Evangelicalism as a whole. After all, if revival is only the result of the proper use of means, then salvation and conversion can be engineered by man and conversion is merely man's choice to "decide" for Christ.

Gnosticism in its broader sense has become the default stance even within Evangelicalism. The typical American, and typical Evangelical, is "spiritual but not religious." Christianity is defined as a relationship and not a religion (as if the two are mutually exclusive). Gnosticism thus manifests itself in the privatization of religion as being that of inner experience. Every person (in Evangelicalism every converted person) has a unique mystical relationship with God that is true because it just must be. While in apologetics, he may be interested in history and the Jesus of history, the Evangelical existentially has no need for the Christ of history, for Christ "resides in his or her heart." The loci of Christianity is not outside us, but inside us. What this means is that each one becomes his or her subjective judge and arbiter before God, and thus is the center of all things spiritual. The divorce of salvation from ecclesiology is as such another sign of gnosticism, as if the church is basically an add-on to the Christian life. So we have supposed Christians being consumers of spirituality and seeing little if any need for the institutional Church, believing that their [subjective] relationship with God is sufficient.

Such an error can also be seen in statements like "Our lives will preach better than anything we say," or we can quote the supposed quote from Francis of Assisi "Preach the Gospel at all things and where necessary use words." The gnostic element is evident in such falsehoods. Instead of proclaiming an external word of the Gospel, the idea of Christianity as inner experience lies behind the lie that our lives are better witnesses than the proclaimed Gospel. Yet the Scriptures are very clear that is is only the [external] Word of God that creates faith (cf Rom. 10:17), not the sharing of our inner experiences.

In light of all this, how should the Church respond? Horton ends off in saying that not to address sin and guilt in capitulation to the zeitgeist is pastoral cruelty. After all, God is not interested in how your "personal relationship with God" feels like, or that you are a reasonably good person. The only thing that matters is belief in the true Gospel, and if we fail to proclaim that Gospel and substitute it for false gospels that are not the Gospel, then the souls of many will be damned. God is not interested in your inner experience of Him and how close you feel to Him. In fact, Scripture makes it clear that Christ is not interested even in how many miracles you have done in His name! (Mt. 7:21-23). You can feel anything you want, do anything you want and say anything you want, but ultimately what matters is whether you have believed the Gospel and be saved. You can call God "Daddy", claim that you are under grace not law, call yourself the King's kids, and still go to hell! The Gospel is outside of us, God is apart from us. Shall we dare to dictate to the sovereign God that He must conform to our spirituality and supposed relationship status we have with Him?

As ministers of the Gospel and as His Church, we must proclaim the Gospel and nothing but this external Gospel of the Word outside of us. This is the only pastoral loving thing to do.

A transition

Observant readers of mine may have noticed that I have seen that my city of residence have been changed, although that would not actually take effect until about one week's time. The fact of the matter is that I am going for theological studies in a solid Reformed seminary over there.

Anyway, here is a short sharing which I have prepared for a dinner with some of my extended family last night. It has undergone major revisions since the script was not fully thought-out at that time. Anyway, here it is.

For they call themselves after the holy city, and stay themselves on the God of Israel; the LORD of hosts is his name. "The former things I declared of old; they went out from my mouth, and I announced them; then suddenly I did them, and they came to pass. Because I know that you are obstinate, and your neck is an iron sinew and your forehead brass, I declared them to you from of old, before they came to pass I announced them to you, lest you should say, 'My idol did them, my carved image and my metal image commanded them.' "You have heard; now see all this; and will you not declare it? From this time forth I announce to you new things, hidden things that you have not known. They are created now, not long ago; before today you have never heard of them, lest you should say, 'Behold, I knew them.'

"For my name's sake I defer my anger, for the sake of my praise I restrain it for you, that I may not cut you off. Behold, I have refined you, but not as silver; I have tried you in the furnace of affliction.

For my own sake, for my own sake, I do it, for how should my name be profaned? My glory I will not give to another.

(Is. 48:2-11)

In just a couple of days time, I would be flying off to the USA for theological studies. Why have I decided to do that?

Being saved by the grace of God, I desire to know Him more and to live for Him, giving my all (Rom. 12:1) to the one who saved me purely out of His own free choice to do so. As I grow in my walk, I became burdened with the shocking biblical illiteracy even among Christians who are ignorant of basic biblical doctrines, which coupled with an attitude of anti-intellectualism results in failure to function as the salt and light of the world. Instead, we have epitomized the reality of Eph. 4:14 – being tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine, and in this we glory in our shame, boasting to everyone of our ignorance by claiming to have “no creed but Christ”.

In the past three years, I have felt the calling to serve God full-time. Yet the call of God is not something that is emotion but that is of the Spirit. Through prayer and awaiting God’s timing, I am convinced of God’s guidance into this area and my giftings in this area have also been noted by fellow Christians. It is therefore my desire to learn more about God’s Word so as to be able to teach it properly for the building up of God’s people.

Yet in all this I must take note of the fact that service is ultimately not about me. God is totally sovereign and He does not need anyone to do His will. God does not need me or anyone else for that matter to do His work, for His arm is powerful to do all that He desires (Dan. 4:35). God can make a great nation from Moses without the need for the Israelites if He so chooses to (Ex. 32:10), and He can raise up children of Abraham from inanimate rocks and stones (Mt. 3:9, Lk. 3:8). No matter the need, God is always in control and lacks nothing from us.

We must not therefore think that God needs our services otherwise His plan will fail. Rather, God condescends to use us for His own glory, and it is our privilege to joyfully submit to Him and do His will for us.

God’s will is ultimately for His glory – for His name’s sake (Is. 48:2-11). God’s glory is of supreme importance to Himself, and it is because of His glory that He saves us, just like He promises to saves the rebellious Jews during the time of Isaiah. I must therefore also remember that the goal of all service is that God be supremely glorified, not about how much service I have rendered to God or how many people may benefit from what God may do through me. The prophet Jeremiah has little to show for His labor, yet He glorified God by proclaiming His Word as judgment against Judah for their rejection of God’s authority and His Law. Likewise, all that we do must be centered on God and His glory, not the needs of men, the Church or the World. What matters is faithfulness, not results.

So (1) God does not need me, and (2) God does not treasure what I can do (as if apart from the Lord I can do anything anyway). Yet it is my privilege to follow and offer my life up to this great God and my Savior, knowing that He will use this flawed life for His purpose, and that His purposes will stand. Amen.

Reflection on Prof Peter Jones' talk on the 28th March 2009

I had attended a talk by Prof Peter Jones, adjunct professor at Westminster Seminary California and executive director for the ministry TruthXChange, which was organized by STEMI and held recently in Singapore on the 28th March 2009. Here is my personal reflection on this excellent talk:

On the 28th Mar 2009, Dr. Peter Jones, adjunct professor at Westminster Seminary California, gave a talk in Singapore held at True Way Presbyterian Church. The talk was organized by STEMI and occurred from 10a.m. to about 2:30p.m, with the title being The Paganization of the West and the Global Challenge to Christian Truth. The talk was good and informative, and it was interesting hearing such a presentation from a Reformed theologian as opposed to the multitudes of evidential apologists who sometimes sound more alarmist than inspirational, and definitely less biblical.

Prof Jones’ talk was split into two sessions, predictably one before lunch and one after lunch. In the first session, Prof Jones describes the pagan worldview and its challenge in today’s society, while in the second session, he exegetes Rom. 1:18-28 to answer the challenge of paganism.

[more]

I think this message is very important for the church especially with the recent outbreak in interest in "Contemplative spirituality". It is hoped that the church will go back to the God of the Scriptures instead of going back to paganism in any form.

P.S.: There is a good sermon Prof Jones gave entitled Neo-Paganism: Stepchild of Secular Humanism, which you can obtain here.

Don Carson soundbites

I have finally received the MP3s for the D.A. Carson talks held during the Living Word conference 2008, which incidentally raised my opinion of Singapore Anglicanism. So I have been ripping and editing the MP3s to extract some nice soundbites, typically in the beginning at the Q&A session since I am so not going to attempt to find a section in his sermon which can be generally understood without its context of the entire sermon, though I am sure there are such good soundbites around.

Anyway, here are the interesting soundbites by Don Carson:

In this inclusive postmodern age and time, it is certainly sad that the truth that all people are by nature children of wrath needs to be qualified and treated delicately. I would be happier if Carson did not make that qualifier at the end of his answer to the Inclusivist question, as it distracts from the truth of Scripture and adds nothing of value to it.

And here is Don Carson on the Prosperity 'gospel', which is no gospel at all:

Carson taught on the second day on the topic of the Antichrist that the nature of the two beasts mentioned in Rev. 13 was such that one overly persecuted Christians (the first beast) (cf v. 7) while the second beast 'persecutes' Christians via deceiving them to worship the first beast via heresies and every wind of false doctrines. The question was thus put to him as to whether the Prosperity 'gospel' is a second beast, and he said yes. As you can hear from the clip, I was one of those who applauded, but I did not stand up to applaud him, which my friend Huaizhi did. That said, I similarly think that the qualifier placed at the beginning is totally unnecessary, and serves to confuse more than to enlighten. After all, which prosperity preacher except for the most extreme type would state upfront that they are preaching nothing but prosperity and not Christ? Rather, is it not the nature of deception to play the game of bait-and-switch; to state that they preach Christ yet in practice preach the so-called "benefits" of material prosperity and health?

And onto the last clip:

This was the clip which did not exactly endear themselves to members of FCBC since it was obviously talking about their pastor "Apostle" Lawrence Khong, who incidentally is part of the New Apostolic movement since he calls himself an apostle. Anyway, the question as can be heard wasn't phrased well, and seems to be more of a question of using magic during his services occasionally, plus a tad bit ad-hominem. As I have stated in my review of the talk:

With regards to the first question, the question was rather pointed such that everyone immediately knows who it was referring to – (Apostle) Pastor Lawrence Khong of FCBC. The questioner asked what did Carson thought about the use of magic by a prominent pastor in Singapore, or something to that effect. In my opinion, that was a question that would not really get to the point of contention about Lawrence Khong’s use of magic. After all, with this, it cannot be expected for Carson to know anything of the background information or what this whole issue is about. Furthermore, the question sounded rather personal so it wasn’t a very good question overall. Therefore not only was the basic issue not addressed, but the question was too ad-hominem in nature. From the way that Carson answered, it shows precisely why that was a bad question because Carson probably had in mind a pastor who uses magic occasionally during his sermons. Such magic is thus not occultic in nature, but sleight of hand, and therefore has nothing to do with Scripture’s condemnation of magic. Carson however states that if the doing of magic becomes the primary focus such that it is done to show people how good we are at magic, then he would have a serious issue with that, and with that he ended his answer.

In my opinion, the question should be better worded to focus on the real problem and not on the person. The problem with Lawrence Khong’s focus on magic is not stated here, which is the doing of magic as a semi-substitute for preaching the whole counsel of God, and a distrust of the sufficiency and power of the Word of God to effect salvation apart from his magic tricks. Since Rom. 10:17 proclaims to us that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God, it is totally unbiblical and inconceivable that anyone can truly comes to faith by just going to one of Khong’s “evangelistic” magic shows, in which no mention is made of the wrath of God, of the sinfulness of Man, and of the necessity of repentance and true faith [mere words do not count], and where magic skills were flaunted This then is the issue and the background information which should be conveyed to Carson, instead of giving a question which assumes as if Carson knows anything about the issues with Lawrence Khong, not to mention Khong is personally irrelevant to the entire issue. A better question to ask Dr. Carson thus is: “What do you think of the using of magic shows by a pastor as a medium for evangelism?”

This then ends Carson's soundbites. For the content of the talks, either go get for yourself a copy of the talks on MP3s somehow, or read mine and various others' reflections on them.