The New Evangelical method of argumentation

Pursuant to my post exposing the New Calvinist infatuation with positivity as can be seen in Challies' two posts, I have received some feedback on the matter. It is sincerely hoped that my full article on New Evangelical Calvinism, which provides the foundation of my case, would help to change their minds, but I am not too optimistic about it.

From the interaction so far, the best that can be offered in defense of Challies' posts is that "Challies is correct", or that "Challies has a point". What has NOT been attempted so far is a biblical and historical refutation of the arguments in the article. Hopefully, with my full article online now, there would be a change in the way the topic is addressed. Honestly, if the only response is an appeal to the subjective sans biblical support, then my point is further proved; that New Calvinism is content to profess (and work on to a certain extent) unity on the material principle of Scripture, but it categorically ignores the formal principle of Sola Scriptura in the process.

With this, let us see how things work out. As it is, if this infatuation with positivity continues within the New Calvinist movement, then the only option left is to treat them the same as the New Evangelical movement; just as errant and as compromising of the faith as their predecessor, and we should expect that doctrinal compromise within the camp would soon come, as per their predecessor the New Evangelicalism with the crisis over the topic of Inerrancy in the 1960-80s.

New Evangelical Calvinism: Embracing the material principle while neglecting the formal principle

[continued from here and here]

---

Will we embrace the material principle of the Gospel without embracing the formal principle of Sola Scriptura?

During the Reformation, the material principle was the principle of Justification by Faith alone, while the formal principle was Scripture Alone or Sola Scriptura. In an interaction on a blog I have had with some New Calvinists [21], there has been the insistence that Gospel-centeredness is enough, for Gospel-centeredness will necessarily preclude what I call Gospel-Onlyness — the view that everything is decided with respects to its impact on and consequence of the Gospel. Does embrace of the material principle therefore necessarily implies the embrace of the formal principle? Why then does the Reformation consists of two principles instead of merely one, and the insistence on the supreme authority of the Scripture for all of life as much as the Gospel itself was the issue of contention?

The formal principle of Sola Scriptura deals with the epistemological foundation of the faith within which the Gospel will thrive. Without the foundation, there are no set boundaries on what the Gospel actually is limited to. This does not mean of course that the Gospel does not have implications on various sundry issues, but the fact of the matters is without an epistemological foundation, upon what authority can agreement on the major issues be made, and what basis can defence be made against sophisticated denials of the Gospel which professes to be Gospel-centered like for example New Perspectivism? Even within the current movement, is being Gospel-centered really sufficient? Prof. D.A. Carson is part of The Gospel Coalition, an organization that is supposed to be Gospel-centered and supports Sola Scriptura in its confessional statements [22], yet he is also for the usage of gender-inclusive Bibles[23], which has a practical impact on the doctrine of Sola Scriptura by making such "Bibles" less literal and more importantly, conveying less of God's truth thus practically undermining the authority of the Scriptures in the lives of those who use such "Bibles" [24]. So is it really true that embracing the material principle, of being Gospel-centered, will necessarily cause the full embrace of the formal principle of Sola Scriptura? The case of D.A. Carson certainly does not seem to prove so. While it is true that emphasizing belief in Sola Scriptura does not necessarily preclude anyone from denying it in word or action, at least Scripture can function as a safeguard within which all matters of life and doctrine can be settled, instead of an authoritative appeal to the Gospel without its corresponding epistemic foundation.

References:

[21] Gospel-centered or Gospel-only?, dated January 17, 2009 (http://ephesians310.wordpress.com/2009/01/17/gospel-centred-or-gospel-only/), and Gospel-centered or Gospel-only? A brief response, dated February 2, 2009 (http://ephesians310.wordpress.com/2009/02/02/gospel-centredor-gospel-only-a-brief-response/)

[22] "Revelation", Confessional Statement, The Gospel Coalition Network (http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/about/foundationdocuments/confessional)

[23] D.A. Carson, The Inclusive-Language Debate: A Plea for Realism (Grand Rapids, MI, USA: Baker, 1998)

[24] Vern Poythress and Wayne Grudem, The Gender Neutral Bible Controversy, Updated Edition (Ross-shire, Scotland, UK: Christian Focus Publications, 2003)

New Evangelical Calvinism: Repeating the errors of New Evangelicalism

[continued from here]

---

Armed with God's Word and transformed by the Holy Spirit, these churches' leaders faithfully proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ week after week, through tragedy and triumph. Culture has conspired to give their message a wider audience. Desire for transcendence and tradition among young evangelicals has contributed to a Reformed resurgence. [1]

A phenomenon is growing and spreading within the churches in the USA. Spurred on by the degradation of culture, the downgrade of [New] Evangelicalism, the passion and appeal of charismatic personalities such as Pastor John Piper, C.J. Mahaney and the Sovereign Grace Movement among others, and above all to the providence of God, a renewed interest in Calvinism and the reformed worldview is spreading within the Evangelical movement. Journalist Colin Hansen has researched this phenomenon and published his results in his book Young, Restless, Reformed, truly an illuminating book which shows us the growing resurgence in Calvinism in myriad sectors of the Visible Church.

As Reformed (and reforming) Christians, the current resurgence in Calvinism surely is cause for gladness. Believing with Spurgeon that "Calvinism is the Gospel and nothing else" [2], the turning away from the destructive errors in modern-day bankrupt Evangelicalism with its embrace of semi-Pelagianism and Pelagianism is indeed cause for joy. Nevertheless, as I have observed the movement, many areas of concerns, some serious, have came up and it in this spirit that these concerns are brought up for our consideration.

Concerns:

Will we learn from history? — The New Evangelical failure to heed the doctrine of separation

On pages 13-16 in the first chapter, the example of an Adventist student named Robin attending a Passion conference was highlighted.

I asked Robin how Calvinism meshes with the Adventist church he attends. "It doesn't," Robin answered. He spent his first semester of college studying theology at Southern Adventist University in Tennessee. His increasing unwillingness to go along with unique points of Adventist theology led to conflict with faculty. He returned home to Orlando rather than cementing an unwanted reputation as the only non-Adventist theology major.

But if he's not Adventist, why does Robin still attend an Adventist church? Because that's where he can make a difference and maybe even teach others with his Calvinist theology. Besides, since Adventists meet on Saturdays, he can spend his Sunday mornings in Saint Andrew's Chapel in Sanford, Florida, where R.C. Sproul preaches. [3]

As it can be seen, this student Robin has one leg in Seventh-Day Adventism (which is not orthodox) [4], and one leg in Christian orthodoxy. This sounds exactly like the New Evangelical practice of non-separation from those manifestly in error and thus a violation of Scriptural principles as stated in 2 Cor. 6:14-18, which says

Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said,

“I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Therefore go out from their midst, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch no unclean thing; then I will welcome you, and I will be a father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to me, says the Lord Almighty.”

(2 Cor. 6:14-18)

Just like the Billy Graham crusades whereby new converts went back to their Gospel-denying churches [5], Robin apparently did not see any need to separate from his Seventh-day Adventist church and join a Bible-believing church. Instead, a reason with the aim of evangelism was given, which is the exact same reason given to excuse the same New-Evangelical practice half a century ago

new converts with a genuine experience of grace are planted in those liberal churches as a New Testament witness.... Furthermore, Christ, Paul, and all the great evangelists followed a similar pattern. [6]

There is a reason why the doctrine of separation [7] exists, and it is not because Reformed folks delight in disunity within the Body of Christ, but that true biblical unity only occurs among those who believe the Gospel, NOT all who profess to be Christian [8]. The failure to realize what true biblical unity is and pursue false ecclesiastical unity proved disastrous for the Church in the second half of the 20th century, as both Iain Murray [9] and Ernest Pickering [10] demonstrates, the former coming from a Reformed perspective and the latter coming from a Fundamentalist perspective. Neo-Evangelicalism has evolved in the last 50 years of church history, and its fruit is anything but good. It has given us serious doctrinal compromise and the blurring of what the Gospel is, of which a significant error was in considering Liberals and Roman Catholics Christians. The doctrinal rot precipitated the Inerrancy controversy of the 1960s to the 1980s as Evangelical students came back from liberal colleges tainted with the error of Liberalism [11]. Fuller Theological Seminary embrace the error of Feminism soon after [12], and New Evangelicals found a new openness to the pseudo-scientific theory of evolution [13], and even sexual 'liberation' [14]. This is not to mention the pragmatism and market-drivenness that has crept into Christian ministry, best seen in the Seeker-Sensitive [15] and Purpose Driven [16] brands [17] which can be found even within the 'conservative' wing of modern-day so-called "Evangelicalism". All of these are the bad fruit of the New Evangelical movement, with her failure to practice the biblical command of separation in her attempt to 'win the culture' resulting in little change towards orthodox Christianity outside while she loses her soul in the process.

Will we therefore learn from history? Already in the early stages of the Calvinist Resurgence, this doctrine of separation does not seem to be practiced. Besides the case of Robin, it should be remembered that the author of the book Collin Hansen himself is an editor with the largest New Evangelical magazine, Christianity Today. In an article for Reformation21 [18], the online magazine (ezine) of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, Hansen has written

As for fundamentalists, I have heard testimonies of college and seminary students who tell me something big is stirring. Perhaps there is hope that these young Calvinists will rebuild the bridges burned generations ago between evangelicals and fundamentalists.

It is definitely a good thing that largely Arminian Fundamentalists discover the biblical truths of the Reformed faith. Nevertheless, notice what Hansen has said with regards to the "bridge burned generations ago". The historical fact was that the bridge was burned by the New Evangelicals, not mere evangelicals, who repudiate the biblical doctrine of separation. This failure to understand the initial issue of contention half a century ago, together with his work as editor for the New Evangelical flagship magazine Christianity Today seems to show that Hansen himself is a New Evangelical.

Seeing the destructive fruit of New Evangelicalism in the second half of the 20th century, it is sad that New Evangelical Calvinism, what Hansen calls the New Calvinists or New Calvinism, is moving in the exact same direction as New Evangelicalism half a century ago. Similar to New Evangelicalism [19], modern-day New Evangelical Calvinism talks about redeeming the culture [20]. Both ignore the doctrine of separation, and time will tell how strong the present emphasis on the Gospel and being Gospel centered would last. If the history of New Evangelicalism is any guide, the focus on the Gospel would last only one generation, with the next generation running into various errors though still claiming to be Gospel-centered.

References

1] Colin Hansen, Young, Restless, Reformed: A Journalist's journey with the New Calvinists (Wheaton, IL, USA: Crossway Books, 2008), p. 156

[2] Charles Spurgeon, A Defense of Calvinism. Accessed online at http://www.spurgeon.org/calvinis.htm

[3] Hansen, p. 16

[4] "The issue of the Seventh-Day Adventists" in Daniel H. Chew, Book Review: The Kingdom of the Cults (http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/ddd_chc82/articles/thekingdomofthecults_review.html#SDA)

[5] See Ernest D. Pickering, The Tragedy of Compromise: The Origin and Impact of the New Evangelicalism (Greenville, SC, USA: Bob Jones University Press, 1994), p. 66-67.

[6] W. R. White, "Modern Pharisees and Sadducees," Baptist Standard, 2 July 1958, p. 5. As quoted in Pickering, p. 67

[7] Daniel H. Chew, The Doctrine of Separation (http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/ddd_chc82/theology/separation.html)

[8] This point was succinctly put by Dr. Martin Lloyd-Jones in his address to the Evangelical Alliance meeting in 1966, as narrated by Iain H. Murray in his book Evangelicalism Divided: A Record of Crucial Change in the Years 1950 to 2000 (Carlisle, Pennsylvania, USA: Banner of Truth Trust, 2000), p. 44-46.

[9] Iain H. Murray, Evangelicalism Divided.

[10] Ernest D. Pickering, The Tragedy of Compromise.

[11] To gain intellectual respectability, bright students from evangelical churches were sent to liberal theological colleges, where they were contaminated by Liberalism. On the inerrancy controversy, as recounted in Murray, Evangelicalism Divided,

With some subtlety and slight dealing with crucial texts, [James] Dunn presented a case that the Bible does not teach that it is inerrant and that it is indeed more honoring to Scripture and to the Holy Spirit to recognize that fact. He also saw the text of the Bible as 'historically relative'. He argued that because some of its teaching was once true it does not necessarily follow that it is true for all time. Further, the Holy Spirit may give a text a meaning for us now which was not the original meaning, and to accept this, he claimed, is to 'exalt the Spirit' over the letter. Simply to be bound by 'the letter' is 'Pharisaic legalism', and when evangelicals attribute to Scripture the authority which belongs only to God they are guilty of 'bibliolatry'. As far as the teaching of Warfied and Princeton on Scripture was concerned, Dunn's language was unmeasured. It was 'exegetically improbable, hermeneutically defective, theologically dangerous, and educationally disastrous'. (p. 182)

[12] Pickering, pp. 78, 83

[13] Ibid., pp. 81-81

[14] Ibid., pp. 86-87

[15] For example, see Lee Strobel, Inside the Mind of Unchurched Harry and Mary: How to Reach Friends and Family Who Avoid God and the Church (Grand Rapids, MI, USA: Zondervan, 1993)

[16] Bob DeWaay, Redefining Christianity: Understanding the Purpose Driven Movement (Springfield, MO, USA: 21st Century Press, 2006)

[17] A good book exposing the false "Christianity" of modern times would be Michael Horton, Christless Christianity: The Alternate Gospel of the American Church (Grand Rapids, MI, USA: Baker Books, 2008)

[18] Collin Hansen, Reflections on Young, Restless, and Reformed, Reformation21 ezine, Feb 2009. Accessed online at http://www.reformation21.org/articles/reflections-on-young-restless-and-reformed.php .

[19] Pickering, pp. 9-10

[20] Mark Driscoll, Confessions of a Reformission Rev. — Hard Lessons from an Emerging Missional Church (Grand Rapids, MI, USA: Zondervan, 2006, 15-16. Also Mark Driscoll, Times Magazine names New Calvinism 3rd Most Powerful Idea, The Resurgence (http://theresurgence.com/new_calvinism)

New Evangelical Calvinism: An Analysis of the Calvinist Resurgence

After much thought, and feedback from my good friend and brother Stephen Macasil, I have finally came up with a paper on the New [Evangelical] Calvinism. The full article has now been uploaded to my website here [removed], of which I will post sections of it in the near future since the subject is clearly important as the New Calvinist train picks up steam.

I have found FIVE points of concern on the New Calvinist movement, some of which are quite serious. They are:

1. Will we learn from history? — The New Evangelical failure to heed the doctrine of separation
2. Will we embrace the material principle of the Gospel without embracing the formal principle of Sola Scriptura?
3. Will we aim for rational and lifestyle consistency?
4. Will we reject the New Evangelical infatuation with positivity?
5. Recovering the role of being an ambassador for Christ

In subsequent posts, each of these five points will be further elucidated, and through them, the New Calvinist movement would hopefully be examined in light of Scripture and secondarily through the lens of church history. It is further hoped that the article would show the foundation behind the recent rebuttal to Challies' attack posts and the (rather amateurish) poster I have made.

So stay tuned for the analysis, or read the full article if you cannot wait for them to be posted in parts.

Soli Deo Gloria.

Poster: Negativity

I always wanted to try my hand at poster-making (although I am not too familiar with graphic design software), especially since a picture is said to be worth a thousand words. Anyway, this is a very interesting poster I have made which sums up nicely one point of contention against Tim Challies' attack post.

See:

A Belated Response to Tim Challies' article attacking watchblogs.

Old AWARE exco prove to have promoted lesbianism

For background information, see: AWARE and the homosexual agenda.

The new leadership of the feminist organization AWARE in Singapore has released an interesting information sheet entitled On AWARE’s Changing Slant Towards Homosexuality and Comprehensive Sexual Education in Recent Years, proving beyond doubt the radical homosexualist agenda of the Old Guard, who after being voted out of power have engaged in a smear campaign against the so-called "coup leaders".

[HT: Isaiah Chua]

AWARE and the homosexual agenda

I guess I didn't have a good opinion of AWARE, seeing as a sexist organization. But the recent AWARE saga, in which a group of women through democatic means wrest control of the feminist NGO from the Old Guard and was then accused of staging of coup by them, is indeed interesting. The hysterics of the Old Guard and the spin placed on the media to promote the homosexual agenda here in Singapore is really revealing (so much for the neutrality of the press). As it is correctly reported by the Christian Post:

For the past week they were blasted by members of the public for an aggressive 'takeover'.

But leaders of the 'coup' have revealed to the media that the actual takeover had occurred some years back when certain elements in the organisation had used it as a platform to promote homosexuality.

In an impromptu press conference conducted yesterday at Raffles Town Club, New AWARE President Josie Lau opened up on the real crisis behind the NGO that had led the new team to run for leadership positions.

“I was being very polite when I said [that Aware had lost its focus]… It has really not lost its focus but I think it has gone further than that, much, much further than that,” she said.

“It has now become a single-objective organisation. So that's what the new team is here to do: we want to bring Aware back to its original, very noble objective, which is to represent all women, to advance their cause, all women whatever religion and race in areas such as professional development, their private life, their health... We need to look at ageism, all the problems... So we should be pushing those cause.

"Lau and the other new leaders, who form a third of the entire exco, were democratically elected at the NGO's annual general meeting last month but have been accused of using strong-arm tactics to gain control of the organisation in what has been negatively portrayed by public media as an act of Christian fundamentalism.

Under the leadership of ex-president Constance Singam, Aware sponsored the screening of the lesbian-themed movie Spider Lilies at its charity gala in 2007. When a concerned parent wrote in to the media asking why Aware’s choice of movie for a charity show was a film about two lesbians who fall in love, Singam said Aware embraced diversity and individual choices and was glad Singapore is now more open to discussing diversity.

In the NGO’s comprehensive sexuality education programme conducted in 30 schools for young girls aged from twelve to 18, homosexuality is regarded as a neutral rather than a negative word.

“The suggestion is that in this programme, young girls from twelve to 18 are taught that it’s okay to experiment with each other,” said Dr Thio Su Mien, the founding partner of a local law firm and first woman law dean at the National University of Singapore. Dr Thio says Aware was started by her contemporaries and friends and as a concerned party she played a part in persuading the four new exco members, namely, Ms Josie Lau, Ms Maureen Ong, Ms Jenica Chua and Ms Lois Ng to join the NGO and is presently acting as their mentor.

“And this is something which should concern parents in Singapore. Are we going to have an entire generation of lesbians?” She added that the parents to whom she had spoken about the sexuality programme were indignant. Such programmes, she noted, are not new and have been taking place in the United States and Europe.

[continued]

Guess what would happen if those in the new Exco were women from a certain religion known for the violence of its adherents? Oh yes, the newspapers would suddenly find other things to report. But of course, Christians are fair game to attack, mock and ridicule. So much for the Singapore creed: "regardless of race, language or religion".

Also, if four homosexuals were to take over a Christian NGO, do you think the Press would be decrying that the new guard had done an aggressive takeover? Forget it! I think we would see glowing reports of how "progressive" Christians NGOs have become. The duplicity of the Press is astonishing, if it was not so sad.

A belated response to Tim Challies' article attacking watchblogs

I have been writing for quite some time and am now polishing up my article on New Evangelical Calvinism or the "New Calvinism", after receiving constructive feedback from my friend Stephen Macasil.

Anyway, I thought I would post my belated response to Tim Challies' horrible posts attacking watchblogs. For those who have no clue as to what has happened, the "world's most famous Christian blogger" Tim Challies has decided to post an attack article attacking watchblogs as presenting Evil as Entertainment (presumably he is exempted from his own charge?). Both Steve Camp in his post Blogging, Watchblogging and Ministry, and Phil R. Johnson in his post Turning a Blind Eye to Evil is Evil Too have responded to the outrageous attack launched by Challies against fellow Christians. Challies responded to the outrage with a follow-up article Fighting Fire with Fire, in which he made some cosmetic changes but maintained his fundamental stance with regards to the issue.

Previously, I have decided to respond to Challies in the context of my larger article on New Evangelical Calvinism, for otherwise it may be harder to substantiate my refutations since they deal with an issue not normaly seen as errant, New Evangelicalism with its infatuation with positivity. However, it seems that such may not be a good idea after all, so I would be presenting my full rebuttal here first.

---

The idea of being positive or seen as positive was one aspect of the New Evangelical movement [1] which is however not as easily recognized as demarcating New Evangelicalism per se. The New Evangelical/ Fundamentalist divide is remembered more for the divide over the doctrine of separation, if it is remembered at all. The apostatizing mainstream "evangelicals" in our day have long since jettisoned treasuring and proclaiming the truth, and therefore the New Calvinists do not seem to be New Evangelical in the aspect of truth as compared to the "Evangelicals" nowadays. However, this has not been the case. The early New Evangelicals like Harold Ockenga and Edward Carnell treasure the truth [2] and desire that biblical Christianity experience a revival in the land. Trying to have their cake and eat it however, the New Evangelical strategy of infiltration backfired and it was the world that turned the church upside down instead of the other way round. But it must be remembered that the early New Evangelicals do treasure the truth and were appalled by the fruit of their compromise [3].

The desire to be loving and positive, both New Evangelical traits, have never been repudiated by the New Calvinist movement, a successor of the conservative wing of New Evangelicalism. In fact, these twin related traits manifests themselves in the blogosphere in New Calvinist Tim Challies' blog post attacking so-called watchbloggers [4]. In his highly inflammatory post, Challies utilizes zero Scripture to support his case and through analogy with the secular world accuses watchblogs or discernment blogs as utilizing evil as entertainment, merely because such watchblogs act as watchmen in portraying the errors within the professing visible Church. The irony that Challies is, in this one post of his, doing exactly what he accuses the watchblogs as doing (portraying the errors within the professing visible Church) is seemingly lost on him, as it has been written:

Take note of the irony here: what we just read was a blogger concerned about watchbloggers watchblogging, issuing a very pointed criticism against watchbloggers in general, but in point of fact was watchblogging about other watchbloggers on his own blog. [5]

Phillip R. Johnson [6] and Steven J. Camp [7] have both responded to Challies' article rather well, and it is not our desire to repeat their good arguments against Challies. What is more of concern here is to note that Challies' article betrays his New Evangelical tendency, in his desire to be loving and positive. In his initial attack piece, Challies labeled all Discernment ministries without any distinction and attacked all of them. Being taken to task especially by Phil Johnson, Challies in his follow-up article Fighting Fire with Fire [8] softens his absolutist stance and says that there is "a time and place to expose sin and even to expose sin publicly", but this as we shall see is mere cosmetic change.

The first warning sign that Challies has not in fact changed his view on positivity, on having an infatuation with being positive, comes from the title of the blog post itself "Fighting fire with fire". Taking the example of a forest fire, Challies likened doctrinal error to a forest fire, and the actions of watchbloggers as smaller fires started with the intention of preventing the creation of larger fires. While this may seem to convey his stated point that "negative watchblogging" is sin and cause destruction probably on par with the spreading of doctrinal error, what it also conveys is that both are destructive in the exact same way and degree. That such a bold claim is made is nothing short of astonishing. Does Challies know even one bit of Church history? The most "negative watchblogging", which focus on persons, can do is destroy individuals, which is highly unlikely in the first place. Heresy however attacks the truth and thus permanently destroys individual souls, churches, and denominations, and that destruction continues through time. The former deals with people, the latter with the Truth! It is a symptom indeed of Challies' view on positivity and his myopic view of reality that both are to be regarded as equally bad.

Having sullied the idea of discernment by his inappropriate analogy, Challies continued by poisoning the well. Challies opined on the type of feedback he has received and phrased it in such a way that the impression is given that he has received a lot of hatemail confirming the correctness of his first post, through the use of the phrase "learned more about those watchblogs than I have wanted". Challies is a good writer, and he skillfully uses his words to give the impression that the hatemail he received confirmed that many "watchbloggers" are indeed people who regard evil as entertainment. Even if the majority of emails rebuking Challies are harsh, it is logically fallacious to infer that therefore these same people are treating evil as entertainment. There is simply no causative relationships between the two, unless of course one believe in the principle of positivity as an axiom.

To support his so-far non-existent argument, Challies placed up a couple of links. The first one links to an article by James McDonald [9] about the idea of the gift of discernment used in the flesh. The whole argument is suspect however, for the very issue at hand is taking criticism from other Christians. Are we to suppose that any and ALL criticism equates to the use of discernment? Is McDonald, and Challies by extension, saying that criticism from others equals the use of the gift of discernment albeit in the flesh? It seems that one does not have to be a Christian in order to have this gift! Whether rightly or wrongly, criticism comes to all of us, and to attack the act of discernment and discernment ministries themselves because criticism occurs is utterly fallacious. In fact, since Challies is discerning the watchblogs here, why isn't this act of his done in the flesh?

The second links to New Evangelical Frank Turk's article [10] that discernment is to be exercised within the local church. Since discernment ministries are meant to inform people of error and in so doing contributing to the Great Commission by warning the flock of possible soul-destroying error, Turk's peculiar ecclesia localis centrism logically leads to the conclusion that evangelism is to be done only within the Local Church! This is simply untenable, and therefore Turk's view of the Local Church is in error. The early church came together for worship, prayer, fellowship and sacraments, and went out to reach the world for Christ. The focus always was outward. No doubt we should treasure the Local Church, but ministry is not limited to the Local Church: Evangelism for example should be always done without to reach lost souls for Christ. The early church in Acts also did not know of Turk's peculiar emphasis on the Local Church, and there never was a situation whereby Christians refuse to minister together or to accept each other's ministry because they were not of the same Local Church! Last of all, it will suffice that Turk is violating his own advice since this article of his is not posted within the context of the Local Church anyway, not to mention Turk is not a pastor or elder so he has disqualified himself on his own principles!

Challies finished by basically repeating the essence of his initial post. In his own words:

But a blog that has as its bread and butter exposing error in the church, and especially error that is completely decontextualized and irrelevant to any of its readers, is a blog I think we ought to avoid [11]. A Christian’s thoughts ought to be dominated by “whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things” (Philippians 4:8). As I said last Monday, “Do I really need to read and to know about the seedy underbelly of the church, when such things happen thousands of miles away, among people I will never meet and in places I will never be? Such news is plenty entertaining, but it is useless to me. It does nothing to further my faith or to cause me to grow in godliness.” [12]

The problem with Challies which can be seen here is that he has attacked the idea of discernment ministries in general, in his bid to be positive. This has nothing to do whatsoever with the responsibility of the readership, an issue which must be kept totally separate.

Now of course, is there nothing to Challies' complaint? Of course there is! There are so-called "discernment" blogs that I personally do not exactly want to be associated with. But to attack "watchblogs" in general and state that the problem is that they are "doing discernment in the flesh", or are using "evil as entertainment" attacks the very actions of discernment itself and is a judgmental statement on the state of people's souls. How does Challies know whether a person is operating a watchblog because he is concerned over others, or because he wants to destroy others or entertain others with evil? He doesn't! Also, we shouldn't confuse the motives of the writers with the motives of the readers. If people read it because they want to be entertained by evil, the blame should be placed on the reader not the sharer of information, unless it can be proven that that was the motive of the sharer in posting it also.

The proper biblical response to inappropriate "discernment" ministries is to lovingly reach them and call upon them to be loving as well as discerning. Most of these people are doing such because they are concerned over what is happening in the churches, not because they delight in entertaining people with evil. Instead of attacking them, they should be given loving guidance. In the case of inappropriate judgments, we should correct them in love and if they reject it, to stand firm in the truth. If rebukes are required, the offending parties are to be named, their errors shown biblically and specifically, and they are to be called to repent. Such people are wrong because they have no love or they make a wrong judgment, not because of their action of discernment.

Challies with his view of being loving and positivity has manifests his New Evangelical convictions and has done damage to the cause of Christ, with legitimate discernment ministries de-legitimized and the enemies of the Truth emboldened [13]. Just like New Evangelicalism historically, such an infatuation with positivity will slowly but surely destroy the Church. Will we reject this infatuation with positivity? Of course, this does not mean that we extol negativity; we should not strive to be either positivist or negativist, but to be biblical and embrace both in antithetical living. As it is written:

I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom:preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. As for you, always be sober-minded, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry (2 Tim. 4:1-5)

Note the pattern here: Verse 1-2 are "positive" verses, which is followed by a "negative" verses in verses 3-4, and capped with a "positive" statement in verse 5. Such patterns are in fact found throughout the Scripture, and this antithetical teaching and lifestyle should characterize the lives of Christians. We are to be positive and negative; positive towards godliness and truth and negative towards ungodliness and error. New Evangelicalism threw out the need to be negative, while Fundamentalism in general tend to throw out the need to be positive. Biblical Christianity is both, and may we therefore embrace both.

REFERENCES:

[1] Earnest D. Pickering, The Tragedy of Compromise: The Origin and Impact of the New Evangelicalism (Greenville, SC, USA: Bob Jones University Press, 1994), p. 8

Early New Evangelical leaders took great pains to emphasize the fact that fundamentalists were too much "again" and not enough "for". Their plea was "Let's be positive and not negative". While this statement has an emotional appeal to many, it is not a biblical philosophy. Scripture is both positive and negative — it is for some things and against others. We must strive for that same balance.

[2] Iain H. Murray, Evangelicalism Divided: A Record of Crucial Change in the Years 1950 to 2000 (Carlisle, Pennsylvania, USA: Banner of Truth Trust, 2000), p. 20

[3] Pickering, pp. 78, 96-97

[4] Tim Challies, Evil as Entertainment, Blog post dated April 6, 2009 (http://www.challies.com/archives/articles/evil-as-entertainment.php)

[5] Steven J. Camp, Blogging, Watchblogging and Ministry, Blog post dated April 8th, 2009 (http://stevenjcamp.blogspot.com/2009/04/blogging-watchblogging-meta-and.html)

[6] Phil. R Johnson, Turning a Blind Eye to Evil is Evil Too, Blog post dated April 9th, 2009 (http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2009/04/turning-blind-eye-to-evil-is-evil-too.html)

[7] Steven J. Camp, Blogging, Watchblogging and Ministry.

[8] Tim Challies, Fighting Fire with Fire, Blog post dated April 13, 2009 (http://www.challies.com/archives/articles/fighting-fire-with-fire.php)

[9] James McDonald, Great Damage: The Use of the Gift of Discernment Used in the Flesh, Blog post dated March 2, 2009 (http://blog.harvestbiblefellowship.org/?p=1527 )

[10] Frank Turk, Establish Elders (3), Blog post dated April 8, 2009 (http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2009/04/establish-elders-3.html)

[11] Note that Challies' positivity criteria would function to throw a watchblog like Chris Rosebrough's Museum of Idolatry (http://www.alittleleaven.com/) under the bus, a blog site which Phil Johnson defended as serving a valid function.

[12] Challies, Fighting Fire with Fire

[13] One just need to glance at the meta of Challies' two posts to see Warren apologist Richard Abanes and Chris Lyons of the anti-Christian watchblog CRN.info praising Challies and attacking the watchblogs, to see the damage Challies has done.

Samuel Rutherford on the Well-meant Offer (part 2)

[Part 1 here]

Nor is it true that Christ's dying for all and everyone (which is a dream) makes salvation possible to all, so that the Covenant is Precheable to all upon condition of believing. ...

And it is true: whether all believe or none at all believe, and whether all or none at all be saved, as is this (whosoever shall keep the Law perfectly, shall be justified and saved by the works of the Law.) But, it makes neither faith nor salvation possible to Pagans and Reprobates, nor perfect obedience in doing the Law nor Justification or salvation by the works of the law possible to any living man. But the Question is, whether the connection of the former be made true by the decree and revealed will of God promising life to the believer, by no means, but only by this, because Christ died for all and everyone. ... This must be proved either by Scripture, or by some solid reason from Scripture; for it saith this, Reprobates cannot have life by believing in Christ crucified for them: except it be true that Christ was crucified for them, except they also believe that Christ rose from the dead, and ascended and intercedes in Heaven for them... (p. 349-350)

...the Covenant of Grace .... was it not a Covenant of its own nature that might at any age, be Preached to all Nations. But what is then revealed in these decrees? (if the Reprobates believe, they shall be saved). Answer: Not God's intention conditional or absolute to save them, or to give them faith or grace merited by Christ' death, to believe, for then some good-will and love of election, the Lord should bear toward the election of such, and should desire all the Reprobate to be saved, so that they would believe, ... , therefore this conditional decree (if all and everyone believe, all and everyone shall be saved) can infer no love of God through Christ to the persons of all and everyone to have them saved, more than this can infer a love of saving all and everyone, to be in God or to have been in the Lord, ... In a word, no simple conditional propositions can infer the desire or good will of God to the person or men or to have the things done, except God effectually work the condition ... ... For this connective proposition may stand true with the salvation of all angles, or all men, or no angels, or no men, according as the Lord shall be pleased of his good pleasure and free grace to work, or not to work the condition of moving the will of Angles and men to keep the Law. And therefore these connections nihil ponunt asoluti, they place nothing absolutely to PERSONS, but only to THINGS, to wit, 1) That it is the duty and obligation of all angels and men to perform absolute obedience to the Law, as they would be justified and saved by the Law, and it's the duty of all men in the Visible Church to believe in Christ if they would be justified and saved in Christ. (p. 353-355)

(Bold and CAPS added)

Samuel Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, Edited by C. Matthew McMahon (New Lenox, IL, USA: Puritan Publications, 2005. Original published on 1654)

It has been said, "The more things change, the more they stay the same" or, to put it biblically, "there is nothing new under the sun" (Eccl. 1:9). Rutherford attacked the idea of a well-meant offer found within the Amyraldian movement in his time. Does this objection sounds familiar: "Reprobates cannot have life by believing in Christ crucified for them: except it be true that Christ was crucified for them, except they also believe that Christ rose from the dead, and ascended and intercedes in Heaven for them". In other words, God must be presented as purchasing universal atonement for all elect and reprobates in Gospel preaching, according to the WMO promoters.

Rutherford rejected this idea, albeit in rather long-winded prose. In Rutherford's view, God desires the things in salvation rather than people when viewed in the context of Gospel offer (Conditional proposition). It is the duty and obligation of all men to repent and believe the Gospel, of which these actions in the fulfilment of the Law qua things are pleasing to God. But God does not desire and intend conditional or absolute to save them.

New Spring Church Band performs "Highway to Hell"

This is a video by New Spring Church band performing AC/DC's rock song Highway to Hell.

Here are the lyrics courtesy of A Little Leaven:

Living easy, living free
Season ticket on a one-way ride
Asking nothing, leave me be
Taking everything in my stride
Don't need reason, don't need rhyme
Ain't nothing I would rather do
Going down, party time
My friends are gonna be there too

I'm on the highway to hell

No stop signs, speed limit
Nobody's gonna slow me down
Like a wheel, gonna spin it
Nobody's gonna mess me round
Hey Satan, payed my dues
Playing in a rocking band
Hey Momma, look at me
I'm on my way to the promised land

I'm on the highway to hell
(Don't stop me)

And I'm going down, all the way down
I'm on the highway to hell

I wonder if this is the latest trend in "contextualization", where you get to sing the Devil's songs in "church" to reach out to the "unchurched", even wishing to join them in hell it seems!

Samuel Rutherford on the Well-Meant Offer

I have been going through a book by the Scottish Puritan Samuel Rutherford in my free time (hence it would take some time to finish it) entitled The Covenant of Life Opened (New Lenox, IL, USA: Puritan Publications, 2005. Original published on 1654). Here is an interesting quote by Rutherford relevant to the topic of the Well-meant offer (Two can play the "quotes" game)

And this is a Gospel truth now, that stands after the Incarnation, as before Romans 9:18. He hath therefore mercy upon whom he will, and hardens whom he will. And he said it in the Old Testament, Exodus 33:19, and repeateth it to us, Romans 9:15. I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion upon whom I will have compassion. And if any man say that he hath the like antecedent natural good will, to save eternally all these whom he calleth and moveth finally to obey, and the greatest part of mankind whom he so moveth and calleth as he knoweth they shall never obey, whereas he can move all finally to obey, without straining their natural liberty: He speaks things that cannot consist with both the wisdom and liberty of God. (p. 190-191)

Upcoming talk by Ralph Davis

Shalom Reformed Baptist Church has invited Dr. Dale Ralph Davis to give a seminar cum talk in their church. This coming Friday the 17th April 2009, Dr. Davis would be giving a talk open to the public. Here are the details:

Date: 17th April 2009

Time: 8pm

Topic: Clarity on Carmel (1 Kings 18)

Venue: Shalom RB premises along Upper Paya Lebar Road.
8 New Industrial Road, LHK3 Building,#03-01, Singapore 536200

Quotable Quotes: The Adequacy of Words

In my on-going research into New Evangelical Calvinism, I stumbled onto a quote from a book I had lying on my bookshelf for some time, proving that there is nothing new under the sun.

Still more significant in undermining the evangelical position on Scripture has been the liberal argument that divine truth cannot be precisely stated in words. Given all the limitations of human vocabulary, it is said, revelation cannot exist in 'propositional form'. God's thoughts so transcend our capacity and language that it is a form of 'rationalism' to think that word can convey revelation inerrantly. So it is affirmed.

This is an old argument from philosophy, and it was adopted a century ago by those who wanted to retain faith in God's redemptive acts but not in the infallibility of the text of the Bible which records those acts. 'It is claimed', Douglas Johnson wrote in 1953, 'that the Bible does not provide us with definite propositions which would enable us to state formally what God has been pleased to reveal, and from which it is possible to draw up a creed.' 'No propositional revelation in Scripture' was the repeated objection raised against evangelical 'dogmatism'. Thus, at the same period, we find [Dr. Martin] Lloyd-Jones responding to the claim that 'fundamentalism cannot be true because it claims that truth can be reduced to a number of propositions'.

- Iain H. Murray, Evangelicalism Divided — A Record of Crucial Change in the Years 1950 to 2000 (Carlisle, Pennsylvania, USA: Banner of Truth Trust, 2000)

James White on really believing the Gospel

Dr. James White has written an excellent article on the topic of really believing the Gospel. Some excerpts:

One is either convicted that the gospel is something that matters or not. There really isn't any middle ground. Saying the gospel is important, but, not really definitional, is absurd. It is no wonder that so many today find Paul a disagreeable character, because as far as I can see, I am following very closely in his footprints on this issue. There is a divine gospel whereby God glorifies Himself in the salvation of His elect, and anything less than that isn't the gospel at all. It's a sham, a fraud, a deception. Now that kind of thinking doesn't sit well in a post-modern world, to be sure, where it smacks of "epistemological arrogance." But to say otherwise is to insist that God has not spoken with clarity and that the Lord has not preserved the gospel for His people.

The fact of the matter is that most "Protestants" in the world today are Protestants of taste rather than Protestants of conviction. They just prefer their religion the way they have it. Maybe they don't like old cathedrals, or they don't like backwards collars, or the smell of candles. Maybe they think the Pope's hat is funny. Whatever the reason, they are not Roman Catholics basically because they don't feel like it. They are not convinced that Rome's gospel is false or that her theology is blasphemous. No, they have never really given all of that much thought. They might find the Marian dogmas a bit odd, but in the final analysis, their current religious affiliation is just a matter of taste, nothing more. And let me tell you: those folks are ripe for conversion: either conversion to Rome, or, conversion to apostasy, either one. For if they have no passion for the gospel, they have no passion for Christ, and hence no foundation of faith.

...

A true Protestant is a person who has made that act of will, that act of faith, in purposefully embracing the gospel of grace in opposition to a gospel of works and who recognizes that what he has embraced is fundamentally opposed to what he has rejected.

Someone who is truly convicted of the Gospel must not be merely positive, but also negative; not only loving [the truth] but hating [the lie]. A merely "positive" faith and Gospel is insufficient! As Dr. White has said:

Saying the gospel is important, but, not really definitional, is absurd.

To what extent does the New Calvinists with their insistence on being together for the Gospel are as such? Will they follow Scripture in all its fullness, or desire to be merely "positive" and refuse to refute heresy as heresy. It is simply not enough to just say "This is not right", but also "This is wrong!"; to say "This is not what the Scriptures teaches", but also "This is against what the Scriptures teaches"; or to say "You are not preaching in line with the Scriptures" instead of saying "You are preaching heresy"! Such an attitude which focuses on the positive while ignoring the negative is a blight on Christianity and contrary to the spirit and tone of Jesus and the Apostles.

To my grief, I have been given an impression by at least one of my New Calvinist friends that we should focus on the positive; on merely teaching the truths of Scripture, but not to rebuke error. In his/their viewpoints, our teachings/ blogs should be focused on teaching people the truth, and error should only be dealt with when they crop up and done so personally. Besides being unbblical and ahistorical (no significant group of Christians has ever adopted this attitude until the last 100-200 years in Church History), this attitude of being only positive and negative just does not work, since positive presentation without negative refutation leaves the way open for men to follow error without knowing it and by the time the error has leavened the loaf, there is nothing any man can do about it. Also, it is possible to be merely positive? I dare anyone to try teaching Christology without reference to any of the Christological heresies in all their forms (including the terms and concepts used) present in the early history of the Church, and see whether such would help people to evade the errors of Arianism or even Modalism. Such people would do well to read Church History of events such as the Downgrade Controversy to find out what happens when people desire to be positive and not contend for the faith — apostasy of the churches.

I have been researching into the New Calvinist movement for some time, and what I have discovered and discerned greatly disturbs me. I am very troubled by what I have found out and sincerely hope I am wrong, but what I have seen is the seeds of apostasy planted in the YRR movement. Those who have read and rejected the philosophy of New Evangelicalism will find the conclusion familiar, for the fruits of New Evangelicalism can be seen around us today: Prostituting of the Gospel for material gain, adding of corporate principles to the idea of Christian ministry, creation and toleration of heresies ie the Openness theology, increasing worldliness in the churches, compromise of the Faith in ecumenism, feminism and other -isms. What the Church does NOT need now is Neo-Evangelicalism version 2,which would do as much if not more damage to the Faith! May God have mercy on us all.

Book review: Spirit Wars

I have just finished a review of Prof Peter Jones' excellent book Spirit Wars, which can be read here.

Entitled Spirit Wars, Dr. Peter Jones' book documents and exposes the New Spirituality and its growth in America (and through her, the world). After much research, Dr. Jones is convinced about the threat of this New Spirituality to the Church, and is concerned over the infiltration of this apostasy into the churches. Being a scholar of the ancient heresy of Gnosticism, Jones through his research sees many similarities of the New Spirituality with the Gnostic error, and seeks to warn the Church against this growing neo-pagan gnostic threat to her faith.

With copious endnotes and references, Jones seeks to prove his case that a pagan revival is underfoot in America, and how this anti-Christian movement has developed in its opposition to biblical truth. The movement has re-spawned the ancient pagan worldview, and this worldview is totally antithetical to the Christian worldview; the former is monistic, while the latter is theistic. The growth of this worldview however has impacted the Church, altering Christians' perspectives and compromising their beliefs on issues such as femininity and homosexuality among others.

[more]