Transformationalism and the Agora Forum

Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” (Jn. 18:36)

Over in Singapore, the Reformed faith does not exactly have an illustrious past, in fact almost no past at all. Mainstream churches turned liberal with the import of Modernism early on in the early part of the 20th century and evangelicalism came in with the parachurch organizations (Campus Crusade, Navigators, YFC etc) and the Billy Graham crusades. Yet, the Reformed faith slowly entered this part of the world from literature and a few pastors from the West with the start up of several churches (of which my Singapore church is one of them) in the 80s and 90s, and that influence is still growing and continuing into the 21st century mainly via books and the Internet.

Another such Reformed influence comes from the ministry of Indonesian evangelist Stephen Tong, founder of STEMI (Stephen Tong Evangelistic Ministries International) and the "Reformed Evangelical Movement". A couple of years back sometime after I embraced the Doctrines of Grace and was moving towards Reformed confessionalism, around the year 2006, I came to hear about this group that calls itself the Agora, which have a main (Malaysian) blog here and a Singapore one here. Still struggling to come to grips with the implications my transition from Evangelical Third-wave Charismatic to Reformed theology demands of me, I wasn't that enamored of what seemed to me to at that time to be some form of social justice cause. I was contacted at that time by one of the people in the group to join it. Providentially, one of the contributors by the name of Joshua Woo wrote something on the AgoraSG blog related to the Danish existential philosopher Soren Kierkegaard, a post which seemed to have been removed later. Being Reformed and reforming, reading that article however drew my suspicion and I naturally declined to have anything to do with the group.

Since then, I have came to know somewhat some of the people in the group and some of the stuff that has happened in at least the Singapore branch. Dave Chong is the prominent voice in Malaysia and it seems the person behind the entire idea of the Agora. In its relation to the churches, it seems that the Agora has some form of relation to STEMI but is not part of it neither is it held accountable by it. Rather, the Agora is a amorphous "conversation" whereby Christians and non-Christians are welcomed to come together to discuss various issues, and which does not exactly have much of a statement of faith but just a vision statement (with the exception of the Singapore one which was forced by certain unhappy circumstances which I am not going to disclose). The people involved may be from different churches but are not under any formal ecclesiastical oversight of any sort, with the exception of perhaps Agora KL which seems to be under Dave Chong who is serving in CDPC (City Discipleship Presbyterian Church) located near KL in Malaysia.

Now, I am not going to quibble over the idea of "conversations" here because I do believe it can be done in a right manner. Rather, Agora would serve as the example of what I have come to see as the error of a set of teaching called Transformationalism. Since 2006, this issue has been at the back of my mind and, while I do not focus much energies thinking about the particular subject matter, the subject has always been there (along with many other topics as you can see in the topics I post about) awaiting the time for further contemplation and reflection according to the Scriptures.

So what exactly is "transformationalism"? Briefly stated, it is any set of teachings which states that Christians have as at least one of their goals to somehow directly transform society. There are at least three types of transformationalisms present today: Kuyperian, Christian Reconstructionism and Dominionism, and these three are not necessarily non-overlapping. Transformationalists of all sorts typically make much of the so-called "Cultural Mandate", seeing it as something that is required for Christians and the Church. Under the frramework of "Common Grace", Christians are supposed to bring all of life in all their various "spheres" under the Lordship of Christ (whatever and however that is supposed to mean), knowing that as they do, the idea of "common grace" would mean that unbelievers would agree with and even participate in such transformation.

In what follows, I would do a brief critique of the transformationalism as it seems to be practiced in the Agora movement.

The topsy-turvy world of Transformationalism

In traditional Reformed, Protestant and Evangelical theology, the doctrine of salvation is at the center. When Luther discovered the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone, that doctrine became the material principle of the entire Reformation. Since then, the doctrine of salvation has always remained as the center of the Christian message. Following the outline of Scripture in its teachings and emphases, theologians formulate the various doctrines of Scripture from a Gospel-centered perspective. From the basics of the Gospel come soteriology, covenant theology, ecclesiology and others. From the fact that we as individuals are justified individually before God, we are then saved into the corporate body of the Church, which then functions in the midst of society. The Reformational focus following Scripture thus has always been from the individual first, to the covenant family (if any) next, then to the church as a corporate body, and then to the society at large.

Reformational Christians should therefore follow the emphases of Scripture and direct their lives accordingly. We should focus a lot on the individual, a substantial amount on the family and on the church, and much less on society. This is especially so when it comes to society. When Jesus says that His kingdom is not of this world, we must understand that Christ's mission has nothing to do with society in general. This does not mean that Scripture has nothing to say about society, but that it is of less importance in Scripture.

The Transformationalist however lives in a topsy-turvy world. While Reformed varieties supposedly do focus on the individual and the doctrine of salvation, yet the focus for them is society. The triangle has for all purposes been inverted. Such topsy-turviness leads to something even more deadly: Compromise

Compromise and ecumenism

The topsy-turvy view of Christianity has led to some very interesting phenomena. The specter of compromise comes in when one has a under-developed view of basic doctrine, and an over-developed view of how to transform society. The various doctrines of Christianity are minimalized and critical differences papered over. One finds in Agora for example a trivializing of the dangers of doctrinal error, as we have seen in the non-chalance some of them displayed in 2006 towards my concerns on the posting of the Kierkegaard piece by Joshua Woo. The general absence of any statement of faith indicates the general indifference to the things which Scripture treats as important. If we as Reformational Christians are convinced for example that believing in Justification by Faith Alone is the very heart of the Gospel and thus whoever denies that is lost, then we would not think that someone who denies Justification by Faith Alone as being "a Christian who just happens not to believe in some doctrines". Ditto for all the major doctrines of Scripture.

Such doctrinal minimalization comes together with ecumenism. Since they are after all to be co-belligerants to work for the transformation of society, it would be counter-productive to offend their co-workers whom they are supposedly working with them towards transformation. While they probably would not jettison the Gospel entirely, such need to form a working coalition would tend towards broad ecumenism whereby doctrinal differences are tolerated to a certain limit, which depends largely on the individual. For some it may be inerrancy, and for others the Nicene Creed. Regardless of which line is chosen, the line chosen seemed to have more in common with personal or historical preferences rather than the line drawn by Scripture itself.

While obviously not everyone is called to specifically address biblical errors, all of us are called to contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3). It is simply unbelievable that transformationalists are more interested in presenting a "holistic" vision for the Church while they are indifferent to the fact that their co-belligerants are on the wide road to perdition. But such is the skewed vision that Transformationalism gives its adherents.

Transforming into obsolescence

The Church that is married to the Spirit of the Age will be a widow in the next. (Dean Inge 1860 - 1954)

Being engaged in so-called "transformation" involves some rather dubious activities on the part of such people. In the rush to be relevant to society, transformationists tend to become the religious equivalent of news commentators, offering an alternate Christian view of contemporary issues. No doubt Christians need to apply the truths of Scripture to various issues concerning the world, but transformationists tend to major on such contemporary societal concerns, oftentimes due to the topsy-turvy worldview being left without a solid biblical basis for the commentaries they offer.

Agora in this light has provided an excellent example of reckless Transformationists biting off more than they can chew. On the Agora blog from 2007, we have an interesting blog post helping us interact with ... Global Warming! Nevermind that the proof for such is almost non-existent, as even recently an IPCC insider and prominent climate scientist Mike Hulme states. Instead, the transformationalists must jump onto the green agenda since it is even now still a hot button issue. Does Dave even question the basis for all the green hysteria? After all, if the transformationalists are supposed to really give an informed biblical perspective on issues, shouldn't they be able to address the issues from a biblical perspective in questioning the faulty presuppositions of climate science? Instead, we see Christians trying to marry the Spirit of this age, and they would be widowed in the next after the so-called global warming scare has dissipated.

In a more recent paper, Dave Chong addresses the issue of "creation care". The paper he posted sounds like a green paper with scriptural references peppered over it. Nowhere are the faulty presuppositions about the green movement even exposed and examined. Instead, faulty and fallacious science is made the determinator of what the problem is. Now, are we to care for the environment? Sure. Are we to waste resources? No. And that is why such position papers are actually so insidious. They have just enough truth to trap the unwary and enough falsehood to poison them. After all, if it is claimed that creation care means "zero carbon emission", such must be achieved even if millions of people starve to death because of it - all collateral damage for the cause of saving Gaia.

Whichever position one takes on the climate change issue, it must be admitted that Dave Chong has bitten off more than he can chew. When transformationists attempt to be too broad, they may transform themselves into obsolescence. As Dean Inge said, the Church that is married to the Spirit of the Age will be a widow in the next. Ditto for individuals too. Just as the Theistic Evolutionists are obsolete even as they speak, the global warming fear-mongers would be obsolete when the warming they prophesy fail to come to pass.

Neglecting the weightier things of the faith

This topsy-turvy view of Christianity comes down into a neglect of the important things of the faith. Most certainly, Reformed Christianity does not advocate a reductionistic view of being focused on soul-saving to the exclusion of almost every other thing. Extreme existential spiritualizing as if Christianity is all about feelings and relationships is a terrible distortion of true biblical doctrine. Yet it is just as wrong to swing to the other extreme of which Transformationalism is one such example. Rather, one must go back to Scripture and follow its teachings. Wanting to transform society yet neglecting the clearer commands of Scripture is truly neglecting the weightier things of the faith and focusing on the things which actually matter less to God.

We have previously said that the Scriptures move from the individual to the family to the church and then to society. If we seek to be biblical, then we must do likewise. What then is the biblical way of truly impacting society?

The biblical model

Christians are first called to the work of souls. If the Gospel is to be the center of Christianity, then the individual and his state before God is the most important thing for us. We are not here to think of the issue reductionistically as if only evangelism is in mind. Rather, what this refers to is that our focus must first and foremost be for the service and good of individuals (which includes evangelism, apologetics, discipleship etc). In this light, the transformationalists are in error when they rather sacrifice the soul of the individual for their "worldview analyses" and "societal changes". Nothing irks them more than other concerned Christians who question them about their co-belligerency and start refuting the errant and heretical views held by some of the so-called Christians friends. While it is likely they will try to change the errors of their co-belligerents, they will do so in a "positive" manner which has more to do with Santa Claus than Jesus Christ.

The next step is that of the family. The so-called "Cultural Mandate" which is found in Gen. 1:28 (which is of the Created order) has as its beginning "Be fruitful and multiply". The Old Testament talks about the blessing of having children (Ps. 127:3-5) and the New Testament talks about rearing up children for the Lord (1 Tim. 2:15, Eph. 6:4). While children have a diminished role as compared to their importance in the Old Testament, yet unless God says otherwise, the natural thing to do is to have children and bring them up in the nurture of the Lord.

Yet it is at this point that the Transformationalists in the Asian context disregard. It is somewhat disingenuous to claim to follow the "Cultural Mandate" when one choose to follow the latter clause while ignoring the former clause. Having and nurturing children in the ways of the Lord is both a creation and redemptive mandate. This is especially so in Reformed Covenant Theology thought, where we believe that God promises to save His people in the line of generations and thus we practice Infant Baptism. In this light, do not bother about the doomsday scenario of the "population experts". If they really want to stop population growth, they should start with themselves so that there would be less fools on the planet.

The next stage would be that of the church. The Church is the Body of Christ and His bride. Christians come to church to attend to the means of grace in the preaching of the Word and the administration of the sacraments (certainly NOT dramas, skits and social services).

When Christians interact with society, we must move through the other stages first. Only then can we work for change in society. For after all, the real and lasting change in society comes when people in that society turn to God, not when laws of biblical morality are imposed on people. As such, while we are indeed called to be salt and light in this world, we do not have to plot and scheme for the transformation of this world according to the Transformationalists' paradigms. Rather, we attend to the means of grace that God has ordained in His Word, and who knows if God in His mercy would grant repentance and faith to the nations.

BioLogos and the downgrade of Evangelicalism

Over at the Pyromaniacs blog, Phil Johnson has turned our attention to the group that calls itself "BioLogos", best known for its "role" in Bruce Waltke's ouster from RTS. This group supposedly is set up to show how "science" and Evangelicalism can coexist, and thus it tends to promote some form of theistic evolution.

It seems that BioLogos in its bid to become "scientifically respectable" has decided to throw out the doctrine of inerrancy, as we can see in their latest posts here, here and here. The first two posts repeat the same liberal nonsense of contradictions in the Bible, and conveniently make the author's (Kenton Sparks) reasoning the final arbiter of what seems credible. The third post in its focus on historical theology can very much be challenged historically, as we shall do so now with Sparks' terrible misquotation and misrepresentation of the actual teachings of John Calvin.

In the first post, Sparks claimed:

As the great Christian exegete John Calvin said long ago, “it seems impossible and opposed to common sense that there are waters above the heavens.” Calvin admitted, nevertheless, that this is what the text says. He further concluded that this was not correct and probably reflected how ancient, uneducated Israelites understood the structure of the cosmos.

This is repeated again in the third post where Sparks claims:

I have mentioned already that he [John Calvin] understood the Genesis cosmology, with its heavenly waters, as an ancient and errant cosmology. In this case God and Moses merely “accommodated” their writings to the confused viewpoints of the ancient audience.

Let us however look at the original source. What exactly did Calvin teach about the passage cited by Sparks? On the CCEL resource page, we find the whole teaching of Calvin in context:

6 Let there be a firmament. In the next verse he changes the word to “expansio”. “Fecit expansionem.” — “He made an expanse.” The work of the second day is to provide an empty space around the circumference of the earth, that heaven and earth may not be mixed together. For since the proverb, ‘to mingle heaven and earth,’ denotes the extreme of disorder, this distinction ought to be regarded as of great importance. Moreover, the word רקיע (rakia) comprehends not only the whole region of the air, but whatever is open above us: as the word heaven is sometimes understood by the Latins. Thus the arrangement, as well of the heavens as of the lower atmosphere, is called רקיע (rakia) without discrimination between them, but sometimes the word signifies both together sometimes one part only, as will appear more plainly in our progress. I know not why the Greeks have chosen to render the word ςτερέωμα, which the Latins have imitated in the term, firmamentum; for literally it means expanse. And to this David alludes when he says that ‘the heavens are stretched out by God like a curtain,’ (Psalm 104:2.) If any one should inquire whether this vacuity did not previously exist, I answer, however true it may be that all parts of the earth were not overflowed by the waters; yet now, for the first time, a separation was ordained, whereas a confused admixture had previously existed. Moses describes the special use of this expanse, to divide the waters from the waters from which word arises a great difficulty. For it appears opposed to common sense, and quite incredible, that there should be waters above the heaven. Hence some resort to allegory, and philosophize concerning angels; but quite beside the purpose. For, to my mind, this is a certain principle, that nothing is here treated of but the visible form of the world. He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. Here the Spirit of God would teach all men without exception; and therefore what Gregory declares falsely and in vain respecting statues and pictures is truly applicable to the history of the creation, namely, that it is the book of the unlearned. The things, therefore, which he relates, serve as the garniture of that theater which he places before our eyes. Whence I conclude, that the waters here meant are such as the rude and unlearned may perceive. The assertion of some, that they embrace by faith what they have read concerning the waters above the heavens, notwithstanding their ignorance respecting them, is not in accordance with the design of Moses. And truly a longer inquiry into a matter open and manifest is superfluous. We see that the clouds suspended in the air, which threaten to fall upon our heads, yet leave us space to breathe. They who deny that this is effected by the wonderful providence of God, are vainly inflated with the folly of their own minds. We know, indeed that the rain is naturally produced; but the deluge sufficiently shows how speedily we might be overwhelmed by the bursting of the clouds, unless the cataracts of heaven were closed by the hand of God. Nor does David rashly recount this among His miracles, that God layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters, (Psalm 104:3;) and he elsewhere calls upon the celestial waters to praise God, (Psalm 148:4.) Since, therefore, God has created the clouds, and assigned them a region above us, it ought not to be forgotten that they are restrained by the power of God, lest, gushing forth with sudden violence, they should swallow us up: and especially since no other barrier is opposed to them than the liquid and yielding, air, which would easily give way unless this word prevailed, ‘Let there be an expanse between the waters.’ Yet Moses has not affixed to the work of this day the note that God saw that it was good: perhaps because there was no advantage from it till the terrestrial waters were gathered into their proper place, which was done on the next day, and therefore it is there twice repeated.

The quoted part can be shown in a briefer form as follows:

6 Let there be a firmament. ... Moses describes the special use of this expanse, to divide the waters from the waters from which word arises a great difficulty. For it appears opposed to common sense, and quite incredible, that there should be waters above the heaven. Hence some resort to allegory, and philosophize concerning angels; but quite beside the purpose. For, to my mind, this is a certain principle, that nothing is here treated of but the visible form of the world. He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. Here the Spirit of God would teach all men without exception; and therefore what Gregory declares falsely and in vain respecting statues and pictures is truly applicable to the history of the creation, namely, that it is the book of the unlearned. The things, therefore, which he relates, serve as the garniture of that theater which he places before our eyes. Whence I conclude, that the waters here meant are such as the rude and unlearned may perceive. ... We see that the clouds suspended in the air, which threaten to fall upon our heads, yet leave us space to breathe. They who deny that this is effected by the wonderful providence of God, are vainly inflated with the folly of their own minds. We know, indeed that the rain is naturally produced; but the deluge sufficiently shows how speedily we might be overwhelmed by the bursting of the clouds, unless the cataracts of heaven were closed by the hand of God. Nor does David rashly recount this among His miracles, that God layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters, (Psalm 104:3;) and he elsewhere calls upon the celestial waters to praise God, (Psalm 148:4.) Since, therefore, God has created the clouds, and assigned them a region above us, it ought not to be forgotten that they are restrained by the power of God, lest, gushing forth with sudden violence, they should swallow us up: and especially since no other barrier is opposed to them than the liquid and yielding, air, which would easily give way unless this word prevailed, ‘Let there be an expanse between the waters.’ Yet Moses has not affixed to the work of this day the note that God saw that it was good: perhaps because there was no advantage from it till the terrestrial waters were gathered into their proper place, which was done on the next day, and therefore it is there twice repeated. (Bold added to highlight phrase quoted by Sparks)

In his exposition of verse 6, Calvin tells us that having a water expense seemed opposed to common sense. He then tells us because it seemed stupid, therefore some people resort to allegorizing to explain it away. He then says that yet to his mind (as opposed to those who engage in allegorizing), he thinks that the teaching of the water expense is "but the visible form of the world", which is to say there really is a physical water expense. We can see this in the rain especially as it came in the Flood of Moses' time (the Deluge). Calvin furthermore quoted Ps. 104:3 and Ps. 148:4 as evidence of the water placed in the heavens.

From this look at the exposition of John Calvin on Gen. 1:6 in context, we can see that Sparks' interpretation turns Calvin's teaching on its head. The phrase highlighted by Sparks is the position that Cain is setting up to demolish. Furthermore, when Calvin states that the book of Creation is the "book of the unlearned" written so that the "rude and unlearned may perceive", he wrote that not in a derogatory manner to say with Sparks that the teaching of the watery expense "was not correct and probably reflected how ancient, uneducated Israelites understood the structure of the cosmos". Rather, Calvin mentioned that in a complimentary manner in saying how this book of creation was written as "the Spirit of God would teach all men without exception", such that even the "rude and unlearned" may truly learn from this book. Instead of denigrating the Israelites as stupid "stone age" folks, Calvin was actually teaching about God's condescension in revealing truth to even simple folks.

Sparks in this case contradicts the teaching of John Calvin. In fact reading Calvin's commentary on Gen. 1 would show that Calvin held to a six-day creation. If this is the best that Theistic Evolution scholarship can come up with, they are clutching at straws.

What I would like to focus on however is not so much on the terrible scholarship that Sparks has come up with in these three posts of his, but rather the downgrade of Evangelicalism that BioLogos represents. While slippery slope arguments are normally hard to establish, things start to get really fishy when we see so-called Evangelicals reject inerrancy after their embrace of evolution. Haven't we learn by now that embracing evolution has always put one on the road to apostasy? For the New Evangelicals both traditional and YRR-type, how much apostasy needs to occur from within the camp before you start to question the ministry philosophy that allows heresy to go unchallenged and not anathemized but merely disagreed on? It truly is sad to see history repeating itself over and over again.

Lane Keister: How to get along with TRs

Lane Keister over at the Green Baggins has an interesting piece addressing this issue here. Interesting principles indeed.

Principle 1. Never, ever, ever ask a TR either explicitly or implicitly to abandon his principles. This is probably the single most unloving thing that anyone can do to a TR. The principles he holds are what he believes the Bible to be saying. Furthermore, asking a TR to do that will only make him that much more royally upset. Any attempt to force a TR to abandon his principles will make the TR think that the other person has abandoned truth.

Principle 2. Stop accusing the TR of being unloving. People do not know what is in someone else’s heart. It might be fair to say that a particular action seems unloving to you. That can be debated, certainly. But blanket statements about someone else’s motivations are never very helpful, and they are almost always inaccurate.

Principle 3. Focus attention on the issue when you disagree with a TR. Nothing irritates a TR more than having personalities dragged into it. The TR doesn’t want to dwell on these things. He is thinking about whether something is logical or not, whether something is biblical or not (and this is not to say that non-TR folk are not concerned about this)

I especially agree with principles 2 and 3.

Ray Ortlund and the self-serving attack on "TRs"

I have been comparing the New Calvinists with the New Evangelicals, and the same sort of rotten attitude is common in these two movements. Nowhere is this more evident than this attack piece by Ray Ortlund at the Gospel Coalition blog space here. Darrel Hart has responded quite well here at his blog, and I am not going to re-invent the wheel. Rather, let's analyze the entire article to see the flaws in it.

I believe in the sovereignty of God, the Five Points of Calvinism, the Solas of the Reformation, I believe that grace precedes faith in regeneration. Theologically, I am Reformed. Sociologically, I am simply a Christian – or at least I want to be. The tricky thing about our hearts is that they can turn even a good thing into an engine of oppression. It happens when our theological distinctives make us aloof from other Christians. - Ortlund

The problem here is that Ortlund does not even define who and what makes a Christian. Of course it is true that there is a problem "when our theological distinctives make us aloof from other Christians", but who are these Christians? Can we regard those who deny the Deity of Christ for example "Christians"? How about those who deny the Trinity like T.D. Jakes? Doctrinal arminians and practical Semi-Palagians like Rick Warren? Certainly, there is latitude in so-called secondary doctrines upon which Christians may legitimately differ, but to say that "theological distinctives" itself make us aloof is itself a theological/philosophical distinctive that makes Ortlund aloof from the so-called TRs. Ortlund needs to heeds his own advice instead of attacking the brethren.

The Judaizers in Galatia did not see their distinctive – the rite of circumcision – as problematic. They could claim biblical authority for it in Genesis 17 and the Abrahamic covenant. But their distinctive functioned as an addition to the all-sufficiency of Jesus himself. - Ortlund

The problem with the Judaizers were that they distorted the Gospel. Is Ortlund saying that getting the Gospel right (which is what the TRs are trying to do) is an addition to the Gospel? So a right Gospel is an addition to the Gospel? Go figure.

But no matter how well argued our position is biblically, if it functions in our hearts as an addition to Jesus, it ends up as a form of legalistic divisiveness - Ortlund

Which "Jesus"? Can one define Jesus apart from what the Scriptures claim He is? As Prof R. Scott Clark mused, "one wonders whether Ortlund is telling us to be conformed to the Christ we confess or another confession of Christ".

But the “whiff test” that something was wrong in those Galatian churches was more subtle than theology alone. The problem was also sociological. ... By emphasizing their distinctive, they want you to feel excluded so that you will conform to them - Ortlund

Ortlund has yet to define "Gospel" and "Christian". We can perhaps more truthfully rephrase Ortlund's phrase as follows:

By emphasizing their Gospel distinctive, Christians want non-Christians to feel excluded so that you will conform to the Gospel.

I really do not see any problem with that.

But the gospel makes full inclusion in the church easy to attain. It re-sets everyone’s status in terms of God’s grace alone. God’s grace in Christ crucified, and nothing more. He alone makes us kosher. He himself. -Ortlund

Of course. But ONLY the true Gospel did that, not the "gospel" of the Judaizers for instance.

In other words, “When Christians, whatever the label or badge or shibboleth, start pressuring you to come into line with their distinctive, you know something’s wrong. - Ortlund

Of course what happens when the distinctive is the Gospel? Remember, Ortlund has yet to define "Gospel" and "Christian".

They want to enhance their own significance by your conformity to them: &c - Ortlund

Funny how Ortlund can be so sure of the psychological state of the TRs. One wonders why these New Calvinists always like to psycho-analyze others and judge them (cf Mt. 7:1).

Let Jesus alone stand forth in my theology, in my emotional well-being and in my relationships with other Christians! - Ortlund

Most certainly. The question however is: which "Jesus"? Can the Jesus of the Jehovah Witnesses for example qualify? If not, then aren't you positing at least one "theological distinctive" here?

This is the acid test of a truly Reformed ministry – that other believers need not be Reformed in order to be respected and included in our hearts. - Ortlund

Of course since few people (except the hyper-Calvinists) claim that only Reformed people are Christians, why is Ortlund creating straw-men here? We evaluate people according to the Gospel, which has lots of theological distinctives of its own. Classical Arminianism for example is contrary to the Gospel, as the Synod of Dordt ruled.

What unifies the church is the gospel. What defines the gospel is the Bible. What interprets the Bible correctly is a hermeneutic centered on Jesus Christ crucified, the all-sufficient Savior of sinners, who gives himself away on terms of radical grace to all alike. What proves that that gospel hermeneutic has captured our hearts is that we are not looking down on other believers but lifting them up, not seeing ourselves as better but grateful for their contribution to the cause, not standing aloof but embracing them freely, not wishing they would become like us but serving them in love. - Ortlund

Certainly what unifies the church is the Gospel, and what defines the Gospel is the Bible. But what is it exactly? That is the core problem with the so-called Gospel-centered movement! Show me one evangelical heresy which does not claim to be true to Scripture and the Gospel! The Oneness Pentecostal who deny the Trinity claim to be true to Scripture and the Gospel. The Rick Warrens, the Joel Osteens, even the blasphemous TBN (Trinity Broadcast Network) and the NAR (New Apostolic Reformation) all claim to be true to Scripture and the Gospel. These two sentences are thus tautologies and have zero cognitive value at all. Ortlund might as well say that "Gospel-believing Christians believe the Gospel" which is by definition always true and perfectly useless.

The last part where Ortlund claims that we should not wish that other Christians "become like us" is very vague. If by that, he means that we should not wish that other Christians embrace doctrines and practices which are more in line with Scripture, then the contention is certainly wrong.

Even if you disagree with them in some ways, do you learn from them? - Ortlund

Unqualified learning is wrong. You do not learn error from those in error, only what is true if there is any. It is an assumption that others always have something for us to learn. They very well may, but they may not have anything for us to learn of also.

Let this gracious doctrine make you a fun person to be around. The proof that we are Reformed will be all the wonderful Christians we discover around us who are not Reformed. Amazing people - Ortlund

Apparently, Reformed people will be so transformed by their doctrine that everyone would find us fun to be around. I seriously wonder: When was a fun personality included in the list of the fruits of the spirit?

In conclusion, we can see the problems in the doctrinal latitudinarianism advocated in this piece by Ray Ortlund. It is manifestly self-contradictory at places, and the slogan "Jesus alone" while true is used as a self-serving club to whack all other Christians who do not embrace their version of what Christianity and Christian conduct actually is. The irrationalism and implicit myscticsm/existentialism present in Ortlund's piece should be evident to all, as if one can actually know the right "Christ" and the right "Gospel" without so-called theological distinctives. It certainly sounds very pious to shout "Jesus alone", except that we are not so sure whether they are actually promoting "Jesus alone" or "the Arminian Jesus who doesn't actually save, alone", or "the Jesus who is Michael the Archangel, alone", or "the Jesus who is also the same one person as the Father and the Spirit, alone".

Lord, please save your church from such Latitudinarianism.

Tim Keller and the New Calvinist idea of "Gospel Eco-Systems"

Over at the Heidelblog, Prof R. Scott Clark has posted a written transcript of Tim Keller's talk at Renew South Florida about creating "Gospel eco-systems". The idea according to Keller is that we should create environments conducive for the Gospel message and churches to thrive, as follows:

OK, the subject is, creating gospel eco systems, what is that? ... So an ecosystem is a dynamic balanced set of forces and energies that grow each other. Now the question I want to talk to you about today, is how do you start a gospel movement in your city, or how can you see a gospel movement develop in your city? I’m not talking about how you and your church and your network can become a movement, only, that would be a different talk, and maybe if you want to ask me, I could at least give you, if you want this, I have a little list of things that I would say, here are these five, six, seven things are necessary if your own church is to become a moment, so it grows, and it develops, and it just keeps on growing and expanding. I’m actually thinking beyond that.

A gospel movement is this: a gospel movement happens in a city when across churches, across multiple denominations and networks, and beyond any one key leader or any one command center, or any one denomination, you actually have the body of Christ in the city geometrically growing, not just reconfiguring. The vast majority of what we consider, you know, “good things happening in that city,” is a reconfiguration of the body of Christ, not an actual growth of the body of Christ against the overall population. When the body of Christ is growing from 1% to 5% to 10% of the population, because its growing faster than the population, its actually growing. Usually what happens in most cities, when something that happens is reconfiguration. A new church grows, or a new network of churches grow, and what they do is, largely, pull Christians out of less effective ministries into their ministry. And that can be a very good thing, if they are utilizing them better, training them better. So very often what happens, you get a really dynamic, big church growing, and they start churches, and they start churches, and they say “great things are happening,” what’s really happening, mainly, is 90% of the growth of that network is the reconfiguration, its just pulling Christians from other places, now deploying them better, and certainly people are becoming Christians. But overall, the body is not growing, its reconfiguring. That’s not a movement.

What does it take for that to happen? What does it take to have a gospel movement, in the city? And I think the answer is: the, an eco-system has to be put into place. An eco-system is a set of forces, a set of energies that interact with each other, and therefore create this growth that is beyond, its beyond any one program, its beyond any one leader, its beyond any one church.

...

Keller dedicated the rest of his talk to detailing how such "Gospel eco-systems" should be made.

When one reads through the transcript of Keller's talk, one gets a rather disoriented feeling. Been there, done that, and the worse for it. The whole talk reeks with the methodology of men and businesses, instead of the counsel of the Word of God; more like Rick Warren and C. Peter Wagner than John Calvin.

Consider the entire talk. Where in the entire talk is mention even made of the Word of God? For a supposed conservative Presbyterian, not one verse of Scripture is even quoted in defense of the methodologies being brought to bear. Worse still, the concepts in it are not found in Scripture. Church is all about Word and Sacrament. Where in Scripture is the Church (as opposed to individual Christians) supposed to do "justice and mercy ministries"?

Assuming as one commenter states that the talk was about mechanics - being a "practical, technical" and "methodological" talk, this talk shows that Keller practically denies the sufficiency of Scripture for ALL of life and practice. Methodology is NOT neutral. Methodology has to be derived from Scripture especially since the topic is most certainly a biblical one (i.e. Gospel movements). When measures are proposed in which results are virtually guaranteed, one ends up more with business models that implicitly assume some form of Pelagianism as the error of Revivalism rears its ugly head. Where in Scripture are we told that if we just implement the right measures, more and more people will come to Christ and the Church will gain influence in society?

The social-gospel lite in the idea of "justice and mercy ministries" advocated by Keller is another horror in and of itself. So how does the Church share the Gospel to unbelievers when she is trying to get them involved in co-belligerent social causes? Keller cites the case of the so-called "Benevolent Empire" at the height of Evangelicalism's cultural power in the 1830s. One of course does not hear about how the spiritual condition of society at that time continues to decline until the churches and these societies themselves were taken over by the Liberals. When the Church neglects her prophetic role and thinks of herself as social activism hubs, her inevitable end in apostasy is just around the corner.

The most important missing piece in Keller's presentation however is this: that the Gospel is not present. The New Calvinists have claimed that "Gospel-centeredness" do not actually lead to "Gospel-Onlyness", but it sadly seems this is the way it will turn out. Is the Gospel definitional of what being a Christian means? If so, then shouldn't one of the "measures" that Keller proposed is to evangelize those in false churches such as the Roman church? Yet, instead of contending for the faith (Jude 1:3), Keller waxes lyrical about ecumenical ministry outside the local church, and does not talk about instructing the people inside the local church in sound doctrine. Whatever one thinks about the incident involving Redeemer Pres and Susan Castillo's course entitled The Way of the Monk, it must be admitted by all Protestants and especially Reformed folks that Contemplative Spirituality is heresy. Even in the best case scenario whereby Keller is not involved whatsoever with Castillo and her course, shouldn't he instruct the congregation in sound doctrine and the rejection of mysticism? How can one build a "Gospel movement" when doctrinal error is tolerated if not approved of within the Church?

Keller's message in this talk of his is wrong on many counts. Far from creating a Gospel eco-system, it is feared that adopting his measures would create "Church-ianity" without Christ and His Gospel at the center, which incidentally sounds a lot like what the "New Apostolic Reformation"/ Dominionism seeks to do. We are not here to create warm-bodies who profess Christ; we are here to call true disciples of Christ - the elect of God. What does it gain the Church to win the whole world, yet to lose her own calling and the souls within her? People are not saved by joining the Church, by being involved in ministry or anything of that sort. People are saved through knowing and believing in sound doctrine that depicts God as He truly is. This is achieved by regeneration by the Holy Spirit as the Gospel is being proclaimed, NOT as social services are being done by the Church.

In closing, it would be instrumental to compare and contrast Keller's message to Paul Washer's sermon entitled A Biblical Vision and Strategy for Missions here. It is sad to see that someone who leans more towards the Radical Anabaptists is more Reformed than a PCA pastor. Speaks volumes about the state of the New Calvinist movement, and does not reflect very well on the PCA either.

Break

I would be away on a holiday for some time during which all comments would be moderated.

In the meantime, do check out Dr. Bob Godfrey's excellent article entitled Real Calvinism: A Head and Heart Religion.

New Calvinism considered

Over at the Wanderer, Jeremy Walker has posted a very perceptive article on the "New Calvinism". He lists down 21 general characteristic of the movement, not all good and not all bad, which can be summarized as follows:

1. Have a desire for the glory of God
2. Have a deep-rooted joy
3. Possess missional zeal
4. Emphasize the gospel of grace and grace of the gospel
5. Complimentarianism, to the extent it has almost become a sine qua non of the movement
6. Return to biblical masculinity
7. Promotion of the family as basic unit of church and social life
8. Charismatic convictions regarding the spiritual gifts
9. Calvinist soteriology, with some departures and aberrations
10. Generally thoughtful ecumenism
11. Often pragmatic ecclesiology (i.e. multi-site campus church)
12. Neo-Kuyperian view of culture
13. Doctrinal if not practical Antinomianism (primarily related to embrace of some form of NCT or New Covenant Theology)
14. Practice contemporary worship
15. Driving force of several key personalities
16. Ready embrace and employment of new technologies
17. Concentration of a younger and more urban demographic
18. Desire to be big and have a seat at culture's table
19. Have an ambivalent relationship to church history
20. Sensitivity to the judicial and social aspects of the gospel at work in society
21. Americocentrism, or largely influenced by American culture

Point 5 is what I have seen earlier on as I have stated in my Credo500 paper on the New Evangelical Calvinism. While complimentarianism IS important, the disproportionate stress on it is unhealthy. As I have stated in that paper, "what make this flashpoint [doctrine] more worthy of contending for as compared to the other doctrines and practices of Scripture"? I am not advocating for a more latitudinarian approach to doctrine, but a more robust view of the other doctrines which are similarly important.

An example of point 13 is the case of John Piper, who leans towards New Covenant Theology. While NCT by itself is not technically antinomian (except with regards to the 4th commandment), there is such a tendency in it due to a strong division between the Old and New Covenants to the extent that it approaches Dispensationalism in its view of Law and Gospel.

Besides these 21 points, the overt triumphalism of the movement irritates me to no end. One benefit of facing severe trials in life is that you learn and grow much quicker and inherit a strong dose of realism. The idealism of youth has been burned out by the harsh reality of this wicked world, and it thus irritates me when these people around or slightly younger than my age are so naive in their view of the world and ministry. Yes, we can "change the world", but change in God's plan comes from faithfulness to His Word, not youthful passion and bull-headed rashness. The use of cliches like "Gospel-centered" for example is one area whereby the youth of the movement is showing itself. The Young, Restless, Reformed crowd really need to grow up, seriously.

The world is a broken world in many respects. The Church is called to proclaim the Gospel and live that Gospel in the midst of this broken and sin-soaked world. We need pastors and leaders who are mature in their thinking, not hot-heads where their way of doing church changes as the years go by, as seen in the example of Mark Driscoll. That is incidentally why pastors are to be knowledgeable about many doctrines of Scripture and to have thought through them deeply. What kind of shepherd would we call those who know little of the Scriptures and thus cannot apply them in a mature manner? Do we for example want pastors who believe in a Episcopal system one day, and within one month later is convinced of Independency, and within the next month convert to Presbyterianism? While certainly pastors and leaders can and should change their beliefs and practices if it has been revealed to them that they were wrong according to Scripture, such should be done in a thought-out manner based upon mature thinking, not flippantly based upon a book here and an article there.

Unless the YRR movement matures into a geniune biblical movement, all of such characteristics would cripple it. And that would be rather sad indeed.

Family, Community and Communitarianism

[continued from here and here]

What should be the emphases in church life? How are people in churches to live together? Of course, we are to love our brothers and sisters in the Lord (Rom. 12:10), but what are the specifics of church life beyond that?

The House Church model promoted by anti-institutionalist Frank Viola in his book Reimagiing Christianity (Colorado Springs, CO, USA: David C. Cook, 2008) promotes a communitarian way of doing church, as based upon his idea of the Social Trinitarian analogue which we have previously discussed. Viola states the link explicitly as follows:

As we have already established, the church envisioned in the New Testament is an ecclesial community that's modeled after the triune God. Father, Son and Spirit are all related. Their familial fellowship is both the source and the goal of the church (1 John 1:1-3)

The Godhead lives in everlasting reciprocity with each of its members. For that reason, the church is called to be a reciprocal community above everything else. Or in other words, a family.

Because we are made in the likeness and image of God, we are only truly human when we are living in community. ...

(p. 108)

The church, then, is not only to proclaim the gospel, but to embody it by its communitarian life (p. 147)

In Viola's view therefore, Christian "body-life" is to be lived in a communitarian manner. Viola further charged the "church in the West" to be "dominated by individualistic, anticommunal forces" (p. 147), which are clearly in his view unbiblical.

The most explicit picture (literally) of what communitarianism means in the life of the church is painted vividly by Viola in his book as follows:

[Narrated by a lady who shared with Viola what had happened in her house church]

This Valentine's Day, the brothers put on a grand hoopla for us sisters. They told us to dress up formally and wait for them at one of the sisters' homes. This would turn out to be an elegant occasion. Three of the brothers showed up. They were dressed formally with suits and ties. They brought a vase full of white tulips. They gave each of us a white tulip to hold. They told us how we represent the tulips. The white was for the purity of Christ; the green stem was for the life of Christ in us.

Then they took a picture of all of us so we would remember this evening. They escorted us to another house. We waited outside. What would happen next was a surprise. We had no idea. They told us that there was an artist in town. And he has opened up his art gallery to us. Finally, the doors were opened and we walked in. There was a tour guide who escorted us into the house. The first stop was an exhibit: a tree in a potted plant. It had on it a poem that talked about what each of us sisters represented to the Lord. The poem equated us to different parts of the tree. We found pictures of each of us sisters on the leaves. It was very moving.

At each exhibit, several of the brothers were role playing, telling each other what the exhibits were about. They stayed in character the whole time. They were in an art museum.

The next exhibit was a collage of brothers holding together pieces of a sign. Each sign contained a word. The words together spelled out a romantic poem that expressed Christ's love for His church.

The next exhibit was a heart put in a frame. A big red heart. Cut out in the middle of the heat was a man and a woman holding hands. Inside the man were all the brothers' faces in the church cut out to make a collage that made up the image of the man. Inside the image of the woman were all the sisters' faces cut out to make a collage. ... (p. 113-114. Bold added)

Communitarianism in this case can be clearly seen in the imagery of the art exhibit, as described in bold text aboe. All the brothers are corporately identified as one and the sisters likewise, and both groups make up the one [centered] community.

Preliminary analysis

Before we analyze the subject, what exactly is communitarianism? Communitarianism comes from the word "community", and thus it focuses on the community as the center of life/decision making/truth etc [1]. To put it simply (as much as I can simplify it), the community however defined (defined differently depending on the context) is the center as opposed to the individual. Sociologically, it can be said to be a third way between the individualism in Capitalism and the collectivism in Communism

Social communitarianism as espoused by Viola is the theory that a social unit of a community, in this case a "church community", is the center of the church. The individuals making the community are not individually important but corporately important, for since the community is the center, the community is what that matters. Individuals only matter insomuch as they make up the community, but they are not treasured for their own individuals' sakes. What this all means more concretely will be shown in due time when we consider the differences between the Biblical model and the Social communitarian model.

The first preliminary critique to to state that the opposite of an error may not necessarily be true, in the same way as the opposite of legalism (salvation by keeping laws) which is antinomianism (against the keeping of laws) is not true. Viola may rightly deplore the radical individualism of the West, but the opposite of collectivism in Communitarianism is not by elimination necessarily true either.

Secondly, there is no basis for the Social trinitarian analogue which is the foundation for the surface anti--authoritarian Communitarian theory put forward by Viola. While communitarianism may be true, Viola's argument for it is most definitely not since it is based upon an unbiblical theory invented by apostates.

With this settled, we will look more in depth into the issue. But in order to do that, we must see what is the biblical teaching of relational praxis in the church.

Biblical teaching

Firstly, the foundation for any teaching about people within the church must start with soteriology or the doctrine of salvation, for people are saved into the church. Even infants who are baptized into the church are baptized based upon the promises of God for the salvation of covenant children (Acts 2:39), not that they are just placed into the church regardless of whether they are or are not saved at some time in their life. Soteriology therefore is prior to ecclesiology, and we must thus look at soteriology first to inform us about the relational praxis that should be in the church.

All people that are saved are saved individually by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8-9). Believers are individually and personally elected and chosen unto salvation (cf Rom. 9:13, Eph. 1:4-11), personally adopted by Christ (cf Eph. 1:5). Salvation therefore is an individual affair dependent on the person's faith, and faith cannot be forced on a person as it is an inward attitude and not mere external compliance.

Salvation involves adoption into God's family the church. We are first and foremost saved individually, then placed as individuals into God's family. Yet though we are individuals when saved, God saves through the covenant line, and thus the creational and redemptive aspects meet in the believing covenant family (Eph. 6:1-4).

The ordering of relations for a Christian therefore is firstly, between God and man one-to-one, then secondly, between man and his covenant family (if any), and then thirdly, between a man/woman and the church. This is the priority in relational praxis that is taught by Scripture

Secondly, the model for relational praxis is clearly taught by Scripture in typology. Christ is the head of the church as the husband is the head of the wife (cf Eph. 5:23). Christ is the bridegroom of the church analogically to the relation of the husband to his wife. That is the analogy Scripture has made, and the celebration of marriage and the emphasis on the family is central to all of Scripture. The focus on relational praxis in the church therefore should similarly prioritize families as taught by Scripture

Critical Analysis of Viola's Communitarianism

The first critique that can be immediately made of Viola's Communitarianism is that it violates the biblical ordering of relations. Biblical Christianity starts off with the relation between God and the individual one-to-one. In this sense, Christianity IS individualistic. In God's eyes, believers are first loved and saved individually logically (not temporally) before they are placed into the church. Individuals then make up the community of believers. Communitarianism with its center on the community logically prior to individuals reverse the relational order that is found in the redemptive order. (It also violates the creational order too since men are made by God in His image (Imago Dei) logically before being born into society, but I am not dealing with political communitarianism here!)

Community therefore is not, contrary to Viola and his Emergent friends, the focus of Scripture. While church is a community of saints, it is first and foremost a community of saints before being a community of saints, which is incidentally why the fact of fellowship itself is to be grounded upon absolute objective Truth (cf Jn. 17:17,19) and not the other way around.

The second major critique is that communitarianism embraces the wrong model for relational praxis and therefore trivializes the family and God's love for His church. The model for relational praxis within the church is the one stated explicitly in Scripture — the relation between a husband and wife to form a family unit. A husband is to love his wife in a way that reflects the love that Christ has for His church. While community is important, it takes a backseat to the family unit which is not only the foundation for the creational order, but for the redemptive order too within the church.

As Christians, we do not believe in any sort of polygamy or generically polyamory (multiple "loves" or partners). Yet the communitarian view moves towards such albeit on the emotional level. In Viola's fan's narrating of her house church Valentine's Day's event, the picture of the brothers being likened to an individual man while all the sisters being likened to an individual woman trivializes the marriage typology by opening what should be a special love within the couple into indiscriminate "deep" love within the church. There is a reason why love within the marriage relationship is to be special and not shared with others. If such love is made common, it is emotionally polyamory and thus adulterous in nature. While sharing is often a virtue, this does not apply to love within a marriage. Whoever does not believe that is welcome to try to see whether their spouse would be happier if their special marital relationship is opened up to include more parties. After all, isn't it good not to discriminate and "share the love"?

By trivializing the special love within a couple and making that into deeper relationships within the church body, Communitarianism takes what should be a special love between a husband and a wife and desecrates it in forming a "deep" church community. In practice, such community churches extol the idea of "deep sharing" of everything to all within that particular church community, and decry any form of reticence to share as being contrary to Christian love. I have previously personally visited one communitarian church myself, and was astonished at the plea for greater "transparency" and sharing from the pulpit, as if trust is an inherent right to be demanded and not earned. Not to mention the sheer naivete that goes into the statement as if all members and visitors to that church are all perfected saints who would not backstab them.

Another practical problem with Commuitarianism in desecrating and making vulgar the special love between a couple is distorting the manner by which our emotional needs are to be fulfilled. Being initially intended within a family, profaning such love makes the emotional component of marriage superfluous if done perfectly. It furthermore serves to at least partially satisfy the emotional needs of especially single men and women that are to be sought in marriage. Such is a violation of God's plan for His people, and such people would be emotionally dependent in the wrong way as such is not God's plan for them.

The answer

The biblical answer to Communitarianism is Covenant Theology, with its proper balance between the individual's personal relationship to God and the idea of Covenant headship whereby we are seen also in light of the covenant. God condescends to save us by making Christ our representative head of the Covenant of Grace He makes with us corporately, yet our entrance into the Covenant of Grace is through the individualistic notion of personal faith in Christ. We are saved through our corporate union with Christ (cf Rom. 5:15-20, 6:1-11), yet this union is achieved by grace through personal faith in Him (Eph. 2:8-9).

In like manner, Covenant Theology puts everything into proper perspective. The amorphous "community" is not the center for human relations but the family is. That is where God would be greatly glorified when the family functions as God has designed it to do. While church community is important, we move from us as individuals to families to the church, not the other way around as Communitarianism does. We do love our brothers and sisters in Christ, but such love cannot be the type of "deep" indiscriminate love to all in the church.

Conclusion

In conclusion, communitarianism is an error which should not be embraced by the church. While subtle and seemingly minute, it leads to church life praxis that is poles apart from what Scripture actually teaches on the subject. May we not hear the siren call for "deep" fellowship and in so doing create false dependencies which are not commanded by Christ. Friendship and fellowship with the brethren may be deep for we all do make close friends (and some more than others), but it should never be indiscriminate and profanely given to all merely because they are Christians.

---

References:

[1] For more technical information on Communitarianism, check out the article "Communitarianism" from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy here (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/communitarianism/)

Two articles

I have just finished formatting two articles for my website, which were previously blog posts here. They can be accessed now as follows:

Scripturalism and the Canon of Scripture

Why the Global Day of Prayer does not conform to Scripture

A dispute over the doctrine of Union with Christ

In the excellent book edited by Burk Parsons, John Calvin: A Heart for Doctrine, Doxology & Doctrine (Lake Mary, FL: Reformation Trust, 2008), I find it amusing that two different writers who focus on two different topics end up with two conflicting views regarding the relation between justification and union [with Christ].

Philip Graham Ryken , focusing on the theme of Union with Christ, wrote Chapter 16 in the book entitled The Believer's Union with Christ. On page 196, he quoted from Calvin's Institutes 3.11.1 as follows:

Of all the blessings that come from being united to Christ, [John] Calvin emphasized two that are distinct yet inseparable: "By partaking of him, we principally receive a double grace: namely, that being reconciled to God through Christ's blameless, we may have in heaven instead of a Judge a gracious Father; and secondly, that sanctified by Christ's spirit we may cultivate blamelessness and purity of life." (Calvin, Institutes, 3.11.1) To put this in theological terms, by virtue of our union with Christ we receive the double benefit of justification and sanctification.

Ryken later writes on the same page:

As important as it is in its own right, Calvin's doctrine of justification finds it proper context in his doctrine of union with Christ. The blessing of justifying righteousness becomes ours when we are united to Christ by faith.

Our second author is Michael Horton. Focusing on the theme of justification, Horton wrote Chapter 17 in the book which is entitled The Principal Article of Salvation.

On pages 211-212, Horton wrote:

Regardless of whether union temporally preceded justification, Calvin is clear that the latter is the basis for the former: "Most people consider fellowship with Christ [Christi esse participem], and believing believing in Christ, to be the same thing; but the fellowship which we have with Christ [participation quam habemus cum Christo] is the consequence of faith [fidei effectus]." ⁴² Union with Christ does not provide a basis for God to discern in us a righteousness imparted; rather, on the basis of justification we are made partakers of Christ's vivifying life. The same act of faith that constantly looks to Christ alone for justification looks to Christ alone for sanctification and glorification.

Thus there are not two sources of the Christian life: one that is forensic and found in Christ alone, and another that is moral and found within us. Forensic justification through faith alone is the fountain of union with Christ in all of its renewing aspects. We are justified through faith, not through union with Christ. ... Imputation and union with Christ are, rather, two inseparable aspects of one and the same divine grace: the one is not possible without the other." ⁴³

Therefore, Calvin speaks of a "double grace" in fellowship with Christ:

Christ was given to us by God's generosity, to be grasped and possessed by us in faith. By partaking of him, we principally receive a double grace: namely, that being reconciled to God through Christ's blameless, we may have in heaven instead of a Judge a gracious Father; and secondly, that sanctified by Christ's spirit we may cultivate blamelessness and purity of life.⁴⁴

This double grace entails a "twofold acceptance": Our persons are justified apart from works by the imputation of Christ's righteousness received through faith, so that or works can be justified or accepted by the Father not as meritorious but as the fruit of justification and union with His Son.⁴⁵

[42] John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul to the Galatians and Ephesians, trans. William Pringle (repr. Grand Rapids: Baker 2003), 262

[43] [Francois] Wendel, Calvin: Origins and Development of His Religious Thought [trans. Philip Mairet (Durham: The Labyrinth Press, 1987)], 258

[44] [John] Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 3.11.1

[45] Ibid., 3.17.4-5

It can be seen that both authors quote almost the same passage in Calvin's Institutes, through for different purposes. Ryken utilized that quote to mention that union with Christ is the foundation for both justification and sanctification. Conversely, Horton utilizes that same quote to show that both imputation and union are fruits of justification through faith. Ryken states that union precedes justification, while Horton states that justification precedes union which is the other side of the coin of imputation.

In line with this difference in views, Prof R. Scott Clark has kindly highlighted on his blog an interesting paper on "The New Perspective on Calvin".

Viola's restorationism and the Social Trinitarian analogy problem

[continued from here]

In his book Reimagining Church, Frank Viola in his promotion of his house church model (not to be confused with China's house churches which are so by necessity) utilizes (small "r") restorationist rhetoric to establish his anti-institutionalism. One main point which underlie his idea of "organic churches" however is his understanding of the Trinity and its application to church life. Following the ideas of Barthian Miroslav Volf and postmodern theologian Stanly Grenz, Viola has decided to recast the idea of the Trinity as being foundational to church life — in the sense that the Trinity is an analogy of church community. In Viola's own words,

The biblical teaching of the Trinity is not an exposition about the abstract designs of God. Instead, it teaches us about God's nature and how it operates in Christian community. As such, it shouldn't be relegated to an endnote to the gospel. Rather, it should shape the Christian life and inform the practice of the church.(p. 34)

Viola quotes Kevin Giles also as saying that the Trinity is the

model on which ecclesiology should be formulated. On this premise, the inner life of the divine Trinity provides a pattern, a model, an echo, or an icon of the Christian communal existence in the world (Kevin Giles, What on Earth is the Church? (London, SPCK, 1995), p. 222. As quoted in Viola, Reimagining, p. 36)

This idea of the social analogy of the Trinity to church life, which can be termed the Social Trinitarian Analogue (for lack of a better term) is ubiquitous throughout Viola's book. In fact, it is a fundamental premise behind Viola's recasting of the Church into an egalitarian community without offices, ministers and institutions. Remove it, and Viola's vision is severely crippled.

As Bible-believing Christians, we hold to the principle of Sola Scriptura or Scripture Alone. Only what is biblical is true — either explicitly stated in Scripture or what can be deduced from sound reasoning or "good and necessary consequences", as the Westminster Confession states so beautifully:

The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. ... (Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter I: Of the Holy Scripture, Para 6)

When we come therefore to this teaching of the social trinitarian analogue, we are to examine it according to Scripture and not accept it just because theologians taught it. To argue that the majority teaches it means nothing at all, for truth is not determined by majority vote. Furthermore, the majority of "theologians" deny such doctrines as the exclusivity of Christ, the necessity of the blood atonement, and the inerrancy of Scripture for example, so majority in academia means nothing at all.

We should have reason to suspect this teaching however, as a bad tree cannot bear good fruit (Mt. 7: 18b). As I have shown in a previous post, unregenerate people cannot accept the truth of God and thus will not teach them as truth. Volf is a student of Jurgen Moltmann, while Grenz is a student of Wolfhart Pannenberg. With such "illustrious" teachers who do not believe in the Gospel, we would have reason to be suspicious of these teachers. Our suspicion should increase when we see how ideas from Moltmann, Pannenberg and Grenz contribute to the train wreck that is the Emergent church movement, as shown in the excellent book The Emergent Church: Undefining Christianity by Pastor Bob DeWaay. This of course does not mean that we can now infer that the social trinitarian analogue teaching is definitely wrong as a sort of guilt by association tactic, but it should make us cautious and give us pause before accepting it uncritically.

The first question we should ask therefore is this: Does Scripture ever mention that the fact of the Trinity is to function as an analogy in anything at all? The answer is an adamant NO! The Trinity is not even mentioned in Scripture explicitly, but is a truth that is deduced from Scripture. Such conjectures of analogies where none are mentioned is at best the speculation of theologians outside the texts of Scripture, and at worst a perversion of the teachings of Scripture.

Nevertheless, can this teaching be an application of Scripture, not a teaching of Scripture? The problem however is that the Trinity is a fact that we are not told to emulate in any way. When Scripture talks about the intra-Trinitarian relationship, it shows us that Jesus as the Son always submit to the will of the Father, and that the Holy Spirit proceeds out from the Father and the Son (Jn. 15:26). The only analogy made of the intra-Trinitarian relationship is that seen in 1 Cor. 11:3, where the headship of God (the Father) over Christ is analogous to the headship of the husband over the wife, a fact which Viola denies by fiat because it violates his strong egalitarianism (cf Reimagining, p. 295). Besides this, Scripture makes no such analogy between the relationships between the persons of the Trinity and us human beings. And if Scripture makes no such analogies, then we who are bounded by Scripture should not either, for no one has the liberty to add to God's Word, or face the curse of Rev. 22:18 (cf Prov. 30:6).

Viola further violates the Creator-creature distinction by embracing something that sounds like theosis. He states: "The church is an organic extension of the Triune God" (Reimagining, p. 35). In page 109, Viola further states that "it [the church] has been introduced into the dance [perichoresis - divine dance within the Trinity] as a new partner". Theologically, the Bible doesn't teach anything of that sort. The biblical picture of the church is that of a bride prepared for marriage to Christ the bridegroom. God the Father is not the bridegroom, and neither is the Holy Spirit, for the three are three distinct persons. It is not a dance that the Bible teaches for our account, but the marriage supper of the Lamb (Rev. 19:9)

Philosophically, the first statement is simply appalling. God is infinite, eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent etc, while the church is most definitely finite, created, not omnipotent, not omnipresent. How therefore can the church be considered "an organic extension of the Triune God"? Furthermore, for God to "grow" an "organic extension" where previously none exist is to make God mutable contrary to the plain teachings of Scripture on the subject. Similarly, the second statement is logically impossible, for finititude can never become infinite, or created eternal, or limited limitless. Man can never become "god" in any sense of the term. When the Church as the bride marries the bridegroom, she is still a separate entity from the bridegroom who is Christ, in the same way that a husband and wife though they are "one flesh" are still nonetheless two distinct persons no matter how long they remain married.

The social trinitarian analogue is to be rejected by Christians. Firstly, it is not taught in Scripture. Secondly, it is not even an application made available by the Scriptures, who teach other analogies — with the closest one in 1 Cor. 11:3 giving the wrong pair (Christ/God- Wife/Husband) needed for the social trinitarian model. Thirdly, it violates the Creator-creature distinction and leads to all manner of philosophical incoherence. Though it is taught by "theologians" of sorts, we are to reject it as errant and unbiblical.

We now go back to Viola's restorationism. While certainly much more can be said to show the many errors in his book, I would like to focus on one other aspect which Viola mentioned as an advantage of his house church model: that of protection from heresy.

On page 235 of Reimagining, Viola wrote:

When every church is autonomous, it's difficult for an ambitious false teacher to emerge and seize control over a cluster of churches. It's also virtually impossible for a "pope-life figure" to emerge. ...

The irony of it all is that a "pope-like figure" has emerged, and it is Frank Viola. Viola may be humble, but that is irrelevant for it is his teachings more than anyone else's that has created the House Church movement. If one disagrees with Viola on his teaching on the anti-institutionalism that is foundational to the house church model, one wouldn't be in a house church anyway! So yes, it is impossible for any false teacher to seize control over a cluster of "house churches", unless that teacher has the endorsement of people like Frank Viola. It is in this regard that there is not much difference between Viola's movement and denominations. A non-denominational or even anti-denominational denomination is STILL a denomination in the way it behaves.

The greatest irony of all is that through Frank Viola, anti-institutionalism and the teaching of the social trinitarian analogue enter the house churches. Both of them are serious errors in ecclesiology (and the latter in theology proper as well), and therefore the house churches fall together with Frank Viola. It is impossible to repudiate these errors and still remain as a house church (as opposed to a church that merely meets in a house). There is therefore no protection from heresy in Viola's movement when the concepts behind the movement itself are not orthodox.

In the next post, we would look at the concept of communitarianism, and contrasts this with the biblical concept of family and community.

Truth and Regeneration

For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written,

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”

Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? (1 Cor. 1:18-20)

Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away. But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. ...

The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. “For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ. (1 Cor. 2: 6-7, 14-16)

In many circles in professing Evangelicalism, the idol of academic intellectualism holds sway. In the world, unregenerate "biblical" scholars produce "scholarly" academic theological articles and books. The viewpoint of the Bible is sneered at as being anti-intellectual, backward and outdated. While it may be possible for them to condescendingly look kindly on those from a former era who hold to these views, Christians who do so in this so-called mature era are sneered at as idiots and fools, no different from flat-earthers and those who continue to hold on to Ptolemaic astronomy.

What does Scripture say however to the world of unbelieving academia? In the first two chapters of 1 Corinthians, we can see that Scripture categorically denies that those who are not of Christ can accept the truths of Scripture. They most certainly can cognitively understand biblical truths, but they cannot accept them as true, instead seeing them as foolishness (1 Cor. 1:18, 2:14). It should come as no surprise to us therefore when unregenerate academia treats the biblical viewpoint as being unscholarly, outdated and foolish. The Bible has already told us that such would be the case, so we shouldn't be too surprised when the Bible proves itself true.

The passages in 1 Corinthians go on to show the reversal engineered by God. The wisdom of the world God would show to be actually foolishness in His sight (1 Cor. 1:20). All the accolades and applause by the world's elite would mean nothing when the scholarship of unbelieving academia is tested and shown to be found wanting in real scholarship as judged by the King of the universe. They are instead exposed to be nothing but intellectual trash, fit to be burned in the fires of hell where they have originated.

Conversely, for those who humbly believe in God, their seeming foolishness is actually heavenly wisdom (1 Cor. 2:7, 16). Building upon the axioms of the revelation of God's Word, they have a firm foundation which is Christ the eternal Word (Jn. 1:1, 14). While not many believers have the capacity to build vigorously on the foundation to produce scholarly material, their lot is much better than any of the unregenerate biblical scholars. After all, a small non-discrete house built on a strong foundation would stand, while a giant edifice complete with ingenious designs rivaling anything the world has ever seen would not stand if such was build on a foundation of sand.

Unregenerate scholarship, being alienated from Christ and thus bereft of the mind of Christ, cannot produce anything of spiritual truth, for no one produces any work which they themselves think is foolish. Therefore, they have nothing to contribute to true theological reasoning. Their only contribution can only be in areas that are not doctrinal in nature like languages and ancient cultural studies, but they have absolutely nothing to contribute in terms of the doctrines of the church. From Schleiermacher to Barth/ Brunner/Bultmann to Wright and Pannenberg and the Torrances, because they are not of Christ, they have nothing to say to the church with regards to doctrine. Intellectual trash is still trash no matter how academic it sounds, in the same way fallen humans are still depraved no matter how "cultured" they are brought up to be.

As Anselm of Cantebury states: Credo ut Intelligam — I believe so that I may understand. Faith which comes by regeneration is required before eternal truths can be properly understood and accepted as the heavenly truth that they actually are. It is because of this that the truths of God are "secret" and "hidden" (1 Cor. 2:7), not that God is actually hiding something but that the spiritually blind cannot see the truths even when they are placed directly in front of him. As it is written:

In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. (2 Cor. 4:4)

Unbelievers are blinded to God's truth and cannot perceive them. The only way to perceive God's truth therefore is by faith which comes about by regeneration as God opens the eyes so that the spiritually blind may see.

We therefore should not give credence to these so-called scholarship from those who are clearly unregenerate. A good tree bears good fruit and a bad tree bears bad fruit. In the same way, unregenerate scholars will always produce unsound teaching. A leopard can never changed its spots (Jer. 13:23). What truths these scholars have is occasional, in the same way as a broken clock shows the correct time twice per day.

Let the New Evangelicals continue to worship the idol of academia. True Christian scholarship is determined by the Scripture, not by the elites in academia. By all means, let them mock, for they know not what they are doing. In actual fact, their scholarship viewed in light of God's Word is simply laughable, as seen in for example the so-called "Documentary hypothesis" — a fantasy that liberals invent out of the wildness of their own imaginations that is riddled with all manner of logical and reasoning fallacies.

In conclusion, let us not give credence to these false teachers with academic degrees. Rather, let us rather respect teachers of God's Word who earn their academic degrees through building on the foundation of Scripture. An MDiv from bible-believing seminaries like Westminster Seminary California for example is of much more spiritual value than a PhD in theology from Yale or Harvard. In fact, I would venture to say that degrees from these places are of no true worth at all, and the churches should despise these degrees as being essentially worthless for true Christianity. Such degrees have as much spiritual value as PhDs in other religions, since liberalism is in fact another religion altogether anyway, which is why John Gresham Machen entitled his book Christianity and Liberalism, thus showing even in the title that Liberalism is NOT Christianity.

Why the GDOP does not conform to Scripture

Tomorrow (May 23rd 2010) would be the Global Day of Prayer 2010. Tomorrow, millions of professing Christians from many denominations and sects (including apostate Roman Catholicism) would come together supposedly to create a spiritual wave of prayer. Tomorrow, the forces of hell would be laughing at the mass delusion of these millions of Christians who are unwittingly acting out in preparation of the growing darkness of the New Apostolic Reformation. On Pentecost Sunday the darkness of hell grows as a spiritual tsunami that had begun almost 10 years ago picks up force.

Started by South African businessman Graham Powers in 2001, the Global Day of Prayer (GDOP) event has spread to all corners of the globe. Based as it is on the heretical doctrines of the Latter-rain cult (being denounced by the Assemblies of God in 1949 as heresy), the event is part of the idea of "transformation", in which the supposed Dominion Mandate [1] would come to pass as the new apostles exercise their supposed apostleship over the seven mountains or spheres of society. Though the supposed power of prayer, the GDOP event hopes to "pray down" the kingdom of God and bring heaven down to earth through the power of intercession, thus bringing about societal transformation for the better. [2]

The terrible reality however is that the entire GDOP event is not of God and is in fact an abomination before Him. The New Order of the Latter Rain (NOLR) and the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) are heretical groups that are way off from any semblance of biblical Christianity, as Pastor Bob DeWaay has shown [3]. The roots of the GDOP are therefore rotten. Such doctrines as the Manifest Sons of God heresy (based upon the phrasing of Rom. 8:19 in the KJV), and the idea of the "Joshua generation", the "Elijah Company" and "Joel's Army" are concepts utterly foreign to Scripture and so repugnant that to believe them would almost destroy one's spiritual life, as this present author can testify to.

As it has been implemented, the travesty of ecumenism and compromise pervades the entire event. According to Dr. Robert O. Bakke, executive director of GDOP North America in the year 2006, Roman Catholics and Protestants in Ghana came together to "pray for the first time" [4]. The blood of the martyrs against the antichristian system of Rome cries out against such compromise of the Gospel. While there may be true believers in the Romish system, the system itself is antichristian, with Rome anathemizing the Gospel in the Council of Trent. and as such preaches a false gospel of faith plus works righteousness (Gal. 1:9-10).

As if that wasn't bad enough, the 2005 event held at Dallas, Texas saw the Sabellian Modalist T.D. Jakes, who denies the Trinity and as such is not a Christian, participating as one of the event speakers. So not only is the Gospel considered optional, even belief in the true Triune God is considered optional for the GDOP!

Some believers may hold out the idea that they join the event for the idea of prayer only, not endorsing the event even in part. However, even that itself is compromise. Prayer is not a magic bullet that works ex opere operato [5] — that is to say, it works by sheer fact of its being acted out. God is sovereign and we are not. In Ezekiel 14:12-23, we can see this principle at work. For even IF the three righteous men highlighted by God — Noah, Daniel and Job — were in a wicked city which God destined for destruction in judgment, God would still not spare the city on account of these three righteous men, but only they themselves would be saved. From this passage therefore, we can see that in prayer, although we have the privilege and are in fact commanded to humbly submit our requests to God, ultimately God is sovereign and He does not always have to answer 'yes' to our requests made to Him.

Prayer is furthermore not inherently virtuous. As it is written:

The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord, but the prayer of the upright is acceptable to him (Prov. 15:8)

The parallelism makes it plain that whatever the wicked offer up to God even their sacrifices or prayers are abominations to God. Therefore, even "Christian" prayer in and of itself has no virtue before God, unless it is done in Christ, through Christ and according to Christ's commands in His Word.

Therefore, going for the GDOP event for the prayer, being a violation of God's command to be separate (2 Cor. 6:14-18), is displeasing to God. God is not pleased by the mere "fact" of prayer, but treat such prayers as the abomination that they actually are; a stench in His nostrils.

The GDOP therefore is manifestly not of God and is to be avoided like the plague. May God have mercy upon the deluded masses going for the event and save them from it. Amen.

---

References:

[1] C. Peter Wagner, Dominion How Kingdom Action can Change the World (Grand Rapids, MI, USA: Chosen Books, a division of Baker publishing Group, 2008). A review of this book can be found at http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/ddd_chc82/articles/Dominion_Review.html

[2] Sarah Leslie, The Global Day of Prayer (http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/05/sarah-leslie/global-prayer.htm)

[3] Bob DeWaay, The Roots and Fruits of the New Apostolic Reformation, Critical Issue Commentary Issue 103 - Nov/Dec 2007. Available at http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue103.htm

[4] Personal email correspondence received between the author and Rev. Alfred Yeo, email dated May 2nd 2006.

[5] Daniel H. Chew, On the Efficaciousness of Prayer — Does Prayer operates Ex Opere Operato?. Accessed at http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/ddd_chc82/theology/Prayer1.html