VFT book review: Faith Unfeigned

The Valiant for Truth blog has recently put up my book review of Faith Unfeigned, which is a collection of four sermons by the Reformed John Calvin. An excerpt:

The 500th birthday of John Calvin (AD 1509-1564) has passed. Recently, the Banner of Truth Trust has re-published a new translation of a work by John Calvin comprising four of his sermons reworked for publication, an exposition of Psalm 87, and three letters from John Calvin on the necessity of an open and sincere profession of faith (p. ix). This theme of an unfeigned faith, its honest confession evident through practice, is one that permeates all of the texts in this re-published work.

[more]

Paper: Mainline Presbyterianism and Reformed Piety

I have been tied up with many things recently. Anyway, here is another paper which I have submitted entitled Mainline Presbyterianism and Reformed Piety. It is also a book review of the book by Ted V Foote Jr. and P. Alex Thornburg entitled Being Presbyterian in the Bible Belt: A Theological Survival Guide for Youth, Parents, and Other Confused Presbyterians. An excerpt:

In the Reformed tradition, piety is very important, being a major focus of the Reformer John Calvin’s concern. A book by Ted V. Foote Jr. and P. Alex Thornburg attempts to portray Presbyterian piety for us.

The book by Foote and P. Alex Thornburg, Being Presbyterian in the Bible Belt, is subtitled “A theological survival guide for youth, parents, and other confused Presbyterians.” In their preface, they reveal that their goal is to write a book to “respond to ‘outsiders,’ to address the questions non-Presbyterians ask us.” The authors therefore are attempting to help Presbyterians respond to the questions asked by those who come from “fundamentalist churches” and thus defend what they think is Presbyterian and Reformed piety against Neoevangelical piety.

[more]

Pre-Prolegomena: Love for the Brethren

Love for the Brethren

If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. And this commandment we have from him: whoever loves God must also love his brother. (1 Jn. 4:20-21)

The Scriptures are clear that we are to love our fellow brothers and sisters in the faith. The problem comes however as to what this love means.

In most of popular Christianity, love is defined by being warm and affirmative of the other. Over potlucks and celebrations, being open in sharing one's personal struggles, praying and offering support both material and/or emotional is seen as vital to loving others. However, is that what the Scriptures call us to?

Love is defined by God who is love (1 Jn. 4:16). Love therefore is whatever that is done for the good of the other as defined by what the Scriptures call good, not what we think is good.

It is certainly nice, warm and fuzzy to have "fellowship" with one another. But this by itself is mere socializing. Even prayer support does not necessarily mean anything truly spiritual.

Love desires that we want the growth of the other in Christ. Therefore, it is intricately tied up with the issue of growth in knowledge, affection and being/doing. In the area of knowledge, love means that one should seek for the other to grow towards greater knowledge of God and an embrace of the doctrines taught by Scripture. In the area of affection, love means that one should seek for the other to grow to love and honor the God of the Scriptures, and not the "god" created by one's own mind. In the area of being/ doing, it means that one should seek for the other to know and trust in Christ, in their identity in union with Him. From there, love seeks for the other to produce good works issuing from the gratitude that one is already saved by faith in Christ.

Love does not rejoice in what is wrong. It is not loving to tolerate serious errors of doctrine and life in another. It is not loving to celebrate their errors. It desires the godliness of our fellow saints, and as Christians, we should be thus loving to them.

Ministry and the attitude towards learning

Previous:

• Pastors and Seminary Education
• Why being a biblicist is wrong

The vocation of being a pastor/ elder is a tough one. To take care of the flock (Acts 20:28) implies that one knows the truth, and therefore what is not the truth. The shepherd has to lead the flock to green pastures and avoid poisonous plants.

Being a shepherd of the flock of God therefore requires training. God-fearing seminaries are meant to provide that training. Whatever one thinks of the role of a pastor-scholar, it is a fact that anti-intellectualism has no place at all in Christianity. The pastor's office was not called a study for no reason.

This especially means that shepherds and ministers are to be humble and teachable, more so those who are not seminary-trained. This is not to say that those seminary-trained are always correct or that untrained people are necessarily precluded from pastoral ministry, but to say that not being trained means that one must train oneself to the level of erudition needed for the task.

It is a travesty when pastors and elders are not humble and teachable. It is an even worse tragedy when they are both unteachable and wrong. At least if they are right, they would not lead others astray. But what can one do with someone who is convinced that he is right when actually he is ignorant and wrong?

Jas. 3:1 is a serious verse that all pastors and aspiring ministers and elders should always keep in mind. Remember that we are not the lords of the church but servants in charge of Christ's flock. The flock does NOT belong to us, and we are not given the permission to have lamb chops.

Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness. (Jas. 3:1)

Rick Warren the Anabaptist, on Twitter

Some time ago, Rick Warren tweeted the following:

I replied with the following tweets, following which it seems Rick Warren decided to block me from following him.

The Schleitheim Confession was the confession of faith of Anabaptists connected with Michael Slatter. As with many Anabaptists and their related documents, it is thoroughly moralistic in tone.

While Anabaptism is varied and diverse such that one should speak of AnabaptismS, yet a common motif is one of moralistic change. As opposed to the Magisterial Reformation, Anabaptists focus greatly on visible reform of practice and morals. Doctrine generally takes second place to that of moral reform, with the idea of "separation" from the world running amok in the Hutterites establishing communes distinct from the "evil secular" world around them. That is why I do not like the nomenclature of the Anabaptists as being part of the "Radical Reformation." It is radical alright, radical Medieval spiritualist revival that is.

The Schleitheim Confession is one such moralistic document. Looking at it one understands why Rick Warren loves it, because both of them are basically Semi-Pelagian legalists in orientation. Rick Warren, unless the Spirit works repentance in his heart, does not treasure sound doctrine. Rather, everything is all about having an immediate (i.e. without mediation) encounter with Jesus through "spiritual disciplines" and "40 Days of _____ (Purpose, Community, Vision etc)."

Those who wonder why Warren loves the Medieval mystics should not be surprised. In fact, I would be surprised if he does not identify with his spiritual forebears. Warren as a practical Semi-Pelagian share the same soteriology as the Medieval mystics. As the Reformation rejected the Medieval mystics (together with the trappings of Roman piety) and the Anabaptists, so also those of us who truly follow Christ according to the dictates of His Word should likewise reject Rick Warren.

Dr. Richard Muller's talks at WSC

The last two days (Feb 28th and 29th 2012) saw Dr. Richard Muller gave lectures at Westminster Seminary California (WSC), which I was privileged to attend. The talks can now be heard in the resource center here:

1. Was Calvin a Calvinist?
2. Calvin and Beza on Practical Syllogism (Calvin on Assurance)

Was Luther a Barthian?

No.

To be brief, there are two kinds of clarity in Scripture ... : one external and pertaining to the ministry of the Word, the other located in the understanding of the heart. If you speak of the internal clarity, no man perceived one iota of what is in the Scriptures unless he has the Spirit of God ... If, on the other hand, you speak of the external clarity, nothing at all is left obscure or ambiguous, but everything there is in the Scripture has been brought out by the Word into the most definite light, and published to all the world.

— Martin Luther, On the Bondage of the Will, in Luther and Erasmus: Free Will and Salvation (ed. by E. Gordon Rupp and Philips S. Watson; Philadelphia: Westminster Press: 1969)

Sacrifice and suffering

We have an altar from which those who serve the tent have no right to eat. For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the holy places by the high priest as a sacrifice for sin are burned outside the camp. So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood. Therefore let us go to him outside the camp and bear the reproach he endured. For here we have no lasting city, but we seek the city that is to come. Through him then let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that acknowledge his name. (Heb. 13:10-15)

I have watched the growing hostility to Christianity in Singapore. Slowly by slowly, more and more attacks have been made against Christians expressing their faith, and intolerance of the Christian religion is on the rise.

As someone who grew up in a genuinely tolerant country, I admit I have not been prepared for this. Disagreements and conflicts have been verbal, which is fine. But to think that one day I may have to answer for my faith in the same way as Christians in Iran and Syria has not been something I have not thought of.

We in Singapore have been too complacent. While most of the rest of the world's Christians suffer persecution from the hands of their countrymen, we have been tolerated for a long time. We are not prepared for persecution. We have no conception of paying for our convictions in institutional discrimination, nevermind in blood. What has been the cost of following Christ in Singapore before? Mocking? Ridicule?

The time of tolerance is coming to an end. Soon, the evil intent in the hearts of Man to suppress God's truth will work itself out. It may take 10 years, 20 years or more, but I fear for what is to come.

In Hebrews, we are called to go with Christ outside the camp, bearing His reproach. Here we have no lasting city, but we seek the city that is to come. As we come before God, increasingly persecuted for our beliefs, may we turn to Christ. See Him who bore reproach for dying cursed on the tree for us, He who was rejected by His own countrymen, who sentenced Him to death by crucifixion. Our Lord was rejected by His own people, those who were supposed to know the Scriptures. How much more we think that we should be accepted by our countrymen?

May God use this trial to purify His Church, which has grown complacent and fat. May God remove the chaff and strengthen His people. Let us repent of our complacency and compromise, and turn to Him for our all.

Christian solidarity

Then David took hold of his clothes and tore them, and so did all the men who were with him. And they mourned and wept and fasted until evening for Saul and for Jonathan his son and for the people of the LORD and for the house of Israel, because they had fallen by the sword. And David said to the young man who told him, “Where do you come from?” And he answered, “I am the son of a sojourner, an Amalekite.” David said to him, “How is it you were not afraid to put out your hand to destroy the LORD's anointed?” Then David called one of the young men and said, “Go, execute him.” And he struck him down so that he died. And David said to him, “Your blood be on your head, for your own mouth has testified against you, saying, ‘I have killed the LORD's anointed.’” (2 Sam. 1:11-16)

If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together. (1 Cor. 12:26)

Christians are members of one another, members of one body. For those who are believers, we are one family and should support one another.

When one part of the body suffers, as 1 Cor. 12:26 says, all suffers together. When one part is honored, all rejoice. There is no rejoicing in the downfall or hardship of another.

In 2 Sam. 1:11-16, we see King David in some sense putting this principle at work. Saul was David's mortal enemy who always plotted to kill him. Yet he is part of the covenant community. Furthermore, as God's anointed, he represents the people of God. Whatever his wickedness towards David, his death means the defeat of the people of God at the hands of the uncircumcised Phillistines, the enemies of God. His death is a blow against God's Name and God's honor, even though on the one hand it was God who handed Saul over to be killed, it was nevertheless disgrace for Israel and God's Name.

The Amalekite slave lied to David. Saul had committed suicide with his own sword, and nobody was responsible for his death. Saul died pitifully, a person once chosen for the glory of God's earthly representative in the theocracy, but he incurred the covenant curse for sparing Agag the king of the Amalekite and his flock when he was commanded to devote them to utter destruction by cherem warfare (1 Sam. 15: 1-9). Here at Mount Giboa Saul died, his life as the delayed penalty for violation of God's command to devote the Amalekites to utter destruction, life for life.

The Amalekite slave should not have lied to David. Yet he did, trying to gain glory and approval and reward for getting rid of David's enemy. The problem however is that Saul was not truly David's enemy, though the other way around holds true.

For his deception, the Amalekite slave received the immediate death penalty, a poetic justice seeing that the Amalekites were supposed to be exterminated by Saul, which apparently he failed to do.

Without going further into the intricacies of the text, the key point that I want to note here is that David and all his men wept for Saul. In their minds, the glory of God and of Christ is pre-eminent. They knew the disgrace Israel had fallen into, they felt the pain of the suffering of the other members of the body, they wept at the plight of God's people. Nevermind that this will work out in David's favor. Nevermind that David does not have to flee from Saul anymore. All these are irrelevant, for God's glory is diminished. Ichabod! The glory has departed from Israel.

What does this has to do with Christian solidarity? We are the people of God. We are his peculiar people, a people for his own possession (1 Peter 2:9). As a family, we stand together, or not at all.

Readers will know my profound disagreements with Evangelicalism on various issues. And to some extent, I have disagreements with Campus Crusade too, which I do not want to spell out. But when push comes to shove, I will stand in solidarity with my brothers and sisters in Christ.

Sometimes, it is not that what any group of Christians do that is perfectly right. Sometimes they have made errors in judgment. But when the world attacks these Christians, how can we join them in pointing the finger just because they are not like us? Don't we know that our growth in knowledge and godliness is because of God's free grace? Are we arrogantly sitting in judgment over our brother just because he may have made a blunder?

We are not speaking of the out and out heretics. I do not care one bit for them. But not all Christians are at the same level of doctrinal maturity. Surely we do critique them and oppose them when they are wrong, but such is done out of love, and therefore we support them and stand in solidarity when the world attacks them.

We must be like David, not the Amalekite. Weep for the plight of Zion, and beseech the Lord for strength and mercy. This should be our right response

NUS CCC asked to cease activities

The intolerance and bigotry of so-called "tolerance" has struck. National University of Singapore has ordered Campus Crusade of Christ to cease its activities because some people were offended about what Christianity teaches. In other countries, such activities will make the university liable to be sued for religious discrimination, but in Singapore, who cares?

Apologetics: Christian belief in a pluralistic world

It is customary among certain segments of society to think that Christians are arrogant and are flaunting their beliefs by the act of evangelism. How should we as Christians deal with the matter?

Many years ago, I got into a quarrel with my Junior College classmates. It started with one person who was basically sending homosexual promotion material through the group list. I was rather unhappy with that and replied, asking him to stop. One thing led to another and I withdrew from the group due to the hurt I had experienced from them. These people think that I am pushing my faith on them, while all the while being blinded of their hypocrisy in pushing their faiths on me. [Newsflash: Promoting homosexuality is not arrogant; asking people to respect my Christian beliefs is arrogant!]

This incident lies behind my apologetics sharing here. I have now more than enough time to think through the incident. While it caused some alienation between me and my JC friends, and still to some extent stand between them and me even now, I would not do anything substantially different now compared to then.

What is the apologetic manner of dealing with the secular humanists in places like Singapore? If we are to be effective in witnessing and outreach, the most basic task is to defang the objections of these people. In their minds, they think that Christians are disrespectful of other religions and arrogant in saying that we have the only way. What we have to do is to turn the tables on them. Expose their own hypocrisy and blindness. This may make them more infuriated, but it leaves them without an excuse.

Let's apply this to some examples. Let's say person X is an atheist. Well, who the heck does he think he is to arrogantly flaunt his belief in evolution? Let's say that I happened to be offended by such a disgusting unscientific metaphysical claim that not only is held by them but pushed by them upon all of society. According to his own standards, he is such an arrogant jerk who thinks he is right on evolution and that everyone must believe the same as him or be unenlightened.

Let's take the case of person Y, who is a Buddhist. Well, why is it proper for him to think that only those who practice the eight-fold path can achieve Nirvana? How arrogant! Why is Nirvana restricted to Buddhists and not any other person who follows what he thinks is the right way, including Hitler who truly thinks he is doing what is right?

You want to talk arrogance? You who attack Christianity, you are just as arrogant! How dare you judge Christianity by the same criteria that condemns you if applied to your own beliefs! Hypocrite!

Evangelism and Principled Religious Pluralism

For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you. (1 Cor. 5:12-13)

But we urge you, brothers, to do this more and more, and to aspire to live quietly, and to mind your own affairs, and to work with your hands, as we instructed you, so that you may walk properly before outsiders and be dependent on no one. (1 Thess. 4:10b-12)

How do Christians relate to a pluralistic society— one in which many religions are embraced? This is a question that had stopped being asked when Constantine co-opted the church, and one in which many Christians even nowadays do not reflect on much.

In dealing with this question, let it be said that I (and hopefully other Christians) are not interested in looking to the world to guide us in this area. We are dealing with the relation of truth to life, not spiritual experiences with daily living. Nobody goes around asking the opinions of Tom, Dick or Harry how Einstein's General Theory of Relativity works. No, they go to someone who has studied and worked on the theory. Similarly, and in fact more so, it is folly to go to unregenerate people who are haters of God how Christianity relates to the world. Their darkened minds are unable to give the correct answer to the question (1 Cor. 2:14-15).

So what are the biblical principles that govern our answer? They are:

1) Christianity is the only way of salvation for the world. Evangelism (and discipleship) is a command of God (Mt. 28:18-20)

2) We are called to submit to the governing authorities (Rom. 13:1), unless they ask us to disobey God. If push comes to shove, we are to obey God rather than Man (Acts 4:19)

3) We are called to live quiet dignified lives (1 Thess. 4:10b-12). As much as possible, live in peace with everyone (Rom. 12:18).

4) Salvation is through genuine faith in a person. Such faith cannot be forced or coerced. Furthermore, the Holy Spirit is the One who ultimately saves people, not us.

From these principles, how are Christians to think of evangelism and religious pluralism?

I propose that Christianity is most in line with a principled religious pluralism. That means that religious pluralism is an accepted reality not a celebrated virtue. On this side of eternity, the Lord has called us to witness and evangelize for Him, yet we cannot force faith on anyone.

As much as possible therefore, we strive to remove unnecessary offences which are stumbling blocks to non-believers. We should strive to be at peace with them as much as it is possible. But at the same time, we cannot compromise the Gospel. If they are upset over the exclusivity of the faith, too bad!

In such a society, embrace of principled religious pluralism means that various religions can believe and practice their faiths. This means that society does not censor the religious faith of one group just because some are unhappy with what they say. Those who attack Christianity on its exclusivity seem to forget that most religions around the world are just as exclusive. Islam for example claims to be the only true religion. Buddhism claims to be the only true knowledge. Hinduism while it can accommodate belief in many different religions does not tolerate those who reject its fundamental tenets. Almost all religions are exclusive. Whether their adherents are interested in promoting their respective religions is another issue altogether of course, but it certainly speaks a lot about their love for fellow human beings (or rather hatred) if they think they hold the truth and do not share it with others who they think are wrong.

Principled religious pluralism therefore protects the act of believing and practicing one's religion, regardless of how offensive it may seem to someone else. After all, those who are offended can always not join the religion they dislike! It is the height of hypocrisy to claim that one is for religious harmony and religious pluralism when one decides that certain beliefs and practices are more deserving of protection (read theirs) than others. It is downright selfish and arrogant and outright bigotry to attempt to enforce one's idea of what religions can or cannot believe and practice. Who gave you the right to dictate what others' religious beliefs and practices should look like, Bigot?!

It is my conviction that Christianity has by far the best paradigm of true religious pluralism. Since faith cannot be forced, all religions are protected. In a secular humanistic system, what happens is that only secular humanism is protected and religions that do not conform to the secular humanist paradigm are censored. True religious freedom can only come when faith is considered a personal action that cannot be coerced, and therefore all religions are allowed to believe and practice whatever they please as long as they do not commit crimes.

Pre-prolegomena: Orthodoxy and Heresy

Orthodoxy and Heresy

If indeed growing in knowing doctrine is important, if indeed growing in the knowledge of God is growing in knowing doctrine, then wrong doctrine is very serious. Heresy and wrong doctrine basically is a distortion of the true knowledge of God. Instead of having our minds transformed by the renewing of our minds (c.f. Rom. 12:2), heresy and wrong doctrine distorts our perception of God and of the faith.

Now, the first thing we note is that in the Scriptures, there is present one deposit of truths about God. The most common objection normally to sound doctrine is the relativization of all interpretations of all Scripture, and thus making Scripture wholly subjective. In the minds of such people, you have "your interpretation" and I have "my interpretation" and who are you or anyone else to say who's right and who's wrong?

The problem with this objection is that it denies what Scripture teaches. Scripture is not clay to be molded into anything anyone wants. For example, does anyone want to claim that "Jesus did not die on the cross" is a valid interpretation of Scripture at all? I certainly hope not.

The Scriptures speak of "the faith once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3). It speaks of the pattern of sound words (2 Tim. 1:13). It speaks of the tradition handed down by the apostles (2 Thess. 3:6). There is therefore such a thing as a body of fixed truths handed down to us, and these objective truths are for us to discover and understand and mine for. We are not to ignore them or relativize them.

Since there is such a thing as a fixed pattern of sound words, therefore, there is such a thing as orthodoxy (right teaching). Anything that contradicts this orthodoxy is either heresy or wrong teaching, depending on the nature of the truth that it contradicts.

What does all this have to do with us? If we call ourselves Christians therefore, we are to love God and His Word and the doctrines of Scripture. Therefore, we are to hate heresy and false teaching because they contradict God's truth. We are to hate it because heresy and false teaching destroys souls. It causes professing believers to fall away, and ruins their spiritual lives and witness for Christ.

If we detest rapists and murderers because they hurt or ruin others, why then do we not detest the spiritual rapists and murderers? Our priorities seemed to be way off when we regard the former as worse than the latter. The first can only destroy the body; the second destroy both the body and the soul. As Jesus said,

And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell. (Mt. 10:28)

Let us therefore learn to hate heresy and wrong teaching at least just as much if not more than physical rapists and murderers. Let us treasure sound doctrine and hate false ones.

Book Review: Evangelism in the Early Church

In one of my recent course on Evangelism, I was asked to do a book review, and we were given a list of books to do so. I have chosen Michael Green's Evangelism in the Early Church, which was a fascinating read. Anyway, here is my review of Green's book.

The book by Michael Green, Evangelism in the Early Church, is a book detailing how evangelism is done in the context of the early church, with a focus upon the post-apostolic pre-Nicene era. Chapter 1 starts off with the overall historical context of the era which facilitates the act of evangelism in the early church, namely: the Roman Peace, ubiquity of the Greek language and Greek thought, the quest for security, the need to deal with guilt, the desire to escape from the determinism of Fate, and the spread of Jews and Judaism within the Roman Empire.

[more]

Book Review: We are Called for the Baptism of the Holy Spirit

A Tanzanian pastor has asked me to review his latest book, which is entitled We are Called for the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. I thought it would be something interesting to do, so anyway, here is my review of his book.

This book by Dr. Norman A.S. King, a Tanzanian pastor, is written with the intent to help Christians grow in Christ, which to him is through what he calls the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.

[more]