Consolidated article: God, the Author of Sin and Metaphysical Distanciation: A Brief Rebuttal of Vincent's Cheung Theodicy

The consolidated article refuting Vincent Cheung's errant theodicy has been done and can be found here.

Video: Rosario Butterfield's Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert

[HT: Heidelblog]

The problem of Charismatism and African syncretism

Pastor Conrad Mbewe has posted an interesting blog post on one reason why Charismatism has grown so much in African culture, namely that Charismatism does not challenge traditional African spirituality but merely baptizes it with a veneer of Christianity. An excerpt:

Many explanations have been given for the explosion of the Charismatic movement in Africa. Many have seen this as a powerful visitation of the Holy Spirit. Whereas there is probably more than one reason, I want to add my own observation to this for what it is worth. In this blog post, I do not refer to the old conservative form of Pentecostalism once represented by the Assemblies of God churches. I have in mind the current extreme form that is mushrooming literally under every shrub and tree in Africa. How can one explain this phenomenon?

I think that one reason why the Charismatic movement in Africa has been like a wild bushfire is because it has not challenged the African religious worldview but has instead adopted it. It has simply baptised it with Bible verses and Christian words that previously meant something totally different.

[more]

Creationism, the Age of the Earth, and the problems with opponents of YEC

It has been some time, but Bill Evans had written a response to Al Mohler's presentation promoting Youth-Earth Creationism (YEC) on his blog [HT: The Aquila Report]. While there are a lot of interesting things that can be said in response, chief of which is that Mohler is a popularizer not an expert in YEC, I would like to focus on one particular aspect of the conversation concerning Creation and the Age of the Earth question — that of studious ignorance and non-interaction with the YEC position.

As someone who has read YEC literature and am convinced of the YEC position, I have been exposed to and was taught the Framework position at Westminster Seminary California, in which I am a student. There is of course nothing wrong with studying what other positions are. In fact, it was an interesting experience in and of itself reading [M.G.] Kline and others. The problem however is the almost total ignorance I have found of the YEC position, something that I have seen is extended to much of the Reformed world, or at least those segments that think themselves part of the Reformed intelligentsia.

Such ignorance of the YEC position is seen everywhere. The portions of the creation reports of both the OPC and the PCA are woefully inadequate, the authors in the the Three Views of Creation are nobodies in the YEC community and I have seen few if any interact with the scholarly work done by any of the actual YEC intellectuals! In WSCal, the only major YEC they mention is E.J. Young, and while not denigrating Young, Young is no YEC scholar! He is a OT scholar, not a YEC scholar, and the two are not the same! One does not have to be an expert in the YEC position after all to be an OT scholar.

In Evan's articles, the usual stuff are paraded before us, all without any interaction with YEC answers. Now, the YEC answers may or may not be correct, but it is totally unscholarly that Evans should post the usual objections to YEC claims while not interacting with answers provided by those who actually defend YEC. Non-interaction with the YEC position is preaching to the choir, and would certainly fail to convince YECs like me who actually know the arguments for YEC.

First of all. Evans claimed that the rationale for YEC is to slam the door shut on Darwinism. While that is certainly a beneficial result of YEC, Evans failed to realize that there are YECs, like me, who are YECs because they believed Scripture teaches it, not because of any perceived reaction(s) against Darwinism. Secondly, Evans repeats the usual "scientific consensus" concerning the Age of the Earth, failing totally to interact with the criticisms of the dating methods in the scientific literature of the YEC scientists. As a non-scientist, Evans should not be taking sides in the scientific debate unless he interacts with the scientific arguments. Furthermore, to rely on "consensus" to argue for truth is fallacious, for the "scientific consensus" changes over time. Does Evans really want to tell us that Christians ought to have defended geocentrism based upon the "scientific consensus" during the Medieval period? Evans commits here the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum. Evans also has taken a realist epistemic view of Science, totally ignoring the seismic shift in the philosophy of science that Thomas S. Kuhn brought about.

Thirdly, Evans shows himself totally ignorant of YEC claims concerning the age of the earth and the fossil record. It is simply astounding that Evans speaks about the "apparent age of the earth," since YEC scientists deny such a thing. The earth does not come with an age tag! There is no apparent age, just faulty dating methods that claim to tell us the age of the earth. Fourthly, Evans confused common grade with science, as if General Revelation is equatable with the findings of "Science" (whatever that means). The problem is that there is no such thing as "Science," defined as an impersonal set of natural truths about the world. As both Michael Polanyi and Thomas Kuhn (though coming from different angles) have pointed out, there are only scientists doing experiments in a discipline that people call science. Scientists are NOT people following the "scientific method" (which eliminate all biases) to find the brute empirical facts! General Revelation is true and infallible, but our interpretation of General Revelation (in the scientific enterprise for example) is fallible and often false.

Fifthly, Evans produced the same canard about death before the Fall, ignoring the fact that YECs generally distinguish biological death from the the death of the nephesh chayah. Now, whether that is a good explanation is beside the point here. The point is that: one should not caricature the position one is critiquing. Nobody claims that there was no plant death or bacteria death before the Fall, and for Evans to think that is the YEC position further shows those opposing YEC have no idea what they are talking about.

Sixthly, and lastly, Evans assumes a certain interpretation of the ANE creation myths, and the worldview they supposedly had. Such a view of course is not new. The idea that those dim-witted ancients were idiots coming up with mythological tall tales, and those cosmologies were total myths by those ignoramuses, comes from liberal scholarship. That there were works like the Ennuma Elish and the Gilgamesh Epic is besides the point. The point is: How should these works be interpreted? The mainstream interpretation adopted by lots of those opposing YEC is that the ancients think in terms of myths of gods and goddesses, but why should we think such was the case? Why should we think there were such things as "ancient cosmologies" that the ancients invented for the purpose of proclaiming the superiority of their god(s)? Why can't those "ancient cosologies" be seen as the distorted versions of the truth subsequently written down by Moses? Why can't we see that those ancients really believed those events actually occurred? The Sumerians probably believed Gilgamesh and Enkidu actually existed, and that those events described in the Gilamesh Epic actually happened in the times of their ancestors, even though YECs would say the Epic itself was a distorted story of Noah and the Flood event.

The problem with Bill Evans, as with many of those opposing YEC, is that seldom if at all do they actually interact with YEC scholars. Popularizers such as Al Mohler are easy targets, but it would be actually helpful if those opposing YEC actually interact with the position itself, not build a plethora of strawmen and light them on fire for all to see.

The Regulative Principle and the issue of culture

On the 9Marks blog, Trip Lee has posted an interesting article concerning the Regulative Principle as it relates to culture, reflecting on the similarities and differences in worship of his church in America, compared to the church in Zambia, Africa [HT: The Aquila Report]. His main point is that the Regulative Principle will ensure much similarity in worship, but also it allows for much diversity as well. As he puts it,

While our churches should not be innovative in the content or the components of our services, the way we carry those things out is, to some degree, up to us. Scripture gives us the “substance” and the “elements,” but within broad biblical guidelines, the forms are flexible.

Now, as a non-white non-European person, I do think that culture does play a part in the way Christians worship. I do not think that the whole world should worship with one uniform Scottish Psalter (and translations into different languages) from the 17th century with its corresponding liturgy. Nevertheless, that does not mean that one can re-cast the Regulative Principle of Worship (RPW) as one sees fit, and then claims diversity is allowed under the RPW based upon one's interpretation of it.

We see immediately that Lee has an interesting idea of the RWP. In his scheme, the "elements" merely refer to events as a composite whole, thus "praise," "sermon" etc. Those events as a composite whole are "elements," while the manner of doing those events, the "forms," are totally flexible. Thus, the forms, are "accidents" like a "six-piece band of talented musicians" and who knows what instruments and musicians were used in the Zambian church?

The issue is not whether diversity is allowed under the RPW. I for one am under no illusions that the manner in which people worship is shaped in some measure by culture(s), which may be good or bad. To go back to a 17th century Scottish Psalter with its "thees," "thous," and "ye's" and language that is not understandable by anyone without a working knowledge of 16th century English literature in this modern age is ridiculous. There is after all nothing sacrosanct about the 17th century, or the Scottish culture of the 17th century. But that does not mean that one can drive a truck through the RPW as if regulation merely applies to events as a composite whole.

The Regulative Principle is a regulative principle. Forms are not totally neutral, and are to be regulated by Scripture as well. If anyone claims that form is totally neutral, why shouldn't anyone sing a psalm a capella with a heavy metal "melody" and "beat"? So on the one hand, against those like Lee who sees the Scriptures as allowing for any form, this counter-example is enough to disprove his assertion that the RPW does not govern forms. On the other hand, for those who are fastidious about applying the RPW under a strict Aristotelian taxonomy about "elements" and "accidents," this also is a counter example. Asserting exclusive psalmody and no instrumentation solves nothing, because the underlying assumptions are still very much based upon an early modern European cultural framework. Again, is there anything wrong with singing Psalms 2 with a heavy metal beat? What "elements" and "accidents" categorization could solve the issue of beat and accompanying music? What Aristotelian category does the "metrical rhythm" fall under? Or should we just chant the Psalms? Oh wait, chanting does have a beat too! Asserting the "wisdom" category does not solve the problem for the usage of Aristotelian taxonomy, for if we have "elements" and "accidents" only, where does "wisdom" fit in? And if we say wisdom is required to reject heavy metal beat etc, then the usage of Aristotelian taxonomy is only seen to be self-serving in the interests of conserving white conservative Caucasian cultural preferences, for why is wisdom used to reject heavy metal beat, whereas CCM are rejected in toto even when some of them are paraphrases of Scripture and even if they are sung a capella?

Against those who broaden the RWP so that it becomes almost like the Normative Principle, and against those who restrict the RPW so that it becomes the mere rationale for cultural imperialism, we should strive to see and apply the RPW afresh. The RPW is a regulative principle, and thus it governs all parts of worship. It is a regulative principle, and not law. Against those who claim that forms are flexible, the RPW informs us that forms are also to be governed by Scripture. No part of worship can be said to be free from what Scripture has said. At the same time, the RPW does not give us the exact forms to use; it is not a law, but a principle. There can be thus diversity in forms, but a diversity that occurs as people govern their worship with its forms according to the Scriptures. How that looks like will defer in various social and cultural contexts, but each church needs to wrestle with what Scripture teaches concerning forms as it reforms its worship according to Scripture.

Dealing with the state of Evangelicalism

The Aquila Report has reposted an article by R.C. Sproul of Ligonier Ministries, Moving Evangelicals Beyond Idolatry. In this article, Sproul speaks about the issue of idolatry through aberrational and heretical theology in the movement called Evangelicalism today.

Besides the fact that Evangelicalism does not really exists except by marketing [see D.G. Hart, Deconstructing Evangelicalism (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2004)], the fact of the matter is that its self-created identity has within itself the seed of its own destruction. By pandering to the lowest common denominator, what constitutes the Christian faith becomes more and more restricted to agreement on less and less doctrines, and soon only adherence to the form or the "spirit" of the doctrines remains, which is what had happened in mainstream Protestantism. Many people forget that the Protestantism of the 19th century used to call themselves "Evangelicals," even the liberals, and that the liberals only abandoned the label some time after the Fundamentalist/ Modernist controversy.

So back to the present, what do we make of the current state of Evangelicalism? First, we have to reject the latitudinarianism and doctrinal minimalism endemic to the movement, and thus the movement itself. Loving as it sounds, those who trumpet "Doctrine divides, but love unites" and all its permutations, are to be seen as misguided, however good their intentions. Such attitudes historically result in the destruction of the Church's witnesses and the apostasy of the churches themselves, even if those who trumpet the "love" banner do not intend such to be the result of their attitudes.

Second, if Evangelicalism is that apostate (and anyone who thinks otherwise ought to ask themselves how the early church would have countenanced anyone holding to theories such as Open Theism or even "Evangelical Feminism"), it means that modern Evangelicalism should be seen by us like the (pre-Tridentine) medieval Catholic church. Not yet fully apostate, Evangelicalism is nonetheless hovering around the line between orthodoxy and heresy, between a true church and a false church. That means that Christians ought to treat Evangelicalism like how the Protestants treated the medieval Catholic church. It was a church almost false, desperately needing reform, yet with many believers within her. We accept their sacraments, but should reject many of their churches as being false or almost false.

Modern Roman Catholicism has apostatized even further from Trent, and should be regarded as no church at all. Her sacraments should be seen as invalid, as she has devolved from a false church to a false religion. Modern Evangelicalism has taken the place previously occupied by her. While Evangelicalism still profess the Gospel, we should acknowledge that elements of the true church are within her, though she is in danger of falling.

Prayer request for US Sgt Bergdahl

The OPC General Assembly has called for a day of prayer for the release of US Sgt Bowe Bergdahl, who is a Taliban POW and a non-communicant member of the OPC. This has nothing to do with American wars or the American military, but solely for the safety and release of a Christian brother.

God's sovereignty and "metaphysical distanciation"

A charge Cheung makes against the idea that God is not the author of sin is that such makes him to be not sovereign. In his book The Author of Sin [Vincent Cheung, The Author of Sin (Boston, MA: Vincent Cheung, 2005)], Cheung makes the following statements:

I affirm the meaningfulness of so-called "second causes" only in the sense that these are the means by which God executes his immutable decrees; however, these second causes are not themselves self-existent, self-determined, self-caused, or self-powered. Rather, all so-called "secondary causes" are themselves immediately caused and controlled by God, and the objects on which these secondary causes supposedly act upon react in ways that are also immediately caused and controlled by God. (p. 20)

...

Now, "soft" determinism is used in contrast with "hard" determinism. Using these terms, the popular Reformed/Calvinistic position, which is compatibilism, would be called "soft" determinism, whereas my position would be called "hard" determinism.

The former is "softer" in quality and/or in quantity regarding the level and/or amount of control (determinism) that God exercises over his creation, whereas "hard" determinism is absolute, affirming that God exercises complete (in level or quality) and comprehensive (in amount or quantity) control over everything.

But this means that "soft" determinism is really partial determinism – that is, partial (not full) either in quality or in quantity, or both. And if what God does not absolutely determine can still actually happen, then this means that there is another (one or more) determining power in the universe. When we are speaking of God's relation to man, attributing only partial determinism to God necessarily implies attributing partial determinism to man also. So this becomes a version of dualism.

In other words, one who believes that God absolutely determines everything is a full determinist, since he believes that God fully determines everything, in terms of both quality and quantity, and in terms of both the level (extent) and the amount of control exercised. To believe anything less than this is not full; therefore, it is partial.

Also, since "soft" determinism really means partial determinism, this also necessarily means that it is partial indeterminism (that is, partial non-determinism). Granted, since Calvinists usually (claim to) affirm greater determining power to God than man, this indeterminism is a very "soft" indeterminism, but it is still partial indeterminism.

It becomes just a matter of emphasis as to which term one wishes to use. So the term "soft" determinism is at least a little misleading, making its adherents look better than they really should. To some, it has the effect of sounding "softer," kinder, and less extreme. But if we don't let the language deceive us, we see that it is really partial determinism, weak determinism, incomplete determinism, or "soft" indeterminism. And, at least by implication, dualism. (p. 25. Bola and emphasis original)

...

Those who see that it is impossible to disassociate God from the origination and continuation of evil still attempt to distance God from evil by suggesting that God merely "permits" evil, and that he does not cause it. However, since the Bible itself states that God actively decrees and causes everything, and that nothing can exist or happen apart from his will and power, it makes no sense to say that he merely permits something – nothing happens by God's mere permission. In fact, when it comes to ontology, "God's permission" is an unintelligible term. (p. 70)

According to Cheung therefore, to embrace the idea of contingencies and second causes, except as mere means, is to believe in "partial indeterminism." It invokes metaphysical distanciation of God from the event, introduces uncertainty into the equation, and thus lead to a compromise of God's sovereignty. God must exercise "complete and comprehensive control over everything," or He is not fully sovereign at all.

The problem with Cheung is that he is involved in categorical confusion, and reasons one-dimensionally. Firstly, Cheung confuses sovereignty with direct control. If agent G causes action x to agent A, and agent A causes action y to cause event B, why is agent G not as sovereign over event B as over agent A? The syllogism pairs 'If p, then q'; 'if q then r' would yield 'if p, then r' as a logical deduction. So upon what basis does Cheung claim that non-direct control implies a loss in sovereignty?

Cheung claims that language such as "permission" and the idea that secondary agents are actually really agents introduces indeterminacy into the equation. In other words, indirect control means that the indirect agents have some measure of determinacy. However, such is to confuse agency with sovereignty. Just looking at the basis syllogism pairs for instance, does the fact that agent A could choose otherwise factor into the fact that 'if p, then r'? No, the syllogism pairs (if correct) function independently apart from the state of agent A in doing q to get event r. Even if A does not want to get to event r, yet if the syllogism holds true, his doing q would necessitate the happening of event r. In other words, intention has nothing whatsoever to do with sovereignty. God and the secondary agents could both be free in their respective spheres (divine and creaturely freedom), and yet God is sovereign over all things.

Cheung of course has a counter in the idea that "freedom" is defined from God, and thus creatures are not free, as defined by freedom from God. Contingencies of second causes are not free from God and thus not free (Cheung, 23). Thus, Cheung divorces creaturely intentions from the equation altogether. But such is a redefinition of "freedom" as well as a strange definition of "direct control." Upon what basis does Cheung glosses over human intentions, and claim that, since God is sovereign, therefore "direct control" implies "ultimate control"? It's as if Cheung claims that God's ultimate control over all things means that the intention of the secondary agent can be overloooked, when the issue under discussion is whether God's control is direct, not whether God's control is ultimate. How can one claim that God's control is direct by writing the creaturely intention out of the equation, and then claim that proving God's ultimate control implies proving God's direct control? One can only do that by illegitimately claiming that denying direct causation implies denying ultimate causation, a claim which is logically fallacious (as seen in our syllogism pairs) and having a unbiblical idea of what sovereignty implies, which brings us to our second point.

Cheung's second error is that he reasons one-dimensonally. In theological terms, he confuses the archetypal/ectypal distinction. But even worse than that is his flattening of all categories into a one-dimensional strait-jacket. Even secular philosophers may think in more than one level, whereas for Cheung everything must be reduced to one level. Thus, for Cheung, sovereignty implies direct control, and he has no place whatever for more sophisticated understanding of sovereignty. In other words, by his definition, if a theory denies direct control, they necessarily must deny sovereignty since that is all his strait-jacket thinking can conceive of.

Cheung's thinking of sovereignty looks like this:

Fig. 1

The problem here of course is that the whole process is one-dimensional. There is in this case metaphysical distanciation because God is removed from B greater than from A; (x + y) is certainly greater than x.

If one however sees a difference in the manner of causation of God and the agent A, then one could hold on to a two-dimensional view of causality, as follows:

Fig. 2

Fig. 3

In figures 2 and 3, the distance between God and event B is a vector of x.y, as opposed to the simple scaler equation of (x + y). As seen in figure 3, the vector can function in such a way that the distance between God and event B is exactly the same distance as that from God and agent A (in an isoceles triange), but such is not necessarily the case.

For a Christian however, figure 4 betters fits the biblical data of what we know about God, as follows:

Fig. 4

In figure 4, God is at the center of the sphere. God is sui generis and is totally unlike the rest of creation, which are on the surface of the sphere. God is at once totally immanent and totally transcendent, at once close to His creation (since it's a distance away), but far from it (since it's a distance away). God thus causes agent A through action x to do action y resulting in event B, but all things (agents, events) are at the same distance away from the center by the radius of the sphere. God is thus just as near and just as far away from secondary, tertiary and further removed events. Just as the distance from the center to any point in the surface of the sphere is the same, so likewise God is just as sovereign and in control of the effects as the agents, without being directly causing them.

So God is sovereign over all things. All things are under God's control, directly or indirectly, and there is no distanciation involved by positing the contingencies of secondary causes. God's freedom is freedom indeed, as there is an infinite number of lines possible to be drawn from the center to the surface of the sphere. Creaturely freedom is also real (by which we do not mean freedom from God, a ridiculous redefinition of "freedom"), for there are an infinite number of points chosen for A to connect. A could connect to B, C, D, E, F and so on.

God is sovereign, and Man is free. That is not a contradiction, when one understands that creaturely freedom functions on a different plane from God's freedom. Cheung's errors in the whole issue is that of confusing categories, flattening the categories into a rationalistic straitjacket, and in so doing impinges the character of God by either making God the culpable agent of evil, or by divorcing God's will from His nature.

Vincent Cheung and the Author of Sin

Vincent Cheung is a hot-headed polemicist who does post lots of provocative thoughts. As a interlocutor, his writings are challenging to interact with, if one can see past the slurs, ridicule and insults. However, the problem with Cheung is that people actually think he is right, and tragically such a following does harm to the Body of Christ. Just because evangelicalism is wrong on many issues does not mean that the opposite extreme on any one issue is right, and the positing of such sharp dichotomies by Cheung makes his position seem reasonable, since it is painted as the consistent opposite of the error that Evangelicalism holds to.

Cheung's book on theodicy, The Author of Sin, is a case in point. The book has tremendous shock value, and is most certain to repulse most Christians. Yet the book raises legitimate questions, which most people wouldn't think about as they are repulsed by its errant conclusions. So on the one hand, we have Christians who legitimately reject what Cheung is saying, yet they miss out on the legitimate questions Cheung raises out of revulsion at what Cheung is promoting. On the other hand, we have those who are more rational who see the legitimate questions Cheung raises, and because they are more philosophically inclined (and also without adequate discernment I may add), they accept Cheung's conclusions. In the storm of dissension, clarity on the subject is surely missing.

Without interacting with the entirety of Cheung's book, I would like to address his blog post dealing with the subject, entitled WCF, secondary causes, etc.. In this blog post, the crux of Cheung's issue with the phrase "author of sin" is expressed. The question Cheung raised is a good one: "What is wrong with saying that God is the "author of sin"? In Cheung's argument, since God is the ultimate cause of all things, and in colloquial speech, an "author" is someone who orchestrates all things to come about, God is certainly the "author of sin," because God as sovereign brings about all things including sin. God "metaphysically cause(d) evil" but does not "morally commit evil," and thus the language of the WCF (Westminster Confession of Faith) is said to be confusing and in error.

As mentioned, the question Cheung raises is a legitimate one. Surely, the Scriptures does portray God to be totally sovereign. Surely, the ultimate cause of sin in this sense must be God. Doesn't this therefore mean that God is the "author of sin"? The answer however is NO, as I will show why.

Now, it must be admitted that one can posit that God can cause evil without being culpable for evil, since God does not actually do evil. Cheung raises a valid point here against those who try to soften God's sovereignty by distancing Him from evil. Yet the problem with Cheung's solution is that it raises an insurmountable problem in theology proper. While formally resolving the problem of theodicy, it raises questions regarding the nature of God. Is God actually good? Does God actually act according to His nature? Phrased another way, is God's will independent of His nature?

The problem with the denial of contingency and secondary causes is that it makes God out to be a monster. Yes, one exonerates God of moral evil in creation and providence, but that only comes at the expense of either divorcing God's will from God's nature, or making God evil. Either option makes God to be something other than who He has revealed Himself to be. To the former, if God's will is divorced from his nature, if extreme nominalism hold true, then how can one trusts such a capricious God? To the latter, there is no difference here between God and the Devil.

Cheung is seriously in error, even heretical, in his portrayal of God as the "author of sin." According to Cheung, "to say that God is not the author of sin necessarily means that his sovereignty cannot be direct and exhaustive." In reply, I would counter that "to say that God is not sovereign if He operates through contingencies and secondary causes is fallacious." Why does the usage of contingencies and secondary causes necessarily imply that God is not absolutely sovereign? Why is such a usage considered "distant"? Upon what basis can Cheung make such a claim? Such philosophical claims cannot be found in Scripture! Since Cheung claims to be following Sola Scriptura, why has he imported philosophical concepts not taught in Scripture into the teachings of Scripture?

My challenge to Cheung and his followers stands here: Prove from Scripture where it is stated that (1) God is not sovereign if He operates through contingencies; (2) Operating through contingencies means that God is not directly sovereign over the process, (3) God can will and do anything contrary to His nature. Let's see if any of them dares to take up the challenge!

Res et Signum, and the Visible/ Invisible Church distinction

Back when what seemed a long time ago, I was criticized for my focus on the invisible church. That criticism was done by a Baptist. After going through seminary, I have come to see why such criticism makes sense in the Baptist scheme of things.

On the nature of visible things and the invisible reality behind those things, there has been theories about how they relate to each other. In the doctrines concerning sacraments for example, the issue is the relation between the physical sign (signum) and the thing signified (res significata). So how does the bread in the Lord's Supper relate to the Body of Christ it signifies? How does the water in baptism signify regeneration, the death and being borned again of the believer in union with Christ? In all these, there is the physical sign, which signifies the spiritual reality behind it.

In traditional Roman Catholic sacramentology, the sign IS the thing signified. Thus, in the Mass, one actually eats the real Body and drinks the real Blood of Christ, as the elements are transubstantiated into the body and blood of Christ. At baptism, the water actually regenerates the person being baptized, because the sign is the reality, so application of the sign ex opere operato accomplish its purpose. In the Zwinglian view, which Baptists (traditionally) and most Christians today hold to, the sign is separated from the thing signified. Therefore, a person can eat the bread and drink the wine, yet not actually eat and drink the Body and Blood of Christ. Baptism can be just washing, a pouring of water on the person, which is why baptism can be re-administered since the previous baptism, for whatever reason, is considered invalid. It is no wonder therefore that the Swiss Anabaptists came out under Zwingli's teaching, for if baptism has no spiritual reality attached but is merely an oath pledge of faith, then certainly babies can't take that oath pledge, and infant baptism is thereby invalidated, thus all persons baptized as infants are to re-baptized (or undergo adult baptism).

In contrast, the Reformed understanding is that the sign and the thing signified are related to each other. They are not equated, neither are they separated. Distinct but not separate. Thus, the bread is bread, but there is a relation with the Body of Christ so that all who eat of the bread partake of the Body of Christ, either unto blessing or unto condemnation. Thus, the water is related to regeneration, so that all who partake of baptism have the sign of regeneration, and thus show forth their regeneration in time, or suffer the curse of covenant breaking. In the Reformed system, there is always a relation between the sign and the thing signified, a relation which is rejected by Baptists in general.

So what does this have to do with the Visible/ Invisible Church distinction? Like the relation between sign and thing signified, the Visible Church and the Invisible Church are distinct but not separate. They are not equated to each other, neither are they separated to the extent that one can discount the Visible Church while claiming to be a member of the Invisible Church.

We see this dynamic at work in Baptist and broad Evangelical circles. On the one hand, we have those who are so focus on the "Invisible Church" that they reject the Visible Church altogether, or downplays it. Here we have people like John Nelson Darby and the Plymouth Brethren, and here we could put Frank Viola as well. The Visible Church disappears altogether, for what God is focused on is the Invisible Church. On the other hand, we have those who move towards the equating of the two. In reaction against the focus on the Invisible Church we have those who focus on the Visible Church. Thus, we have people like Frank Turk, whom I have debated in the past. Such baptists react against the low view of the Visible Church for its other extreme. In the case of Frank Turk, that means separation from any professing church is out of the question, presumably as long as it is called a church. For such people, separation equals the horrors of J.N. Darby, C.I. Scofield, and all the problems that attend them. Ironically, because their paradigm is unreflective and reactionary, they have replaced a separation of res et signum for an almost equation of res et signum, such that the Visible Church IS the Invisible Church in all but form.

That is why there is nothing wrong to focus on the invisible church, when it is done right in the Reformed paradigm. In fact, focusing on the invisible church should be the case, for that is what the Visible Church strives to be. In such a paradigm, there is no question about being a member in a Visible Church. The visible Church is not seen as an organization we join in obedience to God's command, something believers do after salvation. NO! The visible Church is the mother of believers. We are birthed through her and in her. She nourishes the souls of believers through her offices. The Church is NOT a place for one to go to "do ministry" and "serve God." The Church is just there to nourish the saints for works of service to others. Normally, a believer is a member in a visible church, and that is it!

It is no surprise that Baptists generally can't get their ecclesiology right, for they start with a wrong view of the relation between sign and thing signified, which influence their view of the relation between the Visible and the Invisible Church. With this wrong view, those who react against the separatists just swing to the opposite extreme, and thus almost equate the two. In both of these extremes, God's people lose out. In the former, they separate themselves from Christ's church, supposing themselves to be the "true invisible church." In the latter, they let themselves be unequally yoked with false churches, being spiritually malnourished and told they must continue in their sorry state because Christ told them to. Unfortunately, beliefs HAVE consequences, and none seen more practical than in ecclesiology.

The Visible/ Invisible Church distinction is a distinction, not a separation. We should not equate them, nor separate them. Only when we hold that they relate to each other can we do justice to what Scripture instructs us concerning the church.

Paper: The Special Office in the Church - A Defence against the views of Radical Restorationist and Organic Church proponent Frank Viola

I have written a paper concerning Frank Viola's ecclesiology and the issue of special office in the church, which he rejects. Viola is well known for promoting the house church phenomenon, specifically his "Organic Church" model. The issue with Viola has never been about meeting in homes, but about Viola's attack of all elements of church governance and liturgy as being "pagan." If anything is pagan, it is Viola's radical egalitarianism in his radizalization of "every-member ministry," as it will have been proven. Without further to do, here is the paper, entitled The Special Office in the Church: A Defence against the Views of Radical Restorationist and Organic Church proponent Frank Viola.

The desire to be biblical in all things is very much to be lauded, since Scripture is to be the rule for our faith. This desire to be biblical is worked out also in the way we do church. The accretions of superstitions and unbiblical rituals in the medieval era were largely removed during the time of the Reformation. The Anabaptists were of the opinion however that the Reformers did not go far enough in their reform. Since then, various restorationist movements like the Stone-Campbell movement have attempted to reform and return the church back to what they suppose the first century church looks like. Pentecostalism and its variants are another incarnation of the restorationist impulse, an impulse which is different from the Reformed impulse in desiring to jettison tradition altogether instead of critically engaging it.

One of the latest incarnations of the restorationist impulse is the movement promoted primarily by Frank Viola, the “Organic Church” movement, which claims that most of what is found in modern Christianity is actually pagan in its roots. Viola rejects almost all aspects of the Institutional Church, in favor of a particular house church model without liturgy or any hint of clergy. Together with George Barna, he advocates for spontaneity in every meeting and every-member ministry, in which every believer will join in contributing to church gatherings through the use of song, skit, “short teachings, revelations, and prophetic words” among others, as the Holy Spirit supposedly leads each member during church meetings.

[continue]

Paper: The Marriage Bond and Covenant

This paper has been returned. Here is my paper on the issue of divorce and remarriage, dealing particularly with the views of the PRCA as seen in their theologian David Engelsma, entitled The Marriage Bond and Covenant. An excerpt:

Marriage is an ordinance instituted by God at creation (Gen. 2:24). In this ordinance, a man is to leave his father and mother and cling to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. It is also a covenant which is supposed to reflect the covenant relation Christ has with His Church (Mal. 2:14; Eph. 5: 22-33). Ordained by God from the beginning, reflecting Christ’s relation with the Church, the marriage bond is ideally to be permanent, reflecting Christ’s eternal and unchanging love for His Bride.

Problems however arise because of our human sin, in which husbands and wives hurt each other and sin against each other, sometimes grievously. The question then becomes what do the Scriptures say concerning the actions of divorce and remarriage that attend the real life realities of marital breakdowns. Just because the ideal is a lifelong union of husband and wife, does it necessarily mean that divorce and subsequent remarriage is off-limits for Christians? Are there any circumstances in which a Christian may legitimately seek to divorce or be divorced, and then remarry, without sinning?

[continue]

A New NAR "translation" of the Bible

If you can't get around what the Scriptures say, it seems the next best way is to change what the Scriptures says. NAR (New Apostolic 'Reformation') "apostle" Brian Simmons has produced his own Bible "translation," the Passion Translation, which is exposed as altering the actual words of Scripture (See here, here, here and here).

The advertising blurb advertises it as "A dynamic-equivalent translation of the Holy Scriptures — From the ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek into modern English." Notice that it advertises itself as a dynamic-equivalent translation. In other words, it is supposed to translate the meaning from the original language to the target language. Therefore, a D-E (or F-E "functional equivalent") translation only has to preserve the meaning of the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts, and can disregard the actual original words.

I have been against the Dynamic Equivalence methodology ever since I dealt with Rick Warren's Scripture twisting through the use of multiple translations. This "translation" of the Bible is the perfect example for my objections, even better than the Message translation paraphrase. While one can blame NavPress for hyping up the Message while Eugene Peterson actually intended it to be a paraphrase, one cannot do the same for the Passion "translation," which is both intended and marketed as a Bible version.

The D-E/ F-E methodology is flawed because meanings are taken to have no real relations with words. In their attack against the Formal-Equivalent methodology, which looks day by day more like a strawman based upon positivism (aka the early Wittgenstein), F-E advocates emphasize the importance of meaning over form, and claim that Formal Equivalence leads to wooden translations. The problem is that no one who actually knows more than one language (as languages, not code) does "wooden" translation. No one who translates languages like languages actually prioritize form over meaning. Rather, we reject the Platonic idea that one can divorce meaning from form, and then do translation as if form is totally irrelevant to meaning. When one divorces meaning from form, you get "translations" such as the Passion Translation. Upon what basis can a D-E/ F-E advocate dispute that the Passion Translation is not a legitimate translation, since Simmons will just claim that, although the words are not the same, yet the meaning is there? With the endorsement of Che Ann and James W Goll, this "translation" will go places within the Charismatic circles.

Do not be deceived! Instead of getting around what the Scriptures teach, it seems the new trend is to just produce one's own translation, and then claim that one is actually translating the true meaning of the text of Scripture. Most Christians don't read the original languages anyway, so claiming that the teachings in one's Bible 'translation' is actually found in the original text will confuse many of these Christians.

The "organic church" movement as apostasy

The round of paper writing is over. For my last academic semester, I had to write a few papers on issues that I did not have a position on just a few months back, neither did I know too much about, which means much more thought was needed than was normally necessary. One paper that I did not have to think as much however is a paper for Doctrine of the Church, which I have decided to write concerning Frank Viola's denigration of the institutional church.

While the paper has just been submitted, I would like to discuss the implications of what I have written. My basic thesis in my paper is that the special office is commanded in Scripture for a church. The "organic" church movement by Frank Viola, with its vitriol against the institutional church (c.f. the title of his book Pagan Christianity) not only does not have any special offices in the church, but denounces any church that does as being "pagan." For Viola and company, "elders" are merely advisers in the church with no power at all except for that of persuasion. If that strikes you as ludicrous, it is. One does not have to be a genius to know that is a recipe for anarchy, for any Tom, Dick or Harry can go into an "organic church," gain some followers, and dispute with the "elders." Since those "elders" have no real authority, the only resolution is a split. While Christians should deplore the division in the Church, the "organic church" model splits "organic churches" so fast that, if that speed was normative for all churches, there probably wouldn't be any church at all in a few decades.

The main error of Frank Viola is that he is a radical Anabaptist and Restorationist. Viola holds to a dualism between nature and grace, and sees anything that smacks of culture (especially Greco-Roman culture) as "pagan." Viola holds to all manners of false dichotomies (e.g. between "organism" and "organization," between "head" and "heart"), and his radical egalitarianism results in anti-intellectualism. The problem is that there is such a thing as God's law, and thus Nature. Viola can redefine everything all he wants, but his theories have to deal with real life consequences. The "organic church" model cannot work, because God is not in it. In fact, the "organic church" is rebellion against the LORD, for attacking His representatives in the visible (institutional) church and trying to "be" the church outside His will. Is it any wonder that those who join such movement tend towards greater and greater apostasy?

Quite some time back, I had been contacted via email by someone from those circles. From my interaction, I have seen in some measure the type of bad fruit the "organic church" model has bore. There is nothing worse than conversing with people who have absolutely no respect for authority of any sort (including the words of Scripture, but excluding the teachings of Frank Viola), yet think that somehow their words command me to submit to their dictates. My refusal to do so of course causes him to say that that he will "pray for me," a symptom of false humility masquerading as spiritual pride. For if you refuse to interact with Scripture, what does "praying for me" means except a retort basically that "although I have no idea how to refute your arguments from Scripture, yet I still think I am right (and you wrong) and I will ask God to change your mind about it (contrary to the teachings of Scripture)"?

If Christ instituted the church (no pun intended), then the Church belongs to Christ. People like Frank Viola therefore who call on people to leave the institutional church to form their own bodies are preaching rebellion against the Church, and thus rebellion against Christ. It is noted that Viola is NOT asking people to leave false (institutional) churches to join the true (institutional) churches — that is always valid. No, Viola is asking people to leave the institutional church altogether as it being false! "Organic churches," being birthed out of rebellion and rejecting the marks of the church (i.e. they eschew preaching, they do not rightly administer the sacraments, and they certainly don't practice discipline) are not true churches at all! And since Christ saves His people into His Body the Church, all those in "organic churches" are not in the visible Body of Christ. At the very least, such is grievous sin. At the worst, this indicates that they were not saved in the first place. Here is why Viola's description of a so-called "conversion" by someone who visited an "organic church" is so sad. People are not saved by a "conversion experience," however you want to define that. People are saved by objectively confessing Christ in faith with repentance from sin, and baptism as the visible profession of faith, baptism indicating membership in a visible (institutional) church! That guy, whatever "conversion experience" he might have, has no true indications that he has true faith in Christ, at least none that can be considered as true according to the Scriptures. If the guy continues in his "conversion" experience in the "organic church," he is lost. He is one of those who will be receive a false counterfeit of the Gospel and thus may be immunized to the true Gospel when it is preached. Just like the cults, including the prosperity heresy, immunize people from the true Gospel, so likewise the "organic church" movement immunizes anyone, who was formerly an unbeliever but has now become a professing "believer" who joins an "organic church," from the true Gospel. Such a tragedy!

If one desires God's name to be glorified and people to turn to Him, one has to hate the "organic church." The "organic church" model is a tool in the Devil's toolkit for the destroying of souls. The Lord could indeed save people in it and by it, but such people are saved despite it. Such people are saved just like how Roman Catholics are saved, in spite of the false teaching they hear from their priests.

May the Lord open the eyes of those in the "organic churches" to the error of their ways.

Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (Est) — Outside the Church there is no salvation -Cyprian

Christianity, homosexuality, and the imperative to lurve

Derek Flood had posted an article on the Huffington Post on the issue of homosexuality, and only recently did I see it. I normally do not want to interact with such nonsense, except for the fact that there are professing believers who are taken in by such drivel.

Flood's essential case is that Jesus did not speak about homosexuality, but rather He stands on the side of the poor, the outcast and the rejected. Mentioning the problems self-identified homosexuals face in life, Flood calls us to empathize with them, and, with Jesus, defend and love them just as Jesus did the same with the woman caught in adultery as described in John 8:1-11. Christians therefore ought to change their priorities and "focus on the critical issue of communicating love and acceptance to people."

This article does make a good point in how we are to love people, homosexuals included. However, from there, everything quickly unravels.

The first point we want to note is that Jesus DID speak about homosexuality. In the supposed "red letters," Jesus is on record as saying that "from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female" (Mk. 10:6). The context is on the issue of marriage and divorce. What we want to see here is that Jesus grounded the whole idea of marriage, and thus the sexual relation, as being ordained by God in creation to be between a man (αρσεν) and a woman (θηλυ). If the sexual relation, which is to be consummated in marriage, is define as between a man and a woman, it necessarily implies that homosexuality is wrong, for homosexuality speaks about sex between two partners of the same gender, not between a man and a woman. But Jesus did not only speak in the "red letters" of the Bible. ALL of Scripture is Jesus' words, for Jesus is the Word made flesh, and this Word is inscripturated in the Scriptures, the God-breathed (θεοπνευστος) revelation for us in written words (cf 2 Tim. 3:16-17, 2 Peter 1:16-21). Paul's words against homosexuality as against nature in Rom. 1 is just as much Jesus' words as the "red letters" represent.

Secondly, Flood has a false view of the Gospel. The Gospel is not Jesus coming to stand on the side of the poor, the outcast and so on. Such a reading of the Gospels wrestle the Gospel narratives out of their biblical canonical contexts! It makes Jesus a modern man, not a Jewish man living in the theocratic era. Jesus was no revolutionary, but someone who agrees with the general teaching of the Pharisees, while denouncing their hypocrisy in not practicing what they know the Scriptures teach (Mt. 23:2-3), and in some places not seeing what the Scriptures do teach (cf Jn. 3:10). That Jesus "sided" with the poor, and outcast etc was because they responded to the Gospel, while the self-proclaimed teachers of Israel did not.

Once we look at the Gospels in their proper redemptive contexts, and read them as first century documents in a Jewish setting, and NOT 20th or 21st century narratives, our views of what the Gospel accounts actually teach will be different. Jesus today would be seeking those persecuted by the world, and denouncing the liberal theological academy as the modern-day equivalent of the Pharisees. They are the ones who add law upon law and erase the Gospel message for one that leaves people in their sins. They proclaim a message that does not and can not save, while putting barriers before the true Gospel message of Jesus Christ.

Flood appeals to the narrative of the woman caught in adultery as portrayed in John 8:1-11. First of all, this narrative does not have textual manuscript attestations that it was originally in the Gospel account, as any reputable version of the Bible will inform you. This does not mean necessarily that the narrative is not part of God's Word, but I would certainly be extremely cautious in putting all one's eggs in one basket.

The issue here of course is that Flood distorts the teaching of the narrative. Let's assume for the sake of argument that the narrative is authentic. What does it prove? Does it prove that Jesus was defending and loving the woman caught in adultery? Did Jesus defend her? Where in the text do we read that Jesus said, "Well, since no one is without sin, therefore your sin of adultery does not deserve death?" While one can say that such was a trap meant to snare Jesus, since capital punishment can only be executed by the Roman authorities, the issue is that Jesus did in fact tell them to execute the judgment of the Mosaic Law. In Lev. 20:10, the adulterers (both parties) are to be put to death. And in Deut. 17:6-7, the eyewitnesses are to be the first one to cast the first stone. So when Jesus told the scribes and Pharisees to cast the stone, he is calling for the right implementation of the Mosaic Law. When Jesus ask those without sin to cast the stone, he is not asking those who are sinless to cast the first stone, for otherwise the Mosaic sanctions could not be implemented against those who commit such sins. Rather, Jesus has in mind that whoever did not sin in this affair of bringing the adulteress to him, that they should cast the first stone as a sign of their innocence with regards to this affair. We must remember that Jesus said that he did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it (Mt. 5: 17). If Jesus said he would come to fulfill the Law, how can He go against the Law in this one case? Rather, in light of the scribes and Pharisees' desire to implement the Law, Jesus basically told them, "You want to implement the Mosaic Law? Fine. Do it properly in its fullness." Remember that in Deut. 17:6-7 the eyewitnesses were to throw the first stone. Conversely, if they did not throw the first stone, the death penalty could not be implemented. Such happened in the case of this woman who was caught in adultery. When Jesus asked her where are those who condemn her, he was not on her side. Rather, in the absence of eyewitnesses, the sin could not be punished. Does Jesus know that she was actually guilty of adultery? Of course he knew! But just because someone is guilty does not mean that he or she is to be punished until they have been proven guilty, and in this this woman was not found guilty in the eyes of the Law. It must be realized that Jesus did not tell her here that her sins are forgiven, but that he refused to condemn her, and then He exhorted her to sin no more.

As it can be seen, an a-historical, a-contextual reading of this text absent from its Old Testament background distorts the true teaching of the text. The text does not teach what Flood is making it out to mean.

Now, to the issue of the sufferings of homosexuals, we are certainly to empathize with them. However, we must also see that (1) the sufferings in bullying is not unique to homosexuals, and thus the question arises as to why bullying of homosexuals are elevated above all other types of bullying, and (2) sufferings are not necessarily wrong. If the homosexual feels suicidal because of his or her homosexuality, that could very well be his or her conscience working reminding him or her or his or her transgression of the natural law. Apart from Christ, the Law mediates death and condemnation. If the Law is working upon their hearts, the last thing Christians ought to do is to try to undo that by dressing up the wounds the Law inflict. Those who do such are like the false prophets of Israel who cry out "Peace, peace" when there is no peace (Jer. 6:14). The Christian response is not to "communicate love and acceptance to them." Such is dressing or healing the wound of people lightly (cf Is. 6:14). Rather, the true loving response is to affirm what their conscience is already saying, to allow the Law to do its work of condemnation, and then to show them the Gospel by which they can be saved.

To "stand alongside" LGBT people and affirm them in the manner prescribed by Flood, without doing the biblical thing (which they will label as a "hate crime") is to actually hate the LGBT people. LGBT people are sinners in the hands of an angry God, just as all sinners are. It is manifestly unloving to affirm them in their sins. To "communicate love and acceptance" to them apart from the proclamation of Law and Gospel is neither loving nor truly accepting. And such will not work ultimately to help them. The conscience of a sinner is not going to remain quiet if professing believers "communicate love and acceptance to them." The Law continues to condemn them in their conscience, and any affirmation they receive is just like a painkiller that temporarily dulls the pain, but the root problem remains untouched.

Should we love homosexuals? Yes, just as we should love all sinners. And just as all sinners have to repent of their sins, so likewise homosexuals have to repent of their sins. For those who have repented, they will be washed and cleansed from their unrighteousness, despite how depraved and wicked they formerly were.

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Cor. 6:9-10)

And

And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Cor. 6:10-11)