Robert Reymond on Christian ministry and the Inspiration of the Bible

Here is a very interesting quote by Dr. Robert Reymond on the topic of the Inspiration of Scripture as it relates to Christian ministers:

The candidate for Christian ministry who does not believe that the Bible is God's inspired Word should not enter the ministry. He does not belong there. If he is already in the ministry he should either quit because he should never have entered it or at the very least he should tell his congregation that he does not believe the Bible is God's inspired Word so that those who have the sense not to submit to his authority, stripped bare as it is of the authority of God's Word, can leave and listen to a pastor who does believe it, because all the other doctrines of the true Faith are derived from the divinely inspired Bible and rest upon it for their authority. The doctrine of inspiration is the bedrock — the mother and guardian — of all the other doctrines of Scripture! It is that important!

— Robert Reymond, Faith's Reasons for Believing (Ross-shire, Scotland, UK: Mentor, 2008), p. 111

Do keep in mind Dr. Reymond's view of the Inspiration of Scripture is the biblical idea of Verbal, Plenary Inspiration and Inerrancy of Scripture, not the subjective inspiration of Neo-Orthodoxy or the mythological kerygma of the Neo-liberals.

Misquoted verses: Heb. 10:24-25

And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near. (Heb. 10:24-25)

This passage is one of the proof-texts I have seen used to push for inclusion in a Local Church, and especially regular church attendance. However, does this passage actually teach that, and if so, in what sense?

On the surface, the verses themselves call upon us to

1) Stir each other to love and good deeds

This means that believers are exhorted to be actively provoking or stirring up each other as we meet, that such is to be geared towards growing in love and the doing of good deeds. We are to encourage each other towards godliness, through the practical outworking in being more loving towards the brethren and others and doing good to all.

2) Meet together for encouragement

Believers are exhorted to meet together for encouragement, which is to say that our meetings are not just a social gathering for catching up with each other, but we would also be intentional in desiring to help and encourage our brothers and sisters in their spiritual walks with God. The outflow of love which we have in Christ must be first and foremost directed towards our brothers and sisters in Christ, to seek their good.

3) Do so regularly

Believers are exhorted to meet together regularly to encourage each other in our respective walks with God. We are to do so eagerly, as the text says, especially as the Last Day approaches.

Does the passage therefore speaks about the necessity of regularly going to church? Not directly, for the passage does not tell us how often and in what manner are we to meet up as such. The eagerness to meet up with our brethren however would mean that we would meet up as much as able. To use this to apply to regular Sunday attendance is too restrictive for this passage, yet it certainly should not be less than that. After all, how can it be said that we are eager to meet up and encourage each other if the most basic of gatherings on the Lord's Day is not maintained?

So it does seem that this passage teach us the necessity of being involved in a community of believers, in their lives, and of coming together regularly, which should not be less regular than the weekly Sunday services. That said, there are a few cautions we should take note of when applying this text, which would distort it into a weapon used against believers.

Cautions:

1) We must understand these exhortations in light of their previous indicatives

The larger context of this passage talks about how Christ has come to offer the perfect sacrifice for sins once for all (Heb. 10:14), and how we therefore can have full assurance of faith because of Christ's perfect sacrifice on our behalves. This background of what Christ has already done FOR us (indicative) is what give rise to the imperative to come together as brothers and sisters in Christ in encouraging each other and stirring each other to love and good deeds. The exhortation does not exist in a vacuum and is therefore not a moralism which we must do merely because it is the correct Christian thing to do.

The indicative always comes before the imperative. The danger here lies in trying to short-circuit the process and calling on believers to come to church because the Bible says so (often with self-serving reasons ie tithing). The Scripture is abundantly clear that we join a Local Church, participate in it and come regularly for service and even perhaps more, not because of duty and obligation, but because we want to and love to.

What this practically translates to in teaching and biblical counseling of those who have lapsed in church attendance etc is not hammering them with the commands of Scripture for regular church attendance, probably bringing in the 4th commandment also to strengthen our case. The Law can be of help in showing the standard, but it can never function as the impetus for correction. Ministers and leaders who use Heb. 10:24-25 as a club to promote Church attendance are not preaching the Gospel, but Law, and the Law brings death. We must therefore reason from the indicatives of Scripture to exhort believers to come together regularly, and make the Gospel real to ourselves and to others instead of proclaiming loudly the Christians' duty to join a Local Church and attend regular services, as if anyone will ever be converted by the Law!

2) The call to meet does not give any visible church the right to command absolute fidelity to that church

We are called to meet together for encouragement and exhortation, and such commitment would necessitate commitment to a Local Church. Yet such does not give any particular visible church the right to demand of its members absolute commitment and fidelity to the church such that all members MUST go for all prayer meetings, and cannot contemplate change in church without what the leaders think are good reasons (ie going abroad to study or work etc) without "incurring the curse of God" and possible excommunication.

The Church exists for her members, not the other way around. The pastors/elders and lay leaders (if any) in the church should be desirous of building up the Kingdom of God and of feeding the sheep in their particular fold, not in building their own kingdoms and/or "Gospel Empire"! Therefore, their concern should be of what is best for the spiritual health of the sheep, not the possible impact any decisions have on their coffers and their pet [ministry] projects, or worse still their reputation.

This therefore means that pastors/elders are to even recommend that a particular sheep in the church who has doctrinal differences or irreconcilable conflicts with certain people in the church, who have exhausted all other means of reconciliation, to leave the church and join another Bible-believing church. If such people decide to leave for another church even without exhausting all possibilities of reconciliation, the pastors and elders are to release them and guide them to another biblical church where they can settle. In all things, the spiritual health of the sheep is to be considered. The church that is only interested in "keeping people" at all costs, or even cursing all who leave for what they consider errant reasons, have abused their authority as undershepherds. Heb. 10:24-25 cannot be used to support such lording over Christ' flock, and any who do so distort the text in support of their anti-biblical agenda.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, let us desire to spend time with our fellow believers in encouraging and exhorting each other towards "love and good works". Yet let us do so with the proper motive of the Gospel rather than of legalism. For church leaders, do so with the proper motive of care for the flock instead of self-aggrandizement. Amen.

Driscoll's sermon at the Gospel Coalition: A total disappointment

Mark Driscoll has recently given a sermon at the Gospel Coalition 2009 entitled Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth, supposedly based on 2 Tim. 2:14-26, which can be downloaded from the Gospel Coalition website here. (You can see Driscoll's notes here)

After listening to the sermon, I am rendered nearly speechless. Is this the type of eisegesis encouraged by the Gospel Coalition, which is supposed to be Gospel-centered? Driscoll's points are so far from being taken from the text that it cannot even be called biblical in any remote sense of the term. In fact, coming from mainstream apostatizing Evangelicalism, what Driscoll is teaching in my opinion is no different from the typical "life application sermons" that are in vogue in such "evangelical" churches.

Even worse than this is the divisiveness of this sermon. This sermon encouraged pastors to distrust their flock, and to exercise dominion over the sheep and categorize them as "positive", "negative" or "neutral", contra the command of Christ to feed His sheep! The passage in 2 Tim. 2:14-26, and in fact in all parts of Scripture, are NOT attacks on "negative" people but on those who subvert the faith — heretics and schismatics. The only categorizations a pastor/elder can come up with is sheep, goats or wolves, and all this is based upon whether the person believes the Gospel and is saved (ie based on the objective criteria of Scripture). To come up with a list of 20 types of "negative people" is eisegetical, divisive and unloving. Such a disgusting attitude towards the flock is more akin to the false prophets of Ezekiel's time (Eze. 34:1-10) rather than a biblical shepherd who lays down his life for his sheep.

The book by Dan Southerland, Transitioning, a Purpose-driven paradigmatic book endorsed by Rick Warren which develops in concrete form the attack-the-PD-resistors methodology, is a resource which brings Driscoll's concept to its logical conclusion. Judging by Driscoll's closeness to PD pope Rick Warren, will this mean the entrance of this divisive technique into the New Calvinist community? If such is the case, this would make the Shepherding Movement of the last century like child's play with the widespread abuse of Heb. 13:17. I shudder to think what a "reformed-minded" abuse of Heb. 13:17 could do in destroying the spiritual lives of the flock.

Pastor Bob DeWaay on Donald Whitney and Spiritual Disciplines

Pastor Bob DeWaay has read Donald Whitney's book on Spiritual Disciplines and what he has found alarmed him greatly, resulting in an article detailing his find. After reading it, what it reveals disturbs me too. If in fact Whitney is in a position influencing the New Calvinists, then the New Calvinist movement is in a trajectory towards certain shipwreck. As DeWaay writes:

Thus I am very alarmed about Donald Whitney bringing spiritual disciplines and implied human ability into Reformed theology. If the trend for syncretistic spiritual disciplines and spiritual formation takes over the Reformed versions of evangelical education there will be very few options for young people who want an education grounded in the solas of the Reformation. Scripture alone and grace alone are compromised—if not rejected outright—when spiritual disciplines are adopted.

Mark Driscoll is on the record of practicing "contemplative disciplines", as he mentioned in his Confessions of a Reformission Rev (p. 169). Is there therefore a (so-far underground) current of contemplative spirituality existing in the New Calvinist movement?

In my article on New [Evangelical] Calvinism (now removed), I have mentioned the issue of embracing the material principle of the Reformation without the formal principles of Sola Scriptura. The idea of contemplative spirituality most definitely fall into this category. Will the New Calvinists really follow Scripture and Scripture Alone? The example of Whitney does not seem to show that this is the case.

Spiritual disciplines vs. Means of Grace. This is what we are left to decide upon, as DeWaay shows. Are we willing to follow Scripture and use the means God has given to us for our sanctification and as means to communication with God, or do we desire to be "open source" and bring in other humanistic "disciplines" as long as they do not explicit contradict the Scriptures? Geneva or Rome, Jerusalem or Babylon, let us decide.

Faith and works: Illustration from the miracle drug Chlorozoetin

Dan Phillips in the TeamPyro blog has posted an excellent article on the relation of faith to works, using a hypothetical anti-cancer miracle drug called Chlorozoetin which has two effects:

1. The Cancer starts shrinking
2. Your skin begins to turn green

His adaptation of passages in 1 Jn. and James is rather illustrative in demonstrating the relation of faith to works:

Everyone who has taken the Chlorozoetin has green skin, and overcomes cancer. If anyone says "I've taken Chlorozoetin," but does not have green skin, and still has growing cancer, he is a liar. By this you know that you have taken Chlorozoetin: your cancer is beaten back, and you have green skin. What use is it to say you've taken Chlorozoetin, but your skin isn't green? Will that cure your cancer?

You can read the full article here.

An explanation of Rutherford's argument on James 2

In my previous post quoting Rutherford's argument for why James 2 is not teaching salvation by works, the argument by Rutherford is rather convoluted, thus making it hard for probably most people to grasp. In this post therefore, I would like to simplify and put forward Rutherford's main argument so that it can be better appreciated.

---

Let us suppose that the passage in James 2 is indeed talking about legal justification. Therefore,

1) From the text of Scripture, verse 21 teaches that Abraham was justified by his work of sacrificing Isaac on the alter. Therefore, verse 21 teaches that the act of sacrificing Isaac caused Abraham to be justified.

2) From verse 23 (quoting Gen. 15:6), it is taught that belief caused Abraham to be justified.

Scenario one shows us that Abraham was justified by works, while scenario two shows us that Abraham was justified by his faith. Both must be true since both are "derived from Scripture" (assuming James 2 is about justification in the legal sense), yet the two contradict each other, an impossibility if one believes in the inspiration of all Scripture.

---

I may add here that justification being considered in a legal sense means that before it, the person is not justified, and after it he is. Roman Catholics may say that initial justification (by faith) does not preclude subsequent justification (by works), and that is true only if we ignore the fact that we are talking about the legal sense of justification. Being legal, such means that prior to that justification, the person was NOT justified at all. If James 2 teaches that justification happened only after the work (of Abraham sacrificing Isaac), then justification DID not happened after faith as stated in Gen. 15:6, James 2:23.

The only recourse for the logical Roman Catholic would be to deny the legal aspect of justification here. However, that would effectively concede our case — that justification is not to be considered in the legal sense in the passage of James 2.

Secular vs secularism

With the now-ended AWARE saga, the anti-Christian liberals with their allies in the Media had been playing the religious card to discredit the ex new exco. A common mantra parroted over and over again was the need to keep religion out of the secular sphere, and that the ex new exco had violated the secular nature of a secular NGO. However, is that really the case?

What exactly do we mean by the word "secular"? According to Dictionary dot com, as based on the Random House Dictionary, a good definition of secular is:

not pertaining to or connected with religion (as opposed to sacred)

To say something is secular means that it has nothing to do with religion; it is blind to religion and does not take religion into consideration. It does not therefore mean that it is anti-religious or opposed to religion. Rather, that describes the philosophy of secularISM, which can be defined in either or both of these two ways:

1. secular spirit or tendency, esp. a system of political or social philosophy that rejects all forms of religious faith and worship.

2. the view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the introduction of a religious element. (Dictionary.com)

Secularism is a philosophy which focus on meta-ethical issues as like developed philosophies and religions. As such, it is a partisan philosophy and is not neutral at all. Under the guise of "neutrality", it imposes its view of what is right or wrong even if their values contradict the beliefs and values of other religions. Thus, secularism is NOT secular at all, but a "religion" defined broadly-speaking in the sense of it being a comprehensive worldview (Weltenshauung) for life. (A belief in deity is not necessary for a belief to qualify as a religion, otherwise Buddhism would immediately disqualify as one). As defined in the broadest sense of the term, religion is:

a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects (Dictionary.com)

When the idea of not regarding religion is absolutized into a positive censoring of religion, then the line has been crossed from being a virtue in a multi-religious society into a totalitarian anti-religious paradigm, as we can see happened very clearly in the AWARE saga.

Confusing the issues of "secular" and "secularism", the liberals attacked the religious beliefs of the ex new exco, as if that should be an issue in the first place. Being a secular NGO, the religious beliefs of the leaders and members should be of no concern whatsoever. As it has been excellently said:

"Secular" does not mean atheism or "no religion"; it simply means "not religion-conscious", i.e., the individual's competency should not be judged by his religion.

So in a secular organisation like Aware, why should Exco members' religious affiliations matter? But The Straits Times disregarded this and emphasised daily for the 35 days, that 6 (and not even all!) Exco members attend the same church. Try emphasising the religion/race of a particular cabinet minister and see what happens to you in this country where an ISA code is in effect.

The end result of this false neutrality is totalitarianism and fascism, in which the reigning philosophy is Secular Humanism, with all others tolerated as long as they do not violate the tenets of Secular Humanism. With regards to the Christian, what this translates to is persecution under the guise of "tolerance". The results of such secular humanism can be seen as written in this article at the Faith Defenders website:

Modern humanists do not believe in the historic meaning of the freedom of religion. If the humanists have their way, the freedom of religion will be limited to believing what you want but not the freedom to practice it!

As we document in The New Atheism and the Erosion of Freedom, modern humanists do not believe that Christians have the “freedom” to teach their religion to their children, witness, pass out tracts or show any public signs of religion. The only “freedom” they will allow is freedom from religion.

Modern laws which legalize such things as abortion come from humanists who are legislating their view of morality. They are legalizing their pagan life style while trying to criminalize Christian education, church camps and orphanages, personal evangelism, Christian TV and radio programs, etc. Their understanding of religious freedom is the same as found in the Soviet Union!

God help us before society degenerates into such a state.

Rutherford: Rebuttal as if in anticipation of the "faith" and "grace" heresies

While reading Rutherford's excellent but extremely taxing book, The Covenant of Life Opened, I came across a rebuttal which Rutherford apparently meant to use against the Antinomians of his time, which is still relevant, in fact more relevant, for us today:

21. It were good to pray much, and to be dead to prayer; One of the main causes why we cry and pray much and are not heard, Psalm 22:2; Psalm 69:-3, is, because that which is proper to God the hearer of prayer, to wit, confidence and hope, we give to prayer which is not God. We pray to our own prayers and to our own wrestling [in earnest prayer] often, rather than to God: and we believer [sic believe] praying does the business and works the charm, as if prayer were Omnipotency itself.

22. Nor are we dead to faith and hope, but we believe in faith an [sic] in believing, and we hope in our own hoping in God. But [sic] was crucified for you? How many fetch peace, pardon and righteousness, not from Christ, but from their act of believing? Hence a case, whether some may not fervently pray and believe strongly, and yet be disappointed in the particular they pray for and believe they shall have? Certain it may be, especially when we are dead to Omnipotency and alive to praying and believing, and lay more weight on faith in God than on God, and on praying to God then [sic] on God himself. What Antinomians say unjustly we give to works, to wit, or peace with God, they and many unduly give to faith, not to Christ.

— Samuel Rutherford, C. Matthew McMahon (Ed.), The Covenant of Life Opened (New Lenox, IL, USA: Puritan Publications, 2005, Original 1654), p. 397

Sounds like an exact description of the "faith" (Word-faith) and "grace" (Joseph Prince and NCC) movement today, doesn't it? Truly, there is nothing new under the sun (Eccl. 1:9).

See also:

On the efficaciousness of Prayer— Does prayer operates Ex Opere Operato?

Rutherford: Why justification in James is not by works

The Puritan Samuel Rutherford has a very interesting argument on why James 2 cannot teach that we are justified by works:

How could the Scripture conclude from Abraham's being justified by works, whence he offered his Son [sic] Isaac, unless by works here we understand a working faith, the Apostle must mean the same by works, [James 2] verse 21, that he meant by faith, verse 23, for he cannot say in verse 23 the Scripture was fulfilled (in Abraham' being justified in the work of offering his son, verse 21) which said, Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness: Except it must be meant, that the work of offering his son Isaac was counted to him for righteousness. Now the letter of the Text expressively verse 23 saith that believing God was counted to Abraham for righteousness, then the work of offering his son must either be the believing declared by offering his son, and faith working by that act of offering, or if they be two sundry things, he must then say this in effect, Abraham was justified by the work of sacrificing, verse 21, causatively before God, Ergo, the Scripture is fulfilled, verse 23, and Abraham is justified by believing causatively before God, verse 23, which we cannot ascribe to the Apostle, according to their mind who make faith and works the two collateral and joint causes of Justification before God: as if one would say Peter wrought the miracle. So Abraham was justified by works, verse 21. Ergo, Abraham was justified by faith, verse 23.

— Samuel Rutherford, C. Matthew McMahon (Ed.), The Covenant of Life Opened (New Lenox, IL, USA: Puritan Publications, 2005, Original 1654), pp. 239-240

What Rutherford did here was to construct a reductio ad absurdum argument to prove that the justification in James is not the legal justification which Paul talks about. For if that were so, then according to verse 21, Justification would be because of works, while according to verse 23, justification would be because of believing, and this would lead to a contradiction. Since such is the case, the justification in James cannot be a legal justification, but the outward manifestation of true faith in a working faith.

An "Evil as Entertainment" watchblog

It is no secret that I find Tim Challies' criteria for "evil as entertainment" watchblogs to be totally subjective. However, since the New Calvinists want to play the game of subjectivity, two can play the game.

I have just discovered the blog of a Driscoll fan, who has published quite a lot of posts denouncing the Faith Defenders blog and Stephen Macasil in particular. Between fawning over Mark Driscoll and attacking the Faith Defenders, I guess such stuff make up about 70-80% of his blog. As of today May 3rd 2009, I have counted (with some overlap) 16 posts attacking Dr. Bob Morey, Faith Defenders and the Biblical Thought blog, 16 posts promoting Mark Driscoll, and 4 neutral from Apri 3rd 2009 onwards. That turns out to be 44.4% on Dr. Bob Morey et al, 44.4% on Mark Driscoll and the remaining 11.1% on other issues.

According to Tim Challies' criteria therefore, the "True Faith Defender" blog is a watchblog which dispenses "evil as entertainment". I'll let the New Calvinists and their allies play catch-up here if they so wish to.

[Come to think of it, I sortof like playing the AODMers' role for once. All thanks to Tim Challies for his "enlightening" posts]

The ridiculous arguments in Local Church centrism

For quite a long time, I have been hearing a clamour in the mainly Baptist dominated calvinist blogosphere of the primacy of being and serving in the Local Church, with Frank Turk even stating that the focal point and center of discernment ought to be in the local church. At the expense of probably being misunderstood, let me pose a few questions to these Baptists.

Given that

1) The Baptists at their inception during the time of the Reformation were never regarded as true churches by either the Roman Church or the Protestant churches. Anabaptist clergy appointed themselves, while the situation was not better for the Particular Baptists. I don't think it need to be reminded that the American Puritans weren't too kind to these itinerant unordained preachers either.

2) The Baptists, especially the Anabaptists, form Local churches by gathering a group of like-minded Christians of which they became the pastor for that group. Needless to say, there was no ordination involved at all.

Therefore,

1) If the emphasis is to be placed on importance of the Local Church, what is there to stop person X from gathering probably 10 like-minded friends, give themselves a church name, call himself the pastor and appoint two others as elders, practice the 'ordinances' and voila! You have a new church! What argument(s) can Baptists who over-emphasize on the importance of the Local Church muster to say that this is wrong? Or perhaps they have no problem with such a scenario?

2) Since Mr. Turk and his fellow Baptist ecclesia localis centrists says that if a person wants to practice discernment, then they should do so in the context of the local church, so therefore would he accept the scenario of "watchbloggers" follow the example of person X in forming new churches "ex nihilo" (as many churches as needed), and then Mr. Turk will then allow them to exercise discernment? Will Mr. Turk then keep quiet if such were to happen?

In other matters, ...

On a blog post attacking my [Baptist] friend Stephen Macasil, it is written:

Since the closing of FCCOC, the Biblical Thought blog has become local biblical church-less not that FCCOC was ever a true local biblical church in the first place due to its lack of a true biblical church government (lack of elders). Too many of the mad attack dog postings on Biblical Thought are done by individuals that are not accountable to any local church and that now includes Stephen Macasil.

So can I surmise that all FCCOC has to do is find some Christians who they think fit the criteria of eldership as stated in 1 Tim. 3 and Titus 1, appoint them elders, and then "rzhblog" will stop attacking Biblical Thought and Stephen Macasil? Somehow I doubt it.

Anti-religious bigotry of the MSM

In the AWARE (Association of Women for Action and Research) saga, which ended last night with the ouster of the (ex) new exco by the liberals and their supporters, a common method that is used to attack the ex new exco is that they are Christians fundamentalists. One such variant goes as follows:

The [newspapers] rightly give prominence to the AWARE saga BECAUSE the takeover of a secular NGO by the Christian fundamentalists... (Source, in comment)

Now, let us deconstruct that statement, and expose it for the anti-religious bigotry it espouses.

The AWARE saga started off because the Old Guard (and now new new exco) were voted out of office and replaced with a group of people who did not share their views on the promotion of lesbianism. In point of fact, the ex new exco decided to expose the old guard for the promotion of such sexual perversion. The liberal Mainstream Media (MSM), in a rare move decided to undertake investigative journalism on former president Josie Lau and her (ex) new exco, while some outraged liberals issued death threats to them.

The charge is made that the ex new exco were trying to mix religion into the secular sphere. The question is then asked: Did the ex new exco quote Scripture etc in their work? NO. So who was the one who brought up the topic of religion to begin with? It was the MSM and her liberal allies. So who was the one who is responsible for bringing in religion into the secular sphere, except the MSM and the liberals!

The sad fact of the matter is that one side has given to itself rights which it denies to the other. It is the liberals who have violated the secular clause, who have attacked and discriminated against Christians and Christianity. If the ex new exco were all Buddhists or all Muslims, can we state that there is a takeover by "Buddhist fundamentalists" or "Muslim fundamentalists"? Guess the outrage if the latter were to happen? Imagine the headlines: "Muslim fundamentalists take over secular NGO"? In fact, since the new new exco is pro-LGBT, why can't we broadcast this headline: "pro-LGBT fundamentalists take over secular NGO"?

The liberal hypocrites are on the march in Singapore. Unless we do something about it, this country will be lost. Singapore in her creed professes to believe in meritocracy "regardless of race, language, and religion". Judging by the anti-Christian hatred on display recently, perhaps a suggestion could be made to modify it into "regardless of race, language and sexual preferences, and most definitely with regards to religion".

New Evangelical Calvinism: Ambassador for Christ or embarrassed of Him?

[continued from here, here, here, here and here]

---

All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. (2 Cor. 5:18-20)

As Christians, we are called to be ambassadors for Christ; to represent our King as His messenger to proclaim His Word. In the secular world, ambassadors represent not themselves or their interests but the interests of their respective countries. Even if they personally feel a certain way, they do not express their personal feelings (or at least aren't supposed to do so), but only such as benefits their countries' interests.

The Christian is an ambassador for Christ, and thus represent Christ to his fellow men. This of course has many implications for our behavior, including how we live our lives and our witness for Christ to those who do not know Him. We will however focus on the aspect that is at contention here in the New Calvinism: The focus on being an ambassador in our attitudes in Gospel and Truth proclamation.

An organization that has became the de facto flagship of the New Calvinism, The Gospel Coalition Network, epitomized the mood of the New Calvinism in its handling of the truth, an improvement over the older New Evangelicalism half a century ago which jettisoned the importance of truth in her outreach. Instead of the perceived opposites found within "Fundamentalism" and the Postmodern Emerging Conversation, the Gospel Coalition has came up with a "mood" or approach to truth which they call a "chastened correspondence theory of truth", as stated

We adopt a “chastened” correspondence–theory of truth that is less triumphalistic than that of some in the older evangelicalism. But we also reject a view of truth that sees truth as nothing more than the internally coherent language of a particular faith– community. So we maintain, with what we hope is appropriate humility, the principle of sola Scriptura. (I.4.1) [42]

The older evangelicalism is considered "more triumphalistic" with its uncompromising proclamation of the Truth which is perceived to not take into account the fact that we perceive the Truth only partially and infallibly. Since our perception tints our view of the Truth (perspectivism), we are to be humble in our proclamation of the truth as we may be wrong. Such humility or a chastened attitude precludes the prophetic proclamation of Truth as being definitely THE truth, unless it be accompanied by disclaimers that we may be wrong and therefore invite others to correct us if they are able to; to show us that our perception may not be totally true. So says the New Calvinism and the Gospel-centered movement. However, is this view of ourselves and our knowledge of truth biblical?

First of all, it must be conceded that we are most definitely not neutral with regards to Truth, and therefore we may not be definitely true. Sometimes even what we strongly think is true may be wrong, and we should welcome criticism and evaluate our theories accordingly. However, to extrapolate this fact "We are not always definitely true" to "We are always not definitely true" is a logical fallacy, a fallacy hat the Gospel-centered movement and New Calvinism are in fact committing.

How do we Christians come to know biblical truth? We know biblical truth through God's revelation in the Scriptures, which are objective and absolute truths free from all human perspectives. The Truth therefore is present with us, and this truth being free from human perspectives and biasness will never be wrong and needs no apologizing. After all, this is what is meant when we say that Scripture is the ultimate authority for all of life.

The next step has to do with internalizing the external Truth into our minds, which of course is not an infallible process due to sin. In point of fact, the unregenerate cannot receive the truth of Christ, and are not able to perceive them as truth but only as seeming folly (1 Cor. 2:14). However, the same passage informs us Christians that we can and do definitely understand God's Truth. As it is written:

Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. ... 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. 2:12, 15-16)

Those who are truly believers, the regenerate, will have the mind of Christ and the Holy Spirit (cf Jn. 16:13; 17:17) and understand God's truth. No doubt new believers have to grow in Christ and renew their mind (Rom. 12:2), but definite knowledge of the truth can be achieved, otherwise the passage in 1 Cor. 2 makes absolutely no sense, giving us the contradiction that even with the mind of Christ and being able to judge all things, the truths we obtained through having the mind of Christ are not necessarily true. We must here differentiate between definite and exhaustive knowledge of the truth: Definite knowledge of truth deals with the quality of our knowledge of the truth as being 100% confident to be true, while exhaustive knowledge of truth deals with the quantity or depth of our knowledge of the truth. We most definitely cannot obtain exhaustive truth since we are finite and God is infinite, but there is nothing to prohibit the definite acquisition of truth especially since we have the mind of Christ.

All of this ties back in to the issue of being an ambassador for Christ. Ambassadors are to represent their countries, not themselves. Similarly, in Gospel and truth proclamations, we represent God and not ourselves. We are still not perfect and are still sinful, but we are NOT representing our own human frailties but the perfect, infallible and sinless God whose greatness surpasses our puny human frames. Having given the mind of Christ, and thus able to definitely know truth, are we then to shrink back and adopt a "chastened" attitude with regards to truth? We are jars of clay containing the truth of Christ (2 Cor. 4:7). Is the value of the treasure fundamentally affected by the type of jar it is in? So why are we so focused on ourselves rather than the Christ who uses us weaklings to proclaim His truth?

We are therefore to be bold in our proclamation, because the message we have does not depend on the state of the vessel for its existence and truthfulness. Our job is in presenting it clearly through faithful exegesis of Scripture, and thus let the Scriptures speak for themselves, and we need not ever apologize or try to be humble in its proclamation. In fact, since this is God's truth we are talking about, humility is portrayed in proclaiming it authoritatively, and the "chastened" attitude is in fact false humility which devalues the Word of God by making its proclamation less authoritative than what it actually is.

Will the New Calvinists reject this new "chastened" attitude towards the Truth of Scripture? Will we rather let Scripture and Scripture alone dictate to us the relative definiteness of the various truths of Scripture, and react accordingly, instead of allowing philosophical and cultural analyses to shape our epistemology?

Conclusion

We have seen five major issues of concern with New [Evangelical] Calvinism. All of these are serious in their own right and have the potential to derail the entire movement from the Scriptures. On top of this, the issue of pragmatism (part of New Evangelicalism) has lately reared its ugly head, seen especially when it comes to defending Driscoll and Keller from criticism by pointing to how successful they have been in reaching the lost and church planting. Now each one is a serious concern in its own right, but compounding them all together and it seems that the New Calvinism is fraught with many problems as they continue in the errors of their predecessor the conservative wing of New Evangelicalism. Will we and the New Calvinists be willing to listen to Scripture and be willing to biblically re-evaluate New Evangelicalism, or will we continue in the deluded thinking that as long as our doctrine and our Gospel narrowly defined is orthodox, our larger worldview and ministry philosophy are irrelevant? Will we learn from Scripture and from history, or will we repeat the same mistakes over again?

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. - George Santayana

May God be with us and open our eyes to see the truth and rejects the errors in the New Evangelical Calvinism. Amen.

References:

[42] Theological Vision for Ministry, The Gospel Coalition Network (http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/about/foundation-documents/vision)

---

Check out the full article available in PDF format here.

New Evangelical Calvinism: The New Evangelical infatuation with positivity

[continued from here, here, here and here]

This is a more extensive section evaluating the New Evangelical idea of positivity compared to the review of Challies' articles here.

---

The idea of being positive or seen as positive was one aspect of the New Evangelical movement [33] which is however not as easily recognized as demarcating New Evangelicalism per se. The New Evangelical/ Fundamentalist divide is remembered more for the divide over the doctrine of separation, if it is remembered at all. The apostatizing mainstream "evangelicals" in our day have long since jettisoned treasuring and proclaiming the truth, and therefore the New Calvinists do not seem to be New Evangelical in the aspect of truth as compared to the "Evangelicals" nowadays. However, this has not been the case. The early New Evangelicals like Harold Ockenga and Edward Carnell personally treasure the truth [34] and desire that biblical Christianity experience a revival in the land. Trying to have their cake and eat it, the New Evangelical strategy of infiltration backfired and it was the world that turned the church upside down instead of the other way round. But it must be remembered that the early New Evangelicals do indeed treasure the truth and were appalled by the fruit of their compromise [35].

The desire to be loving and positive, both New Evangelical traits, have never been repudiated by the New Calvinist movement, a successor of the conservative wing of New Evangelicalism. In fact, these twin related traits manifests themselves in the blogosphere in New Calvinist Tim Challies' blog post attacking so-called watchbloggers [36], of which the false accusations are soundly refuted by both Phillip R. Johnson [37] and Steven J. Camp[38]. We would not be doing a lengthy rebuttal of his attack and his subsequent clarification here [39], but just to focus on his attack post as a microcosm of the New Calvinist seeming infatuation with positivity.

The most revealing passage in this regard is seen as follows:

I want to say a word today about watchblogs or discernment blogs or whatever you want to call them. I am referring to blogs that specialize in sharing bad news. ... They may vary what they offer a little bit, but what is true of them is that they offer a steady diet of negative content related to the church in general or perhaps related to just one person or one ministry. [40]

These statements by Challies perfectly illustrate the New Evangelical and now New [Evangelical] Calvinists' infatuation with positivity. Negativity is to be shunned as much as possible, while being positive is extolled as a virtue, all without biblical proof for such an assertion. Worse still is the fluid notion of what constitutes "positivity" and "negativity" as utilized by Challies, concepts which he did not and have not elucidate. With such a dynamic notion of "positivity" and "negativity", Challies' attack becomes wholly subjective and comes across as a holier-than-thou self-righteous proclamation of how "positive" and thus good he is compared with the "watchblogs".

What then does the Scripture teaches about our attitude? Doesn't the Scripture tell us to think about what is good, as it is written:

Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. (Phil. 4:8)

Indeed it does, but it is a false assumption that focusing on what is good necessarily implies positivity. The former denotes our attitudes and focus as Christians, while the latter denotes the way we act and conduct ourselves. Certainly, having an attitude which focuses on God and on what is commendable would have an impact on the way we ourselves act, but to absolutely correlate attitude with behavior is fallacious, as we cannot judge a person's motives based upon the appearances of his actions. This is especially so since appearances can be deceiving, as a cursory look at the prophetic books in Scripture would show. Would we when reading the book of Lamentations or Jeremiah for example think that the prophet Jeremiah was focusing on what is bad; that his attitude was to treat "evil as entertainment"? Most certainly not!

So how then should we act and conduct ourselves in light of Scriptural exhortations like Phil. 4:8? Personally, we are to strive to praise God in our lives and to proclaim the glory of His Name, treasuring the good things of Scripture and of God in our hearts. Our actions however are determined not according to some arbitrary standard of "positivity", but on how we can bring glory to God and honor Him. If praise is needed, we praise and glorify our Lord. If refutation of errors is needed, we do such a seemingly "negative" action for the positive defence of God's truth so that He would be glorified as error is overthrown and truth is enthroned. The biblical focus therefore is not whether an action is "positive" or "negative", but whether we "positively" do all for the glory of God and the defence of His truth, even as we treasure His name and glorify it in our lives and actions, whether positive or negative.

Scripture itself shows us that we must be both positive and negative in antithecal living, as it is written:

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

Note the pattern here: Verse 1-2 are "positive" verses, which is followed by "negative" verses in verses 3-4, and capped with a "positive" statement in verse 5. Such patterns are in fact found throughout the Scripture, and this antithetical teaching and lifestyle should characterize the lives of Christians. We are to be positive and negative; positive towards godliness and truth and negative towards ungodliness and error, but in all we should focus on and glorify God "positively".

Challies with his view of being loving and his infatuation with positivity manifests his New Evangelical convictions and has done damage to the cause of Christ, with legitimate discernment ministries de-legitimized and the enemies of the Truth emboldened [41]. Just like New Evangelicalism historically, such an infatuation with positivity will slowly but surely destroy the Church. Will we reject this infatuation with positivity? Historically, New Evangelicalism threw out the need to be negative, while Fundamentalism in general tend to throw out the need to be positive. Biblical Christianity is both, and may we therefore embrace both, to the glory of God.

References:

[33] Pickering, p. 8

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

[34] Murray, p. 20

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

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

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

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

[39] See Appendix I for a fuller rebuttal to Challies' errors in both his posts and further proof of his infatuation with positivity.

[40] Challies, Evil as Entertainment. Bold added.

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

New Evangelical Calvinism: Rational and Lifestyle consistency

[continued from here, here and here]

---

Will we aim for rational and lifestyle consistency?

The inclusion of two emerging-leaning pastors in The Gospel Coalition, Mark Driscoll and Tim Keller, creates cause for concern as to what degree this Gospel-centeredness extends to. Will we aim for rational and lifestyle consistency even in our profession of the Gospel, or will we settle merely for outward compliance to the Gospel and perhaps agreements on the major flashpoints of the culture wars like homosexuality, complementarianism, racism and missions? What makes these flashpoints more worthy of contending for as compared to the other doctrines and practices of Scripture?

In terms of rational consistency, Keller is on the record of supporting the error of Theistic Evolution [25], an anti-biblical theory which undermines the Gospel [26], [27], especially in its belief in death before the Fall, thus falsifying the biblical teaching that death is a consequence of sin (Gen 2:17; Rom. 5:12) and destroying the foundation of the Christian faith. The internal evidence for the historicity of the Genesis account of Creation is so strong and the dependence of other parts of Scripture on the historicity of that account, including our Lord's teaching, that to deny its historicity is to severely undermine the authority of the entire Scriptures[28]. As Dr. Robert Reymond has said:

Scripture in its entirety regards the Genesis account of man's early beginnings and doings as reliable history. The Genesis account of creation is referred to many times elsewhere in the Old and New Testament Scripture ... To call into question the historical reliability of Genesis 1 and 2 is to call into question the trustworthiness of the entirety of Scripture testimony on the issue of origins. The fall of Adam is referred to in Job 31:33, Isaiah 43:27, Hosea 6:7, Romans 5:12-19, Corinthians 11:3, and 1 Timothy 2:14. Cain's murder of Abel is referred to in Matthew 23:35, Luke 11:51, Hebrews 11:4, 1 John 3:12 and Jude 11. Finally, the Genesis flood is referred to in Isaiah 54:9, Matthew 24:37-39, Luke 17:26-27, Hebrews 11:7, 1 Peter 3:20, and 2 Peter 2:5, 3:6. To call into question the historicity of Genesis 3-11, then is to call into question the trustworthiness of a great deal of later Scripture testimony..[29]

The Westminster Confession of Faith, which Keller is supposed to believe in since he is in the PCA, states:

It pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for the manifestation of the glory of his eternal power, wisdom, and goodness, in the beginning, to create or make of nothing the world, and all things therein, whether visible or invisible, in the space of six days, and all very good (WCF, Chapt IV, Of Creation, Para 1. Bold added)[30]

Keller is rationally inconsistent in his belief in Theistic Evolution. At the same time, what he believes is contrary to the official creed of his denomination, which incidentally brings up the issue of confessional integrity but we should not digress. Since Keller is obviously a leader within the New Calvinist movement, this is a serious issue to be considered. This is so especially in light of the call to be Gospel-centered, and the insistence that such would not lead to being Gospel-only. But if the claim is made that Gospel-centeredness precludes Gospel-onlyness because the implications of the Gospel precludes such, then the willingness to be rationally consistent is necessary since that argument (that Gospel-centeredness precludes Gospel-onlyness) assumes logical and rational consistency. The example of Keller in compromising the doctrine of Creation however should give us pause to ask the New Calvinists whether they will practice what they preach, or the proclaimed fidelity to being Gospel-centered is mere lip service than actual belief and commitment, and only has bearings on certain flash-point subjects while neglecting the other essential areas of the Christian faith and practice.

The issue of lifestyle consistency would come to the fore in the case of Mark Driscoll, the most controversial figure in American Christianity nowadays due to his penchant for inappropriate language. Just a cursory look at one of Driscoll's book [31] would be sufficient to cement on most people's minds the reputation of Driscoll as being crass, and Pastor John MacArthur's series on Pulpit Magazine[32] complete with actual links to and citations of Driscoll's sermons on the Songs of Solomon confirms it. Scripture calls us to be holy, as God is holy (1 Peter 1:16). What is the point therefore of professing orthodoxy when our lifestyles do not match our doctrines?

In both of these leaders in the New Calvinist movement, we have seen both rational and lifestyle inconsistencies which undermine the Gospel they claim to believe in, not to mention the authority of Scripture over all of life. Will the New Calvinists therefore strive to be consistent in both these areas, and not just pay attention to their profession of the Gospel and the flash-point issues they want to focus on?

References:

[25] Tim Keller, The Reason for God — Belief in an Age of Skepticism (New York, New York, USA: Penguin Group, 2008), p. 87-93

[26] Ken Ham, The Lie: Evolution (Green Forest, AR, USA: MAsters Books, 1987)

[27] Robert Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, 2nd Ed. (Nashveille, TN, USA: Thomas Nelson, 1998), p. 116-126

[28] Ibid., p. 118

[29] Ibid., p. 118

[30] Philip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom (3 Vol.) Volume 3, as accessed on e-Sword.

[31] Driscoll, Confessions.

[32] John MacArthur, The Rape of Solomon's Song: Part 1 (http://www.shepherdsfellowship.org/pulpit/Posts.aspx?ID=4168), Part 2 (http://www.shepherdsfellowship.org/pulpit/Posts.aspx?ID=4169), Part 3 (http://www.shepherdsfellowship.org/pulpit/Posts.aspx?ID=4172), Part 4 (http://www.shepherdsfellowship.org/pulpit/Posts.aspx?ID=4174), The Shepherds' Fellowship Pulpit Blog