There is only one Gospel, not two

Over at the Alpha and Omega Ministries blog, Jamin Hubner has been posting a series critiquing the hyper-Dispensationalist (some may even say consistent Dispensationalist) errors. In his latest post, Hubner exposes the error, through exegeting Mt. 19:16-25, of those who believe that the way of salvation for Jews (the "Gospel of Jesus" for the Jews in the hyper-Dispensational scheme) is by works. As Hubner writes:

The answer to that question [Then who can be saved - v.25 NASB] – in light of what Jesus just said in verses 16-25 – is clearly no. No one can be saved. There is no salvation, unless you are absolutely perfect. Human beings need to follow the law and the commandments with 100% perfection in order to enter heaven. In fact, Jesus said earlier in Matthew 5:20 with just as much boldness, “For I say that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you not will enter the kingdom of heaven.”

How impossible! And then Jesus goes even further and amplifies the laws that already exist, saying if you so much as look at a woman wrongly, you’ve committed adultery, and if you hate a person in your mind, it’s the same as murdering them. Jesus goes on and on until finally some of his listeners stop asking questions and walk away

So what is the way of salvation for sinners both Gentile AND Jew? By grace alone, based upon Christ fulfilling the condition for salvation by fulfilling all the commandments on our behalf, as Hubner shows after looking through v. 26.

If anyone is going to be saved, God Himself is going to have to do the work of saving. That is, God Himself is going to have to fulfill every one of the Commandments Jesus just listed in Matthew 19 for anyone to have eternal life, because the law and holiness of God requires perfection.

But, that leaves anyone asking, who is that? Who on earth can live an entire life without lusting after another person, without thinking a thought of hate, without stepping over the line just once?

God in the flesh: Jesus the Christ. That’s what Jesus meant when he said “with God all things are possible.” Only God the Son can fulfill the demands of God the Father.

So then, if Christians aren’t saved by fulfilling the law, then how are Christians saved? Jesus answers that question in the same way Paul does: by faith alone. (Refer back to the quotations of Christ talking about faith). There is one gospel in the Bible, not two.

Amen. There is only one way of salvation in the Gospel which is by grace through faith apart from works. Jews are not saved by merely being Jews or whatever strange ideas some Dispensational Zionists may come up with. Only through faith in the Gospel of Jesus Christ can anyone be saved, both Jew and Gentile (Rom. 1:16)

Faith: Childlike faith

While in the process of adjusting to a different life over in Escondido, I think it would be good to go through some concepts that I have gone through in the Faith and Knowledge Bible study series for my cell group.

One of the concepts that we looked at was the concept of child-like faith. In evangelical circles, it has been heard that we should have child-like faith and not question too much. Instead, blind faith is sufficient. Just like a child does not know a lot but just blindly trust parents and those in authority, so we should not be too critical and instead just accept all that our pastors teach us. The sheep are then focused on "practical applications", while eschewing doctrinal truth which are meant for "theologians", a supposed ultra-elite class of super-Christians who are near infallible in their doctrinal pronouncements, functioning as the de facto mediator between Christ and the laity.

Of course, the Scriptures teach nothing of that sort — a fiction which is sadly prevalent in many authoritarian societies (especially in Asia) where those in authority are respected almost to the point of unquestioning obeisance.

So what exactly is this child-like faith as taught in Scripture?

At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them and said, “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven (Mt. 18:1-4)

In this passage, the main quality highlighted by Jesus is that of humility, as stated in verse 4. To become like children or to have child-like faith in this context means to be as humble as children. While of course there are proud children in this world, the focus is on the nature of young children in general. Young children trust their parents' word as truth, and act upon it as such. They do not think that they know it all, but rather admit what they do not know and fall back on their parents.

In the same way, the essence of child-like faith is humility before God. Humility before God means trusting in Him and obeying His Word, not questioning it and rebelling against it. Instead of thinking that we know what is best, we should submit to God and His Word even when it doesn't make sense at the moment.

Child-like faith therefore implies humility before God's Word. With regards to knowledge therefore, child-like faith means that the believer holds to God's Word as true even though Scripture is being attacked by many unbelievers some of whom may even be within the churches. Christians take God's Word as the axiom of all of life, knowing that regardless of what men say, 'Let God be true though every one were a liar' (cf Rom. 3:4).

Instead of promoting anti-intellectualism therefore, the essence of child-like faith is not ignorance but rather humility before God in using His Word as the basis of our knowledge. Child-likeness therefore relates to the attitude which we bring to God's Word and the foundation of our knowledge rather than the quality or quantity of knowledge gained. Far from discouraging knowledge, child-likeness is the godly attitude for the building up of true knowledge of God, of Man and of the world. Such would yield good fruit that conforms with true godliness and salvation.

In this light, to cause "one of these little ones" to sin as stated in verse 6 is indeed a terrible thing indeed. Since the essence of child-like faith is humility before God and His Word, the sin in verse 6 is to question God's Word and undermine its authority. Higher criticism, Liberalism and Neo-Orthodoxy all destroy or gut the Word of God of its authority in the lives of believers. By making the thoughts and prejudices of men the arbiter of which Scripture is inspired (ie. inerrant, infallible in every jot and tittle) and which are not, such "scholarship" destroys child-like faith in those who accept and believe them. For those who propagate such doctrines of demons, it would be better for them to have great millstones thrown around their necks and to be drowned in the sea (Mt. 18:6).

In conclusion, child-like faith is not what many have made it out to be. It is humility before God and His Word, and nowhere inimical to growth in knowledge but rather the only godly basis for growth in true knowledge.

A transition

Observant readers of mine may have noticed that I have seen that my city of residence have been changed, although that would not actually take effect until about one week's time. The fact of the matter is that I am going for theological studies in a solid Reformed seminary over there.

Anyway, here is a short sharing which I have prepared for a dinner with some of my extended family last night. It has undergone major revisions since the script was not fully thought-out at that time. Anyway, here it is.

For they call themselves after the holy city, and stay themselves on the God of Israel; the LORD of hosts is his name. "The former things I declared of old; they went out from my mouth, and I announced them; then suddenly I did them, and they came to pass. Because I know that you are obstinate, and your neck is an iron sinew and your forehead brass, I declared them to you from of old, before they came to pass I announced them to you, lest you should say, 'My idol did them, my carved image and my metal image commanded them.' "You have heard; now see all this; and will you not declare it? From this time forth I announce to you new things, hidden things that you have not known. They are created now, not long ago; before today you have never heard of them, lest you should say, 'Behold, I knew them.'

"For my name's sake I defer my anger, for the sake of my praise I restrain it for you, that I may not cut you off. Behold, I have refined you, but not as silver; I have tried you in the furnace of affliction.

For my own sake, for my own sake, I do it, for how should my name be profaned? My glory I will not give to another.

(Is. 48:2-11)

In just a couple of days time, I would be flying off to the USA for theological studies. Why have I decided to do that?

Being saved by the grace of God, I desire to know Him more and to live for Him, giving my all (Rom. 12:1) to the one who saved me purely out of His own free choice to do so. As I grow in my walk, I became burdened with the shocking biblical illiteracy even among Christians who are ignorant of basic biblical doctrines, which coupled with an attitude of anti-intellectualism results in failure to function as the salt and light of the world. Instead, we have epitomized the reality of Eph. 4:14 – being tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine, and in this we glory in our shame, boasting to everyone of our ignorance by claiming to have “no creed but Christ”.

In the past three years, I have felt the calling to serve God full-time. Yet the call of God is not something that is emotion but that is of the Spirit. Through prayer and awaiting God’s timing, I am convinced of God’s guidance into this area and my giftings in this area have also been noted by fellow Christians. It is therefore my desire to learn more about God’s Word so as to be able to teach it properly for the building up of God’s people.

Yet in all this I must take note of the fact that service is ultimately not about me. God is totally sovereign and He does not need anyone to do His will. God does not need me or anyone else for that matter to do His work, for His arm is powerful to do all that He desires (Dan. 4:35). God can make a great nation from Moses without the need for the Israelites if He so chooses to (Ex. 32:10), and He can raise up children of Abraham from inanimate rocks and stones (Mt. 3:9, Lk. 3:8). No matter the need, God is always in control and lacks nothing from us.

We must not therefore think that God needs our services otherwise His plan will fail. Rather, God condescends to use us for His own glory, and it is our privilege to joyfully submit to Him and do His will for us.

God’s will is ultimately for His glory – for His name’s sake (Is. 48:2-11). God’s glory is of supreme importance to Himself, and it is because of His glory that He saves us, just like He promises to saves the rebellious Jews during the time of Isaiah. I must therefore also remember that the goal of all service is that God be supremely glorified, not about how much service I have rendered to God or how many people may benefit from what God may do through me. The prophet Jeremiah has little to show for His labor, yet He glorified God by proclaiming His Word as judgment against Judah for their rejection of God’s authority and His Law. Likewise, all that we do must be centered on God and His glory, not the needs of men, the Church or the World. What matters is faithfulness, not results.

So (1) God does not need me, and (2) God does not treasure what I can do (as if apart from the Lord I can do anything anyway). Yet it is my privilege to follow and offer my life up to this great God and my Savior, knowing that He will use this flawed life for His purpose, and that His purposes will stand. Amen.

Fascism and the spirit of this age

In the May/June 2010 issue of his Critical Issue Commentary, Pastor Bob DeWaay has written an interesting piece summarizing Gene Veith's book on Fascism and noting the uncanny resemblance postmodernity has to it As society goes downhill, it is feared that fascism will make its comeback under another name - something we can already see in the militant homosexual movement.

This article will reveal similarities between the philosophies prevalent in Germany that characterized fascism and those of postmodern thinkers today. I am not suggesting that because these similarities exist postmoderns would be in favor of a new Hitler. I am suggesting that ideas have consequences and that history ought to teach us how serious they can be. The key issue is the rejection of a transcendent God who has revealed moral law. The result of such a rejection will most certainly be some form of lawlessness.

Recently, radio host and friend Chris Rosebrough called me and insisted that I read Modern Fascism by Gene Veith. Chris suggested the book because it draws a parallel between the ideas popular in Germany between World Wars I and II and the ideas popular in America today. These ideas now are called “postmodern,” a term introduced by Martin Heidegger, a popular German philosopher who became a committed fascist. Veith’s Modern Fascism unpacks the philosophical ideas that led to fascism.

This review of Veith’s book will show that the postmodern/emergent ideas that are popular today are identical to those in vogue in post WWI Germany. [Note: I also use the term paraphrase in the title, because I quote extensively from Veith’s book and explain his ideas.] I do not claim that those who promote postmodern theology are guilty of promoting fascism, but I do claim that ideas have consequences. As we examine the ideas that led to fascism, we shall see why those ideas led to horrific consequences. Once we see the parallels between those times and today we can hope that today’s ideas will not lead to such consequences. But we have no guarantees that they won’t.

[more]

Feeling a sense of alienation, man in his wickedness and depravity imagined that we are alienated from "Mother Nature", thus setting the stage for greater wickedness. The real problem however is sin - alienation from God

I agree with Veith: “The problem is not alienation from nature, but alienation from God through the rebellion of sin” (Veith: 51). The longing for a return to nature has never been stronger in American society than I see today. The term “natural” is deemed synonymous with “good” and “unnatural” with “bad.” This ignores the problems that nature is fallen, that nature is impersonal, and that nature, therefore, is not a goddess who wishes to care for us. The deification of nature common today places many contemporary Americans in a philosophical league with the Nazis. They are blinded to that fact. Our problem is not alienation from nature, but from God.

The firewall we have against postmodernism (which is a fancy name for paganism) is an inerrant, authoritative Bible. Our sin problem finds its remedy through the gospel that is revealed in the Bible. We find morals and restraint from our sinful tendencies through the law of God revealed by God through the Biblical writers. Western civilization used to be based on such ideas. That is why Hitler hated the Jews and the West. Jesus is the Jewish Messiah. He came in fulfillment of prophecies found in the Old Testament in such places as Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53. If the Christian church confesses Christ and the authority of Scripture, she shall put herself in opposition to Modern Fascism as Veith describes it. We will thus be seen as the enemies of society.

May God strengthen His Church and may we be found faithful in this time of increasing darkness.

Diaprax: The Hegelian Dialectic in action

Here is an interesting lecture on the Diaprax (Dialectical praxis).

[HT: Possessing the Treasure]

Phil Johnson on Socinianism at BioLogos

With the World Cup 2010 over, we can focus on better things than Paul the Octopus. Anyway, Phil Johnson over at the Pyromaniacs blog has an interesting article related to the attack of supposed "evangelical" BioLogos in its attack on Scripture entitled Socinianism in Lab Coats. The excerpts here are very revealing.

...

But my greatest concern [with BioLogos] — by far — is the blithe willingness with which they are prepared to trivialize, disregard, discard, or denounce the foundational doctrines of Christianity.

In every post I have made about BioLogos, I've been critical of two things in particular: 1) their relentless assault against the authority of Scripture, and 2) an attitude toward the doctrine of original sin that ranges from utter indifference to condescending dismissal.

The authority of Scripture and the doctrine of original sin are, of course, bedrock truths of all historic Christianity; they are not merely Reformed or evangelical distinctives ...

...

Incidentally, BioLogos's notion of "leading evangelical theologians" is revealing. Their theological headliners are men like Peter Enns, Greg Boyd, and N. T. Wright, not one of whom is truly evangelical in the historic sense of that term. Enns was dismissed from Westminster Seminary in August 2008 for his low view of Scripture. He and most of his supporters protested at the time that his views had been misrepresented and that he had been treated unfairly. But his contributions to BioLogos furnish ample proof that he did not, in fact, agree with Westminster's doctrinal standards. Boyd, of course, is well known as a cheerleader for Open Theism, which denies both the true omniscience and the immutability (not to mention the sovereignty) of God.

Having blended a low view of Scripture with an implicit denial of original sin, with a humanized view of God, and with a skeptical stance toward the miraculous elements of Scripture, BioLogos is actually peddling a brand of religion that has much more in common with Socinianism than with biblical and historic Christianity.

...

Let's face it: statements of faith aren't really a BioLogos "thing." The organization has no formal doctrinal standard and (as far as I can tell) no real theological boundaries at all. Everything is negotiable. Scripture is rarely if ever defended. Evangelical truth is not proclaimed at BioLogos. What does get aggressive promotion and a vigorous defense is anything that undermines a high view of Scripture. And why not? Open Theism, Sadduceeism, and neoorthodox notions about inspiration and inerrancy are rooted in the same kind of skepticism that underlies BioLogos's treatment of the early chapters of Genesis.

Here is the closest thing to an official statement of faith you'll find on the BioLogos website: "We believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God." Really? Perhaps if we posit an infinitely flexible definition of the word inspired, a claim like that might have a some thin thread of credibility. But search and see for yourself: BioLogos's website is full of articles attacking the accuracy, believability, authority, and verbal inspiration of Scripture. I can't find a single article where any of the contested claims of Scripture are defended against the attacks of secular materialists.

...

Scientism it is indeed, when people worship "Science" as the truth and nothing but the truth, not even knowing the methodology and limits of science, a topic which I hope to talk about sometime in the future.

Transformationalism and the Agora Forum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The topsy-turvy world of Transformationalism

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

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

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

Compromise and ecumenism

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

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

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

Transforming into obsolescence

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

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

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

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

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

Neglecting the weightier things of the faith

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

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

The biblical model

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

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

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

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

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

BioLogos and the downgrade of Evangelicalism

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

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

In the first post, Sparks claimed:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lane Keister: How to get along with TRs

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

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

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

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

I especially agree with principles 2 and 3.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I really do not see any problem with that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lord, please save your church from such Latitudinarianism.

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

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

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

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

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

...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Break

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

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

New Calvinism considered

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Family, Community and Communitarianism

[continued from here and here]

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

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

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

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

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

(p. 108)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Preliminary analysis

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

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

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

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

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

Biblical teaching

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

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

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

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

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

Critical Analysis of Viola's Communitarianism

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

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

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

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

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

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

The answer

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

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

Conclusion

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

---

References:

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

Two articles

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

Scripturalism and the Canon of Scripture

Why the Global Day of Prayer does not conform to Scripture