Joel E. Kim: Machen and the Bible

Audio—here

The first talk on Saturday morning, the second day of the conference, was by Prof. Joel E. Kim. I have gotten my free registration for the conference by volunteering as a student volunteer to help out in the event, so I was about 5 minutes late for this talk.

What was Machen's view of the Bible, and what relevance does it have today? In his talk, Prof Kim starts by outlining the academic conditions of that time. As knowledge increased in light of the Scientific and Industrial Revolution, there has been an increasing specialization of all fields of knowledge, even in theology. The idea of academic theology as being divorced from the church and from dogmatism (i.e. creedal and confessional formulas), and the idea of the academic circle came into being. The historical-critical method was being increasingly embraced by theologians and schools studying theology, a development that led to uneasiness among conservatives in the church.

The discipline of academic theology came to embrace certain core values, namely 1) the idea of probability, 2) the idea of analogy, and 3) methodological naturalism.

The first idea of probability is defined as that everyone must begin with methodological doubt. Nothing can be taken as certain and everything must be proven before it can be embraced as truth. This extends to everything, including the Bible, doctrines and creedal formulas.

The second idea of analogy is that all historical events must be analogous to present modern day events and therefore scientifically testable. This in other words is the philosophy of Uniformitarianism applied to the field of theology. Whatever happened in previous times must happen by the same processes that happen in present times, and therefore we can scientifically test the truth claims in the Bible.

The third idea is that of methodological naturalism. Everything that happens must happen through natural processes. The supernatural is therefore by default ruled out as being not possible.

Against the growth in such apostate "theology", Machen challenged Liberalism and the historical-critical method. This is done through the following: Machen defended the Bible as supernatural history and states that the Gospel as history is foundational. Against the Liberals, Machen questioned why is there doubt that the New Testament is a historical document. It seems strange that a supposed historical method fails to take into account the historical value of the New Testament as a strongly validated historical document. In this light, Machen charges that his critics are not the unbiased seekers of the truth that they claim to be. Rather, they are blinded by their presuppositions and are not using the historical method in their research, instead they are letting naturalism dictate their research. Machen claimed that using the historical method without preconceived philosophical bias would show that a supernatural account of events in Scripture is much more likely than naturalistic ones. As an example, Kim used the event of the conversion of Paul. The naturalistic explanations all fail to adequately explain how someone who is well-trained in Judaism and who breathed out murder threats against Christians could suddenly make a 180 degree in life and outlook. Another example was the boldness of the apostles. None of the naturalistic explanations could explain why the disciples of Jesus could suddenly become so bold in proclaiming that Jesus is the Christ to the point of dying for it. The mass hallucination explanation is insufficient to explain the event, as if hallucinations are strong enough to turn cowards into those willing to die for them.

In his opposition to modernism, Machen was rather unique in his time—an anomaly. Most Fundamentalists were anti-intellectual and show little understanding of the issues. Machen however understood Liberalism, had a sharp mind and yet oppose it.

In his controversy with the Liberals, we can see Machen's view of Scripture. Scripture is both divine and human, and both aspects of Scripture must be taken seriously. Fundamentalists tend to so emphasize the divine that there is little if any human element stated to be in Scripture. Yet Scripture is clearly written by humans with their own characteristic styles and at times no overt guidance of the Holy Spirit can be seen as they write it. The human writers of Scripture are thus not amanuenses of the Holy Spirit! It cannot be overstated that Luke when writing both Luke and Acts did not sit in his room waiting for the Holy Spirit to suddenly and mystically impart Scripture into his mind, but he got out, did his historical research and then put his research findings into what we come to know as the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles.

Scripture as supernatural history, both divine and human — Machen's relevance to us in his view of Scripture can be summed up in this. We must continue to have this view of the Scriptures, and therefore treat the text of Scripture as what it is—supernatural history.

D.G. Hart: The Perennial Machen

Audio—here

The second talk on Friday night is by Elder Darryl G. Hart, who prefers to title his talk The Prennial Problem with Machen. As a historian, Hart deals in this talk with the person of J.G. Machen in relation to conservative Christianity.

The key question that Hart deals with is whether Machen was a Presbyterian or simply a conservative Protestant with Presbyterian stripes. Quoting historians George Marsden and Mark Noll, the conservative image of Machen has been that Machen was arguing for a generic "mere Christianity". Hoever, is that so?

Hart's thesis is that we should read Machen's book Christianity and Liberalism in his ecclesiastical context. The writing of the book was precipitated by opposition to unionism and ecumenism within the PCUSA at that time. The book therefore was Machen's attempt to tell non-Presbyterians why the controversy he was engaged in happened. Machen does of course concede that certain evangelical truths were most vital, but that does not mean that other truths are not.

To prove his point, Hart points to two places in Machen's book whereby the opposition to some form of "mere Christianity" can be seen. The first place is Machen's last chapter about the church and the importance Machen placed on the visible institutional church, something about which many Fundamentalists would not be able to subscribe to. The second lies is his arguments against the liberals that they are cannot in honesty subscribe to the orthodox creeds and confessions. While most certainly applicable to the liberals, in force it applies equally to the anti-intellectual Fundamentalists with their anti-creedalism.

The kernel versus husk approach to Machen's book ignores his other works and struggles in life and is therefore in error. Machen never intended to stand on a platform of "mere Christianity" to critique modernism. Rather, Machen was standing on the platform of Christianity as understood within the Presbyterian tradition. It is not a compliment to Roman Catholicism such that it is within the pale of Christian orthodoxy, as Timothy George thinks it is, when he said that Romanism was more orthodox than Liberalism. Rather, it was an insult to Liberalism that even Romanism with her false gospel was more orthodox than it.

Hart closed with the doctrine of the church as he sees it as Machen's most vital difference with Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism. He has posted his closing statements on his blog, which we shall quote at length and end this review as follows:

The other part of THE BOOK’s last chapter on the church that deserves attention is the doctrine of the spirituality of the church. This conviction continues to be misunderstood, and is often denounced as a cover for Christians and churches who want to forsake their obligations to contribute to social well-being. To be sure, this doctrine became prominent among Old School Presbyterians at a time when American Christians debated slavery and the U.S. Constitution. But it was a teaching that extended back before the nineteenth century and tapped Augustine’s remarkable insights into the differences between the city of God and the city of man. What the spirituality of the church taught Machen especially was that the church was a spiritual institution with spiritual means for spiritual ends. Because of salvation’s fundamentally spiritual character, believers could not identify the fortunes of the kingdom of God with the empire of Rome or the industrializing republic of the United States.

This was the insight that prompted Machen’s conclusion to THE BOOK. The solution to the crisis over liberalism, as he argued, was for the churches to “face the facts, and regain their integrity while yet there is time.” This needed to happen immediately because so many of the denominational bureaucracies were under control by official either modernist themselves or indifferent to it. Another solution was to form new churches because the existing works could not satisfy “the fundamental needs of the soul.” Whatever the solution, he wrote:

There must be somewhere groups of redeemed men and women who can gather together humbly in the name of Christ, to give thanks to Him for His unspeakable gift and to worship the Father through Him. Such groups alone can satisfy the needs of the soul. At the present time, there is one longing of the human heart which is often forgotten – it is the deep, pathetic longing of the Christian for fellowship with his brethren. . . . There are congregations, eve in the present age of conflict, that are really gathered around the table of the crucified Lord; there are pastors that are pastors indeed. But such congregations, in many cities, are difficult to find. Weary with the conflicts of the world, one goes to Church to seek refreshment for the soul. And what does one find? Alas, too often, one find only the turmoil of the world. The preacher comes forward, not out of a secret place of mediation and power, not with the authority of God’s Word permeating his message, not with human wisdom pushed far into the background by the glory of the Cross, but with human opinions about the social problems of the hour or easy solutions of the vast problems of sin. Such is the sermon. And then perhaps the service is closed by one of those hymns breathing out the angry passions of 1861 . . . Thus the warfare of the world has entered even into the house of God. And sad indeed is the heart of the man who has come seeking peace. Is there no refuge from strife? . . . . Is there no place where two or three can gather in Jesus’ name, . . . to forget human pride, to forget the passions of war, to forget the puzzling problems of industrial strife, and to unite in overflowing gratitude at the foot of the Cross? If there be such a place, then that is the house of God and that the gate of heaven. And from under the threshold of that house will go forth a river that will revive the weary world.

The church as the house of God, the gate of heaven, a place for weary souls seeking refuge from the conflicts of this world through the cross of Christ – that is actually what the spirituality of the church begins with and it is precisely how Machen concluded his important book.

Christianity and Liberalism Revisited conference audio

The audios for the recently concluded Christianity and Liberalism Revisited conference are now out, as follows:

Christianity and Liberalism Today by Micheal S. Horton

The Prennial Machen by Darryl G. Hart

Machen and the Bible by Joel E. Kim

Machen and the Gospel by John V. Fesko

Machen and Ethics by David VanDrunen

Machen, Christianity, and the Church by W. Robert Godfrey

Q&A

Mike S Horton: Christianity and Liberalism Today

[Disclaimer: This is my summary AND commentary on Dr. Horton's talk, not just a recount of the talk itself, of which viewers can see it when the video files are up on the WSCal website.]

Audio—here.

It has been almost a century since the rise of liberalism, a movement that Dr. John Greshem Machen exposed as being another religion altogether in his book entitled Christianity and Liberalism. In the last century, liberalism has been slowly dying, as seen in the free fall decline in the membership of "mainline denominations." Or has it?

In his talk entitled Christianity and Liberalism Today, Dr. Michael S. Horton takes up the theme of Machen's most famous book, and shows us that liberalism is far from dead. In fact, it is very much alive ... within professing Evangelicals! Like yeast in a dough of bread, liberalism has metastasized throughout Evangelicalism, rendering the churches sick. While outwardly all seems well, yet the body is desperately sick, and Dr. Horton in this lecture of his reveals the true ghastly image of the churches to us.

Horton arranges his talk of the state of Christianity today into two sections: a sociological analysis section and a theological analysis section. Sociologically, Horton quotes Barna research data and research done by sociologists like Christian Smith to show the beliefs and attitudes present in so-called "Evangelicals" (which in cases like Barna merely mean people who assent to certain propositions such as "My relationship with God plays an important role in my life" [certainly nothing Christian about that proposition] and "I have a born-again experience" among others like them). Not surprisingly, the belief of American Christianity has little if anything to do with true Christianity. The term "Moral Therapeutic Deism" has been coined to describe the phenomenon, which is defined as being the belief that 1) God created the world; 2) God wants people to be good, nice and fair to each other, as taught in the Bible and most world religions; 3) The central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself; 4) God does not need to be particularly involved in one's life except when needed to resolve a problem; 5) Good people go to heaven when they die.

Perhaps more shocking than this is the analysis of sermons in supposed conservative Evangelical churches. A sociologist took samples of sermons preached in the supposed conservative Southern Baptist Convention and compared it with sermons preached in mainline Presbyterian churches, and there was essentially no difference in the sermons preached. Oh sure, there were some differences all right. For example, the Evangelical sermons when preaching on the parable of the Prodigy Son made the younger profligate son the great sinner. The sins which conservatives deemed evil are imputed to the younger son who partied all day, get drunk, watched pornography etc. In the mainline churches, the wicked son was the older son who was just like the Pharisees in being judgmental and not loving. Yet despite the surface differences, what the sermons basically amount to are messages like "You need to change your life", "Stop sinning" etc.

In both cases, Christianity is defined as being about life transformation and sin is redefined. The younger son is not "sinning," but rather he is fulfilling good desires in a wrong way. He is not living up to his potential, or his way is so much less satisfying than God's way, which is to say that if only he lived God's way, he would be happier and more satisfied, or so it is claimed. For modernists, the fault of the older son however must be remedied by emphatizing with sinners and loving and welcoming them into our fellowship.

Sin in American Christianity [and in fact in many parts of the world influenced by the West] is always about others; it is always others that sin, not ourselves. Conservatives blame the liberals and liberals blame the conservatives. So everyone sinned and also no one sinned!

Part of the rise of Moral Therapeutic Deism comes in the recent idea of "authenticity." Everyone must find their own inner innocent child (whatever that is supposed to mean) and be free to be ourselves and be "vulnerable."

In all this, the Gospel message disappears. Horton shared anecdotes (earlier on) of friends who visited supposed evangelical churches on Easter and discovered that there was no Gospel message preached in the service on EASTER. There was no reading of the Law, no confession of sins or anything of that sort, so they reasoned that probably at least in the sermon they would get the Gospel message. Unfortunately, it didn't happen. The Easter messages went along the lines of "4 ways to improve your life" or something like that. All that was preached is the law of Do's and nothing of Christ's Gospel of what He has Done for us.

After this cultural analysis, Horton proceeds on to the theological analysis.

The two main heresies that are prevalent in American Christianity [and many parts of the world too] are variants of Pelagianism and Gnosticism. Pelagianism basically believes in the essential goodness of man and that Man can save Himself. Semi-Pelagianism believes that God take some steps while Man take some steps, a position best expressed in the statement "God helps those who help themselves," a statement which I may add is nowhere to be found in the Bible. Gnosticism on the other hand believes in salvation by knowledge, which in ancient times refer often to secret knowledge.

Together, a variant of these two heresies is formed which deny that we are created good but are now fallen, and that we are helpless to save ourselves.

Pelagianism broadly speaking can be seen in the teachings of people like Norman Vincent Peale and Robert Schuller and all self-esteem, self-help movements. The idea that we can save ourselves can be found in many other religious movements like the New Age movement for example. Revivalism with its mechanical idea of conversion from the times of Charles G. Finney imbibes deeply at this toxic well, and through Finney the heresy of Pelagianism infects Evangelicalism as a whole. After all, if revival is only the result of the proper use of means, then salvation and conversion can be engineered by man and conversion is merely man's choice to "decide" for Christ.

Gnosticism in its broader sense has become the default stance even within Evangelicalism. The typical American, and typical Evangelical, is "spiritual but not religious." Christianity is defined as a relationship and not a religion (as if the two are mutually exclusive). Gnosticism thus manifests itself in the privatization of religion as being that of inner experience. Every person (in Evangelicalism every converted person) has a unique mystical relationship with God that is true because it just must be. While in apologetics, he may be interested in history and the Jesus of history, the Evangelical existentially has no need for the Christ of history, for Christ "resides in his or her heart." The loci of Christianity is not outside us, but inside us. What this means is that each one becomes his or her subjective judge and arbiter before God, and thus is the center of all things spiritual. The divorce of salvation from ecclesiology is as such another sign of gnosticism, as if the church is basically an add-on to the Christian life. So we have supposed Christians being consumers of spirituality and seeing little if any need for the institutional Church, believing that their [subjective] relationship with God is sufficient.

Such an error can also be seen in statements like "Our lives will preach better than anything we say," or we can quote the supposed quote from Francis of Assisi "Preach the Gospel at all things and where necessary use words." The gnostic element is evident in such falsehoods. Instead of proclaiming an external word of the Gospel, the idea of Christianity as inner experience lies behind the lie that our lives are better witnesses than the proclaimed Gospel. Yet the Scriptures are very clear that is is only the [external] Word of God that creates faith (cf Rom. 10:17), not the sharing of our inner experiences.

In light of all this, how should the Church respond? Horton ends off in saying that not to address sin and guilt in capitulation to the zeitgeist is pastoral cruelty. After all, God is not interested in how your "personal relationship with God" feels like, or that you are a reasonably good person. The only thing that matters is belief in the true Gospel, and if we fail to proclaim that Gospel and substitute it for false gospels that are not the Gospel, then the souls of many will be damned. God is not interested in your inner experience of Him and how close you feel to Him. In fact, Scripture makes it clear that Christ is not interested even in how many miracles you have done in His name! (Mt. 7:21-23). You can feel anything you want, do anything you want and say anything you want, but ultimately what matters is whether you have believed the Gospel and be saved. You can call God "Daddy", claim that you are under grace not law, call yourself the King's kids, and still go to hell! The Gospel is outside of us, God is apart from us. Shall we dare to dictate to the sovereign God that He must conform to our spirituality and supposed relationship status we have with Him?

As ministers of the Gospel and as His Church, we must proclaim the Gospel and nothing but this external Gospel of the Word outside of us. This is the only pastoral loving thing to do.

Christianity and Liberalism Revisited conference

I have been busy recently with a ton of school work. Anyway, the Christianiy and Liberalism Revisited Conference is ongoing, and you can see the lectures via live-streaming. As I have volunteered to help out (as a student volunteer) in the conference, I have free registration for the conference. I will be blogging some summaries of the lectures here albeit not live.

Reformation Italy

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Do support the efforts of Pastor Andre Ferrari in prayer.

The danger of mixing Law and Gospel OR Why we need the Covenant of Works

Over on the Ligonier website, Jason Stellman has written an article over the necessity of Reformed theology in embracing the Covenant of Works. As he wrote,

This idea that the original Edenic covenant was a conditional covenant of works, and that Adam had to fulfill its conditions in order to gain the stipulated reward, can be a jagged pill to swallow for many Reformed folks. After all, doesn’t this all sound so legal? Where’s the grace in all of this?

Ah, but this is precisely the point! As I mentioned above, the legal nature of the Edenic covenant actually protects the graciousness of the gospel that would be proclaimed later on.

To make the pre-Fall covenant in Eden and not of works is the error of all Mono-covenantalists. Whether they are Barthians, Federal Visionists, or PRCA makes little difference — the only difference is how consistent they are in bringing their denial of the Covenant of Works to its logical conclusion.

In the best case scenario, even if it was possible to somehow totally disconnect Adam and Christ such that one can somehow say that "Christ merited salvation for the elect through His works" while denying that Adam was under a Covenant of Works and thus denying the typology between the two (cf Rom. 5:12-18), the issue of the Fall then becomes a big problem. Why did the Fall happen? If it is agreed that Adam transgressed a law, and the Edenic covenant is supposed to be a gracious covenant, then law and grace are not antithetical to each other. Salvation by grace therefore is not antithetical to the idea of a condition of staying in the covenant or "state of salvation" by works/obedience/faithfulness. This results in the error of what I generically call Monocovenantal Legalism.

On the other hand, if it is denied that Adam transgressed a law, then the Fall is either not real or not sinful, perhaps a natural development of growth like what the Gnostics taught. That is paganism.

There is however a third way of trying to solve the problem, exemplified in the PRCA. That is to agree that Adam transgress a law, but then to say that transgression does not break the covenant because the covenant is defined as a relationship or a bond of friendship and love, and is thus unconditional. Therefore, while Adam sinned and brought death into the world, yet the covenant relation between God and His people is not broken and cannot be broken. This error I generically call Monocovenantal Antinomianism, which we will see why.

In this scheme, the horror of the Fall is minimized. This is not to say that the PRCA treats the Fall lightly, but because it is treated as being merely quantitatively different from post-lapsarian sin and iniquity. Whereas in the Reformed system, the Fall is qualitatively not just quantitatively different from post-lapsarian sin and iniquity. Adam sinned under a Covenant of Works in the Reformed scheme, whereas for the PRCA Adam sinned under a gracious covenant.

This brings us to the related doctrine of Creation. If God can only relate to creatures on the basis of grace and wrath (ie there is no "neutral" state), then Man must be created in constant need of grace in order to live in God's favor. The patristic and medieval (and Roman Catholic) idea of donum superadditum would be utilized here. Grace perfects [defective] nature, not renews it.

Both of these would tend to trivialize sin. Instead of seeing sin as alien to nature, it is taken to be an evil that pertains to nature. Those within this "covenant" (as defined by the PRCA) therefore tend to minimize sin as being natural while still fighting it as part of the nature versus grace contest of the ages. Such tendencies are what make the system considered "Antinomian", not necessarily in practice but in doctrine^[1].

Having rejected the biblical idea of covenant, it will be indeed interesting to see to what extent the PRCA will move towards Eastern Orthodoxy with its similar idea of covenant as relationship. While certainly more needs to be read up, it seems to me that the destination of Monocovenantal Antinomianism does not seem to be Roman Catholicism as much as Eastern Orthodoxy.

---

References:

[1] See for example Peter Toon's description of Doctrinal Antinomianism, in Peter Toon, The Emergence of Hyper-Calvinism in English Nonconformity, 1689-1745 (London, UK: The Olive Tree, 1967). Available online at http://www.anglicanbooksrevitalized.us/Peter_Toons_Books_Online/History/hypercal1.htm. Accessed on Jan 3rd 2011.

Modern Arminians and historical revisionism

I stumbled onto a forum thread at CARM which referenced my article on Classical Arminianism.

As I have expected, modern Arminians like William Birch were attacking my article over on the forum, displaying the exact error I was mentioning around the time I wrote the article. As I have said back then,

It seems that there are a lot of modern Arminians who, like Roger Olsen, feel free to revise history in order to make the Classical Arminians into a respectable evangelical group, ignoring clear historical evidence to the contrary. Who do you think knows the Classical Arminians and their doctrines better: their contemporaries like the scholar John Owen, or modern Arminians who are ~400 years removed!

... it is extremely revealing that these revisionists insist that Classical Arminianism believes in Total Depravity. That must one of the most popular myths floating around it seems. The whole reason for the TULIP acronym was that 'T' represented Total Depravity over and against the Remonstrants' view of Partial Depravity! Classical Arminianism NEVER once believed in Total Depravity. They may use language that seem to suggest that, but then their doctrine of prevenient grace erase original depravity in toto, leaving behind only a "sinful nature".

Just because Birch and supporters do not agree with the view of the Classical Arminians as stated by Owen do not give them the right to call him a liar. Instead of thinking that Owen lied about the Arminians, why not see that Classical Arminianism and Evangelical Arminianism are simply two different systems of thought altogether? Thus, Birch et al as Evangelical (hopefully) Arminians should see that Owen was addressing Classical Arminianism, of which they do not seem to believe in.

Birch's approach of discounting all Reformed, Calvinist evidence to the contrary is bad historiography. It commits the genetic fallacy and his reasoning is thus fallacious at the core. Is there a possibility that ALL Reformed and Calvinists for the last 400 years have misrepresented the Classical Arminians? Yes, but that has to be proved, not merely asserted. To say that no one in 400 years until you come along has understood the Classical Arminians is an astonishing claim that requires a lot of arguments and proofs to even make it a plausible hypothesis.

Again, conveniently discounting the case of Conrad Vorstius is not going to aid his case. Mere assertion that Vorstius is not a proper Arminian because he became a Socinian is called begging the question. Wasn't Vorstius appointed to "succeed" Arminius at the University of Leiden? Isn't it the case that the reason why he lost his prominence to Episcopius was because he was kicked out of Netherlands prior to the Synod of Dordt, and also that he became a Socinian later in life? I can understand why no respectable Arminian wants to acknowledge Vorstius, but to ignore the skeleton in the closet is not a good argument.

The historiography of the modern so-called "Classical Arminians" is seriously lacking. They can call themselves whatever they want, but clearly they are either classical or evangelical, and not both.

Wes White on blogging and the 9th Commandment

Wes White has recently posted an excellent write-up looking at the issue of blogging with regards to the charge of violating the 9th commandment, especially in the sphere of the PCA in which he is in. An excerpt:

For some reason, there are people who think that blogging is evil. They then complain that those who blog do not represent them fairly. Instead of getting a free blog from WordPress or Blogger in order to respond, they prefer to demonize those who blog. They are in a tough position. If they don’t blog, those who do will control what is said about them. If they do blog, they can no longer demonize those who do. Moreover, you will validate those who blog.

But there is another option, they can try and suppress blogging in some way. The only problem is that every attempt you make to suppress blogging is going to look like, well, suppression.

Paper: The Apologetic Import of the Autopistia of Scripture

I have just received my other paper back. The paper is entitled The Apologetic Import of the Autopistia of Scripture. Barring formatting changes, the paper is presented as submitted, here.

An excerpt:

In apologetic endeavors, the question of authority or the ground of knowledge is an important one. How can one know what is the truth? For a Christian, not only do we ponder over the question of how we can know what the truth is, but the question of how truth and Scripture relate to each other is equally pertinent.

In this paper, I would like to defend the thesis that the doctrine of autopistia or the self-authenticating nature of Scripture substantiates the proper foundation or ground of knowledge which is the Scriptures themselves, and that this can be used profitably in the realm of apologetics. To this end, firstly, I will put forward the proposition that the foundation for the framework of all knowledge is the Scriptures themselves. Secondly, I would show how the doctrine of autopistia can be used to substantiate it. Thirdly, I would proceed from there to suggest a method to apply this fact in the realm of apologetics.

[cont]

These would be extremely pertinent I think:

There is therefore no shame and no need to hide the fact that the Christian epistemology is circular, for all epistemologies are likewise circular. ...

...

What is the import of this doctrine [of autopistia] in apologetics? Since all epistemologies are circular, the fact that the ultimate authority of the faith appeals to itself is actually self-consistent with its own claim to be the ultimate authority. Although it is most definitely not sufficient to prove the faith, as if apart from the work of the Spirit anyone can be argued into the kingdom, the coherency of the Christian system is a work of beauty indeed.

Along these lines, we have a platform to critique rival epistemologies. Empiricism can be critiqued because there is nothing in empiricism to validate empiricism as a valid epistemology. Rationalism can be similarly critiqued since formulae such as Cogito Ergo Sum (I think therefore I am) are not inherently found in reason but reasoned out in order to support rationalism. In other word, reason itself never claimed to be an ultimate authority in any sense. Rather, it is fallen men who cling on to reason as their ultimate authority since that is internally all they have, and they therefore make reason their ultimate authority by an irrational leap of faith.

The Archetypal/ Ectypal distinction and Clarkian epistemology

I have managed to finish my main intended project for this term break: an article interacting with parts of Dr. R. Scott Clark's article on the Well-Meant Offer in the book The Pattern of Sound Doctrine, a fetscrift for Dr. Bob Strimple edited by Dr. David VanDrunen. My article is entitled The Archetypal/Ectypal distinction and Clarkian epistemology, and can be found here.

An excerpt:

The distinction between archetypal and ectypal knowledge as promoted by the 17th century Reformed theologian Franciscus Junius is vital in Reformed scholastic thought. In this short article, I would like to interact with it as it is presented in Willem J. Van Asselt’s article in the Westminster Theological Journal of 2002, and tie that in with Clarkian epistemology. It is my opinion that there is no necessary conflict between the two, contrary to Dr. R. Scott Clark’s opinion that the denial of the archetypal/ectypal distinction is foundational to Clark’s epistemology and his denial of the Well-Meant Offer.

In this article therefore, I would first present the archetypal/ectypal distinction as presented by Van Asselt, and evaluate how that can tie in with Clarkian epistemology. Lastly, I would interact with some of Scott Clark’s criticism on the subject and show that it does not apply to Gordon Clark either in his epistemology or his denial of the Well-Meant Offer.

[cont]

[Note: An article is not a(n) [academic] paper. Unfortunately, almost all of my Gordon Clark books are back in Singapore so I can't reference them]

Reviews and articles

I have finally managed to consolidate my recent book reviews and articles onto my website. Here they are:

Review of Esther Meek's Longing to Know

The (Non)-Problem of Evil

The Epistemic Priority of Logic

Ignorance, Scholarship, Authority and Autonomy

Do note that these consolidated articles are generally better than when they are on the blog, because I have relooked them and amended any weakness and errors in them. For example, I have previously thought Meek's book was pushing for some form of communitarian epistemology, but now I think it fits better with a Barthian idea of knowledge as relationship- still erroneous but at least a better representation of the error taught.

Paper: Preaching to the Three Fold Image of God

I have received one of my papers (for the course PT500 Ministry of the Word and Worship) back. Dr. Dennis Johnson is an English major and it shows as he picked up two spelling/formatting mistakes which I had overlooked. Barring these corrections and some small phraseological changes in the last page of my paper due to the feedback received, I would like to share the paper here.

The paper is entitled "Preaching to the Three-Fold Image of God" and it marks my reflections and thoughts on the issue of Christ-centered preaching.

Jim Renihan on New Covenant Theology

I have finally finished the papers and exams for my semester and took some time off. Between now and the start of the winter term, I would be going back to readings as usual.

Anyway, here's a good analysis and critique of the movement known as New Covenant Theology, which I am sure I have addressed before some time back, by Dr. James Renihan in a sermon here. [HT: AOMin]. Having addressed the issue one or two years back, I truly wonder what is the current developmental status of the NCT theologies as they have evolved till now, though I truly have no time to figure out.

A short analysis of CT's article on Keller's new book

Christianity Astray Today (CT) has posted an interview by Kirsten Sharold with Tim Keller over his new book Generous Justice. Tim Keller being part of New Evangelicalism version 2.0 is immensely popular, and this CT article seems to confirm one of my fears regarding the New Evangelical Calvinist movement.

Having not read the book, I will stick with the interview itself. Now, it may be the case that the interview does not do justice to the book, and that CT has distorted Keller's message. If so, then the fault lies with CT and Keller should come out and repudiate the report of the interview as he did not actually say what they reported him to say. This is always a possibility, but barring that, we must take the interview to be accurately reporting Keller's words and position.

In this interview, Keller specified what he means by justice and equates that with helping the poor. In Keller's words: "All I know is, if I don't care about the poor, if my church doesn't care about the poor, that's evil." Strong words indeed. However, is Keller right? We will analyze the interview to see if that is so.

Helping the poor

When we look at Scripture, we do indeed see that God is concerned for the poor, and he expects us to be too. This theme is found throughout Scripture,for example in Lev. 25:35, Deut. 15:7-10; 24:14-15, Jas. 2:1-6 and others like them. The issue with Keller is not that we are to be compassionate to the poor, but how.

Ever since the advent of the "social gospel," Liberalism has always trumpeted the cause of helping the poor and downtrodden in society. The so-called benevolent empire in the 19th century, as is the modern so-called ONE campaign, desired to solve society's problems. With the fusion of liberalism and socialism, modern-day liberalism has been about solving poverty by redistributing the wealth through taxing the rich to give to the poor. Even in its "softer" form, the idea of helping the poor is linked to the idea of giving handouts and feeding the poor through soup kitchens and other similar measures.

However, is that what God means by helping the poor? Is helping the poor done only through such measures? Keller speaks of the great stuff Tony Campolo and Ron Sider have written, which shows what he thinks helping the poor is — social works. This betrays his capitulation to the liberal zeitgeist. Of course, there is nothing wrong with social works per se, but if helping the poor is conceived to be done only through social works, then we are not really helping the poor. How much does Keller really understand about economics? For example, if we remove all the entrepreneurs in society, the economy would stagnate, more people would be without jobs, and the number of poor would increase. Under communism (and socialism to some extent), there is little incentive to work since everyone receives the same pay anyway so likewise poverty increases.

The fact of the matter is that the call for social works is totally naive and shows Keller's ignorance of the causes of poverty, which is complex (it is not always the case that the poor are always victims for example). Pastors should be doing their job instead of commenting on fields such as economics which they know little of, which brings me to my next point.

Confusion of 2 Kingdoms - The Church is NOT a social club!

Liberalism at its inception was never about denying the Gospel message. It was about "contextualizing" the Gospel message to modern times. For example, since people are now enlightened and do not think they are sinful, then we jettison the teaching of sin (this does not necessarily mean that the preacher personally denied the existence of sin). The slogan "Deeds, not creeds" is as old as Liberalism itself. The goal of the Church was to solve the ills of society. In time however, the method becomes the message and the true biblical Gospel was denied.

Evangelicalism reacted against Liberalism's trend of "contextualization" followed by denial of the Gospel message by rightly seeing that the Church is a spiritual institution and organism of which Christ is her head. The Church is called out of the world for Christ. Unfortunately, Dispensationalism with its escapist view of reality sees no need for Christian to be participants in this world. The hyper-spirituality of Dispensationalism make them ever "rapture-ready" and perceive their involvement with the world as exclusively tied to evangelism. The pendulum continues to swing with the younger evangelicals moving towards the other extreme: either by forming the "religious right" or the "religious left".

All of these pendulum swings show a confusion of the two kingdoms which God governs. The Church is the Church, yet her members are in the world. In Liberalism, Christians are stated to be in the world and of the world, whereas Dispensationalism (which dominated Evangelicalism) are neither in the world nor of the world. Yet Jesus said that we are in the world but not of the world (Jn. 17:11, 14).

In being not "of the world," the Church is a spiritual institution and speaks of spiritual things. The Church qua Church is the Church and is not part of the world! The Church has no obligations to the world except evangelism. This is what Liberalism denies and Evagelicalism affirms.

As opposed to Dispensationalism, Christians are in the world and we are to participate in the world. Christians as such are to help the poor and get involved with bringing God's light and truth to a fallen world.

The Church and Society (the World) are two different institutions, although both of them are ruled by God. This means that the Church qua Church must and only should be focused on the things of God. That means that the Church is NOT a social club! As stated, the Church has no obligations to feed the poor; that is the obligations of individual Christians not of the Church.

Keller in this interview confuses the two kingdoms. As a minister of the Gospel, his job and the Church's job is not to "care for the poor". It is not "evil" for the Church to ignore the poor, because that's not her job. Sure, if the diaconate desires to help the poor in the community, that's not wrong, but that should not be their primary focus. The Church's primary job is the proclamation of the Gospel and the truths of Scripture and the tending of her flock, not tending to the world's needs.

It is simply not sufficient to be, like Keller, placing "social justice" as an outworking of the"experience of grace". Of course, good works (not "social justice", which we will discuss below) like helping the poor are always an outworking of grace, but that is still about the individual Christian in the world and not the Church. The Church qua Church has no involvement with "good works", regardless of how they are framed.

This brings us to the last issue: the idea of "justice"

Biblical "Justice" and helping the poor?

Keller in this interview seems to equate the idea of justice with helping the poor. In his own words:

I used the term "generous justice" because many people make a distinction between justice and charity. They say that if we give to the poor voluntarily, it's just compassion and charity. But Job says that if I'm not generous with my money, I'm offending God, which means it's not an option and it is unjust by definition to not share with the poor. It's biblical that we owe the poor as much of our money as we can possibly give away.

It would be good to see what is the verse in Job Keller has in mind, because I truly doubt a proper exegesis of that verse supports his equation of justice to helping the poor. Nevertheless, this is a dangerous view to hold, which we shall see.

The idea of "Justice" has to do with the righting of wrongs. When justice is present, those who are wrong will be punished, and restitution will be made to those who are wronged. When justice is absent, the wicked flourish and the righteous suffer. This has always been the definition of justice.

If justice is equated to helping the poor, as Keller states, then there is a connotation that being poor is wrong. The existence of poverty is unjust. Yet this is most assuredly not the biblical view. Deut. 15:11 states that poverty is a normal scene in our fallen human society. It is God who makes a person rich or a person poor (1 Sam. 2:7). Just as riches come from God, so too does poverty. Yes, poverty is part of the Fall and thus not part of the original creation, but that is different from saying that poverty itself is unjust. Are the consequences of sin unjust? Is God unjust? To say that poverty is unjust is an attack on the justice of God who determines what the consequences of sin should be.

It is most assuredly the case that there is much oppression of the poor, but it is not true that all of the poor are always poor because of oppression. For example, if a person squanders all his money away in gambling and is reduced to poverty as a result, his poverty is the fruit of his wickedness. Some people are just lazy and refuse to work and that is why they become poor. The whole idea that poverty is unjust tends to paint halos on the heads of the poor, as if the poor are sinless victims who are poor merely because they are being oppressed, instead of the biblical teaching that all man both rich and poor are alike sinners before God. There are virtuous poor, and they are wicked poor too, just as there are virtuous and wicked rich people on society as well.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Keller's view on this issue commits the most egregious errors of the Liberal Left in their view of poverty and society. Keller further confuses the two kingdoms and makes those who listen to him susceptible to falling into the Social Gospel. As the maxim states, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." It is not sufficient to have good intentions, but the truth. May we reject Keller's views on this matter and obey what Scripture teaches on this matter. Amen.