Those of you who really know me will be really surprised that I'm writing a post about sports because I have long been completely ignorant and uncaring of all things sporting. But my wife has always liked basketball and when the NBA playoffs started, she began watching. And so I did, too. And living right next door to Dallas, I have turned into a big Mavericks fan. So I was disappointed to see the Mavs just lose the final by, I think, three points.
The Mavericks' team chaplain is Dr. Tony Evans, who is broadcast on NRB, right before RC Sproul. I only watch that channel for Sproul, so I often catch the end of Tony Evans, and though I don't know anything else about him, I have liked what I've heard. He seems to preach the Bible and not just fluff.
Anyway, Dwayne Wade of the Miami Heat deserves their victory. Admittedly I have only watched basketball for a few weeks, plus some as a kid, but I have never seen anybody score as often as Wade, especially in very difficult circumstances. That guy just can't miss, and the Mavs kept fouling him. Silly people! Don't foul Wade! I bet that about 1/3 of Miami's score was from free throws, and most of those from Wade.
I hope he gets MVP.
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
Thursday, June 15, 2006
SBC Passes Resolution to Add to Christ's Yoke
At the recent Convention, Southern Baptists passed a resolution to ban all use of alcohol. You can read the article at http://www.timellsworth.com/?p=1041. When trying to find more information about this resolution, I found this article at http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=23481. I will now give you the opportunity to read both pages.
Okay. I'll start off with some positive things to say. The resolution is not binding on individual churches. So if any individual SBC-affiliated church decides to allow its members to drink in moderation, there will be no punishment visited upon that church or its drinking members. Secondly, the Baptist Press article mentions my man Tom Ascol of the Founders Ministries speaking against the resolution, and that is just grand. I refer to him as "my man" because I have decided that Dr. Ascol is one of my favorite people. His blog is probably my favorite to read, and his theology is always spot on. And whereas he may not go as deep as often as people like Dr. James White, he has such a gracious personality that I can't help but regard him as my favorite Reformed Baptist theologian. But I digress.
Now what can I say negatively about this resolution? Probably a lot.
To begin with, the powers that be in the SBC make the common mistake of not differentiating between using alcohol and abusing alcohol.
Provers 23:30 says that "They that tarry long at the wine" are the ones who suffer. Admittedly, how long "long" is is somewhat subjective, but anybody (at least when talking about any other topic) would agree that there is a difference between "tarrying long" at something and using it in moderation. As some of the commentators at Tim Ellsworth's blog pointed out, the same Proverb speaks against gluttony and adultery, but that doesn't mean that we should completely abstain from food and women.
The simple truth is that every time the Bible speaks against alcohol is when it is speaking against drunkenness. "Oh, well," says the ignorant objector, "nobody knows how much alcohol it takes to make a person drunk, so it is bes to avoid it all together." "Oh, well," I could just as easily retort, "nobody knows how much food it takes to make them a glutton, so we should just starve to death." "Now Stephen," you may say, "you're just being difficult. There is a huge different between the two!" Oh really? How so? How are the Biblical injuctions against drunkenness any different than the injunctions against gluttony? They are almost always in the same context and usually in the same verses! "Well," you say, "it is different because the Bible obviously expects us to eat." It also expects us to enjoy wine now and then. I could give all the examples in the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, that give examples of wine being called a blessing from God (if you deny that then you're no longer an inerrantist, Mr. Fundy), or of Jesus drinking wine, or of Paul recommending wine to Timothy. And here is where the real ignorance comes in. "But," you say, "that wasn't wine like we know it. It was so watered down so as to be only 1% alcoholic." How do you know that? 'Cause your pastor told you so? Because you read it in a pamphlet and just accepted the author's word for it? Or because you've done a word study of the Hebrew and Greek words used for wine? It's obviously not the latter or else you would have discovered that there IS NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER between the wine mentioned postively in the Bible and the wine mentioned negatively. Even the wine that silly people say was barely alcoholic still made people drunk! If the wine in Jesus' time was just grape juice, then how did so many people get drunk off of it? If it was just grape juice then all of the Biblical commands against drunkenness would be silly! No, that wine that Jesus drank was probably around 13% alcoholic and made people drunk when they drank too much. You see, back in those days they didn't have pasteurization or refrigeration or other of the modern preservative techniques that we have to give us nice grape juice. Unless they drank all of the juice as soon as it was squeezed out (unlikely because then they'd have nothing to drink during the non-growing months), the juice either quickly fermented or turned into vinegar. And the fermentation process could not be stopped except by the natural way of when the alcohol content reaches a certain point that it begins killing the yeast that causes fermentation, and that point is about 12-17%.
Now then, what about this statement in the resolution that "some religious leaders...are now advocating the consumption of alcoholic beverages based on a misinterpretation of the doctrine of 'our freedom in Christ'"? How is this a misinterpretation? I'd like some exposition on this. Unfortunately, I'm looking in the wrong place. Does now our freedom in Christ allow us to exercise our own judgment on matters not prohibited by the Bible? Would that not be an accurate interpretation? And is that not an accurate assessment of the alcohol issue? The moderate use of alcohol is not prohibited by the Bible, therefore Christians are free to drink or abstain as they wish?
Finally, we are told that "Also added to this resolution was an amendment urging the SBC to disallow anyone who drinks alcohol from serving as an entity/agency trustee or an SBC committee member." I do not consider myself a drinker because having a glass of wine every 3 months or so just doesn't seem to cut it. Nevertheless, since that is not complete abstinence, I'm sure that the bigwigs in the SBC would consider me as a person who drinks alcohol. I'm sure that they would consider a person such as Dr. Kenneth Gentry, who does not drink at all but nevertheless writes in favor of moderate drinking, a drinker. Because the facts don't really matter, it's just whose side you're on. Anyway, I guess it is a good thing that I would never be able to serve as an entity/agency trustee or an SBC committee member anyway because I'm not one of the "good ol' boys." After all, I would need Paige Patterson's endoresment to get a job anywhere high up in the SBC, and since I'm a Calvinist, that would never happen.
By the way, good ol' boy Paige mentioned this issue during his "discussion" about Calvinist with Dr. Al Mohler, Patterson said something to the effect that Calvinism concerns him because in some Calvinistic circles there is a tendency towards antinomianism-even saying that Christians are allowed to drink alcohol!
Now look here, Paige Patterson, the proper definition of an antinomian is a person who does not believe that God's law is binding on a believer. God's law, not your law, Mr. Patterson. It is true that many Calvinists do believe that Christians may drink in moderation freely, but I have yet to meet an antinomian Calvinist. As Patterson said earlier in his speech, when saying some positive traits of Calvinists, they are often lead lives of extreme holiness and piety. Which is it, Paige? Do Calvinists advocate holiness or antinomianism? You can't have it both ways. If you want to root out antinomianism in the SBC, then go after your Dispensational friends. That is where that brand of error thrives the most today. I would say that the majority of Southern Baptists are practical antinomians, and where you find the minority that are not is in the Calvinistic churches.
But of course, I am speaking as if being holy meant being faithful to God's law and obeying His precepts. Paige Patterson and the other fundamentalists are more concernted with obeying man's law. Too bad that such issues as the inerrancy of Scripture and the literal blood atonement of Christ are no longer "fundamentals" of the faith. I think persons such as myself should be called fundamentalists and the others should be called peripheralists. And just in case any of you should think that I'm a liberal because of my denunciation of fundamentalism, let me tell you what I think of liberals--I think they should be called "none-of-the-above-ists." That is, they don't believe in the fundamentals or the peripherals. They don't believe in anything that is Christianity. I agree with J. Gresham Machen that the struggle with liberalism isn't a struggle within the church, it is a struggle against the church. It isn't "Conservatism vs. Liberalism", it is "Christianity vs. Liberalism."
And so I have ended on another digression (I do that a lot).
Okay. I'll start off with some positive things to say. The resolution is not binding on individual churches. So if any individual SBC-affiliated church decides to allow its members to drink in moderation, there will be no punishment visited upon that church or its drinking members. Secondly, the Baptist Press article mentions my man Tom Ascol of the Founders Ministries speaking against the resolution, and that is just grand. I refer to him as "my man" because I have decided that Dr. Ascol is one of my favorite people. His blog is probably my favorite to read, and his theology is always spot on. And whereas he may not go as deep as often as people like Dr. James White, he has such a gracious personality that I can't help but regard him as my favorite Reformed Baptist theologian. But I digress.
Now what can I say negatively about this resolution? Probably a lot.
To begin with, the powers that be in the SBC make the common mistake of not differentiating between using alcohol and abusing alcohol.
WHEREAS, Years of research confirm biblical warnings that alcohol use leads to physical, mental, and emotional damage (e.g., Proverbs 23:29-35)
Provers 23:30 says that "They that tarry long at the wine" are the ones who suffer. Admittedly, how long "long" is is somewhat subjective, but anybody (at least when talking about any other topic) would agree that there is a difference between "tarrying long" at something and using it in moderation. As some of the commentators at Tim Ellsworth's blog pointed out, the same Proverb speaks against gluttony and adultery, but that doesn't mean that we should completely abstain from food and women.
The simple truth is that every time the Bible speaks against alcohol is when it is speaking against drunkenness. "Oh, well," says the ignorant objector, "nobody knows how much alcohol it takes to make a person drunk, so it is bes to avoid it all together." "Oh, well," I could just as easily retort, "nobody knows how much food it takes to make them a glutton, so we should just starve to death." "Now Stephen," you may say, "you're just being difficult. There is a huge different between the two!" Oh really? How so? How are the Biblical injuctions against drunkenness any different than the injunctions against gluttony? They are almost always in the same context and usually in the same verses! "Well," you say, "it is different because the Bible obviously expects us to eat." It also expects us to enjoy wine now and then. I could give all the examples in the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, that give examples of wine being called a blessing from God (if you deny that then you're no longer an inerrantist, Mr. Fundy), or of Jesus drinking wine, or of Paul recommending wine to Timothy. And here is where the real ignorance comes in. "But," you say, "that wasn't wine like we know it. It was so watered down so as to be only 1% alcoholic." How do you know that? 'Cause your pastor told you so? Because you read it in a pamphlet and just accepted the author's word for it? Or because you've done a word study of the Hebrew and Greek words used for wine? It's obviously not the latter or else you would have discovered that there IS NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER between the wine mentioned postively in the Bible and the wine mentioned negatively. Even the wine that silly people say was barely alcoholic still made people drunk! If the wine in Jesus' time was just grape juice, then how did so many people get drunk off of it? If it was just grape juice then all of the Biblical commands against drunkenness would be silly! No, that wine that Jesus drank was probably around 13% alcoholic and made people drunk when they drank too much. You see, back in those days they didn't have pasteurization or refrigeration or other of the modern preservative techniques that we have to give us nice grape juice. Unless they drank all of the juice as soon as it was squeezed out (unlikely because then they'd have nothing to drink during the non-growing months), the juice either quickly fermented or turned into vinegar. And the fermentation process could not be stopped except by the natural way of when the alcohol content reaches a certain point that it begins killing the yeast that causes fermentation, and that point is about 12-17%.
Now then, what about this statement in the resolution that "some religious leaders...are now advocating the consumption of alcoholic beverages based on a misinterpretation of the doctrine of 'our freedom in Christ'"? How is this a misinterpretation? I'd like some exposition on this. Unfortunately, I'm looking in the wrong place. Does now our freedom in Christ allow us to exercise our own judgment on matters not prohibited by the Bible? Would that not be an accurate interpretation? And is that not an accurate assessment of the alcohol issue? The moderate use of alcohol is not prohibited by the Bible, therefore Christians are free to drink or abstain as they wish?
Finally, we are told that "Also added to this resolution was an amendment urging the SBC to disallow anyone who drinks alcohol from serving as an entity/agency trustee or an SBC committee member." I do not consider myself a drinker because having a glass of wine every 3 months or so just doesn't seem to cut it. Nevertheless, since that is not complete abstinence, I'm sure that the bigwigs in the SBC would consider me as a person who drinks alcohol. I'm sure that they would consider a person such as Dr. Kenneth Gentry, who does not drink at all but nevertheless writes in favor of moderate drinking, a drinker. Because the facts don't really matter, it's just whose side you're on. Anyway, I guess it is a good thing that I would never be able to serve as an entity/agency trustee or an SBC committee member anyway because I'm not one of the "good ol' boys." After all, I would need Paige Patterson's endoresment to get a job anywhere high up in the SBC, and since I'm a Calvinist, that would never happen.
By the way, good ol' boy Paige mentioned this issue during his "discussion" about Calvinist with Dr. Al Mohler, Patterson said something to the effect that Calvinism concerns him because in some Calvinistic circles there is a tendency towards antinomianism-even saying that Christians are allowed to drink alcohol!
Now look here, Paige Patterson, the proper definition of an antinomian is a person who does not believe that God's law is binding on a believer. God's law, not your law, Mr. Patterson. It is true that many Calvinists do believe that Christians may drink in moderation freely, but I have yet to meet an antinomian Calvinist. As Patterson said earlier in his speech, when saying some positive traits of Calvinists, they are often lead lives of extreme holiness and piety. Which is it, Paige? Do Calvinists advocate holiness or antinomianism? You can't have it both ways. If you want to root out antinomianism in the SBC, then go after your Dispensational friends. That is where that brand of error thrives the most today. I would say that the majority of Southern Baptists are practical antinomians, and where you find the minority that are not is in the Calvinistic churches.
But of course, I am speaking as if being holy meant being faithful to God's law and obeying His precepts. Paige Patterson and the other fundamentalists are more concernted with obeying man's law. Too bad that such issues as the inerrancy of Scripture and the literal blood atonement of Christ are no longer "fundamentals" of the faith. I think persons such as myself should be called fundamentalists and the others should be called peripheralists. And just in case any of you should think that I'm a liberal because of my denunciation of fundamentalism, let me tell you what I think of liberals--I think they should be called "none-of-the-above-ists." That is, they don't believe in the fundamentals or the peripherals. They don't believe in anything that is Christianity. I agree with J. Gresham Machen that the struggle with liberalism isn't a struggle within the church, it is a struggle against the church. It isn't "Conservatism vs. Liberalism", it is "Christianity vs. Liberalism."
And so I have ended on another digression (I do that a lot).
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
6-6-06
Well, the clock on the wall says that today is 6-6-06, and dumb people are getting dumber. I just want to remind all of my gentle readers of what the Bible actually says: "This calls for wisdom: let the one who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, and his number is 666" (emphasis mine). So you see, the number refers to a man, and not to a date or UPC or anything else. Also, the number 666 is perhaps better translated as "six hundred sixty-six." What is the difference, you may ask? Simple. The number is not merely a set of three sixes, but is a whole number made up of six hundred sixty-six smaller numbers. So John the Revelator wasn't telling us to look for a series of sixes, but the actual number 666. But it's so fun to turn Christianity into just another kook superstition, isn't it? Rather than paying attention to what was actually written in the Bible, let's make up all sorts of silly things to go along with it and start getting spooked by every little thing that comes our way. The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
Friday, April 28, 2006
The Resurrection Conspiracy
I realize that this post is a bit behind the times, what with it being Easter related and all, and Easter is now past, but oh well. Back during the Easter week, I listened to a sermon by John MacArthur at www.gty.org from his series called The Murder of Jesus. It was about the Resurrection, and how Matthew seemed to be offering an apologetic for the resurrection using negative testimony. That is to say, rather than quoting everybody who did see the resurrected Christ, Matthew wrote about the Jewish leaders' conspiracy to make it appear that Christ's body had been stolen. It is as if Matthew was saying, "Look, you know Jesus rose from the dead because even His enemies tacitly acknowledged His resurrection by knowingly crafting a lie." The lie that the Jewish leaders concocted was that the disciples stole Jesus' body. That way, their beloved friend won't have looked like an idiot for predicting His resurrection. That, said MacArthur, was the only other explanation that could possibly be believed by anyone. I started thinking about all this, and I had a thought. Dr. MacArthur didn't mention this, it was must me going off on a tangent. Here is my thought:
Over and over again in the Gospels, we read of Jesus making comments about His impending death and resurrection, and we always then read of how His disciples had no idea what He was talking about. By the time you're done reading it all, one fact is firmly implanted into your brain: the disciples were absolutely clueless about Jesus' death and resurrection. His crucifixion came as a complete surprise to them, and it obviously left them very disappointed and disillusioned men. So then I thought this: If the disciples had no idea that Jesus was going to come back to life, it would never have occurred to them to steal Jesus' body! If we can accept the Scriptural testimony that the disciples were completely ignorant of Jesus' return to life, then that blows another hole in the anti-resurrection conspiracy.
Over and over again in the Gospels, we read of Jesus making comments about His impending death and resurrection, and we always then read of how His disciples had no idea what He was talking about. By the time you're done reading it all, one fact is firmly implanted into your brain: the disciples were absolutely clueless about Jesus' death and resurrection. His crucifixion came as a complete surprise to them, and it obviously left them very disappointed and disillusioned men. So then I thought this: If the disciples had no idea that Jesus was going to come back to life, it would never have occurred to them to steal Jesus' body! If we can accept the Scriptural testimony that the disciples were completely ignorant of Jesus' return to life, then that blows another hole in the anti-resurrection conspiracy.
Saturday, April 15, 2006
The Interconnectedness of All Things
Lately I've been in a big George Harrison mood. I've been listening to all of his albums (or all of that I've got, anyway) over and over again. Keep that in mind.
I've also been on a bit of a Peter Sellers kick. I've been watching the Pink Panther movies, and I decided to listen to one of the discs from my Celebration of Sellers boxed set, a collection of his comedy albums. One lady that Sellers collaborated with on some tracks was a comedienne named Irene Handl. She seems pretty funny, so I thought I'd look up some information on her. It turns out that she was in the movie Wonderwall, with music by George Harrison (that soundtrack is one of the two George Harrison albums that I do not yet have). I noticed that the screenplay for this movie was written by G. Cabrera Infante, an author of Cuban birth who writes beautiful (though often smutty) prose. One of his cleaner books, Holy Smoke, is a beautifully written book, clever and funny, as well as informative. It is about cigars, one of my other great passions. That book is one of my favorites. But I didn't know that he wrote screenplays. I looked to see what other screenplays he had done, and one is Vanishing Point. Well, this movie features a line quoted by Axl Rose in the Guns 'N' Roses song "Breakdown." GNR is one of my favorite bands. Vanishing Point also features "Delaney & Bonnie and Friends", a group that George Harrison played around with, and most of which backed him up on his smash album All Things Must Pass.
Isn't it fun how all these things just connect together? Dirk Gently would be proud.
I've also been on a bit of a Peter Sellers kick. I've been watching the Pink Panther movies, and I decided to listen to one of the discs from my Celebration of Sellers boxed set, a collection of his comedy albums. One lady that Sellers collaborated with on some tracks was a comedienne named Irene Handl. She seems pretty funny, so I thought I'd look up some information on her. It turns out that she was in the movie Wonderwall, with music by George Harrison (that soundtrack is one of the two George Harrison albums that I do not yet have). I noticed that the screenplay for this movie was written by G. Cabrera Infante, an author of Cuban birth who writes beautiful (though often smutty) prose. One of his cleaner books, Holy Smoke, is a beautifully written book, clever and funny, as well as informative. It is about cigars, one of my other great passions. That book is one of my favorites. But I didn't know that he wrote screenplays. I looked to see what other screenplays he had done, and one is Vanishing Point. Well, this movie features a line quoted by Axl Rose in the Guns 'N' Roses song "Breakdown." GNR is one of my favorite bands. Vanishing Point also features "Delaney & Bonnie and Friends", a group that George Harrison played around with, and most of which backed him up on his smash album All Things Must Pass.
Isn't it fun how all these things just connect together? Dirk Gently would be proud.
Thursday, March 16, 2006
Beatlemania
I am a Beatles fan. The Beatles were the ones who made me want to play guitar. All my life consisted of for my teenage years was just The Beatles. As I got older I developed interest into other bands that took up more of my time and album-collecting energy, but the Beatles still hold that special spot in my heart as the Honorary Best Band Ever. Tonight I watched my DVD of their first film, A Hard Day's Night, plus one of the documentaries included. As I watched the documentary and they talked about the opening showings in London and Liverpool and whatnot, I had a thought. Which was this: Imagine how aggravating it would have been to not be a Beatles fan and trying to enjoy an evening in London's West End on the opening day of that film. Teenagers everywhere. I found London to be a little too crowded as it is. Can you imagine trying in to take in a little bit of the theater while all of that was going on next door? Criminy. Of course, only a fool would not be a Beatles fan, so I have no sympathy. Another thought that I've had for years is how it would have been to be a male teenage fan during Beatlemania. All of the media focus was on all the screaming girls, so male fans would probably have been perceived as a little gay. Oh well. I would have tried to get into a concert, too.
Friday, February 24, 2006
Inerrant Revelation
When it comes to eschatology, I am a partial preterist. Being a partial preterist, I like to think that I interpret the Bible sensus literalis, that is, in the literal sense in which it was written. In other words, poetry is interpreted as poetry, historical narrative is interpreted as historical narrative, etc. And first and foremost, I believe that Scripture is the best interpreter of Scripture. If I come across a passage that is hard to understand, I compare it to similar passages that are more easily understood. Despite all of this, your average Dispensationalist (like the guys who write for Jerry Falwell's newspaper) will accuse my kind of not taking Scripture literally, and will perhaps slip in the accusation of liberalism somewhere (especially towards those of us who are Postmillennial). Which is all very odd. There are many different examples of how this can be proved false, some of which I may have posted in the past (I'm too old to remember what I've written, and too lazy to check). Today, I will provide just one or two examples of why partial-preterism is more literal in its hermeneutic than is Dispensationalism, and why it allows less leeway for liberalism.
My example comes from the book of Revelation, chapter 6, verses 12-17:
Many people look at this and say, "Here, now, this must be about the end of all things, and not just the destruction of Jerusalem, as you preterist say. You're just not interpreting it literally!"
Well, I am interpreting it in the sense it which it was written, which is apocalyptic literature, which is full of symbols and imagery. This can be seen by looking at all the Old Testament prophecies which have all been fulfilled but not in woodenly "literal" ways. And I'll get to some of those in just a moment.
But before I get to my Scriptural argument, I will use an argument from God-given reason. If these verses describe the destruction of all creation as we know it, then how is that people are able to call upon the mountains and rocks to cover them? The mountains and rocks will be destroyed, so they are no help! Unless perhaps this isn't a reference to the end of creation...
But on a more Biblical note, I can live with being accused of not taking the passage literally if that means that I am interpreting Scripture with Scripture, because that is a much better method than any man-made method of interpretation. First of all, if we've been comparing Revelation with Jesus' Olivet Discourse in the Gospels, (as most schools of eschatological thought do), then we see that this coincides with the Great Tribulation that Jesus spoke of, for instance, in Luke 21:25-27. But when does Jesus say that this will occur? Luke 21:32 says that it would all occur before the generation to whom Jesus spoke would pass away. Forget Tim LaHaye, let Jesus interpret this passage for us! He states clearly that it would happen within one generation's time.
Now at this point your futurist (among whom the Dispensationalists are the most numerous and vehement) will do all sorts of flip-flops to make "this generation" mean anything but what it literally means!
What's more, the imagery of Revelation 6:12-17 is also seen in many other places. Let's look. There is Joseph’s dream in Genesis 37 showing the tribes of Israel as being stars and sun and moon. Judges 5:19-20 represents warring nations as stars. In Isaiah 13:10, we see the apocalyptic stellar imagery used to predict the judgement that came on Babylon. See similar instances of this imagery used about judgements that occurred before the time of Christ in Isaiah 34:4, Ezekial 32:7, Amos 8:9, Joel 2:10, and Joel 2:28-32. This last passage is particularly interesting because, just in case it should be stubbornly denied that the other prophecies have already found completion, the Bible makes it clear that Joel 2:28-32 has already come to pass.
In Acts chapter 2, Peter quotes Joel 2:28-32 (which mentions the sun being turned to darkness and the moon turning to blood) right after saying that it applies to their day. There can be no denying that the sun did not literally go dark nor the moon turn to blood at Pentecost! Rather, the only possible explanation after viewing all of these Scripture passages in their proper contexts, is to believe that the cosmic imagery refers to the overturning of the old ways to make room for the new. Revelation 6 is telling of how the Jewish way of life with the temple and the offering of blood sacrifices, etc, was coming to an end. A new way of life, a new creation was being inaugurated. That is what Peter meant. To continue to believe in a dramatic Dispensational futurist model is to kick against the goads.
Which, as much as I hate to say it because I respect this man greatly, John MacArthur does. He does this in an otherwise excellent chapter on the speaking of tongues in his book Charismatic Chaos. Dr. MacArthur takes the cessationist point of view, which says that the miraculous gifts ceased with the end of the Apostles. To which I agree. He then goes on to say, however, that these gifts will resume at the end-times, because they are mentioned in Joel 2:28, and Joel 2:28 is referring to the end-times. But Peter says that Joel 2:28 was referring to Pentecost in the first century! As much as I love Dr. John MacArthur, I am going to have to side with the Apostle Peter on this one. I'd rather interpret the Bible with the Bible than with the traditions of even well-loved men.
Thus far I have demonstrated with an example that partial-preterists are much more Bible-honoring in that they interpret Scripture with Scripture rather than with the imaginations of men, as futurists do. I have also shown, with the "this generation" bit, that preterists really do interpret the Bible more literally than Dispensationalists. But now I have one final thing to say. It is in regard to the charge of liberalism.
First of all, R.C. Sproul gives an excellent reason why partial-preterism is a great apologetic against liberalism in his book and series, The Last Days According to Jesus. To summarize his argument, it goes something like this. The critic says: "Jesus says that the end of the world would come within His generation. This, obviously, did not happen. Therefore Jesus was a false prophet. Therefore the whole Christian religion is false."
Now the Christian has two options open to him. He can, as the futurists do, say that Jesus was talking about the end of the world, but that "this generation" does not mean "this generation." As I have already shown, this does much dishonor to the text of Scripture.
The second option would be to say that Jesus was talking about a judgement that was not the end of the world, and that "this generation" does mean "this generation." And when you compare the historical accounts of the Jewish war and the destruction of Jerusalem with the Olivet discourse, you discover that Jesus was indeed correct in his prediction, and in very great detail, at that (not some sort of vague prophecy which anything could fulfill). Thus, the truthfulness of Jesus is more prominent than ever.
So which is it? The approach that leaves the skeptic saying, "I still believe Jesus was a false prophet because your "this generation does not mean this generation" ploy is just ridiculous and stupid, or the approach that silences the skeptic because it demonstrated Jesus to have been absolutely correct? Who opens the door for liberalism now?
Finally, I will talk about liberalism regarding a topic that drives me nuts. I have had heard many a preacher who confesses the Bible to be inerrant, to say something like this: "It is obvious that the apostles believed in a soon return of Christ, but they were wrong." They may even say, "Jesus thought He would return soon, but was mistaken. And that's okay because He said He didn't know the day or the hour." It's not okay. If you make statements like these, then you are throwing out inerrancy. I agree that the apostles may have mistaken ideas, but God would not have allowed them to write those mistaken ideas into Scripture. Everything that has been providentially preserved for us is without the error of merely human authors. The Bible was breathed out by God, and since He is perfect, then His Word is perfect. If Jesus was not sure about something, He would have not offered His guess. That was not the way respectable rabbis taught, and it is not the way that the Lord of all truth would have taught. Everything that Jesus said would happen has happened or will happen exactly when He said they would happen. We cannot, as responsible Christians, claim otherwise. If there is a mistake, it is not with the Biblical authors. It must be with the reader. If you read the Olivet discourse and decide that Jesus made a mistake, then you can be sure that it is your interpretation that is in error.
That's all I've got to say about that.
My example comes from the book of Revelation, chapter 6, verses 12-17:
12 When he opened the sixth seal, I looked, and behold, there was a great earthquake, and the sun became black as sackcloth, the full moon became like blood, 13 and the stars of the sky fell to the earth as the fig tree sheds its winter fruit when shaken by a gale. 14 The sky vanished like a scroll that is being rolled up, and every mountain and island was removed from its place. 15 Then the kings of the earth and the great ones and the generals and the rich and the powerful, and everyone, slave and free, hid themselves in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains, 16 calling to the mountains and rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who is seated on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb, 17 for the great day of their wrath has come, and who can stand?”
Many people look at this and say, "Here, now, this must be about the end of all things, and not just the destruction of Jerusalem, as you preterist say. You're just not interpreting it literally!"
Well, I am interpreting it in the sense it which it was written, which is apocalyptic literature, which is full of symbols and imagery. This can be seen by looking at all the Old Testament prophecies which have all been fulfilled but not in woodenly "literal" ways. And I'll get to some of those in just a moment.
But before I get to my Scriptural argument, I will use an argument from God-given reason. If these verses describe the destruction of all creation as we know it, then how is that people are able to call upon the mountains and rocks to cover them? The mountains and rocks will be destroyed, so they are no help! Unless perhaps this isn't a reference to the end of creation...
But on a more Biblical note, I can live with being accused of not taking the passage literally if that means that I am interpreting Scripture with Scripture, because that is a much better method than any man-made method of interpretation. First of all, if we've been comparing Revelation with Jesus' Olivet Discourse in the Gospels, (as most schools of eschatological thought do), then we see that this coincides with the Great Tribulation that Jesus spoke of, for instance, in Luke 21:25-27. But when does Jesus say that this will occur? Luke 21:32 says that it would all occur before the generation to whom Jesus spoke would pass away. Forget Tim LaHaye, let Jesus interpret this passage for us! He states clearly that it would happen within one generation's time.
Now at this point your futurist (among whom the Dispensationalists are the most numerous and vehement) will do all sorts of flip-flops to make "this generation" mean anything but what it literally means!
What's more, the imagery of Revelation 6:12-17 is also seen in many other places. Let's look. There is Joseph’s dream in Genesis 37 showing the tribes of Israel as being stars and sun and moon. Judges 5:19-20 represents warring nations as stars. In Isaiah 13:10, we see the apocalyptic stellar imagery used to predict the judgement that came on Babylon. See similar instances of this imagery used about judgements that occurred before the time of Christ in Isaiah 34:4, Ezekial 32:7, Amos 8:9, Joel 2:10, and Joel 2:28-32. This last passage is particularly interesting because, just in case it should be stubbornly denied that the other prophecies have already found completion, the Bible makes it clear that Joel 2:28-32 has already come to pass.
In Acts chapter 2, Peter quotes Joel 2:28-32 (which mentions the sun being turned to darkness and the moon turning to blood) right after saying that it applies to their day. There can be no denying that the sun did not literally go dark nor the moon turn to blood at Pentecost! Rather, the only possible explanation after viewing all of these Scripture passages in their proper contexts, is to believe that the cosmic imagery refers to the overturning of the old ways to make room for the new. Revelation 6 is telling of how the Jewish way of life with the temple and the offering of blood sacrifices, etc, was coming to an end. A new way of life, a new creation was being inaugurated. That is what Peter meant. To continue to believe in a dramatic Dispensational futurist model is to kick against the goads.
Which, as much as I hate to say it because I respect this man greatly, John MacArthur does. He does this in an otherwise excellent chapter on the speaking of tongues in his book Charismatic Chaos. Dr. MacArthur takes the cessationist point of view, which says that the miraculous gifts ceased with the end of the Apostles. To which I agree. He then goes on to say, however, that these gifts will resume at the end-times, because they are mentioned in Joel 2:28, and Joel 2:28 is referring to the end-times. But Peter says that Joel 2:28 was referring to Pentecost in the first century! As much as I love Dr. John MacArthur, I am going to have to side with the Apostle Peter on this one. I'd rather interpret the Bible with the Bible than with the traditions of even well-loved men.
Thus far I have demonstrated with an example that partial-preterists are much more Bible-honoring in that they interpret Scripture with Scripture rather than with the imaginations of men, as futurists do. I have also shown, with the "this generation" bit, that preterists really do interpret the Bible more literally than Dispensationalists. But now I have one final thing to say. It is in regard to the charge of liberalism.
First of all, R.C. Sproul gives an excellent reason why partial-preterism is a great apologetic against liberalism in his book and series, The Last Days According to Jesus. To summarize his argument, it goes something like this. The critic says: "Jesus says that the end of the world would come within His generation. This, obviously, did not happen. Therefore Jesus was a false prophet. Therefore the whole Christian religion is false."
Now the Christian has two options open to him. He can, as the futurists do, say that Jesus was talking about the end of the world, but that "this generation" does not mean "this generation." As I have already shown, this does much dishonor to the text of Scripture.
The second option would be to say that Jesus was talking about a judgement that was not the end of the world, and that "this generation" does mean "this generation." And when you compare the historical accounts of the Jewish war and the destruction of Jerusalem with the Olivet discourse, you discover that Jesus was indeed correct in his prediction, and in very great detail, at that (not some sort of vague prophecy which anything could fulfill). Thus, the truthfulness of Jesus is more prominent than ever.
So which is it? The approach that leaves the skeptic saying, "I still believe Jesus was a false prophet because your "this generation does not mean this generation" ploy is just ridiculous and stupid, or the approach that silences the skeptic because it demonstrated Jesus to have been absolutely correct? Who opens the door for liberalism now?
Finally, I will talk about liberalism regarding a topic that drives me nuts. I have had heard many a preacher who confesses the Bible to be inerrant, to say something like this: "It is obvious that the apostles believed in a soon return of Christ, but they were wrong." They may even say, "Jesus thought He would return soon, but was mistaken. And that's okay because He said He didn't know the day or the hour." It's not okay. If you make statements like these, then you are throwing out inerrancy. I agree that the apostles may have mistaken ideas, but God would not have allowed them to write those mistaken ideas into Scripture. Everything that has been providentially preserved for us is without the error of merely human authors. The Bible was breathed out by God, and since He is perfect, then His Word is perfect. If Jesus was not sure about something, He would have not offered His guess. That was not the way respectable rabbis taught, and it is not the way that the Lord of all truth would have taught. Everything that Jesus said would happen has happened or will happen exactly when He said they would happen. We cannot, as responsible Christians, claim otherwise. If there is a mistake, it is not with the Biblical authors. It must be with the reader. If you read the Olivet discourse and decide that Jesus made a mistake, then you can be sure that it is your interpretation that is in error.
That's all I've got to say about that.
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
Hippity Hoppity Crappity
"Hip-hop has what all corporate America wants--18-35-year-old employed adults with growing families. That's why you see Russell Simmons producing clothes, Snoop Dogg hawking Chrysler. Everyone wants us. Why not the church?"
Tommy Kyllonen
Senior pastor of hip-hip Crossover Community Church in Tampa, Fla. (USA Today/RNS)
A: Because what the world wants is not the same thing as what God wants. The Bible is a much better mouthpiece for God than is Russell Simmons or Snoop Dogg.
Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect. --Romans 12:2
Tommy Kyllonen
Senior pastor of hip-hip Crossover Community Church in Tampa, Fla. (USA Today/RNS)
A: Because what the world wants is not the same thing as what God wants. The Bible is a much better mouthpiece for God than is Russell Simmons or Snoop Dogg.
Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect. --Romans 12:2
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
Legalism in Our Midst
As much as I respect Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and admire his stand on Calvinism despite the fact that so many of his peers are dead-set against it, I have to admit that I think that he can be a legalist. I'm sure some of my Moderate Baptist brethren would say, "Duh, we could have told you that," but I am not concerned with all of those debates. No, the matter that I have in mind is the forcing of parenthood upon married couples. Dr. Mohler recently appeared on CNN to push his legalistic views on the nation. Read his own account of it at http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=416. He has also talked about this sort of thing in the past. A few articles can be found here and here.
For Dr. Mohler, intentional childlessness on the part of married couples is sin. Why? Because children are a gift from God. We are commanded to receive gifts from God with joy. But does this mean that we must demand this gift? Does the word "gift" imply that we must demand it? It does not. For some gifts, we are commanded to seek after them, such as the grace of salvation. But the Bible does not command that all couples in all generations until the end of the world are to procreate. The Bible says that a good wife is far more precious than jewels (Proverbs 31:10), but Paul says that it is better not to marry (1 Corinthians 7:8). Being as Dr. Mohler is an avid defender of the expositional style of preaching (for which I am grateful), it is surprising to see that this is all the Scripture that Mohler uses to defend his case, and he doesn't even exegete it.
What about the command to Adam and Eve and Noah to go forth and multiply? Does that apply to everybody? Obviously not, and on this Dr. Mohler would agree. Since Paul writes of the preference for the single life over married life, it is obvious that God does not intend everybody to marry. And it is also very obvious from God's law that only married people should procreate. So no, as Dr. Mohler would agree with me, the multiplication mandate given to Adam is not for everybody, just for those who marry. How are we to infer this from the text? I believe that it is reading the Bible through the lenses of tradition. God is speaking to Adam and Eve. And though I agree that the command probably includes future generations, we cannot dogmatically say so. He was speaking to specific people, and the command He gave them had a specific purpose. Christ was to come in to the world so that Adam and Eve could be saved. Therefore, they had to procreate so that Christ would come. Same for Noah, of course. But does this mean that everybody should procreate? I don't think that there is enough evidence in the Bible to dogmatically affirm that to choose childlessness is to sin.
Personally, I think that the multiplication mandate was for the old covenant only. It finds its new covenant fulfillment in the Great Commission. And besides, how full does the earth have to be until the mandate is fulfilled? How are we to judge? I could imagine a paedobaptist being keen on this mandatory procreation idea, because that would mean filling the earth up with more Christians that way. But for a credobaptist to take this position is just silly. The main priority for Christian couples is to help each other in bring the Gospel to the lost. Children are secondary.
But ultimately, what does Scripture say is the purpose of marriage? We find it in Genesis 2:18-25. God decided to give Adam a "fit helper." It does not say that Adam needed fit helpers. It does not say that Adam needed someone who would help him create even more helpers. Adam just needed one. And in verse 24 we find a Biblical command for marriage: "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife and they shall become one flesh." That is all you will find regarding dogmatic commands for all married couples.
Now don't get me wrong; I am not saying that people should not have children. I am just saying that it is not a sin if they choose not to. If it was, then we would have it listed in Leviticus with some sort of punishment involved for violating it. There is no such law. We should not impose upon believers what God does not impose. That is the very definition of legalism.
I am certain that the matter of procreation falls under the same category as Paul's instructions concerning marriage. Just as it is better to not marry but it is certainly not wrong to marry, so it may be better to have children, but it is not wrong to not have children by choice. Speaking of this particular passage in 1 Corinthians, after Paul gives his instructions to single people, he has specific instructions for married people (7:10-11). Not one word is said about procreation. In the preceding paragraphs, Paul speaks of marriage as a means to avoid fornication. So there he speaks explicitly about marriage and sex, but he does not talk about procreation.
If you want to believe that you should have children lest you sin, fine. It is just like abstaining from food offered to idols. That is your perogative, and your duty if you really believe it. But you cannot force a concept that is nowhere found in Scripture upon other believers. That is extra-biblical, which is legalism.
I know that this idea of mandatory procreation is popular among Reformed folk, and I might even be in the minority. But I feel convinced that such a concept cannot be supported by Scripture either explicity or by necessary inference. I think the only thing that can be inferred from Scripture is that children are a blessing and yahoo for those who get them, and that specific people such as Adam, Eve, Noah, and the ancestors of Christ and the Jewish people, were to multiply. But that is all that can be deduced from Scripture. To add more than that to the consciences of men is to bind them with legalism.
For Dr. Mohler, intentional childlessness on the part of married couples is sin. Why? Because children are a gift from God. We are commanded to receive gifts from God with joy. But does this mean that we must demand this gift? Does the word "gift" imply that we must demand it? It does not. For some gifts, we are commanded to seek after them, such as the grace of salvation. But the Bible does not command that all couples in all generations until the end of the world are to procreate. The Bible says that a good wife is far more precious than jewels (Proverbs 31:10), but Paul says that it is better not to marry (1 Corinthians 7:8). Being as Dr. Mohler is an avid defender of the expositional style of preaching (for which I am grateful), it is surprising to see that this is all the Scripture that Mohler uses to defend his case, and he doesn't even exegete it.
What about the command to Adam and Eve and Noah to go forth and multiply? Does that apply to everybody? Obviously not, and on this Dr. Mohler would agree. Since Paul writes of the preference for the single life over married life, it is obvious that God does not intend everybody to marry. And it is also very obvious from God's law that only married people should procreate. So no, as Dr. Mohler would agree with me, the multiplication mandate given to Adam is not for everybody, just for those who marry. How are we to infer this from the text? I believe that it is reading the Bible through the lenses of tradition. God is speaking to Adam and Eve. And though I agree that the command probably includes future generations, we cannot dogmatically say so. He was speaking to specific people, and the command He gave them had a specific purpose. Christ was to come in to the world so that Adam and Eve could be saved. Therefore, they had to procreate so that Christ would come. Same for Noah, of course. But does this mean that everybody should procreate? I don't think that there is enough evidence in the Bible to dogmatically affirm that to choose childlessness is to sin.
Personally, I think that the multiplication mandate was for the old covenant only. It finds its new covenant fulfillment in the Great Commission. And besides, how full does the earth have to be until the mandate is fulfilled? How are we to judge? I could imagine a paedobaptist being keen on this mandatory procreation idea, because that would mean filling the earth up with more Christians that way. But for a credobaptist to take this position is just silly. The main priority for Christian couples is to help each other in bring the Gospel to the lost. Children are secondary.
But ultimately, what does Scripture say is the purpose of marriage? We find it in Genesis 2:18-25. God decided to give Adam a "fit helper." It does not say that Adam needed fit helpers. It does not say that Adam needed someone who would help him create even more helpers. Adam just needed one. And in verse 24 we find a Biblical command for marriage: "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife and they shall become one flesh." That is all you will find regarding dogmatic commands for all married couples.
Now don't get me wrong; I am not saying that people should not have children. I am just saying that it is not a sin if they choose not to. If it was, then we would have it listed in Leviticus with some sort of punishment involved for violating it. There is no such law. We should not impose upon believers what God does not impose. That is the very definition of legalism.
I am certain that the matter of procreation falls under the same category as Paul's instructions concerning marriage. Just as it is better to not marry but it is certainly not wrong to marry, so it may be better to have children, but it is not wrong to not have children by choice. Speaking of this particular passage in 1 Corinthians, after Paul gives his instructions to single people, he has specific instructions for married people (7:10-11). Not one word is said about procreation. In the preceding paragraphs, Paul speaks of marriage as a means to avoid fornication. So there he speaks explicitly about marriage and sex, but he does not talk about procreation.
If you want to believe that you should have children lest you sin, fine. It is just like abstaining from food offered to idols. That is your perogative, and your duty if you really believe it. But you cannot force a concept that is nowhere found in Scripture upon other believers. That is extra-biblical, which is legalism.
I know that this idea of mandatory procreation is popular among Reformed folk, and I might even be in the minority. But I feel convinced that such a concept cannot be supported by Scripture either explicity or by necessary inference. I think the only thing that can be inferred from Scripture is that children are a blessing and yahoo for those who get them, and that specific people such as Adam, Eve, Noah, and the ancestors of Christ and the Jewish people, were to multiply. But that is all that can be deduced from Scripture. To add more than that to the consciences of men is to bind them with legalism.
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
Saturday, December 10, 2005
When I lived in Lawrence, KS back in 2000, I lived at the Boardwalk apartments. Back in When I lived in Lawrence, KS in 2000, I lived at the Boardwalk apartments. Back in October of this year, one of the buildings burned down. It was pretty close to mine. In the diagram, I circled the building that I lived in.
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
Saturday, November 26, 2005
The Real Cinderella.
Over the past few weeks, the grocery store that I work at has had a display back near the deli of a TV and a DVD player. They've been playing Cinderella, recently released on DVD by Disney. As I've been stocking the lunch meats, I've listen to the movie play over and over again. Finally it affected my mind so that I developed my own Cinderella story. I present it to you now.
The Real Cinderella
Once upon a time there was an evil witch named Cinderella. Her mother died during childbirth, and her godly father never realized that his child was a witch. He eventually remarried a widow who had two daughters, both of whom were about the same age as Cinderella. It was not long, however, that Cinderella’s father also died. Now Cinderella’s step-mother knew that she was a witch, but had never told Cinderella’s father, for she knew how much he loved his daughter, and she did not want to upset him. But now that he was dead, the step-mother could do something about Cinderella’s sinful lifestyle. But what should she do? The best thing to do regarding the safety of all the souls in the village was to put Cinderella to death, or at least to turn her in to the chief magistrate. But the step-mother, a godly woman, was too kind-hearted to do such a thing to any person, even an evil witch like Cinderella.
“Now Cinderella,” said the step-mother, “I know that you are a witch. I have seen you commune with the animals such as birds and mice, and such sorcery is evil and is an abomination before the Lord. In order to prevent you from practicing your wicked witchcraft around other people, I am going to keep you confined to our house. Until you repent of your evil ways, you will serve your sisters and myself at all times.”
When Cinderella and her step-sisters had reached marrying age, the king made a proclamation across the land. His son the Prince was also of marrying age, and the king greatly desired that a wife be found for the Prince. A ball was to be held, and the Prince would choose that woman whom he desired to be his wife. Cinderella’s step-sisters were holy and God-fearing young women, but bless their hearts, they were just plain ugly. Nevertheless, their mother saw to it that they had dresses for the ball so that they could attend and attempt to win the Prince’s heart.
Sinful jealousy festered in the wicked heart of Cinderella. She used her sorcery to cause the mice in the house to steal articles of cloth from the dresses of the step-sisters. These enchanted mice then made a beautiful dress from the pilfered cloths. The rodents even stole a pearl necklace from one of the step-sisters. In her wicked vanity, Cinderella paraded herself in her new dress in front of the step-sisters. This was a mistake on her part, for the sisters recognized the stolen pieces of clothing, and took them back.
Cinderella was not to be stopped, however. She went back to the seclusion of her room, and called upon all her powers of necromancy to raise up a spirit of an old woman. This shade then used the powers of the grave to give Cinderella a beautiful dress, a carriage with a team of horses, and a pair of glass slippers. However, as demonic power always falls short of the perfect power of righteousness, these gifts would not last long. At the stroke of midnight, the gifts would return to the base elements from which they were made.
Cinderella went to the royal ball and there she put an enchantment upon the Prince, causing him to fall in love with her. But when midnight approached, she was forced to flee back to her house. In her haste, she left behind one of her glass slippers.
The Prince was determined that he would have no other person for his bride but the girl who owned the glass slipper. He sent his servants throughout the land to search for the girl whose foot fit the slipper that had been left behind. They searched and searched, but all in vain. Nobody’s foot fit. Finally they arrived at Cinderella’s house. After failing to get the slipper to fit either of the step-sisters, the servants were in despair. But then Cinderella appeared and they knew that they must try the slipper on her foot. The step-mother, suspecting that sorcery was at play, attempted to foil to servants from applying the slipper to Cinderella’s foot. But alack! Cinderella had the other glass slipper, which fit perfectly. She was rushed back to the Palace and a wedding was held at once.
The unsuspecting people of the land assumed that all was happily ever after. But they were wrong. Soon Cinderella turned the heart of the king away from God so that he too followed in her wicked ways. Cinderella had Asherah poles raised in the high places, and altars to Baal were built. She had the priests of God all put to death, accept for those that hid. Soon after she had ordered a man to be killed so that the Prince (now the King, since his father had died by this time) could own the man’s vineyard, a prophet of the Lord came out of hiding and boldly approached Cinderella and the king.
The prophet spake, “The Lord has said that the dogs shall eat Cinderella within the walls of the land.” And so it came to pass, many years later, after Cinderella’s husband the king had died, that a man claiming right to the throne rode into town. Cinderella made herself up so as to wickedly seduce this man. But he would not be tricked by her cunning wiles. Instead, he called to those who sided with him to turn against Cinderella. Some servants of hers did so, and defenestrated her. When she hit the ground, some of her blood spattered on the wall and on the horses, and they trampled on her. The claimant to the throne went in and ate and drank. And he said, “See now to this cursed woman and bury her, for she was the Queen..” But when they went to bury her, they found no more of her than the skull and the feet and the palms of her hands. They reported this to the man, and he said, “Thus it is as the Lord spoke through the prophet, “In the land the dogs shall eat the flesh of Cinderella, and the corpse of Cinderella shall be as dung on the face of the field in the territory, so that not one can say, ‘This is Cinderella.’”
And then everyone lived happily ever after.
The Real Cinderella
Once upon a time there was an evil witch named Cinderella. Her mother died during childbirth, and her godly father never realized that his child was a witch. He eventually remarried a widow who had two daughters, both of whom were about the same age as Cinderella. It was not long, however, that Cinderella’s father also died. Now Cinderella’s step-mother knew that she was a witch, but had never told Cinderella’s father, for she knew how much he loved his daughter, and she did not want to upset him. But now that he was dead, the step-mother could do something about Cinderella’s sinful lifestyle. But what should she do? The best thing to do regarding the safety of all the souls in the village was to put Cinderella to death, or at least to turn her in to the chief magistrate. But the step-mother, a godly woman, was too kind-hearted to do such a thing to any person, even an evil witch like Cinderella.
“Now Cinderella,” said the step-mother, “I know that you are a witch. I have seen you commune with the animals such as birds and mice, and such sorcery is evil and is an abomination before the Lord. In order to prevent you from practicing your wicked witchcraft around other people, I am going to keep you confined to our house. Until you repent of your evil ways, you will serve your sisters and myself at all times.”
When Cinderella and her step-sisters had reached marrying age, the king made a proclamation across the land. His son the Prince was also of marrying age, and the king greatly desired that a wife be found for the Prince. A ball was to be held, and the Prince would choose that woman whom he desired to be his wife. Cinderella’s step-sisters were holy and God-fearing young women, but bless their hearts, they were just plain ugly. Nevertheless, their mother saw to it that they had dresses for the ball so that they could attend and attempt to win the Prince’s heart.
Sinful jealousy festered in the wicked heart of Cinderella. She used her sorcery to cause the mice in the house to steal articles of cloth from the dresses of the step-sisters. These enchanted mice then made a beautiful dress from the pilfered cloths. The rodents even stole a pearl necklace from one of the step-sisters. In her wicked vanity, Cinderella paraded herself in her new dress in front of the step-sisters. This was a mistake on her part, for the sisters recognized the stolen pieces of clothing, and took them back.
Cinderella was not to be stopped, however. She went back to the seclusion of her room, and called upon all her powers of necromancy to raise up a spirit of an old woman. This shade then used the powers of the grave to give Cinderella a beautiful dress, a carriage with a team of horses, and a pair of glass slippers. However, as demonic power always falls short of the perfect power of righteousness, these gifts would not last long. At the stroke of midnight, the gifts would return to the base elements from which they were made.
Cinderella went to the royal ball and there she put an enchantment upon the Prince, causing him to fall in love with her. But when midnight approached, she was forced to flee back to her house. In her haste, she left behind one of her glass slippers.
The Prince was determined that he would have no other person for his bride but the girl who owned the glass slipper. He sent his servants throughout the land to search for the girl whose foot fit the slipper that had been left behind. They searched and searched, but all in vain. Nobody’s foot fit. Finally they arrived at Cinderella’s house. After failing to get the slipper to fit either of the step-sisters, the servants were in despair. But then Cinderella appeared and they knew that they must try the slipper on her foot. The step-mother, suspecting that sorcery was at play, attempted to foil to servants from applying the slipper to Cinderella’s foot. But alack! Cinderella had the other glass slipper, which fit perfectly. She was rushed back to the Palace and a wedding was held at once.
The unsuspecting people of the land assumed that all was happily ever after. But they were wrong. Soon Cinderella turned the heart of the king away from God so that he too followed in her wicked ways. Cinderella had Asherah poles raised in the high places, and altars to Baal were built. She had the priests of God all put to death, accept for those that hid. Soon after she had ordered a man to be killed so that the Prince (now the King, since his father had died by this time) could own the man’s vineyard, a prophet of the Lord came out of hiding and boldly approached Cinderella and the king.
The prophet spake, “The Lord has said that the dogs shall eat Cinderella within the walls of the land.” And so it came to pass, many years later, after Cinderella’s husband the king had died, that a man claiming right to the throne rode into town. Cinderella made herself up so as to wickedly seduce this man. But he would not be tricked by her cunning wiles. Instead, he called to those who sided with him to turn against Cinderella. Some servants of hers did so, and defenestrated her. When she hit the ground, some of her blood spattered on the wall and on the horses, and they trampled on her. The claimant to the throne went in and ate and drank. And he said, “See now to this cursed woman and bury her, for she was the Queen..” But when they went to bury her, they found no more of her than the skull and the feet and the palms of her hands. They reported this to the man, and he said, “Thus it is as the Lord spoke through the prophet, “In the land the dogs shall eat the flesh of Cinderella, and the corpse of Cinderella shall be as dung on the face of the field in the territory, so that not one can say, ‘This is Cinderella.’”
And then everyone lived happily ever after.
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
Thomas Watson on The Right Understanding of the Law
One of the issues that differentiates Covenant theology from Dispensationalism and New Covenant Theology is that of the place of law in the life of the Christian. By declaring that the moral law is still essential to Christian living, Covenant theologians are often looked upon as being legalistic. The Puritans, especially, have been accused of being too works-oriented. These misconceptions usually come about because of ignorance or misrepresentations of the Covenantal, Puritan position. Seventeenth-century Puritan Thomas Watson wrote a very clear and concise statement on the right understanding of the law in the second volume of his Body of Practical Divinity.
Watson begins by naming the differences between the law and the gospel. First, “the law requires that we worship God as our Creator; the gospel, that we worship Him in and through Christ.” Secondly, the law requires obedience but gives no strength to obey. The gospel gives us the strength to obey God’s law.
The question then arises, “Of what use is the moral law to us?” Watson answers that it allows us to see our sin and our need for Christ. He quotes Galatians 3:24, “The law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ.”
Is this moral law still in force for believers? Watson tells us that the law has been abolished in certain ways. The first (and it is the ignorance of this fact that causes others to view Covenantalists as legalists) is that law has been abolished in respect of justification. Watson stresses (as did all the Puritans) that obedience to the moral law does not justify anybody. The second way in which the law has been abolished for believes is in respect to its curse. Christians are no longer under the curse of the law because Christ became a curse for us (Galatians 3:13).
This leads to the question of how was Christ made a curse for us. As a surety, Christ was made a curse. The curse was placed upon His manhood, thus taking away the curse to do the elect. However, though the law is not our savior, Watson says, it is our guide. “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid.” (Romans 3:31). Watson warns against antinomianism, which teaches that the moral law is completely abrogated to believers, because it leads to a sinful life. He says, “They who will not have the law to rule them, shall never have the gospel to save them.” If a person was to reject one thing that God says (the law), why are we to believe that they would accept the other (the gospel)?
Then follows some rules that Watson gives concerning the Ten Commandments.
Rule 1. The commands and prohibitions of the moral law reach the heart.
Rule 2. In the commandments, more is intended than is spoken.
(1) Where any duty is commanded, the contrary sin is forbidden.
(2) Where any sin is forbidden, the contrary duty is commanded.
Rule 3. For any sin forbidden, the occasion for that sin is also forbidden. For example, if adultery is forbidden, then ogling is also forbidden.
Rule 4. Where one relation is named, another relation is included. If a child is commanded to honor his parents, then the parents are commanded to love the child.
Rule 5. Where greater sins are forbidden, lesser sins are forbidden. If idolatry is forbidden, then so is superstition.
Rule 6. The law of God is entire. The duties to God go hand in hand with our duties to our fellow man.
Rule 7. We are also forbidden to being accessory to the sins of others.
(1) By imposing sinful laws on others, or forcing them to sin.
(2) By not hindering others from sinning when we have the chance to do so.
(3) By counseling, abetting, or provoking others to sin.
(4) By consenting to another’s sin.
(5) By our sinful example.
Rule 8. Though we are unable to fulfill the law perfectly by our own strength, God has provided encouragement to fulfill what we can.
(1) God has promised to work in us to obey and to love Him.
(2) God for Christ’s sake will accept our less-than-perfect works.
(3) Though our works be imperfect, God will accept us in Christ because of his perfect obedience.
I hope this summary has clearly explained the role of the law in a Christian’s life. If this whets your appetite for more on this sort of topic, then read the whole book. All of my quotes and paraphrases and whatnot are taken from it. Here it is: Thomas Watson, The Ten Commandments, The Banner of Truth Trust. If you’re going to read that, then you should probably also read Watson’s Body of Divinity and The Lord’s Prayer, both of which are also published by the Banner of Truth. The Ten Commandments belongs in between those two in order. It was all originally one volume, but was split into three separate volumes later on. Soli Deo gloria.
Watson begins by naming the differences between the law and the gospel. First, “the law requires that we worship God as our Creator; the gospel, that we worship Him in and through Christ.” Secondly, the law requires obedience but gives no strength to obey. The gospel gives us the strength to obey God’s law.
The question then arises, “Of what use is the moral law to us?” Watson answers that it allows us to see our sin and our need for Christ. He quotes Galatians 3:24, “The law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ.”
Is this moral law still in force for believers? Watson tells us that the law has been abolished in certain ways. The first (and it is the ignorance of this fact that causes others to view Covenantalists as legalists) is that law has been abolished in respect of justification. Watson stresses (as did all the Puritans) that obedience to the moral law does not justify anybody. The second way in which the law has been abolished for believes is in respect to its curse. Christians are no longer under the curse of the law because Christ became a curse for us (Galatians 3:13).
This leads to the question of how was Christ made a curse for us. As a surety, Christ was made a curse. The curse was placed upon His manhood, thus taking away the curse to do the elect. However, though the law is not our savior, Watson says, it is our guide. “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid.” (Romans 3:31). Watson warns against antinomianism, which teaches that the moral law is completely abrogated to believers, because it leads to a sinful life. He says, “They who will not have the law to rule them, shall never have the gospel to save them.” If a person was to reject one thing that God says (the law), why are we to believe that they would accept the other (the gospel)?
Then follows some rules that Watson gives concerning the Ten Commandments.
Rule 1. The commands and prohibitions of the moral law reach the heart.
Rule 2. In the commandments, more is intended than is spoken.
(1) Where any duty is commanded, the contrary sin is forbidden.
(2) Where any sin is forbidden, the contrary duty is commanded.
Rule 3. For any sin forbidden, the occasion for that sin is also forbidden. For example, if adultery is forbidden, then ogling is also forbidden.
Rule 4. Where one relation is named, another relation is included. If a child is commanded to honor his parents, then the parents are commanded to love the child.
Rule 5. Where greater sins are forbidden, lesser sins are forbidden. If idolatry is forbidden, then so is superstition.
Rule 6. The law of God is entire. The duties to God go hand in hand with our duties to our fellow man.
Rule 7. We are also forbidden to being accessory to the sins of others.
(1) By imposing sinful laws on others, or forcing them to sin.
(2) By not hindering others from sinning when we have the chance to do so.
(3) By counseling, abetting, or provoking others to sin.
(4) By consenting to another’s sin.
(5) By our sinful example.
Rule 8. Though we are unable to fulfill the law perfectly by our own strength, God has provided encouragement to fulfill what we can.
(1) God has promised to work in us to obey and to love Him.
(2) God for Christ’s sake will accept our less-than-perfect works.
(3) Though our works be imperfect, God will accept us in Christ because of his perfect obedience.
I hope this summary has clearly explained the role of the law in a Christian’s life. If this whets your appetite for more on this sort of topic, then read the whole book. All of my quotes and paraphrases and whatnot are taken from it. Here it is: Thomas Watson, The Ten Commandments, The Banner of Truth Trust. If you’re going to read that, then you should probably also read Watson’s Body of Divinity and The Lord’s Prayer, both of which are also published by the Banner of Truth. The Ten Commandments belongs in between those two in order. It was all originally one volume, but was split into three separate volumes later on. Soli Deo gloria.
Saturday, September 24, 2005
The Church and Post-Weimar Germany
Wow, it's been a long time since I've written anything here. But I guess we're all used to that by now, hm? Well, anyway, I've been reading a wonderful book by German historian Joachim Fest titled Plotting Hitler's Death: The Story of the German Resistance. The opening chapter attempts to answer the question of how the German people could allow somebody like Hitler and his Nazi party to gain so much control? As I read through Fest's analyses of the general feelings of the German populace, I couldn't help but think of modern Christendom.
One reason why Hitler was allowed to gain so much power was pragmatism. Many people really were uncomfortable with much of Hitler's views and methods, and many were even vocally opposed to him. But in the end, they allowed him take over more and more governmental functions simply because they thought that some good might come of it, despite the bad. You see, Germany just wasn't a great place to live at this time. After their defeat in World War I and all the humiliations placed upon them by the Treaty of Versailles, Germans were left with a nation that they just couldn't have pride in. And national pride was a very deeply ingrained trait in Germans. Also, following WWI, they went through an incredible inflation period and then the Great Depression. Joblessness was at an all-time high. Things just really stunk. The government that was created after WWI, the Weimar Republic, just never seemed to do anything that actually benefited anybody or helped to restore the national pride. All Germans knew that some sort of change was needed. They were not all agreed on what sort of change, but they knew that something needed to happen to better their existence. Along came Hitler who promised change. He promised to restore national pride to Germans. He promised to repudiate the humiliating articles of the Treaty of Versailles. He promised financial prosperity. Now whether you were right or left-wing, socialist or democrat, that all sounded really good. However, there were the downsides to Hitler. For the right, he was too radical. For the left, he was too conservative. For the socialists, he was...well, too anti-socialist. To the democrats, he was too authoritarian. But most of them decided that perhaps much of the stuff the disagreed with about Hitler was just bluster on his part, and as crazy or evil as he may have seemed, perhaps it was worth it to let him have more power if he would bring about all those positive changes that he promised. They were being pragmatic. They were allowing positive change to occur by whatever means, regardless if evil changes also occurred.
How does this apply to the church? First of all, I want to make it perfectly clear that I am comparing nobody to Hitler or to the Nazis. My comparison is with the apathetic German populace. So, to the church. Today's Christians are very pragmatic. They perceive that worship and the Christian religion had become stale and cold and that it was just not gaining any new converts. So change was needed. It is true that the church must always be reforming, but not just any change will do. But for many people today, any change will do. Worship services have been altered so that the preaching of the word has taken a secondary role behind music and drama and puppet shows. False teachers are allowed to speak in our churches because they attract such large followings. Doctrine is no longer important--instead all we want is something or somebody who can draw a crowd. No matter if this speaker fills his listeners with distortions of the truth, or with nothing at all--just ear-tickling about how you can be healthy and wealthy. Just so long as he carries a Bible (no matter whether he actually opens it or not) and drops the name of Christ now and then (no matter if his Christ matches up with the one described in Scripture), and that's good enough. Some people recognize the error in these persons or methods, but they decide that the good outweighs the bad. "Sure," they may say, "our means of getting people into the church are not Scriptural, and may even be anti-Scriptural, but at least we're getting people into the church, where we can then teach them the Gospel." It seems as if many of these people are trying to "trick" people into church--they lure them in with promises of relevance and great music and drama, and then later, when they feel that the new converts are ready for it, then they'll teach them real doctrine. Unfortunately, they never seem to decide that the people are ready for the real doctrine, so they continue in the unScriptural frivolities indefinitely, despite the promise that such methods were only going to be temporary. Which leads to my next point...
Many of the political, governmental, and military leaders of Germany allowed Hitler to gain power because they felt assured that they would be able to "tame" him. After he had served their purposes, they would rein him in and prevent him from doing the things that they disagreed with. But Hitler was clever. He was able to work his way up into power in such ways so that by the time anyone would want to reign him in, they would be unable to.
As I said, many people recognize the errors and dangers of some of the things coming into the church, but they allow it anyway because they figure that after they have exhausted the usefulness of the method or ideology of person, then they could step back in and put a halt to any extreme errors. But this just doesn't happen. Error is like leaven--it spreads quickly throughout the whole of the dough and then you can't separate it from the rest of the dough. All erroneous teachings must be nipped in the bud. Once you allow an error to come into the church, you will not be able to just take it away once you feel like. Pastor Gregory N. Barkman, in a sermon from Galatians about Paul's confronting Peter for his hypocrisy, asks what it would be like if Paul had just been nice and had been more interested in unity than in doctrine. What if Paul had decided to wait before speaking up? What if he went to the church in Jerusalem 25 years later and tried to put a stop to their segregating practices? It would have been a lot harder. By then it would have been an ingrained tradition. There would be young people who had been raised that way. And many of them could have said, "Hey, Peter did it, so it must be right!" This argument would have been particularly forceful if they had already started thinking that Peter was the infallible head of the church. This error of Jewish Christians not eating with Gentile Christians might have spread to other churches, making Paul's task of correction even harder. Thankfully, Paul did not wait 25 years, but he addressed the problem as soon as he became aware of it. Had the Germans done this in 1933, a lot of hardship could have been spared. And so it is for the church today.
One reason why Hitler was allowed to gain so much power was pragmatism. Many people really were uncomfortable with much of Hitler's views and methods, and many were even vocally opposed to him. But in the end, they allowed him take over more and more governmental functions simply because they thought that some good might come of it, despite the bad. You see, Germany just wasn't a great place to live at this time. After their defeat in World War I and all the humiliations placed upon them by the Treaty of Versailles, Germans were left with a nation that they just couldn't have pride in. And national pride was a very deeply ingrained trait in Germans. Also, following WWI, they went through an incredible inflation period and then the Great Depression. Joblessness was at an all-time high. Things just really stunk. The government that was created after WWI, the Weimar Republic, just never seemed to do anything that actually benefited anybody or helped to restore the national pride. All Germans knew that some sort of change was needed. They were not all agreed on what sort of change, but they knew that something needed to happen to better their existence. Along came Hitler who promised change. He promised to restore national pride to Germans. He promised to repudiate the humiliating articles of the Treaty of Versailles. He promised financial prosperity. Now whether you were right or left-wing, socialist or democrat, that all sounded really good. However, there were the downsides to Hitler. For the right, he was too radical. For the left, he was too conservative. For the socialists, he was...well, too anti-socialist. To the democrats, he was too authoritarian. But most of them decided that perhaps much of the stuff the disagreed with about Hitler was just bluster on his part, and as crazy or evil as he may have seemed, perhaps it was worth it to let him have more power if he would bring about all those positive changes that he promised. They were being pragmatic. They were allowing positive change to occur by whatever means, regardless if evil changes also occurred.
How does this apply to the church? First of all, I want to make it perfectly clear that I am comparing nobody to Hitler or to the Nazis. My comparison is with the apathetic German populace. So, to the church. Today's Christians are very pragmatic. They perceive that worship and the Christian religion had become stale and cold and that it was just not gaining any new converts. So change was needed. It is true that the church must always be reforming, but not just any change will do. But for many people today, any change will do. Worship services have been altered so that the preaching of the word has taken a secondary role behind music and drama and puppet shows. False teachers are allowed to speak in our churches because they attract such large followings. Doctrine is no longer important--instead all we want is something or somebody who can draw a crowd. No matter if this speaker fills his listeners with distortions of the truth, or with nothing at all--just ear-tickling about how you can be healthy and wealthy. Just so long as he carries a Bible (no matter whether he actually opens it or not) and drops the name of Christ now and then (no matter if his Christ matches up with the one described in Scripture), and that's good enough. Some people recognize the error in these persons or methods, but they decide that the good outweighs the bad. "Sure," they may say, "our means of getting people into the church are not Scriptural, and may even be anti-Scriptural, but at least we're getting people into the church, where we can then teach them the Gospel." It seems as if many of these people are trying to "trick" people into church--they lure them in with promises of relevance and great music and drama, and then later, when they feel that the new converts are ready for it, then they'll teach them real doctrine. Unfortunately, they never seem to decide that the people are ready for the real doctrine, so they continue in the unScriptural frivolities indefinitely, despite the promise that such methods were only going to be temporary. Which leads to my next point...
Many of the political, governmental, and military leaders of Germany allowed Hitler to gain power because they felt assured that they would be able to "tame" him. After he had served their purposes, they would rein him in and prevent him from doing the things that they disagreed with. But Hitler was clever. He was able to work his way up into power in such ways so that by the time anyone would want to reign him in, they would be unable to.
As I said, many people recognize the errors and dangers of some of the things coming into the church, but they allow it anyway because they figure that after they have exhausted the usefulness of the method or ideology of person, then they could step back in and put a halt to any extreme errors. But this just doesn't happen. Error is like leaven--it spreads quickly throughout the whole of the dough and then you can't separate it from the rest of the dough. All erroneous teachings must be nipped in the bud. Once you allow an error to come into the church, you will not be able to just take it away once you feel like. Pastor Gregory N. Barkman, in a sermon from Galatians about Paul's confronting Peter for his hypocrisy, asks what it would be like if Paul had just been nice and had been more interested in unity than in doctrine. What if Paul had decided to wait before speaking up? What if he went to the church in Jerusalem 25 years later and tried to put a stop to their segregating practices? It would have been a lot harder. By then it would have been an ingrained tradition. There would be young people who had been raised that way. And many of them could have said, "Hey, Peter did it, so it must be right!" This argument would have been particularly forceful if they had already started thinking that Peter was the infallible head of the church. This error of Jewish Christians not eating with Gentile Christians might have spread to other churches, making Paul's task of correction even harder. Thankfully, Paul did not wait 25 years, but he addressed the problem as soon as he became aware of it. Had the Germans done this in 1933, a lot of hardship could have been spared. And so it is for the church today.
Monday, August 01, 2005
Steve Lemke's paper
In my last post I talked about SBC president Bobby Welch's article againts the Founders, and his use of a paper by Steve Lemke. Well, I was looking at a blog (http://www.joethorn.net/?p=141) about the same thing, and Lemke himself made a response. Well, I responded to that. I thought I would copy my comment there and paste it here. For all of you. Enjoy!
Lemke writes: “Fourth, I also included an extended section in which I emphasized that there are many varieties of Calvinism, and distinguished a sofer “ROSES” version of Calvinism (i.e., Timothy George) from a harder line “TULIP” kind of Calvinism. My concerns were voiced not about Calvinism in general, but a trend line toward a particular kind of Calvinism.”
This is one of the problems with the paper, however. Are George’s “ROSES” softer than “TULIP”, or is it a restatement of the exact same doctrines in phrases that are less likely to lend themselves to misinterpretation? For instance, R.C. Sproul changes the phrases so that he ends up with RSDEP or something like that, which is completely useless as a memorable acrostic. Which is why TULIP uses the phrases it does; TULIP is easier to remember that RSDEP (or whatever it is). For instance, take the “T”, total depravity. Adrian Rogers tells us that this means that Calvinists teach that man is as depraved as he can be. But if you read anything by any Calvinist (even the “harder line”) who affirm TULIP, they will start out the discussion by saying that this is NOT what total depravity means. So a rephrasing of TULIP doesn’t necessarily make it any “softer”. It just may make it more understandable.
In his paper, Lemke goes through Timothy George’s ROSES and contrasts it with TULIP. But the contrast seems to be with something that doesn’t exist. For instance, “Compared with total depravity, radical depravity agrees that we can do nothing to save ourselves, but affirms that humans are not totally evil because we treatin the image of God despite our fallennes.” What 5-point TULIPer believes otherwise? All of the definitions for the terms in ROSES are the same definitons for the phrases in TULIP. So it is no softer. And by saying “in contrast to” Lemke suggests that TULIPers do believe that humans are totally evil, or that election is mechanistic that doesn’t “allow for human responsiveness.” In fact, Unconditional Election is what insures human responsiveness!
Another thing that has gotten people riled up is this comment in Lemke’s paper: “One stream is what we might call hard hyper-Calvinism (often associated with the Founder’s Movement)…” I do not know anybody associated with the Founders ministry who denies the duty of man to repent and believe or who denies the need for holy living in believers (the two major tenets of hyper-Calvinism). I’m not saying for certain that these people dont’ exist. But they are few, and the majority of the people involved in the Founders ministry would be quick to object to that person’s hyper-Calvinism. But, since Lemke associates the Synod of Dort (where Calvinism was really first systematized into points) as hyper-Calvinism, then this discussion is meaningless. We are working with two different definitions. With this line of thinking, Calvin was a hyper-Calvinist! That somebody can believe more than he believes is nonsense. And this is not taking into account the question of whether or not Calvin believed in particular redemption. Even if he didn’t, (though i think he did), he still definately affirmed the other four points, which is more than Lemke is allowing to belong to regular Calvinism. This all reminds me of people like Norman Geisler who calls himself a Calvinist by redefining all the points of doctrine. But what does the history of Calvinism say a Calvinist is? I think the answer would be at least someone who holds to TUIP, but for most people in church history, the answer would be someone who affirms TULIP. Lemke can redefine that to mean “hyper-Calvinist” but he has no historical precedent for doing so.
Lemke writes: “Fourth, I also included an extended section in which I emphasized that there are many varieties of Calvinism, and distinguished a sofer “ROSES” version of Calvinism (i.e., Timothy George) from a harder line “TULIP” kind of Calvinism. My concerns were voiced not about Calvinism in general, but a trend line toward a particular kind of Calvinism.”
This is one of the problems with the paper, however. Are George’s “ROSES” softer than “TULIP”, or is it a restatement of the exact same doctrines in phrases that are less likely to lend themselves to misinterpretation? For instance, R.C. Sproul changes the phrases so that he ends up with RSDEP or something like that, which is completely useless as a memorable acrostic. Which is why TULIP uses the phrases it does; TULIP is easier to remember that RSDEP (or whatever it is). For instance, take the “T”, total depravity. Adrian Rogers tells us that this means that Calvinists teach that man is as depraved as he can be. But if you read anything by any Calvinist (even the “harder line”) who affirm TULIP, they will start out the discussion by saying that this is NOT what total depravity means. So a rephrasing of TULIP doesn’t necessarily make it any “softer”. It just may make it more understandable.
In his paper, Lemke goes through Timothy George’s ROSES and contrasts it with TULIP. But the contrast seems to be with something that doesn’t exist. For instance, “Compared with total depravity, radical depravity agrees that we can do nothing to save ourselves, but affirms that humans are not totally evil because we treatin the image of God despite our fallennes.” What 5-point TULIPer believes otherwise? All of the definitions for the terms in ROSES are the same definitons for the phrases in TULIP. So it is no softer. And by saying “in contrast to” Lemke suggests that TULIPers do believe that humans are totally evil, or that election is mechanistic that doesn’t “allow for human responsiveness.” In fact, Unconditional Election is what insures human responsiveness!
Another thing that has gotten people riled up is this comment in Lemke’s paper: “One stream is what we might call hard hyper-Calvinism (often associated with the Founder’s Movement)…” I do not know anybody associated with the Founders ministry who denies the duty of man to repent and believe or who denies the need for holy living in believers (the two major tenets of hyper-Calvinism). I’m not saying for certain that these people dont’ exist. But they are few, and the majority of the people involved in the Founders ministry would be quick to object to that person’s hyper-Calvinism. But, since Lemke associates the Synod of Dort (where Calvinism was really first systematized into points) as hyper-Calvinism, then this discussion is meaningless. We are working with two different definitions. With this line of thinking, Calvin was a hyper-Calvinist! That somebody can believe more than he believes is nonsense. And this is not taking into account the question of whether or not Calvin believed in particular redemption. Even if he didn’t, (though i think he did), he still definately affirmed the other four points, which is more than Lemke is allowing to belong to regular Calvinism. This all reminds me of people like Norman Geisler who calls himself a Calvinist by redefining all the points of doctrine. But what does the history of Calvinism say a Calvinist is? I think the answer would be at least someone who holds to TUIP, but for most people in church history, the answer would be someone who affirms TULIP. Lemke can redefine that to mean “hyper-Calvinist” but he has no historical precedent for doing so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)