Warfield's masterful statement on the Trinity in the NT

In case you've never read it, here is superb theologian/scholar Benjamin B. Warfield's statement on how we find the doctrine of the Triune God in the New Testament:

It is an old saying that what becomes patent in the New Testament was latent in the Old Testament. And it is important that the continuity of the revelation of God contained in the two Testaments should not be overlooked or obscured. If we find some difficulty in perceiving for ourselves, in the Old Testament, definite points of attachment for the revelation of the Trinity, we cannot help perceiving with great clearness in the New Testament abundant evidence that its writers felt no incongruity whatever between their doctrine of the Trinity and the Old Testament conception of God. The New Testament writers certainly were not conscious of being “setters forth of strange gods.” To their own apprehension they worshipped and proclaimed just the God of Israel; and they laid no less stress than the Old Testament itself upon His unity (Jn. 17:3; 1 Cor. 8:4; 1 Tim. 2:5). They do not, then, place two new gods by the side of Jehovah as alike with Him to be served and worshipped; they conceive Jehovah as Himself at once Father, Son and Spirit. In presenting this one Jehovah as Father, Son and Spirit, they do not even betray any lurking feeling that they are making innovations. Without apparent misgiving they take over Old Testament passages and apply them to Father, Son and Spirit indifferently. Obviously they understand themselves, and wish to be understood, as setting forth in the Father, Son and Spirit just the one God that the God of the Old Testament revelation is; and they are as far as possible from recognizing any breach between themselves and the Fathers in presenting their enlarged conception of the Divine Being. This may not amount to saying that they saw the doctrine of the Trinity everywhere taught in the Old Testament. It certainly amounts to saying that they saw the Triune God whom they worshipped in the God of the Old   p 143  Testament revelation, and felt no incongruity in speaking of their Triune God in the terms of the Old Testament revelation. The God of the Old Testament was their God, and their God was a Trinity, and their sense of the identity of the two was so complete that no question as to it was raised in their minds.

The simplicity and assurance with which the New Testament writers speak of God as a Trinity have, however, a further implication. If they betray no sense of novelty in so speaking of Him, this is undoubtedly in part because it was no longer a novelty so to speak of Him. It is clear, in other words, that, as we read the New Testament, we are not witnessing the birth of a new conception of God. What we meet with in its pages is a firmly established conception of God underlying and giving its tone to the whole fabric. It is not in a text here and there that the New Testament bears its testimony to the doctrine of the Trinity. The whole book is Trinitarian to the core; all its teaching is built on the assumption of the Trinity; and its allusions to the Trinity are frequent, cursory, easy and confident. It is with a view to the cursoriness of the allusions to it in the New Testament that it has been remarked that “the doctrine of the Trinity is not so much heard as overheard in the statements of Scripture.” It would be more exact to say that it is not so much inculcated as presupposed. The doctrine of the Trinity does not appear in the New Testament in the making, but as already made. It takes its place in its pages, as Gunkel phrases it, with an air almost of complaint, already “in full completeness” (völlig fertig), leaving no trace of its growth. “There is nothing more wonderful in the history of human thought,” says Sanday, with his eye on the appearance of the doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament, “than the silent and imperceptible way in which this doctrine, to us so difficult, took its place without struggle—and without controversy—among accepted Christian truths.” The explanation of this remarkable phenomenon is, however, simple. Our New Testament is not a record of the development of the doctrine or of its assimilation. It everywhere presupposes the doctrine as the fixed possession of the Christian community; and   p 144  the process by which it became the possession of the Christian community lies behind the New Testament.

[Benjamin B. Warfield, The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield: Biblical Doctrines, vol. 2 (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2008), 142–144.]

Westminster Theological Seminary: a Calvidispiebaptogelical appreciation

I am enjoying some correspondence with a Westminster Seminary prof, and reflected that some of what I said to him is worth sharing more broadly.

My Master's is from (then) Talbot Theological Seminary, where I had some splendid professors who were far better scholars and brothers than I.

Nonetheless, Westminster Theological Seminary has a very special place in my heart, distinct from any other seminary. This despite the fact that I'm theologically not in exact sync with Westminster, and many of their grads would give me the Angry Eyes, what with me being baptistic and all. (One well-known figure sneers that Calvidispiebaptogelicals such as I are neither Reformed nor Calvinists. Oh well; even we at the back of the bus must be allowed our unrequited love, no?)

Let me explain why I so love Westminster.

WTS is a place where giants have roamed the earth, from its very founding. Any time I'm asked to list the most influential books in my life, two are always J. Gresham Machen's What Is Faith? and Cornelius Van Til's Defense of the Faith. A larger list might include John Murray's Redemption: Accomplished and Applied, and a still-larger list would include E. J. Young's Thy Word Is Truth. To think that men such as those and many others — heroes to me — have taught in those halls... wow. Teaching or studying there would give me the chills if I stopped to think.

Also, I know of no other seminary long in existence that has stayed so true to its charter, without drifting to port. The suspension, then resignation of Peter Enns is an example. To me, what he's written since could hardly better underscore the appropriateness of his release. It is as if Enns has set out to validate WTS' actions. But in a Fuller or such, a figure such as Enns would be celebrated as another passing road sign in the inexorable process of decline.

After I'd written the previous, brother Bayly added this salient note:

Firing professors is a mark of a seminary that's still alive just as excommunication is a mark of a church that is still alive. A few years ago Westminster Theological Seminary in Philly fired Peter Enns for (as I see it) rejecting the authority and inspiration of Scripture.

Therefore, WTS is a "brand-name" that still means something. As Talbot/Biola was making decisions that concerned some of us in the '80s, a classmate said, "I don't want a degree that I'm going to have to explain." I knew exactly what he meant. Fuller came instantly to mind. While Fuller started out as a bastion of Biblical faith and top-notch scholarship, it has morphed into something very different. If you meet a man whose degree is from Fuller, you have to start at the very basics to see what he believes, to see if he's even within rifle range of Biblical faith.

But if you hear that a man got his degree from Westminster, you have a good idea of the framework within which he was taught. This is what Machen had in mind, reeling from his own sadly-declined Princeton. So many decades later, it still stands strong.

So: whether it likes it or not, Westminster Theological Seminary has itself a fan. A Calvinist, baptistic, dispensationalist fan. It may or may not love me, but I sure do love it, and thank God for what it has contributed and continues to contribute to the preaching of the Gospel and the Word of God, and to the defense of the faith.

Knowing God is the free audiobook of the month

You will not want to miss this. If you have never read it — and even if you have — hie thee over to Christian Audio to download J. I. Packer's Knowing God. It is their free audiobook of the month.

I was saved in 1973, the year this book came out. A friend gave it to me in 1975, and I read it right away. It was very helpful and encouraging. Packer wrote of some of the deeper truths of theology — of God — but did it in a winsome, accessible way.

Wherever you are in your growth in Christ, I'm confident you'll find this an encouraging, helpful book.

William Lane Craig's God doesn't sound very ultimate

I know William Lane Craig is supposed to be a wonder and a marvel of an apologist, and Richard Dawkins runs from him like a frightened little girl.

But I'm wondering how he retains such respect, while making statements like this about God:

"The counterfactuals of creaturely freedom which confront Him are outside His control. He has to play with the hand He has been dealt."

Um...

I have preached, and preached very insistently, that "God" is not just some person's name, and it isn't just some category, like: apple, fish, bicycle, God, turnip...

I have preached that "God" is, by definition, the ultimate. "God" is where the buck must inevitably stop. This is the only way to make sense of Paul equating covetousness with idolatry (Col. 3:5). It isn't that Paul is saying that covetous people associate the omni-'s with money or stuff. It's that they live for it, it is ultimate to them, it trumps other considerations.

From this, I have also preached that, if you have something that can trump God, then that — and not God — is really God.

So you can call God "God," but if you think "free will," or chance, or contingency, or the stars, or anything else trumps God, then that is really God, and that is what we should worship.

Now, Scripture insists that GOD is God. I know, breaking news. He created everything just the way He wanted it, just by wanting to and saying so (Gen. 1:1). It's all as it is as an expression of His will (Ps. 33:6, 9). He does what He wants, everywhere and at all times (Psa. 115:3). I go into this at some length in TWTG, and even give a little chart showing the coterminous nature of God's will and God's accomplishments.

And then there's God as WLC depicts Him, a God who is confronted by realities beyond His control, and who is forced to play the hand He is dealt. (By whom? one wonders.)

To me, this is a classic illustration how unwillingness to deal with a God as massive as Scripture depicts Him will invariably lead to absurdity. There comes a point where a man, a woman, is forced to say "Boy, if I stay on this road, I'm going to have to say some pretty bizarre things." And then he stays on that road and says those bizarre things... or he bails on the bad road and bows the knee to the big God of Scripture, who Himself is the dealer.

"Acts of God"

This is an additional thought to today's "Next!" post at Pyro.

We all know that insurance companies and others often refer to "natural" disasters as "acts of God." In the final sense, I don't know how we can argue with the phrase, as far as it goes. God is God; being God, God is ultimate. If something happens that is beyond His control, then that thing is God, and we should worship it instead of him. I speak as a fool.

But it does occur to me that a more "fair and balanced" news broadcast would include news such as...

"...in another act of God today, billions of people drew breath, put together coherent thoughts, found the law of gravity still works, found solid footing on which to walk, and looked out on a coherent universe instead of a shapeless chaos. Further acts of God were reported, including the vast majority having something to eat and something to drink, and sufficient health and strength to pursue them. The vast majority of planetary acreage was without significant seismic disturbance, and was untouched by hurricane, tornado, or fire, while being abundantly supplied with breathable air."

But of course man never starts with "I am owed nothing but fierce and merciless justice, how can I be so blessed?"

Since the snake's sales-line in the Garden, it's been "I am entitled to my own way in everything, how dare God withhold or interfere with it?"

Summer listening bonanza

A well-placed request, and I persuaded Kevin Stilley graciously to post an extensive list of lectures and lessons on theology, exegesis, church history, and Biblical studies. All online and (I believe) all free.

Of them, I've listened to and enjoyed the lectures by John Frame, as well as a lot of  Douglas Kelly and some Richard Pratt.

Right now I'm on about the 100th lecture of a long series; when I'm done, I plan to dive into these lectures Kevin has pointed out.

(Of course, neither I nor [I'm sure] Kevin agree with all the lecturers.)

Enjoy, profit, bear more fruit!

The difference between fearing God, and trying to be God

It only surfaces when God crosses your will, or your preferred way of thinking.

The God-fearer says, "God differs from me; I must be wrong, and I must change."

The God-wannabe says, "God differs from me; He must be wrong, and I must change Him."

Promises: God's and ours

Why do we break promises? We break them because we change, or circumstances do. That is, we make a promise in one mood; the mood shifts, and we break it. Or we make a promise, but it isn't of much weight to us, so we let it slip. Or we make a promise, then sin grips us and the promise becomes inconvenient and burdensome, so we drop it to cling to our sin.

Or circumstances change. We promise to give something, do something, be somewhere, but our resources or our life or our schedule changes.

Why does God never break promises? He never changes, and He controls circumstances.

Put it another way: at any point, God knows Himself exhaustively, and knows all circumstances in all time-frames exhaustively. The latter actually springs from the former.

Thus it literally is not possible that God should ever be caught short by either a change in Himself, or in circumstances. He is the Lord, and He does not change (Malachi 3:6; cf. Hebrews 13:8). He works all things after the counsel of His will (Ephesians 1:11). The categories that produce faithlessness in us simply are not meaningful to God.

I see three immediate implications:

First, the believer can rest unreservedly on God's word of promise. Christ says He'll never cast us out, and He won't (John 6:37). God promises that all things will work together for our good, and they will (Romans 8:28). Jesus promises that not one of His sheep will perish, and they won't (John 10:28).

Second, the unbeliever needs to deal with the complete hopelessness of his situation, as matters stand. God promises to judge all secrets in the day of judgment (Ecclesiastes 12:23). He promises that all artifices of human pride and rebellion — all rationalizations, excuses, and dodges — will be swept away like so many cobwebs (Isaiah 2:11; 1 Corinthians 2:19). He promises that every knee will bow, and every tongue admit that Jesus is Lord, and they will (Philippians 2:10-11). Confess the truth now, to your salvation, or you will surely confess it in that day, to your damnation.

Third, the believer needs to take God as his model. I imagine many in unrepented sin read the start of the post and thought "Yes! That's why I had to change my mind! Situations changed!"

Not so fast, Turbo.

The Israelites made a promise without a full knowledge of the facts (Joshua 9) — and God held them to it, regardless (2 Samuel 21). It is characteristic of the righteous man that he "swears to his own hurt and does not change" (Psalm 15:4).

Hilary was right

No no, not Hillary; Hilary. That is, Hilary of Poitiers, theological writer from the fourth century, called the "Athanasius of the West" and the "Hammer of the Arians" for his forceful, insightful, Biblical opposition to the Arian heresy.

Were I ever to write a theology (unlikely in the extreme), I think this would make a terrific epigraph:

Since then we are to discourse of the things of God, let us assume that God has full knowledge of Himself, and bow with humble reverence to His words. For He Whom we can only know through His own utterances is the fitting witness concerning Himself. (On the Trinity, book I, section 18; from Philip Schaff, The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Second Series Vol. IX, 45 [Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, 1997]).

This strikes at a central truth that led to my conversion. I realized that my idea of God was just that: my idea of God. It had no authority beyond me, my imagination, my reasoning. And what were my qualifications? Zero. In fact, I was disqualified many times over.

So, were I ever to know God (I was led to see) it could only be on His terms, by His taking the initiative to make Himself known.

This is the difference between approaching the knowledge of God in the fear of Yahweh, and doing it any other way. The older I get, the more I see to Solomon's dictum (Proverbs 1:7; 9:10), and the more literally true I realize it to be. Approach God clinging resolutely to personal preconceptions, and we do not approach Him at all, except (I speak as a fool) as His instructors. Only the attitude summed up in Eli's counsel to Samuel ("Speak, Yahweh, for your slave is listening") is a teachable attitude.

Here is Hilary's entire section, for context:

And you, whose warmth of faith and passion for a truth unknown to the world and its philosophers shall prompt to read me, must remember to eschew the feeble and baseless conjectures of earthly minds, and in devout willingness to learn must break down the barriers of prejudice and half-knowledge. The new faculties of the regenerate intellect are needed; each must have his understanding enlightened by the heavenly gift imparted to the soul. First he must take his stand upon the sure ground [substantia = ὐποστάσει] of God, as holy Jeremiah says [23:22, Septuagint (which has ἐν τῇ ὑποστάσει μου)], that since he is to hear about that nature [substantia] he may expand his thoughts till they are worthy of the theme, not fixing some arbitrary standard for himself, but judging as of infinity. And again, though he be aware that he is partaker of the Divine nature, as the holy apostle Peter says in his second Epistle [2 Peter 1:4], yet he must not measure the Divine nature by the limitations of his own, but gauge God’s assertions concerning Himself by the scale of His own glorious self-revelation. For he is the best student who does not read his thoughts into the book, but lets it reveal its own; who draws from it its sense, and does not import his own into it, nor force upon its words a meaning which he had determined was the right one before he opened its pages. Since then we are to discourse of the things of God, let us assume that God has full knowledge of Himself, and bow with humble reverence to His words. For He Whom we can only know through His own utterances is the fitting witness concerning Himself.

Amen. Good counsel.

More thoughts on dissing dispensationalism at Bethlehem's "Evening"

(Followup of this post)

What's really surprising me is the people trying to tush-tush any objection to the absence of a dispensationalist speaker at this event.

First pass

Suppose Dallas Theological Seminary were to host an event called "An Evening on the Extent and Efficacy of the Atonement."

Further suppose that the event were hosted by Chuck Swindoll, and that there were three presenters: a semi-Pelagian, an Arminian, and an Amyraldian.

Do you think that five-point Calvinists would be pleased? Would they feel it was a well-rounded presentation, by a major institution, on the announced topic?

Suppose further that, when they made their objection, Swindoll (or a spokesman) responded, "Well, if we had a five-pointer on the panel, that would be two Calvinists, since we already have the Amyraldian."

Would that be a satisfying response?

Second pass

Seriously: I think you could make a better argument that there is no need for a "historical" premill on the platform. They should have the a-, the post-, and a dispensationalist.

After all, you already have two presenters whose positions think that buckets of OT prophecies have a fulfillment that never could be gleaned from the words themselves, and never would have occurred either to the prophets or their audience; and you already have two presenters whose positions think that most of Revelation really isn't about actual events "that are to take place after this" (Revelation 1:19).

Why have a third ("historical" premil)?

The point 

It is just like that. Note: the event is titled An Evening of Eschatology. Again I ask, which has arguably been the most influential approach to eschatology among Bible-believers over the last century or so?

Note: I am not asking whether you like it, whether you agree with it, whether you're happy with the way things are or have been. I'm asking which has been the most influential in the area of eschatology in the past century or so.

Another "diss" of dispensationalism

You can like it, love it, loathe it, or hate it, you have only two choices:

1. Admit that dispensationalism has been a powerful, influential presence among Biblically-faithful Christians since (at the latest) the beginning of the 20th century, and a major motivator behind increased lay Bible study, Bible teaching, missions and evangelism; or....
2. Build yourself a little bungalow beside that lazy river in Egypt.

It sure seems as if Desiring God's announcement of a conference on eschatology [link updated] comes down for Option #2.

Several folks (including yr obdt svt) made some protesting comments. To them, this response has just been offered:

To those disappointed the dispensational view has been left behind: It would unbalance the debate to have two premillennials. And we can only fit so many around the table, so we've gone with what's most relevant in our context. (Maybe when Jim gets back to Southern Seminary, they can have the intramural premil discussion there!)

I have submitted a response to that. Like this blog, that one is moderated, so it isn't up yet as I publish this post. But this is what I wrote:

Here's why that doesn't convince me.

"Historic" premils love to take a stance approximating "Oh, no no no, look — don't lump me in with those nasty dispensationalists! I'm sophisticated, and have a very old and respectable position!"

Plus, when the Presby's studied dispensationalism in the 1940s to see if it accorded with the WCF, they tried to be very emphatic that they meant dispensational premillennialism, and not "historical" premillennialism. The former (they ruled) was incompatible; the latter was hunky-dory.

And now for an institution to come and say "Oh well, same/same...."

I don't think so. Are they the same? Then let's be even-handed about it. Tell the Presbys and all the pitchfork committees that if they want to come after dispensational premills, they're going to have to come through the "historical" premills first.

And be sure to tell sites like this and this that they're just the same/same — so they should either shut out EVERYONE, or revisit the back of the bus and let it speak for ITSELF.

And if this (to me) common-sense approach isn't followed, I'm sure the moderator will instruct the audience to boo and hiss if any of the participants says anything critical of dispensationalism.

Right?

Right.

(BTW, to be clear: I am not advocating booing and hissing. If you go, don't boo or hiss. But I do think it would be unfair to criticize dispensationalism in absentia, since we won't be allowed to respond from the back of the bus.)

You'd have to have walked in my shoes to see just how bitterly hysterical this is. I can't count how many times I've read or heard "Reformed" types pouring acid scorn on dispensationalists (usually while misrepresenting them, or picking at some peripheral [or totally-unrelated] bangle) — and then they'll say, "Of course, historical premillennialism is an entirely different matter."

Yet here's a conference presumably organized by educated men, saying in effect, "Huh? Hey, we've already got one premil on the platform; it'd be redundant to have a dispensationalist."

Right. Because they're the same thing.

Except when they're being shredded, ostracized, misrepresented, tarred and feathered.

Got it.

UPDATE: see further thoughts here.

Chatting with John Reisinger

The subjects of New Covenant Theology in general, and John Reisinger in particular, came up on this thread. As a nice surprise, commenter CR contacted Pastor Reisinger, who wanted to add some thoughts of his own.

John Reisinger was an evangelist for 10 years and a pastor for 45 years. He planted four congregations, and has authored eight books and 10 booklets. You can access his material at the Sound of Grace website.

Just last week I finished listening to a series by Pastor Reisinger on the sovereignty of God, which you can access here. It was a blessing and an encouragement to me.

I've encouraged Pastor Reisinger to make his comments on this thread, and invite you-all to join in as well.

Good men = good views? Yes, and not necessarily... respectively

This starts with m'man Andy Naselli noting that Dr. Thomas Schreiner has evidently gone from amill to premill.

Well, that's great. I'm happy for Schreiner, he should be premill. Everybody should be premill. You have to understand, to me, that's a bit like saying that someone has gone from thinking the world is flat to thinking it's more of a spherical sort of thing: that's great, I'm happy for you, welcome aboard... er, what took you?

I've been listening to Schreiner's sermon.
In it, Dr. Schreiner makes the point that "good Christians have different views on the millennium" — and that will be my focus.

The professor is absolutely right. I'll go one better: excellent Christians, some of the very best Christians ever, hold different views on the millennium.

I'll be more expansive still — and anyone who's heard me much, has heard me say this.

• Some of the very best Christians who ever lived think that attaching spiritual significance to sprinkling water on babies makes any kind of New Covenant sense, and further think that it has some relation to what the Bible calls "baptism."
• Some of the very best Christians who ever lived think churches should be run by majority-vote.
• Some of the very best Christians who ever lived think the Christian Church is Israel, and that all of the OT prophecies of judgment on Israel are literal and apply to ethnic Israel, while all of the OT prophecies of blessing are spiritual and apply to the post-Pentecost church.

Anyone who knows me knows I don't say these things to "sound gracious," or to "sound humble." To me, those statements are duh-statements, on the level of saying that water is "powerful wet stuff." I mean, good heavens — Machen? Calvin? Knox? the Hodges? Warfield? Dabney? E. J. Young? John Owen? Hel-lo? You're kidding me, right?

Here's the problem. The implication some people would draw from this statement is, "...so these other views are good views, too."


Well no, they're really not, to my mind. At least not equally.

For instance, that baby-sprinkling thing. It is not a good view. It is a bad view held by good (excellent!) men. I have heard it explained by men of whom I seriously think very highly... and it just gets more and more absurd with each telling.

Or take the "spiritual Israel" thing. Splendid men hold that view. But it's not a good view. It's a bad view held by good men. E. J. Young was one of the most wonderful OT scholars ever to put words on paper. But when he explains that Isaiah 2 is all about the Christian church's missionary efforts, but Isaiah 4 is about literal judgment on ethnic Israel, that isn't the text talking. It's a good man expressing a bad view.

I'm not sure why this is such a difficult concept. I've been in countless discussions where, "Well, ____ holds that view" is adduced as if it were an argument. As if I'm going to say, "What? Carson? You mean D. A. Carson? Great howling potato bugs, I'm changing my view!"

Insofar as the point is "It isn't as it only pinheads believe X; after all, A B and C are hardly pinheads, and they believe X," I grant the point. Just don't try to make more of it than it is. Great men can be wrong. In fact, great men are always wrong about something.

And the greatest of the greats would be the first to admit it.

This comes up afresh in some connection with today's Pyro post. Unless I've pre-emptively headed them off, I'll be very surprised if someone doesn't say, "But Dr. FamousEvangelical loves the TNIV, Professor Calvinhead was on the committee, and Pastor BelovedPreacher thinks pluralizing singles wins more souls than Whitefield ever did."

And I'll say, "What a great guy. What a bad idea."

The fear of man lays a snare,
but whoever trusts in the LORD is safe
(Proverbs 29:25)

POSTSCRIPT: isn't this awfully arrogant of me? Since arrogance is a sin, and I'm woefully vulnerable to any sin, that's a strong possibility. All I can tell you is that, in these cases, my honest thought is that the data is really strong and clear, and my honest feeling is along the lines of "Good heavens, if even a pinhead like me can see that...."

Biblical Christianity Statement on Mary

I read with mixed emotions — almost all bad — Chuck Colson's reflections on the passing of apostate Lutheran Richard John Neuhaus, co-perpetrator with him of ECT. Among other troubling and baffling things, Colson bubbles that the dithering of ECT has continued apace. Particularly, "We've been dealing with Mary for the last year and a half."

My. For a year and a half.

Well, I'm always willing to help.

So let me just step up and slice the Gordian knot for them. Here's my statement on Mary:

Mary, the mother of Jesus, is a pivotal yet relatively minor figure in the New Testament, of no more ongoing direct personal impact on the lives of Christians than any other exemplary (yet flawed) redeemed sinner depicted in the Bible.

There. Done.

Glad to be of help.

PS — you might find amusement in this old post on B2W, and my comments on it. Doesn't look like I've shifted much.

Spectacular find: Screwtape Letters read by John Cleese, and other C. S. Lewis audiobooks

This site claims to provide copyright-free old radio programs. It provides in particular one...

...Spectacular Find...

...for which I've long searched. To wit:

The Screwtape Letters, read by John Cleese

The same site also features The Problem of Pain and Mere Christianity on audiobook.

(Thanks to my friend Tim, in Minnesota)

Defining Christians and Republicans (part two)

(concluded from part one)

Why say you is, when you ain't?

Why, then, would anyone want to call himself a "Christian" when he isn't one, when he doesn't embrace the core convictions that define what it means to be a Christian? Many reasons are possible. Here are four:

Wolf-in-sheep's-clothing phenomenon. Particularly in the case of leaders, clergy, or missionaries, if they want to fleece the flock, they won't get in if they appear in their true colors. Sheep One will say, "Dude! Wolf!" — and the sheep will go bleating off. So a cagey leader throws on a few cottony tufts, learns to say "Baa," and stuffs his silverware and A-1 into his pockets.

Social respectability. When a writer from a newspaper interviewed me, as a new pastor in a new town, I mentioned that I had not been raised as a Christian. My dear, late mother was very offended. To her (born 1916), in saying this I implied that I had not had a moral, civilized upbringing. I meant no such thing, of course; I simply meant I had not been raised in the Biblical, Christian faith.

But Mom represented an America in which to be an American was to be a Christian, which is to say a decent, moral, nominally-religious, vaguely "God"-fearing person. "Unchristian" had no doctrinal referent; it simply meant crude, rude, uncharitable, ill-bred.

So I think particularly in the case of politicians, there's enough of a civic memory of this time that it looks better to be a "Christian" than, say, a Hindu or an atheist. It gets you ten points in the Moral-O-Meter, and provides a nice "cover." (But only if you're not a fanatical about it. You can be a Jack Danforth "Christian," a Jimmy Carter "Christian,"a Bill Clinton "Christian,"a Barack Obama "Christian"— certainly not a Sarah Palin Christian.)

Many like to say they're Christians because they don't really understand the Gospel, but do like perceived benefits. Their notion doesn't include truths and implications such as Luke 9:23, Romans 6 and Hebrews 12. But they like their (mangled) understanding of gauzy themes such as forgiveness, acceptance, eternal hope. Their perversion of it is that they can live like Hell and hope for Heaven, and own a "Get Out Of Guilt Or Accountability" card, if they just say they're Christians. (See under Clinton, Bill; or, nauseatingly, the Gutless Grace subset of dispensationalists — who have much to answer for.)

Deeper down, though, lies suppressed God-consciousness. Paul says quite bluntly, that all men naturally "suppress the truth in unrighteousness" (Romans 1:18). They know God, but choose not to honor Him as God (v. 21). So at bottom, they know they should be Christians; they want the comfort that comes from being a Christian. They like (as I said) the notions of being forgiven, of having hope, of thinking that that whole death-thingie has been taken care of, and All That. Plus, there's usually no immediate price to pay, in our culture, for saying you're a Christian. So, just say it, and all these wonderful prizes and parting-gifts are yours to keep.

So... can you say who is a Christian and who isn't?

Yes, and no.

That isn't nearly as wiggly as it sounds at first glance, so hang in with me.

When the GOP calls itself a "big tent," I always think, "But even the biggest tent still has walls." So where are the walls on a political party? I honestly don't know. I know where I think they should be — but in a party that equally has been home to Ronald Reagan and William Weld, Tom Coburn and Arlen Specter, I just don't know where they are.

At root, though, that is in large measure because the political party has no defining document, no transcendent and objective authority. This is not the case in Christianity. We have both: the Bible, and the triune God who inerrantly inspired its authorship. (NOTE: what follows is considered and condensed, not intended for skimming.)

The "yes" part

You'd think a religion called "Christianity" should have something to do with Christ, wouldn't you? And so, in a sane world, it would. Christ said: "But why do you call Me 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do the things which I say?" (Luke 6:46 NKJ). Two critical truths at least are highlighted in this dominical bombshell: (1) confession of Jesus' Lordship is foundational; and (2) such a confession must be followed by acceptance of and obedience to His words.

Confession of His Lordship. Jesus Himself put this confession as foundational to the church. Confession that Jesus is Lord, Christ, God incarnate is the foundation-rock on which the church must be built (Matthew 16:16-19; cf. Romans 10:9; 1 Corinthians 3:11). This is the confession that the Holy Spirit inspires (1 Corinthians 12:3b). It is both goal and result of His death on the Cross, and bodily resurrection (Romans 14:9).

Obviously Jesus is Lord in the sense that He is the absolute authority, both supreme teacher and supreme master. Jesus clearly has this in mind in Luke 6:46. But "Lord" is also a common title for Deity throughout the Old Testament — that is, for God. And indeed the Christian confesses Jesus as both his Lord and his God (John 20:28).

This actually all forms a sort of endless (but constructive) do-loop. Anywhere you start, you get to the rest of it. That is, if Jesus is God, then He is Lord; if He is Lord, then He is God. How? Jesus affirmed that no less than the Father Himself demanded that the Son receive honor equal to the honor paid the Father (John 5:23). If He is Lord, then we are to believe what He says; if we believe what He says, then we must believe that He is God.

In either regard, to accept the foundational conviction that Jesus is Lord and God necessarily pays off into...

...acceptance of and obedience to His words. As Lord, Jesus expects me to take His yoke upon myself and learn of Him (Matthew 11:28-30), and to do what He tells me (Luke 6:46). It is not a peer-relationship; the Christian life is not a negotiation. So it follows that, if Jesus is my Lord and my God, I will learn to love what He loves and hate what He hates; to cherish what He values, and spurn what He despises. My convictions and values, and my choices and actions, will be progressively brought into conformity to His.

That is why the NT requires, imposes and provides tests. We see the apostles extending "a judgment of Christian charity," which is to say that one's profession of faith is accepted, unless other considerations make that profession impossible to accept. Note: both halves of that statement should receive due weight. The predisposition is to accept a professed brother as such; but equally, disqualifiers do, in fact, disqualify.

Jesus Himself set the stage for this, by depicting many as falsely expecting to be welcomed to Heaven, when instead they'll be banished to Hell (Matthew 7:21-23).

So, similarly, Paul says he doesn't care who preaches a different Gospel, that person is justly damned and doomed (Galatians 1:8-9). No honest reader could doubt that Paul's Gospel had definite and distinct form, shape, edges. He lays it out as crucial and foundational, in 1 Corinthians 15:1-11. Paul paints the Gospel as requiring the affirmation and embrace of certain events and their meanings as assigned by Scripture, including the penal, substitutionary death of Christ, His burial, and His bodily resurrection. In that section as well, Paul stresses the need to cling to this Gospel precisely as given; salvation is to be found nowhere else.

Likewise the apostle John gives a cycle of three tests of eternal life (cf. 1 John 5:13). They include correct doctrine (cf. 4:1-4; 5:1, etc.), obedience to the written Word of God (2:3-6; 5:2-3, etc.), and love for the brothers (3:11-18; 4:7-12, etc.). He goes over these three themes, these three tests, again and again, from different angles.

So it isn't surprising that, in contrast to modern "Anything-goes/Whatever" evanjellybeans, we frequently find the Bible referring to false brothers (2 Corinthians 11:26; Galatians 2:4), false prophets and false teachers (2 Peter 2:1), warning against deceivers (Colossians 2:4, 8, 16-22; Jude 4), and both commanding and commending the exercise of close discernment (1 Thessalonians 5:21-22; Revelation 2:2). Christians say they're Christians; but saying you're a Christian doesn't make you a Christian.

So yes: it is possible to trace out the parameters of Christian profession and practice. And it is possible that someone's words and/or life indicate that he hasn't the right to claim to be a Christian.

The "no" part

Many of these tests are meant for me to use on myself, primarily — not (primarily) on others. I am to test myself (2 Corinthians 13:5), and apply John's threefold tests to see if I have eternal life (1 John 5:13). They are not primarily given that I might go around with a big red C and a big red P, stamping Christian or Phony on anyone I meet.

"Primarily," I say. However, HSAT, I am urged to apply discernment and judgment, as we've seen (cf. Matthew 7:6, etc.). Christian leaders in particular are responsible to identify, deal with, and warn against false teachers and false brothers (cf. Titus 1:10-13; 3:10-11, etc.). The church is to echo this judgment (cf. Matthew 18:17; 1 Corinthians 5:9-13; 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 14-15).

But I can barely know my own sick, deceptive heart (Jeremiah 17:9), let alone another's (1 Corinthians 2:11). So I must be humble and cautious, must stick with what I can see and hear, must not overreach, and must leave the ultimate decision to God.

Plus we must factor in truths such as Romans 7:14-25, where even the apostle Paul himself said that what he did (and failed to do) was not always right. He did what he shouldn't; he didn't do what he should. His life, unlike Jesus', was not seamlessly perfect and "there" (cf. also Philippians 3:12-13). So even the Christianest Christian we'll ever know will have lapses, failings, weaknesses — sins.

So humility and grace are definitely called for.

However, HSAT, I not only can, but must say that certain words and deeds and concepts and beliefs are not Biblical, not Christian, not pleasing to God — when I have the revealed mind of God on those matters. And I can extrapolate, and warn, rebuke, reprove, exhort. And I can (and must) warn that a pattern, a path, if not repented of, will lead to Hell.

Though a Christian may sin, he struggles and fights against his sin (Galatians 5:17). He regularly puts to death the deeds of his body (Romans 8:13). He does not continue in sin (1 John 3:3-4, 8-10). That distinguishes a Christian: he isn't floating downstream towards the waterfall. He fights the current.

And mark this: there is no sentence, word, nor syllable of Scripture meant to give comfort to anyone willfully continuing in unrepented sin.

So: if someone's confession of "Christ" is heterodox and out of step with Scripture; if his value-system bears no mark of the yoke of discipleship in the school of Christ; if his closest associates despise the Lord and His word; and if he stubbornly resists all attempts to point him to Christ, and to the word of God — then we would be faithless towards God, and loveless towards that man or woman, to imagine or hold out any basis to believe him or her to be a Christian.

At the very least, we can and must certainly say something like,

"What you are saying/doing is offensive to God, and condemned by God. I can't see your heart, but I can see what comes out of your heart. Jesus says that the mouth speaks from what fills the heart (Luke 6:45), and our actions come from our hearts (cf. Proverbs 4:23). These are not the actions nor words of a heart that believes and loves God, and that worries me terribly for you. I implore you, repent, bow the knee to Christ as Lord from your heart — or you have no reason to hope that you have any part in Him or His kingdom."

It's what Jesus would do (Mark 1:15; Luke 13:3, 5; Revelation 3:19).

It's what we should do.

Defining Christians and Republicans (part one)

Defining itself isn't a popular activity today. It violates the very soul of postmodernism to find centers and edges, and set boundaries; to say "Here's what A is, and here are the borders at which we move from A to non-A." We don't like being so specific. Hence Emerg***, which defines itself as being anti-definitional.

Often it's sheer intellectual cowardice. I noticed and parodied this in seminary, back in the early 80s. Students sprinkled their questions and statements with the wiggle-phrase in a sense. That was your Get Out Of Specificity card. "So... in a sense, isn't Bultmann affirming inspiration?"

Challenged, a student could always retort, "Yeah, but I said in a sense!"

Use that phrase broadly enough, and it's hard to argue that anything is really wrong. Use it broadly enough, and, in a sense, the Eiffel Tower is in Mammoth Lakes, California — because, after all, isn't it one planet?

So now we come to political parties. The mantra for the GOP for decades has been Big Tent. That's shorthand for, "We don't care what you believe or fight for, as long as you call yourself a Republican." So, you can be pro-infanticide or pro-life, pro-big-government or pro-small-government, pro-tax-hikes or pro-tax-cuts, pro-"gay"-"marriage" or anti-. In other words, you can be Duncan Hunter, or you can be Olympia Snowe. Just be a Republican. It's a Big Tent. RINO still starts with an "R."

Well, arch-conservative that I am, I have to grant that there is a point to this. How do you define "Republican," specifically? By the party platform? In that case, the GOP would be larger than current "third"-parties, but not by much. So GOP voters have to decide which values are core values to them in the interests of which they'll accept less-than-perfect.

For instance, candidate Bush had for him that he was pretty solidly pro-life, and (we were told) could beat Algore. But he had that lame and slanderous "compassionate conservatism," which we suspected (rightly) was a code-phrase for bi-i-i-i-ig government. W did turn out to be a good pro-life president, but lost the White House for the GOP due in part to his overspending.

So we can argue whether W was a "good" Republican... but it'd be hard to define him as not a Republican. Because — what are the borders? What is the objective definition? What is the authority?

These are all legitimate questions... in politics. Arnold Schwarzeneggar can say he's a Republican, and so can John Kyl; Tom McClintock, and John Warner. All you have to do is say you're one, register as one, and you are one. Who can challenge the claim? For good or ill, that's the way it is.

So now here's the problem: people have come to speak of claiming to be a Christian in the same terms. If someone says he's a Christian, well then, he is. Who can challenge his claim? In fact, it's bad to challenge that particular claim.

How does this topic compare to politics? Are there no boundaries to "Christianity"? Is it impossible to define Christian faith, to say "Here, here and here are where you leave Christianity and go into something else"? Is there no authoritative source that defines being a Christian?

Of course there is an authoritative source for defining Christian faith: the Bible. And that book does lay down a number of lines, borders, boundaries. They're both conceptual and practical.

But I want to pause for a moment and just reflect on the resistance you get to the very endeavor. It's thought outrageous to try to "define" what it is to be a Christian. Because next thing you know, you're going to actually have to say that some popular person who claims to be a Christian, isn't really a Christian.

But why is that in principle so unthinkable? If I claim to be a casaba melon, you may feel bad for me for saying it, but you won't feel bad for pointing out that I'm really not. Similarly if I claim to be a brick, a Communist, a quahog, or one of the Beatles. I'm just not. I can say I am, but saying doesn't make it so.

Heck, I can teach a parakeet to say "I'm a Christian." But he won't be one, for all that.

All sorts of things in life have borders, edges, termini. Why not being a Christian?

It is, after all, a voluntary association. Nobody has to be a Christian. And particularly, if you don't yourself subscribe to the distinctives of being a Christian, why would you want to say you were one? Before my conversion, I certainly didn't want to be mistaken for a Jesus Freak. Why would I? I despised what they believed, and was happy to distance myself from them.

Lord willing we'll start there, next time, and then move into some definition.

Election 2008: Theologizing and strategerizing (Part Three)

Conclusion (see part one and part two)

What do we do now?

First, I'd call us all to repentance. It "is time for judgment to begin at the household of God" (1 Peter 4:17). The world doesn't know better. What's our excuse? We'd best get ourselves straight with God. Tough times are coming. We must be prepared for battle.

It'd be an appropriate time to pray a Daniel 9 prayer of repentance. We read of no flaws in Daniel, no sins, no chinks in his character. Yet the prophet heartily said, "I turned my face to the Lord God, seeking him by prayer and pleas for mercy with fasting and sackcloth and ashes" (Daniel 9:3); and "I prayed to the LORD my God and made confession" (v. 4).

And what a confession. Read it all, if you haven't. Here's just a taste:

"...we have sinned and done wrong and acted wickedly and rebelled, turning aside from your commandments and rules. 6 We have not listened to your servants the prophets, who spoke in your name to our kings, our princes, and our fathers, and to all the people of the land. 7 To you, O Lord, belongs righteousness, but to us open shame, as at this day, to the men of Judah, to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to all Israel, those who are near and those who are far away, in all the lands to which you have driven them, because of the treachery that they have committed against you. "

Second, we should disabuse ourselves of an unreasonable reliance on government or legislation.

Do not trust in nobles,
in man, who cannot save.
...5 Happy is the one whose help is the God of Jacob,
whose hope is in the LORD his God,
6 the Maker of heaven and earth,
the sea and everything in them....
9...He frustrates the ways of the wicked.
10 The LORD reigns forever;
Zion, your God reigns for all generations.
Hallelujah!
(From Psalm 146 CSB; read the whole psalm)

Third, prepare for the worst and hope (and work) for the best.

Judah had an amazing Godsend of a king in Josiah. We read of him, "Before him there was no king like him who turned to the LORD with all his mind and with all his heart and with all his strength according to all the law of Moses, and no one like him arose after him" (2 Kings 23:25).

But note the very next words: "In spite of all that, the LORD did not turn from the fierceness of His great wrath and anger, which burned against Judah because of all the provocations Manasseh had provoked Him with" (v. 26).

Judah had passed the Point of No Return as to Yahweh's judgment. Too much light rejected, too many opportunities refused, too many warnings spurned (cf. Proverbs 1:22-33).

Can anyone say, with any credibility, that America is not in that exact same situation? Let's be absolutely honest: God has every justification for reducing out nation to a smoking crater, right now, without a syllable of further warning. He may well use President Obama towards that end.

We should prepare for the worst.

At the same time, we should hope and strive. Consider Joel 2:12-14 —

Even now-- this is the LORD's declaration-- turn to Me with all your heart, with fasting, weeping, and mourning. 13 Tear your hearts, not just your clothes, and return to the LORD your God. For He is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger, rich in faithful love, and He relents from sending disaster. 14 Who knows? He may turn and relent and leave a blessing behind Him, so you can offer grain and wine to the LORD your God.

"Who knows?", the prophet asks. You don't; I don't. Amos speaks similarly, after some thundering threats and warnings:

Hate evil, and love good, and establish justice in the gate; it may be that the LORD, the God of hosts, will be gracious to the remnant of Joseph (Amos 6:15)

America's turning away has brought it to a sad, bad place. But: "Even now," "Who knows?", and "It may be." The import is clear: we should repent, pray, strive, and hope.

Fourth, have an intelligent grasp of how Romans 13:1-7 applies to the American situation.

Paul teaches that God instituted all authority, and so we are to submit ourselves to the authorities over us. Since God instituted authority, to resist it is to resist God.

Now, before we "welcome our new insect overlords" in an uncritical application of this passage, let's remember a few things.

This is America, not Israel. It is a constitutional republic, not a monarchy (nor a straight democracy). When he takes office, Obama will be in charge of just one of the three branches of our government. He will be neither Messiah nor King.

What is the authority, in our system of government? It is the document that begins:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The authority is the Constitution, and it was the people who ordained and established it. The Constitution divides power among three branches; it does not invest it in a potentate. The state is not Obama; he is neither Rex, nor Lex, nor the court. He is to execute laws made by another branch. It is an office with a good deal of power; but that power does not include being my sovereign nor my lord.

Further, the men who formed this nation thought it important to guarantee certain rights to me and to all Americans.

And what was the first right they saw fit to guarantee?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I'm not Obama's serf, I'm not his subject, I'm not his slave. I have no king but Jesus, nor any Messiah but He. I'm an American citizen, and our ruling document guarantees and assures me the right to express my thoughts — including my dissent — openly and freely. Men fought and died to win me that right, and they still die to preserve it. I'm not giving it up just to be thought a nice, deep, compliant, pliable little evanjellybean creampuff.

This is my right. It not only is not a violation of Romans 13:1-7 but, you could plausibly argue, it is required by Romans 13:1-7.

How "required"? Because, in our system of government, I am part of the governing authority. I would see a failure to voice my views, and exert such influence as I have, as poor citizenship.

In fact — and truly, it embarrasses me to have to say this, but — Chuck Norris makes better contextual sense than some Christianoid flutterings I've seen. I know, I know: Chuck Norris. No, I'm serious.

So, put briefly, resisting what I see as unwise and/or evil designs from one representative of one branch of government not only is not rebelling against the governing authority, but it expresses respect for the established governing authority. Of which I am part.

So fifth, we should resist every foolish or evil thing Obama means to do, by every peaceful, lawful means at our disposal.

Instant Brockman response would be, "Why 'resist'? Shouldn't we welcome our new messianic overlord, and try to help him succeed in doing good things?"

My twofold response is (A) duh, I don't think I need to say everything, do I?; and (B) I don't know any distinctive thing that I believe Obama proposes to do that I don't see as foolish or evil. I mean, for instance, he hasn't proposed completely trashing all laws whatever; so I do support him on that thing he hasn't proposed to do. But radicalizing abortion access? Evil. Heading towards nationalized healthcare? Foolish.

And now finally I put sixth the thing your average evanjellybean (as well as good bro's) would put first: we should pray. Oh yes, pray. How should we pray?

• We should pray for national repentance and genuine revival
• We should pray that men in the pulpit would be bolder than ever and more fierce and fearless and passionate and Spirit-led than ever, in proclaiming the Word of God above all (cf. Daniel 11:32; 2 Thessalonians 3:1).
• We should pray that God convict Barack Obama of his sin, convince him of Christ's Lordship and of his need for Him, open his eyes to the Gospel, and bring him to repentant, saving faith.
• If that happens, we should pray that Barack Obama should be seriously and quickly discipled in the Word of God, that he would instantly begin putting off his corrupt and evil worldview, and replacing it with convictions that reflect the mind of God.
• Until then, we should pray for his safety, as he gives every sign of being a man who cannot afford to die. Also until then:
• We should pray that God frustrate all his evil plans and defeat every foolish, rapacious, harmful thing he means to visit on our nation (cf. 2 Samuel 15:31; Psalm 3:7; 9:16; 10:15; Proverbs 21:1; etc.);
• We should pray that God protect the innocent from Obama's designs further to expose them to heartless murder (Psalm 10:14b)
• We should pray that God raise up good, godly, responsible, wise, winsome leaders (cf. 1 Samuel 13:14).
  

That's for starters.

So, in short, you could say I won't be going Kent Brockman on you.

Surprised?

Now comments are open, but do note: all rules (especially rule 1) are in effect.