Berit Olam

T. David Gordon on the 'Toilet Effect' of 21st Century Reformed Theology

2009-04-25T01:12:00.000-07:00

T. David Gordon has an fascinating article ("Distractions from Orthodox", Modern Reformation , Fall 2008) that points out the necessity and difficulty in trying to define 'orthodoxy' in the current ecclesiastical climate. One man's liberalism is another man's fundamentalism. How ever are we to know where to draw the lines of who's "in" and who's "out"? How do we decide what belongs outside as heresy, what belongs outside but should still to be regarded as evangelical, what we can agree-to-disagree over and remain in union with one another in a given church/denomination, and what things we must all confess.

I still vividly remember my chats with elder Mac Laurie (way back during my summer Santa Barbara internship in 2000) and his growing concern that, in the name of trying to 'protect' things from 'broadening' in the church, there was a growing momentum in some quarters to become increasingly 'narrow' over non-essential. Gordon relates a similar concern:

I knew an individual once whose recurring theme was that the church (generally or specifically) was moving in heterodox directions. When I asked for evidence of this movement, he almost always cited some matter that appeared in none of the historic creeds of the church. So, what sounded at first as though some of the theological cows had left the barn, ended up being that he had brought in some carpenters and made a smaller barn.

It's this 'making the barn smaller' that concerns me as well. Gordon continues: "Pendulums swing curiously, racing through the middle and tarrying at the extremes. The church, likewise, might swing from the extreme of not caring to talk seriously about doctrine on the one hand, to the other extreme of making every doctrinal discussion a test of orthodoxy on the other."

In short, "...not every such discussion need be regarded as a test of orthodoxy or a term of communion." If (and when!) they do, it leads to what Gordon refers to as the 'toilet bowel' effect:

My students are alternately amused and disturbed by my occasional reference to what I inelegantly call the "toilet effect." Having completed the task that brought you to the toilet in the first place, you reach around and push the handle, but accidentally bump the Reader's Digest (or your "to-do" list, your spouse's toothbrush, or the family Chihuahua) off the sink into the toilet also. The swirl having already begun, the Digest is doomed to a most unliterary fate. It suffers the "toilet effect," wasted in the effort to remove genuine waste. The church not infrequently suffers also from the toilet effect. In the effort to rid itself of some perceived effluvium or another, other resources, energies, graces, or gifts sometimes get caught in the swirl and disappear also.

I suppose (to be fair) this is a struggle that any ecclesiastical group/denomination has to deal with, particularly given the plethora of 'issues' that are bombarding upon us from all sides. But as one who has worked in a number of different Presbyteries, States, and even Countries, I can attest that there is nothing imaginary about this so-called 'toilet effect' in Reformed churches.

Gordon continues:

Satan is a distracter/diverter of the church's resources, and we should not be unaware of his devices. He loves waste, especially the church's waste, because it blunts her warfare against him. He loves the toilet effect, when the church's greater resources disappear in overzealous attempts to achieve smaller gains. Indeed, I often wonder if the Evil One is not the inventor of the toilet effect. The temptation of Christ in Matthew 4 was not a moral temptation in any ordinary sense of the term. Eating bread is not sinful. Rather, Satan tempted Christ to divert his distinctive messianic power from its primary purpose of rescuing the lost from Satan's dominion. Similarly, Satan frequently, perhaps ordinarily, tempts the church to divert its energies from its primary purpose of rescuing the lost from Satan's dominion.

But isn't this just another attempt to do away with 'sound doctrine' in the name of evangelistic zeal? Not if we understand the kinds of things Gordon is concerned about.

Things that are legitimate to address in their own right need not occupy an undue amount of the church's resources, and some such issues need never be resolved. Examples of such studied and deliberate ambiguities in the Westminster standards, for instance, include: infant salvation ("elect infants dying in infancy"), the nature of obedience owed to the civil magistrate ("obedience to his lawful commands"), post- and amillennialism, and mediate or immediate imputation of sin. Other truths are so woven into the fabric of theology that they must be regarded as a matter either of general Christian orthodoxy (the articles of the Apostles' Creed for instance) or a matter of the particular orthodoxy of one of its branches (Lutheran versus Reformed understanding of the nature of Christ's presence in the Lord's Supper). But other matters, worthy of Christian conversation, needn't be finally resolved.

In other words, we have to recognize that not all doctrinal disputes and matters are created equal. This is where I think historical theology can play a positive role in assessing, as it were, the size of our theological boundaries. You need to have some perspective as to whether certain doctrines deserve a robust defense at all costs and what doctrinal differences can and should be tolerated within a given tradition.

Gordon goes on to list and explore his "...candidates for winners of the coveted toilet effect":
(1) The length of creation days
(2) Van Tillian apologetics
(3) Biblical theology vs. Systematic theology
(4) Christian America & the culture wars
(5) Christian education
(6) Women in the military

You can read his discussion for yourself under each one, if you aren't familiar with the issues. His concern, as I see it, is not that these issues should be swept under the rug entirely. Rather he's pleading for a broader 'ecumenical'-spirit when faced with issues that genuine brothers in the same tradition disagree over. One might not expect this of Dr. Gordon, given some of the polemical writing style. Yet, as one gets to know him (and meets other people that previously worked with him), you'll find that he's 'ecumenical' in the best sense of the term when dealing with others in a Reformed church setting.

Studying Galatians

2009-04-21T19:41:00.000-07:00

I've been working through on and off Galatians over about the last 2 or so years, having finally made it to Chapter 6 (this coming Sunday AM). Here are a few random biographical suggestions that might serve as a sign post for someone wishing to work on Galatians in the future.

As far as commentaries go, R. Longnecker (one of the better ones I've seen in the Word Commentary Series) and Betz (in the Hermeneia by Fortress Press) will give you an excellent 1-2 punch on the exegetical front. Differences notwithstanding, both proved stronger 'theologically' than I expected when starting. If you're planning to work/teach/preach/study through Galatians, Longnecker is a 'must buy' with Betz deserving 2nd prize. After that it tends to be very hit or miss. Ridderbos' commentary (published in 1953) is ok, but it lacks some of the more profound things he wrote later in life. Interestingly, I think there were a number of places that the later Riddersbos (a la Paul: An Outline) differered from this commentary. One definitely gets the sense that he was reading Galatians eariler through the lens of the ordo salutis while moving more toward a historia salutis reading of Galatians by the time he wrote Paul: An Outline.

Fung (NICNT) is alright...good in places, ho-hum in others. Unlike the more-recently redone Anchor Commentary series in the OT which tends to be quite good, I didn't find J.A. Martyr's commentary (1997) very helpful at all as a 'critical' commentary. James Dunn's commentary (in the Black NT series, 1995) and monograph (A Theology of Paul's Letter to the Galatians, Cambridge Press) have their scattered brilliant moments mixed in with large swaths of theological presuppositions that I don't share; it would take a detailed review of Dunn to say more. However, for the purpose of this review, I'm not ready to throw either of these books to the "NPP" (the New Perspective Pergortory) of fundamentalist exegesis. You need to be aware of how Dunn reads Galatians, and I think you'll come away better off digesting the argumentation. Richard Hays monograph (The Faith of Jesus Christ, Scholar's Press, 1983) that focuses specifically on Galatians 3 and 4 is another piece that deserves careful attention, even though I don't find all of his arguments immdiately compelling and remain unconvinced of his pistou Christou position.

Moises Silva's Interpreting Galatians: Explorations in Exegetical Method is another important book worthy of taking a look at. There are places where I concur and do not concur, but it's still a book you ought to consult when working in Galatians.

The book that has largely flown under the radar (at least, I've never heard it mentioned in my cross-section of Reformed and OT-minded friends) is The Flesh/Spirit Conflict in Galatians by Walter (Bo) Russell (Univ. Press of America, 1997). Russell is Professor of Biblical Exposition at Talbot Seminary; however, he did his Ph.D in NT at Westminster Seminary in PA under the direction of Moises Silva. His primary readers were Richard Gaffin and Stephen Westerholm.

As he notes in the preface, "This book is a work of biblical theology. It sets forth a creative thesis that swims against the theological current of the last few generations. The flow of the current is this: Whenever Paul speaks of the flesh/Spirit struggle, he is referring to an internal struggle within Christians. The thesis of this book is that this understanding of a flesh/Spirit struggle within believers is a misreading of Galatians (and elsewhere) and results in a wrong theological anthropology. Rather, I set forth the premise that Paul uses the flesh/Spirit antithesis in Galatians (and elsewhere) in a redemptive historical sense to refer to eras or modes of existence in the history of God's people." (ix, emphasis in the original).

Those familiar with Ridderbos' Paul, Vos' work on the Spirit, and Gaffin's work on the resurrection, Moo and Westerholm on 'the law', etc., will know exactly what's going on here; Russell argues very much along those same Biblical-theological lines. Those who have consulted T. David Gordon's, "The Problem at Galatia," Interpretation 41 (1987): 32-43 will find that Russell adopts a very similar position with respect to the book's purpose, and issue that has fairly dire consequences in how you read the book. While the book makes its particular focus on only Chapters 5 and 6 (where Paul's sarx/pneuma antithesis comes into focus), Russell makes excellent usage of the entire book's redemptive historical outlook, particular as it relates to the book's rhetorical strategy (35-86). He also has some good discussion regarding 'Paul's opponents' and what they were teaching (11-34), and how that often influences the 'method' or 'lens' the book is anaylzed through.

In other words, the first 3rd of the book will make an excellent introduction to the book, if you are looking for something to dive into at the start of your Galatians' study. There are two editions floating around, both identical as I can tell. The later one sells for about $5 more dollars. The cheapest place I've found selling the cheaper edition is Barnes and Noble.

I'm leaving out a lot of literature/commentaries that probably deserve a mention, but in the interest of brevity I'll save that for questions if want my opinions about other literature. I'm not Galatia expert by any means (email T. David Gordon if you want that!), but I have read just about all of the literature that I can get my hands on related to the book.

On one final note, what do I read on Galatians if I don't have gazillions to buy expensive monographs? My advice would probably be to consult something like the little-known-about commentary on Galatians by Leon Morris. It's not a perfect commentary, but I personally liked it better than any of the other 'pop variety' commentaries on Galatians (e.g. Stott, Hendrickson, even Ryken to a certain extent). Strangely, the book (published in 1996) seems to go largely unnoticed, even among evangelicals. There are places where I don't share his views, but it's a nice lay-refernce under 200 pages.

Housekeeping....

2009-04-15T23:29:00.000-07:00

_________________________

Just a few 'housekeeping' matters....

FIRST, In case you missed the memo -- yes, I'm married....as of June 2, 2007. I'll eventually post some of the official pics (shot most-excellently by Vicky's cousin-in-law and Canon employee, Scott Jo) over at my Flickr account of the wedding. In the mean time, there are already 50 or so shots taken by my Uncle Dan, for those who haven't seen them yet.

SECOND, things officially rapped up at Covenant Presbyterian in Berkeley last July (2008). It was a great 20 months of ministerial laboring with Pastor Wayne (a friend from seminary) and the entire church. It was one of those jobs that just providentially materialized when I relocated to the Bay Area to be near Vicky, and I am most appreciative of their (paid!) support for those months as Vicky and I 'adjusted' to marriage life. The church was also supportive as I preached through some material I had been working on from Proverbs and related OT 'wisdom' books; a lot of good, constructive feedback and encouragement along the way! Vicky and I are sad that our time there was so short.

If you are looking for a Reformed, Bible-teaching church in the San Francisco/Oakland area, I recommend you check out Covenant Presbyterian.

THIRD, so what now? Well, that was a question I was praying through for 2 or 3 months last year, and it seemed like I wasn't getting a clear answer. I kicked around the idea of getting that MA/Ph.D program started in Hebrew Bible, but the timing just seemed wrong to start something that massive. Besides, I was really enjoying the regular teaching at church, and I have more than enough 'degrees' to do that! But I had real doubts about where I should best pursue those ecclesiastical interests.

In the mean time, I decided to get back in touch with my old PCA church in La Jolla, CA....just to see what pastoral opportunities there might be back in this Presbytery. That's when the pastor (Rev. James Lee) floated (in his words) "the crazy idea" of me coming back down to New Life La Jolla to work as an Associate Pastor. Naturally my curiosity was peeked, since this was my church before I moved to Canada in 2004 to start my Th.M. [It was also the Presbytery that first licensed me to teach/preach back in 2003 and still the Presbytery where I still hold those credentials.] That first conversation happened in September 2008, but I really thought it was a major shot in the dark. How was a small church going to afford to pay me anything to come back? But one thing led to another, the New Life session issued me a verbal offer to come down around Thanksgiving time last November.

So Vicky and I decided to accept the offer, and we moved back to San Diego on New Year's weekend. It was an added bonus that Vicky attened the church when it was a brand new 'mission' work while she was a student at UCSD back in the late 90's. 3+ months in, things are going great. More on that TBA!

FOURTH, I have a new DSLR camera (as of last August): Canon 40D

I'm up to about 3500 shots in 9 months. Lots of mistakes. And even more photos I need to sort. Hey, I'm working on it; see my Flickr account for those updates.

I haven't touched an SLR camera since my freshman year in high school, but I had been itching to get back into things after a long absence, especially since the new DSLR cameras have been come down in price and are turning out much better quality shots than even 3 years ago. So far so good!

Keep your little pocket cameras for those simple family-get-together photos. But if you really want to expand your portfolio -- especially if there are kids in the mix now!! -- then getting a DSLR is a must. Email if you have any questions and I'll try to act like I know what I'm talking about!

My hope is to eventually expand things over at the Photomorg site, but so far I just haven't had the time.

Hopefully, I can get back to some posts here in the not-too-distant future. I need to get this stuff on Proverbs out while it's still fresh on my mind.

Cheers.

Herman Bavinck on Confession and False Shame

2009-04-10T01:32:00.000-07:00

But I certify you, brethren,
that the gospel which was preached of
me is not after man.
Gal. 1: 11.

Confessing is against flesh and blood, against the world and Satan. By nature, each man is an enemy of the preaching of the cross of Jesus Christ. It may seem strange to the shallow minded person, that there has always been so much resistance against the gospel. For it is a joyful message for all creatures; it speaks of nothing but grace, peace and salvation; it demands nothing, but gives everything. Yet, it finds enmity and resistance all over; it is an offense to the Jew and foolishness to the Greek. It may be for man, it is not after man. It is of Divine origin and therefore not in accordance with the thoughts and desires of men. Mind and heart, desire and will, soul and body are against the gospel of Christ. In their resistance men are supported by the world and the whole kingdom of darkness.

There certainly is a difference in circumstances. In days of peace and quiet, it is less serious, then when the congregation is oppressed and persecuted by the world. We need more courage to confess Christ, in an ungodly environment of sinners and mockers, than in the circle of relatives and friends, who together confess the truth. It needs a more courageous faith, not to be ashamed of the cross of Christ, when surrounded by the great and learned, than in the midst of common people in a distant village.

But in principle the resistance is the same all over. For flesh, the world and Satan are always the same, and the greatest and strongest enemy that resists the confession of Christ, lives in our own heart. The forms in which the enemy operates may be different, but confessing the name of Christ always demands that we deny self and bear His cross. Whoever, from which circle he may come, when he will follow Jesus, must submit to insult an contempt.

Even when faith is worked in the heart, and urges to confessing, there still can be so much that keeps the lips closed, and keeps us from boldly confessing the name of Jesus!

Look at Peter, who in a hour of danger denies his Master, and later in Antioch from fear for the brethren of the circumcision turns into a hypocrite. Yet, Peter was first among the apostles, who for his glorious and courageous confession that Jesus was Messiah, received the name of Rock. He felt so close to Jesus, had such fervent love for the Master, that he would die for the Lord, and did not think it possible he would ever deny his Lord. When Peter could fall and did fall, who shall remain standing? And who does not need the warning: let him that thinketh he standeth, take heed lest he fall.

There are many examples in the history of the Christian Church, where we read of steadfast martyrs, but we also read of the thousands, who denied the faith in the hour of temptation. When oppression and persecution come for the sake of the Word, those, who at first heard the Word with joy, but had no root in themselves, are instantly offended, and are but for a time.

There are so many dangers to which the believer is exposed, so many rocks at which he can suffer shipwreck. The desire of the eyes, the lust of the flesh, the pride of life, fear to lose name and honor, good and blood, work together to draw Christ's disciple away from the certainty of faith. Among all these temptations, a so-called sense of false shame could be the most severe of all. For even when oppressions and persecutions are past, it continues to slay its thousands and ten thousands. Among the low and mighty, this sense of false shame kept many from confessing the name of the Lord.

There is something very humiliating in the thought, that basically, in our hearts, we are ashamed to confess Jesus. For He was a man going through the country, doing good and blessing men; Who was meek and lowly of heart; Who being innocent, died on the cross, being condemned by those who were His enemies. There must be something out of order with us, we must be spiritually sick, when we are ashamed for such a Man, and are afraid to take His name on our lips.

Shame in general is an unpleasant feeling, which connects itself with some act in us, as if the esteem from others for us becomes less. It can be something positive. When Adam after he sinned is ashamed because he trespassed the commandment, he gives evidence that he sees his act as evil and is aware that he fell. To be ashamed is not always a fruit of faith, it is also known by the natural man, and is evidence that men did not become animal or devil when he fell. He is still man, and a feeling of dignity and honour remains with him.

But beside much that is true and good, there is also a false sense of shame. It occurs when we feel embarrassed about something, which is good in itself, but can lower us in the esteem of others. We are often ashamed for the good impressions that are left from the preaching of the gospel; about the accusations of our conscience; about the sorrow that we feel after a sin committed; about emotions to which we are subject at certain times. We are afraid that others knowing about this, will despise us, and make fun of us; that we will lose the name of being courageous and strong people.

It is this sense of false shame, which often surprises us with respect to the gospel of the cross. We are ashamed of the congregation, which consists not of many nobles, not many wise. We are ashamed of the Bible, which is so different and is contested by men of science and culture. We are ashamed of Christ, Who claimed to be God's only Son, the anointed of the Father. We are ashamed of His cross, which was an offense to the Jew, and foolishness to the Greek. We are ashamed of God's special revelation, which discovers us to ourselves, and shows us in our spiritual poverty.

We are also afraid when taking the side of Christ, we will lose our name and honour as men and become subject to insult and mockery, libel and oppression. We fear, that by confessing Christ, our dignity, our personality, our being human will suffer harm.

Even a sense of false shame has the dark underground, that at one time we were created in God's image and must uphold a certain honour and status. No one is indifferent to the esteem of self and of others, because in his deepest fall, man remains man, that is, he still retains the image and likeness of God.

But under the influence of sin this sense works the wrong way. For it is true indeed when we give ourselves to Christ for our salvation, the esteem of ourselves and that of others will lessen and we will lose our name and honour by men. But such esteem is nothing but delusion, and such honour and delusion are but imagined. For by nature we see ourselves as rich and enriched, having need of nothing. But when we embrace the gospel, we see that we are poor and blind and naked.

That is how the honour of men is for the greatest part nothing but ignorance and show. The art of associating with man consists in hiding our real being, so they form a judgment about our person, according to our outward, acquired behaviour. God is true, but all men are liars. Man just does not happen to speak lies, but he lives a lie; he is untrue in his very existence. Appearance and substance, being and revelation, inward and outward do contrast each other. While at times the mouth flows over with love and the countenance shows nothing but friendship, from the heart of men proceed evil surmisings, murders, fornication, adultery, theft, false witness, slanders. A saint, who knew the inner man and could see the bottom of the heart, would flee from him, horror stricken. And unforgettable is the love of Christ, Who knew man, but in spite of this looked for him and gave Himself over into death for him.

That is how we live for ourselves and others in a delusion and imagination. Well considered, we abandon nothing, when we believe in Christ, for we have nothing. We only abandon the delusion that we are rich and enriched, that we have need of nothing. The greatest misery of sin is not that we are blind, but being blind we think that we see. Sin is guilt and shame and stain, but it also is foolishness and lack of wisdom.

That delusion is disturbed in us by the Word of the Lord. If we would be saved by Christ we must do away with that delusion. For to become a Christian is to esteem the judgment of others for nothing, accepting the judgment of God upon ourselves and hope in His grace. To confess Christ includes, that we lose ourselves and all that is ours, our name and our honour, our good and blood, our soul and our life. It is exactly this that is resisted by a sense of false shame. The desire to apparent self preservation, urges and drives men to resist the gospel with all his strength.

"Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." (Rom. 8: 7). The natural man does not understand the things of God's Spirit, and he does not understand, that denial of self is the only way to true self-preservation.

from The Sacrifice of Praise, Chapter 7

Theonomy, Ethics, and Perspectivalism

2009-03-01T23:06:00.000-08:00

NB: The following was discussion paper penned by the late Meredith Kline. Since I over the years have received numerous questions regarding Christian ethics, Theonomy, and perspectivalism. I don't wish enter a full-blown discussion of Prof Frame's perspectivalism, but I merely submit this in the interest of (a) highlighting one aspect of the discussion and (b) posting Dr. Kline's thoughts on the matter.

__________________________________________________________

Meredith G. Kline
28 February 1986
Westminster Theological Seminary in California

After our faculty forum on theonomy I thought a follow-up paper would be useful, particularly to treat the opening sections of the discussion-guide provided by John Frame, which were by-passed at the forum. I also thought it would be appropriate to communicate with Vern Poythress, whose three tapes on theonomy were among the source materials for the forum, especially since I had made some criticisms of his approach, even though appreciating his contribution to the discussion along biblical-theological lines and the way he eventually comes down in clear opposition to the radical conclusions of theonomic politics. These two objectives have been combined in this one response-paper to save some time and effort by avoiding inevitable repetitions. Hopefully this paper may serve as a stimulus to our continued study of the issues together.

At the forum I stressed the importance of starting with something that is indisputably held by theonomists and is, moreover, a distinctive and climactic tenet for them, namely, their contention that it is a function of the state to suppress and eliminate those who practice false religions. In my judgment, to impose such a role on the State would be in effect to countermand the great commission. As I see it, this reconstructionist program contradicts the essential biblical ethos and ethic of the church in this present world. Theonomists disagree - they see this program as the fulfillment of their millennial aspirations. One can take a stand with one side or the other in this dispute but what one cannot do is pass off the conflict as just a matter of varying emphases, as just a relative difference of position on some continuum. Clearly the difference is substantive, a difference not of degree but total contrast. It is not simply a matter of minor disagreement as to how to apply some general principle in a given situation. It is not a matter of some general principle of justice at all, but rather of the particular, precise functions that divine revelation assigns to specific institutions - theocracy, State, church. The defining of the nature, functions and historical mission of these institutions constitutes a major element in the content of biblical law, each covenantal corpus of law being indeed institutionally specific. And dividing theonomists sharply from their Reformed critics is a radical difference of judgment as to the functions appointed by the Scriptures to the several institutions.

Turning to Frame's discussion-guide he starts with the assertion that the Mosaic law, including its penal sanctions, had the functions (1) of republishing "the creation ordinances and the Noahic and Abrahamic covenant stipulations" and (2) of applying these "principles" to the new situation introduced by the exodus, with its cultural and redemptive-historical differences from what went before. Then, on the basis of this interpretation of the Mosaic law, he concludes that there is both continuity and discontinuity between the Mosaic law and what preceded and follows it, that accordingly total continuity or total discontinuity is ruled out, and that the differences between Bahnsen and Kline are perforce only relative differences as to the degree of continuity or discontinuity recognized by each.

It is Frame's starting point that must be challenged, that is, his biblical-theological conclusion that the several promulgations of divine stipulations are to be identified as each a republication of its predecessors). I am, of course, concerned to contest the soundness of the biblical-theological position in itself, but I also want to call attention to how this starting assumption decisively affects, delimits and controls all that follows.

Frame's republishing approach should not be adopted in the first place because it entails a seriously defective view of the several divine covenants. It misconstrues the relationship of the successive economies in the administration of God's rule over the world by obscuring if not obliterating the real differences (especially as to the nature and functions of the institutions defined in the covenants) that obtain between the covenant of creation and the covenant of common grace, between the latter and the redemptive covenants, and between the Mosaic Covenant and previous and following redemptive covenants. Of particular relevance, it is oversimplification to the point of falsification to identify the Mosaic Covenant as a republication of the stipulations of the previous divine covenants recorded in Scripture. Though I am only stating this dogmatically here, I have sought to make the exegetical/biblical-theological case in support of my position carefully and at length in my publications.

The second point I want to make concerning Frame's starting assumption (the republishing notion) is that it sets the bounds and determines the direction and conclusions of his whole analysis: Within this republication framework all the content of all the separate divine law disclosures would seem to get reduced to the general equity component in biblical law, the general norms of morality that are constant and permanent. For what Frame initially calls ordinances and stipulations are immediately afterwards identified as "these principles." However, these "principles" are said to undergo particular situational modifications in the process of repeated republication. Apparently then Frame does not really intend to equate all the particular stipulations with "principles", pure and simple. Nevertheless, the fact that he does identify them in an overall way as "principles" means at least that whatever variations of particular application appear in the course of the alleged republishings these modified formulations are nothing more than expressions, one and all, of the common set of constant principles which, according to the foundational assumption, get republished over and again in each successive promulgation of divine norms.

This republication framework thus becomes a hermeneutical grid that filters out all the biblical evidence of God's appointing real differences of nature and function to the various institutions in his several institutionally specific sets of covenant stipulations. These real institutional differences get lost on the way through the filter, emerging as merely relatively variant applications of some common "principle". Thus, the unique nature of the Israelite theocracy as a holy institution, typological of the consummated kingdom of God, with its associated special theocratic functions gets filtered out and is denied. Frame cannot admit a real difference - he cannot acknowledge the uniqueness of Israel nor, as corollary thereof, the non-holy and non-typological nature of the nations of the world in their ordinary administration of justice - without first abandoning in midstream his opening, controlling assumption of republication. Accordingly, he holds that some degree of holiness is to be predicated of the State and that the regular enforcement of justice by the common civil magistrate is typological (in the symbolic biblical sense). Indeed, he says in the same context (i.e., his "Thoughts on Theonomy", p. 6) that "all men, not only Israel, are in covenant with God", even after breaking covenant. That is how the stark biblical contrast between Ammi (used for people in covenant with God) and LO-Ammi (used for people not in covenant with God) translates when it has passed through the republication-filter: No becomes a shade of Yes!

Incidentally - yet not so incidentally - it is apparent that the alignment of this republication view of biblical laws is with the theonomist position. Is it not precisely such a view, one that regards all divine prescriptions as particular situational expressions of the same general, constant moral principles and does not allow for real substantive differences with respect to the nature and functions of peculiarly distinct institutions, that accommodates nicely the theonomists' unwarranted interpretation of "the general equity" of the "judicial laws" of Moses dealt with in the Westminster Confession of Faith 19:4, the interpretation propounder as they seek to find confessional support for their position on the civil magistrate? By the same token, within the bounds of his republication scheme, Frame cannot even describe Kline's view on its own terms, with its affirmations of real institutional differences.

Everything depends then on Frame's original biblical-theological assumption concerning the relationships of the covenants and the nature of their stipulated institutions. We can debate whether such a covenantal theology as his is correct, congenial as it is to the theonomist view but impervious to Kline's view of the controverted matters, or whether Kline's biblical-theological analysis of the covenants is true to the ‘Scriptures.’ But meanwhile it must be recognized that this is where the issue lies - in the opposing biblical-theological conclusions concerning such concepts as theocracy, holy, and typology. This is not a red herring, as Frame has suggested. If there is anything in the discussion that would lead it down a false track it is the identification of the issue with the question of whether either side affirms total continuity or total discontinuity between the Mosaic law as a whole and what preceded and follows it (of course, nobody does either.) The issue is the biblical-theological one as to the nature and functions of the institutions defined by the divine covenants, especially the Israelite theocracy. And the differences between theonomists and Kline (and other Reformed critics) are not matters of degree but of mutually exclusive understandings of what are and what are not the functions of theocracy and common State. The differences are solidly substantial and radically oppositional. They involve two distinct versions of Christianity.

We focus now on the Poythress tapes. In keeping with my comments above, I of course reject the suggestion that the difference between theonomic politics and Kline's view is simply that one or the other is relatively closer or farther from the normative or situational poles of a perspectival axis. It is rather a matter if completely contradicting one another when theonomists assert and Kline denies that the theocratic function of enforcing the faith by the sword is a function of the common State. It is not that one side stresses the normative more and the other the situational more. It is rather that they differ absolutely (with the absoluteness of the difference between Yes and No) on what the norm is. More precisely, they differ on the situational content of the norm.

It is utterly misleading to suggest that my Intrusion concept is in the slightest degree further distanced than the theonomic view from "normativeness" (with its connotation of authoritative standard), either in principle or emphasis. I see the Mosaic law as institutionally specific, as defining the governmental province of a theocracy, and I see the civil magistrate, as defined in other biblical revelation, as non-theocratic. Hence, I do not simplistically regard the State as possessing all the functions that are 'assigned by the Mosaic law to theocratic Israel. My interpretation of the biblical norms thus differs from that of the theonomists, but that is what is involved – a different interpretation of the content of the norm, not a lesser recognition on my part of some "normativeness" abstractly distinguished from a situational aspect.

Parenthetically, if we are to speak of a tendency towards subjectivist situationalist ethics, then curiously it is found not in Intrusion ethics but in theonomic politics. According to the former, the norms of the several institutionally specific bodies of law remain fixed in their application to these institutions. But theonomists, like dispensationalists, without biblical warrant impose distinctions within the course of a given historical epoch of an institution, distinctions that result in changing norms of conduct. Thus, it is suggested among theonomists that a demographic shift in a State from an unbeliever to a believer dominant population signalizes a change of norms with respect to the supposed State function of suppressing false religions.

Quite apart from the theonomy issue, I have misgivings about an analysis of the ethical picture that coordinates the situational with the normative. The impression given is that the norm is some non-particular, situationally undefined, abstract generality and that when it comes to developing concrete meaning in the application of this abstract norm we are on our own without normative direction as to how to factor in the situation and so determine our ethical duty. If that is not what is going on in this multiperspectival analysis, then what sense does it make for Poythress to suggest that Kline stands closer than Bahnsen to the Situation Ethics people, even if only formally?

I submit that the situational must be subordinated to the normative, not coordinated with it. That is, the situation is part of the original content or meaning of the biblical norm itself. The norms are situationally concrete. In applying them we must determine whether a particular existential situation belongs to the situational category envisaged in the norm, but in so doing we do not add to the meaning of the norm or modify the norm in any way. If, however, the situational is coordinated with the normative ' the inevitable result would seem to be that uninspired situational meaning gets infused into the inspired but hitherto abstract biblical norm in the fallible act of application. This looks like a giant step towards the erosion of the canonical character of Scripture as our only infallible rule of faith and practice. One’s impression that such a step is being taken is strengthened when one observes that the situational perspective and the normative perspective are polarized. That takes place when Poythress in his analysis concludes that Kline's distinctive (Intrusion) view of the situational element involves a movement away from the normative or that Bahnsen's rhetoric about the unchanging nature of the normative represents a move away from the situational pole. By using these two perspectives as a means of defining the opposition between Bahnsen and Kline, Poythress polarizes the norm and the situation. In the context of this polarization the norm loses normativeness to the extent that it is applied, that is, to the extent that it takes on situational content. The concept of absolutely authoritative biblical law thus becomes a vacant noumenal abstraction. In our consideration of theonomy the issue of multi-perspectivalism has confronted us, posing for us a more fundamental and difficult theological problem than theonomy, As argued above, adaption of the multiperspectival method introduces tensions within a theology that would simultaneously confess the orthodox doctrine of Scripture. To me it is also a cause of concern that those who are given to this method are prone, as I perceive it, in spite of their protestations to the contrary, to view antithetical positions as merely differing but compatible emphases. This is what is done by both Poythress and Frame in their assessments of the antithetical positions in the theonomy debate. I have to wonder too if it is not due to his multi-perspectival cast of thought that Frame, working in the biblical-theological area, blurs the differences between theocracy and common State. Poythress comes to more satisfactory biblical-theological conclusions, but there is then a tension within his overall presentation between his biblical-theological stance and his multiperspectival analysis of the principals in the controversy.

Significantly Frame introduces the conflict over Norman Shepherd's theology at Westminster in Philadelphia in his discussion of the theocracy problem as he argues that Kline and Bahnsen are not so far apart ("Let's Keep the Picture Fuzzy", pp. 3 ff.). Here was a case where the contested teaching involved a contradiction of the heart of the Gospel, yet it was perceived through multiperspectival lenses as nothing more than a difference in emphasis, or at worst as a deviation within allowable tolerances.

Perhaps some of these readings of the situation can be shown to be erroneous and satisfactory solutions offered for apparent problems. But it does appear that if we are to be responsible guardians of Reformed orthodoxy we must add to our agenda of study and discussion a scrutiny of multiperspectivalism. Is it an acceptable method of doing theology?

Study more you must!

2008-12-06T23:37:00.000-08:00

I'm not dead yet!

2008-10-25T11:48:00.001-07:00

Sorry for the long blogging hiatus. Everything is ok. Things have been busy these last 4 months.

I shall return.....in a blaze of Proverbial glory!

Romans 7 Redux

2008-06-07T02:49:00.000-07:00

One text that you're not likely to encounter on the 'Romans Road' presentation of the Gospel is Romans 7. That's because (for those who aren't aware) Romans 7 is one of those 'difficult' Pauline texts that scholars are divided on.

Consequently, it's difficult to talk about a 'standard' view of Romans 7, but the 'Paul as believer' view of Romans 7 seems to be predominant view in our conservative, Presbyterian (and Reformed) circles.

However, my friend Todd Bordow (OPC pastor in Ft. Worth, TX) summarizes some of the difficulties with that position, and why many scholars today see Romans 7 as not describing the 'normal' Christian life:

1. When did the Law come to Paul as an individual and he died? Paul grew up with the Law.

2. The Paul as a Christian view doesn't really answer the question overriding the chapter - is the (Mosaic) Law sin?

3. Paul already stated in chapter 6 that believers are not under the bondage of sin.

4. The dynamic in 7:17-23 is not a struggle with sin, but one under the bondage of sin; a slave to sin, which is not the case with the believer.

5. The passage's answer to this crying out under bondage is not the return of Christ, as would be the case with the believer view, but the gospel (past tense) 7:25 and 8:1-4.

Comments? Thoughts? Replies?

Brain-Dead Utopian Seekers

2008-05-30T21:12:00.000-07:00

David Mamet (screenplay of The Untouchables, director of The Spanish Prisoner and The Heist) has a great piece from a couple months ago about his 'conversion' from leftist-socialism to free-market libertarianism, or (in Mamet's words) why he is "no longer a brain-dead liberal."

While the whole article is reflective of Mamet's writing style, one part of it particularly stood out:

As a child of the '60s, I accepted as an article of faith that government is corrupt, that business is exploitative, and that people are generally good at heart.
These cherished precepts had, over the years, become ingrained as increasingly impracticable prejudices. Why do I say impracticable? Because although I still held these beliefs, I no longer applied them in my life....

And, I wondered, how could I have spent decades thinking that I thought everything was always wrong at the same time that I thought I thought that people were basically good at heart? Which was it? I began to question what I actually thought and found that I do not think that people are basically good at heart; indeed, that view of human nature has both prompted and informed my writing for the last 40 years. I think that people, in circumstances of stress, can behave like swine, and that this, indeed, is not only a fit subject, but the only subject, of drama.

In other words, the whole notion that 'capitalistic America' is basically evil while the people who benefit from and take part in 'capitalistic America' remain basically good is glaringly inconsistent. Such views are nothing more than dreams of a utopia that simply does not (and never will!) exist.

Through recent years, it's become increasingly clear that one of the fundamental flaws that both 'Christian America' (to the right) and 'Socialist America' (to the left) ironically share is their search and quest for civil utopia. Their goals, presuppositions, and agendas are massively different....and yet they both need a certain amount of intrusive government to pull off their visions.

This explains (in part) why libertarian political and economic philosophy seems so foreign to the average American today. Why? Because we've become so accustomed to trusting the government to provide and produce utopia for us, whether it be in matters of economics or faith/religion. Just listen to the candidate speeches going on during this current election year -- are not most of them filled with 'promises' about what the government is going to do for you? Candidates that run a platform of 'less government' (e.g. Ron Paul) are deemed 'nutty' and 'radical'.

Mamet continues:

What about the role of government? Well, in the abstract, coming from my time and background, I thought it was a rather good thing, but tallying up the ledger in those things which affect me and in those things I observe, I am hard-pressed to see an instance where the intervention of the government led to much beyond sorrow.

Economist Walter Williams argued a very similar point earlier this month by pointing out that "[m]ost of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." Bigger government is not going to solve our problems, whether moral/religious or social/economic!

Mamet's article highlights an interesting irony -- far from allowing individuals, governments, or corporations a blank-check to do whatever they deem right in their own eyes, Libertarian 'freedom' has a remarkably realistic way of approaching the topic of total depravity as a 'given' this side of heavenly perfection. I suspect this is one reason why I find libertarian economic theory to be quite compatible with my Calvinistic-amillennial eschatology, given that neither hold out empty pre-consummational, utopian promises. There is certainly a legitimate place for Christian involvement in civil affairs, but this should not be confused with the only true 'Christian utopia' to be found in the eternal age to come, an age that we partake of even now in an anticipatory form. Failure to make this distinction between the present age (which recognizes the need for the State to bear the sword per Romans 13) and the age to come (which recognizes there will be no need for sword-bearing since the final judgment is now past-tense) continues to be a prime source of error among Christians thinking about politics at present in the US.

Now go watch the Untouchables (again)!

Hot Air anyone?

2008-05-14T14:19:00.000-07:00

You know the guys over at Lenovo must have had fun making this one....

The Macbook Air certainly plays well to the "OOOOOh" and "Awwwwwwe" crowd. Even I have to admit being pretty impressed when I saw my first one. But then reality sets in when you see the price listings: "Starting at $1799"!

Sorry, Steve....but I'm not buying the hype.

Admittedly, I find Macbook Pros to be on the pricey side as well (especially for what the average consumer like myself needs), but I can at least understand why those working in graphic/media design or music production would shell out Macbook Pro kind of money. But I really have no idea what kind of person would spend $1800 on a Macbook Air. Well, actually, I do -- the kind of uber-Mac-geek person who only wants to "OOOOOh" and "Awwwwwe" his friends, neighbors, and potential clients!

I'm not a diehard Mac apologist....but I might become more of one after seeing my Dad's HP meltdown (from a botched SP3 update attempt) last Thursday and then my wife's HP laptop meltdown (from a botched attempt to reinstall and update her printer drivers) this past Monday. For those counting, that's one stolen Macbook and two major PC crashes in, oh, about 10 days time!

I'm not one of these Ray Kurzweil-ian 'transhuman' prognosticators, but the past couple of weeks illustrate rather nicely how computers and technology so easily run our lives. You just don't realize it...until it crashes or someone steals it from you!

Time to Moo

2008-05-13T02:28:00.000-07:00

I'm glad to see that Doug Moo is online with a number of his articles now available as PDF downloads. If you have not read his exegetical work on topics related to 'Paul and the Law', then you are really missing out. Even some of his older work is still worth a careful read.

Matt's New Mac...and a (nearly) Free Printer offer

2008-05-12T01:29:00.000-07:00

After soon realizing that a full recovery of my stolen Macbook was about as likely as the PCA and OPC agreeing on a good definition of 'system subscription', I decided that it was time to pony up another $850 on a MacBook refurb. Ouch! Especially after just coming back from 6 days in Cayman for this year's Morgan family vacation.

So after a bit of an order snafu, the new Macbook arrived on Friday.

Things are almost back to normal around the home now!

They also sent me a Canon IP4500 printer as part of a $100 printer voucher. Of course, we already have two printers at the house -- Vicky's HP all-in-one for her job, and then my trusty Samsung laser printer that I've had for 3 1/2 years. That leaves me now with a nice photo printer...and no need (let alone room!) to keep it.

Please get a hold of me if you know anyone that needs a photo printer. I'm not sure how much UPS Ground would charge to ship it somewhere, but I'm basically only asking you cover the tax I paid on it ($8) and then any shipping costs. I know I can probably unload it on Craigslist, but I'll give someone else a chance to claim it first.

B.B. Warifeld on Confessional Subscription (Part 1)

2008-05-07T23:31:00.000-07:00

"Among the causes of the present appearance of restlessness with reference to the Westminster Standards, the first place is undoubtedly due to the overstrictness prevailing in some churches, in the formula of subscription which is required of office-bearers. And it is worthy of notice that where the formula seems overstrict, dissatisfaction seems to be most widespread, most pronounced, and most difficult to satisfy....In a word, a public confession [of faith], by virtue of the very fact that it is public, cannot be, and ought not to be pretended to be, just the expression of his faith which one accepts it as representing his faith would have framed had he only himself to consider. The most we can expect, and the most we have right to ask is, that each one may be able to recognize it as an expression of the system of truth which he believes. To go beyond this and seek to make each of a large body of signers accept the [Westminster] Confession in all its propositions as the profession of his personal belief, cannot fail to result in serious evils -- not least among which are the twin evils that, on the one hand, too strict subscription overreaches itself and becomes little better than no subscription; and, on the other, that it begets a spirit of petty, carping criticism which raises objection to forms of statement that in other circumstances would not appear objectionable.

Where the formulat of acceptance is such that no one signs without some mental reservation, some soon learn to sign without reference to mental reservation; and gross heterodoxy becomes gradually safe, because there is no one so wholly without sin that his conscience permits him to cast the first stone. That such a state of things has not been unknown, the history of Scottish Moderatism may teach us. That in the estimation of some, some of its features are not wholly unknown now, there are not lacking phenomena which may indicate....Now such a state of affairs is a great evil; and the dangers attending it have never been better pointed out than Dr. Charles Hodge, who writes: 'To adopt every proposition contained in the Westminster Confession and Catechisms is more than the vast majority of our ministers either do or can do. To make them profess to do it is a great sin. It hurts their consciences. It fosters a spirit of evasion and subterfuge. It forces them to take creeds in a non-natural sense. It at once vitiates and degrades. There are few greater evils connected with establishments than the overwhelming temptations which they offer to make men profess what they do not believe. Under such strict requirements, men make light of professions, and are ready to adopt any creed which opens the door to wealth of office. The overstrict the world over are the least faithful'

Not less surely, however, does overstrictness of formula wound tender consciences and produce a restlessness as over against the creed itself to all the propositions of which they are obliged to assent as the profession of their faith, even when they would not find these propositions objectionable when considered only as one statement of faith they profess. Tender consciences must revolt from a confession to which they are too closely bound, if they do not find themselves in absolute agreement with every word; and revolt once begun, battens on what it feeds on, until a great war breaks out against the Confession with which, nevertheless, most of the combatants are in substantial agreement. Thus, overstrictness in the formula is the real account often to be given of what emerges as objection against the creed, rather than against the formula. Relief is to be sought in such a relaxation of the formula as will give all the liberty to individuals which is consistent with the Church's witness to the truth. What is needed seems to us admirably expressed by Dr. Marshall Lang in a speech in the Established Presbytery of Glasgow, advocating the change of formula which has since been accomplished in that Church: 'The point they desired to emphasize was this,' he is reported as saying, 'that they did not bind men to the mere letter. They did not insist that a man should accept all the propositions and all the phraseology of the Confession. What they asked was that a man should honestly and truly subscribe to the system of truth that was presented in the Confession of Faith, and not merely to the words of the letter in which it was presented. He thought a substantial relief was given to persons of scrupulous conscience.' So far as the present agitation in the Scotch churches arises from this cause and tends to this result, it is an effort to attain a situation as over against the Standards which the American churches have always enjoyed, and it must have the hearty sympathy of every American Presbyterian.

This advocacy of a liberal formula, however, is not to be understood as if we could at all accord with those who would so relax the formula as to make the Confession of Faith little more than a venerable relic of a past age, still honored as such by the Church. Such a change as that made in 1816 by the Church of Holland by which ministers were not longer pledged to the Standards, because (quia), but only in so far as (quatenus) they accord with the Word, is justly pointed to...as fatal. That there are, nevertheless, some in the Scotch churches who might desire it, seems to be hinted by some words....Unfortunately, there are some even who act as if this were all that the present very strict formula bound them to, as was evinced, for example, by the amazing plea put in by Mr. James Stuart, author of that very remarkable book, The Principles of Christianity, when arraigned before the Presbytery of Edinburgh. Nevertheless, it is surely not so difficult as Principal David Brown expresses himself as thinking, to frame a formula which will 'let in all the right men and keep out all wrong'. The American churches have such a formula. Of course it lies in the courts of the Church to decide what is and what is not of the system, and Church courts are not infallible, nor always faithful. But Church courts can afford, and do venture, to hold men strictly to the terms of a liberal formula, when they could not to an illiberal one. Overstrictness demands and begets laxity in performance; while a truly liberal but conservative formula binds all essentially sound men together against laxity. In pleading for a liberal formula, therefore, we wish it distinctly understood that we do not plead either for a lax formula, or much less for a lax administration of any formula -- within which an essential dishonesty lurks. The American formula appears to us to be the ideal one, and as nothing more lax than it would be acceptable or safe, certainly a lax administration of it would be unendurable, and, as we have said, essentially dishonest."

("The Presbyterian Churches and the Westminster Confession," The Presbyterian Review, Vol. 10, No. 40, 1889, pp. 648ff.)

Reflections:

(1) Warfield's day was not unlike our own -- namely, the Reformed faith is (a) being discounted by those that want to so minimize the Confession to point where it becomes a 'mere Christianity and (b) being defended by those that desire to uphold a 'strict(er) subscription' to the Standards. And yet Warfield refuses to go down either of these roads (in good Old Princeton fashion).

(2) Warfield seems to recognize that these extreme positions [i.e. substance subscription and strict subscription] very much play off one another. I've long suspected this, so it's always nice when someone like Warfield agrees with you! When Confessional subscription is continually shoved down someone's throat in an overstrict way, it has the rather unintended consequence of making men even more apt to revolt against it. And when men start to drift away from the system of doctrine, it seems to make the Strict Confessionalists bang their 'overstrict' drum louder and louder. It's still worthy of note a century later "that where the (confessional) formula seems overstrict, dissatisfaction seems to be most widespread, most pronounced, and most difficult to satisfy." Indeed, things haven't changed all that much at all.

(3) The 'serious evils' that Warfield attributes to strict subscription are not imaginary. If you afford a man no place to issue scruples, it will invariably drive them underground. That's exactly what happened in the Free Church (Scotland) as well as the CRC (US). And if you haven't witnessed "a spirit of petty, carping criticism" over the Confession first hand in your Reformed church, then (a) you are extremely fortunate and (b) you should do your best to never leave!

(4) Warfield & Hodge show exactly how the main of conservative American Presbyterianism has practiced 'subscription'! Some today act as if this is some sort of a 'modern' view...when in fact it has a fairly long and established pedigree in American Presbyterianism.

(5) Warfield very boldly announces that because the Confession is public in nature, it cannot speak perfectly for the individual to his exact personal beliefs. Now there's something you don't hear too often today! I suspect because it sounds far too 'slippery' and leaves too many loose ends untied. But when you finally understand system subscription in its Old School Presbyterian sense, then you understand how Warfield can argue this way.

How does Warfield avoid the 'substance subscription' pitfall? We'll take that up in a subsequent post, based on the same article referenced above. Stay tuned....

Bugger!!!!

2008-05-01T19:51:00.000-07:00

Today, I had my first *anger* outburst in quite some time.

I settled into my usual downstairs corner of the GTU library (in Berkeley). I began to read a couple books, until I realized that I didn't have all the ones I needed. So I proceeded to go back to the carrels to get the books I wanted, stopping along the way to use the bathroom.

When I got back to my desk, I reached inside my backpack....only to find no laptop!! Now, I think I know a little how a parent must feel when he suddenly can't find his child in a supermarket or department store.

Amazing how quickly it happened. No one saw a thing. I wasn't gone for more than 5-7 minutes tops. Of course, it doesn't take even 30 seconds to unzip a backpack, grab a laptop, drop it in your bag, and be gone! The didn't even bother taking the power cord.

Fortunately, all of the important data had been backed up via Mozy.

So I learned my lesson....the hard way. Let me be an example that laptop theft happens, even in places that you think are completely safe. I've used the GTU library regularly for over a year now, which contributed to my 'false assurance' that I could leave it alone for a few minutes here and there when I needed to step away.

Now I understand the paranoia people have about their laptops in public places! But like many lessons in life, it's only when it eats into your pocket book that you learn your lesson.

A Little More Odds and Enns....

2008-04-23T14:59:00.000-07:00

Vicky and I leave for a week in Cayman tonight -- one of my cousins is getting married. I had planned a more lengthy post to follow up the previous one on Professor Enns. There are some fascinating parallels to the current debate and similar debates in the later half of the 19th century in the Free Church of Scotland with William Robertson Smith and at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary with Crawford H. Toy, both of whom were removed/forced out because they espoused 'new' views of Scripture that were deemed dangerous to the Christian faith. Those will have to wait until I return next week.

I had also planned on writing something on Warfield, who has been referenced numerous time in this debate, particularly on the point of concursus and the 'incarnational analogy' between Christ and Scripture. However, Lee Irons already jumped on this particular point a week ago. There are a number of other juicy Warfield quotes that could be cited in the current context. All that to say -- the comparisons between Warfield and Enns begin to break down upon a closer inspection of the sources. I will say that I've come away mightily impressed again how marvelous Warfield is to avoid overly simplistic (i.e. fundamentalistic/head-in-the-sand, dictation theory, etc.) approaches to the Doctrine of Scripture, while at the same time avoiding the capitulation that came at the hands of Higher Criticism in the late 1800's. This is no small feat, especially when you see how many others (like Smith and Toy above) didn't fair nearly so well.

I did want to post one item of interest -- a 38-page letter that Prof. Enns sent to the Board of Directors in January 2008. I've uploaded the 3mb file here, if any are interested. You'll notice that on the first page, there's a disclaimer that this information is not some 'secret memo' that was never intended to get out in the first place.

For those well-versed in the plethora of reviews and rejoinders since I&I was published, I don't think you will find any earth-shattering revelations...with maybe the exception that Prof. Enns admits that he is going farther than Waltke, Longman, Walton and others on the matter of 'myth' in ANE context (p.27-28). What does come out very clearly in the letter is the ever-widening rift at Westminster East that many of us in the WTS-tradition have known about for the past decade (and probably longer). Read in that light, it seems plausible to read I&I as a sort of personal throwing-down-of-the-gauntlet as to the future direction of Westminster Seminary. You can see why something had to happen. The "Why can't we all get along" shtick is simply not going to work, when the disagreements are this substantial.

Odds and Enns

2008-04-04T13:27:00.001-07:00

I've had a number of private correspondences over the last few months asking about Dr. Peter Enns, professor of Old Testament at Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia. As many of you know already, the Board of Westminster Theological Seminary (PA) voted last week to "suspend" Professor Enns at the end of this current semester and then "consider whether Professor Enns should be terminated from his employment at the Seminary." The blogosphere has seen a blitzkrieg of discussion surrounding the events of these past couple of weeks. [Trevin Wax provides a helpful non-partisan summary of the issues at stake, if you are new to the discussion.]

Here are a few thoughts on the matter....

(1) Numerous complaints have been voiced about 'accountability' to academics teaching in the ivory tower of a seminary, especially one like Westminster that is not under any denominational approval.

I'm not sure anyone has figured out if the *best* way to run a Reformed seminary [or any seminary for that matter] is under explicit denominational oversight (e.g. Covenant, RPTS, Calvin, etc.) OR under a separate board of governors (e.g. just about everyone else!). The fact that our current crop of schools favor the later is more of a byproduct of the last 100 years of Presbyterian/Reformed history, given that the ever-liberalizing mainline denominations left Machen and others no choice but to start their own 'independent' seminaries if theological training was to continue.

What has aided the Westminsters historically is the fact that their 'independence' enabled them (to a certain degree) to draw from the different Reformed streams of American Presbyterianism (Machen), Scottish Presbyterianism (Murray), and the Continental Reformed (Van Til). As one who was trained under that breadth of the Reformed faith, it has certainly proved fruitful and beneficial in all sorts of ways that I didn't even realize while I was going through it. One is able to compare and contrast the various ways each group's theology came to expression, particularly in the heat of doctrinal controversy.

Of course, the fear of some in this approach is that this sort of breadth opens oneself up to many streams of doing theology...and all of the extra doctrinal controversy that entails. Too many streams, I suspect, in the minds of many. It's too difficult to control, they say! It becomes increasingly more complicated to recognize the matters that are absolutely essential to our Reformed system of doctrine, matters where good Reformed people have disagreed, matters where we aren't sure if theological language amounts to serious theological disagreement (i.e. 'faith and assurance" in the Presbytery vs. Continental traditions), or matters that compromise our system of Reformed doctrine but would still be regarded as evangelical or protestant. Reformed denominations in main might well have 'general agreement' as to where these 'matters' divide up. But if it were such an easy thing to 'agree', why do all the NAPARC churches still exist as separate bodies? No, denominations exist because they have distinctives that they believe are essential to their system of doctrine. The more streams you have converging in the middle, the harder it becomes to maintain distinctives.

However, an emphasis on distinctives can easily lead to narrowness, if not altogether blindness on an issue. You insist on a particular doctrinal formulation because that's how it's done in our tradition. Well, traditions can err...and indeed have erred. And it seems to me that the Westminster model of trying to bring together (in some sense) the breadth of the Reformed faith helps honest, Scripture-seeking students think long and hard about particular doctrines and the best way to express them. Maybe there are some things we never come to an agreement on...but knowing the "lay of the land" helps us avoid retreating into ever-narrowing sects.

To sum up from a previous thread, the problems experienced at Westminster that involve Peter Enns is not because of system subscription.

(2) What does 'academic freedom' mean for a seminary? That's a difficult question to ask in the abstract. Westminster has always been a 'confessional' seminary (as seen in its ordination vow)...but what kind of 'confessionalism' are we talking about? That's part of the problem...because we still have different schools of thought on what it even means to 'subscribe' to the Westminster Standards. Some seem to want it tighter; others want it looser; it seems to me classic 'system subscription' gives you exactly what you want in providing avenues of 'academic freedom' without saying 'any and everything goes'! But too often we paint our options as only 'strict' and 'loose'....when there is a via media that rather nicely sums up what Old Princeton/Westminster has practiced all along.

I'm not sure how removing 'academic freedom' will benefit either the seminary or the church. For starters, Westminster Seminary (and even Old Princeton before that) has always sought to keep one foot in the church and one foot in the academy, and to change that (on either side!) would help no one. Geerhardus Vos wrote (best I can tell) the first real critique of Ewald, Graf, Wellhausen and others coming out the German higher-critical school in the late 1880's; Warfield was every bit up-to-date on the complexity of the data feeding Briggs; Machen heard modern theological liberalism first-hand when sitting under the likes of Hermann in Europe, saw what was at stake when he returned home, and thus wrote 'Christianity and Liberalism' as a result; Vos figured out where mainstream, anti-supernatural 'Biblical theology' would go long before it ever went there itself; and on we could go.

The problem is not 'innovation' per se. Without innovation, we're probably still doing apologetics in the 'common sense rationalist' tradition of Warfield. Many (if not most of us now) in the PCA/OPC/URC would identify with some sort of 'presuppositional apologetics'. [NB: I don't think Warfield should be purged from the books, nor do I think this is an issue that we should ultimately divide over in the Reformed church.] And Van Til's legacy is that he challenged many long-standing assumptions made in the Reformed community, a challenge that I think has sharpened all of our minds as we wrestle with matters of theology and epistemology.

Innovation should certainly be encouraged...IF done in compliance with God's Word. In that sense, maybe we shouldn't call it innovation but rather a robust appreciation for sola scriptura. There are plenty of examples, like Van Til, in the last 100 years of Old Princeton/Westminster, where this has helped the church greatly. It's impossible to 'predict' how this will happen, and thus it's equally impossible to 'predict' where and how someone will try to push us beyond the bounds of the system of doctrine.

(3) I read I&I for the first time in early 2006, after hearing about it from Bruce Waltke. Admittedly, it was a quick first read one evening, since I was busy with other readings and had time only to get Enns' basic thesis and method of argumentation. I saw him simply trying to address a number of the 'problem areas' of OT scholarship in the last 50-100 years, as well as the complexities of the NT quotations of the OT. I noted a few points where I found him quite confusing, a few points where I found him illuminating (for example: the term 'Christotelic'), but otherwise I thought it was 'average' book that I didn't ever expect to pick up again.

But then things started to change. Negative reviews from Helm, Carson and Beale started to trickle out through publications. I distinctively remember discovering Helm's article online during a Th.M seminar at Regent, and the first thought that came to my mind was, "It's a strange day when a Regent professor is taking a Westminster professor to task for defective view of a Scripture!"

I'm not sure Helm made his case all that well, but Carson and Beale were more significant reviews. Carson's stood out because his review came along with two other recent books dealing with Scripture (John Webster and N.T. Wright); Carson critiques all three, and yet Enns' book is the only one of the three that he doesn't have really anything positive to commend in it. Beale (who's tone was more irenic on the whole) wrote not one but two article-length reviews in different journals. Critical articles are nothing new, but these seemed to go beyond the norm.

In the middle of all of this came Richard Pratt's 2006 address, "Westminster and Contemporary Hermeneutics". I have been tempted to mention it before but became busy with other matters. I've heard numerous people mention over the years how the best chapter in the Westminster Confession of Faith is its chapter on Scripture, and Pratt commends Chapter 1 of the WCF as still a relevant summary of our doctrine of Scripture, even in light of modern challenges leveled against it in recent decades.

It was Enns' response to Pratt's address that made it painfully clear that this was not going to go away quietly. It's one thing to exegete a text (or a book), come to a conclusion that maybe you disagree from a consensus position, and then submit it to your faculty/presbytery for review and discussion. But Enns seems to be going beyond that, and you can see it in the way he (for example) responds to Pratt's critique of him. I happen to think that some of what Enns has suggested in his book is worthy of additional consideration. But as Carson noted in his review, the whole trajectory of Enns' rhetoric seems to not be one of "converting the alarmed but rather alarming the converted"! In other words, it's not just that he holds to one or more than one minority or controversial views under the Reformed umbrella, but rather that he seems to believe that these things are absolutely essential to a right reading and interpretation of Scripture within the Reformed faith.

I've talked to a number of his former students who span the entire spectrum of glowing approval to glaring disapproval. And the one thing they seem to all agree on is this -- these issues are absolutely fundamental to his methodology in approaching OT theology. So we're not just talking about individual 'hot button' issues like the composition of the Proverbs, the recording of Moses' death in Deuteronomy, how Job is canonical, the King/Chronicles synoptic problem, and other thorny OT questions. It's the method seeking to bring coherence to it all that seems to raise more questions than provide answers.

If it were simply the crusty Reformed curmudgeons ranting against Enns book because it sounds too post-16th and 17th century, that would be one thing. But what in the Carson, Beale, and Pratt corpus of writings would lead you to think they are interested in opposing someone for 'TR' reasons? [Part of me is curious what Carson and Beale think about the board's decision to suspend him!]

(4) Seminary divisions and terminations are always more than simply theological. I suspect that's because we are often good at preaching total depravity....and also equally good at practicing it as well. Even though Enns' book, articles, and teachings are the 'stated' reasons for his projected termination, I think most of us know there is *more* going on than simply this. Of course, none of us are privy to the inner sanctum of these seminary squabbles...so we may never know all of the details. Enns becomes the fall guy because he's at the center of the controversy. I do think he's part of the problem (as stated above)...but I have my doubts as to whether this can all be laid at his doorstep.

(5) If you listen to the chapel recording (April 1st, 2008) now rapidly circulating, it's interesting to hear President Lillback say that he's been dealing with this issue since 'Day One' on the job, when they brought him in 3 years ago. Interesting that he also referenced the Shepherd controversy of 30 years ago, where the faculty may have even been in stronger support of Shepherd than the current faculty is with Enns. And yet, Lillback seems to recognize that when you have this kind of division on all fronts, there are no easy solutions. And if after 3 years years of discussing this, the faculty are still split 12-8 on this (not to mention the board 18-9)....something had to happen. Even if you believe that Enns is the best thing going at Westminster Seminary right now, surely you'd have to agree that this kind of faculty split is not terribly conducive for him personally or the seminary. How would you feel working at an institution in which 66% of the board and 40% of the faculty thought your view was heterodox?

Disunity is never a good thing...but sometimes it's unavoidable (Acts 15:36ff). But to keep things together and act as if there is 'unity' when there is really no unity?? That seems to me to be even worse.

(6) The saga is far from over! It wouldn't shock me if there are a few more 'curve balls' that come out of this, and in fact I would almost expect it. One Christian college professor told me over the weekend that he's already been contacted by one *present* WTS faculty member about possible job openings. So a further shake up doesn't seem all that out of the question!

Things stayed remarkably in tact after the Shepherd controversy in the 80's. It remains to be seen whether that will happen here....or if more heads will roll.

(7) As strange as it sounds, I think the Reformed church will benefit from being made to think through these issues of 'inspiration' and 'incarnation'. If someone had asked me back in 2001, "Does the incarnation of Christ have something to contribute to our doctrine of Inspiration?", I'm not sure how I would have answered that question. As Lillback notes, the Confession doesn't go there when speaking about inspiration. So does that mean it's ok, adiaphora, or dangerous? Some might instantly say, "No, we can't go there because the Confession doesn't." Others seem to be saying, "This is THE way to swim in higher-critical scholarship!" I think the correct approach is neither of these. What is needed is (a) a careful examination what's being said and (b) a careful searching the Scriptures to see if this is being faithful to the Word of God.

That's what Old Princeton and Westminster have tried to do throughout its history. WCF 1.9-10 is not just there for window dressing, but as an encouragement to think through all things in light of the Word of God. Just because an OT professor comes along and seems to exalt historical-critical methodologies above the canon doesn't mean I'm going to abandon studying the canon OR tackling difficult questions that arise out of Biblical history. Abuses of sola scriptura surely cannot mean we abandon it for some 'higher' platform to argue from.

If Enns is wrong, then hopefully some of those opposed to him will eventually issue statements, explaining more than a simplistic "You're not Confessional!!!"...but rather why his approach strikes at fundamental concerns to our doctrine of Scripture.

Mozying off the normal path....

2008-03-19T18:23:00.000-07:00

If you were expecting something of theological substance, then my apologies in advance.

I get asked in various ways and contexts the easiest way to *backup* your personal data on your computer. For things like documents/photos/mp3s, most people like to periodically burn them to a CD/DVD; software makes that fairly easy to do. Click, drag, burn -- your backed up. As long as you're not using rewritable discs (RW), you're generally ok here.

But what about backing up things like email? Increasingly, more and more important work is taking place via e-mail, but there is no 'simple' way to back this stuff up. If you remember the good ole days of Office 2003 and beyond, then you may know about all the hassle you had to go through to export a PST file just to save folders in your Microsoft Outlook. Not terribly fun or efficient! If you're a Mac user, a similar problem exists with the standard Mail program built into OS X. The only truly easy way to backup your Mac computer is to buy a $100 per year .Mac account; plenty of space (10gb)...but also plenty of cash for what you're getting.

So it's time for Matt's computer-savvy suggestions....

(1) Get a Gmail account.

This is really the 'safest' way to make sure your email gets backed up properly. I'm personally up to approximately 5800 total e-mails (uggh!!), and that still only accounts for 6% of the total allotted space which currently hovers around 6.5gb. As long as you're not sending and receiving e-mail with large attachments OR subscribing to more than 25 different Yahoo user groups, I can't imagine any normal user running out of space.

Gmail gives you the flexibility to download e-mail to your personal computer (via Pop3), while still keeping a copy on their server. This is ideal because Google is constantly backing up, updating, and adding new storage to their enormous server network...and there is no simpler or safer way to make sure your e-mail is preserved 5 to 10 years from now than this. Hard-drives are not designed to last forever, and that becomes a big nuisance if you are storing it locally on your computer! Rather than the hassle of backing up this email yourself, it's better to simply let Google (on the server end) do it for you....and who can complain about that when they are doing this service at no additional cost for you!?!?!

Gmail also gives you the freedom to route other email through Gmail, thus making Gmail act as a sort of defacto 'archive' for all your e-mail. It's a feature they refer to as 'Mail Fetcher', and it's especially designed for people that have e-mail addresses through their personal domains. For example, if I had an e-mail address 'matt@morganism.us", I could easily spoof that address to route to and from my Gmail account. Unless you searched the fine print of my e-mail header, you would never know it's going through Gmail at all. I have my father and mother's Comcast email accounts set up this way, and it's great little trick for backing up e-mail.

There's even a way to re-download all your old e-mail to a brand new computer, though I don't know that you'd necessarily want to do this if you have thousands of old email like I do!

(2) Download and install a software called Mozy.

There are all sorts of paid services out there now that will backup stuff for you online, but the best *free* software out there that I've seen and tested is called Mozy. I've mentioned it before on my old Xanga blog back in 2006. After using it for over a year now I can say that it definitely works great. The basic 'free' package gives you 2gigs of free storage, which should be enough for most users who simply want to backup essential things like documents and email.

What makes Mozy especially nice is that it automates the backup and restore process for you, which comes in particularly handy for things like e-mail (which has always been cumbersome to back up). They've also recently added Mac support, so I now have a way to backup all of my important documents from my laptop on a weekly basis. And if you were working on something really important (like say a Master's or Ph.D thesis), you could theoretically even back it up through the Mozy server on a daily basis!

The software auto-detects what e-mail client you are using on your computer, and it's also programmed to check the common folders of the commonly backed-up files. Everything from there is virtually automated, so much so that I would suspect that even a novice computer user could figure it out.

If this sounds like something you'd like to give a try, click on the above link. Then click on 'MozyHome' at the top and then 'MozyHome Free' in the left-hand column. From there, you sign up, download a small 4-6mb installation file, install, reboot, and you're ready to go.

For ministers, I'd recommend using Mozy to backup your sermon manuscripts and other important documents. That's essentially what I used it exclusively for (since I use Gmail to back up my e-mail), and you're going to have to preach and write an awful lot to ever fill up 2 gigs of disc space!!

(3) For backing up home pictures, I'd recommend you use an online service like Flickr. The Pro Account costs you $2/month if you sign up for 2 years, and that gives you unlimited uploads with no restrictions on picture size. So shoot that new SLR to your heart's content; even though it may take you a while to upload your 10mb photos, rest assured Flickr will take 'em. The Flickr web browsing gives you a nice built-in way for others (as well as yourself) to view your photos, and you can also restrict photos from general public viewing (if you want to keep them there just for yourself). Perhaps most important of all, you don't have to worry about keeping track of all those DVD's you burn of your personal family photos; you simply create albums with various photos and you instantly have access to all of your photos.

You can see what I've done with my own Flickr account here.

(4) As far as external hard drives, Seagate and Western Digital are two of the best brands going. Seagate is still the only company (as far as I'm aware) that offers a 5 year warranty on all of their products (compared to 1-3 years on the others). I've used a 500gb Seagate drive for about a year now with great results. Both companies make excellent USB-powered drives that are handy if you need something small and portable.

Just remember: when you buy an external hard drive, these drives will eventually wear out too, especially if you are toting them around in your laptop bag! That's why backing up important stuff 'on line' through a service like Mozy or Flickr is really the preferred way to go, because then you have a backup that won't be touched if your local system crashes, you lose the CD/DVD with the files, someone steals your portable drive out of your briefcase at the library, etc.

(5) If you've been through 'Dell Hell' and simply want a computer that works, then let me recommend that you save up and get yourself a Mac. I'm not one of these rabid Mac apologists that live on Steve Jobs' every word. But I have been using a Mac laptop (first an iBook, now a MacBook) for just over 4 years now, and it has been virtually hassle-free.

Many people are worried that it will be hard to switch from PC to Mac because it involves a whole new operating system, but it's been my experience that people have a harder time trying to figure out Windows Vista when upgrading from XP. Many people are also concerned about the cost of Bible software. I will tell you this much -- having used Bibleworks for a few years prior to 2004, I can attest that Accordance for Mac is an aboslute gold mine for 'power users' who wish to design their own complex morphological searches from the original languages. For one thing, the graphical user interface for Accordance is about 10x easier to navigate!

The main reluctance to making the switch, I suspect, is the total cost invovled. The prospect of spending a few hundred more on a laptop and a few hundred extra on new Bible software is not the kind of sales pitch you want to hear, especially on a pastor's salary or seminary student budget. But out of the two-dozen or so people I've personally known who have switched since I made the switch 4 years, I've not once heard any of them say, "This is a total waste of money" or "Man, I wish I had stuck with PC!" If you think about it in investment terms, that's about an extra $800-$1000 spread out over the next 3-5 years (the 'average' life of a laptop) of virtually problem-free computer usage. After the kinds of computer problems I've seen (including my own!) over the past 10 years, I think almost anyone would agree that such an investment of $200/year to get rid of their 'PC woes' would be well worth it...especially considering that we use our computers for almost everything now.

[NB: I don't get any perks from Apple for pitching their computers. But if you are someone that is seriously interested in making the switch, contact me off list and I'll be glad to give you some tips and pointers!]

Sorry for this brief interlude. I know a lot of people reading this blog are not terribly 'computer' savvy, and things like backing up computer files have often been a daunting (if not annoying) task in the past. Many of you just want a computer that works for e-mail, provides web access, avoids spam and viruses, gives you a word processor for document writing, and runs your Bible software....and you really don't care how it does any of this, just as long as it works! Unfortunately, easier said than done! And as an individual that has lost count of all the times he's been called on to attempt a 'PC resurrection' for a friend after some sort of failure, I can attest that it's no fun to lose important stuff like this.

Just don't be the one calling me when your computer crashes...and all of your daughter's or son's photos from their first 24 months are inside! That may not grounds for divorce, but it's certainly grounds for a very upset wife!!

Confessional Subscription....Redux

2008-03-07T17:19:00.000-08:00

There have been all sorts of inquiries and studies into the relationship between the Continental Reformed (a la Calvin, Turretin, etc.) and Presbyterianism (Scotland/England). Underneath a broad consensus that one can see in the mainstream, the 'fine print' often reveals a different story....particularly as seen in matters of polity.

Leaving the often-discussed Sabbath issue aside, one issue in which there seems to be a pretty clear divergence in North America is the Reformed vs. Presbyterian approach to confessional subscription.

If you want to understand the gist of this argument in its modern form, be sure to check out the very recent (and on-going) exchange between Lee Irons (defending system subscription here and here) and Scott Clark (defending a stricter subscription here, here, and here) . Or if you prefer them in chronological order: one, two, three, four, and five.

Let me throw in my two cents:

(1) The Limits of Tradition --

North American Presbyterians have been arguing about this since the Adopting Act of 1729 -- it required men to "declare their agreement in, and approbation of" the Westminster standards but also limited subscription to "all essential and necessary articles" of the Confession of Faith and catechisms. It's the Adopting Act's 'also' caveat that seems to make my Dutch friends cringe (not to mention Presbyterians who favor a more strict approach to the Confession), for as best as I can tell -- in my limited exposure to Dutch church history -- this is simply foreign from their way of receiving and adopting the Three Forms of Unity.

Despite the attempts made by Morton Smith and George Knight to show otherwise, the idea of a 'system subscription' in North American Presbyterianism is not a 'recent' development. In fact, it's not even a 'New School' development (c. 1860's). As John Fesko demonstrated quite thoroughly from the original sources in his 2003 JETS article, 'system subscription' has a firm pedigree that can be traced through the likes of Hodge, Warfield, Thornwell, Old Princeton, and all the way to Machen.

So what tradition are you going to go with? The Dutch way or the American Presbyterian/Old Princeton way? Here's a good example, I think, of why you need something more than 'tradition' to answer some of the thorny questions that exist amongst even the best mainstream Reformed thinkers.

(2) Defining our terms --

What do Presbyterians mean by 'system subscription'? I'll let Charles Hodge do the talking:

Every minister at his ordination is required to declare that he adopts the Westminster Confession and Catechism, as containing the system of doctrine taught in the sacred Scriptures. There are three ways in which these words have been, and still are, interpreted. First, some understand them to mean that every proposition contained in the Confession of Faith is included in the profession made at ordination. Secondly, others say that they mean just what the words import. What is adopted is the 'system of doctrine.' The system of the Reformed Churches is a known and admitted scheme of doctrine, and that scheme, nothing more or less, we profess to adopt. The third view of the subject is, that by the system of doctrine contained in the Confession is meant the essential doctrines of Christianity and nothing more (Discussions in Church Polity, 1878, p.335-36)

Those are our basic three options: (a) strict, (b) system, and (c) substance (a term Hodge himself used elsewhere).

(3) Understanding our terms --

In discussing these options with my Dutch Reformed friends, it seems to me that they invaribly lump options (b) and (c) together. That is, the moment you depart from strict subscription, you're already on the road to dying a death of a million scruples. Options (b) and (c) are really nothing more than two shades of a vary similar looking grey! It frankly devolves into something looking indistinguishable form slippery slope argument -- that is, system subscription invariably devolves into a substance subscription.

The problem (as with just about all slippery slope arguments) is that it fails to actually understand Old Princeton's Presbyterian rationale for holding to this 'middle' position between strict and substance views. Just like holding to a non-literal '6/24hr day' view of Genesis doesn't automatically mean you are giving up the narrative as a truly historical account, so also holding to system subscription (at least as understood by the likes of Hodge, Warfield, Machen, etc.) doesn't automatically entail making 'everything' in the Confession up for grabs.

This is simply a bad argument against system subscription. Just beacuse someone, somewhere misunderstands and/or abuses system subscription doesn't necessarily mean the thing itself (as understood by good Presbyterians) is wrong.

(4) Does the stricter view really safeguard orthodoxy?

The main argument in favor of a stricter view seems to ultimately come to this -- it's defenders contend that it's the best way to guard orthodoxy. There is a sense in which this is true -- system subscription leaves the door open to declare scruples on any number of things, some of which could easily be detrimental to the 'system' contained in the Westminster Standards. Allowing no scruples would certainly seem to solve that problem....or does it?

It seems to me that this is ultimately a practical argument (more than a theological argument), and the problem with 'practical' arguments is that they demonstrate mixed results. Sure, one could argue that examples abound (e.g., the PCUSA, Old-to-New Princeton, etc.) demonstrating the demise of 'system' approaches. But couldn't one also counter-argue that examples abound (e.g. the CRC, the Church of Scotland, etc.) demonstrating the demise of 'strict' approaches? In all of these examples, you had/have a plethora of other factors going on besides simply their views of subscription. And if our standard is simply which one guards orthodoxy the best, it seems to me (if we are really going to be honest historically!) the results from the last 350 years or so at best reveal a mixed bag.

Another argument in favor of stricter subscription is that this is the only way to achieve and preserve true ecclesiastical unity. But Hodge paints a very different picture:

So far as we have been able to learn from the records, no man has ever been refused admission to the ministry in our Church, who honestly received "the system of doctrine" contained in the Westminster Confession, simply because there are propositions in the book to which he could not assent. And no Presbyterian minister has ever been suspended or deposed on any such ground. It is a perfectly notorious fact, that there are hundreds of ministers in our Church, and that there always have been such ministers, who do not receive all the propositions contained in the Confession of Faith and Catechisms. (The Church and Its Polity, 330)

In other words, hundreds of ministers scrupling certain words and propositions didn't seem to be a huge impediment to overall unity in the old-line Presbyterian church. It held up quite nicely for a number of generations.

So it puzzles me how a stricter view of the Confessions will result in a more-unified church. Just ask Westminster grads trying to get licensed/ordained in the OPC over the last decade! It's not the 'system subscriptionists' who continually pick bones of contention about one's views on creation, the Law, the Sabbath, etc.

And is the 'young URC' any less devoid of controversy surrounding 'justification' and 'creation' than have been witnessed in the PCA and OPC? So I'm just not buying the 'provides greater unity' argument that strict subscription supposedly brings.

(5) Why then System Subscription?

Here's a Machen quote that will serve as a good starting point:

Subscription to the Westminster Standards in the Presbyterian Church of America [e.g. the precursor to the OPC] is not to every word in those Standards, but only to the system of doctrine which the Standards contain. (The Presbyterian Guardian, October 1936, pg. 45)

Not to every word.....but only to the system of doctrine!

Machen's careful choice of language gives us a great pulse of the 'system subscription' argument, rightly argued and understood. Why not 'every word'? Hodge, Warfield, Machen, and others were all too aware that language like 'every' attributes to words a certain 'plenary' status. But once you do that with respect to the Confession's words, how do I now distinguish a plenary view of the Confession's words and plenary verbal inspiration of Scripture's words?

In other words, Old Princeton system subscription took seriously the notion that "All synods or councils, since the apostles' times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in both." (WCF 31.4). Machen might well have resonated with the Belgic Confession on this point: "Therefore we must not consider human writings-- no matter how holy their authors may have been-- equal to the divine writings; nor may we put custom, nor the majority, nor age, nor the passage of time or persons, nor councils, decrees, or official decisions above the truth of God, for truth is above everything else" (Article 7).

It seems to me that a Presbyterian's 2nd ordination vow (i.e. where we subscribe to "the system of doctrine as contained in the Westminster Standards") takes these Confessional qualifications cited here in Westminster and Belgic more seriously. That is, we want our subscription practice to reflect the Confession's view of Scripture to the degree that we want to make absolutely clear the difference between our primary and secondary standards.

Of course, the strict subscriptionists plead again and again that their view of subscription does not equate Scripture and Confession. I understand and hear it loud and clear (and trust that most of you are 'right' in your own mind before God!)....but the answer sounds upon closer inspection like special pleading. I want to see more than simply an assertion that you distinguish your primary and secondary standards; I want to see how you actually do it in your ecclesiastical practice. If I am never permitted to object to a certain word or phrase in a Confession, how is that in practice any different to never being able to object to a verse in Hosea or a phrase in Hebrews?

Or consider -- how does one really and truly go about amending a Confessional standard in a strict-subscription demanding denomination? If (to use one strict subscriptionist's analogy) "Scripture is the house, then Confessions are the wall built around the house!", how could anyone in any ecclesiastical context really and truly ever make an argument from the Scripture without immediately running head-on into the 'wall around the house' that says, "Sorry, but the Confession is the standard of this house -- Goodbye!"? How would even an attempt to do so in an ecclesiastical forum not be met with that kind of Confessional door slamming?

As a Presbyterian, we actually have a real example of the church amending her secondary standards! No, not the recent 1967 revision....but a much earlier one in 1788. After the Adopting Act in 1729 clarified 'some' of the things that might be scrupled relating to the civil magistrate in WCF 20 and 23, those items (as well sections in Chapt. 31 and WLC Q.109) were officially revised six decades later. In other words, you have a great case study here in drawing a direct connection between 'system subscription' in American Presbyterianism and the 'ecclesiastical ethos' it created, whereby the original 1647 version might be formally revised and amended. [And I trust that most of you reading this blog are probably not big fans of the civil magistrate calling synods and suppressing all blasphemies/heresies (per '1647 WCF' 23.2)!]

When I look at what the WCF confesses about Scripture in Chapter 1 and about synods in Chapter 31, I want a subscription practice that can actually do what it claims to confess, and not merely talk about doing it in theory. The irony here, of course, is that 'system subscription' is often caricatured as being 'anti-Confessional'....when in fact it's actually just the very opposite. Rightly-done 'system subscription' takes WCF 1.9-10 and 31.4 very seriously...and I would argue the most seriously of any of the 3 positions laid out by Hodge! This is not setting up the Scriptures against the Confessions...but rather setting up the Scriptures prior to the Confessions in authority.

That's the upshot of 'why' I'm a 'system subscription' Presbyterian!

(6) A Belgic 'test case'

Lee and Scott both mentioned the matter of Article 4 of the Belgic Confession, which mentions "the fourteen letters of Paul" (e.g. the usual '13' + Hebrews). It never really occurred to me before to ask how Article 4 of the Belgic is actually 'confessed' by those of you guys in the URC.

Honestly, what do you guys do here? I see only 3 options: (a) Do you scruple it? If you do, then how is that any different from 'system subscription'? The whole point of 'system subscription' would be to say something like, "Look, people disagree about the authorship of Hebrews; the essential point is confessing Hebrews as Scripture." (b) Do you really agree with Belgic on this point? or (c) Do you verbally (and theologically) confess to the whole of the 3 Forms down to every jot and tittle...but in your 'heart of hearts' really not believe that small part of the Confession?

Knowing many of you 'URC men'....(a) doesn't fit with your confessional views and (b) doesn't fit with what Steve Baugh, Dennis Johnson, or any other respectable NT scholar teaches today. So how do you then avoid (c) and 'crossing your fingers' when you confess the Three Forms as your confession? This would seem to undercut one of your main arguments against the 'system' view, if you can't even do in practice what you claim to do in theory!

This is why Lee's point about strict subscription's "repristinat[ing] every out-dated notion of 17th century of Reformed Orthodoxy" is not, it seems to me, off base at all. Lee certainly doesn't mean that it all has to go, but rather that we shouldn't be surprised if there are better ways to confess our theology, nor should we be shocked if there are some formulations worth changing. The idea that Paul wrote Hebrews may have been common place in the 16th and 17th century. But if your view of subscription can't even amend something as 'simple' as this, what does that tell you about your practice of subscription? That's the real dagger blow of Lee's argument -- not that strict subscription necessarily starts out with the expressed intent to 'live in the past' but rather that this method of confession doesn't afford it much opportunity to live anywhere else.

This is a small-yet-important test case...partly because it doesn't amount to a hill of beans theologically (apart from someone who insists on reading Paul into Hebrews at every turn, when he simply won't fit). But that's why it makes for an excellent point for discussion, since no serious doctrinal point is on the line. Why didn't the URC revise this when it formally chose to adopt the Three Forms? Did 'the majority' of the URC still believe Paul wrote Hebrews?

I'm not trying to be hopelessly myopic here. But then, my position doesn't require me to subscribe to every word of the Confession; your's does! So help me out here...

(7) Conclusion

It's worth pondering what the WCF means when it says synods and councils "...are not to be made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in both" (31.4). Not rule but guide! Why is it not the rule of faith and practice? Because only Scripture (cf. WCF 1.9 and 10) can rightly be said to do that. But such documents from synods and councils can and must serve as a guide in our faith and practice! That's the fine line that the WCF walks between 'traditionalism' on the one side and 'no creed but Christ' on the other! Consequently, we should embrace a subscription that walks the line between 'strict' on the one side and 'substance' on the other.

No approach to subscription (however strict!) is capable of guarding our faith and practice. When we try to make it do so, we inevitably end up asking it to do more than it adequately can. And that simply doesn't bode well for the life of the church, if our goal is to ultimately confess what we believe the Scriptures teach.

Defining Dysfunction!

2008-03-07T17:01:00.000-08:00

I like James Grant's approach to pastoral counseling:

Finally....a satisfying definition of 'dysfunction'!

Coarse Talking, Proverbial Wisdom, and What is Good

2008-03-01T20:14:00.000-08:00

The Proverbs have a lot to say about human speech (using various metaphors of the tongue, mouth, etc.). For instance:

Prov. 12:14 - From the fruit of his mouth a man is satisfied with good, and the work of a man's hand comes back to him.

Prov. 13:2 - From the fruit of his mouth a man eats what is good, but the desire of the treacherous is for violence.

What's fascinating about the plethora of Proverbs addressing what we speak is that we are never given a list of words that are unacceptable, except as it pertains to profaning the 'name' of the Lord (cf. Prov. 30:9). In fact, nearly all the references to human speech in the Proverbs don't give you a lot of external specifics. It provides you external scenarios of bad and good speech, but the clear focus of the Proverbs is to get you contemplate the underlying motives involved in human speech.

Part of the problem it seems to me is that we approach Proverbs like we would the Mosaic Law, the later of which is replete with very specific instructions of what one should do and not do. Wisdom literature and the Law fit together under the broad umbrella known as the Mosaic Covenant (cf. 'Listen, my son' in Prov. 1:8 seems clearly intended to mirror the shema of Deut. 6), but on a rhetorical level they communicate truth to us differently. That's part of why we designate the Proverbs as 'wisdom' literature -- if you read them expecting specific instructions (a la Leviticus or Deut.), you ironically end up gutting the very approach that Proverbs lays forth as how one might acquire wisdom. To a person who seeks a specific rule for every situation, there really isn't much need to acquire hokma!

Twice here in Proverbs 12 and 13, we find a connection between our mouths and simply what's good. No list -- the only category it gives is tov!

I think this is helpful to keep in mind when thinking about speech, because it helps us realize that we need more than simply a 'list' of 'bad' words to avoid. If you start with an external list, then you easily put the cart before the horse, ethics prior to redemption, the imperative before the indicative.

Proverbs understands the subtlety and complexity that the language of communication involves -- which is why it addresses the tongue/mouth frequently -- and that's part of the real profundity of the Bible's so-called 'wisdom literature'. It's not just imparting moral slogans to follow, but it's providing us with a 'covenantal worldview' to evaluate *all* our speech. This goes well-beyond (while including in its evaluation) certain 'words' that might bring a perverse connotation.

For example, there is a time to answer a fool and a time NOT to answer a fool? (Prov. 26:4-5) How do you know the difference? Proverbs doesn't spell it out for you in 'how to' fashion -- "Here's when you do it; here's when you don't!." You simply don't get that. What it does spell out for you is the goal and need for *Biblical wisdom* in deciding the difference, and then providing numerous metaphors and parallelisms that help flesh that out.

This is crucial in evaluating our speech -- there are times when certain language is appropriate, times when it is not appropriate, times when it virtually never appropriate. But how do you know? When do parents talk to their children about topics like sex and drugs? How do parents talk to their children about course language without actually using the language itself? That's why you need 'wisdom' -- the ability to show skill in thinking through what you say with your lips.

I have a Christian friend who's an ADA, and he often has to read depositions and statements aloud in court that involve foul language. Is that wrong? For some, I think that would be a major conscience issue -- they would NOT want to answer such a fool according to his own folly! And so they should refrain from doing that. But for the prosecutor, he recognizes civil justice requires the confrontation of people's sinfulness -- 'answering a fool according to his own folly'....even if that means having to repeat the fool's language to the courts.

The difficulty is that this sounds (at least on the surface) a lot like situation ethics. But Fletcher's whole approach to situational ethics rules out any need for Biblical wisdom in making decisions -- I simply say what 'feels' right at any given moment. Biblical wisdom is nothing like that at all -- it recognizes that complexity of 'situations'...but then seeks to bring Biblical truth to bear in evaluating the situation. [Think of the old 'one meaning, many applications', if you will.]

In short, Wisdom recognizes the massive difference between dropping an 'f bomb' out of anger....and dropping an 'f bomb' while reading a transcript in the middle of prosecuting a major felon. This is not a totally arbitrary distinction based on autonomous thinking; rather, it is recognizing that 'wisdom' is rooted in our creation-ethics, for it is "he who made the earth by his power, who established the world by his wisdom" (Jer. 10:15).

Stated pejoratively, Biblical wisdom in both Testaments is neither a friend to the Theonomist or autonomist. That's why it's called Biblical wisdom!

That's also why the 'fear of the Lord' is so important when reading the Proverbs (e.g. 1:7)! We often gloss 'fear' in Proverbs with the idea of 'reverence'....which is not wrong per se, but doesn't really go far enough! John Murray gave, I think, a much more probing (and Biblically-satisfying) definition -- "The fear of God is the soul of godliness...The first thought of the godly man in every circumstance is God's relation to him and it, and his and its relationship to God." (Principles of Conduct, 229).

We have to constantly evaluate all our language -- not merely certain 'words' designated as offensive! -- in light of our relationship to God in Christ! And our standard cannot simply be whether 'it is bad'....but rather whether it is truly good!

Is not that message we see Jesus preaching when confronted about the lawfulness of healing on the Sabbath? (Matt. 12:9-14) . How does Jesus confront their Pharisaical thinking? "It is lawful to do good on the Sabbath." The answer sounds almost too simple....and yet it takes real skill when trying to evaluate what is good to do on the Lord's Day. No list could ever hope to accomplish all that is involved there.

Thankfully, Jesus gives us his own standard for evaluating what is good: And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord." (I. Cor. 1:30-31). Not merely content to tell us to do good, Christ in the Gospel becomes wisdom for us!

Duking it out at the Altar!

2008-03-01T17:37:00.000-08:00

It's funny what you find while Google searching for former classmates.

I was attempting to track down a friend of mine from Seminary, Daniel Sladek. While we were attending Westminter together, he somehow ended up traveling to the UK for a Free Church of Scotland summer internship, where he met a nice gal Scottish gal he would later marry. He's been hard to keep track of ever since. He did manage to write during his time at Free Church College a thesis on N.T. Wright's exegesis of the 'zdk language in the OT. The last I heard from him, he was ministering in some capacity (I think) at a Free Church congregation in the London area. But I can't recall communicating with him (much, if at all!) since I read his thesis, which must have been 5 years ago (at least!).

Enter Google!

The first Google search link I found and clicked on was your basic bulletin insert of the previously-mentioned London congregation, asking the congregation to pray for the Sladeks as he accepted a call to a church in Skye (Scotland). That was April 2006....so I figure I'm getting warmer.

I then tried to Google search the church name listed on the previous link, but it turned up nothing. I then went to the Free Church website, and they didn't have any church listed by that name. Dead end! So I decided to return back to my original search.

Now back at my initial search tab, I go to the next link of the original search and notice the following Google search blurb, "....American-born preacher Daniel Sladek, looked down from the pulpit..." So I'm thinking to myself that I've found him....

...And then I read for a little more context and discovered the title of the actual article in which Dan's name appeared: Love rivals in punch-up at the altar and the subtitle: Jilted husband thumps wife's lover in Kirk.

[Leave to the Scottish to give you a real attention-grabbing headline! The only words that came to my mind were, "Scratch my back with a hacksaw!"]

Here's a fuller quote from the article:

The minister at the Kirk, American-born preacher Daniel Sladek, looked down from the pulpit in shock as his precentor (choirmaster) was beaten up.

He said last night: "We certainly deplore the incident and lament what happened. It was certainly a shock to myself and the congregation - a most unusual happening."

You can read the entire article here.

This has to qualify as one of the most bizarre ways to get back in touch with one of your Seminary friends -- finding a news headline about (a) your friend's church clear across the pond, in which (b) the choirmaster is a having an affair with a woman in the congregation, and (c) the choirmaster gets attacked by the husband of that woman during the worship service in front of the entire congregation!

After reading this, I didn't know whether to cry or wind my watch (HT: Mike Lange).

It's hard not to find this humorous...until you realize how utterly tragic the whole affair must have been.

Muller's Post-Reformation Dogmatics

2008-02-25T13:30:00.001-08:00

If you're looking for the best deal on Richard Muller's Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics (4 Vol.), Christian Book Distributor has it selling for $80 right now. However, if you use promo code "251485FF" during check out, that knocks off 10% of the price, which basically translates to 'free shipping.' Thus, you end up getting the entire set post-paid for $80.

If you don't want to shop at CBD, then the next best option for price appears to be over at Monergism Books -- $84.00 (with s & h).

This is not a blog typically devoted to Historical Theology -- there are plenty of those already out there. However, I wanted to mention this important work for investigating the development of Reformation theology among the post-Reformation Scholastics of the Reformed Faith.

Gott Proverbs?

2008-02-11T13:49:00.000-08:00

Norman K. Gottwald argued nearly 50 years ago that the Hebrew Proverbs are "generally mediocre as literature, tedious as ethics, banal as religion" (A Light to the Nations, New York: Harper, 1959: 472). For someone who was quite critical of the historical-critical school, it's remarkable how little Gottwald's sociological models and ethnographic parallels -- seen chiefly in his 'peasant revolt' theory of Israel's origins -- move us beyond what the critical school had been saying for decades prior.

Thankfully, numerous studies in 'Wisdom literature' more recently have demonstrated how woefully wrong Gottwald is on all three accounts. Raymond van Leeuwen's Context and Meaning in Proverbs 25-27 should be required-reading for anyone trying to work their way through Proverbs' poetic skill, rhetorical subtleties, and theological acumen. Bruce Waltke's recent commentary on Proverbs works this out in even greater detail.

Lost in Translation(s)??

2008-02-08T05:16:00.000-08:00

Alan Jacobs has an interesting review (2005) of Robert Alter's The Five Books of Moses: A Translation with Commentary that touches on a key issue related to modern Bible translations that has long bothered me.

Typically, the debates in evangelical translation philosophy get reduced to a continuum between (1) 'literal where possible' (e.g. the NASB) on one end and (2) 'loose paraphrase' (e.g. the Living Bible or The Message) on the other, with (3) the other 'dynamic equivalence' translations falling somewhere in between.

Because option (1) is recognizably difficult whenever you translate from any language into another, option (2) has become the status quo for most evangelicals and option (3) continues to gain momentum in a lot of circles. But have the new translations really produced a better text? Jacobs argues (echoing Alter) that a big part of the problem in all three of these options (particularly 2 and 3!) is that they frequently fail to do justice to the literary form of the original text in their translation philosophy.

Of course, not all of the literary features of either Greek or Hebrew will easily translate into English (and hence the reason why Option 1 relies on a sometimes-overly-wooden approach to translation). However, Jacobs argues that translators too quickly 'give in' to this translational divide by 'smoothing out' those literary features of the original languages. How? By devoting far too much attention towards producing something readable in English, and failing to really wrestle with the original. And in so doing, the literary artifice of the original text gets 'lost in translation'!

Alter explains:

The assumption of most modern translators has been that this sort of [Hebrew verbal] syntax will be either unintelligible or at least alienating to the modern readers, and so should be entire rearranged as modern English. There are two basic problems with this procedure. First, it ignores the fact that parataxis [two or more syntactic units connected without use of a conjunction] is the essential literary vehicle of biblical narrative: it is the way the ancient Hebrew writers saw the world, linked events in it, artfully ordered it, and narrated it, and one gets a very different world if their syntax is jettisoned. Second, rejection of biblical parataxis presupposes a very simplistic notion of what constitutes modern literary English (Preface, pg. xxiv).

Jacobs' review highlights just a few of the numerous examples brought out by Alter in the historical-prose sections of the Old Testament, where English translations routinely 'over-interpret' or 'over-stylize' the text in places where the text is deliberately ambiguous or deliberately (and at times, monotonously!) repetitive. Why does this happen? I suspect because our definitions of Biblical perspicuity, while necessary to our theological commitments, don't have enough literary elasticity to account for things like ambiguity (or monotony) in a text. Even the Westminster Confession admits that "all things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves" (1.7), but I wonder how many committed to the Westminster Standards would be equally willing to say that certain texts (particularly OT historical texts) are purposely ambiguous due to their literary style?!?!? I suspect that sounds far too radical a proposal for many, if not most.

Alter (on a few occasions) calls this ironing out of textual ambiguity the "the heresy of explanation"...and just about all of the modern translations fall into this 'heresy' at some point or another. What does Alter propose as a necessary corrective?

"A suitable English version should avoid at all costs the modern abomination of elegant synonymous variation, for the literary prose of the Bible turns everywhere on significant repetition, not variation. Similarly the translation of terms on the basis of immediate context -- except when it becomes grotesque to do otherwise -- is to be resisted....Finally, the mesmerizing effect of these ancient stories will scarcely be conveyed if they are not rendered in cadenced English prose that at least in some ways corresponds to the powerful cadences of the Hebrew (xxxii).

Alter is likely guilty of overstating his case here -- do we really want to say that these modern translations 'scarcely' convey the Biblical narrative's intent? Nevertheless, I think the basic criticism is valid and worth pondering in lieu of the translations that roll out on an almost-yearly basis. The roughly 50 page introduction should be read by anyone doing work in the Hebrew Old Testament translation, whether as Hebrew scholar or a pastor.

I'd be curious to if there is a "Robert Alter counterpart" writing in the area of Greek narrative style. Steve Baugh made an off-the-cuff comment to me about 4 or 5 years ago, that (if I remember right!) he was learning to appreciate more and more how Greek narrative style was far more informed by Hebrew narrative style than many of the standard Greek grammarians will ever admit to (particularly as it relates to Septuagint renderings of the Hebrew text) ....but I can't say that I've seen much research explored in this area.

Many reading this blog already will be familiar with Alter's classic texts on Hebrew narrative and poetry; these are 'must reads' (with discernment, of course), if you are working through any of those portions of the OT. If you are preaching through the Pentateuch, The Five Books of Moses is a treasure chest of translational nuggets! I haven't had a chance to review his most recent work on translating the Psalms, but I can only imagine it will prove an excellent resource.

More taxes, anyone?

2008-01-30T16:02:00.000-08:00

My three-word summary of the political landscape in 2008: image over ideas.

Of course, this could probably be said about most political elections since the flourishing of news and television media outlets over the last half century. Sure, the Lincoln-Douglas debates (the so-called 'roots' of today's Presidential debates) in 1858 had its fair share of rhetorical flair, but there was always a since in which there were real ideas and methodological commitments behind the rhetoric. Today, one is constantly bombarded with 60 seconds here-90 seconds there to answer a question....which, of course, only encourages more 'political spin' without ever really discussing anything at all.

Remember teary-eyed Hillary in Iowa a month or so ago? Or more recently, the 'hand-shaking incident' with Ted Kennedy during the State of the Union address? TV outlets (from Fox to CNN) ran gang-busters with this. But what do either of these incidents really have to do with the issues that the average America? It might as well be Tony Romo and Jessica Simpson that we're talking about, where the media goes out of its way to cover an issue by stating: "We, the media, should leave this one alone...because it really has nothing to do with Romo's poor performance in the playoffs." What's the real difference here? National issues get reduced to the level of 'sporting event' event tabloids.

[NB: Admittedly, I didn't follow the campaign trail to the elections of 2000 and 2004 terribly closely -- in the case of the former, I was finishing seminary and working in a Santa Barbara (internship); in the case of the later, I was preparing for and traveling to Canada. In neither case was I able to watch television due to the poor television reception in Escondido. So I've probably seen more political coverage (i.e. 'sound bites') this time around than the previous two combined....and we still have another 9+ months of this to go!]

The internet has plenty of pitfalls in the area of mis-information. But (surprise, surprise!) I'm starting to think that number-crunching articles, Q&A's that actually answer substantial questions, etc., may end up the better medium for cutting through so much of the 'spin' that takes place on television newscasts and 30-second advertisements.

The reason I'm voting for Ron Paul next week can frankly be summed up in one word: economics. All the so-called polls say the economy is now the #1 issue for most voters in America, even more than the Iraq War. The problem is that these same people that are so concerned about the economy don't understand the economics of government taxation.

The National Taxpayers Union Federation (NTUF) issued a statement this week analyzing President Bush's recent State of the Union address, and conclude that it amounts to a $134.6 Billion-dollar spending increase from 2007, the largest single increase of his 8 year term. Weren't the Republicans suppose be the party of less government spending?

The NTUF also issued another report analyzing the various budget proposals of the various candidates running for the President in 2008, showing that more spending is likely on the horizon. Increases from the various candidates include:

Huckabee: +$54.2 Billion
Romney: +$19.5 Billion
McCain: +6.9 Billion

Isn't McCain suppose to be the more 'moderate' of the three? Then there are the Democratic front-runners:

Obama: +$287.0 Billion
Hillary: +218.2 Billion

This is one of the reason I'm not really buying the 'compassionate Obama persona' that a lot of people (including a number of conservatives) seem attracted to. When it comes to government spending, Obama is as 'big government' as they come.

There was only one (remaining) candidate that scored in the negative category:

Ron Paul: -$150.1 Billion

As stated in one of my previous posts, the GOP simply doesn't understand what to do with Ron Paul. Could it be because they have become so accustomed to big-spending that someone like Paul actually sounds like a 'radical'? In fact, Paul is the only candidate that I really trust who says he wants 'change' and actually has a voting record to back up real change.

Changes Around BeritOlam!

2008-01-07T13:05:00.000-08:00

After thinking over the general content of this blog, I've decided to pull an Andrew Compton...and set up a separate blog here.

I'm not exactly sure yet how I'm going to organize things between the two, but in my mind I have the thought to post general commentary, photos, and personal updates at the 'other' site, while keeping this site focussed more on matters related to my academic interests in Old Testament, the Hebrew Bible, and theology (with, of course, some New Testament thrown in too!). You can think of it as '2 Kingdom' blogging (if you must), but I of course reserve the right to confuse these two kingdoms as I see fit!

I also thought this would be an interesting way to see the 'ins and outs' of Blogger vs. Wordpress, two of the more popular blogging sites out there. I actually reserved both of these sites when I initially started blogging about a year ago, but I decided to go with Blogger because of its simple navigation for 'Blogging 101'...and of course it connected to a Google account rather nicely. Of course, a lot has changed since this time last year(!!!). Giving your blog a free 'face lift' seems a whole lot easier in January '08 than January '07; it certainly appears that Blogger and Wordpress provide a plethora of 'free account' options and add-ons that I don't particularly recall from a year ago. [It could be that I simply didn't know what I was doing a year ago, though I still wonder how much more I know a year later!]

I have a number of ideas for 2008 in terms of posting content....so stick around to find out.

Power Politics

2007-12-30T23:56:00.000-08:00

Two recent blog posts highlight for me the complexity and frustration with the 2008 election.

Lee Irons comments on the matter of executive power:

It’s disappointing that so few Republicans seem to care [about it] , but traditionally conservatives have been the ones upholding the Constitution, limiting presidential power, and defending civil liberties and the rule of law.

One place you really see this is the way Ron Paul gets treated by the Republican establishment. Just read a few pro-Republican pundits, and you'll see it soon enough. Paul is usually dismissed rather quickly under the conservative rhetoric that he is anti-American, anti-military, anti-War on terror, or (the really popular one) just too radical in his politics to be a true Republican.

Such 'radical' remarks about Paul actually tell you more about the political machine than Paul himself. Paul's message is frankly very simple -- it is pro-free market, pro-Constitution, and anti-government across the board. In other words, Paul is just too libertarian for the big-government ideology on the 'left'...and the increasingly big-government agenda on the 'right'! A great example of this is the way Republican diehards criticize Paul's consistent opposition to the Iraqi occupation. Note the way Paul gets lumped in with the leftist, anti-war machine; for some reason, it never really occurs to these people that Paul's rationale has absolutely nothing to do with leftist politics. His rationale for opposing Iraq (as far as I can tell) is: (a) we're involved in a prolonged conflict that really amounts to an unconstitutional 'war' and (b) it's costing the country billions of dollars to fund it.

The reason why Paul's message sounds too radical for people is because we've become too accustomed to letting big government run our lives...and that goes for Democrats and Republicans.

A great example of the 'big government' establishment surfaced in the aftermath of the Bhutto assassination. Kim Riddlebarger was particularly 'disgusted' with the way the candidates from both sides of the fence handled themselves:

Is anyone else as as disgusted as I am at all the presidential campaigns for using the tragic assassination of Benazir Bhutto as a way to shamelessly tout their own supposed foreign policy credentials?

These guys (and a gal) have spent the last two days knocking each other over to get before a camera or a mic to pontificate about something they obviously know very little about. Unless you are already in the White House and privy to hard intelligence, you probably don't know squat about what really happened and who did the dastardly deed....

And we wonder why less than 50% of Americans vote? The cynicism shown by the lot of them is disgusting to me. And just why is it that we are going through this eleven months before the election?

As Riddlebarger remarks, Paul's response makes the most sense -- "We should mind our own business and stay out of supporting military dictators." No political spin....and (more importantly!) just good economics. And yet again, Paul gets blasted by the 'neocons' for being anti-American and anti-military because Paul is critical of American foreign policy.

I don't agree with everything Paul says, but his message has a near-brutal consistency to it that is very appealing.....and no one in either party likes it.

Last Minute Christmas Shopping?

2007-12-22T11:17:00.000-08:00

Stephen Dubner (of Freakonomics fame) provides a rather compelling reason why consumers might not want to be so quick in buying gift cards for that hard-to-shop-for person:

[F]or the merchant...the gift card is a godsend. Just think of it: In the weeks leading up to Christmas, millions of people visit your store or Web site and hand you billions of dollars in exchange for nothing more than a plastic I.O.U. that may never even be redeemed. Best Buy, for instance, earned $16 million last year in gift-card “breakage,” which is the industry’s term for card value that was bought but never redeemed. Then there’s what retailers call “upspending”: most customers who do use their gift cards spend some of their own money to buy merchandise that is more expensive than the value of the card.
For the giver, meanwhile, a gift card could hardly be easier. But most economists would argue that if a gift card is so transparently good for the giver, it is necessarily bad for the recipient: the fact that it can be bought so easily signals to the recipient that the giver didn’t put much effort into the gift.
In the end, the value of any gift is overwhelmingly dependent on the nature of the relationship between giver and recipient. The economist Alex Tabarrok, writing recently on the Marginal Revolution blog, put an even finer point on this fact, noting that each of us has many “selves,” including a “wild self,” and that “we want the wild self in someone else to be wild about us.” His advice? “If you want to please the economist in me, send me cash. If you want to please my wild self (you know who you are!), use your imagination.”
So next year, if you need a gift for a strict rationalist, consider cash. If you want to appeal to someone’s wild self, you’ll have to use your imagination. And if you’re hoping to send a little something extra to the shareholders of Best Buy or the Gap or Tiffany, consider a gift card.

This makes sense to me on a number of levels, but I'll pick just one.

Vicky and I registered this past spring at Crate & Barrel and Bed Bath & Beyond primarily because that's just what engaged couples do...and not so much because we really needed the things we registered for. If we had strictly operated on the later premise, our registry would have actually been quite small. The kinds of things (truth be told) that we were really interested in were things like a modest couch/recliner set....and who is going to give that for a wedding gift!

Had we been moving into a 3 bedroom, 1600 sq. feet home, together then there likely would have been all sorts of things we would have needed to 'fill in' the place. But we were going in the opposite direction -- from my studio and her one bedroom apartment to just her apartment!! Needless to say, we quickly realized that wasn't going to work....so we moved into a more spacious 2 bedroom place a few blocks away. Still, in typical California fashion, it's hardly booming with space.

So what happened? We ended up with a lot of nice gifts that we simply didn't have room for! What do you do then? Well, one option would be to store it all in the mother-in-law's house 25 miles away. I actually know someone who married fairly recently -- I won't say who -- who privately confessed to doing this very thing. But, being the 'cruel' people that we are, Vicky and I decided to take the insensitive route -- "Let just return the stuff we don't really need...and exchange it for cold hard cash!"

Which brings us back to the point being made by Dubner. I've admittedly fallen into the 'gift card' myth many times in the past, but the evidence doesn't lie. There's a reason Best Buy parades gift cards before you on virtually every isle -- they know many of those $50 gifts are really just gifts to Best Buy, not the consumer who receives to card.

The next time you think about giving a 'gift card' for a wedding or Christmas gift, why not just give them cold hard cash instead? It's certainly not less-thoughtful, and it actually provides more immediate-yet-flexible liquidity. I doubt too many Koreans have read Freakonomics, and I'm not sure I fully understand the complexity of motives behind Asian-wedding gift giving....but they clearly understand that most of us low and middle income people will always benefit (and enjoy!) the most from monetary gifts.

So Bah humbug to gift cards, I say!

[And if you are reading this blog and you were one of the people who gave us a non-monetary gift for our wedding, we truly appreciate your decision to give whatever you gave! Rather, this commentary really has to do with my own public 'repenting' of all the gift cards I've given people as gifts in the past!]

_____________________________________________________

Postscript: Dubner has a great piece released yesterday on charity giving. His blurb about tithing didn't strike me as particularly revolutionary, but it did occur to me how manditory tithing cuts against the whole theonomic rationale (i.e. law) behind tithing. Anyone interested in a soft-pedaled form of 'Christianized Socialism'? Of course, I learned from a good friend a couple years ago that there are actually Reformed church sessions that think the entire congregation should give all of their goods/possessions to the session, only to have the sessions distribute it as needed. What a grand idea: Reformed charity in the form of Christian communism! Seriously....who can make this stuff up?

The Problem with American Education

2007-12-20T15:10:00.000-08:00

One of my favorite libertarian economists, Walter E. Williams, comments on the demise of public education:

American education will never be improved until we address one of the problems seen as too delicate to discuss. That problem is the overall quality of people teaching our children. Students who have chosen education as their major have the lowest SAT scores of any other major. Students who have graduated with an education degree earn lower scores than any other major on graduate school admissions tests such as the GRE, MCAT or LSAT. Schools of education, either graduate or undergraduate, represent the academic slums of most any university. As such, they are home to the least able students and professors with the lowest academic respect. Were we serious about efforts to improve public education, one of the first things we would do is eliminate schools of education.

One thing I like about Williams is that he is not afraid to call a spade a spade. Williams is responding a recent report that found 15-year old American students ranked 33rd in math literacy among industrialized nations (and 27th in science). And, as usual, we are so accustomed to throwing government money at everything that invaribly the answer becomes spending more tax-payer money on education.

Virtually everyone Christian I know teaching in the public school system has in one way or another confessed that Bush's 'No Child Left Behind' has been a colossal failure. Obama wants to allocate another $18 billion to reform federal education. Is there any indication this is going to actually work, given our track record?

The question of a child's education has become a boiling point in most conservative, evangelical churches (especially of the Reformed variety). Especially over the last 3 decades, the condemnation of the public school system has taken an increasing religious/theological direction, perhaps due to certain theocratic presuppositions that have gained momentum on the Christian-culture horizon. But as one who finds most of those arguments dubious, what should one do?

I think Williams provides a much more compelling rationale for why Christians parents might want to look into other educational options....and not for the usual religious reasons. Could it be that an individual might want to pursue private, Christian, Charter, or even home schooling options for the simple reason that public education is more and more a vastly inferior product? [Wow, such an 'un-spiritual' reason!]

Williams somewhat humorously notes, "Mathematics, more than any other subject, is culturally neutral. The square root of 16 is 4 whether you're Asian, European or African, or even Plutonian or Martian." Might we add to that list Christian?

[Kuyperian backlash, anyone?]

Friday Night Lights

2007-12-17T00:32:00.001-08:00

It's funny what at TV show will do to a native Californian's perception of high school football in Texas. Admittedly, I've only seen one episode of Friday Night Lights thus far. This is just a wild guess, but by gut tells me that most people back in Texas find this show rather humorous...if they have even seen it at all. That's because most of them have little interest in what Hollywood thinks Texas football looks like, when they can enjoy the real thing for themselves!

While I've thoroughly been 'corrupted' by life on the West Coast, the two parts of Texas life that I miss enjoying are (a) family/friends and (b) the atmosphere of High School football. Of course, it didn't hurt that I went to a high school (Katy High School) that has won three state titles in the Class 5A (the state's largest) section since 1996.

This year, they are 15-0, ranked as high as No. 2 in the country by some polls, and now get their chance this weekend to win yet another state championship against Pflugerville in the Alamodome (San Antonio). This is what their playoff domination has looked like so far (in chronological order):

Katy 58 - Strake Jesuit 18
Katy 42 - Houston Madison 8
Katy 30 - Pasadena Memorial 14
Katy 42 - Clements 0
Katy 66 - San Antonio Madison 21

Sorry to gloat, but I guess it doesn't bode well to be named 'Madison' this year! :-) Keep in mind Clements was 13-o coming into their meeting with the Tigers; it's even better when your older cousin graduated from the school on the losing end! :-) And it's not all that often that your team breaks the school record for the most points scored in a game (66) this deep in the playoffs.

I would not want to be rooting for Pflugerville (12-3) this weekend!

It remains to be seen where star RB Aundre Dean (seen below) will end up. He verbally committed to UCLA this past Spring, but the rumor is that he would go somewhere else if Karl Dorrell was fired as the Bruin head coach (which happened on Dec. 3). Bummer, Bruin fans!

The Wright View of Penal Substitution?

2007-12-14T01:39:00.000-08:00

Many people know by now the name, Steve Chalke, in connection with the doctrine of Christ's penal substitutionary atonement. In his 2004 The Lost Message of Jesus, Chalke in a not-so-subtle way argued that the whole classic notion of 'penal substitution' amounts to a form of "cosmic child abuse." While I was busy figuring out 'the Canadian life' and immersing myself in OT historical narratives, Chalke's book stirred up quite the hornet's nest across the pond. Books have been written in response and all sorts of responses have come and gone.

Lee Irons pointed out to me a couple months ago about the frequency you see the word 'violence' in books and articles these days in broad evangelical circles; it's all part of a recent trend seeking to recast (if not openly deny!) 'penal substition' because it seems to advocate a message that 'postmoderns' don't wont to hear or can't understand.

Like many of these modern theological issues, N.T. Wright injected himself into the discussion earlier this year via a 'quasi-defense' of Chalke's book. While not endorsing the book per se, he certainly wasted no time blasting those critical of Chalke. As with many of these issues, the questions always seems to come down to: What does Wright really believe about ________?

In November 2007, Wright was interviewed while visiting Asbury Seminary, and the full transcript of that interview can be found here. There's plenty here to comment on, but I'll limit it to his brief discussion about penal substition. Two quotes worth noting:

And the one-liner which he [Chalke] drops in was not, in its origin, a way of saying, “I don’t believe in penal substitution.” It was a way of ruling out of court to one side a distortion of penal substitution which he has heard, which I have heard – the idea of God simply wanting to punish somebody and not caring too much who it was. Oh, well, here’s an innocent man. Let’s punish him and that will be alright, won’t it? Sadly, there are many Christians who preach the doctrine like that.

and then a little bit farther down:

So we have to understand the doctrine of penal substitution within the Scriptural framework, within which it makes sense, rather than within this very low grade thing that I’ve been a naughty boy, God wants to punish me, and for some reason, he punishes someone else, so phew! I’m alright. OK. For a five-year-old, that’s fine. That’ll maybe do it. But, actually let’s grow up! We’re not talking about five-year-olds here; we’re talking about grown men and women who ought to know better, to be honest.

I'll grant for sake of argument that there are probably some Christian ministers that preach the doctrine of 'penal substitution' in an unbiblical way. But when Wright speaks of this "...idea of God simply wanting to punish somebody and not caring too much who it was," I honestly have to wonder just who he's speaking of. If this version of 'penal substitution' is out there, I certainly don't know where it exists, let alone who is teaching it. Even the most committed 'hell, fire, and brimstone' preacher that beats people up with the Law -- a significant error in its own right -- would not recognize this sort of caricature that Wright imagines. The fact that Wright would seek to defend Chalke on the premise of a non-existent view of penal substitution is quite troubling, even taking into account the quotations Jim Hamilton and Trevin Wax have gathered to demonstrate that Wright personally holds to a doctrine of penal substitution.

When you put it all together, I don't have a whole lot of confidence that N.T. Wright understands penal substitution correctly, for the simple reason that all these loose ends in Wright-speak simply do not cohere. I'm inclined to think the Oakhill men (Steve Jeffery, Mike Ovey and Andrew Sach) are surely right to identify their disagreement with Wright as a "methodological one" at its core. In other words, this cannot be written off simply as a matter of emphasizing one thing more than the other; Wright seems to be tolerating a fundamentally different way we should think about the atonement.

For a nice survey of the classic doctrine of penal substitution, check out J.I. Packer's recent article here. One can't help but notice a substantial difference between these two Anglicans! Packer is certainly aware of these theological developments in his native homeland, and holds nothing back in exposing precisely why this notion of 'cosmic child abuse' is wrong on just about every level.

UPDATE (Dec. 20): You can read Lee Irons' further elaboration on this post at the Upper Register blog.

A Note From Managment....

2007-12-12T15:58:00.000-08:00

Work in Progress! Sorry for the mess, as I try to update my blog!

Lu-0 Lu-0 Lu-0

2007-11-30T00:23:00.000-08:00

Three straight shut outs by Luongo is good news for Vancouver. It's also great news for my hockey pool....hehe! I'm still not convinced the Canucks have enough on the offensive end to make it deep into the playoffs, as they found out last season when they ran into Anaheim.

Too many books, anyone?

2007-11-12T00:08:00.000-08:00

Andrew T. B. McGowan makes an interesting comment about Thomas Boston's federal theology:

The fact that Boston had so few books clearly meant that he devoured whatever came into his hand, and his treatises on the covenant of works and the covenant of grace display a familiarity with Witsius. (pg. 9)

I must confess that it's easy as a covenant theologian to run like gangbusters to the later half of McGowan's statement. And what's not to like about that! McGowan goes on to argue that the formative influences on Boston's covenant theology stem from those Reformed luminaries known as Ursinus, Beza, and Witsius. Pretty good company!!

However, it's the first part of McGowan's comment that really caught my attention. That is, the fact that Boston had "so few books"! McGowan footnotes this to something found in Boston's Memoirs (so lets assume for sake of argument that it's true). Without extrapolating into *why* Boston acquired "so few books," this struck an interesting personal chord into my own book-reading and buying habits.

Reformed theology has long been known for its love of reading books. With that often comes a love for collecting books and buttressing one's library. There may not be a blatant attempt to impress others with our vast collection of reading...but we certainly don't seem to mind when people think we are extremely well-read! I remember the vast array of books I started to collect as an undergraduate and then the year I took off before I started at Westminster. I was a book hound! The art of learning how to read through that process was immeasurable, especially going into seminary and then more graduate school, where you are forced to assimilate large amounts of data in a short period of time.

However, what I've learned through it all is simply this: at least 95% of the books being published out there in theology, Biblical studies, and the like are simply not worth much more than a quick glance, only to be filed away to the bin of the 'books that made it to print that probably should have gone into the doc shredder.'

When I moved to Canada in 2004, I sold (or gave away!) probably in the neighborhood of 80% of my library. It wasn't easy to part with a lot of those books that were part of the journey through college and seminary. At the time, my reason was largely pragmatic -- I didn't see the point in spending hundreds in shipping books postal rate, only to have them thrashed in the process!! Plus, I figured that most of these books I could re-purchase at some point in the future, if I decided that I really needed it again. And besides -- I had the Regent Library on hand to look up a reference or quote if really needed.

But the fact of the matter is that haven't missed hardly any of these books I gave away. In fact, I can't really think of one time where I've said to myself, "Why did I get rid of THAT book?" These were books that served their purpose along the way...but they were books that frankly would be filling space on my bookshelves, not to mention making it that much harder to move to and fro.

So my philosophy of book-buying has evolved quite a bit since I started seminary a decade ago. I still try to read as much as I can find the time....but the difference is that I am much more picky in the books that I will actually add to my personal library. Of course, there are other factors involved here, like the fact that I've had reasonably good theological libraries in Vancouver and now Berkeley to consult when needed. Perhaps wisdom taught me that you don't need to buy every book under the sun, when you can simply consult it down the street.

And that brings us back to Boston's "so few books"! Suddenly, the lack of books on the shelf doesn't seem like all that bad of an idea. On that rare occasion that a book is actually worth more than a single read, then perhaps you have a book worth purchasing for your library! Devour the really good books again and again....and skim quickly through the rest!

How many books on your shelf would you be willing to part with? What percentage of your books have not been touched on your bookshelves in the last 3 years? [Moving or re-arranging doesn't count!]

NOTE: I just discovered the top 10 things to say after returning home from a conference book plunder! Hilarious -- it proves my point exactly!

Random things around the web...

2007-10-30T09:49:00.000-07:00

[HT: Upper Register]
***************************
Chris Tilling on the interesting hermeneutical connection between Joel Osteen and Rudolf Bultmann. For those wanting a more detailed analysis of Osteen's latest book, Mike Horton has one here.
***************************
From the Textual-critical garage of Dan Wallace:
Wallace's Pop Quiz (and the answer key)
AD or CE?
Pauline Scatology
***************************
Lee Irons helps us to understand what Dr. Kline really means. Lee also put one of his Ph.D seminar papers up dealing with Romans 2:13. An excellent exegetical critique and interaction with the New Perspective's reading of Romans! We really need more stuff like this.
***************************
Mark Jones (a guy who came in just after I left Faith PCA in Vancouver) has an excellent summary of John Owen's understanding of Justification by Faith Alone and judgment according to works. There's a lot of other good stuff mixed in here, especially in relation to Richard Baxter's erroneous understanding of Justification. Mark did his MA thesis on Owen and is currently working towards a Ph.D (Leiden Univ. in the Netherlands) on the topic of the pactum salutis in Thomas Goodwin. Congrats to Mark and his recently installation as the pastor of Faith.
***************************
Andrew Compton (Ph.D cand. in OT at Claremont Graduate School) summarizes nicely the problems of the diachronic, source critical methodology that has harangued so much of Old Testament studies for the last 120 years.

Vosian Prolegomena

2007-10-29T15:33:00.000-07:00

Geerhardus Vos (1862-1949)

The first published work from the 'giant' of Biblical Theology at Old Princeton was a manuscript entitled, The Mosaic Origin of the Pentateuchal Codes (1886). Remarkably, Vos wrote the work when he was only 23 years old, and he won the Hebrew fellowship award for the work at his graduation from Princeton in 1885.

Vos' work was a direct critique of Julius Wellhausen's Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (1883), a bombshell-work that provided the first extensive 'blueprint' [while drawing extensively from Karl Graf's earlier Die geschichtlichen Bücher des Alten Testaments (1866)] of what would eventually become known as the 'documentary hypothesis' (DH) theory of the Pentateuch's origin. While virtually no one today would hold to the views as expressed by Wellhausen, the critical methodology employed would go on to dominate the academy of Old Testament and Semitic studies in the 20th century. Every time you read an OT book that speaks about a Jahwist ("J") , an Elohist ("E") a Deuteronomist ("D"), or a Priestly ("P") emphasis on any given text, it is all essentially a footnote to the well of Wellhausen. Gordon Wenham noted in 1996 that "[t]his hypothesis is expounded in every introduction to the OT."

Without summarizing here all the arguments that Vos mounts against the DH, his critique summarizes nicely the problem inherent in the whole trajectory of source criticism. From the outset, he recognized that this matter was no trivial concern of text-critical minutia; rather Wellhausen's ideas touch upon "...the [very] heart of the Christian conception of revelation" (Chapter 1). William Henry Green (Vos' OT professor at Princeton) notes in the book's introduction, "The issue involved is not merely that of the authorship of a given production, nor whether particular institutions took their rise in one century or in another. It is a question of the veracity of the sacred volume from first to last. The question is fundamentally that between rationalism and supernatural religion." Cornelius Van Til, a generation later, would no doubt be impressed with the kind of 'transcendental' critique from his fellow Dutchman and former teacher.

We shall quote the entirety of Chapter 4 here (the shortest chapter in the book, one paragraph in the original), entitled 'Incompleteness of the Codes':

"If we expect in the Mosaic Codes [i.e. Laws] a complete legislation in the modern sense of the word, we shall surely be disappointed. As modern society, or even Roman life, shaped itself, it presents many a feature in its legislation for which the Codes of ancient Israel have no correlative. But the principle of Israel’s constitution was radically different. The theocratic idea made every thing subordinate to itself; and the law presents this idea clothed in outward, ceremonial and civil forms. Accordingly, whatever is not so directly related to this one central conception as to be molded and transformed by it, is omitted, and left to existing usage or future provision. In this respect, the law does not preclude development or increase. It has a spirit as well as a letter, however the most recent critics may emphasize the latter, in order to substitute the notion of development for the former. On this point, diametrically opposite objections meet; for, whilst one finds fault with the law on account of incompleteness, another finds it far too elaborate and perfect for a nomad tribe just awaking to the first consciousness of a life of civilization. Both extremes may supplement and correct each other. We should constantly keep in mind, that the Mosaic legislation was intended for a peculiar people, that had a peculiar destiny. It was to live, to a large extent, isolated, and the more it could be protected against contamination by foreign influences, the better. There was no need of a Code that would provide for all the complicated relations that arise from a lively intercourse with surrounding peoples. On the other hand, the agrarian principle, on which the civil law proceeded, secured to every member of the Covenant-people an equal share in the promised inheritance of Canaan. It is obvious how largely this tended to simplify both public and private life among the chosen people. It would be historically wrong to institute a comparison between the Mosaic Codes and the Roman body of law. The Romans were the people of law par excellence: in Israel the law was a subordinate means to a higher and spiritual end, subservient and adapted to the peculiar position which the nation occupied, and to its unique calling in the history of God’s Church" (51-2, emphasis mine).

Here we see in condensed form what Vos will later expand on in his Biblical Theology. The basic warf and woof of Vos' covenantal structuring of redemption, particularly as it relates to the Mosaic Covenant, seems to be there from the very beginning.

A concise and yet devastating blow to the overarching theonomic approach to the Old Testament.

A Pinnock of Pitfalls

2007-10-27T11:47:00.000-07:00

"Everyone who believes in God at all
believes that He knows what you and I are going to do tomorrow."

--C. S. Lewis

How to know you need to find a new 'Biblical counselor'!

2007-10-18T13:03:00.000-07:00

[HT: Jody Morris]

A libertarian interlude....

2007-10-13T01:32:00.000-07:00

Admittedly, I don't have a lot of extra time to follow every whim of the US political landscape. Perhaps that old joke -- Q: How do you know when politician is lying? A: His mouth is open! -- rings all too true in the current climate.

However, the more I hear blurbs and interviews here and there from Ron Paul, the more that I think he's exactly the kind of person to get the message of 'libertarianism' out to the masses.

Do I think he's going to win the Republican ticket? No. I think CNN, Fox, and every other network 'in between' will see to it that Giuliani, Romney, and Thompson get all of the press....and hence the ticket to square off against Hillary or Obama. But as Letterman noted the other night, you know things aren't quite right in the Republican party when "...Rudolph Giuliani had three wives and he's not the Mormon candidate." And does anyone seriously think any of the Republican's 'Big 3' can take down Obama or Hillary?

That's what makes Paul such an intriguing candidate. The Republicans know they have a monumental task ahead of them, with the general polls showing disapproval of Bush. Where do the Republicans go now? If they run on a 'Bush legacy' ticket, they know they are going to lose....and you can really sense that when you see Romney and Giuliani try to answer questions about what they would do the same and what they would change. They strike me as not really knowing what to say!

But Paul is very clear about where he stands....and (in rather strange turn of events) the Republicans have no idea what to do with him.

If you really want to put up a viable opponent to Hillary or Obama, I think Paul might be the only guy who's capable of doing so. If the Republicans don't know what to do with him now, the Democrats won't have a clue come next year! The tiring 'anti-Iraq occupation' rhetoric from Hillary and Obama simply won't work against Paul....since Paul is the only House Representative that didn't vote to send troops over in the first place!

Of course, the problem is that I'm not sure the Republican party is ready yet to embrace a truly anti-big government platform like that of a libertarian like Paul.

Before there were 4 Spiritual Laws....

2007-10-10T01:40:00.000-07:00

No, you can't make this stuff up.....

[HT: Andy Naselli]

Random Tidbits...

2007-09-14T12:59:00.000-07:00

*I concur with Simon Gathercole when he states that Stephen Westerholm is head and shoulders above almost everyone else when it comes to understanding the Apostle Paul. His 'Israel's Law and the Church's Faith' needs to be added to any and all classes dealing with Pauline Theology.

*If I were a Cal student, I think I would seriously consider starting a student club, 'Cut the Oaks'! Let's see how serious they really are about this whole free speech thing.

*Warning: N.T. Wright post coming up in the future....and it might not be exactly what you expect. Or maybe it will....stay tuned.

*I finally understand why new couches can be expensive. After a plethora of hand-me-down couches stretching back to 1999, we finally have a new couch and matching recliner....and they are actually comfortable to sit on!

Can you say....'etymological fallacy'??

2007-09-08T20:10:00.001-07:00

Here's a great reason why I have absolutely no interest in being a seminary President some day!

Somehow I have the sneaking suspicion that Mark Noll and George Marsden are not going to receive any invitations to speak for the Vision Forum anytime soon!!

I'll be in the Gun store, thank you!

2007-09-07T13:23:00.001-07:00

[HT: Purgatorio]

The Dawkins Delusion

2007-09-04T13:14:00.000-07:00

A very clever 'transcendental' (of sorts) critique of Dawkins. This is very funny, worth a 6 minute listen.

Zune Zune Zune!

2007-08-31T08:54:00.000-07:00

[HT: Paul 'Get those kids off my lawn!' Lindemulder]

Definitions....

2007-08-30T13:04:00.001-07:00

[HT: Phil Johnson]

Cup of Wrath...Redux

2007-08-26T15:30:00.000-07:00

Some important questions were raised by my friend Cliff in my previous blog entry. Rather than tack a response on that thread, I felt like I should further elaborate on where my thinking was going at the end of the post....where I admittedly took a rather abrupt detour from talking about 'the cup of wrath' to registering a complaint about Reformed preaching that seems to talk about 'brokenness' all the time.

First, anyone that might use the 'cup of wrath' as a means to terrorize a person's conscience would misunderstand the point of the prophetic image in the first place. To preach terror without grace is neither 'prophetic' in the Old or New Testament sense of the office. Obadiah is a good example of that, where you have judgment on Edom followed by God's promise of restoration. The emphasis for Obadiah seems to fall on the former (in terms of focus)....but I wouldn't flippantly deduce from this that our preaching should equally fall on the former. Rather, the movement of the book *in the whole* is perhaps a better way to conceptualize the total message we're trying to convey.

Second, there is certainly room for pastoral sensitivity in bringing the Scriptures to bear to a person's sitz en leben. If a woman calls you up in a frantic fury because she's come home to discover her husband in bed with another woman, clearly this is probably not a good time to immediately launch into a diatribe about how God's wrath burns against the whoring adulterer! There is certainly a 'brokenness' here that needs a response of grace, comfort, patience and prayer. Thus, I'm not out to minimize 'brokenness' as a pastoral ministry reality that has to be dealt with on a regular basis.

Third, I suppose what I am after is the tendency to take a perfectly valid topic that the Bible addresses and make that the main lens in which whole books, if not the entire Bible, can be read through! It just so happens in this case, my criticism was directed towards the usage of 'brokenness' as a category....but there are many other things we could add to that as well. For example, the person that tries to read justification into every Pauline chapter; the person that turns I and II Timothy into a training manual for church leaders; or the Reformed minister that seems to find a polemic against Arminianism in each and every sermon he preaches.

To that list, we could also add those who do Christian counseling, where there's a danger in turning the Bible into a 'problem solving' manual to the neglect of understanding the Bible's overarching drama of redemption. We could mention someone who works for a local chapter of a Crisis Pregnancy Center, and makes it sound like the main thrust of the Church today is to stop abortion. And on the list could go....

In other words, there's always the temptation to reduce the Bible to certain categories (or, if you will, applications!) to the exclusion of others. One's focus, interest, and sitz en leben dictate the way in which the Scriptures are approached.

How do we avoid such pitfalls? I think one way forward is through the usage of the lectio continua -- that is, preaching through whole books of the Bible, unit by unit. Hugh Old notes in this regard:

One of the strengths of Reformed Christianity is its appreciation of the Old Testament. As I see it, a minister needs to give much loving attention to the various genres of Old Testament literature. The insights of the historical books, the prophets, and the poetry all need to be explored.

I think the thrust of Old's focus is right, and not simply because I have a particular interest in studying Hebrew. Yet my fear is that Reformed Christianity in the current scene does not properly appreciate the Old Testament, precisely because one's limited focus -- however Biblically applicable it may be -- hinders their reading of the Bible.

Old adds:

Both the lectionary and the lectio continua traditions have been replaced in many Reformed churches by sermon series based on themes chosen by a minister. Such series may or may not deal with the "difficult" passages or books or issues that one would have to deal with in the lectionary or lectio continua approach.

I think this gets at some of what concerns me -- that is, a thematic approach to preaching. There are times where I'm not always sure if the 'theme' is controlling the text OR if the text is dictating the theme. I have no problem with addressing themes....but I find it better to do so within the context of working through an entire book.

I could certainly say more, but I think that fills in some of what I had in mind from the previous entry.

A Cup of Wrath...Anyone?

2007-08-23T08:33:00.000-07:00

While working through Obadiah during our summer Sunday School series, I made the decision a couple of Sundays ago to do an excursus on Obadiah 16; that is, how does the image of 'drinking' tie into the 'cup of wrath' metaphor in the eschatological outlook of the Bible?

It's a massive topic, one that occupies no small place in the Hebrew prophets (e.g. the 'cup of wrath' image -- if not the actual phrasing -- appears in over 30 places). However, it's a helpful example of seeing how such Biblical metaphors (e.g. what Dr. Kline labelled 'prophetic idiom') function within the prosecutorial-lawsuit focus of the prophets.

In other words, the 'cup' is an idiomatic way of expressing the dual sanctions (blessing and cursing, Deut. 28) of the covenant -- a sign of fullness/blessing from YHWH for the righteous (Psalm 23:5) and a sign of divine judgment from YHWH against the wicked (Psalm 73:5).

When Jesus asks Peter, "Shall I not drink the cup that the Father has given me?" (John 18:11), it's quite clear what 'cup' Jesus is talking about -- the cup of God's divine wrath. Of particular interest is the way all three Synoptic Gospels record the institution of the Lord's Supper and the passing of the 'cup' (Matt. 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:14ff) in juxtaposition with Jesus' agonizing Gethsemane prayer to let the 'cup' pass (Matt. 26:39; Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42). Coincidence??

What emerges from these Gospel accounts of Jesus' final moments prior to his crucifixion
is the way that Jesus brings together these two strands, these two sanctions of the covenant -- blessing and cursing -- in one grand eschatological pronouncement. The cup of wrath is transformed into a cup of grace. Why? Because Christ bears the cup of wrath for his people so that they might experience the cup of grace!

There is an inseparable correlation between the two -- they hang or fall together. If you get rid of or redefine the category of 'covenantal wrath' as viewed from the vantage point of the 'cup' metaphor, then you are inevitably going to misunderstand if not altogether obscure the basis for God's granting 'covenantal grace' to His people.

Here is one key example of why you can't reduce all covenants to pure grace. Certainly the outcome of Jesus' bearing the Father's wrath is one of 'grace' to us (the application of redemption). But in looking at the covenant between Jesus and the Father (the pactum salutis), it's difficult to understand how drinking the cup of divine wrath can be interpreted as being 'graced' by the Father. That certainly would be a rather strange definition of grace!

This also helps illumine the context of Paul's lengthy treatment on the Lord's Supper in I Corinthians 10-11, particularly as it relates to the dual covenantal sanctions. Paul describes the Supper as a 'cup of blessing' for the Church (I Cor. 10:16). Further, he equates the cup with the New Covenant (I Cor 11:25). So far so good...but it's not the end of the story. So much of the 'discussion' in Chapter 11 has centered on what Paul means by 'examine himself' (11:28) and 'discern the body' (11:29). However we take Paul's language in vs. 27-29, it's clear that whoever this person is that drinks in an unworthy manner, that person drinks judgment on himself. How can something be a 'cup of blessing' and a 'cup of judgment'? Could it be that Paul is using 'dual sanctions' of the 'cup' in I Cor. 10-11 as a way to explain the antithesis he previously articulates between 'the cup of the Lord' and 'the cup of demons' (I Cor. 10:22)?

Whatever be the precise nuance in I Corinthians, the 'cup' image returns in full force when we come to John's Apocalypse. This is not surprising, given the way in which Revelation builds upon, interprets, and Christologizes the prophetic works of the OT. Chapters 13-19 make particularly good use of the 'cup of wrath' image, as the cycles of judgment escalate towards the final judgment! What Obadiah sees from far off, John sees from a closer vantage point...but they both have the 'end' in view.

To conclude on a practical note, some one approached me after this particularly Sunday School class and made the comment, "Now that's a subject that I would have never heard at ________ Church. The word they always liked to use was 'brokenness'! You might have heard a sermon about drinking wine at ________ Church, but you would have never heard a sermon about drinking wrath. "

As I thought about this further, particularly as it relates to a certain mindset in some Reformed circles, it occurred to me that this so-called 'recovery of the arts' among Reformed Christians is actually muted by (post)modern, theological reductionism. That is, they like the Old Testament's artistic images that describe 'brokenness' and God's delivering us out of such 'brokenness'. But they don't particularly like the Old Testament's artistic images that describe the cup of wrath as a drunk woman who gnaws on shards and tears out her whoring breasts (Ezekiel 23:32-34).

Part of the brilliance in the OT prophetic literature is its ability to use idiomatic metaphors to enlighten the *fullness* of God's covenantal dealings with the world! This is particularly true when you look at the 'cup of wrath' -- the idiom helps to put human flesh on the notion of 'divine wrath' (which easily becomes theologically abstract without it).

It's not that the imagery/metaphor of 'brokennes' is a bad one or an unimportant one (cf. Psalm 109:16, Isa. 30:26, and more). The problem is that it's not a branch strong enough to carry the theological weight placed upon it by those that seem to refer to it all the time.

Revisiting Christian Apologetics....A Brief Book Review

2007-08-18T00:05:00.000-07:00

I've lost count all of the times I've been asked about by view of Christian apologetics.

Sometimes people are looking for philosophically sophisticated answers to common objections. Others come looking for a list of sure-fire 'evidences' that will convinced their unbelieving friends.

I realized this in a new way back in early 2004, when my friend Brenda asked me to present something akin to an 'Apologetics Workshop 101' for a group of college students at UCSD. They were a good group of kids, but what I noticed is that almost all of the questions the kids asked fell in one of these 2 groups.

That's when I realized that modern evangelicalism has conditioned people to think of 'apologetics' in a completely wrong manner. This explains largely why I just don't get excited when I see a new book coming out on apologetics...because so many of them (if not most of them!) are just not worth my time for perusal.

However, the recent publication of Revelation and Reason: New Essays in Reformed Apologetics (ed. Oliphant and Tipton) is a happy exception, a book that cuts through the confusion caused by so much of modern Christian thinking on the discipline of apologetics. Oliphant and Tipton explain the following near the beginning:

"Because the defense of Christianity has, at least historically, taken place in the context of philosophical objections to the faith, apologetics has taken on a reputation as, in the first place, a philosophical discipline. Much of the history of apologetics has been concerned to show, philosophically, that Christianity can stand intellectual scrutiny and emerge without too many bruises.

The trend, however, has had the effect, directly or indirectly, of undermining the discipline itself. It has led many believe, and some to argue, that the most difficult issues of philosophical theology or theological philosophy should be engaged only by those philosophically trained, those whose minds have been able to meld together the best of theology with the best of philosophy." (p. 2)

Here's a rather condensed summary for the precise reason I have virtually no interest in 'apologetics' books...because they seem more intent on dealing in the realm of philosophical abstraction that Biblical argumentation.

If you want a book with some great articles that suppliment good apologetics with fresh exegetical insists, this book succeeds in ways that few (if any) in the past have fared.

Gaffin's exegesis of I Cor. 2:6ff. (Chapter 1), Tipton's look at the Apostle Paul's Mars Hill defense (Chapter 2), and Tipton's redemptive-historical reflection on Paul's Christology argument in Colossians 1 & 2 (Chapter 5) are three of the chief highlights that stand out, particularly because they refuse to deal in the realm of theological abstractionism that's devoid of careful textual consideration.

Get this book and read it!

Wedding photos....Part 1

2007-07-17T05:04:00.000-07:00

These shots were taken from my Uncle and a few other family members.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mashleymorgan/

I'll try to post some of my 'official' photos here when I get a chance. The came in this last week, and they are absolutely marvelous!

Life in the 50's

2007-07-13T13:04:00.001-07:00

Pope Anathema IX

2007-07-10T16:52:00.001-07:00

A little encouragement, courtesy of the Vatican.

It's always good to know as a Christ-professing Protestant pilgrim, there are people out there who think you are in far *worse* Spiritual condition than you actually are.

Can you say..."Arrivederci, Vatican II!"???

It's amazing to think....

2007-07-06T14:16:00.000-07:00

When I started college (1992), no one had heard of the internet. Our 'chat rooms' were the student lounges and cafeterias. Our 'facebooks' were black-and-white printed directories. 'Aim' was a nickname for my little sister. Our 'text messaging' used real lead and ink.

When I started seminary (1997), I can remember only 3 or 4 guys having laptops...and only one with a cell phone.

A lot can happen in 15 years...

Headlines, Headlines!

2007-06-24T23:28:00.000-07:00

My '15 minutes' (or rather, 4 lines) of fame.

We're Back!

2007-06-21T16:31:00.001-07:00

Apart from the usual 'wedding drama'...everything went great. So many helpers made it all possible that we hardly know where to begin our thanks!

Things are slowly returning to normal! I'll throw some marriage photos together when they start trickling in; we should have some great one's from Vicky's cousin. The pair above are ones that Cliff Mak took a month prior to our wedding.

Thanks for everyone that could make it; no worries to those that couldn't.
And an extra set of thanks for all of the generou$ gift$!

A Roman Catholic weighs in on the Federal Vision....

2007-05-23T14:44:00.000-07:00

Many of us who are concerned by some of what we are hearing out of 'Federal Vision' circles are routinely accused of trying to press their theological formulations to their logical conclusions. They would prefer we simply deal with what they are saying, not with whatever theological consequences are judged to result from them.

The difficulty with that line of argumentation stems from the fact that theology always has consequences. In fact, even the Federal Vision advocates understand that, as they 'critique' the current state of affairs in Reformed & Presbyterian circles. They routinely do more than simply state what their opposition says; rather, they press their opponents to their logical conclusions based largely on their own presupposed conclusions.

In other words, the FV understands the Van Tillian 'transcendental' critique all too well when they are are the one on the offensive. The problem is they don't like it when that same sort of 'transcendental' critique is done to them!

I have refrained from saying too much here about the Federal Vision, largely because there are plenty of other blogs you can visit if you want 'the latest and greatest' rancor hot off the press.

But I make an exception this time. Someone this morning forwarded me a link for one Taylor Marshall's blog site. Marshall is a Westminster East-trained, ex-PCA, ex-Episcopal, Roman Catholic convert.

Why bring up Marshall? Much has been made about Scott Hahn's departure from the Reformed faith to Rome being attributed to (in his own words!) the theology of Norman Shepherd in the past, with many arguing that Hahn is just an aberration and not true to Shepherd's theological trajectory.

But here we have another. Marshall is the latest installment of that slide from the Reformed faith to the Roman Catholic church. But more to the point, I think he understands what is at stake in the Federal Vision debates in a way I find myself concurring with. Hey, see, I can agree with a thorough-going Roman Catholic after all, even if I don't agree with his being drawn to something 'robustly Biblical'! Marshall concludes:

Ultimately, I think that younger Presbyterians will gravitate toward what the Federal Vision offers. Many will sink their teeth into it and many will find it wanting. Many will discover that the Catholic Church is their true home, and many will discover her in a great moment of joy. This Federal Vision is really only a peek into the keyhole of the Catholic Church. The Federal Visionist has a vision of the beautiful things inside, but they have not yet appreciated the warmth of a true home.

Click here for the entire article.

His description under 'What is the Federal Vision?' is remarkably accurate. Notice Marshall concludes that it has much more in common with Roman Catholic theology than traditional Reformed theology. Notice that Marshall understands exactly why the 'Presbyterian establishment' would be up in arms about it's theology.

Marshall is right about the recent draw that many Presbyterians have towards the FV. And many of those individuals will quickly find out: 'What the Federal Vision does, the Roman Catholic Church does much better.'

The Final Countdown....

2007-05-22T00:50:00.000-07:00

Under 12 days now....wow, where does the time go? Seems like just yesterday I was proposing before I moved down from Vancouver. And to think we were actually thinking of doing the wedding in March! Eeeks!

My lack of attention to detail has been particularly evident these last couple of weeks. Missed graduations because of bad planning. It really hit me when I showed up to Tim's graduation party (from Cal) on Saturday, when I walked in and the first thing I remember hear out of Wayne's mouth, "You look out of it!" Yes, that's when I realized that I've been running from one thing to the next, trying to keep up with a fiancee who's much more organized than I. I think it might be time to get a that refurbished Palm for scheduling.

Stay tuned for details, wedding pics, etc.

A new kind of cross-cultural experience....

2007-05-11T02:47:00.000-07:00

I've been fortunate enough to go on three different extended summer 'mission' trips of sorts -- one during HS to the Philippines, one during college to Kenya/Uganda, and one during Seminary to Uganda. Usually in preparation for these trips, there's a lot of talk about 'preparations' for 'cross-cultural awareness' -- much of which is blown way out of proportion, if not bordering on a complete waste of time. Apart from the obvious differences like a different language, no running water, currency exchange, the danger of malaria, or 'Africa time,' there's really not all that much to 'adjust' to. In all of my times oversees, I don't remember being adversely overrun with homesickness, stomach sickness, or that 'lost' sickness that many feel when entering a so-called 3rd-world country.

Not even living in Canada for two years and living in a neighborhood that was predominantly Chinese and Indian made me feel 'uncomfortable'!

Moving to 'LA LA' land from Texas to go to college? No big deal.

What about working at a food pantry, a trouble-teens house, a soup kitchen, and the like? No problem.

What about moving to Berkeley? Different, yes...but so what! I just roll with the punches and fit right in.

However, yesterday I finally had the over-arching sensation of what one missiologist called, 'cross-cultural confusion'. I was lost, shocked, bedazzled...yea, even a bit terrified. And interestingly, I only had to drive about 15 minutes down the road to discover such confusion.

Although I didn't need a passport for entry, I discovered there's a whole knew 'country' that goes by the name of Victoria. And, no, this new 'country' is not my fiancee, Vicky.

I'm sure lovely Vicky has many secrets that I will soon discover....but long before I met Vick, there was another Victoria in town....who had a whole truck load of 'secrets'!!

Yes, I have finally been exposed to world of women's lingerie!!!

To be perfectly fair, someone previously signed me up for the Victoria Secret's catalog while I was in seminary....under the name, Ashley Morgan. Never did find out who it was, although I have my suspicions!! That made for a nice laugh every few months, but nothing more.

But this time around, I had to actually learn what all of these things mean. For example, I learned that a 'merrywidow' is not an old lady who discovers new love at the age of 73. And I learned that a 'cami' is not something you wear to hide while playing paint ball in the forest.

[Trying to understand women's clothing sizes is hard enough. I'm convinced that some women long ago purposely came up with these odd 'numbers' just to confuse men trying to shop for their women. I mean, just think about it -- would a guy ever call something a 'Size 0'?? I rest my case.]

Suddenly, I remembered a joke from one of Bill Engvall's stand-up routines -- "I've imposed a new rule for my teenage daughter: the label on your panties better not be the biggest piece of material!" Now, it all made sense!

I just loved the over-eagerness of the employee girls to help me find what I was looking for. I almost felt like asking one of the girls, "Does my shirt have a sign on the back of it that says, 'Clueless Shopper!'?"

I have to lay some of the blame on the ladies that attended Vick's bridal shower last weekend. Listen, I don't know much about bridal showers...but one thing I know is that a few people are suppose to bring lingerie. So when Vick was a bit disappointed that she didn't get any, I decided I would have to take things in to my own hands....which might not have been such a good idea.

For now on, I'm buying online -- there are some stores where men just should not physically enter!

Meredith Kline (1922-2007)

2007-04-20T16:13:00.000-07:00

And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself…Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures. (Luke 24:27, 44-45, ESV).

I have often wondered what the men on the road to Emmaus (not to mention Jesus own disciples!) must have been thinking to themselves when Jesus explained the vast contours of the Old Testament as speaking about himself.

I also wonder if it might have been faintly analogous to the new seminary student who feels like he has a decent grasp of the whole Bible…only to discover that was not the case after the first class of Meredith Kline’s Pentateuch course.

Wonder? Confusion? Excitement? Anger? Amazement?

If there was an ‘Emmaus Road’ event in the Westminster curriculum, it would have to be Dr. Kline’s Pentateuch class that all new students took in the Spring semester of their first year. I suspect many a student of Dr. Kline’s over the years can trace their own understanding of the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings as beginning (in some sense) here. Many (including myself) have not been able to read the Bible the same ever since. Our minds were opened to understand the Scriptures!

When I started in the Fall of 1997, the build up was already beginning for Dr. Kline’s ‘decent’ upon Westminster California in the Spring. Upper classmen started telling us ‘newbies’ things like, “Prepare for the ‘Eschatological Submarine’!” or “Don’t sit on the front row in class, or the Glory Cloud might consume you!” I remember asking an upper classman where Dr. Kline spent the rest of the year, and the student responded: “Supposedly he has a house back East; but we think he’s actually recharging in the Upper Register.” [What is a new student suppose to make out of that?] I distinctively remember a number of first-year students saying they were going to try to get a jump start on the Spring semester by reading Professor Kline’s massvie Kingdom Prologue, the main textbook for the course. Note especially that word, try!

On the first day of class in the Spring, Dr. Kline proceeded into one of his ‘majestic’ prayers that would characterize the beginning of each one of his classes; and this surely gave credence to the rumor that Dr. Kline spent the rest of the year in the Upper Register! He soon announced that this was his 50th year of teaching, which only added to his aura. I recall looking around the room and saying to myself, “This guy has been teaching longer than any of us has been alive!”

Much has been made about the ‘wordy-hyphenated’(!) writing style we encountered in accessing Dr. Kline for the first time. For sake of brevity here, none such examples will be cited! However, for all the difficulties one encountered in reading Kline for the first time, I found his lectures extremely helpful at clarifying what we were trying to comprehend in Kingdom Prologue. I, along with a number of other students who had Dr. Kline as a professor, have commented on the difference in level of comprehension among those who only read Kline and those who were actually taught by him in the classroom. His ability to explain things via his near-frantic use of the chalkboard is something that only his students were able to encounter; however, in the midst of the chalk dust clarity came. I privately wonder if many who still have such a disparaging view of Dr. Kline would have that spirit of criticism if they had sat under his teaching for a semester or two.

In 1997, one of the big issues circling the campus (and our Reformed denominations at large) was the Framework interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2. For many, this issue was (and still unfortunately is) the sin qua non of Dr. Kline’s theology. I have often thought it unfortunate that those who found themselves at odds at this point with Dr. Kline have often failed to consider whatever else Dr. Kline might have to say about the Bible. Such neglect is really to their own detriment, for it really fails to see the importance that Covenant Theology played in the overall thrust of Dr. Kline’s theological endeavors.

Never one to run from controversy, Dr. Kline always displayed cordiality towards those in the classroom who would openly challenge (and sometimes with a certain amount of hostility!) the views presented in the lectures. Kline never responded with vitriol or sarcasm but calmly attempted to answer the objections raised. There was one particularly memorable outburst in which a student rather rudely declared, “Dr. Kline, thank you for correcting God!” I fully expected that this student might have finally pushed Dr. Kline over the edge. And if there was ever a case for a professor to put his student in his place, this was it. But Dr. Kline politely said he was sorry that the student felt that way, and that he would be happy to take up some of those objections after class. If patience towards difficult and ignorant students had any meritorious value in final justification, then Dr. Kline might very well have set the bar so high that few others could achieve it. (Thankfully, his covenant theology new better than to trust in such Spirit-wrought patience!)

Conversations with Dr. Kline after class were always a strange combination of brilliance and humor. I recall telling him one day after class that I found out about a PCA church that was using his By Oath Consigned in their membership introduction class. He immediately shook his head, and in smiling disbelief retorted, “Oh, those poor people!” He also had a large number of quotable zingers, my favorite of which was: “Theonomists don’t want to evangelize the world; they want to destroy it.”

Now nearly a decade removed from Dr. Kline’s teaching, I’d like (in good Klinean fashion) to highlight ‘seven’ ways in which Dr. Kline’s teaching has been instrumental in my own life. [Note, they do not follow a triadic (3+3+1) pattern!]

First, I arrived at Westminster as something of a ‘recovering dispensationalist’! I had read and studied enough from within dispensationalism to realize that it was wrong, but I wasn’t really sure what should be put in its place. Dr. Kline provided the structure I needed to realize the errors of dispensational bifurcation without throwing away legitimate covenantal discontinuities in the process. Few (if any) understood the basic errors of Pre and Post-millennialism as well as Dr. Kline. Reflecting over the past 8 or so years on all of the covenantal confusion that persists under the broad umbrella of so-called Reformed theology, I realize now how insightful (and helpful) he was in helping me understand Covenant Theology was not an imposition of the Reformers but rather was the result of careful reflection of the Scriptures. And when detractors accuse Dr. Kline of being a ‘leaky-dispensationalist’, it makes me seriously doubt that they are reading him (or the Scriptures) carefully.

Second, Dr. Kline was always rigorously exegetical in his approach. Never one to simply rest on the laurels of century old Confessional documents, Dr. Kline was resolutely interested in explaining theology from the text within the larger redemptive-historical panorama of Scripture. His classes reinforced this method from start to finish. Dr. Kline’s insistence on being first and foremost Biblical has been an extremely valuable lesson, particular as I interact with Christian laymen, as well as Christian academics, who know very little about the Reformed Faith.

In many respects, Dr. Kline’s exegetical rigor came at precisely the time when my ‘historical traditionalism’ needed a good slap in the face. At a time that I was very much looking for theological stability in the glories of past church history (ancient, medieval, Reformation, post-Reformation, Modern, Postmodern, etc.), Dr. Kline stood as a stark reminder that all traditions must always subject themselves to exegetical scrutiny…even his own teaching. If anything this has given me a greater appreciation for our Reformation forefathers and their attention given over to expound the Scriptures.

Whether exploring of the oft-mysterious work of the Holy Spirit in his Images of the Spirit, the role that covenant plays in establishing the canon in The Structure of Biblical Authority, or the eschatology of Zechariah's night visions in Glory in our Midst, at every point Kline never failed to argue his point from the text of Scripture.

Third, Dr. Kline was passionate in defending the Protestant doctrine of Justification by Grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. These were doctrines that I would have heartily affirmed when I first set foot on the Westminster campus, but Dr. Kline explained these in all of their Biblical-Theological fullness. I’ve encountered a number of people since seminary that were convinced that Dr. Kline’s criticism of Norman Shepherd’s views of justification was personal, when in fact it was nothing of the sort. Dr. Kline had one unified interest: to speak clearly on the question of the grounds of the believer’s justification before God; and, conversely, to speak out against any theologies that might detract from clarity on justification.

In recounting the details of the Shepherd Controversy, Dr. Kline understood from the very beginning precisely what was at stake – the Gospel of Jesus Christ. But it was his covenantal understanding of the issues that made his contribution to the discussion so vital. I distinctively remember him explaining the importance of the ‘Covenant of Works’ insofar as it provides the covenantal backdrop for the active obedience of Christ imputed to the believer, and how Mr. Shepherd’s system of theology completely obliterates this. Interestingly, Dr. Kline first pointed out this error in Shepherd’s theology a quarter-century before Mr. Shepherd finally came around to explicitly denying Christ’s active obedience as part of the righteousness imputed to the believer. Dr. Kline’s understanding of the Scriptures within their Covenantal framework enabled him to see the logical end of errant theologies of justification, sometimes long before they realized it for themselves.

Fourth, Dr. Kline was the final lynch pin in convincing me of the paedobaptist position. I read John Murray’s Christian Baptism, as well as a few other standard books on the subject, prior to my coming to seminary. But none of those were successful in convincing me of the issue. Once Dr. Kline explained baptism within the dual sanctions of God’s covenantal dealings with man (e.g. By Oath Consigned), the ducks finally started to line up and make sense. Connecting baptism to the story of redemption made for a tour de force argument for paedobaptism. Few (if any) other works on the subject of baptism take notice of this, and his unique contribution on this very point makes so much sense out of NT passages that are difficult for many to understand.

Fifth, Dr. Kline modeled Reformed Old Testament scholarship in a way that was (and still is) so uncommon when you compare it to the hodge-podge of evangelical Old Testament scholarship done today. As one who continued on after my time at Westminster in the field of OT studies, it is virtually the universal norm that you have on one side the Semitic scholars who have precious little interest in theology, and on the other side you have the so-called ‘OT theologians’ who abstract interesting propositions without any careful examination of the text. Thankfully, Dr. Kline knew better than to divorce theology from Semitics. He was rigorous in his demands of students to know the Hebrew from the passages we were covering in class. I remember talking to him about doing graduate work in OT, and his advice to me was to devote my time to studying Semitics….and to use that as the basis for later theological reflection in writing. That nicely summarizes the basic approach that Dr. Kline modeled again and again – the best Biblical theology is one that is rooted in the text, informed by the various covenants in Scripture, and unveiled as part of the unfolding story of redemption from Genesis to Revelation!

It has become one of my 'unofficial' habits to read through Kingdom Prologue once a year. Now going on 8 or so years of doing so, it is remarkable that I continue to find exegetical and theological nuggets of profundity that I somehow ‘missed’ upon previous readings. It makes me wonder how much of KP I truly grasped when I first read it in 1998. 20%? 10%? This highlights how sorely ignorant we (the church) are of genuinely insightful reflections on OT (and NT) theology. The problem that people continually have with Dr. Kline exposes our unfamiliarity with the principal data (the Scriptures) of our theology. Far from ‘fanciful exegesis’, Dr. Kline dared to explain in the text what few others would.

Sixth, Dr. Kline’s insights into the ‘works principle’ in the Mosaic covenant are among the more controversial aspects of his theology, but they have proven beneficial to myself when I began to actually work through various parts of the OT, whether it be the book of Leviticus, the book of Joshua, or the prophesy of Zephaniah. The seminary curriculum did not permit Dr. Kline the occasion to work through each of these books with the students. And yet the way in which he taught the OT enabled me (and surely countless others) to move into these other portions of scripture with understanding of the ‘big picture’ of life under the Mosaic epoch.

Seventh (and lastly, following the esteemed Dr.’s love for the ‘sabbatical rest’ pattern of Scripture!), one could not conclude any reflections of Dr. Kline without mentioning his love for the Book of Revelation. That raises a most conspicuous question – since when does an OT scholar of Dr. Kline’s caliber cite a NT book as his favorite text? But this explained so much about Dr. Kline’s love for Biblical theology and its God-ward, heaven-ward trajectory. When you look at the warp and woof of Dr. Kline’s impressive resume of ground-breaking OT work – the Imago Dei in Genesis 1, the Covenant of Creation under Adam, the common grace covenant with Noah, the ratification-oath-pledge by God to Abraham in Genesis 15, the Suzerain-treaty form of the Works-covenant under Moses, the intrusion of curse-ethics under the Canaanite conquest, the little-apocalypse of Isaiah 24-26, the eved-YHWH of Isaiah, the protological-prosecutorial-eschatological role of all the Prophets, and many, many other themes/texts – it should be clear why Dr. Kline would love any book of the Bible that is capable of bringing all of these organic strands of OT revelation together with vivid apocalyptic brilliance, anti- and arch-typical fulfillment, eschatological resolution, and Christo-centric finality. How could one not love the Book of Revelation as a result?

It is indeed fitting that the final chapter in his final work (unless a posthumous work surfaces!) in God, Heaven, and Har Magedon – one third of the book no less – was devoted to the grand ‘Messianic finale’ as given in Revelation. This is Dr. Kline at his best, still sharp as ever at the end of his earthly pilgrimage, still motivated to expound the glories of the resurrected Christ seated in the heavenly places!

We give thanks for the allotted time given by the Lord for Dr. Kline’s long ministry to so many students over the decades here in the ‘lower register’! Though we grieve the loss of a great servant of the Lord, we rejoice in the hope that so saturated Dr. Kline’s teaching from beginning to end:

“We have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.”
(II Cor. 5:1)
“For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf.”
(Heb. 9:24)
“Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates…The Spirit and the Bride say, ‘Come.’ And let the one who hears say, ‘Come.’ And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who desires take the water of life without price."
(Rev. 22:14,17)

Dr. Kline’s homecoming has begun, and no doubt he is loving the ‘indoxation’ of Heaven even more than he could ever had done so while speaking about it as a 'pilgrim' on the road to glory.

As he was often heard in class praying, “Even so Lord, come quickly!”

_______________________
Matthew Ashley Morgan
April 19th, 2007
for the Westminster Alumni Reflections of Dr. Kline,
to be given to his wife and family

It's that time of year.....

2007-04-18T17:18:00.000-07:00

There's nothing quite like playoff hockey!

Questions from the random bin...

2007-04-15T23:22:00.000-07:00

Wouldn't it be funny if Al Gore was stuck in a New York Airport during this recent snow storm?

Doesn't something called the 'Chili Pepper Institute' sound like a pretty poor excuse for a university grad school program?

Why does it take $400 to get a bagless vacuum that actually works without clogging?

Where in the world have you been????

2007-04-07T02:06:00.000-07:00

[HT: An about-to-be-married Pumba680]

When 4 is not enough....

2007-04-05T02:21:00.000-07:00

Die, Cell Phone, Die!

2007-04-01T01:12:00.000-07:00

I'm not a particularly big John Dvorak devotee....but occasionally he belts out a rant worthy of a good chuckle or two. His latest culprit? The mobile phone!

These devices have done nothing to improve the quality of life or the national productivity. If anything, they have done the opposite. Yes, they are great in an emergency and useful for finding someone in a crowd or for getting directions when you are poorly prepared and lost. But that's about it. Instead, they are used for needless chatter and to give the illusion that you are some sort of big shot as you bellow demands into your device while in a public place.

Personally, I hope none of the handset makers ever turn a profit and they all go dead broke. I feel the same way about the miserable carriers and service providers who are all one inch short of being out-and-out rip-off artists.

The bigger question is: How did we ever let this happen?

I admit that they do come in handy....but there are times where I wish I didn't have to rely on one so much.

Biblical proof that Koreans and Chinese are related....

2007-03-31T14:16:00.000-07:00

Second Kings 24:6

More Covenantal confusion....

2007-03-30T15:28:00.000-07:00

You have to appreciate the courage of C. FitzSimons Allison (ret.) in standing up to the utter nonsense that the Anglican powers-that-be are producing these days.

Surely what is becoming increasingly obvious is that we have two different religions in one church...

His response to Katherine Grieb's earlier proposal is a great example of seeing through her erroneous invoking of 'covenant' in defense of her sub-Biblical agenda.

Just because it looks like 'covenant' and quacks like 'covenant'....doesn't mean it's a biblical covenant! Bravo Allison.

[HT: Jeff Hutchinson]

Bloggers beware....

2007-03-28T14:44:00.000-07:00

I understand the antipathy many of my friends have towards the blogosphere.

Kim Riddlebarger recently made this point well, showing how the web instantly makes 'everybody a theologian'! I wonder if it's yet another variation of the 'every member is a minister' confusion that is well-intended but not always well-founded. There are a lot of people 'blogging' that simply don't know what they are talking about.

An even greater concern to me is the level of vitriol that often ensues when discussion/debate demonstrates two (or more) groups on the opposite side of the fence. And this is where the blogosphere (just as e-mail has been for the past decade) is a two-edged sword. It has a great potential of disseminating helpful information...but it disseminates a lot of vitriol of people that would be better off guarding their tongue. Indeed it can be a fire, a world of unrighteousness (James 3:6). Blogging is yet another extension of the tongue.

But I wonder sometimes if people would say in person the same things they write on their (and other) blogs. It's a worthy question to ask before you post anything to the public or respond on someone else's blog.

This is one reason why I rely so heavily on journals and books from established schools and publishers. I just don't have time for empty rhetoric with no substance. Just give me your Biblical, exegetical, theological or historical argument.....back it up with documentation....and leave all of the personal antidotes out!! That doesn't mean everything in journals is worth reading. But on the whole, it's a more productive use of my time.

Life is just too short to be wasted reading armchair theology.

So I finally did it....

2007-03-27T03:13:00.000-07:00

About 10 days ago, I splurged on a new MacBook refurb (from the Apple store) for $800 plus change, after my iBook of 38 months developed some difficulties.

All I have to say is.....once you go Mac, you never go back! These things really are amazing.

Time to mozy....

2007-03-20T02:14:00.000-07:00

Need an easy, cheap and secure way to back up your files, pictures, etc?

Check out:

Pretty slick site. Comes with good reviews. So far so good!

[Note to Mac users -- Beta software is in the works....]

A collection of random recent thoughts...

2007-03-16T00:11:00.000-07:00

I always liked US History....but why is it that it never occurred to me to ask (until now): "Why do we call it Rhode Island...when it's not even an island?" Click here if you are as slow as I am to ask that question...

_________________________

Is Godmen suppose to be 'Promise Keepers Redux'?

Is it just me....or does this choice of a picture for their front page strike you as odd, if not altogether out of place?? This guy looks like he's in some serious pain!!

Ayeeee...yet another evangelical fad that will probably become a distant asterisk in a few short years.

_________________________

I confess that I do love men's college basketball. 'March Madness' might be the best pure sporting event...after the World Cup, of course!

However, one thing that is getting more and more ridiculous is the filling out of brackets. You know, the pool where you have have to fill out every game for a small ($10 or $20) entry fee. Winner takes all! I don't understand why there is such a craze...except that it permits people to 'gamble' without really calling it 'gambling'!

But more than the office pools. What I don't understand is why these networks like CBS, ESPN, Yahoo, and others actually *pay* these so-called experts to give the hoi polloi advice on potential upsets (aka the 'bracket busters'). Like these "experts" really have any idea how these games are going to go!! Nobody has any clue about who could win these games in a 'one and done' tournament.

I still remember one of the first 'pools' I ever heard about. It was won by some girl who clearly had no clue about who any of the teams were. She picked a team because they had a point guard who was 'really cute'....and that team ended up winning the whole thing! When a girl wins booty of a pool with *that* kind of criteria for picking teams, that tells you everything you need to know about these commentators on TV and radio who really think they know what's going on.

_________________________

I should start a blog series of overused phrases in book/journal articles.

This week's phrase: "without a doubt"

I remember Bob Strimple mentioning this in a side comment a number of years ago, and he's right.

Consider something I heard on the radio a couple days ago: "Barak Obama is, without a doubt, a better candidate for the democratic party than Hillary Clinton."

Now think about that statement. What is this person trying to communicate? They are trying to communicate 'absolute certainty'!

But now think about the comparison a little more! Is Barak Obama really WITHOUT A DOUBT the better candidate? Putting political persuasions aside for a moment, I'm thinking probably not. And so what has the comment just created in the process of his comparison?!?! Doubt!!!! {i.e. 'I doubt that Barak Obama is really 'without a doubt' the better candidate!}

You see this kind of language frequently in religious, theological, and Biblical Studies' journals and books. And it really is pointless language. 'Without a doubt' adds nothing to the argument...and that's without a doubt!! :)

A Postmodern Sandwich

2007-03-14T17:15:00.000-07:00

I like Doug Severn's (RUF Oklahoma Univ) haiku summary of Kevin Hart's, Postmodernism: A Beginners's Guide:

Postmodernism
Lack of meta-narrative
Jimmy John’s Sandwich

Nice!

It is funny to think about how people love to drop the word 'postmodern' into the course of a conversation.

So very trendy. So very high-brow. So very sophisticated-sounding.

But now you know....

Whenever anyone drops 'postmodern' into a conversation, remember they are only talking about...Jimmy John's Sandwich.

Hockey Talk

2007-03-13T22:53:00.000-07:00

Mike Modano finally snagged his 500th career goal on Tuesday night.

It's only the 2nd time a US-born player has ever accomplished that feat; it might be a while before we see that happen again!

I love watching Modano skate...except when he plays the Canucks.

Speaking of the Canucks, Vick and I caught them playing the San Jose Sharks last Friday night at the HP Pavilion (aka the 'Shark Tank'). A great game....especially when the Canucks silenced the crowd with the overtime game winner by Daniel Sedin. I think that's the first time I've watched a game while rooting for the visiting team...and it's remarkable how quickly a goal like that can make a rip-roaring crowd go completely silent!

I decided to spare Vicky the grief of taking a bra to the game, to cheer on Jeff Cowan (aka Cowan the Brabarian) if he scored another goal for the Canucks. See the following for further elaboration:

Only in hockey.... :)

Ridderbos passes away at 98

2007-03-13T10:54:00.000-07:00

Here's my Google chat quote of the day....courtesy of Adam York:

did you know that ridderbos passed away last thursday?
i didn't know he was still alive.

You have to realize that Herman Ridderbos was first published (correct me if I'm wrong!) in the early 1940's. So this guy has been around for a long, long time. Most of his significant and ground-breaking work took place decades ago, and he's kind of dropped off the map in recent years. I think most of us presumed he must have already passed on to glory.

His work is first-rate. His Paul: An Outline of His Theology remains the best and most-influential (yea, monumental and comprehensive!) work I've ever read on Paul's theology. It'll do more for your reading of Paul's letters than any commentary on a Pauline letter that I've seen. It's still ranks in my 'Top 5' favorites books.

His Coming of the Kingdom is one of the best (if not THE best) theological introductions for reading the Gospels. His Redemptive History and the New Testament Scriptures is a very helpful look at the topic of the canon from the vantage point of salvation-history.

And his When the Time Had Fully Come is a little gem of a book. I still remember buying up about 20 copies of that book for $5 a pop from some New York bookstore that obviously had no idea what they had on their hands! In many respects, it summarizes the thrust of the three previously mentioned books.

All excellent stuff. He will certainly be missed.

[HT: Matthijs den Dulk]

Carson on the Spirituality of the Church

2007-03-05T09:36:00.001-08:00

Rick Phillips relays some comments made by D.A. Carson about the 'Spirituality of the Church' at a recent Reformation conference...

During the Question and Answer session, this subject of the Church and social involvement came up. The question was asked, "Why is it that the churches are not leading the way in social good works in Sacramento?" D. A. Carson gave an answer that I think is very instructive and which guards us against false dichotomies in this matter. What I mean is that there is an important way in which Christians are to be deeply involved in works of mercy and justice, while at the same time there are indeed wrong ways for this to take place. So there is not a dichotomy on this issue, but a need for biblical balance.

Carson argued that the key is to maintain the distinction between churches and Christians. It is not the calling of the church to direct itself to fixing social maladies. Hence, the spirituality of the church and, as has been pointed out here, the fact that the ministry of the gospel -- or, to put it as Peter did in Acts 6, the ministry of prayer and the Word -- is so singularly important that the church as church must be devoted to it. But, on the other hand, Christians are to be salt and light in society. This is the lesson of Wilberforce -- not that the Church should take up social causes but that Christians called to secular vocations (and we all are in one way or another) should be agents of the grace and truth of God in those vocations. Paul does exhort us, "As we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith" (Gal. 6:10). Given the narcissism and social indifference displayed by evangelical Christians as a whole, it is no wonder that many are expressing concern about this. I, too, am concerned about it. But that concern needs to be biblically shaped.

So the issue is not whether or not the work of the gospel includes social implications. It does, as numerous examples from church history (Calvin's Geneva; Wilberforce, etc) show. The question is in what way this happens. I say this not because I think anyone here is opposed to acts of mercy and justice, but because these kinds of debates must always be guarded against false dichotomies. The record of history strongly argues that if the principle of the spirituality of the church is lost, we are in big trouble. But history also shows that true spirituality will always flow through Christians into the streets and institutions of society.

A great model of this was Tenth Presbyterian Church, under James Boice (and still today, under Phil Ryken). Numerous ministries of "mercy and justice" blossomed from Tenth. I think of Alpha Pregnancy Centers, HOPE (an AIDS mercy outreach), and the public service of C. Everett Koop as eminent examples. But none of them was started by Tenth. None of them resulted from a meeting of the Tenth session. Instead, they all came about as God's Spirit moved in the hearts of God's people through the church's devotion to the ministry of the Word. It was because the church was devoted to the ordinary means of grace -- Word, prayer, sacraments -- that it has had such a social impact. As the Spirit lead the people of God to launch various endeavors, the church encouraged, counseled, guided, and promoted them. But the church maintained its focus on the means of grace and because of this the Christians has had a huge social impact.

(To my huge gratification, while I was writing this post, a member of my church called to invite me and my wife to attend a fund-raiser for a crisis pregnancy center. Why? Because of the effect of God's Word, preached in our church, on her heart. Thank you, Lord.)

This is helpful when it comes to evaluating strengths and weakness of the PCA and OPC. The PCA loves to emphasize mercy ministries...but the problem is that too many confuse the calling of the 'church qua church' and the calling of individual Christians. The OPC on the other hand loves to emphasize 'the work of the church'....but the thought of individual Christians being 'in the world but not of the world' is often missed.

The example of Wilberforce is timely, given the recent movie that I need to go see with Vicky.

Alvin Plantinga on Richard Dawkins

2007-03-03T14:05:00.000-08:00

My previous encounters with Alvin Plantinga (mainly on the topic of 'Reformed Epistemology') were interesting (in terms of reading) but largely uneventful (in terms of paradigm shaping). Perhaps it's the Van Til bias. Perhaps it's the Biblical Studies bias.

However, Plantinga (Dutch Calvinistic CRC man, formerly at Calvin College) recently reviewed in Christianity Today the latest book from the new, arch nemesis of the Christian faith, Richard Dawkins. Here's a small excerpt:

...Dawkins is perhaps the world's most popular science writer; he is also an extremely science writer. (For example, his account of bats and their ways in his earlier book The Blind Watchmaker is a brilliant and fascinating tour de force.) The God Delusion, however, contains little science; it is mainly philosophy and theology (perhaps "atheology" would be a better term) and evolutionary psychology, along with a substantial dash of social commentary decrying religion and its allegedly baneful effects. As the above quotation suggests, one shouldn't look to this book for evenhanded and thoughtful commentary. In fact the proportion of insult, ridicule, mockery, spleen, and vitriol is astounding. (Could it be that his mother, while carrying him, was frightened by an Anglican clergyman on the rampage?) If Dawkins ever gets tired of his day job, a promising future awaits him as a writer of political attack ads.

And in conclusion:

...The God Delusion is full of bluster and bombast, but it really doesn't give even the slightest reason for thinking belief in God mistaken, let alone a "delusion."

The naturalism that Dawkins embraces, furthermore, in addition to its intrinsic unloveliness and its dispiriting conclusions about human beings and their place in the universe, is in deep self-referential trouble. There is no reason to believe it; and there is excellent reason to reject it.

His critique of Dawkins' self-refuting naturalism is very good.....almost VanTil-like! :)

Poythress on II Thess 1....and the error of Postmillennialism

2007-03-02T11:10:00.000-08:00

Vern Poythress comments upon eschatological matters relating to 2 Thessalonians 1:

...Postmillennialism says that, through the gospel, allegiance to Christ and Christian obedience will gradually spread through the world until the great majority of people are Christians. Societies and their institutions will be progressively conformed to the will of God, and an era of great peace and prosperity will ensue before the Second Coming.

In my opinion, it is possible that this sort of thing might happen. In fact, because I am awed by the power of God for salvation in the gospel (Rom 1:16), I am optimistic about the future. Christ may return very soon, but if he does not return in the next hundred years, we may see a great harvest for the gospel. Some other amillennialists display the same optimism.¹⁷

What, then, is the difference between this sort of "optimistic amillennialism" and a full-blown postmillennialism? Is there any significant difference at all?

2 Thessalonians 1 helps to indicate one difference that remains. 2 Thessalonians 1, I claim, asks us to focus our hopes on the Second Coming of Christ, not on a hypothetical millennial prosperity taking place before the Second Coming. The rest of the New Testament has a similar focus. Thus, in my mind, the main issue separating contemporary amillennialists and postmillennialists is not the issue of mere possibility, that is, the issue of what might possibly happen if Christ's return is still some decades away. Rather, the issue is whether biblical promise and prophecy invite Christians to focus hopes on such a millennial possibility. Is such a prosperity the main focus of prophetic expectation, and is it a certainty guaranteed by prophecy? Postmillennialists say yes, and on that basis they expect confidently that the Second Coming is still quite a long way off. Hence they find it theologically inappropriate and psychologically impossible to focus their most urgent, immediate hope and expectation primarily on the Second Coming....

...2 Thessalonians 1 is in tension with postmillennialism, insofar as postmillennialism wants to focus hopes on a coming millennial prosperity. The text of verses 5-7 indicates that Christians may continue to expect trouble for awhile. They are to anticipate relief from the Second Coming, not merely from a coming time of millennial prosperity, as postmillennialists would have it.

(To be sure, persecutions come and go, as can be seen in the history of the northern kingdom of Israel as well as in the Book of Acts. Christians may sometimes have a measure of "relief" when persecution subsides or when persecution takes more "civilized" forms like ridicule. But the focus for our hope, according to 2 Thessalonians 1, is on the Second Coming. Whether the troubles vary in form or whether Christians may at times expect to be in a numerical majority is from a theological point of view a matter of merely secondary interest.)

Some postmillennialists have endeavored to escape the implications of 2 Thessalonians 1 by postulating that 2 Thessalonians is actually describing the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. rather than the Second Coming.¹⁹ According to David Chilton and some other contemporary postmillennialists, not only 2 Thessalonians but most of the other NT passages that have traditionally been understood as describing the Second Coming are in fact describing the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. The language is figurative rather than literal. Chilton applies a similar procedure to 1 Thess 5:1-9.²⁰ But he believes that 1 Thess 4:13-18 and 1 Cor 15:51-58 are about the Second Coming.²¹

We cannot enter into all the details of Chilton's system at this point. But we claim that this kind of approach cannot reasonably be sustained in dealing with the Thessalonian letters. 1 Thess 4:13-18 is about the Second Coming. 1 Thess 5:1-10, which is right next door to 1 Thess 4:13-18, must also be about the Second Coming. Hence, 2 Thessalonians 1, which builds on 1 Thessalonians, is also about the Second Coming. Nothing in either letter has any real tendency to point in a direction different from this understanding.

Chilton and others like him can find what they want in the Thessalonian letters only because they first read in what they afterwards read out. But their interpretations disintegrate once we try steadfastly to put ourselves in the shoes of the Thessalonian Christians. Paul only stayed in Thessalonica for a few weeks (Acts 17:1-10). Moreover, even though Paul had talked to them about the Second Coming (2 Thess 2:5), the letters show that the Thessalonian Christians were confused. They did not completely grasp even relatively basic matters of eschatology. The Thessalonians did not already have a mastery of some esoteric eschatological system.

Now Paul understood the situation of the Thessalonians and their capabilities. Paul would not have used language in such way that the Thessalonians would almost surely misunderstand.

Once we understand the level on which Paul must communicate to them, it follows that 1 Thess 4:13-18 is about the Second Coming. The transition in 5:1 is not violent. Hence, The Thessalonians will understand the "times and dates" of 5:1 as the times and dates regarding the events associated with the Second Coming. Hence 5:1-10 is about the Second Coming.²²

Next, 1 Thessalonians in the main background for 2 Thessalonians. In view of the sustained concern for the Second Coming in 1 Thessalonians, the Thessalonian Christians are bound to understand 2 Thessalonians 1 as a continuation of the same topic. The question is not whether one can invent an interpretive scheme, such as Chilton's, capable of interpreting the whole passage figuratively. The question is whether the Thessalonians have any significant clues that would lead them to turn away from what from their point of view is the most obvious meaning.

In short, there is no escaping the fact that from the standpoint of the Thessalonian Christians 2 Thessalonians 1 is "obviously" about the Second Coming. Paul knew the capabilities of the Thessalonians and did not intend to confuse them. Hence, Paul was actually talking about the Second Coming.

Chilton (p. 120) has one further argument:

Clearly, Paul is not talking about Christ's final coming at the end of the world, for the coming "tribulation" and "vengeance" were specifically aimed at those who were persecuting the Thessalonian Christians of the first generation. The coming day of judgment was not something thousands of years away.

Chilton, from his "secure" vantage point centuries later, knows that the Second Coming was thousands of years away. Hence, Paul could not be referring to the Second Coming. But unfortunately for Chilton's interpretation, neither Paul nor the Thessalonians had the same knowledge that Chilton now has. Neither Paul nor the Thessalonians knew how far away the Second Coming might be. For all they knew, they might be alive when the Lord returned (1 Thess 4:15, 18; 1 Cor 15:51). Hence, it is perfectly appropriate for them to look forward to the Second Coming as the time of vengeance and vindication. Chilton's interpretation works only by projecting his later standpoint onto the Thessalonians. It is quite evident from the nature of Chilton's argument that he has not put himself in the shoes of the Thessalonians; he has not engaged seriously in grammatical-historical exegesis.

Moreover, from the point of view of first century Christians, regardless of whether we wait a short time or a longer time for Christ's Second Coming, the fundamental judgment takes place at the Second Coming, not merely at death or through some earlier historical calamity or blessing. Hence the principle that Paul expresses in 2 Thessalonians 1 is valid not only for the Thessalonians of the first century but for all Christians who are undergoing persecution.

...Curiously, a dispensationalist like Walvoord (Rapture Question, 235-245) and a postmillennialist like Chilton show similarities here. Both appeal to the fact that the Second Coming did not take place in the first century, in order to invalidate the reference of 1:7-10 to the Second Coming. Both interpret 2 Thessalonians 1 within a complex, fully articulated eschatological position, with little regard for the question of whether the Thessalonian readers were as sophisticated as they.

Beware the Park...

2007-02-26T09:27:00.000-08:00

When you think of parks in Berkeley, you immediately think of one: the storied People's Park.

However, when I think of parks in Berkeley, I think of only one....

I could really spend a lot of money at 'the Park'...if it weren't for the fact that I'm still too cheap to pay for parking!

[HT: Lu-O]

Do you believe in miracles? YES!!!

2007-02-23T09:46:00.000-08:00

27 years ago....

On February 22, 1980, The US stuns the heavily-favored Soviet Union...

Even Canadians -- who live and bleed their leafs! -- will tell you that the 'Miracle on Ice' is one of the great hockey games of all time.

More Windows Woes...

2007-02-23T08:56:00.000-08:00

This is why friends don't let friends use Windows!

Apparently, the folks in Sweeden didn't get that memo! It's hilarious that this was the IKEA in, of all places....Palo Alto! Hehe...

I notice that there's a whole Flickr ring devoted to public computer errors! Do you notice any common threads there?

Christian Cell Phones To Offer Proof-Text Messaging

2007-02-23T08:37:00.000-08:00

by Durwood Cumbey, July 2005

The longstanding theological debate between Arminianism and Calvinism heated up last month when Sprint announced a new service in their cell phone technology called Proof-Text Messaging. For a small fee, Sprint cell phone customers will now be able to send short, abbreviated Bible verse references to thwart their theological opponents. Currently the most popular proof-text message sent to Arminians is “JON 6:44, U SEMI-P DOG,” while Calvinists are receiving the classic, “FYI TULIP-HEAD, JON 3:16.”

Betty Johnson, spokesperson for Sprint, says that their new “Friends and Heretics” phone plan is just another way the company is striving to reach the rising Christian market. “Here at Sprint we realize that rebuking others with God’s word shouldn’t suffer in this face-paced society. From now on, preachers with cell phones should anticipate lightning-fast biblical correction from their congregation immediately after every sermon.”

Mike Gavin, a seminary student and staunch Calvinist, is thrilled with the new technology. “Between my class studies and my job at Subway, I have very little time to slam my ‘Free Will’ buds. But now I can just send ‘PREDESTIN8 THIS! EPH 1:11,’ and watch the dust fly.” Adds Gavin, “BTW, if Luther had this technology back in 1524, he would have spammed that Erasmus dude big time. ROTFLOL!”

(HT: The Sacred Sandwich)

[Note bene: Glad to see there are some baptists out there that can poke fun of themselves. This site is almost as funny as Lark News.]

CG is getting scary...

2007-02-22T12:10:00.000-08:00

Here are two photos of Korean actress, Sung Hye Gyo....ur, rather, one photo and one computer-generated (cg) image.

Can you pick out the real one?

It really is getting scary what computers can come up with.

And no wonder people like Raymond Kurzweil continue to pack auditoriums discussing things like 'technological singularity'!

Dating is much better when...

2007-02-22T02:40:00.000-08:00

Quote of the Day (courtesty of Ekklicious):

"[D]ating is much better when you're married!"

I hope so! :)

G.K. Beale on Typology

2007-02-19T10:22:00.000-08:00

Greg Beale comments:

“…Many see typology as an arbitrary method which typically involves allegory and therefore it is also viewed as a good example of non-contextual exegesis. But most scholars today agree that typology is not allegory because it is based on the actual historical events of the Old Testament passage being dealt with and because it essentially consists of a real, historical correspondence between the Old Testament and New Testament event. Typological interpretation involves an extended reference to the original meaning of an Old Testament text which develops it but does not contradict it. Put another way, it does not read into the text a different or higher sense, but draws out from it a different or higher application of the same sense."

“...The plausibility of the suggestion that typological interpretation is normative and that we may seek for more Old Testament types than the New Testament actually states for us is pointed to by the observation that this method is not unique to the New Testament writers but pervades the Old Testament. The fact that later Old Testament writers understand earlier Old Testament texts typologically also dilutes the claim that the New Testament writers’ typological method was unique because of their special charismatic stance…the consistent use of such a method by biblical authors throughout hundreds of years of sacred history suggests strongly that it is a viable method for all saints to employ today..."

“…if Jesus and the apostles were impoverished in their exegetical and theological method and only divine inspiration salvaged their conclusions, then the intellectual and apologetic foundation of our faith is seriously eroded. What kind of intellectual or apologetic foundation for our faith is this? M. Silva is likely correct when he states that 'if we refuse to pattern our exegesis after that of the apostles, we are in practice denying the authoritative character of their scriptural interpretation—and to do so is to strike at the very heart of the Christian faith.'"

(from The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts: Essays on the Use of the Old Testament in the New)

[HT: Breuss Wane]

My own impish way...

2007-02-19T09:40:00.000-08:00

T. David Gordon quote of the day:

"My own impish way of discerning whether a person really has an understanding of covenant theology is to see whether he can describe it without reference to dispensationalism."

So very true!

Who's Afraid of the Masked Man!

2007-02-15T02:16:00.000-08:00

My 'Valentine's Day' surprise -- 2 tickets to see San Jose vs. Vancouver on March 9th. It should be fun rooting for the Canucks in the hostile 'Shark Tank' (San Jose).

Robert Luongo is going to have to play out of his mind to keep the Canucks in the game, since they play the previous night in Phoenix. [Sorry, ladies....this trilingual, Italian-French-Canadian married last year!]

Wow, now I'm realizing how much I miss hockey!

Thanks, Vick! :)

And while we're on the subject of hockey.....let's enjoy some 'Swedish Twins'!

Theonomic Bribery!

2007-02-13T15:38:00.000-08:00

From time to time, I think I'll include a few choice quotes from some of my 'favorite' theonomists!

Our first installment comes from Gary North:

Christ warns His people explicitly: "And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain." (Matt. 5:40,41). Christ therefore informs His followers that they should give to those in power over them (i.e., if any compel thee) an extra quantity of goods and services over and above the original request. If such a gift were voluntary, we would call such an action a tip or charity. What, then, should we call such an action under conditions involving external coercion? There is a word for it, of course, but legalists may shrink from it. What Jesus advocates is for Christians to bribe the offending official. A bribe is a gift over and above what is legally required or asked for--a gift which will encourage the offending party to leave the Christian and the church in peace. It enables the Christian to escape the full force of the wrath that, in principle, a consistent pagan would impose on Christians if he realized how utterly at war Christ and His kingdom are against Satan and his kingdom. In other words, the bribe pacifies the receiver, just as Solomon said it does. The ethic of the Sermon on the Mount is grounded on the principle that a godly bribe (of goods or services) is sometimes the best way for Christians to buy temporary peace and freedom for themselves and the church, assuming the enemies of God have overwhelming temporal power.

~Gary North, "In Defense of Biblical Bribery," in R.J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (Nutley, NJ: Craig Press, 1973), pp. 845-846

Yes, I shrink away from this....and I certainly don't need to be a 'legalist' to do so.

And that's why friends don't let friends become theonomists!

A Westerholm-ian Interlude...

2007-02-12T01:57:00.000-08:00

Stephen Westerholm comments on that thorny question of 'Paul and Law':

What, then, is the relation of the believer to the Mosaic law? Paul cannot but think that believers are bound to serve God. And he cannot but think that believers are still bound to do what, in the order of creation, is good and right for all human beings. Indeed, if Torah is a statement of the divine will and of 'what is good' for humankind, then Paul must surely believe that, when Christians live as they should, they effectively 'fulfill the righteous demand' of Torah. And so he does (Rom 8:3-4; cf. 13:8-10; Gal 5:14). To this extent there is a Pauline basis for the insistence of Reformed Christianity that the law is not done away by the gospel, but reinstated as the standard and guide for Christians who seek to express their thankfulness to God in appropriate behavior.

But that, of course, is not the whole of the Pauline picture. Paul was not one to dissociate Torah from the context of the Sinaitic covenant of which it was a part: and that covenant proved a covenant of condemnation and death (2 Cor 3:7-9). Christians, Paul maintains, are no longer bound by that covenant or at least in some significant sense by its laws. Paul speaks repeatedly of believers as those who have 'died to the law,' have been 'set free' from the law, are no longer 'under' the law, have been 'redeemed' from its sway (Rom 7:6; Gal 2:19; Rom 6:14-15; Gal 4:5). He means in part that believers are no longer subject to the curse that the law pronounces on transgressors, a curse borne vicariously on their behalf by Christ (Gal 3:10-13). But elsewhere it is clear that Paul believes as well that Christians serve God in a way different from those who are bound by the law's demands: 'we have been set free from the law, we have died to that which held us captive, so that we might serve [God] in the new way of the Spirit, not the old way of the letter' (Rom 7:6; cf. 2 Cor 3:6).

Here those under the 'law' serve 'in the old way of the letter.' 'Law' must refer, not simply to a statement of the standards inherent in creation by which all human beings are to live, but to those standards formulated into demands and imposed on wills that are bent on resisting them. The 'flesh' (as Paul uses the term) can only encounter a statement of God's standards as just such an externally imposed and unwelcome 'law.'

But God's ideal for humanity could hardly be the external imposition of his will on resistant subjects; 'law' in this (Pauline) sense can only be the 'guardian' of a humanity not yet 'come of age' (Gal 3:23-25). Already in the prophetic scriptures, the ideal future was seen as one in which God's will was embraced in the hearts of his people. For Paul, that 'future' had come. Provisions of Torah meant to distinguish Israel from other nations in the period leading up to Christ's coming must not be imposed upon the people of God in the new age. And even provisions which embodied what is good for all humanity cannot encounter the redeemed as unwelcome 'laws' imposed from without: the redeemed, after all, are no longer 'in the flesh' (Rom 7:5),[xiii] no longer God's 'enemies' (5:10), but his willing 'servants' (6:22).

Indeed, more than servants, they are God's adopted children for whom trust in their loving Father and obedience to him should be natural (Rom 8:14-16). Temptations must still be faced and resisted. Believers still stumble and need to be restored (Gal 6:1). Indeed, the 'flesh' continues to war against the Spirit and must be continually 'put to death' (Gal 5:17; Rom 8:13). Nonetheless, Paul is sufficiently confident of the transformation wrought when believers 'died with Christ to the law' that he can speak of Christians as serving God 'in the new way of the Spirit' (Rom 7:6). The same righteousness which was (ineffectively) demanded by the law of its resistant subjects is portrayed as the natural outgrowth (or 'fruit') of a life controlled by the divine Spirit (Rom 8:3-4; Gal 5:22-23).

To sum up: Paul was confronted by those who believed that the Sinaitic covenant was still operative and that its laws must be imposed upon his Gentile converts. He was thus compelled to explain how that covenant and its laws could, on the one hand, be divine in origin and serve a divine function, and yet, on the other hand, be set aside now that the Messiah had come. He responded with a broad sketch of humanity's dilemma and redemption in which Sinai played a significant, but temporary, role.

As creatures of God, Paul insisted, all humanity owes God praise and obedience. As creatures in a cosmos ordered by divine wisdom, all humanity is obligated to do what is good and right. In Adam, however, all humanity has chosen to go its own way. God revealed his will to Israel, the most favored segment of fallen humanity, in the laws of Torah. The revelation of God's commands inevitably provoked the rebellion of a people that remained a part of Adamic humanity. Disobedience brought on Israel the divine judgment and curse spelled out in the Sinaitic covenant. The divine purpose in giving the law was to bring definition and recognition to the dilemma posed by human sinfulness.

From this dilemma Christ delivers believers, who are no longer 'under law.' Not that they are exempt from the obedience owed by all human beings to God their Creator, or from the need to comply with the order of creation as spelled out in the moral laws of Torah. Nor, indeed, as long as they remain in bodies belonging to the old creation, are believers exempt from the struggle against temptation and sin. Still, the divine will no longer confronts them as unwelcome demands imposed from without on resistant wills. Already now, as the Spirit of God sanctifies their lives, they begin to produce the 'fruit' of righteousness that is pleasing to God.

...[T]he law was divinely given, but incapable of coping with human sin. At best, it could provide the divine diagnosis of the human problem, limit its ill effects, and foreshadow the divine solution. The transformation of the human heart, however, required, not the statutory formulation of God's will in Torah, but the personal demonstration of God's redemptive love in Jesus Christ.

Amen!

And score one for the ranks of 'genuine catholicity'....a Presbyterian quoting from a Baptist who rightly employs Paul's historia salutis orientation that is sometimes (unhelpfully and not quite correctly!) referred to as the 'Lutheran' view!

See Westerholm's remarkably helpful and exegetical rigorous, Israel's Law and the Church's Faith: Paul and His Recent Interpreters, for further elaboration and study.