Tuesday, June 19, 2007

Biblical Counseling

Anonymous said:

Know what would be a helpful list? A list of quality books on the subject of psychology/counseling.

I've heard Powlison's recent material is very good. And Steve has mentioned Jay Adams in the past. But what about a more complete list?

6/18/2007 10:50 PM
Jay Adams was the pioneer back to Biblical counseling. Adams was to counseling like Luther was to the Reformation. But like Luther, he would need other reformers to come along and help refine and apply the progress that he had made.

Steve has written a critical review of Adams in the past. Personally, I have found many of Adams’ works helpful. You just need to weed out some of his more hyperbolic or simplistic statements. But generally, I find guys like Welch or Powlison more helpful.

I’ve mostly read works put out by the Christian Counseling Education Foundation. So my list will reflect that. But there may be other solid, biblical works out there, and feel free to notify us to them if you know of any.


Counseling Method:

Instruments in the Redeemer’s Hands by Paul David Tripp
Seeing With New Eyes by David Powlison
Competent to Counsel by Jay Adams
Speaking the Truth in Love by David Powlison
How People Change by Timothy Lane and Paul David Tripp
Psychology and Christianity: Four Views by David Powlison, et al


Counseling Family Issues:

Shepherding a Child’s Heart by Tedd Tripp
Age of Opportunity by Paul David Tripp
War of Words by Paul David Tripp
Relationships: A Mess Worth Making by Tim Lane and Paul David Tripp
The Peacemaker by Ken Sande
The Case of the “Hopeless” Marriage by Jay Adams
Reforming Marriage by Douglas Wilson


Counseling Specific Needs:

Addictions: A Banquet in the Grave
by Edward T. Welch
Depression: A Stubborn Darkness by Edward T. Welch
When the Darkness Will Not Lift by John Piper
Spiritual Depression by Martyn Lloyd-Jones
Medical Ethics by John Frame
Blame It On the Brain? by Edward T. Welch
Uprooting Anger: Biblical Help for a Common Problem by Robert Jones
Lost in the Middle by Paul David Tripp
When People are Big and God is Small by Edward T. Welch
Step by Step by James Petty


...Also, check out these CCEF booklets.

God's Presence Qualifying Grammatical-Historical Interpretation

The Presence of God Qualifying Our Notions of Grammatical-Historical Interpretation by Vern Poythress:
Evangelical scholars have championed grammatical-historical interpretation as an objective means of sifting truth from error. This approach has value if we use it as one focus, but limitations if we use it as a total account. The temptation arises to think of objective interpretation as implying total domination of the text in order to capture its meaning. God himself poses an obstacle in several ways to hermeneutical dominance. God as master author limits our understanding of the authorial mind. God the Spirit as inspirer of human authors limits our understanding of human author's minds. God as archetype for man as the image of God implies the necessity of understanding the divine mind in order to understand the human mind. God as master of history limits our ability to confine the text to its immediate historical and cultural horizon. God as Lord of language limits our control on word and sentence meaning. God as present through the Spirit among interpreters limits our control on our own minds. Various limitations can be illustrated in the challenge of interpreting Genesis 3:15
Read the rest of the article here.

Also, check out Poythress' book God-Centered Biblical Interpretation.

The Mitred Ones have spoken!

Contra mundum is a nice slogan if you can get it. I have been watching some of the internet discussion in the aftermath of the PCA decision at GA, and I decided I needed to say a little something about the following argument: "All these venerable alphabet combinations have condemned the Federal Vision -- URC, OPC, RPCNA, PCA, GM, NATO, and countless others -- and still you guys whine and complain. What makes you think that the entire world has failed to comprehend what you guys are saying? Hey?"

The use of this argument, with virtually no self-awareness at all, is actually an argument in favor of another observation I have made about all this. Those who go by the nickname TR are actually curators of the Reformed mausoleum, and not scholars in the Reformed tradition. The way we can tell this is that -- in defense of keeping the marble floors of their mausoleum polished and shiny -- they deploy Eck's argument against Luther. Their blood stirs when they hear the story about Athanasius saying that he was contra mundum because they really like that kind of thing when is it behind glass in the museum of church history. But when someone actually stands up against the living and breathing ecclesiastical Mitred Ones, they haul this argument out as shamelessly as a theologian who thinks he is supposed to have an infallible magisterium. And they do this against people who they say are trying to "lead them to down the road Rome." But how can you lead people to Rome when they are already there?
Posted by Douglas Wilson

http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=4053

What are we to make of Wilson’s charge?

It’s true that an appeal to consensus is not, in and of itself, a valid argument. However, it can be valid when answering an opponent on his own grounds.

1.The FV faction has been complaining that it was misunderstood. But this complaint loses credibility if the FV has been condemned by just about every Reformed seminary and denomination of note. Have all the critics of the FV (and NPP) misunderstood the FV? Including Reformed academics?

2.Also, the parallel with Reformation is disanalogous at this point, for Rome rightly discerned that there was a genuine conflict between Protestant theology and the Catholic status quo. The conflict with Rome was not the result of a big misunderstanding.

3.Likewise, the FV faction is also complaining about how the deck was stacked against them, as if that’s inherently unfair. But if the FV is overwhelmingly unpopular in most Reformed circles, then the deck was bound to be stacked against them.

There’s nothing inherently unfair about that. Denominations are free associations. Confessional denominations are composed of like-minded members. If you’re out of step with the overwhelming consensus of opinion, then you don’t belong in that denomination.

Put another way, you’re not in the same game. You can’t play bridge at a poker table.

4.As I’ve said before, the FV faction also talks up ecclesiastical authority. So it’s the FV faction that used to invoke the “ecclesiastical Mitred Ones”—until it ended up on the losing side of ecclesiastical authority.

So Wilson and his like-minded cohorts find themselves in quite a predicament.

On the one hand, they can’t very well invoke ecclesiastical authority, for the FV has been censured by ecclesiastical authority.

On the other hand, they can’t very well fall back on a populist appeal, for the FV is deeply unpopular among the rank and file.

Monday, June 18, 2007

Let's Get Our Facts Straight, Shall We

I found that on the iidb atheist Steven Carr attempts to point out how horrible and racist I am by citing a claim I had made to exapologist, Carr writes:

"Christian apologist Paul Manata claims that Jews of one generation should be punished for murders committed by other Jews, long before they themselves were born.

'And so we see that all the blood of the prophets, whom the Jews had constantly put to death, was going to come on them '

There are some wicked, wicked people in the world."


Steven, it's not I who says this, but the Bible:

Luke 11:50

50 Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world,


Furthermore, in regards to punishing people for crimes they didn't actually commit, we do that all the time. For example, here's the charge in one murder-for-hire case: "Prosecutors allege that Schwartz, 41, hired Bigger to kill Stidham after patients began gravitating toward the younger doctor's practice while Schwartz was in rehab. Bigger will be tried separately, though both men are charged with first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder." SOURCE HERE

And, I've also defended this type of critique against attack in length and in detail HERE.

Some resources on the FV & NPP

(Posted on behalf of Steve Hays.)

For those of you who want to dig deeper into the Federal Vision and related issues, here are some resources:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1840635/posts

http://humbleanswers.wordpress.com/2007/06/05/justification/

http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/tag/heresy/federal-vision/

http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/tag/heresy/federal-vision/page/2/

http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/tag/heresy/federal-vision/page/3/

http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/tag/heresy/federal-vision/page/4/

http://www.paulperspective.com/page7.html

Guy Prentiss Waters, The Federal Vision and Covenant Theology: A Comparative Analysis (P&R, 2006) ISBN 978-1596380332

Gary L. W. Johnson (ed.), Guy P. Waters (ed.), By Faith Alone: Answering the Challenges to the Doctrine of Justification (Crossway Books, 2007) ISBN 978-1581348408

Scott Clark (ed.), Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry: Essays by the Faculty of Westminster Seminary California (P&R, 2007) ISBN 978-1596380356

Working Together Toward Integrity in Membership

As you all know, Tom Ascol's resolution on integrity in church membership failed to pass the SBC for the second year in a a row. My posts on this are archived, and you can find them if you wish to read them.

Here, I'd like to, hopefully, start a conversation about this issue to bring together some of the various bloggers in the SBC who otherwise disagree on other items. This issue has gained momentum in the past year from various persons and groups in the Convention, persons of different theological and political convictions, who realize that there is a serious problem in the SBC.

I would point out that, in terms of ecclesiology, believer's baptism is predicated on the concept of a regenerate church membership. Religious liberty, that is, the view that the first table of the Law cannot and should not be legislated (viz. a state church), for Baptists, is predicated on the concept of a regenerate church membership, for there can be no state church if the church is to be composed of only regenerate souls who are their voluntarily. The priesthood of (the) believer(s), whichever term you prefer, is meaningless without "the believer" part! Since it puts us in community as "a nation/kingdom of priests" it too depends on the concept of a regenerate church membership. Ironically "local church autonomy" is also meaningless without this, for a church can be "autonomous" and be apostate, one can be true to "tradition" without tradition being true! One could go on about "historic Baptist distinctives," so I will quickly summarize by stating that it should be obvious that *above all others* a regenerate church membership stands as *the* key Baptist distinctive. In other words, none of our other distinctives have any real substance without this one. What is the use of an autonomous local church if the members are apostate? What is the use of "religious liberty" if they people don't believe in the first table of the Law sitting in the pew? Why talk about a priesthood, when there are no priests!?

This is not a Calvinist issue. This is not an Arminian issue. This is not a "fundamentalist v. moderate" issue. This is not a "Burleson/Cole 'coalition v. Barberite 'coalition'" issue. This is a gospel issue. This is an honesty issue too. Tom Ascol is right on this. We all know it, and the goal should not be "let's talk about it to pass a resolution," since resolutions are not binding. The goal should be to bring about some real change in the churches so a resolution does not even need to be passed. Heavens! Before joining the church of which I am now a member, I was in a church with 900 members, 600 enrolled in Sunday School, and 300 in church every Sunday faithfully. Without this, we are doomed as a denomination, Calvinist and nonCalvinist, moderate and conservative, fundamentalist and evangelical, cessationist and continuationist, Southern Baptist and Independent alike.

Ergo, I am personally going to commit to spend a goodly amount of time to post on this issue in the upcoming year. I will probably start with some classic works, probably from John L. Dagg. I'd like to call on bloggers like Frank Turk and Steve Camp. I like to call on Dr. Bart Barber. I like to call on Les Puryear. Let's see Brother Wade take time off from SBC politics every so often and talk about this.

I wonder what Brother David, "Volfan07" has to say about this? I'd like to hear Ben Cole's thoughts on this too. Let's hear from Dorcas Hawker and Debbie Kaufman too. Let's hear from Art Rogers and even Marty Duren, from Chadwick Ivester, Dwight McKissic, and Micah Fries, David Hewitt and David Rogers. The blogging seminary students have lots to say, I'm sure. One could list more.

Let's hear from the Calvinists and the non-Calvinists. Let's hear from continuationists and cessationists, from "Burlesonites" and "Barbarites," young and old, male and female.

Let the articles be from the heart and the mind. Let them be expositional of Scripture. Let them survey Baptist history and tradition. Let us talk about what our churches have done or can do. There is quite a range in the way you can approach the topic. One does not have to write a sermon or a theological tome to participate in this discussion. Just post your thoughts, and where you argue from Scripture, just be sure you're on target and don't abuse the text.

Let us not forget Baptists who aren't in the SBC too, for the independent churches surely have this same problem, so let's hear from Dustin Segers and Sterling VanDerwerker. Let's hear from Phil Johnson too. I'd like to hear the young folks too, so let's call Evan May out of hiding. Let us argue among ourselves on other issues, but let us draw together on this one. Surely, we can make a difference, and maybe we can learn to get along. Call it an exercise in visible unity. Want to join in? Then please, leave a note below in the combox.

I'm not asking you to devote all of your time to it. I'm asking you to commit to address this topic periodically at your discretion, and if you repeat what has already been said, "so what!" Repetition is good for the soul. Just make a note on your calendar. Call it an appointment.

To start the conversation, I'd like to make some suggestions for the next year. Feel free to add your own.

I suggest the following:

a. All Baptist bloggers supporting this measure should spend the next year discussing this subject on the blogs periodically. Again, this is not a Calvinist-Arminian issue, and there is widespread agreement between us regarding this. We have been adversaries in some ways, but we have a real opportunity here to unite over this. We should take advantage of it. This will effectively keep it in the public eye too, and it will demonstrate unity around a common goal, which is something greatly needed.

b. We should write our state papers lamenting the failure of this resolution for a second year in a row.

c. We should petition Dr. Ascol and Dr. Akin to include a speaker/workshop on regenerate church membership / integrity in membership at Ridgecrest if at all possible. This originated in the Calvinist camp (yours truly is the one who actually first suggested the resolution and Tom ran with it) so it is logical to begin doing this at Ridgecrest. The goal here is to start a grass roots campaign.

d. Apropos c, we should also collate as much written information, blog articles, seminar notes, presentations, online articles, etc. and make an info packet for distribution @ Ridgecrest. I have already volunteered to man the table or booth to hawk the material there. It would help if a non-Calvinist would help in that regard, again, showing unity at the conference. I would gladly form a posse to go room to room to sit and talk with each person about this material if necessary. If somebody would fly me to Glorietta and put me up for another conference, I’d do it there too! I feel that strongly about this.

e. That same material should be put into .pdf format and posted on the internet for anybody to download and read and distribute. Packets should also be sent to the appropriate state agencies if possible with a letter urging them to get with the DOM’s on this to get it to the churches to educate their people, esp. next year’s messengers. They could have a speaker like Brother Voddie do the state evangelism/pastor conference circuit, including the SBC conference in Indiana itself, and preach on this too. If he came to NC in Feb., where this is usually held at my home church in Winston-Salem or a sister chruch in Charlotte, I would distribute material there too!

The ultimate goal is NOT to just pass the resolution in Indianapolis. The goal is to get the churches to act on it! The letter should be signed by many persons from many parties, including, but not limited to: Dr. Ascol, Dr. Akin, Dr. Yarnell, and whomever else of note from as many of the diverse “parties” as possible.

f. Dr. Yarnell wants it to address believer's baptism. Perhaps between now and Indianapolis that could be explained with more clarity and incorporated.

g. Somebody should also do the legwork and get ACP stats from “flagship” churches from each state. We’re told these are our examples to follow, and often the Pastor’s Conferences/Bailey Smith Conferences/State Evangelism Conferences crowd pat each other on the backs for jobs well done that aren’t well done. I think we need to name the churches and show their ACP stats. Dare I say, the disparities will be shameful, but if that’s what it takes to jolt people to attention sobeit. This isn’t to attack those churches, rather it’s to point out that this is not an imaginary problem, and it is systemic.

h. Let us also see the ACP statistics from those churches that are doing well in this. Let's give credit where credit is due, and, for those that recently implemented a program to address this issue, let's find out all the "how's, why's, when's, how-long's," etc's from them. Folks know there's a problem, but do they have a clue what to do in order to address it? Some of us, like Art Rogers have done this. He can help. Our church is a new work, and we have deliberately kept up with this. I'm sure Brother Dustin and Brother Sterling would be willing to talk to us about it.

Beginner's Guide to Biblical Theology

As promised, here's the list on the very important genre of Biblical Theology (constructing a theology of the whole Bible):


Places to Begin:

According to Plan by Graeme Goldsworthy
God's Big Picture by Vaughan Roberts
The Message of the Old Testament: Promises Made by Mark Dever
The Message of the New Testament: Promises Kept by Mark Dever


A Little Deeper:

Biblical Theology by Geerhardus Vos - highly recommended!
Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation by Geerhardus Vos
The Goldsworthy Trilogy by Graeme Goldsworthy
Preaching the Whole Bible as Christian Scripture by Graeme Goldsworthy
Preaching Christ in All of Scripture by Edmund Clowney
The Unfolding Mystery by Edmund Clowney
God of Promise by Michael Horton
Christ of the Covenants by O. Palmer Robertson
Christ of the Prophets by O. Palmer Robertson
The Israel of God by O. Palmer Robertson


Further:

Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics by Graeme Goldsworthy
A History of the Work of Redemption by Jonathan Edwards
The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses by Vern Poythress
Last Things First by JV Fesko
The Lamb of God: The Bible's Unfolding Revelation of Sacrifice by Robert Reymond
Understanding the Land of the Bible by O. Palmer Robertson


Specific:

Introduction to the Old Testament by Tremper Longman & Raymond Dillard
The Eschatology of the Old Testament by Geerhardus Vos
Introduction to the New Testament by DA Carson and Douglas Moo
A Theology of the New Testament by George Eldon Ladd
When the Time had Fully Come by Herman Ridderbos
Jesus the Messiah by Robert Stein
The Teaching of Jesus by Geerhardus Vos
Contagious Holiness by Craig Blomberg
Studying the Synoptic Gospels by Robert Stein
Paul, an Apostle of God's Glory in Christ by Thomas Schreiner
Interpreting the Pauline Epistles by Thomas Schreiner
The Pauline Eschatology by Geerhardus Vos


...and many more could be added! Feel free to recommend your own list.


Affirmative action or proportional representation?

There are (at least) two ways to get rid of heretics from a denomination. One is to study the issues, grasp them, determine if your opponents are actually teaching them, and then make the decision. The other is generate some slogans, doggedly persevere with those slogans ("that's my story, and I'm stickin' to it"), pull some levers, stack some committees, and then ban anyone who has read a book by N.T. Wright without glowering the entire time.

There may not be fireworks this afternoon, but this is a really big deal. Pray that God would protect the PCA from nativism.
Posted by Douglas Wilson

**************************

Did the PCA stack the deck against the FV and NPP? I've run across this charge fairly often. And it raises an interesting question:

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that PCA clergyman who oppose FV and/or NPP outnumber those who support it by 20-1.

In that event, how do Doug Wilson and his like-minded cohorts think that the committee should be constituted? Should it be on the basis of proportional representation? Or would that be “stacking the deck”?

If he rejects the principle of proportional representation, then is his proposing the ecclesiastical equivalent of affirmative action? Quotas and set-asides for FV/NPP committee members?

Given his views of the Confederacy, one wouldn't expect him to be a big fan of affirmative action, but in the church version of identity politics I suppose it all depends on who is in the minority.

If a committee were equally represented by supporters and opponents, even though the opponents outnumbered the supporters by 20-1 among the ordained clergy as a whole (not to mention the laity), the how would that be the least bit representative of the denomination at large?

Rosenhouse v. Coyne v. Behe

Coyne Lays an Egg

Atheist delusion

Here's another site to check out on Richard Dawkins.

Sunday, June 17, 2007

Please Support Florida Baptists

See here.

Tom Ascol writes:

Florida Baptist Truth Project: Send Amazing Grace to Florida Baptist Pastors

As I reported last week, Dr. John Sullivan, Executive Director of the Florida Baptist Convention, recently mailed out Dr. Jerry Vines' sermons entitled, "Baptist Battles," to every Southern Baptist pastor in Florida. Included in that series is an error-filled message entitled, "A Baptist and His Election: Calvinism."

Many pastors and other concerned Baptists have contacted me to express their displeasure over this action. Several have suggested that, in the interest of unity and fairness, the Executive Director should mail out material that presents the other side of the issues that Dr. Vines addresses. As the pastor of a cooperating Florida Baptist Convention church, I certainly agree with that suggestion. But as one who has witnessed this kind of misrepresentation from denominational leaders over the last 25 years, I am under no delusions that this will happen.

While no cooperative program money was spent to send out Dr. Vines' sermons, Dr. Sullivan reportedly was able to finance the mailing with the help of Eddie McClelland, President of Florida Baptist Financial Services. According to the article linked above, Mr. McClelland said that he was asked to raise money for this project. Dr. Sullivan, he said, asked him for a gift. He was unaware of the exact nature of the project. According to the article, he said, "I did not know it was political. Our agency doesn't get involved in politics. We serve all Florida Baptists."

I have been in contact with several Florida Baptist pastors (as well as many Southern Baptist pastors outside the state of Florida) who are very disappointed that those CDs were mailed from our state offices. A similar gaffe was made last year by the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention. Their Executive Director apologized once he realized how inappropriate that action was.

At the suggestion of my brother, Bill, I have made a special arrangement with the producers of the Amazing Grace DVD to secure and distribute copies of this tool to the very pastors who received the "Baptist Battles" CDs. Subtitled, "The History and Theology of Calvinism," this two-disk DVD presentation contains more than 4 hours of professionally produced interviews, quotes and explanations of the issues surrounding the doctrines of grace. Among those interviewed are Dr. Tom Nettles, the most prominent historical theologian among Southern Baptists today. Also, Pastors Walt Chantry, Walter Bowie and yours truly contribute to the DVD. For a sample clip, go here.

It will only cost $20,000 to get a copy of this powerful presentation into the hands of every Southern Baptist pastor in Florida. A special fund has been established by Founders Ministries for this very purpose. Let me encourage you to contribute to this project, as you are able and are led by the Lord, to help give Florida Baptist pastors the other side of the story--the side that was seriously caricatured by Dr. Vines' sermon.

You can send your tax exempt contributions to:

Founders Ministries
PO Box 150931
Cape Coral, Florida 33915
ATTN: Florida Baptist Truth Project

You may also contribute online by using the button below.


Riverbend Church of Ormond Beach, Florida, under the leadership of Dr. Roy Hargrave, has offered to match up to $5000 that is given by July 8. That means that your gift can be doubled if you give in the next two weeks.

In addition to supporting this effort by giving, I am asking that over the next several weeks you commit to fast and pray that the Lord will use this project to renew and rekindle a deep love for His Word and the Gospel of Jesus Christ not only in the churches of Florida but beyond them throughout the whole Southern Baptist Convention. Specifically, from June 24 through July 31, pray that those who receive this DVD would honestly watch it and open their hearts and minds to the truths from God's Word that it presents. Please encourage or lead your church to join in this prayer effort, as well.

Let me reiterate the purpose of this effort. The historic Southern Baptist understanding of salvation was blatantly misrepresented in the sermon sent out to Florida Baptist churches by our state Execuive Director. A growing number of pastors and churches in Florida believe the Bible teaches exactly that historic perspective. Thus, we and our churches were severely and widely misrepresented and the truth that we proclaim was caricatured to our fellow pastors and sister churches by our own state convention leadership. In an attempt to right this wrong, we are asking for all who love the doctrines of God's sovereign grace and are weary of seeing them distorted beyond recognition by Southern Baptist leaders to join with us in making the Amazing Grace DVD available to Florida Baptist pastors and churches.

We have no interest in division or in being contentious. We do have an interest in truth. We believe what we believe because we think the Bible teaches it. We understand that not everyone shares our convictions. But we desire of ourselves and ask of others, not to misrepresent the views of their brothers and sisters with whom they disagree on these vitally important issues.

For the cause of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, please pray that His truth will prevail and that we will all be humbled before it.

The PCA on the Federal Vision

From Steve:

Another body blow to the Federal Vision.

Given the degree to which some FV writers I've read talk up ecclesiastical authority and badmouth low-church polity, it will be very interesting to see if they submit to church discipline when the turf meets the surf. Or will they become just another schismatic splinter group?

Tuesday's Child

-i-

Jeremy was playing with his mom’s Tarot deck. His mom was a psychic, you see. Why, it said so right on the hand-written sign in the front lawn.

His mom was a deeply spiritual woman. And deeply opposed to organized religion—for as she often explained to Jeremy, spirituality and religion had absolutely nothing in common.

His grandmother—a good, god-fearing woman—disapproved of her daughter’s occupation. She used to take Jeremy to church. But she died last year when Jeremy was 7.

Just before she died, she had given him a little cross to wear around his neck, tucked underneath his T-shirt. Mom would take it away if she saw it. So he had to keep it hidden from view.

His mom and dad split up when he was 5. That’s after his dad found out that his wife was having an affair with another woman. This being the West Coast, custody was awarded to his mom and her domestic partner.

His dad lived in New York. Dad would pay the occasional visit to Astoria to see his son on birthdays and Winter break—you were not allowed to call it “Christmas” in Oregon—but otherwise it was just Jeremy and his mom. Actually. Jeremy now had two mommies, but no daddy.

-ii-

Jeremy didn’t play cards. Rather, he played with cards.

He liked the cards because of the really neat pictures—like the Hierophant and Hanged Man. He used to play with them as if they were his friends because, well, because he didn’t have many other friends. Except for the family business, his mom was rather reclusive.

She kept the drapes drawn all hours of the day and night to screen out the evil eye. And the neighborhood kids stayed away from his house. Said it was haunted. Rumors of snakes and dead cats in the backyard.

One of the neighborhood boys said he slipped over the fence one day and came face to face with a King Cobra! His buddies all nodded in solemn awe whenever he told them the tale of his narrow escape from the fangs of death! None of the other kids had the nerve to check out his story.

When he was around, dad would take his son to the beach, or boating on the Columbia, but dad was never around—except for Winter break or his birthday. So it came down to Jeremy and his imaginary playmates.

Mom didn’t approve of his using her deck of cards. Not that she suffered from any moral compunctions, mind you. But she needed them for her business. She had to go looking for them every time she needed them.

They were scattered all over his room—like toy soldiers. He would stage battle scenes, with one suit attacking another suit. Spades against clubs, and hearts against diamonds.

She often told him not to play with her Tarot cards, but he didn’t pay attention. For one thing, she was far too enlightened to punish him. Discipline was child abuse. Spanking was a hate crime.

She tried to make him understand how much it hurt mommy’s feelings when he did these things, but somehow that didn’t reduce him to abject submission. She couldn’t very well send him to his room since that’s where he spent all his time in the first place. It was hard to be a progressive parent.

-iii-

One day he fell asleep while he was playing with her cards. He awoke when he felt someone tugging at his sleeve. It was the Fool. Only the Fool was now as tall as he was.

But when Jeremy looked around, there was nothing on the other side. The Fool was paper-thin. He had a front, but no back. Invisible unless you saw him from a certain angle.

The Fool was tugging and his sleeve and speaking to him. Somehow, the Fool had come alive. Maybe he was dreaming. Jeremy, that is.

“Wake up! Wake up!” it said.

Jeremy was too dumbfounded at first to say anything.

“Hurry up!” it said. “We must run away and hide,” it said.

“Why?” Jeremy asked

“Because she’s coming to get you,” it said.

“Who is coming to get me?” Jeremy asked.

“The High Priestess, of course!” he answered. “Come, I will take you to the Empress. She will protect you.”

“But where can we hide?” Jeremy asked, drowsily, still wiping his eyes. “Under the bed? In the closet?”

Jeremy thought he was still in his bedroom. And, in a way, maybe he was. But after his eyes began to cleared, he took a look around.

Above him was the open sky. The ceiling was gone. It was a full moon. With twinkling stars. Just like a postcard.

In the moonlight, he could also dimly see that the walls of his room were gone. The furniture was still there, but where the walls had been was a forest on every side.

The Fool took him by the hand and they ran into the woods. Jeremy had a pocket full of marbles, and he dropped a marble on the ground every so often so that he could find his way back.

Because of the moonlight, they were able to see pretty well, although Jeremy still stumbled over branches in the dark. Behind him he heard the clickety-clack of horses galloping in the distance. Whatever it was, it was gaining on them. As it came closer, the ground began to shake.

He looked over his shoulder and saw a horse-drawn carriage bearing down on them like a freight train. He felt like he was trying to outrun a train. Like he would stumble and fall on the tracks.

The glint of the lanterns shone like a pair of fiery eyes. The roar of the horses thundered in his ears. Finally, the Fool yanked him off to the side of the trail before they were tramped underfoot by the carriage.

The carriage abruptly halted. The horses were flicked with white foam from their exertions.

The carriage door opened and the High Priestess emerged.

“She looks like a witch!” Jeremy whispered to the Fool.

“She is a witch,” he said, under his breath. “But it’s impolite to call people witches nowadays,” he said. “So we call her the High Priestess instead.”

She stalked over to the huddled pair.

“Fool,” she began, in an imperious tone of voice. “Did you really think you could make off with the boy?”

“The Empress has a rightful claim on him,” he answered. “Everyone in the land of Arcana is subject to my Mistress.”

“Spoken like a royal Fool!” she cackled. “Or should I say the court jester?”

The Fool was tempted to reply, but bit his tongue.

“Come here, Jeremy,” she said, extending a cadaverous hand with long sharp nails.

“How do you know may name?” he asked.

“You can’t see into our world, but we can see into yours,” she answered.

“Bind the Fool and take him with us!” she told the coachman, who looked like a troll.

“Where are we headed,” Jeremy asked, as they got into the carriage.

“To the Tower,” she replied.

-iv-

When they arrived, wolves were guarding the premises. A man wearing a tiara was the porter. He accompanied the Priestess and her captives to the rood tower.

“Bind the Fool to the Wheel of Fortune,” she ordered the Hierophant, “to punish him for his treachery!”

“And now for you, young man!”

“What about me?” Jeremy said.

“Up until this evening, our two worlds were walled off from one another, but now that you’ve been able to invade my domain, by your black magical arts, I may be able to invade yours and reign in both.”

“I don’t practice black magic,” Jeremy protested.

“No, but your mother does, and you were playing with her deck of cards. That’s how you got here. The question is how to reverse the process.”

She sat down with a deck of cards.

“You mean, you play cards, too?” he asked.

“Why not” she said, slightly affronted.

“It’s just funny to see one card play cards.”

“They’re imaginary characters,” she said, looking at her deck of cards. “We’re the real thing! What’s imaginary in your world is real in ours, while what’s real in our world is imaginary in yours! Here, cartomancy is a science, and cosmology is a pseudoscience; there; cosmology is a science, and cartomancy is a pseudoscience.”

“I don’t know what you mean,” Jeremy said.

“You’ll understand when you’re older,” she said. “If you live that long,” she added—ominously.

“What are you going to do to me?” he said?

“We need to take you back to your bedroom and open the door.”

“So why don’t we just go back?” he asked.

“Because my evil sister may be on the look out for you. She has spies, you know. Especially the elderberry bushes. Never trust an elderberry bush!”

“Your evil sister?” he asked.

“I mean, the ‘Empress,’ as she’s pleased to call herself.”

“I’m sorry to hear you have an evil sister,” he said, trying to play for sympathy.

“Yes, our mother was terribly disappointed. You see, my sister was only moderately evil, whereas our mother was hoping, through good breeding and a liberal arts education, to have a purely evil daughter. Good witches are such a bore, you know. But everyone loves a wicked witch. The badder the better. It was quite a let down until I was born. I was her favorite!” she said, beaming with filial pride.

As she spoke, the Priestess was laying cards on the table, face up, when—all of a sudden—the Tower was struck by lightning. The wolves began to bay.

“She found us first!” the Priestess, exclaimed.

“Who?” Jeremy asked.

“My evil sister. I must make my escape!”

With that, the Priestess hopped on a broomstick and flew out the window.

-v-

Down below, Jeremy could hear the wolves howling and growling, followed by the sound of footsteps mounting the staircase. The rood tower echoed with the rising entourage.

Finally, two rows spear-bearing guards entered the rood tower, followed by a breathless woman in purple robes—with her Magus taking up the rear.

“Release the Fool from the Wheel of Fortune and take the boy to my carriage,” she commanded.

“Where am I going,” Jeremy asked, as they were riding along.

“To your bedroom,” she said. “You must show us the way.”

“I don’t know if I remember the way,” he said. “It was awfully dark in the woods.”

“Don’t lie to me, little boy!” she shrieked, “unless you want to end up like him!” as she gestured to the Hanged Man, seated on the other side.

Jeremy thought to himself, “Wasn’t this supposed to be the good witch?”

The sun was dawning, and Jeremy could make out the marbles along the trail. When they arrived at his bedroom, the Empress said, “Show us the door!”

Jeremy looked back at her blankly. For the door had vanished when the walls went away and the ceiling disappeared.

“Stupid boy!” she said. “What I’m asking you is, where was the door? I know you can’t see it. It’s invisible.”

Jeremy pointed to where the door used to be. The Empress snapped her fingers at the Magus.

He walked over to that side of the bedroom, uttered a Latin incantation, and the door reappeared. He tried the knob, but the door was locked.

The Empress was furious. “Where’s the key?” she screamed.

Jeremy didn’t know what to do. He dearly wanted to escape, but he didn’t want to take her along with him into his own world. Then he thought of something.

“Wait a minute while I look for the key,” he said, strolling over to his toy box as he pretended to look for the key.

While he was rummaging through the toy box, with his back turned to the Empress, he felt for his cross. It was still there, underneath his T-shirt. He then said a prayer his grandmother taught him before she died.

All at once, the other cards came alive, like figures stepping out of a picture frame. One by one they introduced themselves:

“I’m King David,” said the King of Spades.

“I’m Charlemagne,” said the King of Diamonds.

“I’m Judas Maccabaeus,” said the Jack of Clubs.

“I’m Olgier Danemarche,” said the Jack of Spades.

“Attack them!” said Jeremy, pointing to the Empress and her royal retinue.

Then a great battle ensued. Her guards outnumbered Jeremy’s little band. But his warriors were better the spear, sword, slingshot, and crossbow.

In the melee, Jeremy headed for the door and locked it behind him. On the other side of the door he could hear the clatter of swords and spears. Snapping bones and shrieks of pain.

At that point, Jeremy did what any sensible, levelheaded, well-adjusted, and enterprising boy would do. He went into the kitchen and made himself a peanut-butter and jelly sandwich.

After his snack he went back and put his ear to the bedroom door. He heard nothing on the other side.

Warily, he opened the door just a crack and took a peek inside. The room was back to normal. The sky was gone. The woods were gone. The rug was strewn with playing cards.

-vi-

Next day, he decided to burn the deck of cards in the backyard on a rusty old BBQ. He only saved the King of Spades, Jack of Spades, King of Hearts and Jack of Clubs—which he put beside his model plane on the chest of drawers.

In the following weeks he started to attend Sunday school, waking to the very same church his beloved grandmother used to take him to. And he began to play with the neighborhood boys.

Mom was naturally distraught by his delinquent behavior. And things went from bad to worse. A few years later she was shocked and appalled to find a Bible under his mattress when she was hoping to uncover a syringe or condom.

She had tried so hard to raise him right. But there was nothing much she could do about it. It was hard to be a progressive parent.

Lutherans of the Caribbean

Josh, aka The Fearsome Pirate (no relation to Johnny Depp, I presume), has done a fine little post on a stock objection to the Protestant Reformation.

Saturday, June 16, 2007

The care and feeding of puppy dogs

"Even a cute cuddly dog can get mean and take a bite out of a person if provoked. Likewise, it’s the mitigating factors that dictate under what circumstances you might be classified as a violent person. All we can say is that under those same set of circumstances you might get violent. Under normal circumstances you could be as cute as that cuddly dog."

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2007/06/even-cuddly-dog-can-be-provoked-to-take.html

I see that his apology over the Turkel deception was short-lived. Now he's reverted to self-justification.

For some reason, Loftus is very fond of canine metaphors. And there’s a certain propriety in canine metaphors. For example, the Bible uses a canine metaphor to describe apostates like Loftus. Cf. 2 Pet 2:22.

Continuing:

“Every once-in-a-while I get drug down in the mire when I can’t tolerate what others say about me, and I respond in kind. But it takes quite a lot to push me in that direction, I think.”

Is that a fact? David Wood, for one, was pretty nice to Loftus. That didn’t inhibit Loftus from turning abusive as soon as he starting to lose the argument.

Continuing:

“All I’ve ever wanted was a reasonable discussion of the ideas that separate us, and that’s still what I want.”

No, all he wants is a platform from which to serve up his wormy warmed over arguments for the umpteenth time.

Continuing:

“Anyone who reads what I write on a daily basis can plainly see for themselves that’s what I want.”

Once again, just pay a visit to the combox over at problemofevil.org and see for yourself how he conducts himself.

Continuing:

"What I find interesting is the hypocrisy of this. Some Christians can taunt, demean, ridicule me, and be dishonest with me by gerrymandering what I write all of the time and plaster it all over the web. When I finally get fed up with it and respond in kind they take a snapshot of me and plaster that all over the web too, as if this is what characterizes who I am. There’s even a video on YouTube claiming I’m a lying homosexual. The only thing bad about it is that it’s a lie! But I don’t see any condemnation of that video or of it’s creator from fellow Christians. Why not? Do Christians hold other Christians to a lower standard than they hold us atheists to? That would be amusing to me, if so."

I agree that we should not engage in defamation of character.

That said:

1. He's assuming that we're all acquainted with the YouTube video. But why make that assumption?

Why presume that Christians are surfing the web to keep up to date with what someone said about Loftus? I can understand why he would care about that sort of thing, but why should anyone else spend his time that way? It's none of my business one way or the other.

2. I'm in no position to comment on Loftus' sexual orientation one way or the other. How do I know if he's heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or transsexual?

3. Why would he be offended at the insinuation that he's homosexual? As an atheist, he doesn't believe that sodomy is immoral.

Indeed, one of his politically correct objections to the Bible is that Scripture is “homophobic.”

Here's another case, of many, in which Loftus instinctively reacts in a way contrary to his stated creed.

4. Moreover, after his cover was blown in the Turkel incident, why should we not suspect that Loftus is behind the YouTube video as well? Accusing himself for propagandistic purposes so that he can then attack the Christians for allegedly resorting to character assassination.

For all I know, he used that same tactic to shut down the Discomfiter.

Continuing:

"I have to understand that they feel personally attacked by the simple fact that this very blog exists."

Aside from the fact that he's projecting, if you suffer from a persecution complex, then you shouldn't operate a blog devoted to attacking the Christian faith. For you thereby invite a counterattack.

Loftus whimpers a lot. Maybe he needs a tummy rub or a pat on the head. Maybe he needs to be dewormed. That’s a common affliction among puppy dogs.

Friday, June 15, 2007

Beginner's Guide to Eschatology

Places to Begin:

A Case for Amillennialism by Kim Riddlebarger
The Man of Sin by Kim Riddlebarger
The End Times Made Simple by Sam Waldron

A Little Deeper:

The Returning King by Vern Poythress
Understanding Dispensationalists by Vern Poythress
The Bible and the Future by Anthony Hoekema

Further:

The Eschatology of the Old Testament by Geerhardus Vos
The Pauline Eschatology by Geerhardus Vos

Fallen Idol

In answer to a couple of emails I recently received:

******************************************

The answer depends, in part, on whether you’re asking an intellectual question or an existential question.


Are you asking about the theology of sin? Anthony Hoekema has several chapters on this topic in his book Created in God’s Image.


Likewise, Tom Schreiner discusses the subject extensively (see index and table of contents in his book on Paul, Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ.


And, from a more pastoral perspective, there is the first chapter of J. C. Ryle’s book on Holiness.


Or are you asking an existential question in terms of how you internalize the theology of sin?


Because, in this life, our knowledge of God, while pervasive, is somewhat oblique, the idea of sinning against God tends to be a bit abstract. Something we may grasp at a cerebral level, but not identify with at an emotional level.


It also depends on our persona experience with sin. Some converts to the faith have a strong sense of the power of sin because they were once enslaved to destructive, compulsive-behaviors


Likewise, some converts to the faith have a strong sense of the guilt of sin because they have gravely wronged people very dear to them.


However, even if that is not your experience, human beings have been endowed with a capacity to imaginatively empathize with the situation of others. This is why we find fiction so appealing, whether in film, TV, or literature. So it’s possible to analogize from the experience of others to sinning against God.


Imagine if your dad was a hopeless alcoholic. You would certainly appreciate the power of sin, even if you yourself were not a hard drinker.


Imagine, further, if you were raised by your big brother. Your father was too drunk too much of the time to be a father. So your brother had to take up the slack. He became your guide and guardian.


And suppose, despite everything your older brother had done for you, there came a day when you betrayed him. Suppose you were using drugs. They were in your possession.


While you and your brother were driving, suppose you were stopped by the police. Maybe for some minor traffic infraction. Or maybe at a random checkpoint to catch drunk drivers.


In your fear and panic, you plant the drugs on your brother. So he is the one who's arrested, charged, convicted, and imprisoned instead of you.


Or, to vary the illustration, say you had a falling out with your supplier. As a result, there’s a drive by shooting in which you survive, but your brother is killed. And all because of you. Because of your illicit habit.


Imagine the guilt you would feel! Then consider how much more we owe to God than we do to any human mentor or parent.


That should help to give you and me a sense of sin’s ingratitude and gravitas.


*******************************************


There's no firm answer to this question, and one reason is that it's not necessarily the right question to ask.


1. As you know, idolatry has a very specific meaning in Scripture. It's tied up with polytheism.


Preachers often use idolatry as a metaphor. There's nothing necessarily wrong with this generic application, but it's a mistake to read the application back into a passage like Ps 16, as if that's what the Bible is talking about.


2. Another problem with the speaker's position is that it's feelings-oriented. How do you feel about God in relation to "worldly" things?


But, of course, we have little direct control over our feelings. And there's no way to quantify our feelings. How much is too much? How much is too little?


It confronts the Christian with an impossible task.


3. There are many different ways to experience God in this life. Through nature and natural, common grace goods. Through the Bible and other means of grace, like prayer, hymnody, Christian fellowship.


But these are all indirect. In this life we don't get to know Jesus the way the disciples got to know Jesus.


By contrast, we can get to know other people directly (friends, family members).


It's unnatural to suppose that we can feel the same way about a person we've never but, but only read about, than we can about a person we can actually see and hear, hug, live with, or do things with. That's just the way that human nature is wired.


I'd add that God has also be present in the people he's given to us. The people he's brought into our lives.


Some people are emblems of his grace. Embodiments of grace.


4. Instead of trying to focus on our feelings, which is an effect of something else, we should focus on the cause. We should cultivate a spirit of thankfulness. Thank God throughout the day for the many blessings he brings our way. That's one way of finding God's presence in our lives. Even keep a spiritual diary or daily journal, since we tend to forget from one day to the next the many, sometimes unexpected, ways we've been blessed.


And we should apply ourselves to the means of grace, like prayer, Bible-reading, hymnody, devotional reading, Christian fellowship.


And we should also enjoy the good things of life. That's a way of thanking God.


Gratitude doesn't exist in a vacuum. One needs to cultivate a life-experience that gives us reason to be grateful.


That also helps to tide us over during the dry seasons in the walk of faith.

Posturing about the Bible

Chris Tilling has graced the world with yet another miniseries on the inerrancy of Scripture.

http://www.christilling.de/blog/2007/06/new-statement-of-biblical-inerrancy.html

http://www.christilling.de/blog/2007/06/new-statement-of-biblical-inerrancy_15.html

He says that he “would love to hear any thoughts about this approach,” and “appreciate feedback as to test his thoughts here.”

Being the kind, caring guy that I am, who am I to refuse a brother in need?

He prefaces his remarks by saying that “At the risk of more personal abuse from certain conservative quarters, in two posts I want to suggest a new statement of inerrancy.”

Tilling lacks a capacity for self-criticism. He’s an emotional child.

He was the one who, in his original series, made abusive comments about the intellectual capacity of Christians who affirm the inerrancy of Scripture. But when you repay him in his own coin, he plays the victim.

And he continues his abusive rhetoric in his new series. Consider this gem:

“If you confess the Chicago Statement of inerrancy, this is no promise that you actually have a high view of scripture. It may simply mean that one is wallowing in self-righteous anti-intellectualism, and loveless, close-minded, aggressive, needlessly defensive dogmatism.”

This might strike some readers as a loveless, aggressive, self-righteous, and dogmatic attack on Christians who affirm inerrancy. But Tilling is too pleased with himself to see in himself what he is quick to see in others.

Continuing:

“One model for scripture, one title, whether it be 'Word of God', 'Witness', 'Inerrant', 'Infallible', or whatever, cannot capture or adequately signify the variety and importance of God's gift of scripture to us.

And that’s because, for Tilling, the word of man, errancy, and fallibility best capture God’s gift of scripture to us.

Continuing:

“Believing that inerrancy simply affirms all in scripture necessary for salvation is without error also doesn't guarantee orthodoxy, or an appropriate posture towards scripture, nor healthy scripture reading habits.”

Actually, this would be a statement of so-called limited inerrancy. Where inerrancy only applies to whatever “in scripture necessary for salvation.”

Incidentally, does Tilling believe that faith in Christ is necessary for salvation? Or does he believe that someone can be saved apart from faith in Christ?

If so, then nothing in Scripture is necessary for salvation, in which case, nothing in Scripture is inerrant.

Continuing:

“Believing the flood 'actually happened', for example, as posited in the Chicago Statement, doesn't guarantee orthodoxy, or an appropriate posture towards scripture, nor healthy scripture reading habits.”

Suppose we substitute a few other Biblical events for the flood, and see how the same statement reads:

Believing the call of Abraham 'actually happened', for example, doesn't guarantee orthodoxy, or an appropriate posture towards scripture, nor healthy scripture reading habits.

Believing the Exodus 'actually happened', for example, doesn't guarantee orthodoxy, or an appropriate posture towards scripture, nor healthy scripture reading habits.

Believing the Incarnation 'actually happened', for example, doesn't guarantee orthodoxy, or an appropriate posture towards scripture, nor healthy scripture reading habits.

Believing the Crucifixion 'actually happened', for example, doesn't guarantee orthodoxy, or an appropriate posture towards scripture, nor healthy scripture reading habits.

Believing the Resurrection 'actually happened', for example, doesn't guarantee orthodoxy, or an appropriate posture towards scripture, nor healthy scripture reading habits.

Believing the Parousia will 'actually happen', for example, doesn't guarantee orthodoxy, or an appropriate posture towards scripture, nor healthy scripture reading habits.

Or, to vary the formula a bit more:

Being a doctoral candidate at Tübingen, for example, doesn't guarantee orthodoxy, or an appropriate posture towards scripture, nor healthy scripture reading habits.

As you can see, Tilling is very concerned that we adopt the appropriate “posture” towards Scripture. To judge by both his series, his conception of the appropriate posture involves the liberal use of the middle finger towards whatever portions of Scripture he can’t bring himself to believe.

Continuing:

“The proclamation of a strict definition of inerrancy – such as the Chicago Statement – is meaningless if one does not live life in such a way that reflects a high view of scripture, by which it is meant that one doesn't maintain and pursue certain practices, nor come with expectancy and faith that God will speak in scripture.”

This is another dumb assertion. In the nature of the case, a standard of conduct must be prior to personal conduct, for the standard is the yardstick by which one measures moral conformity.

It is therefore quite meaningful to begin with a high view of Scripture. And it is because Scripture is inerrant that Scripture can stand in judgment of unscriptural conduct.

“Such a definition doesn't affirm the important and the worthwhile, that which inerrancy does at its best, namely encouraging a daily practice and an internal and communal posture that treats scripture as if God speaks through it.”

Notice the caveat: “as if” God speaks through it.

So is this Tilling’s position? Scripture is really just another uninspired book, but we play a game of make-believe? We pretend that Scripture is the word of God? Pious play-acting?

But the important thing, for Tilling, is that we are engaged in “communal” make-believe. A communal “posture” of make-believe—with appropriate digital gestures.

“While propositional statements are important, an obsession with precise and strict formulations of inerrancy can simply foster the playing of meaningless metaphysical word games.”

i) One wonders if he feels the same way about Christology. Does he apply this disclaimer to the Nicene Creed or Chalcedonian Creed or Athanasian Creed?

ii) More to the point, Tilling is guilty of the very thing which he fallaciously imputes to the opposing side. The faithful are not obsessed with “precise and strict formulations of inerrancy.” For the faithful can simply affirm whatever the Bible teaches.

The faithful only feel the need to define their position in more precise terms when it comes under attack by faithless demagogues like Tilling. Because the silly Tillings like to raise specious objections to the inerrancy of Scripture, the faithful have to formulate their position to address the specious objections.

By contrast, it’s the silly Tillings who have to demarcate the residual kernels of Scripture they still believe in from all the surrounding chaff.

“One can no more define, for example, 'childhood' in a proposition than 'inerrancy'; it needs to be lived and experienced or it is meaningless.”

A self-refuting claim since he is making a propositional statement about “childhood” in the very course of his denial.

“Inerrancy cannot be boiled down to propositional truth claims without violence being done.”

Yet another self-refuting denial since he is having to make a propositional statement about inerrancy in order to negate it.

It’s a pity that a doctoral candidate in NT studies at a prestigious European university is so deficient in mental discipline.

“Don’t want it to remain the sole possession of those who feel they must believe the historicity of the flood, for example.”

Why doesn’t he show the reader a complete list of what Biblical events he still believes in, and what Biblical events he denies ever happened? Maybe in parallel columns.

Tilling draws the boundaries of inerrancy to coincide with what he is willing to believe. It has nothing to do with the witness of Scripture, and everything to do with Tilling.

If Tilling wakes up on Monday morning believing that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, then the raising of Lazarus will fall within the bounds of inerrancy.

If Tilling wakes up next Monday morning disbelieving that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, then the raising of Lazarus will fall outside the bounds of inerrancy.

The outer limits of inerrancy expand or contract to match what Tilling is in the mood to believe from one day to the next, one week to the next, one month or year to the next. Whether or not Lazarus is still rotting in the grave depends on whether Tilling woke up with a hangover.

Thursday, June 14, 2007

The Force of a Resolution

From SBC.net

A resolution has traditionally been defined as an expression of opinion or concern, as compared to a motion, which calls for action. A resolution is not used to direct an entity of the Southern Baptist Convention to specific action other than to communicate the opinion or concern expressed. Resolutions are passed during the annual Convention meeting.

The Southern Baptist Convention also passed a resolution in the early 1980s recognizing that offices requiring ordination are restricted to men. However the BF&M and resolutions are not binding upon local churches. Each church is responsible to prayerfully search the Scriptures and establish its own policy.


From BP:

When the back-and-forth on alcohol finally ended, the messengers passed with more than a four-fifths majority a resolution not only opposing the manufacture and consumption of alcohol but urging the exclusion of Southern Baptists who drink from election to the convention’s boards, committees and entities. Like other resolutions, it is not binding on SBC churches and entities.


From Twelve Witnesses (Art Rogers) Primer on Resolutions:

No resolution is binding on anyone, particularly agencies of the convention.

Any attempt to force an agency to do anything, either through resolution or motion, will be ruled out of order.

The power of the resolution is to make a statement, based on Scripture, heritage and whatever else is appropriate and call for the convention to live up to such and such standards - such as the ability to withstand principled dissent at any time.

_________

Resolutions are not binding. Nobody has to do anything that a resolution calls for, but they are supposedly a “snapshot” of the convention. Media picks up on the resolutions [remember Disney?] and so do the pastors and therefore the churches.

Moreover, if the convention passes a particular resolution and an entity of the convention has policy or procedure that is in conflict with that resolution, which supposedly expresses the “will and mind of the convention,” then during the question and answer time of that entity’s report to the convention, the entity may be asked to account for the discrepancy. Egg on the face does have an impact.
If this is true, then how is the Committee on Resolutions excuse that the resolution on integrity in membership infringes on local church autonomy true? How can people argue that, unless the truth is that the resolutions of times past have been considered binding?

Is this year's resolution on global warming binding?

Is last year's resolution five on alcohol binding?

Is this year's resolution on repentance and prayer binding?

Was the the resolution on Disney binding?

Unless the answer to each of these is "yes," then the excuse given by the Committee on Resolutions and those arguing along the same lines is utterly without merit.

There are many parties in the SBC. Dr. Ascol has stated that there is widespread agreement among those parties that this is "the" big problem in the SBC at present. I submit that this is one issue where the often divided Baptist bloggers can speak this year with a great degree of unity, demonstrating the very spirit that we all know has been lacking in the past year, and for which men like Wade Burleson have called. Can we not at least agree on this? Art Rogers and Marty Duren have committed to follow Steve McCoy's example this year and get away from SBC politics and do more, if they blog at all, with respect to their local churches. The battle for reforming the SBC in this area will be won not by politics but by grass roots efforts. That said, I think there are things the bloggers can do in their writing, if only to keep this issue alive and before the eyes of the SBC's members. Remember, we aren't reading each other's blogs alone, there are folks reading them all the time whom we do not know. I am convinced the average person in the pew is unaware of these issues, and the blogs can help them understand them. I submit that, because of the widespread agreement, this is an issue to which we can each contribute on a regular basis, so that next year, when this resolution comes before the Convention (and it will do so), the messengers will be better educated. The goal is not to force the SBC to pass a binding resolution. Rather, the resolution is a statement of the mind of the Convention. It calls the attention to the problem publicly. The goal is to get the churches to act if only to raise their awareness. A resolution gets people talking.

Let me tell you, from personal experience in my own state convention, what happens when this very problem goes unaddressed. Here, we have a number of churches that are promoting homosexual relationships as a valid lifestyle choice. These are also churches that have for some time been dually aligned with the Alliance of Baptists and/or the CBF. Their contributions to the CP have been minimal at best. Last year, this state convention voted to expel churches that did this after a review process if a complaint was lodged and the church was judged guilty.

As a result, many here are crying about local church autonomy, as if the association of churches / convention has no right to set boundaries for whom it will associate with, as if autonomy is absolute. Simply put, if the local associations had been doing their duty the state conventions would not have to do something. It is true that we believe in local church autonomy. It is not true that autonomy is absolute. When things get out of hand, somebody has to step up to the plate and do the unpopular and exceptional thing. However, that was a motion, not a resolution, so how does a resolution rise to this level?

I would add that absolute local church autonomy is patently, unbiblical. Where in the NT do we find that sort of absolute independence? We don't. What we find in the NT and in the Ante-Nicene church is a loose connectedness. There is some merit to the Presbyterian argument for connectedness in that period, for the churches did communicate to each other and lament declension. 1 Clement is a prime example of one church voicing its concerns to another.

It also flies in the face of Baptist tradition. I believe George Paschal himself noted that the Sandy Creek Association was known for its rather dictatorial supervision of its churches. Stearns and the mother church were so iron handed that the Regular Baptist churches, when they united, purposefully did so with the SCA only if they would stop that sort of behavior. At the same time, Baptist history in the US is littered with associational minutes calling churches to repent for declension. At some point, if the greater group does not draw declension to the attention of the churches in the group, it will get out of hand. I find it rather ironic that those who want to be identified as "Sandy Creekers" relative to Calvinism (or rather the lack thereof) become quite selective when the role of the association arises.

Currently, this denomination can't get half it's people into church on Sunday, not due to sickness or being otherwise accounted for, but for reasons unknown! This should not be. Some are apostate. Some are dually enrolled (or worse) in multiple churches because the churches have not been faithful in keeping records and sending letters. Some are dead, and that's no exaggeration.

Tom Buck said, "Our Baptist history shows that they believed “the first sign of sinning was to stop attending.” Therefore, our own Baptist forefathers used to discipline people over this very issue you are presenting." Amen!

"Attested To You By God" (Acts 2:22)

Jon Curry often makes false and misleading claims about Christianity. (See, for example, here, here, and here.) In a recent thread, he repeated a bad argument he's used before:


It looks more like a biblical proclamation. Kind of like Peter in Acts. He tells a beautiful story, full of claims that will appeal to his listeners desires and thousands convert on the spot without ever checking the claims. It's not logical, but it works....

Even a person that doesn’t have a “problem” with miracles should still be hesitant to just accept any miraculous claim hook, line, and sinker. Even if God does act in miraculous ways this doesn’t mean that he does it on a regular basis. Jews of the first century should be hesitant to accept such a claim, just as you should be skeptical of Benny Hinn’s supposed resurrection performances as well....

Whatever it was that persuaded them [the Jews who heard Peter speak in Acts] it was true, it wasn’t a checking of the facts, which is exactly what it should have been. I’m sure there were other factors beyond just the fact that the message was appealing to them. The persuasiveness and sincerity of the speaker was probably also a factor. You perhaps can think of other things that influenced the decision. My point is simply that what ought to have influenced there decision (fact checking) doesn’t appear to have played a major role, or a role at all for that matter.


I doubt that getting crucified like Jesus, or being treated as Jesus and His followers were treated by their surrounding society in other contexts, would "appeal to the desires" of Peter's listeners. Some of what Christianity offered them would be appealing, but much of it wouldn't be. Judaism was already providing them with a purpose in life, the hope of an afterlife, and other benefits.

Jon tells us that the people who heard Peter speak should have been "hesitant". He tells us that they should have sought evidence.

They were hesitant. And they had evidence.

Before Peter began speaking, they witnessed some of the miraculous results of the coming of the Spirit (Acts 2:5-7). Rather than accepting what they heard from these Christians who were speaking to them in tongues, the people who heard these Christians asked questions, and some opposed them (Acts 2:12-13). As we see repeatedly in the gospels, some people offered a naturalistic explanation in an attempt to dismiss a miracle claim (Acts 2:13). Peter then reasons with these people on the basis of common standards (Acts 2:15) and the similarity between Old Testament prophecy and what had just been witnessed (Acts 2:16-21). Peter then goes on to remind his listeners that Jesus had already been attested in their midst by miracles (Acts 2:22). He appeals to the common theme of a Davidic Messiah and how that theme is applicable to a resurrection (Acts 2:24-35). Peter's listeners were in the region where Jesus' execution took place and would have had weeks to hear reports of a resurrection and discussion of what had happened with Jesus' tomb, for example. They would have known that men like Peter were risking the same sort of treatment Jesus received from the governing authorities by making the claims they were making. Thus, the testimony Peter was offering, corroborated by the testimony of other witnesses (Acts 2:32), including people who had formerly opposed Jesus (Acts 1:14), carried much more evidential weight than Jon Curry suggests. Peter wasn't addressing people who had never heard of Jesus before. Rather, he was reminding them of, and expanding upon, something they had been suppressing (Acts 2:23). The blade was already in their chest, so to speak. Peter just pressed it further (Acts 2:37). Even after all of these things occurred, there are indications that the people still hesitated. Some rejected what Peter said. Those who were more receptive asked what they should do (Acts 2:37), but Peter spoke to them further before they did what he suggested (Acts 2:40). These people seem to have been hesitant both before and after Peter spoke.

Notice, also, that confirming signs continued afterward (Acts 2:43). Nobody honestly and thoughtfully reading the book of Acts should miss the fact that evidential concepts such as eyewitness testimony, fulfilled prophecy, and other confirming miracles are prominent. Much of what I've said about Acts 2 above is present in Acts 3 and beyond as well.

But let's assume, for the sake of argument, that these people had never heard of Jesus before, hadn't witnessed the miraculous speaking in tongues, etc. Since Christianity believes in the supernatural convicting and regenerating work of the Holy Spirit, it isn't required, within a Christian worldview, that every person have evidence such as what I've described above. Such evidence is useful for making an objective case for a belief system in a public forum like this one, but such an objective case isn't needed to justify personal conversion.

Since Jon mentions Benny Hinn again, readers may be interested in an article I wrote last year regarding the differences between the alleged miracles of Benny Hinn and those of Jesus Christ.