Category: Evangelism

Recently, I had a local evangelical military wife inform me that “I ignore people with my constant reading and that the only time I interact is to fight.” Now in fairness to her I was getting in her kitchen about the sagacity of our youth signing up to go into the military after they graduate high school, and I was making the case that Biblical Christians serving in the US military struck me as more than a bit oxymoronic and so her words hurled at me were hurled out of defensiveness on her part. Still, three days later I am musing over her words and I must admit there is some truth in her words. And so for those who have come to similar conclusions about “the pastor who always ignores people with his reading and only interacts in order to fight” allow me a small apologetic for my idiosyncrasies.

First, I am not a particularly bright person by nature. Consequently, if I desire to have anything at all interesting to say in my role as Preacher and counselor I have to read, and I have to read with a vengeance. Inherently brighter men might be able to be in the ministry and not read and be successful but if I am going to be worth my wage and keep I have to read.

Second, we live in a culture that is stupid. This is not a malicious opinion. This is a fact. I struggle with that residue clinging to me as much as the next person. If I wish to rise out of the stream of this culture that is carrying so many of its sons and daughters along to destruction then I have to read. If I want to be an answer for the culture that I love and hate at the same time then I have to offer it something better then what it is offering. The only way I can do that is to read till I bleed. I read not in order to ignore people but to be a boon to them (even if they just wish I’d shut up).

Third, if I don’t read I’ll be a captive to this zeitgeist, and as I am convinced that this zeitgeist is from its father the devil I have to do all I can to saturate myself in the wisdom of other times. So, when I read, I try to read old books and old authors and the reason I do so is that I have hopes, as silly as they might be given our zeitgeist, that Christian men and women alive today might tire of the wickedness of this age and long for something other — a something other that I might be able to offer because of my reading of old authors, old books and of times and wisdom now forgotten.

Fourth, to be perfectly honest, the people I meet in my books are usually 100 times more interesting than the people who are walking expressions of this culture. If I have to choose between Charlemagne and Joe the Dispensationalist, my tendency is to choose Charlemagne’s company every time. If I have to choose between the insights of Robert Nisbet or the wisdom of Daphney the Government school teacher it’s Nisbet every time. Now, I realize that this is a weakness and even a sin. Joe and Daphney still need Jesus and Charlemagne and Nisbet don’t and so I should expend more effort with Joe and Daphney, but I have to tell you when Joe and Daphney insist that I’m an idiot or respond with strained silence when I bring up conversation that goes beyond conversational pleasantries Nisbet and Charlemagne look more and more attractive.

This is why I read. I make no apology for it. If you see me reading try to keep in mind that at least somewhere in this vessel of clay — despite all the sin that still clings to me, there is a small motive of love for God, people, and the desire for Reformation that has me turning page after page in book after book.

Now as to the fighting part of my interlocutor’s accusatory words I must once again plead guilty. But, please, I ask that you would once again hear me out.

First, understand that I wear myself out resisting fighting. I doubt that there are more people who chew more holes in their tongues then I do. I literally, bite my tongue. I literally pinch myself. I literally walk away in order to allow for conversational and relational bonhomie. A little credit where credit is due if you please.

Second, y’all have to realize that I am convinced that this culture needs Reformation. Allow me to suggest that Reformation isn’t going to come without fighting. So, yes, I’m often in the midst of intense conversation. In the Lansing area I’ve warred with the Evangelicals about their love for America and civil religion that is above their love for Jesus. I’ve argued the doctrines of grace vs. the doctrines of self-salvation that most evangelicals embrace. I’ve debated with them about their constant need to plight their fidelity to the flag. I’ve debated with them about the wisdom of sending their children into the Military of a country that is doing its utmost to destroy Christianity. I’ve debated with them about the density of Dispensationalism, trying to get them to take my standing wager that my great grandchildren will die of natural causes before Jesus comes back. I’ve debated with them about their happy clappy churches and their “God is my girl-friend” church hymns. I’ve debated with them their strange notion that their covenant seed shouldn’t be Baptized and the notion that the important decision is not God’s decision for their seed as proclaimed in the waters of Baptism, but rater their seeds decision for God when they reach the age of accountability. I’ve debated with them about the utter nonsense that we should care about Red Heifer’s being born in Israel, or that Israel has anything more to do with God’s eschatological intentions or timetable then any other nation. I’ve argue with them about the advisability of sending their children to “youth-groups.” I’ve argued with them about the propriety of holding Church in their “living rooms,” where the blind lead the blind. So, yes I have fought — I have fought about these things and a million more — but don’t you see that unless someone fights this culture is going to go the way of Rome. Listen, my evangelical friends — the problem isn’t with the pornographers, or the homosexuals, or the abortionists, the problem is with us and our twisted theology and thinking. Somebody has to fight to try and set these things straight.

Hey, I’m not any different, instinctively speaking, then the next guy. I’d love to go along to get along. I’d love to glide along with the cultural current. It sure would be a lot easier to float downstream then swim against the tide. But until God grants Reformation and Awakening, I will continue to be “the pastor who always ignores people with his reading and only interacts in order to fight.”

Won’t you join me?

There is always room for one more.

Election Cycle 2008 and the Christian

Bret 1

Natures proves it is the purpose or proper function for Mammals to kill their young. Nature tells us that this is normative. Similarly homosexuality is normative as it is clearly the purpose and proper function of nature.

Paul M.

Those aren’t arguments, Bret.

Say’s you Paul M.

I took your requirements for Natural law and put my previous statements in your Natural law arrangement demand. Your saying it is not an argument does not make it not an argument. Now, I’m sure that since it refutes your objection you would consider it not an argument but I’m glad to let the reader decide.

Bret 1

No straw man here Paul. Quite to the contrary what I see you doing is using a straw man to try and rescue natural law as being acceptable.

That’s not an argument, Bret.

Sure it is Paul. It is an argument advancing the idea that you didn’t make an argument in your previous post but just an accusation. I took your argument about what Natural law is and I proceeded to show you that what I said could easily fit under your thinking of natural law.

Bret 1

No, but neither was God appealing to Natural law when he said that. The ant provides a proper lesson to those whose epistemic apparatus is working somewhat properly and whose presuppositions are what they ought to be.

Paul

How does the “ant” do that? How would the reasoning go?

That “ant” does that the same way that all the heavens declaring the glory of God does that Paul M. Or are you denying general revelation? Remember all reality points to God. The problem isn’t in the sender but in the receivers. The “ant” is a testimony of God’s reality to all who are not suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.

Let me guess though Paul M. …. that’s not an argument.

Is unbelief not proper function rational?

http://philofreligion.homestead.com/files/rru.html

So Sudduth disagrees with Plantinga. I’m quite confident that somewhere out there, there is somebody who disagrees with Sudduth and has written a dissertation showing how Sudduth is allegedly wrong just as Sudduth as shown that that Plantinga is allegedly wrong. I didn’t read the whole thing. When I finish my Polanyi I’ll be sure to turn my attention to it. Thanks for the link though. I hear that Sudduth is a smart guy.

So many books … so little time. I’m sure you know the feeling.

Bret 1

However, allow someone to suppress the truth in unrighteousness about ants and the ant could as easily teach them that we should all live in houses made of cones of sand. Proper conclusions about ants will not be arrived at by people who hate God consistently. Telic conclusions are always affected by presuppositional beginning points.

Paul M.

That’s not an argument, Bret.

Neither is that Paul M. I think they call that an assertion.

You’re arguing:

1. A
______

2. Therefore A.

And you’re arguing

1.) Not A

_______________

Therefore Not A

Ah, but the difference Paul M. … that with Scripture there is a written objective to appeal to. In Natural law each man interprets what is right in his own eyes.

Really, Bret? This is not an argument, again, Bret.

Oh Darn.

And neither is yours an argument Paul. Once again, I think it is called an assertion.

Bret 1

“When the heretic appeals to scripture wrongly to the law and to the testimony we must go.”

Paul M.

“So. The point is that anyone can cite anything they please, this doesn’t “make it so.” Your changing the goal posts doesn’t avoid the non-sequitur you made.”

I never said that anyone citing anything they please “makes it so.” Do you often put words in people’s mouth Paul M.? I’ve often found when one does that it makes it easier to win the discussion.

I said we go to the law and testimony. From that point let the appeal to Scripture unfold.

And please do provide for me my alleged “non-sequitur” and my “changing of the goal posts” that you asserted but did not argue for.

Bret 1

“However when the Natural law theorist interprets incorrectly … well, what objective standard do I appeal to in order to correct him? Right reason? Surely a Van Tillian wouldn’t go for that idea. Whose right reason?”

Paul M. responds

Typical Van Tillian, confuses questions with arguments.

LOL … Typical philosopher wannabee elitist who started with Van Til and now has “grown beyond” him…. confuses rhetorical questions for not being arguments.

By the way you didn’t answer the argument caught up in the rhetorical question. Clever move.

Paul M.

Should I respond, “whose interpretation of Scripture?” The heretics? Yours? Surely the “Van Tilian” hasn’t just been hoisted by his own petard, has he?

Whose asking questions now? Should I snort at you and say … “Typical elitist philosopher wannabee, confuses questions for arguments?

Still, unlike you, I’ll provide an answer. Maybe this will compel you to answer my earlier question.

The interpretation that most consistently aligns with all of Scripture and itself grows out of Scripture. Our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority found in a true interpretation of God’s Word, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.

What are you arguing? Are you arguing that all there is, is interpretation? How po-mo of you. Or are you arguing that fallen man can start with fallen reason and interpret general revelation aright to the point of being able to construct God honoring cultures?

In terms of petard hoisting … well, you’ll have to explain more clearly, as opposed to asserting, that Van Til has been hoisted upon his own petard. I know that is a common accusation but I’d like to see you flesh it out all the same.

“Paul M>

Of course, what Scripture affirms is objective, same with natural law. but you’re confusing our interpretation with the thing-in-itself.

No, I’m not. I fully recognize that natural law is itself objective. I also fully recognize that the fallen man coming to natural law has an agenda that is informing him not to read the objective natural law aright. However, unlike with Scripture, when the fallen man interprets Natural law in a bent fashion, there is nothing I can check his bent interpretation against. There is no “law and testimony” to repair to in order to dispute with the kind of natural law interpretation that the Nazi’s appealed to, for example.

Now, should we take what sounds to be the implications of your positions then all we have is the interpretation since it seems to be the case that you have given us the Kantian problem of never being able to get to the “thing-in-itself, as located in the Noumenal realm.” But if we can’t get to the “thing-in-itself” then how could we even have an interpretation of the “thing-in-itself?” Indeed, if we can’t get to the “thing-in-itself” how do we know there is a “thing-in-itself” to get to in order to interpret wrongly?

Sorry…. more of those questions.

Paul M.

“You acted as if natural law means “go outside and look at nature” and you act as if simply quoting Van Til has some of sanctifying effects that works ex opere operato.

Says you. Who is Paul M. that I should be mindful of his assertions?

But let’s cut to the chase in all this Paul.

One man says: “God says that it is sin to murder.”

Another man says “Natural Law says it’s wrong to murder.”

2 Observations:

* I know God has authority over my life and I know that HE can cast me into Hell for transgressing HIS law. Natural Law cannot send me to hell because it has no power or authority. In fact, not even special revelation law can send me to Hell. Law has no authority. Only The law Giver does.

* Universals Laws, whether natural or special cannot be justified apart from an appeal to God’s special revelation. Paul, if you think thinks otherwise, demonstrate it! It looks to me that your making law, not the law giver, to be your final authority. In short, you’re deifying law.

Thanks to RD for offering the last section of this response.

Actually, I like Tim Enloe. Really, I do. Still, he as a bad habit of characterizing a conversation in an interesting light. Actually, I only barely recognize the conversation that Tim summarizes in what we can only hope will be his closing post on the subject. I think he re-works the conversation in the way he does because the conversation didn’t really go that well for him.

http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=6077&Data=3003#posts

Well, at least the important issue of what “reform” even is has been put on table by all this. Those who think the Reformation formulations are the end of the discussion have revealed an attitude which would have prevented the Reformation itself from happening, because they don’t recognize the possibility of fruitfully engaging the tradition understanding that it isn’t a self-contained, self-justifying whole.

1.) I never even came close to saying that there isn’t any possibility of fruitfully engaging the Reformed tradition. Nor, do I necessarily think of it as a self-contained, self-justifying whole, though it could very well be. It all depends on whether or not the people who engage the Reformed tradition ever end up doing so fruitfully. I’ve read a great deal on the engagements so far and I see a lot of good fruit but the good fruit I see is a reclaiming of the Reformed tradition. All the so called “extensions of the Reformed tradition” that I’ve read (especially on justification) is just pretty lousy stuff, that should not satisfy anybody who realizes the depth and width of all that justification by faith alone touches.

2.) As to my attitude … well, I kind of like Ronald Reagan on this score. Reagan said, “trust but verify.” I trust Tim but having looked at what is being offered as a replacement for justification by faith alone, whether it is from Reformed Catholicism, Federal Vision, or New Perspective I can honestly say that I can not verify that it isn’t just another arrangement of justification that is analytic and process at its core.

My concerns in all this have been chiefly the restricting of “the Gospel” both in proclamation to others and belief by others to an explicit consciousness of JBFA – a restriction which seems to prevent “the Gospel” from being readily seen in the Gospels, the Book of Acts, and 1 Corinthians 15.

1.) Tim’s problem here is that he is reading the Gospels, Acts, and I Corinthians 15 in isolation from the rest of the Bible. It’s like saying because you can’t find the name of God in the book of Esther therefore the Bible really isn’t about God. This is nonsense.

2.) I would say that justification is found all over those books that Tim cites if only implicitly. Justification, soteriologically speaking touches everything, therefore if one finds a soteriological fact in any book there will be some way in which justification will eventually be involved.

3) Tim greatly mischaracterizes the conversation because I’ve clearly admitted that people can be justified apart from an explicit consciousness of jbfa. What I have denied is that someone can explicitly deny justification by faith alone and still be considered as justified.

4.) By Tim’s downgrading the importance of justification by faith alone Tim has revealed that it is, for him, no longer the hinge upon which Reformed theology turns. All I can do is recommend people read Buchanan’s book on Justification or Owen’s book on Justification or Chemnitz’s writing on Justification, or Turretin’s writings on Justification or …. (Let me guess Tim … these are all standard Reformed manuals.)

Tim’s downgrade on jbfa and the downgrade that we are seeing through much of the Reformed Church on this doctrine is, in my estimation, an attempt to rebuild Christendom with those who clearly deny jbfa. Christianity is being assaulted and our numbers are dwindling and there seems to be ostensibly Reformed people with opinions that one way to rebuild the crumbling walls of Christendom is by removing those doctrines that divide the epistemologically self-conscious Reformed Biblical believer from those who are seen as sharing our Christian morality. If this project is successful Christendom will go into full eclipse. It is only a Reformation Biblical worldview that includes jbfa that can successfully rebuild a genuine Christendom.

Other than that, my concern is with the demonstrable massive historical ignorance of the Reformed community as a whole regarding the state of the Church prior to the Reformation, including but not limited to (1) the continuity of the Reformers with previous tradition, (2) their knowledge of and creative interaction with issues our standard Manuals never mention, and (3) the simply grossly uncharitable sloganeering about other theological viewpoints. These issues remain as legitimate points of discussion regardless of any regrettable flaring up of personal stuff.

As to the above

(1) Anybody who knows Church History understands how much certain early Church fathers influenced the Reformed. The doctrines of the Reformation didn’t jump out of the Reformers heads as Athena jumped out of Zeus’ head. For Tim to suggest that anybody who disagrees with his profundity doesn’t know Church history is just silly. I’m glad to admit the continuity of the Reformers with previous tradition. Is Tim glad to admit the substantial discontinuity of the Reformers with previous tradition?

(2) Tim keeps mentioning his “standard Manuals” without defining which exact books he has in mind. Now, I’m not the Medieval Church Historian that Tim is but I’ve done a great deal of reading that I’m pretty confident extends well beyond Tim’s “standard Manuals.” This “standard manual” line is just a sophisticated way to disparage somebody who doesn’t agree with Tim.

I will continue to insist however that on this point Tim is just plain upset that people haven’t come to the conclusion that he or his favorite authors have come in light of these “non-Standard manuals.” I will repeat, yet again, there is a host of ways to read the Reformation, the theological/philosophical/cultural influences on the Reformers, and what I call the “psycho-history of the Reformation.” For Tim to insist that his reading must be the standard that measures all other readings is just disingenuous.

Still, I’m all for taking on all comers. The Reformation has nothing to fear from Tim’s non-Standard manuals with their speculation about the Reformers psycho-history.

(3) I quite agree that history can’t fit on a postcard. So, I understand Tim’s concern about sloganeering. Still, I won’t apologize to those who are self consciously against jbfa for any sloganeering I involve myself in. The reason that people are so offended by sloganeering so quickly, I suspect, is because the slogan has hit its target.

I’ve stuck my toe back into the justification – Federal Vision debate over at Doug Wilson’s place.

http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=6077&qdata=2314#posts37240

My conversation partner is Mr. Tim Enloe. Tim’s specialty is Medieval Church history and he is quite well read and extraordinarily intelligent. I can genuinely say that I would love for Tim to teach Church history to my children.

However, Tim is wrong on justification by faith alone. Tim is part of a burgeoning movement called “Reformed Catholicism” (a kind of step-child of Federal Vision). The problem with this movement is that it can be lauded or denigrated depending exactly on how one defines the movement. For Tim, Reformed Catholicism at least means no longer insisting on justification by faith alone as, as Calvin put it, “the hinge of the Reformation.” In this denial one is left wondering what is “Reformed” about “Reformed Catholicism.”

Tim has disavowed that justification by faith alone (jbfa) is the doctrine that is central, has primacy, and should be esteemed. Now, this doesn’t mean that Tim doesn’t believe in some form of jbfa but it does mean that in his reducing its importance to the point that it should no longer serve as a divider between orthodoxy and unorthodoxy Tim has left the Reformed reservation.

We need to understand that jbfa is a river in which all the tributaries of Reformed soteriology flow. Should we mess with jfba, by necessity we must also alter our thinking on other doctrinal issues like penal substitutionary atonement, total depravity, sanctification, perseverance of the saints, and others. Tim’s desire to altar jfba understandings will inevitably lead to altering Reformed theology as a whole.

Below is a reproduction, on my end, of the conversation with Tim at Mablog.

Come on Tim … just admit it … all your huffing and puffing is masquerade on your part seeking to hide your desire for a Kuhnian paradigm change. In all your denials of the centrality of jbfa and in all your bashing of “ossification” and “repristination,” and in all your lamenting about “dying in the doldrums of rote repetition, self-righteousness, and sheer fear of the unknown and different,” what we are seeing is merely the means of a bully who is trying to force and/or shame people into his preferred paradigm change.

By the time we buy what you are selling there is very little of the Reformed trademark left. Indeed, I would guess that the only reason that you maintain the word “Reformed,” (as in “Reformed Catholicism”) is that you hope that in doing so you can dupe Reformed people into thinking that they aren’t really leaving a set identifiable theology for a radically different set identifiable theology.

What we desperately need is people to nail their colors to the mast. What we desperately need is for people like Tim to admit, “Reformation theology has outlived its usefulness but that’s ok because I have thought of something better that will take its place.” At least then everyone would know that the notion of “Reformed” is being cast aside for something new and improved.

I never said there was no way to choose among competing psycho-history schools that will put us in the mind of the Reformers. That is you, once again, putting words in my mouth that will serve to advance your narrow minded intolerant cause. The point was that I’m not buying your revisionist school. Further, the point was that there are plenty of other schools out there that read the psycho-history differently that can be appealed to in defiance of your preferred interpretation.

Turning to the matter of corrections. Clearly when a movement is in error corrections are needed. However when a movement is not in error it would be error to embrace corrections. So all your whining about Reformed people not accepting corrections reduces down to the issue between us, which is … “Does the Reformed movement need to accept corrections.” You seem to suggest the affirmative in massive doses. While, I, on the issue of justification, have yet to see any corrections that are an improvement. I certainly don’t see them in the Federal Vision writings of which I’ve read a great deal. So, when you come up with some corrections that actually are beneficial let me know and I’ll be more than glad to consider them.

The really sad thing in the Reformed church today is that we are awash in a sea of innovative errors by factions on every side. There are the Federal Vision errors. There are the R2Kt virus errors. There are the New Perspective errors. There are the Peter Enns inspiration errors. Indeed, it is easier to accept some error of some sort then it is to return to the old paths.

And of course in the end to embrace any of the errors of the well intentioned people who are promulgating them will not bring us or them closer to what they say they want, but instead will usher in a new dark age.

You didn’t like the article by which the church stands or falls. How about Calvin’s words instead?

Justification by Faith Alone is the hinge of the Reformation.

If we get rid of the hinge then the door no longer works Tim.

In my estimation the whole work of Federal Vision, like the work of the New Perspective is a work dedicated to eliminating the barrier of jbfa that keeps Christendom from being rebuilt along the lines of some other kind of understanding of justification. Now, I’m a big believer in Christendom, but a Christendom that is refashioned at the cost of justification by faith alone is not a Christendom that I’m interested in simply because it wouldn’t really be Christendom.

So my advice is that has much as Federal Vision has to recommend it (and there really is much to recommend it) in the end Reformed people cannot build bridges to Federal Vision precisely because of its abandonment of justification by faith alone. It is a poison to Reformed thinking that is every bit as dangerous as R2Kt poison.

A different poison to be sure, but a poison all the same.

Last night I spent a few minutes, at the request of my daughter Anna, with a college student who was denying the existence of God. He was a Empiricist / Verificationist who was demanding physical sensory evidence for proof of God’s existence. He refused to accept the absurdity and self-defeating nature of his position. With that conversation still ringing in my head I thought I would quote Bahnsen on the problem of Empiricism / Verificationism.

“When the unbeliever contends that nothing in man’s temporal, limited, natural experience can provide knowledge of the metaphysical or supernatural, he is simply taking a roundabout way of saying that the Biblical account of God who makes Himself clearly known in the created order and Scripture is mistaken.

This begging of the question is sometimes veiled from the unbeliever by his tendency to recast the nature of theological truth as man-centered and rooted initially in human, empirical experience. However, the very point in contention between the believer and the unbeliever comes down to the claims that Christian teaching is rooted in God’s self-disclosure of the truth as found in the world around us and in the written word. There is no reason to think that theology would be intellectually required to be built upon the foundation of human sense experience, unless someone were presupposing in advance that all knowledge must ultimately derive from empirical procedures. But that is the very question at hand. The anti-metaphysical polemic is not a supporting reason for rejecting Christianity; it is simply a re-wording of that rejection itself.

PHILOSOPHICAL SELF-DECEPTION

We are brought, then, to number (1) above, the first and foundational step in the case against metaphysics. What are we to make of the assertion that ‘all significant knowledge about the objective world is empirical in nature.’? The most obvious and philosophically significant reply would be that if the preceding statement were true, then — on the basis of the claim — we could never know that it were true. Why? Simply because the statement in question is not itself known as the result of empirical testing and experience. Therefore, according to its own strict standards, the statement could not amount to significant knowledge about the objective world. It simply reflects the subjective (perhaps meaningless!) bias of the one who pronounces it. Hence the anti-metaphysician not only has his own preconceived conclusions (presuppositions), but it turns out that he cannot live according to them (Rom. 2:1). On the basis of his own assumptions he refutes himself (II Tim. 2:25). As Paul put it about those who suppress the truth in unrighteousness: ‘They become futile in their speculations (Rom. 1:21)!

FURTHER DIFFICULTIES

There are other difficulties with the position expressed by (1) as well. We can easily see that it amounts to a presupposition for the unbeliever. What rational basis or evidence is there for the position that all knowledge must be empirical in nature? That is not a conclusion supported by other reasoning, and the premise does not admit of empirical verification since it deals with what is universally or necessarily the case (not a historical or contingent truth). Moreover, the statement itself precludes any other type of verification or support other than empirical warrants or evidence. Thus the anti-metaphysical opponent of the Christian faith holds to this dogma in a presuppositional fashion — as something which controls inquiry, rather than being the result of inquiry.

That anti-metaphysical presupposition, however, has certain devastating results. Notice that if all knowledge must be empirical in nature, then the uniformity of nature cannot be known to be true. And without the knowledge and assurance that the future will be like the past (e.g., if salt dissolved in water on Wednesday, it will do likewise and not explode on Friday) we could not draw empirical generalizations and projections — in which case the whole enterprise of natural science would immediately be undermined.”

Dr. Greg Bahnsen
Always Ready — pg. 187-188