The Nature of Heresy

Over at the Reformed Forum Express you can listen to a short clip from an interview that I did with them where we discuss the nature of heresy

Believe it or not: New atheists in short trousers

You may be interested in taking a look at David Bentley Hart's essay "Believe It or Not" on the New Atheists (HT: Gary Benfold).  Here are some highlights:

I think I am very close to concluding that this whole “New Atheism” movement is only a passing fad—not the cultural watershed its purveyors imagine it to be, but simply one of those occasional and inexplicable marketing vogues that inevitably go the way of pet rocks, disco, prime-time soaps, and The Bridges of Madison County.

This is not because I necessarily think the current “marketplace of ideas” particularly good at sorting out wise arguments from foolish. But the latest trend in à la mode godlessness, it seems to me, has by now proved itself to be so intellectually and morally trivial that it has to be classified as just a form of light entertainment, and popular culture always tires of its diversions sooner or later and moves on to other, equally ephemeral toys.

The principal source of my melancholy, however, is my firm conviction that today’s most obstreperous infidels lack the courage, moral intelligence, and thoughtfulness of their forefathers in faithlessness.

What I find chiefly offensive about them is not that they are skeptics or atheists; rather, it is that they are not skeptics at all and have purchased their atheism cheaply, with the sort of boorish arrogance that might make a man believe himself a great strategist because his tanks overwhelmed a town of unarmed peasants, or a great lover because he can afford the price of admission to a brothel. So long as one can choose one’s conquests in advance, taking always the paths of least resistance, one can always imagine oneself a Napoleon or a Casanova (and even better: the one without a Waterloo, the other without the clap).

But how long can any soul delight in victories of that sort? And how long should we waste our time with the sheer banality of the New Atheists—with, that is, their childishly Manichean view of history, their lack of any tragic sense, their indifference to the cultural contingency of moral “truths,” their wanton incuriosity, their vague babblings about “religion” in the abstract, and their absurd optimism regarding the future they long for?

But a true skeptic is also someone who understands that an attitude of critical suspicion is quite different from the glib abandonment of one vision of absolute truth for another—say, fundamentalist Christianity for fundamentalist materialism or something vaguely and inaccurately called “humanism.” Hume, for instance, never traded one dogmatism for another, or one facile certitude for another. He understood how radical were the implications of the skepticism he recommended, and how they struck at the foundations not only of unthinking faith, but of proud rationality as well.

A truly profound atheist is someone who has taken the trouble to understand, in its most sophisticated forms, the belief he or she rejects, and to understand the consequences of that rejection. Among the New Atheists, there is no one of whom this can be said, and the movement as a whole has yet to produce a single book or essay that is anything more than an insipidly doctrinaire and appallingly ignorant diatribe.

On Richard Dawkins he writes:

But something worse than mere misunderstanding lies at the base of Dawkins’ own special version of the argument from infinite regress—a version in which he takes a pride of almost maternal fierceness. Any “being,” he asserts, capable of exercising total control over the universe would have to be an extremely complex being, and because we know that complex beings must evolve from simpler beings and that the probability of a being as complex as that evolving is vanishingly minute, it is almost certain that no God exists. Q.E.D.

But, of course, this scarcely rises to the level of nonsense. We can all happily concede that no complex, ubiquitous, omniscient, and omnipotent superbeing, inhabiting the physical cosmos and subject to the rules of evolution, exists. But who has ever suggested the contrary?

Numerous attempts have been made, by the way, to apprise Dawkins of what the traditional definition of divine simplicity implies, and of how it logically follows from the very idea of transcendence, and to explain to him what it means to speak of God as the transcendent fullness of actuality, and how this differs in kind from talk of quantitative degrees of composite complexity.

But all the evidence suggests that Dawkins has never understood the point being made, and it is his unfortunate habit contemptuously to dismiss as meaningless concepts whose meanings elude him. Frankly, going solely on the record of his published work, it would be rash to assume that Dawkins has ever learned how to reason his way to the end of a simple syllogism.

On Christopher Hitchens he says:

To appreciate the true spirit of the New Atheism, however, and to take proper measure of its intellectual depth, one really has to turn to Christopher Hitchens. Admittedly, he is the most egregiously slapdash of the New Atheists, as well as (not coincidentally) the most entertaining, but I take this as proof that he is also the least self-deluding.

His God Is Not Great shows no sign whatsoever that he ever intended anything other than a rollicking burlesque, without so much as a pretense of logical order or scholarly rigor. His sporadic forays into philosophical argument suggest not only that he has sailed into unfamiliar waters, but also that he is simply not very interested in any of it.

His occasional observations on Hume and Kant make it obvious that he has not really read either very closely. He apparently believes that Nietzsche, in announcing the death of God, literally meant to suggest that the supreme being named God had somehow met his demise. The title of one of the chapters in God Is Not Great is “The Metaphysical Claims of Religion Are False,” but nowhere in that chapter does Hitchens actually say what those claims or their flaws are.

On matters of simple historical and textual fact, moreover, Hitchens’ book is so extraordinarily crowded with errors that one soon gives up counting them. Just to skim a few off the surface:

He speaks of the ethos of Dietrich Bonhoeffer as “an admirable but nebulous humanism,” which is roughly on a par with saying that Gandhi was an apostle of the ruthless conquest and spoliation of weaker peoples.

He conflates the histories of the first and fourth crusades. He repeats as fact the long discredited myth that Christians destroyed the works of Aristotle and Lucretius, or systematically burned the books of pagan antiquity, which is the very opposite of what did happen.

He speaks of the traditional hostility of “religion” (whatever that may be) to medicine, despite the monastic origins of the modern hospital and the involvement of Christian missions in medical research and medical care from the fourth century to the present. He tells us that countless lives were lost in the early centuries of the Church over disputes regarding which gospels were legitimate (the actual number of lives lost is zero).

He asserts that Myles Coverdale and John Wycliffe were burned alive at the stake, although both men died of natural causes. He knows that the last twelve verses of Mark 16 are a late addition to the text, but he imagines this means that the entire account of the Resurrection is as well. He informs us that it is well known that Augustine was fond of the myth of the Wandering Jew, though Augustine died eight centuries before the legend was invented. And so on and so on (and so on).

In the end, though, all of this might be tolerated if Hitchens’ book exhibited some rough semblance of a rational argument. After all, there really is a great deal to despise in the history of religion, even if Hitchens gets almost all the particular details extravagantly wrong. To be perfectly honest, however, I cannot tell what Hitchens’ central argument is. It is not even clear what he understands religion to be.

And on Nietzsche he notes that:

The only really effective antidote to the dreariness of reading the New Atheists, it seems to me, is rereading Nietzsche. How much more immediate and troubling the force of his protest against Christianity seems when compared to theirs, even more than a century after his death. Perhaps his intellectual courage—his willingness to confront the implications of his renunciation of the Christian story of truth and the transcendent good without evasions or retreats—is rather a lot to ask of any other thinker, but it does rather make the atheist chic of today look fairly craven by comparison.

Above all, Nietzsche understood how immense the consequences of the rise of Christianity had been, and how immense the consequences of its decline would be as well, and had the intelligence to know he could not fall back on polite moral certitudes to which he no longer had any right. Just as the Christian revolution created a new sensibility by inverting many of the highest values of the pagan past, so the decline of Christianity, Nietzsche knew, portends another, perhaps equally catastrophic shift in moral and cultural consciousness.

His famous fable in The Gay Science of the madman who announces God’s death is anything but a hymn of atheist triumphalism. In fact, the madman despairs of the mere atheists—those who merely do not believe—to whom he addresses his terrible proclamation. In their moral contentment, their ease of conscience, he sees an essential oafishness; they do not dread the death of God because they do not grasp that humanity’s heroic and insane act of repudiation has sponged away the horizon, torn down the heavens, left us with only the uncertain resources of our will with which to combat the infinity of meaninglessness that the universe now threatens to become.

Because he understood the nature of what had happened when Christianity entered history with the annunciation of the death of God on the cross, and the elevation of a Jewish peasant above all gods, Nietzsche understood also that the passing of Christian faith permits no return to pagan naivete, and he knew that this monstrous inversion of values created within us a conscience that the older order could never have incubated.

He understood also that the death of God beyond us is the death of the human as such within us. If we are, after all, nothing but the fortuitous effects of physical causes, then the will is bound to no rational measure but itself, and who can imagine what sort of world will spring up from so unprecedented and so vertiginously uncertain a vision of reality?

Coping with criticism

Helpful words from Marcus Honeysett.  There are shades of Psalm 73 in this counsel:

Worship is the refuge that allows us to respond to criticism well rather than defensively. Worship is the means by which God is allowed to be bigger in our perspective than our critics. Worship allows us to not be precious about us and our reputations because we are absorbed not with ourselves but with him. 

Criticism isn't nice, but criticism that gets out of perspective is debilitating. Worship puts our perspective right, bastions our hearts, makes us rejoice in God and find our happiness (that criticism would wish to destroy) in him.

A makeover and some mini Exodus motifs

My thanks to Dave Bish for restoring the Against Heresies banner which had disappeared, and which he had designed in the first place.  He has also, very kindly, upgraded some features and very much improved the design of the blog.  So hats off to him.

The banner itself, which would look great on a t-shirt or a mug, is an adaptation of "Augustine refuting heretics."  And as I'm currently reading Augustine's De Trinitate I will, in due course, post some highlights.

Take a look at his post Of Midwives and Sons - The Exodus and a New Creation

The early chapters of Exodus have some remarkable mini-Exodus motifs, such as the son saved from the waters of judgement and the pursuit of his enemies, a real foretaste of what will happen later in the book.

There are also some NT miniatures.  Moses, of course, is the saviour rejected by his people (Exodus 2:11-14) but welcomed by the Gentiles (2:15-20).  A wonderful glimpse (in fact a type) in miniature of the Christ that Moses both spoke of, served and suffered for (see Stephen's point about God's people rejecting their Saviour in Acts 7:23-53, and the writer to the Hebrew's point about Moses regarding disgrace for the sake of Christ as of greater value than the treasures of Egypt in 11:26).

You do the math (updated)

Thanks to Sheena Strain for drawing my attention to this headline.

And thanks to Justin Taylor for pointing out to me that it was probably inspired by this:

For more on the connection between the headlines go here

Still, let's not let forget the fact that to England it felt like a defeat, and the New York Post confuses the "British" with the "English."

Let us not forget that no Welsh, Scottish, or Northern Irish goalkeeper would have committed such a howler.  Let us also not forget that no Welsh, Scottish or Northern Irish goalkeeper had the opportunity to commit such a howler at the World Cup seeing as we all failed to qualify.  A small but important fact.

Under the knife

No this is not a post about dissecting heresies and cutting out diseased theologies. I went under the knife on Wednesday and had functional endoscopic sinus surgery and a septoplasty. I'm now confined at home for two weeks so as to avoid infection.

Writing, reading, and thinking straight are not really working at the moment. I do however, have a box of Krispy Kreme donuts to hand and am assured that they contain remarkable healing powers.

Doctrine: A review you will actually want to read

My friend Iain D. Campbell has written a review of Doctrine: What Christians Should Believe by Mark Driscoll and Gerry Breshears.

Iain D. writes:

There are some books I wish I’d written. Let me re-phrase that. There are some books I come across, whose design and structure is so brilliantly simply that I could wish I had thought of it myself.

This new book on ‘Doctrine’ has a structure that gets right to the heart of theology. Theology is about God. It is not about proving that there is a God; nor is it about our responses to the world around us. It is simply a bringing together of the great themes and strands of revelation, without which there can be no theology.

So the chapter headings in ‘Doctrine’ all remind us of this simple fact: ‘Trinity: God is’, ‘Creation: God Makes’ ‘Covenant: God Pursues’, ‘Incarnation: God Comes’ – and so on. It is all about God...It is a matter of knowing God before it is a matter of serving him. Creeds are far more important than deeds or needs.

The review contains notes of appreciation and notes of disagreement. It is well worth reading. Here is Iain D.'s conclusion:

So would I give ‘Doctrine’ to someone for their theological education? Absolutely, although I would insist on Berkhof as a companion volume. This book, however, is a masterpiece of thoroughness and simplicity, covering all the theological topics in one simple, readable volume. That’s the sort of book I want to write one day.

You can read the whole thing here

The Defense Against the Dark Arts: Some questions to ask

Theological conflict is unavoidable.

Scripture warns us about the presence of heretics (2 Peter 2:1-3; Jude 4; 1 Cor. 11:19), the danger they present (Matthew 7:15; Acts 20:29-30; 2 Timothy 2:18; Titus 1:11), and tells us about the firm stand that elders and congregations must make against them (Romans 16:17-18; Titus 1:9, 11; 3:9-11; 1 John 4:1; Rev. 2:2).

Being a pacifist is not an option. At the same time the church does not need gung ho fighters who will shoot first and ask questions later.

It is always important that apologists and polemicists not only take great pains to understand the positions that they intend to respond to, but that they also give careful consideration to the strength of those positions.

It is all to easy to be hasty and sketchy, and to be dismissive. But no one who sets out to rebuke error and defend orthodoxy should allow their rhetoric to to run ahead of them. Opposing arguments should be carefully studied, analysed, and weighed.

Unless it is obviously the case we should be very cautious about treating an opposing view in an overtly cavalier fashion, piling in with rhetorical punches, making out as if only stupid people could ever believe it.

As with so much in the Christian life great wisdom is needed.

The other danger that lies close at hand is to give a position too much credence, and its holder too much deference, when his teaching should really receive a good belly laugh and he should be grabbed by the scruff of the neck and thrown out of the church. The question is, do you answer a fool according to his folly? Will it be Proverbs 26:4 or Proverbs 26:5?

It is critically important to ask what theological, moral, hermeneutical, epistemological, and pastoral reasonings underpin a commitment to the position that you are seeking to refute.

Put yourself in your opponents shoes. Why does their view seem plausible to them and better than yours? What attracts them to it? What problems does it seek to solve?

If you have not done this, in addition to your theological homework, then you've not begun to engage with error in a responsible way.

There are of course logical consequences to the errors of your opponent. You may see them better than he can, but be careful not to attribute convictions to him that he has not stated in his own position. You can point them out but don't assume that they are being argued for.

There are important questions to pose in seeking to understand an opposing viewpoint. The following are a sample of the theological, exegetical, hermeneutical and pastoral questions that I would want to ask:

• Has this person properly understood the truth that they are rejecting, or does this rejection stem from a distorted perspective of this truth?

• What theological and pastorals problems is this position being offered as a solution to?

• What assumptions are being made about the being and attributes of God and how do these relate to the issues at hand?

• What is their view of authority in general and of the nature and authority of Scripture in particular?

• Where do they position themselves in relation to the Word of God written?

• What interpretative methods are being used in handling the Bible?

• Is there a reliable understanding of context (unit of thought, chapter, book, location in redemptive history etc.), and of the harmony of Scripture?

• In the interpretation of Scripture how is the issueof genre handled?
  

• Does this person show signs of a teachable spirit when criticisms of their position are being offered? How do they view correction?

• How does this teaching impact upon other doctrines? How does it affect our understanding of the gospel?

• How does this teaching affect one's relationship to God, assurance, and the living of the Christian life?

• How does this person treat other believers, ministers and churches? How does he speak about them? How will the promotion of this belief impinge upon gospel and confessional unity?
  

• Has anyone held this position previously in church history? If so why did they do so and what effects did it have?

Seven characteristics of false teachers: Thomas Brooks

A couple of years back I spoke on "The Seven Habits of Highly Effective Heretics" at the Eccentric Ministers Conference. At the time I wasn't aware that the Puritan Thomas Brooks (1608-80) had beaten me to it.

Brooks is very quotable. Here are his headings and some highlights taken from his pastoral masterpiece Precious Remedies Against Satan's Devices published by the Banner of Truth Trust:

"Satan labours might and main, by false teachers, which are his messengers and ambassadors, to deceive, delude, and forever undo the precious souls of men."

He cites Jer. 23:13; Micah 3:5; Matt. 7:15; Philippians 3:2; Prov. 7

"Now the best way to deliver poor souls from being deluded and destroyed by these messengers of Satan is, to discover them in their colours, that so, being known, poor souls may shun them, and fly from them as from hell itself."

1. False teachers are men-pleasers

"They preach more to please the ear than to profit the heart."

"They handle holy things rather with wit and dalliance than with fear and reverence."

"False teachers are soul-undoers."

"False teachers are hell's greatest enrichers."

He cites Isaiah 30:10; Jer. 5:30-31; 23:16-17

2. False teachers are notable in casting dirt, scorn, and reproach upon the persons, names and credits of Christ's most faithful ambassadors

He cites the experience of Moses and Aaron in Num. 16:3; Micaiah's experience in 1 Kings 22:10-26; Paul's experience in 2 Cor. 10:10; and Christ's experience at the hands of of the Scribes and Pharisees Matt. 27:63

3. False teachers are venters of the devices and visions of their own heads and hearts

"These are Satan's greatest benefactors, and such as divine justice will hang up in hell as the greatest malefactors, if the physician of souls do not prevent it."

He cites Jer. 14:14; 23:16

4. False teachers easily pass over the great and weighty things both of law and gospel, and stand most upon those things that are of the least moment and concernment to the souls of men

He cites 1 Tim. 1:5-7; 6:3-5; Matt. 23:2-3; 24:32; Rom. 2:22

5. False teachers cover and colour their dangerous principles and soul impostures with very fair speeches and plausible pretences, and high notions and golden expressions

"Many in these days are bewitched and deceived by the magnificent words, lofty strains, and stately terms of deceivers"

"As strumpets paint their faces, and deck and perfume their beds, the better to allure and deceive simple souls, so false teachers put a great deal of paint and garnish upon their most dangerous principles and blasphemies, that they may the better deceive and delude poor ignorant souls."

"They know that sugared poison goes down sweetly; they wrap up their pernicious, soul-killing pills in gold."

He cites Gal. 4:12; 2 Cor. 11:13-15; Rom. 16:17-18; Matt. 7:15; 16:6, 11, 12

6. False teachers strive more to win over men to their own opinions, than to better them in their conversations

"They busy themselves most about men's heads. Their work is not to better men's hearts, and mend their lives."

He cites Matt. 27:17

7. False teachers make merchandise of their followers

"False teachers are the great worshippers of the golden calf."

He cites 2 Peter 2:1-3; Rev. 18:11-13; Jer. 6:13

"Now, by these characters you may know them, and so shun them, and deliver your souls out of their dangerous snares; which that you may, my prayers shall meet yours at the throne of grace."

As the prophets from the beginning have declared concerning him (1)

For the good of your own soul drink in the deep theology of the Chalcedonian Definition (451 AD):

Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ,
at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood,
truly God and truly man,

consisting also of a reasonable soul and body;
of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead,
and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood;
like us in all respects, apart from sin;

as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages,
but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation,
of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer;

one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion,
without change,
without division,
without separation;
the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union,
but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence,
not as parted or separated into two persons,
but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ;

even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.

As well as contemplating the boundaries of this mystery do note the authoritative source of these truths. And do not overlook the fact that this definition sees the whole Bible as foundational for the doctrine of the person of Christ, and not just the New Testament.

This should not surprise us. Abraham saw his day and rejoiced (John 8:56), Moses wrote of him (John 5:46) and "considered the reproach of Christ greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt" (Heb. 10:26), David called him Lord (Psalm 110:1 and Mark 12:35-37), Isaiah saw his glory in the temple and spoke of his sufferings (John 12:41 and Isa. 52:13-53:12), and as Peter explained to Cornelius and his household "To him all the prophets bear witness that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name" (Acts 10:43).

But perhaps it does surprise us. We live on the other side of the Enlightenment to the early fathers, medieval scholastics, the reformers and the puritans.

Moreover the patriarchs and the prophets met the Son of God, the chief Actor in the drama of redemption before he entered the stage to play out the climactic scenes that their script was intended to describe.

They gave advanced screenings of those climactic scenes, as Sibbes wrote about the prophecy of Isaiah in The Bruised Reed:

The prophet Isaiah, being lifted up and carried with the prophetical spirit, passes over all the time between him and the appearing of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Seeing with the eye of prophecy, and with the eye of faith, Christ as present, he presents him, in the name of God, to the spiritual eye of others...

The magnificent idea of grace

Pure gold from Geerhardus Vos:

Only when the believer understands how he has to receive and has received everything from the Mediator and how God in no way whatever deals with him except through Christ, only then does a picture of the glorious work that God wrought through Christ emerge in his consciousness and the magnificent idea of grace begin to dominate and form in his life.

For the Reformed, therefore, the entire ordo salutis, beginning with regeneration as its first stage, is bound to the mystical union with Christ. There is no gift that has not been earned by him. Neither is there a gift that is not bestowed by him and does not elevate God's glory through his bestowal.

Now the basis for this order lies in none other than in the covenant of salvation with Christ. In this covenant those chosen by the Father are given to Christ. In it he became the guarantor so that they would be planted into his body in the thought-world of grace through faith.

As the application of salvation by Christ and by Christ's initiative is a fundamental principle of Reformed theology, this theology has correctly viewed this application as a covenantal requirement which fell to the Mediator and for the fulfilling of which he became the guarantor.

He will shepherd us to glory

The grace of God in Jesus Christ is simply astonishing. Such is his grace that the Father sent the Son to redeem his people. The Son came from the depths of eternity that he might live, die, and rise again to save his people from their sins.

By his Word and Spirit they are drawn to him, believe on and into him, are received by him, will be kept by him, and on the last day will be raised by him to everlasting resurrection life.

These truths are beautifully expressed in Heidelberg Catechism 54:

What do you believe concerning the “holy catholic Church?”

That out of the whole human race, from the beginning to the end of the world, the Son of God, by His Spirit and Word, gathers, defends, and preserves for Himself unto everlasting life a chosen communion in the unity of the true faith; and that I am and forever shall remain a living member of this communion

How amazing to think that through all the trials of this life, shielded by God's power through faith, the Son of God is shepherding his people to glory. Where would we be if he were not defending and preserving us, watching over and guarding us, and at his Father's right hand continually interceding for us?

This is what the Father sent him to do, this is why he laid down his life, this is the way that he expresses his obedience to his Father's will. He will shepherd us to glory.

Upon this great truth you and I may rest our confidence, for it can never give way, and from this truth we may perpetually draw our comfort, and we will find its strength giving power will never fail.

Even if we may at times find ourselves hanging on by our fingernails, we should remember that "They, whom God has accepted in His Beloved, effectually called, and sanctified by His Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved" (WCF 17:I).

Something of the wonder and glory of this was so helpfully put into words by Louis Berkhof:

It is a consoling thought that Christ is praying for us, even when we are negligent in our prayer life; that He is presenting to the Father those spiritual needs which were not present to our minds and which we often neglect to include in our prayers; and that He prays for our protection against the dangers of which we are not even conscious, and against the enemies which threaten us, though we do not notice it. He is praying that our faith may not cease, and that we may come out victoriously in the end.

Perhaps this is a dimension of Christ's priestly work that we think of too little. And yet to know that he loves us so much and cares for us so well is simply beyond comprehension, and words seem so inadequate to express our thankfulness for such a great Saviour.

The Belgic Confession, Article 26, captures something of the wonder of the Christian heart as it contemplates the intercession of Christ:

We believe that we have no access to God except through the one and only Mediator and Intercessor: Jesus Christ the Righteous.

He therefore was made man, uniting together the divine and human natures, so that we human beings might have access to the divine Majesty. Otherwise we would have no access.

But this Mediator, whom the Father has appointed between himself and us, ought not terrify us by his greatness, so that we have to look for another one, according to our fancy. For neither in heaven nor among the creatures on earth is there anyone who loves us more than Jesus Christ does.

Behold the Man!

On the sixth day, before the day of rest, Pilate declared "Behold the man!" (John 19:5)

He spoke better than he knew.

For on that sixth day the last Adam, not the first, crowned with thorns, was about to lift the curse upon creation (Rev. 22:1-3) by himself becoming the substitute, the sin bearer, the one on whom would fall the covenant curses.

He spoke better than he knew.

Only later, as Christ appears before his enemies at the Stone Pavement, would Pilate declare "Behold your King!" (19:14). When he first appeared arrayed in purple, beaten and wearing the crown of thorns, that grotesque parody of his kingship, Pilate proclaimed him as "the man."

This should not surprise us, in John's gospel people often speak better than they know. Witness Nathaniel in 1:49, Caiaphas in 11:45-53, and Mary who supposes that Jesus is "the gardener" in 20:15.

The prophet Zechariah (6:12-13), as he crowned the head of Joshua the high priest, an act laden with prophetic symbolism concerning the Messiah to come, also declared:

Behold, the man whose name is the Branch: for he shall branch out from his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD. It is he who shall build the temple of the LORD and shall bear royal honor, and shall sit and rule on his throne.

In John's gospel Jesus is the God-man, the temple, the location of worship, the high priest, the sacrifice, the king whose cross of shame is his glory, who is "lifted up" upon the tree, whose exaltation on the cross opens the way for the nations to stream to himself as the temple of the Lord just as Isaiah had foretold (John 12:32-33, cf. 12:20-21, Isa. 2:1-5).

Prayer of Confession by Richard Baxter

The following helpful prayer of confession was penned by the seventeenth century Puritan Richard Baxter:

O most great, most just and gracious God; you are of purer eyes than to behold iniquity; but you have promised mercy through Jesus Christ to all who repent and believe in him.

Therefore we confess that we are sinful by nature and that we have all sinned and come short of the glory of God.

We have neglected and abused your holy worship and your holy name. We have dealt unjustly and uncharitably with our neighbours. We have not sought first your kingdom and righteousness.

We have not been content with our daily bread.
You have revealed your wonderful love to us in Christ and offered us pardon and salvation in him; but we have turned away.

We have run into temptation; and the sin that we should have hated, we have committed.

Have mercy upon us, most merciful Father! We confess you alone are our hope. Make us your children and give us the Spirit of your Son, our only Saviour. Amen

(HT: Paul Levy)

Abortion, the British Media and the Culture of Death

The Daily Telegraph reports on the first showing of an advertisement for abortion on British television. The advert for the non-profit making Marie Stopes International will be screened during the commercial break of a game show.

Ed West, in the Telegraph, makes the following comments about the culture of death that lies like a shroud across the Western world

How appropriate that Britain's first televised abortion advert...will be broadcast during a game show hosted by Davina McCall which carries the strapline: "Do you want to be given a MILLION pounds on TV?" How wonderfully dystopian, like something from a 1980s satire on jungle capitalism, such as Robocop or The Running Man. Win a fortune! Have an abortion!

And how odd someone awaking from a 30-year coma might find the values of our country, as reflected in television. You can't advertise cigarettes at any time or fatty foods during children's shows, because it might harm the health of children, but you can advertise the killing of unborn children in the middle of a game show. (Likewise you can't smack your kids, according to the European Court, but you can kill them up to birth if they have a hairlip).

Seeking the Spirit's help as we study his words

The opening paragraphs of Dale Ralph Davis' The Word Became Fresh: How to preach from Old Testament narrative texts are enough to stop every preacher dead in his tracks.

Ralph Davis mentions that as he was reading Richard Pratt's He Gave Us Stories, Pratt cited these words from John Owen:

For a man solemnly to undertake the interpretation of any portion of Scripture without invocation of God, to be taught and instructed by his Spirit, is a high provocation of him; nor shall I expect the discovery of truth from any one who thus proudly engages in a work so much above his ability.

And if that were not enough to send you to your work with your complacency shaken, Ralph Davis adds:

We are guilty of arrogance, not merely neglect, when we fail to beg for the Spirit's help in the study of Scripture. We may even have such arrogance even when we seem to be seeking the Spirit's aid--I think of those times when in a light-headed tokenism we utter our slap-happy prayer that the Lord would 'guide and direct us as we study this passage.'

One shudders to think how flippant we are. But how many more times we neglect any overt seeking of the Spirit's help! The pressure is on. The passage must be studied for the sermon or lesson. We pull out our exegetical notes; we grab several of the better commentaries off the shelf; make sure that one Bible dictionary of choice is close at hand.

Deep into our study time the thought occurs to us that we have not looked--nor did we think of looking--to the God who breathed out this Scripture to give us an understanding of the Scripture.

He will likely give that understanding through the tools we use, but when we use tools while neglecting him the tools have become idols.

We may have a high view of the Bible; we may be distraught because large sectors of the church seem to ignore its authority. Yet in our own Scripture work we easily ignore its chief Interpreter.

Professionalism rather than piety drives us. We needn't be surprised at our sterility and poverty if we refuse to be beggars for the Spirit's help.

These words are well worth reading again, and reflecting upon at length, and acting on daily. Who knows, this may be the most important thing that you read today.

The Word Became Fresh is published by Christian Focus. You can find out more about it here

Zechariah: A book you can't afford to neglect

On Sunday mornings I'm currently preaching my way through the book of Zechariah. This coming Sunday, God willing, we will begin to consider the first oracle in chapter nine. Admittedly, Zechariah may not appear to be an obvious choice for a main expository series.

In fact the very strangeness of the book, with its seemingly oblique night visions, may well prompt us to think that it is going to be difficult to interpret, too demanding to preach in an accessible way, and too complicated to apply. Preachers feel the pressures of congregational needs. Will a series on Zechariah really meet them? Would this not be greeted with some wondering thoughts about its relevance and appropriateness?

There is, however, one substantial deciding factor in assessing the relevance of Zechariah for an expository series. Before you ask whether your congregation will find it relevant, weigh the fact that Jesus did.

Don Carson touches on this point in the second volume of For the Love of God: A daily companion for discovering the treasures of God's Word:

However difficult they may be, chapters 9-14 constitute the Old Testament section most quoted in the passion narratives of the canonical Gospels, and the second most important source (after Ezekiel) for the countless Old Testament allusions in the book of Revelation.

I think that the clear implication of this, that these difficult chapters were so pressingly relevant to the self-consciousness of the Son of God at the very point where his earthly mission reached its climactic crisis, and so deeply instructive for his disciples as their Master's life reached its dénouement, ought to make us realise that this book is overwhelmingly valuable and relevant if we want to know nothing except Jesus Christ and him crucified.

The Simple Pastor reviews Risking the Truth

I'm grateful to Phil Whittall, a New Frontiers pastor in Shrewsbury, and proprietor of The Simple Pastor blog, for reviewing Risking the Truth. You can read the review here.

Given that the book is dominated by senior pastors and seminary professors who would self-identify with the historic Reformed and Baptist Confessions it is helpful to have the book reviewed by someone who is not part of that world.

Phil commends some aspects of the collected interviews and expresses some criticisms. I would like to respond to some of those concerns in an irenic spirit as there are one or two matters that I think may require a little clarification. Before doing that let me offer an important caveat for the book, and one that I sometimes make for the blog.

Thinking about the subject of heresy bids us to enter a dark, gloomy, dingy world of sin, pride and folly that has remained uncorrected, and has hardened into soul destroying error. This is the world that Paul describes to Timothy in the following words (1 Timothy 6:3-5):

If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain.

I take no pleasure in this world. I want to be a doctor knowledgeable about diseases not because he has an unhealthy interest in them, but because he loves patients and wants to cure them, to build up their immunity against infections, and to promote the things that will make for health.

Part of the reason for the blog, and the book, is to promote a better understanding of these issues and to promote responsible ways of handling them. In order to do that we have to take error with apostolic seriousness. In some circles there is a lack of seriousness about error, in others this seriousness can tip over into pre-occupation. We have to safeguard ourselves from both of these dangers.

I want to sing in tune with the notes that Paul sounds in Colossians. There is the note of warning as Paul speaks in solemn tones about the subtle errors of the false teachers, and there is the note of adoration as he sings about the supremacy and sufficiency of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Now, with regard to Phil's concerns, he says that the "whole tone of the book is somewhat defensive" and that "if this volume is anything to go by" the Reformed revival "is defensive and rather fearful."

The defensiveness is bound up with the nature of the book. I set out to ask questions about the errors that we are facing and how we should respond to them. Defending the faith is commanded in Scripture (Jude 3, 2 Timothy 1:14, Titus 1:9; Rev. 2:2, contrast that with 2:20). So being defensive is not, in and of itself, something negative that we should shy away from or feel bad about. Every day as a parent I protect my children from harm. So, the adjective is appropriate, and to be expected. In fact the apostle Paul uses militaristic language on several occasions to describe the Christian life in general and the work of pastoral ministry in particular.

What about being fearful? I couldn't tell what the adjective was related to. I asked Ligon Duncan about his hopes and fears for the future evangelicalism and confessionally Reformed churches, to which he replied "I do not fear and I am deeply concerned. I do not fear. the Lord will build his church..." He's right. God's truth will triumph.

Phil's other concerns are found in four paragraphs which are below, in blue, with my comments in black.

Here are a few observations from the various interviews, firstly it would be a mistake to view ‘reformed’ as a uniform block. There are narrow, very narrow and extremely narrow views as to who is acceptable and who might be saved. I find myself excluded by many.

"Reformed" is a definable label like Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox or Socinian. I'm not sure that a clearly defined position can be described as narrow, and given that Reformed theology found historic expression in churchly confessional statements that have living subscribers across the world it isn't left to individuals to define the term. But I know that not everyone will agree with me on that. On who might be saved or not then we must be as broad and narrow as Paul is in 1 Corinthians 15:1-10.

One view put forward is that anyone who claims ‘the gift of miracles and healing is a crook and a liar’, while ‘tongues speaking is gibberish’ and the main theological dangers confronting us today include the introduction of drums into worship, the use of humour, powerpoint and women reading the Bible in church.

I requested interviews from Mark Driscoll and Wayne Grudem but neither were available at the time of asking. Had they done so then I would have been quite prepared to include them. Not all of the contributors would agree with each other, in fact some would have massive disagreements on who should be baptised and when, and over who should be admitted to the Lord's table. I couldn't agree with everything in the book, but things are there to reflect the views of individual contributors and to retain the book's journalistic feel.

Secondly, all claim that the Westminster Confession and others like it are not Scripture but equally it is true that you won’t find anything in Scripture that contradicts these confessions either!

This is par for the course. Whether you hold to a fairly minimalist evangelical statement of faith or a more maximalist Reformed confession, you only want things in there that you believe Scripture teaches. If it's not in Scripture then you don't want it in your confessional statement.

Lastly, it seems that being ‘reformed’ remains a very serious business indeed, being a Christian remains a serious undertaking, teaching in a seminary more serious still while leading a church is such a serious business that one wonders where joy is to be found among those who love the ‘doctrines of grace’.

I'm not sure what to make of that. Psalm 2:11 tells us to "Serve the LORD with fear and rejoice with trembling." Seriousness and joy are not antithetical affections, in fact the psalm says that they can co-exist. John Piper has a brilliant chapter on the "Gravity and Gladness" of preaching in his fine book, which I must read again, The Supremacy of God in Preaching. The seriousness is there in Galatians 1, and part of Paul's beef with the false gospel of works and grace is that it extinguishes joy (Gal. 4:15).

That the accent in the book should be on seriousness does not mean that there is an agenda to suppress or neglect joy. To even suggest otherwise would be to cast aspersions on these men and their ministries.

Denying exhaustive omniscience: Open theists and Socinians

The open theist denial of God's exhaustive foreknowledge is the same as the historic Socinian denial of this classical Christian doctrine.

The open theists hold to a particular version of free will (libertarianism), a view that they consider to be incompatible not merely with foreordination but also with foreknowledge. The Socinians held to the same beliefs around four hundred years ago. Open theism found significant historic precedent in the Socinian remodification of God's prescience.

The Socinians, by name, are almost entirely forgotten today. Their views, under different names, have become popular as contemporary evangelical alternatives to classically understood evangelical beliefs. The process philosopher Charles Hartshorne, writing in 1984, put forward the following:

Is God all-knowing? Yes, in the Socinian sense. Never has a great intellectual discovery passed with less notice by the world than the Socinian discovery of the proper meaning of omniscience. To this day works of reference fail to tell us about it. (Omnipotence and Other Theological Mistakes, p. 27, quoted by Erickson, What Does God Know & When Does He Know It? p. 128)

What Hartshorne meant by "all-knowing...in the Socinian sense" can be seen from the following written by him in 1941, and in the words written by Clark Pinnock in 1986:

We could then say that omniscience is all the knowledge that is possible, which by definition is perfect knowledge, but that since some of the truths about the future could not be known at present, omniscience does not know them. (Man's Vision of God and the Logic of Theism, p. 140)

God is omniscient in the sense that he knows everything which can be known, just as God is omnipotent in the sense that he can do everything that can be done. But free actions are not entities which can be known. God can surmise what you will do next Friday, but cannot know it for certain because you have not done it yet. ("God limits his foreknowledge" in Predestination and Free Will: Four views of divine sovereignty & human freedom, eds. David Basinger & Randall Basinger, 1986)

However, the charge that the open theist view is Socinian has proved to be somewhat controversial. It is not hard to see why. The Socinians were heretics. They denied the Trinity, the deity of Christ, justification by faith alone, and penal substitution. That open theists have reproduced the Socinian view of divine foreknowledge is surely undeniable. The comparison, however, has not been well received.

In The God Who Risks (rev. 2007), John Sanders admits that the correspondence between the two views holds, "we acknowledge that heretics such as the sixteenth-century Anabaptist Fausto Socinus affirmed this view" (p. 170). He also says that "there is no historical linkage between open theists and Socinus" (p. 170). I quite agree. An argument to the contrary cannot and need not be made. The two views share the same methodology.

Sanders goes further than this when he says that "Erickson seems to agree with some evangelical critics of open theism who attempt to discredit the view by calling it "Socinianism" (p. 170).

Pinnock also wrote that "The hope is to dispose of openness theology by tying it to some known heresy...The fact is, open theists are trinitarian believers, which means the Socinian charge is wide of the mark." (Most Moved Mover, p. 107).

Pinnock notes that Robert Strimple, President Emeritus, Westminster Seminary California, identified the open view as Socinian, rather than Arminian, and chides him for not mentioning that "openness theists are orthodox in their Christology...The tactic is to position free will theists with known heretics if at all possible" (Most Moved Mover, p. 107, n. 122).

Let me write this in clear, plain English. Robert Strimple and Millard Erickson claim that the open theist view of divine foreknowledge is the same as the Socinian view. They do not claim that open theists agree with Socinians on every doctrine. The Socinian view was regarded as unorthodox. It failed to gain a following even among those who carried on the anti-trintarian theology and rationalism of the Socinians (i.e. Unitarians). Open theists have accepted the same premise as the Socinians and have revised the doctrine of divine omniscience in line with it. In doing so they have used the same arguments that the Socinians put forward.

Sanders has accepted that open theists and Socinians are in agreement on omniscience. When Pinnock responded to the charge by saying "The fact is, open theists are trinitarian believers, which means the Socinian charge is wide of the mark" he was tilting at a windmill. No one, not least Robert Strimple, was equating open theists with Socinians at every point, and certainly not accusing them of being anti-trinitarian. One thing was clear. They had bidden farewell to Arminius and adopted the stance of Socinus.

That does not mean that revising omniscience in this way has no effect on other doctrines. Open theists, and their Socinian forebears, are logically consistent in their approach to libertarian freedom, and that to the cost of divine omniscience. Inevitably this does, and will, have an impact on other doctrines if the logic of the whole thing is carried through to its conclusion. At this point inconsistencies are a matter of gratitude and security. A Socinian doctrine of freedom and sin logically entailed a particular kind of Socinian saviour. The Socinians didn't need the kind of Saviour that the Reformed believed in.

When he ascended on high

I'm back...

Praise God for the ascension and heavenly session of Christ!

The Heidelberg Catechism

Lord’s Day 18

46. What do you understand by the words “He ascended into heaven?”

That Christ, in the sight of His disciples, was taken up from the earth into heaven,¹ and continues there in our behalf ² until He shall come again to judge the living and the dead.³

¹ Mt 26:64; Lk 24:50-51; Acts 1:9-11; ² Rom 8:34; Eph 4:10; Heb 4:14, 7:23-25, 9:11, 24; ³ Mt 24:30; Acts 1:11, 3:20-21

47. But is not Christ with us even unto the end of the world,¹ as He has promised?

Christ is true man and true God. According to His human nature He is now not on earth,² but according to His Godhead, majesty, grace, and Spirit, He is at no time absent from us.³

¹ Mt 28:20; ² Mt 26:11; Jn 16:28, 17:11; Acts 3:19-21; Heb 8:4; ³ Mt 28:18-20; Jn 14:16-19, 16:13; Eph 4:8; Heb 8:4

48. But are not, in this way, the two natures in Christ separated from one another, if the manhood is not wherever the Godhead is?

Not at all, for since the Godhead is incomprehensible and everywhere present,¹ it must follow that it is indeed beyond the bounds of the manhood which it has assumed, but is yet nonetheless in the same also, and remains personally united to it.²

¹ Jer 23:23-24; Acts 7:48-49; ² Mt 28:6; Jn 1:14, 48, 3:13, 11:15; Col 2:9

49. What benefit do we receive from Christ’s ascension into heaven?

First, that He is our Advocate in the presence of His Father in heaven.¹ Second, that we have our flesh in heaven as a sure pledge, that He as the Head, will also take us, His members, up to Himself.² Third, that He sends us His Spirit as an earnest,³ by whose power we seek those things which are above, where Christ sits at the right hand of God, and not things on the earth.⁴

¹ Rom 8:34; 1 Jn 2:1; ² Jn 14:2, 17:24, 20:17; Eph 2:4-6; ³ Jn 14:16; Acts 2:33; 2 Cor 1:21-22, 5:5; ⁴ Jn 14:3; Col 3:1-4; Heb 9:24

The Westminster Larger Catechism

Q. 53. How was Christ exalted in his ascension?

A. Christ was exalted in his ascension, in that having after his resurrection often appeared unto and conversed with his apostles, speaking to them of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God, and giving them commission to preach the gospel to all nations, forty days after his resurrection, he, in our nature, and as our head, triumphing over enemies, visibly went up into the highest heavens, there to receive gifts for men, to raise up our affections thither, and to prepare a place for us, where himself is, and shall continue till his second coming at the end of the world.

Q. 54. How is Christ exalted in his sitting at the right hand of God?

A. Christ is exalted in his sitting at the right hand of God, in that as God-man he is advanced to the highest favor with God the Father, with all fullness of joy, glory, and power over all things in heaven and earth; and doth gather and defend his church, and subdue their enemies; furnisheth his ministers and people with gifts and graces, and maketh intercession for them.

Q. 55. How doth Christ make intercession?

A. Christ maketh intercession, by his appearing in our nature continually before the Father in heaven, in the merit of his obedience and sacrifice on earth, declaring his will to have it applied to all believers; answering all accusations against them, and procuring for them quiet of conscience, notwithstanding daily failings, access with boldness to the throne of grace, and acceptance of their persons and services.

Q. 56. How is Christ to be exalted in his coming again to judge the world?

A. Christ is to be exalted in his coming again to judge the world, in that he, who was unjustly judged and condemned by wicked men, shall come again at the last day in great power, and in the full manifestation of his own glory, and of his Father's, with all his holy angels, with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet of God, to judge the world in righteousness.