The peril of "We've got to do something!"

by Dan Phillips

Many really horrific ideas owe their genesis to really horrific needs.

This is obvious in the realm of politics. It goes like this:

1. Bob says, "Yikes! Has anyone even noticed {crying need}? Isn't anybody doing anything about it?
2. Bill says, "Holy smoke, yes! That's terrible! Quick: let's empower the State to confiscate more liberty and money from the productive, and create vast legislation and huge bureaucracies to solve that problem!"
3. Bob: "Oh, well, gee, I dunno; are you sure that's the best way to...?"
4. Bill: "This is an emergency! There's no time for discussion! We must act now! What — don't you care about The Children? Besides, this is only temporary."
5. Bob: "Oh, yeah, good point. Okay. Go ahead."

And another permanent blight is born. The problem not only is not addressed, but it is compounded and institutionalized.

Perhaps this same phenomenon is less obvious in the realm of theology, doctrine, church polity. The general course, however, is very similar:

1. PelArminKesWesHam says, "Oh dear Lord, the church is {something direly unspiritual}."
2. Simplicius replies, "Ooh, mercy, yes. I see that!"
3. PelArminKesWesHam: "The solution must be to {do some horrifically un-Biblical thing}!"
4. Simplicius: "Oh, gosh, I don't know. Are you sure that's really Scriptural?"
5. PelArminKesWesHam: "There's no time for debate! Doctrine divides! Souls are dying! Christ's name is dishonored! The hour is late! We must act now!"
6. Simplicius: "Oh, gee..."
7. PelArminKesWesHam: "What — don't you love God? Don't you care about people?"
8. Simplicius: "Well, sure."
9. PelArminKesWesHam: "Then we must act now!"
10. Simplicius: "Oh. Okay."

And another bad doctrine / harmful practice takes its permanent place to blight the landscape. The problem not only is not remedied, but it is compounded and institutionalized.

If later generations try to undo this dreadful "solution," it goes like this:

1. Biblicus: "You know, ________ism really isn't Biblical."
2. DriscTickLer: "You're a fear-driven unbelieving libertine Deist hater who drives people away from Jesus. You're ignorant of the book that came out last week proving that we're right. Plus, you're jealous of our superpowers."
3. Biblicus: "Oh. Right. I forgot. My bad. Um... sorry."

What to do?

The wrong way of responding is to ignore or minimize the problem that gave birth to the error.

For instance, how many false teachings have arisen as well-intended attempts to counter the lassitude, the lukewarmness, the worldliness, the timidity, the carnality, the cowardice, the ineffectiveness, the powerlessness, and the general pathetic anemic ill-health of the bulk of professed Christians? I daresay a majority of false teaching and bad philosophy was swaddled in that manger.

So we're told: The problem with these pathetic lumps is that their Calvinism has made them passive slugs, their Biblicism has made them isolated lab-technicians, their cessationism has made them functional materialists.

And we're told: What they really need is to realize that, if they don't work harder, they'll lose their salvation. They need to see that a deeper, more powerful Christian life is only one deeper, climactic work of grace away. They need the baptism with the Spirit. They need God to mutter holy nothings in their ears. They need to babble cathartically. They need their hunches validated and respected and canonized — though not in any accountable way! They need to modify their convictions to be friendlier to the world. Sand off the edges. Fit in.

There y'go. Problem solved.

But of course the problem isn't solved. In fact, it's compounded, and now it's institutionalized. Christians are still carnal, but now they're super-spiritually carnal and proud and immune to Biblical admonition. And so on.

So in responding, here's what we must do:

1. We must grant the seriousness of the problem when applicable — and it usually is applicable.
2. We must perform a rigorously Biblical analysis and diagnosis of the problem, calmly and deliberately.
3. We must execute a rigorously Biblical, clear-eyed, and unsparing examination of the un-Biblical "solutions" that have been proposed, expose them unambiguously, and issue a clarion call for their instant and decisive repudiation and rejection .
4. We must produce a rigorously robustly Biblical prescription to address the problem, showing insistently and repeatedly and in detail and from a dozen angles how it actually does address the causation and remedy the misery.

And there, in truth, you go. So do that. On "three."

I'll wait right here.

One... two...

---

Briefly: Resurrection Day, singles, sales and modalism ascendent

by Dan Phillips

Still more or less recovering from our Easter activities, and working on a long post reviewing the first volume in Logos' very promising Evangelical Exegetical Commentary series. So I don't have a single long-form post for you; just a few variouses. For instance...

• The Resurrection Sunday array of events was a joy and a cause for gratitude — particularly because I'd just taken ill a few days' previous. The last cold was a whopper, almost more of a flu, laying several of us out with fever, chills, plugged sinuses, and wracking coughs. God was very kind, and this was a much milder cold. Fellow-elder Jacob Young handled our Good Friday service, dwelling on Christ's love for us from Romans 5. Then on Sunday we had a Sunrise Service, a breakfast, the normal Sunday School class, and our morning worship. Did not know whether I'd have enough voice, but I trusted God's good will — and we made it. If you like, you can hear:
• Brief (13 minute) Sunrise Service message on Matthew 28:1-8, particularly focusing on the angel's words in v. 6, "just as He said."
  
• Sunday School class on singleness in the Bible, which ends by taking up the topic of God's will and how a single should approach marriage. The Blackaby model takes a sound and well-deserved thrashing, which won't surprise longtime readers.
• Morning service titled Christ Died, Christ, Rose — But Why? My text was Romans 4:25, which is very variously translated and interpreted. In it I develop the argument that we can't really understand Sunday without considering Friday, yet Friday is an incomplete message until the events of Sunday.
• And then I'd like to point out to you that Logos users can buy the works of D. A. Carson at a hefty 75% discount. That's a terrific deal, and I took advantage of it!
• If you've missed it, for the last few weeks there has been an absolutely extraordinary series of posts back and forth between Thabiti Anyabwile and Douglas Wilson. It all started here. Well, in a way, it all started here, with a rant from Bryan Loritts (last seen throwing around skin-color-obsessed accusations at anyone not snowed by Jakes and MacDonald), who basically said Wilson's book Black and Tan had hurt his feelings: he didn't care whether Wilson was right or wrong, wasn't willing to discuss it, but demanded that Wilson withdraw the book because Loritts said so. Thabiti took up the subject in a sound, serious, and formidable manner, and a most extarodinary dialogue began. You can trace it at Thabiti's and Doug's blogs. Reading the series has been like taking a college-level course in how gracious adult Christians should dialogue; both men have been models of grace, patience and candor. The commenters, not so much; but that's par for the course, eh? 've always known Doug was a force to be reckoned with, and have thought well of Thabiti — but through this, I've come to appreciate just how formidable (in a good way) a brother Thabiti is. 
• Thabiti provides the service of posting a round-up of the series thus far, as it comes to a close.
• My own take is that my head's dizzy. I think they're both right about many things, and I think they're both not exactly completely hearing each other — and I think that's in spite of the fact that both are trying their level best. Which is discouraging, because I'm not in either one's league; so what hope do us pikers have of finding resolution on such issues? I only wish Thabiti would take Doug's repeated invitation for a further public conversation.
• Finally, practicing what I preach, I'd like to give recognition by listing out all the names, complete with links, of the folks who have welcomed the privileges and perks of being high-visibility bloggers, and now have joined in expressing concern (proactively, this time) that yet another prominent evangelical leader is promoting the ministry of reputedly dogged Modalists. I'd really, really like to. Sincerely, I would.

And when I get some, I'll share them.

But time's running out.

---

Et tu, Chuck? (Swindoll hosts singing elephants? What?)

by Dan Phillips

Before James MacDonald's disastrous and still unaddressed decision to host T. D. Jakes as a "Christian leader," I didn't know MacD from Adam. So I wasn't as shocked as others who had known and previously thought well of him — simply because I had no baseline.

When I wrote on it, therefore, it was simply a concern over the issues. I think my first weighing-in was 9/2011. But my two most substantial contributions were this and this. The latter two were the more important, and the third was, in my judgment, the most important.

That third post was proactive and put up in plenty of time to do some good. Had (for instance) any TGC or otherwise high-profile bloggers — even one! — taken up my specific call centering around the Biblical concept of repentance, and made it an inescapable issue, MacDonald and Driscoll might have been unable to avoid it. It might have made a difference. The trainwreck that resulted might have been avoided.

But history's history; so we now know that TGC bloggers and other high-visibility bloggers did not echo that call, and many high-profile leaders remained silent until it was too late, and bad things happened. You know what they say— of all sad words on tongue or pen, the saddest these: "it might have been."

And now here we are yet again, with a different but similar situation.

It's different in that I do know Chuck Swindoll. Well, not personally, though I did sit next to him in Talbot Chapel once. But I've heard Swindoll, read him, enjoyed him a lot in years past. He's earned a good reputation in many ways, at least as being sound and stable on the fundamentals. He has been and remains associated with Dallas Theological Seminary, which itself at least soundly affirms basic theological doctrines.

So whyever would Swindoll's church host singers who are (to say it as charitably as possible) unclear on the core doctrine of the Trinity?

My attention was first drawn to this by Mark Lamprecht, whose Open Letter to Chuck Swindoll and Stonebriar Church on Phillips, Craig & Dean does a fantastic job documenting the concerns any Christian should instantly have on hearing this absolutely baffling news. At last notice, Mark has received no response.

Look: Neither of these matters is new.

I refer first to the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity. This isn't a doctrine that's been recently detected in the text of Scripture. Christians have not only recently turned their attention to studying what Scripture says about the nature of God. The truth of the trinity of persons in the one God been seen and expounded with increasing clarity from the very earliest days of the church. To my mind, Scripture is absolutely crystal-clear and emphatic in its revelation of the Triune God — the God who, one as to essence, has eternally existed in three distinct Persons.

It isn't a newly-identified subject, nor a newly-expounded truth.

And it isn't that the heresy of modalism raised new and baffling questions last Tuesday, questions which haven't been answered finally, thunderously  and decisively since the first time they were posed many centuries ago.

And it isn't as if those answers are little-known or difficult to obtain; or as if the issue is not vital and foundational. And it isn't as if it's impossibly difficult (A) to express the basic truths of the doctrine, or (B) to sniff and (C) ferret out when false teachers are squidging or fudging or dodging those truths.

Second, I refer to serious and (as far as I know) utterly unanswered concerns expressed about Phillips, Craig and Dean's view of God. These are long-standing, easily-located, and all over the place. James White has spoken up, Eric Nielsen has a lengthy treatment at White's site. Neither of these is recent nor difficult to find.

The Wikipedia quotations are typical of PCD's "responses," and can serve as representatives of all the others I've seen. While they might work for the "top men" who gave T. D. Jakes a thumbs-up (and in Bryan Loritts' case as much as said that only racist "middle-aged white guys" weren't satisfied), these pathetic dodges wouldn't work for most Biblically and theologically prepared Christians.

So, all that said, here I am again.

1. What possible excuse or explanation can there be for Chuck Swindoll to promote anyone who isn't crystal-clear on the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity?
2. ...and if anyone wants to say "they've changed," then I refer you right back to this and this.

That is, I asked how a man can held up as a Christian leader in any sense when he is not crystal-clear on such fundamentals as the Gospel and the nature of God. And so I now am asking again: how can singers lead in worship if they are in any way unclear as to their understanding of the nature of God and the Gospel? Hello? what does "worship" mean? Does it matter what god we're worshiping, whether we are worshiping the same god as the worship-leaders? Does it matter what we are conceiving of as the basis of that relationship that underlies our worship?

Chuck Swindoll has always identified himself with the school of thought that affirms what should be obvious: these things matter. And now, this? What possible sense does this make?

In fact, may I be forgiven a "See, I Told You So" moment? I have tried again and again to raise the issue of what a shame it was that high-visibility leaders and bloggers feigned unawareness of Pyromaniacs, or inability to read what we right write right in writing. Every time I've tried, I have either been ignored (at best), or snarkily criticized for not letting that issue die (at worst).

Well, here's why I didn't. I was already thinking of the next time. Since the last time was mishandled so tragically, it was a "lock" that there'd be a next time. Would anything different be done, that time? Were any lessons learned?

And here we are. It's the next time. And I'm sounding the same issues, the same two issues, the same two questions that were ignored last time:

1. What possible excuse can there be for promoting anyone who isn't crystal-clear on fundamental Biblical truths such as the Gospel and the Trinity?
2. If it is claimed that there has been a change of positions, the Bible demands that we ask some specific, probing questions.

Wouldn't it be nice if, this time, high-profile leaders didn't ignore warnings such as mine this time, and idly watch a brother make a huge mistake?

I sure think so. We'll see.

---

Which matters in a church: good works, or sound doctrine?

by Dan Phillips

Revelation 2:19-20 makes for arresting reading. This is the glorified Lord Jesus, writing to the messenger of the church in Thyatira. First, verse 19 says: "I know your works, your love and faith and service and patient endurance, and that your latter works exceed the first."

Who wouldn't want to hear that as an assessment of his church's health? Jesus Himself says that He knows their works. That right there is a sit-down-and-think-about-this revelation. Sure, it makes sense; He is after all omniscient. But He takes note, takes specific and personal note, of the works of this one church that probably entirely fit in someone's house.

Further, He specifies their love, faith, service and patient endurance. These are all wonderful qualities. They're central. He doesn't merely say "Nice choir, tasty pot-lucks, beautiful ambiance." These are central signs of the work of the Holy Spirit.

It gets even better: "your latter works exceed the first." They aren't resting on their laurels. They aren't reminiscing about the glory days, back when Brother X was pastor, or The Great Revival happened, conducting slide-shows of yesteryear. They were growing now, today, in the present tense. This is a splendid sign of life.

You want this to be the end. You expect Him to say, in effect, "So, terrific work, I'm happy with you, your reward will be great," and roll the credits.

However, surely as night follows day, verse 19 is followed by verse 20: "But I have this against you, that you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and seducing my servants to practice sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols."

It is beside this post's point to focus on interpreting Jezebel or her false teaching. The point is that, in spite of all the wonderful signs of robust spiritual reality in Thyatira, they had one problem, and to Jesus it was a big problem: they tolerated a false prophet, a false teacher.

The bare minimum of what we need to learn from this is, one would hope, fairly obvious. All the good works and character qualities in the world are insufficient if a church tolerates harmful teachers, and harmful teaching.

One clear and simple takeaway is that we should not focus on spiritual reality and hope that divine truth will take care of itself naturally and organically because of our generally terrific spiritual health. Remember Thyatira.

Another takeaway is that we cannot focus on discernment alone, and trust that spiritual reality will take care of itself because of our commitment to God's truth. Remember Ephesus (Rev. 2:1-11).

We must encompass both in our aims and concerns, both as church leaders and as church members.

---

Open Letter to Steven Furtick (2 of 2) (Doctrine Cop Remix)

by Frank Turk

Things I learned this week (in no particular order):

• There are no decent videos of Guy Smiley from the Muppet Show on the internet, otherwise this video response would have been extremely brutal.  
• iMovie 7 is not iMovie HD.  Sheesh -- what a massive step backwards.
• If you attempt to install iMovie HD on your MacBook Pro, it won't run if iMovie 7 is installed -- but the installer will delete GarageBand for you and you better know where your install disk for iLife '08 is or pay the price.  $14.99 to be exact.
• Syncing video to audio in iMovie 7 is like trying to jump on a rolling skateboard while wearing roller skates and carrying an egg in a teaspoon.  Wear a helmet.
• Spell check titling before you render the video, otherwise you wind up with the word "RELEVENT" (sic) vexing you mightily.  Ugh.
• There are a LOT of plug-ins for iTunes Visualizer, but only some of them actually deliver performance-quality video.  You are best served not to pay for any of them.
• If you only need 180 seconds of video captured, anyone can do that.  If you need 5 minutes of video captured, you will likely have to spend some money.
• If you think you can, in mid production, scrap your original idea and then produce a 5-minuted animated short using the soundtrack you already have, you must be drunk. (even if you are dry as a rock)  I don't care if you already own the software: you can't do it.
• (unrelated to this video) I am a sucker for woot.com.

Dear Steven Furtick:

---

Software news: new version of BibleWorks; new direction for Logos?

by Dan Phillips

Last October, in Why I love BibleWorks 8, I said: "To be much faster, [BibleWorks] would have to do the searches before I knew I wanted them."

Unbeknownst to me (but just now betoldst to me by Glenn Weaver, Content Developer with BibleWorks), just the day before I posted, the merry tech-elves at BW had implemented a new "Use Tab" in BibleWorks 9, then a work-in-progress. The way it works, I'm told, is that a mouse-over of a word in the Browse Window does an automatic search for every lemma or every form, in either the current book studied or in the entire Bible version. The Use Tab can be linked to the Stats Tab in a new fourth column, so that the Stats Tab updates automatically to show graphically where these search results occur.

So, in other words, BW added a search feature that does the searches before I know what I want, and they did it before I even mentioned I wanted it! Is that cool, or what?

The new BW9 can be ordered now. Read about the new features, and check out some demo videos. The full content is listed here, and upgrade information is here.

When I receive a copy, I plan to learn it, use it, and tell you about it.

In other Bible software news, Logos Bible Software has brought in a Roman Catholic Product Manager, whose "ambition...is to work in what Pope John Paul II called the New Evangelization." This announcement prompted Tim Challies — in what for him is an out-of-control, wild-eyed, virtually chair-throwing rant — to say "I was sorry to read this." Those six mild words brought down a shower of disapprobation and scolding from some of his commenters.

Bob Pritchett, President and CEO for Logos Bible Software, put up... an interesting post, in which he orders    forum posters, "Stop posting about errors in other people's doctrine." Further,

Please stop posting your own doctrine. Please stop responding to correct misperceptions or misunderstandings or to counter attacks. ...Logos Bible Software is here to serve everyone who studies the Bible. That is intentionally "big tent" and we intentionally do not have a statement of faith or a doctrinal position.

Then, having trumpeted Logos' lack of a doctrinal statement, Pritchett addressed the Roman Catholic customers they are courting:

[Roman] Catholics: Logos welcomes you, and we're working hard to provide more tools, resources, and support. We've hired a Catholic product manager and are working hard to serve you. But our customer base is still 95% protestant, and you know that there are some passionate and even out-of-control people in protestant churches, and that the protestants don't do a good job getting along on a single doctrinal statement. That's why the Catholic church is basically one large church, and the average protestant church splits after reaching 100-200 people. I know the attacks are painful and unkind, but please understand that you're "surrounded" by people who traditionally are more likely to split a church than seek unity. In the protestant mindset there isn't a single authority figure who will be respected, let alone able to quell debate and dissension.

Interesting on so many levels, no?

UPDATE: figuring that some of you would want to know where BW stands, I've been in some dialogue with them offline, and received this from BibleWorks president Mike Bushell: "The doctrinal position of BibleWorks  is that  expressed in the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms. We attempt to run the company in a manner that is consistent with those doctrinal standards. That does not mean, nor does it need to mean, that all the content included in BibleWorks is consistent with those documents. Because of this confessional commitment, our priorities will necessarily move in a certain direction. It would be dishonest for us to pretend or claim otherwise. But we also believe that our focus on the Biblical text enables us to serve the needs of all students of Scripture, whatever their confessional or creedal position. The one thing that all professing believers have in common is a desire to understand what the Word of God teaches. We try to provide the tools that are necessary for any student of Scripture to study the Word of God in depth." I would also point out THIS and THIS FAQ article.

---

What did Jesus (not) say about... truth and love? (Full post)

by Dan Phillips

"Doctrine doesn't matter. All that matters is that you love, love, love."

Breaking news: Jesus talked about love!

Well honestly, the way I see it mentioned hither and yon (not to be confused with hither and thither), you'd think there was a segment of the church which denied that statement. If so, I've yet to meet it. Certainly there are parts which aren't very good at it, but denial? Denigration? I don't think I've ever heard anyone deny or denigrate genuine, Biblical love — not the way folks have repeatedly denigrated doctrine.

But let's circle in on this. Jesus famously says:

"A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another.  By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another" (John 13:34-35)

Love, then, is the mark of a disciple. In this passage, our Lord does not say that doctrine is the mark of a disciple, or that correctness is the mark of a disciple, or even that truth is the mark of a disciple. So love, some would say, clearly supplants concerns about correct doctrine.

Not so fast. Why stop there? Jesus also does not say that monotheism is the mark of a disciple. He does not say that abstaining from murder, rape, or theft is the mark of a disciple. He does not say that wearing clothes or eating are marks of a disciple. He does not even say that believing in Him, in any sense, is the mark of a disciple.

So what have we established? Only that Jesus didn't say what He didn't say in this passage. Which, hopefully, all are agreed upon. We had better hope He said other things, somewhere. Because if all we had were this passage, we would not even know what this passage meant! I mean, what is love? Warm feelings? Cheesy sentimentalism? Coddling? Indulging? Unconditional approval and enabling? Indifference towards damaging (or even damning) error? Treacly benevolence?

So rather than camping on this passage as if it were the only thing Jesus ever said, without any context, what if we — oh, I don't know — considered everything Jesus said? Shall we?

So we ask: is this the only thing Jesus ever said about love, or about what should distinguish His followers? Hardly. Let's start with the latter:  "Why do you call me 'Lord, Lord,' and not do what I tell you?" Jesus asks (Luke 6:46). So right away, we know that Jesus expects obedience to His words to characterize His real followers.  Nor do we see a hierarchy, as if one may obey some but disregard others. Jesus seems to think that He is our Lord, or He is not; and if He is, what He says should produce obedience in us.

Whatever He means by "love" in John 13, then, it must be characterized and framed by obedience to His words — which, as we just saw, leads us to the rest of the New Testament, and back to the whole of the Old Testament as well.

In fact, Jesus Himself ties those ideas together, repeatedly:

"If you love me, you will keep my commandments." (John 14:15)

"Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him. ...If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. Whoever does not love me does not keep my words. And the word that you hear is not mine but the Father's who sent me" (John 14:21, 23-24)

"If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love" (John 15:10)

Jesus' concept of love walks hand in hand with His commandments, which in turn (as we've seen) point us back to the Old Testament (John 10:35) and the rest of the New (John 16:12-15) as well.

So would Jesus ever have tolerated a notion of love divorced from a specific, set doctrinal framework? Fantasy-Jesus, yes. Fantasy-Jesus thinks all sorts of things, largely things that will keep the world's good graces. The actual Jesus, however, the one who really lived and lives — He would never have conceived of such a view.

That Jesus (the real one) was once asked what were the two most important things in all the universe. Do you recall His answer?

 "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.  This is the great and first commandment.  And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.  On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets" (Matthew 22:37-40)

Love for God comes first. Then, and only then, is it followed by love of neighbor. And what, pray, is love for God? The concept is explained and given full color in the Old Testament, whence Jesus mined this gold. Let's just lift a snippet:

"You shall therefore love the LORD your God and keep his charge, his statutes, his rules, and his commandments always" (Deuteronomy 11:1)

"If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or wonder that he tells you comes to pass, and if he says, 'Let us go after other gods,' which you have not known, 'and let us serve them,' you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams. For the LORD your God is testing you, to know whether you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul" (Deuteronomy 13:1-3)

Do you see it yet again? Love for God walks hand in hand with wholehearted acceptance of the full authority of all of God's words. But what is more, plugging in Deuteronomy, it means doctrinal loyalty, it means clinging wholly to the true God — which is to say as well, to the doctrinal truth about God — in the face of all opposing doctrines. It is loyal devotion to God, as His doctrine is revealed in Scripture alone.

Obviously a full treatment would fill a large book, but what we've seen is enough to decimate the false dichotomy of the lazy and anti-Biblical slogan "love, not doctrine."

But let's go one step further. This standard of love calls for all of us, heart and mind and soul and strength. If that is our standard, then what hope have we? We have never put together two consecutive seconds of such pure, true, singleminded devotion of God.

That is why we must flee for refuge in that sheerly-doctrinal/historical reality, the penal substitutionary atoning death of Christ. For there and there alone do we meet fierce and undeniable love which crashes upon our lovelessness, dashes aside our objections and rebellion, and saves and converts and conquers us.

"...but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us: (Romans 5:8)

"In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins" (1 John 4:10)

And only in the light of such doctrinally-communicated-and-defined love can we go on to John's next exhortation:

"Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another" (1 John 4:11)

---

What did Jesus (not) say about... truth and love?

by Dan Phillips

"Doctrine doesn't matter. All that matters is that you love, love, love."

---

What did Jesus (not) say about... His teaching? (full post)

by Dan Phillips

"I think ______...."

The truth about men. The wisest, smartest, most educated man who ever lived can never honestly go far beyond "I think" — except insofar as he builds on an authority greater than his own.

Imagine the vast, nearly infinite array of facts and information that exist on any subject; then think of the tiny sliver of a portion of a fragment of that which any of us can directly access. Then factor in human fallibility, and any sense of history (e.g. the absolutely certain "scientific" verities that have had to be thrown out and replaced)... and "I think" is about our highest expectation.

The truth about Jesus. Then comes Jesus, to tell us about God — a literally infinite subject which, even if we had access to all the facts, we could never surround. What do we read as coming from His lips? How does He frame his teaching? With "I think"?

Jesus' first recorded preaching in Matthew and Mark certainly cannot be characterized as an invitation for open discussion, debate, or joint exploration. Rather, it is a call for unconditional surrender:

"Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matthew 4:17)

"The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel" (Mark 1:15)

Now, as far as it goes, this echoes John's teaching (Matthew 3:2). But John was a prophet, and a great one (Matthew 11:9). He too could speak with certainty, because he spoke God's word (cf. Exodus 4:12; 7:1). Did Jesus do more?

We see "more," when Matthew presents Jesus' laying out of His platform, known popularly as the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7). Again and again we read His citation of Law or tradition, countered by "But I say to you" (5:22, 28, 32, 34, 39, 44). This takes the prophet's "Thus says Yahweh," and raises it by a vast factor.

So it is unsurprising to read, at the sermon's conclusion,  that "when Jesus finished these sayings, the crowds were astonished at his teaching, for he was teaching them as one who had authority, and not as their scribes" (7:28-29). And this is characteristic of the whole. Never does Jesus present His teaching about God as the result of speculative reflection, as His best assembly of the facts, as His best stab at a subject that is beyond Him. Never do we sense the least whiff of tentativeness in His doctrine, of uncertainty.

What we have is either the most massive case of unwarranted hubris, ever, or the words of someone with unmatched authority. Where you stand on that divide defines whether or not you are a Christian.

How could Jesus speak with such authority? Because He did not merely hear and tell God's Word — He was God's Word, incarnate (John 1:1, 14), telling truth He knew directly (as only God can know it) of the Father  (John 1:18). He knew God as no mere created being could know Him (John 1:18). So Jesus was simply relaying what He had directly received (John 8:40).

This is why Jesus repeatedly used a phrase found nowhere else: ἀμὴν ἀμὴν, "Amen, amen," "Truly, truly I tell you." (Tobit 8:8 is not a true parallel.) The phrase is found in John's Gospel alone (1:51; 3:3, 4, 11; 5:19, 24-25; 6:26, 32, 47, 53; 8:34, 51, 58; 10:1, 7; 12:24; 13:16, 20-21, 38; 14:12; 16:20, 23; 21:18). It is a very solemn, emphatic insistence that Jesus is telling the absolute, pure, high-grade, industrial strength, unvarnished truth.

How this truth affects us. I see at least three possible effects on two categories of people.

Unbelievers should be awakened and brought to repentance by it. They need to realize that they know nothing whatever with any certainty — except the fact that they can never know anything with any certainty! Their grip on reality is microscopic, evanescent, and baseless. Their greatest teachers are but guessers in a whirlwind; and once they step beyond a small array of facts to claim Certainty, or to expatiate on Meaning, they are 'way out of their depth and self-discredited. They can say nothing authoritative whatever about meaning, value, or significance. Their own premises doom them to walk as blind men in a trackless darkscape.

To them Jesus alone shines as a beacon of light, the Light of the World (John 8:12). His foundation is immovable, His knowledge exhaustive, His authority absolute. He is Lord, and if they are to know anything truly, they must bend the knee and begin knowing on His terms.

Believers should be both emboldened and humbled: emboldened insofar as they echo Jesus' truth, but humbled in the knowledge that their grasp of that truth can only ever be finite.

Christians should never forget that our stance is not and never has been that we are marked off from other men because we are smarter, sharper, wiser, more intelligent. Apart from God's wisdom and grace, we're not an atom better, and may be far worse, than any unbeliever. It is our belief that sheer grace found us dead and blind and obstinate, and sheer grace gave us life and sight and repentance. What we know, we know by divine grant. Our best position is to echo what has been shown us in the Bible, and for that we can take no credit whatever.

And insofar as we are echoing and affirming His word, we should be bold. We aren't standing on our own notions; we're standing on His...if we're doing it right. We aren't preaching ourselves, but Christ Jesus as Lord. It ill-befits heralds to read their King's words bracketed by "I feel" or "for me." Truth would be truth if I'd never been born, and will still be truth if I die. Jesus is the truth, Jesus speaks truth, and if I affirm His teaching, I am also speaking truth. It should be a trumpet-blast, not a kazoo-toot.

At the same time, we must remain humbled, knowing that while we live, we have more to learn, revise, revisit. Our text will never change, but our grasp of it should grow. Virtually every one of us will attest that what we were saved with is not what we were saved to. Many of us were some kinds of Arminians, but were awakened to the Biblical vision of the sovereign Lord. Many of us were some kinds of Charismatics, but had our eyes opened to the sufficiency of the Word. It would be silly to think that, having learned that one lesson, we can close our notebooks and sit still, awaiting our wings and halos.

Above all, when we get into the pulpit to preach (if that is our gift and responsibility), we should be sure that we speak the Word as purely, clearly, and fittingly as God enables us to do. What possible place is there for lengthy guessing and speculation and meandering, when we have barely begun to scratch the surface of revealed truth?

As this post has barely begun to scratch the surface of the significance of the fact that Jesus never prefaced His teaching about God with "I think."

---

Doxology of the Scientific Method

by Frank Turk

Well, last week pinch-hitting for Phil, I said this:

It is simply irrefutable that the BioLogos project is deeply entrenched in obliterating what's described in my fifth point, and in engaging in activities covered by my fourth point. This is their chief aim -- as it is the aim of every cult, post-orthodoxy, which finds itself wanting to appease some other authority apart from or above Scripture. This assertion requires more than just saying it is so. Look for my exposition of this in the near future.

And here we are, a week later, so let's begin.

One of the very helpful things about the BioLogos site is that it is well-constructed. You know: it's easy to find what you're looking for, and also to identify what they think is their most important stuff. For example, you can find right at the top of their site a navigation bar with the tab "The Questions" clearly labelled.

It's quite a list of questions -- good questions as they say. And it's good, for example, that they don't exactly eliminate the the possibility of miracles. In fact, I rather like it that they call miracles "rare" because, of course, this is PyroManiacs and we are what we are.

The problem is that by "rare", they don't mean what common cessationists mean by "rare": they actually mean, "even some of what the Bible identifies as acts of God are probably not actually 'miracles' but are in fact acts which science can explain better than the writers of the books in the Bible."

Before I go there, let's step back a second. I used strong words last week to underscore my exit from Evangel over this issue, and I stand by all of it. I will in fact be spending most of the rest of this year spelling out what I mean by it all by demonstrating it from the BioLogos site -- an activity which will not convert one soul to the Gospel and in that respect be an almost-useless activity from an evangelistic standpoint. But while the saving of the lost is a critical issue, protecting the saved is another, and that's the goal here.

But to do that properly, it's right to treat the statements of BioLogos' contributors fairly -- so while I'm convinced they're headed down the wide and easy road, they do say some things worth considering and putting into the virtual library for our own education.

So for example, you can find this on the page answering the question, "Can scientific and scriptural truth be reconciled?"

Truth is an increasingly complex notion. Postmodern epistemology challenges the very possibility of even obtaining truth, with some philosophers going so far as to say that there is no such thing as truth to be obtained. Very few scientists, however, accept this pessimistic view. Their experience with the regularity of the laws of nature, and the remarkable predictability of natural phenomena on the basis of these laws, has instilled in them a deep intuition that the truth is out there. A truly postmodern scientist is very hard to find.

BioLogos affirms that truth is indeed something that can be discovered, but acknowledges that human desires and limitations must always be taken into consideration when evaluating particular truth claims. BioLogos also contends that many of the recent pessimistic views of truth are contrived and inconsistent with human experience. Most human beings have enough confidence in the scientific truth to fly in planes or have surgeries. [ephasis added]

The last sentence is especially droll and instructive as this is the ultimate argument against post-modern skepticism: nobody walks around as if they are the only measure of truth when they actually need something from someone else. Nobody.

The problem is foreshadowed, though, in the underlined parts of the intro statement -- and notice it: scientists aren't postmodern because of their experience.

Just mull that over for a minute before I go on. I'l wait here.



Let's assume for a second that they were simply trying to write what they meant there in popular rather than technical terms, so the implications of experience being the measure of value and truth are actually accidental and not intentional or philosophical.

Here's where they end up in this essay -- and honestly, it's amazing:

Science: Intrinsic Error and Built-In Self Correction

Error is intrinsic to all human activity, including science; human technology is imperfect; and human comprehension is incomplete. All these factors contribute to a limited understanding of ultimate, absolute truth.

Nonetheless, science is self correcting. Scientific findings are constantly tested, updated and peer reviewed. Inaccuracies are corrected when new discoveries and experiments bring the truth to light more fully. This does not mean that the truth has changed. Rather the tools used to find the truth revealed their limitations due to flawed technology, inadequate understanding or misinterpretation of data. As these tools improve, science leads us closer and closer to the truth.

Building scientific theories resembles map making. A map gathers different kinds of data like longitude and latitude, elevations, waterways and climate to make a coherent representation of reality. The map is not reality itself but a model of reality. Scientific maps of reality, known as theories, need updating in response to new discoveries or improved understanding.

Selfish motivations and scientific error can also play a role in scientific discovery. Self-promoting individuals can push for outcomes that advance their reputation. A desire for particular results or an assumption about the ways things are can result in manipulation of data, whether consciously or unconsciously. Unfortunately, there have been plenty of examples of such contrived data in the history of science. One chronicle of how such distortions were perpetuated can be found in Steven Jay Gould’s The Mismeasure of Man, which retells the tragic story of how 19th century science found alleged data to support prevailing prejudices about the relationship between race and intelligence.

While the scientific method standardizes and minimizes the bias and prejudice of an experimenter, random error is intrinsic to instruments of all measurements. No scientific experiment is exactly precise, and error must always be considered. The imperfections of humans and their methods means that scientific conclusions will never be perfect, but they will certainly improve with time as science advances continue to self correct. Although such critiques and qualifications of the veracity of science are important to consider, we must not let them blind us to the enormous successes of science in uncovering the patterns of nature. [emph added]

Now, this is again a seemingly-reasonable view of science, right? The scientific method, replication of results, elimination of bias and so on -- all very Modern in the Enlightenment sense to be sure. But I find two pieces of this puzzle troubling:

1. Notice that science has a self-correcting mechanism which is not actually above science epistemologically, but is intrinsic to science specifically because of its method. Let me say frankly that this is what encouraged me to call BioLogos a cult last week: the plain exclamation from them that, while they may be wrong in some way, their human method is how they will be corrected into standards that will improve in such a way that they produce "enormous success". While I concede that I'm pleased with the combustion engine and Lipitor and air conditioning -- huge wins against the natural world to be sure -- this is first of all a post-modern definition of science as it relies on the validity of experience rather than the nature of objective reality, and also seeing epistemology as answering the question, "does it work?"; second of all, it's also somewhat self-involved (big surprise from postmodernism) because it believes that the only real opportunity in these investigations is to succeed.

2. Because it is inherently a naturalistic view of science (that is, it plainly expresses that all causes can be the subject of scientific discovery -- even if there are other explanations for causes), it sells the Bible short.

Here's what it says about the Bible before it gets to the doxology of the Scientific Method:

Borrowing an example from the Rev. John Polkinghorne, there is more than one answer to the question of why the water in a tea kettle boils. The scientific answer might be because the burning gas heats the water. Another acceptable, though nonscientific, answer could be that the water is boiling because I want to make a cup of tea. Both of these answers are true, and both accurately describe the boiling water from different perspectives. The kinds of answers found in the scriptures are generally nonscientific but are always true.

This is not to say the Bible lacks historical, objective or scientific truth. For example, the Bible reports the existence of the Christmas star, and science offers a possible explanation for the star’s origin. The resurrection of Jesus is another example where the Bible is not limited to giving an explanation of why something happened, but it also makes a clear statement about the historical truth of what happened. [emph added]

Well, thank heavens that the Bible has some kind of historical truth to it -- but notice the stratification of truth: the scientific reason for why water boils is plainly a primary reference for the matter, and the need for the boiler of water for his tea is "another acceptable" answer.

And also notice: we can believe the historicity of the birth of Jesus because science has generously explained the Star at His birth. The need to believe that this star was the fulfillment of prophecy, and caused pagan astrologers to come and worship the King of the Jews, may be "another acceptable" explanation, but we're not told that. We'll see how these fellows approach the virgin birth when they get to it -- because for heaven's sake, there are causes for such things.

So my first volley here at those championed by Christopher Benson is this: after we look at the affirmations they provide to answer the question, "Can scientific and scriptural truth be reconciled?" the substance of their answer is clear -- science is the basis for substantiating scripture, and we're grateful that the self-correcting nature of science will improve our grasp of what God has said and done.

More next week. Be with Jesus' people in Jesus household on His day this week, and leave your test tubes and oscilloscopes at home. But drive safely.

---

Steve Brown's "Grace in the Church" course at RTS: impressions and analysis

by Dan Phillips

Between this blog and my own, I've reviewed books, movies, software and music. To that, a couple of years ago on my blog, I added a review of a seminary course offered at Reformed Theological Seminary in Florida, taught by Steve Brown. This is an edited consolidation of two posts from there. The course I'm reviewing is available via their virtual campus presence on iTunes. Brown is a Presbyterian (PCA) pastor who's an author, pastor, seminary prof, and radio host. Brown is Professor of Preaching at RTS. I'm no Brown-specialist; this review is of one specific course. I have heard Key Life a few times, and saw a snippet of a cable-type TV show Brown did in which he had friendly arguments with the execrable Tony Campolo (I think this is the series). Now, to the course.

Among a number of courses I listened to from Reformed Theological Seminary was thirty-seven lectures on grace by Steve Brown.

In style, they're winsome, occasionally thought-provoking, and really irritating — not in a good way. Brown dispenses counsel and makes statements that I think are flat-out irresponsible. But because he's PCA, he's teaching at RTS, and he disagrees with Tony Campolo, I listened to the entire series in an effort to get his point.

Here's what I came away with.

First, my Summary Statement: Brown says a number of valuable, useful and true things in a winsome, easy-listening manner — however, he encrusts all that in so much that is irresponsible, reckless, harmful and/or garbage that I could never recommend him without a list of warnings and qualifications so long it would look like what you get with a new prescription ("Here are the ways this medicine could kill or horribly disfigure you for life:....").

Here are my main thoughts and observations:

1. I want to trade my whiny, nasal voice for Brown's basement-deep, resonant voice.
2. Brown comes across as an eminently likable fellow.
3. Brown says a number of thought-provoking things. Though he doesn't develop it Biblically at any length, he says "God isn't mad at you anymore." For the Christian, true (Romans 8:1) — and praise God for it. Brown says God never disciplines Christians because He's mad at them. Brown says "nothing is perfect, nothing is forever, and you aren't home yet." Mostly true. Brown says, When a dog plays checkers, you don't criticize his game; you're just pleased and surprised that he's playing at all. (The point being, I think, that we wouldn't be so shocked at our failures if we didn't have such a high opinion of ourselves.) True. Brown says that when pain exceeds payback, real change becomes possible. Good point. Brown criticizes phony airs Christians feel they have to put on in front of other Christians, our failure to extend anything like grace and compassion towards one another. Too true.
   
4. The man has more stories and illustrations than Methuselah. The whole course is heavy on stories and anecdotes — but offers next to nothing in terms of Scripture. 
5. This is a big weakness. In theory, Brown constantly claims that everything he says is Reformed and Biblical and sound and true. In practice, he doesn't seem to feel the need to root much of it in Scripture. The entire course featured only a relatively few allusions-to/citations-of Scripture, and no extensive exegesis or exposition. He keeps asserting that his students can look it up, or that he's got a ton of Biblical backup, or that he'd normally give Bible but since they're seminary students he won't (?!). Brown rests it all on a case he never makes Biblically.
6. More than anything, Brown comes off like a guy who's latched on to a true and Biblical concept (grace), detached it from the Bible, loaded it with his own ideas and concepts and implications, and made a career of it. (We warned against that danger back in 2006, and again in 2008... and probably several other times.)
7. To his credit, Brown constantly urged his two classes to feel free to challenge him Biblically. To their discredit (in my I-wasn't-there opinion), they never did. Perhaps they started out convinced.
   
8. All of the alarms I have begun to sound and will develop in a moment are borne out in this comment thread. In that thread, one Christian brother attempts to bring the Bible to bear on some of what Brown says and does. Granted, he doesn't do it in the nicest way, but he does it faithfully. By and large, the host of respondents do not even attempt to engage the Bible. They respond in
   
   
   Brownisms. This is a huge red light. Much as Brown denies that he wants to make Brownite disciples, that is exactly what he is doing. Since they can't see it in Scripture, they must depend on Steve Brown's thoughts, his ideas, his cute sayings, his insights, his experiences, his stories. That is a necessary and unavoidable consequence of giving endless podium-time to stories, illustrations, and cute sayings instead of exposition of the text of Scripture, and then development of a system from that text. People come away knowing Brown, not Scripture, and therefore — I fear — not necessarily knowing God.
9. Brown says some things that are absolutely, barkingly, wildly irresponsible; and if his students take any of them seriously, they will ruin their ministries, themselves, and other people. For instance:
   

   (A) Brown says that, when one is preparing a sermon, and he thinks of saying something but his conscience or judgment tells him he shouldn't — he should anyway! Because that's probably God talking to him. (I can imagine the jaws of dozens of readers who are pastors, hitting the floor.) So, in the Brown universe, verses like Proverbs 10:19; 12:18; 15:28; 17:27; 21:23; and 29:20 are not nearly so important as expressing oneself in a personal pursuit of "grace."
   (B) Brown also tells Christians they should disagree with their pastor once a month, period, just because it's healthy for their assertiveness. The spirit of 1 Corinthians 16:15-16; 1 Thessalonians 5:12-13; and Hebrews 13:7 and 17, not so much.
   (C) Brown speaks of a Christian leader who fell morally, badly, and says in effect that he's glad he did, because it was good for him. Too bad about the guy's family and church and witness and ministry and all, and God's reputation, I guess.
   (D) Brown urges all of them to cuss. Just to do it. I don't recall an exposition of Ephesians 4:29. I guess he already did all that, somewhere, or it was in his notes.
   (E) Brown keeps talking about dialogues he has with God, and quoting (usually without qualification) things God supposedly says to him, Steve Brown, that are not in Scripture. But it's okay, remember, don't be alarmed — because he says believes in the Reformed position on the inerrancy and sufficiency of the Bible, and he isn't a charismatic, and maybe he's hearing God wrong. (Those are his "covers.") Yet Brown natters on about things God says to him, about God laughing, and a bunch of dribble attributed to God — and Brown isn't talking about the Bible. Which, as you know...yikes. Fingernails on the chalkboard of my soul.

10. Brown says weird things about repentance. I listened twice, and still can't quite explain his position. Brown denies the Biblical teaching that repentance means a change of mind which necessarily issues in adorning fruitful actions... though those elements come back into his teaching at other points. Brown says that he used to teach something like that forgiveness was apologizing for spilling the milk, repentance was cleaning it up. He now regards that as a terrible error and false teaching, for which he apologized everywhere he had preached it. Repentance is not change, Brown insists emphatically. It is understanding who God is and what He did and who I am (?!!). This takes me right back to my pre-Christ days in the cult of Religious Science. It turns the crisp Biblical call to action into a New Agey realization. No longer is repentance a decisive change of mind that issues in a change of behavior, because we can't change (Matthew 3:8; Acts 26:20; Romans 12:1-2 and etc. to the contrary notwithstanding).
    
11. Don't really love the plethora pop-psychology and faddish phrases, like "giving [this and that person — including God] permission" to do or be something.
    
12. Brown says people should burn Dave Hunt's book that criticizes Richard Foster (because Foster is a hero of Brown's); and he told a whole audience to burn John MacArthur's The Gospel According to Jesus — when he hadn't even read it! So Hunt's bad, MacArthur's bad, yet....
    
13. Again and again Brown trots out his creds: I am a Christian, I am orthodox, I am Reformed, I am a five-pointer, I am conservative, I believe in literal 6-day creation, and on and on. But then Brown says...
    

    (A) ...that if this unsaved Jewish rabbi he personally likes doesn't go to Heaven, Brown doesn't want to go, either. Now, what is that supposed to mean? The words mean that the Christ-rejecting rabbi's presence is more important to Brown than Jesus' presence. Surely Brown doesn't mean that. But he said it.
    (B) Brown says that there are no "super-Christians," except maybe (Mary-worshiping proponent of a Gospel-perverting sect) "Mother" Theresa, and (longtime doctrinal compromiser) Billy Graham. In other words, these two may well be above every other living Christian, including John Piper, John MacArthur, Al Mohler, and everyone else.
    

    

    (C) Brown frequently speaks of how much insight he's gotten from this or that Roman Catholic or otherwise heretical writer, on various aspects of Christian living.
    (D) Brown enthuses about what a great and real relationship with God unbelieving, apostate Jews have.
    (E) Brown mentions how he wears a New Age bracelet for some physical ailment, quipping that he "tried Jesus" and it didn't work, so he is trying this ("and I thought I heard the angels laugh," he adds — I didn't).
    (F) Brown frequently says in passing how well this and that apostate heretic "understands grace."
    (G) Brown says in particular that (unrepentant antinomian murderess) Annie Lamott is a wonderful Christian person who he thinks is so great and loves to provide a soapbox on his radio show.
    (H) Brown says that Harry Emerson Fosdick was a Christian, and probably would be "on our side" (or some equivalent) if he were alive today

14. From all that, my impression is that Brown can't think the Biblical Gospel is very important, in spite of what he says about the Biblical positions he formally holds.
15. And that would mean Brown's not very Reformed — since if being Reformed means anything historically, it must mean seeing the Gospel as a decisive, divisive, watershed issue. Which makes me wonder what he's doing, teaching at Reformed Theological Seminary, host to many wonderful classes by men like John Frame and others.

I left the course disappointed. I went in genuinely open-minded. Whatever I gained was so buried under endless stories and bizarre beep-beeps-from-outer-space, and so devoid of Biblical exposition, that I was left un-profited, and very concerned about Brown's disciples.

On "grace": for what I hope is a Scriptural corrective, review Grace: eighteen affirmations and denials.

Take this lesson, at the very least. You can insist that you believe in the inerrancy and sufficiency of Scripture, and that your positions are Biblical, until your blue head caves in — but if you don't specifically and continually ground every major point and application in the Word, you're just preaching yourself. People will walk away quoting you, not the Word. That means they're leaning on you, trusting you, depending on you and your insights. You've become their priest, their Pope, their magisterium.

You're making disciples of yourself, not of Christ.

You think about that. Amen.

UPDATE: since these articles The World-Tilting Gospel was published. If you read it, you will find that it thoroughly responds to Brown's muzziness, and anticipates the current (2014) arguments about sanctification and grace.

---

Can We Talk?

Can't we all just get along?
Why "playing nice" by postmodernist standards is a losing proposition
by Phil Johnson

This post is from 2005, the year I began blogging. It states some things that have been recurring themes here ever since. Enjoy.



The favorite buzzwords of the postmodern spirit all sound so warm and friendly, don't they? Conversation, dialogue, openness, generosity, tolerance. Who wouldn't want to participate in discourse with someone who truly prized human values such as those?

On the other hand, the very same Zeitgeist has demonized a host of other essential biblical values, such as authority, conviction, clarity, and even truth. In the milieu of the emerging discussion, this second category of words has been made to sound harsh, unreasonable, arrogant, and extreme—if not downright evil.

Moreover, postmodern human values are increasingly being defined in a way that expressly precludes eternal biblical values. For example, the prevailing opinion nowadays is that you cannot be "open" and certain at the same time. A person who speaks with too much conviction is ipso facto deemed an "intolerant" person. Above all, anyone who recognizes the full authority of Scripture and insists that God's Word deserves our unconditional submission will inevitably be accused of deliberately trying to stymie the whole "conversation."

This is not to suggest that disagreement per se is prohibited in the postmodern dialectic. Quite the contrary, "deconstruction" is all about disputes over words. Postmoderns thrive on dissent, debate, and contradiction.

And (giving credit where credit is due) it should be noted that postmodernists can sometimes be amazingly congenial in their verbal sparring with one another.

One thing the participants in the postmodern "conversation" simply will not tolerate, however, is someone who disagrees and thinks the point is really serious. Virtually no heresy is ever to be regarded as damnable. The notion that erroneous doctrine can actually be dangerous is deemed uncouth and naive. Every bizarre notion gets equal respect. Truth itself is only a matter of personal perspective, you see. Everything is ultimately negotiable.

Now, if you want to join the postmodern "conversation," you are expected to acknowledge all this up front—at least tacitly. That's the price of admission to the discussion. Once you're in, you can throw any bizarre idea you want on the table, no matter how outlandish. You can use virtually any tone or language to make your point, no matter how outrageous. But you must bear in mind that all disputation at this table is purely for sport. At the end of the day, you mustn't really be concerned about the truth or falsehood of any mere propositions.

Some "conversation." The ground rules guarantee that truth itself will be a casualty in every controversy, because regardless of the substance or the outcome of the dialogue, participants have in effect agreed up front that the propositions under debate don't really matter.

Entering the "conversation" at all is tantamount to breaking the seal on a software package. The moment you do it, you have putatively given your consent to the postmodernist's ground rules. If you then violate those rules—meaning if you take any doctrine too seriously or insist that Scripture is really authoritative—you will be savaged as someone who is cruel, intolerant, unenlightened, and hopelessly arrogant.

That's why it is well-nigh impossible to have an authentic, meaningful conversation with a devoted postmodernist and ever see anything genuinely resolved. The postmodernist by definition has no real hope or expectation of arriving at the truth of any matter. That's not the goal of the postmodernist exercise. It's not even a desirable objective. The only real point is to eliminate certitude altogether. This is done not by settling disputes, but by silencing or assimilating everyone who resists the unrestrained free flow of the postmodernist idea-exchange.

Truth is under attack on countless fronts today. What's popular these days—even among professing Christians—is glorying in ambiguity and uncertainty. Precious few are still committed without reservation to the truth and authority of Scripture. The very last thing I would willingly do in times like these would be to pledge a moratorium on candor or agree to a ceasefire with people who delight in testing the limits of orthodoxy. See Nehemiah 6:2-4.

---

A little (!) weekend reading, if you'd like

by Dan Phillips

Exiled preacher Guy Davies, who pastors two churches in the UK, did me the honor of sending me a series of genuinely probing and challenging questions for an e-interview.

The results can now be perused at leisure (and at length; the quality of the questions moved me to wax prolix) here.

Read it all, and you'll know more about what I think than I do.

I think Guy printed all my answers in full. He did expand his own parts a little bit, so as to counter my more serious doctrinal errors (and deservedly chide my geographical/historical inadequacy).

Guy asked me better questions than I would have asked myself. They reflect a sharp, thoughtful mind and a lively sense of humor. It was both a workout and a pleasure.

---

Signs and Wonders

by Frank Turk

Now look: before the torches and the pitchforks come out on either side, read what I posted last time on this topic. If you don't, or if you ignore that I have said that, don't expect to receive a warm welcome and a cup of tea when you comment on this post.

Fair Warning? Ok.

Now, that said, I want to underscore broadly about 30 passages from the OT and the NT about the question of signs and wonders, and you can find the passages I am talking about here. The phrase "signs and wonders" turns up about 30 times in the ESV -- and it is used in two different ways.

In Psa 135:9 and Acts 2:22, for example, the phrase is used to indicate the supernatural and unmistakable work of God which God used to reveal himself. That is: it is closely associated with the act of special revelation -- as in the covenant at Sinai and the person of Jesus Christ. In fact, of the 30 uses listed, all but one uses the phrase to refer to the work of God making special revelation, using His power to make it clear that what was happening was His work.

The exception to that practice is in 2 Thes 2:

And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming. The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.

So in one instance "signs and wonders" are predicted by Paul to describe the work of the "lawless one" (the antichrist) in deceiving those who are perishing.

Which is fine, right? Who wouldn't agree with that? When the antichrist comes, he will deceive those who do not believe. But think about this a second: if those who do not believe are deceived by the antichrist's false signs and wonders, what about the believers?

Paul says this about them:

But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth. To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.

This is important, so let's make sure we get this straight: the false signs and wonders will deceive those who are unbelievers not just in some intermediate way but in a final and eternal way. The supernatural deceptions of the devil will, in the final account, lead to destruction those who are unbelievers. But in the same way, those signs and wonders will not deceive the believers because, first and foremost, God has chosen to save them. But in chosing to save them, God has given them the truth in the Gospel by which they can discern the false signs and wonders from the revelatory signs and wonders.

And I am sure nobody reading this blog right now is offended by this. But some will take exception when I point out that one advocate of the continuation of signs has said this:

... I want to honor the uniqueness of the apostles—that they are once for all eyewitnesses and authoritative revelatory spokesmen of the living Christ. We have their final revelation in the New Testament and that remains now and always will remain our measuring rod for all doctrine and experience. But now the question is: Do we need to keep the gifts of healings and miracles away from ordinary church members because that was the only way the apostles could authenticate themselves? No. The miracle working power of the apostles was only PART of what authenticated their authority. If the only thing that set the apostles apart as authoritative and true was their signs and wonders, then false prophets could claim the same authority and truth, because Jesus and Paul both tell us that false prophets will do signs and wonders to lead people astray (Matthew 24:24; 2 Thessalonians 2:9; cf. Revelation 13:14; 16:14; 19:20).

Now, I am willing to stipulate that these other passages also say that false signs and wonders will deceive some. What I am wondering is whether or not these passages say that false signs and wonders will deceive those who believe in Christ.

For example, does Mat 24:24 say that the elect -- the true Christian disciples, the one who is saved by Christ -- will be deceived? I think it says, as John Gill writes, "to deceive these [elect] finally and totally, is impossible, as is here suggested; not impossible, considering their own weakness, and the craftiness of deceivers, who, if left to themselves, and the power of such deception, and the working of Satan with all deceivableness of unrighteousness, might easily be seduced; but considering the purposes and promises of God concerning them, the provisions of his grace for them, the security of them in the hands of Christ, and their preservation by the mighty power of God, their final and total deception is not only difficult, but impossible."

So as we wade into the question, again, of what exactly we are talking about, let me point out that a significant flaw of one argument against the cessation of the gifts is that it has a misguided assessment of the purpose and power of divine "signs and wonders".

---