Untangling a (too) terse word about affirming sufficiency and meaning it

by Dan Phillips

First, please read this post about James MacDonald's five ways of hearing a word from God.

In that post, I asked this question:

What would be the premise for, and ramifications of, promoting only the way(s) in which Scripture directly and in so many words urges and directs all Christians without exception to seek and find what it itself directly calls, in so many words, a "word from God"?

The subsequent meta pretty well convinced me that I failed the clarity test. In seeking to be pithy, dense and impenetrable... well, I certainly achieved impenetrability. Proof: some of our very best, sharpest readers got lost in the density. So clearly, lack of clarity was mine. Obliging me to untangle my verbage. Which I now do.

Ahem.


Let's begin with something I've sought to communicate many times, with varying success. Here is Buzz Christian. Buzz feels he needs Data-group A.  Buzz  doesn't find Data-group A in Scripture.  Buzz  has two choices:

1. Conclude that he doesn't need God to give him Data-group A directly, or it would be in Scripture.
2. Find another way to obtain something he'll call Data-group A... and then deal with Scripture. Or not.

So, clearly many people want to hear things from God that aren't in Scripture. The issue of what things? doesn't really matter at this point. They look at Scripture, and it doesn't have everything they want. What to do, what to do?

Basically, you can do two things:

1. You can conclude that you don't actually need a word from God relaying those things, or they'd be in Scripture.
2. You can invent another way to obtain something you'll say are those things... and then deal with Scripture. Or don't deal.

James MacDonald knows people want there to be ways "God speaks," ways to "hear from God," ways to have "the Holy Spirit speak a word," ways to get, as he says explicitly and more than once, "a word from God" — apart from Scripture. And so MacDonald teaches four such ways, and assigns degrees of certainty to them... which is revealing in itself, but we don't even need to go there to arrive at my point.

What I was asking was, Suppose we were to confine our focus to explicit Scripture alone. Suppose we don't start with stories, anecdotes, tradition, or "just what everybody knows."

Suppose we were to say that we will promote only the way(s) in which Scripture directly and in so many words urges and directs all Christians without exception to seek and find what it itself directly calls, in so many words, a "word from God." Suppose we wouldn't try to principlize stories, or torture verses, or lead with anecdotes and try to bend Scriptures which at a twelfth degree of separation might sorta give a kinda hint that such a thing might be in some way something like valid.

Suppose, instead, we said:

"I will only call 'a word from God' what Scripture calls 'a word from God.'  I will only appeal to verses that directly tell all Christians that they can always and with 100% certainly find a word from God. I will only urge Christians to use those means to obtain words from God."

So, I say, supposing we were to say that — on what premises would such a position rest, and what would the ramifications be? Having failed to make my point the first time for most of you (and I'm sorry about that), I'll answer my own question.

The premise for such a statement would be the sufficiency of Scripture, robustly affirmed.

The ramifications for such a statement is that we would only urge Christians to look to Scripture to find words from God. We would only look to Scripture ourselves to find words from God. One hundred percent of our efforts, our devotion, and our attention, would be given to the study, understanding, preaching, teaching and practice of the written Word of God, which absolutely certainly claims to be fully sufficient for such purposes.

Further ramifications would be the instant end of the Charismatic movement (— which they clearly recognize, as witnessed by the unvarying pushback against all genuine affirmations of the sufficiency of Scripture). Also, we would see the utter transformation of the majority of pulpit ministries across the world. Revival would almost surely come in as well — though it's likelier to be a necessary cause than an effect.

Clear enough now?

---

How can Christians hear a word from God? I mean, really?

by Dan Phillips

Some guy named "Phillip R. Johnson" (whatever; I think he writes about creation, or something) posted this video from James MacDonald, in which MacDonald explains ways to receive a word from God. Turns out there are five. To wit:

Wellnow, let's us chat about this.

First, to do that thing that drives drivebys crazy, let's anticipate the first response defenders will have: this is a very small excerpt from must have been a much longer talk, and it is out of context.

Fair enough. Absolutely true. It is possible that, just before this video, MacDonald said,

"For the next two minutes and fifty-six seconds, I am going to present some traditionalistic notions that are very popular among many Christians. I'm going to do it with warmth and enthusiasm, and even add a personal anecdote, just to be sure I'm doing a fair job of representing their position. Then, starting with the fifty-seventh second of the third minute, I'll show you why this is such dangerous nonsense."

If so, that would absolutely change everything, and taking this video as representing MacDonald's thoughts would be very unfair.

So let's just focus on what is actually in the clip, rather than on MacDonald himself.

This is a test. Let's see what you've learned from our dozens of posts on this general area. How would you respond to what he said?

But even beyond that, let me broach something I'm not sure I've said before in this way.

Before giving it, I note that the vid above proceeds on the premise that of course we should accept all five ways as ways "God speaks," as ways to "hear from God," to have "the Holy Spirit speak a word," or to get, as he says explicitly and more than once, "a word from God." It's the results that we are to test by Scripture — not the ways themselves.

Note too that we need these ways, according to MacDonald. We need them. We, Christians, all Christians. He makes that very clear.

But what if we asked a more fundamental question? What if we tested the ways, and not just their results?

Suppose, in response, we just asked this multifaceted question?

What would be the premise for, and ramifications of, promoting only the way(s) in which Scripture directly and in so many words urges and directs all Christians without exception to seek and find what it itself directly calls, in so many words, a "word from God"?

Bam.

Should be both fun and profitable.

POSTSCRIPT: I untangle and answer that question HERE.

---

What we confess as our sufficient, complete Bible: what's missing?

by Dan Phillips

Oncet upon a time, I wrote a constitution for a church I was attempting to plant, and along with it a Statement of Faith. The latter is available online for the curious and idle and, you know, whoever.

What I'm doing here is what I've long meant to do but never done. I am simply posting that portion of the statement that deals with the Bible, and then I shall ask one question in two ways. Mainly, I just want this post here for future reference.

The sixty-six books of the Protestant canon, in their original writings, comprise the verbally inspired, inerrant Word of God. The thirty-nine books known as the Hebrew Old Testament are God-breathed, products of the Holy Spirit’s inspiration, and thus free from error in all that they affirm (cf. Deuteronomy 18:18, 19; Psalms 19:7, 8; 119:89, 142, 151, 160; Matthew 5:17-19; John 10:35; 2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:20, 21). Similarly, the twenty-seven books known as the Greek New Testament are the eternally abiding words of Jesus Christ (Matthew 24:35), and are thus the words of God (John 7:16; 12:49). The Holy Spirit enabled the writers both to recall what the Lord said (John 14:26), and to continue to receive His revelation (John 16: 12-15). As a result, the writings of the New Testament are the commandment of the Lord (1 Corinthians 14:37), are Scripture (2 Peter 3:15, 16), and are God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16). For this reason, the sinner finds the way of salvation through Scripture (Romans 10:17; 2 Timothy 3:15; Hebrews 2: 1-3). The believer is made fruitful (Psalm 1:2, 3) and successful in the will of God (Joshua 1:8), warned and kept from sin (Psalms 19:11; 119:9,11), made holy (John 17:17), given wisdom (Psalm 9:7) and freeing knowledge of the truth (John 8: 31, 32), taught the fear of God (Psalm 119:38), counseled (Psalm 119:24), taught, reproved, corrected, and disciplined in the way righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16) by Scripture. Scripture is, in short, the fully adequate revelation of the person, ways, and will of God.

Now here's the question: all that being the case — being what God the Holy Spirit says about the nature, use, function and work of Scripture — what essential truth did God leave out? That is, what vitally-necessary truth-that-we-need-to-live-the-Christian-life-to-God's-glory did God leave to be supplemented by the additional misty, non-inerrant, vaporous, errant, semi-revelation that is so essential and vital to so many?

---

Middle of the Road: R.I.P. Kermit

by Phil Johnson



ur friends at BioLogos are feeling the pincers of criticism. On one side are doctrinaire materialistic atheists; and on this side are those of us who actually believe the Bible.

BioLogos has deliberately staked out a middle-road position between these two irreconcilable worldviews. They say they are determined to find and develop common ground between both sides. But this week they've been discovering what any highway engineer will tell you: on a freeway where heavy traffic is moving at high speed in opposing directions, there's no such thing as "common ground."

Furthermore, you won't get very far pretending the yellow line is the common-ground marker. You're liable to get clobbered by traffic from both sides.

So anyway, Dr. Darrell Falk, president of BioLogos, e-mailed me Thursday morning to say he had prepared a response to Monday's Pyro-post. I read it eagerly, hoping he would respond to the substance of my critique. Instead, he spent most of his time pandering to Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne, and others on the doctrinaire-materialistic-atheist side.

He was keen to assure them that "BioLogos exists in no small part to marginalize [belief in the historicity of the Genesis account] from the Church." Specifically, the BioLogos team have targeted the notion that Adam was a special creation—fashioned in God's own image rather than evolved from higher primates. "A fundamental part of our mission is to show that [the Genesis account of Adam] is not tenable," Falk solemnly (and somewhat fawningly) assured Dawkins. (Read his post for yourself if you think I am exaggerating about the obsequious tone he takes with Dawkins.)

Dr. Falk's whole response to my post was basically: You have your interpretation of Genesis; we have ours. He seems to be suggesting that because interpretation by definition has an element of subjectivity to it, everyone is free to interpret however he or she prefers, and everyone's interpretation deserves equal respect. That may seem a nice-sounding platitude in our current postmodern context, but it is by no means a biblical value.

And it's no real answer to any of the points I made.

Indeed, Dr. Falk's one complaint about my post focused on the wording of my closing paragraph, where I wrote:

If BioLogos is willing to throw away so much at the very foundations of our faith and at the very beginning of God's revelation, I can't imagine why they would want to keep up the pretense of being Christians at all. Selectively admiring the Bible's moral teachings is not the same thing as actually believing the Bible.

Naturally, Dr. Falk did not like my suggestion that genuine faith can't be as skeptical and selective with God's revealed truth as the BioLogos team wants to be.

He also objected to Travis Allen's post at the GTY.org blog. Travis (quoting from 1 Timothy 6:20) said: "It's time for Christians to return to the self-attesting authority of God's Word and forsake the 'vain babblings and oppositions of science, falsely so called.'" Dr. Falk wasn't happy to have such harsh words (written by the apostle Paul, not by Travis Allen, as Falk seemed to think) applied to his views.

He wrote,

I do wish though, that we would not be put forward as those who, according to the above quotations, live under the "pretense of being Christians," or that we be represented as "vain babblers." At various times, we have written respectfully that we understand why this issue is so important to you. We love and respect you for the sincerity of your position, but please don't call us "vain babblers" any more, and please don't imply that we are only "pretending" to be Christians.

So I'd like to clarify a couple of things: First, despite Dr. Falk's verbal reassurance, most of the contributors at BioLogos clearly have no clue "why this issue is so important." It's painfully obvious that theology is very low on BioLogos's list of priorities. In fact, one of the besetting sins at BioLogos is a blithe lack of concern for some of the most foundational doctrines of Christianity and their implications. I'm thinking especially of the authority and inspiration of Scripture and the doctrine of original sin.

Second, I stand by my statement that the blend of scientific skepticism and moral piety being peddled over at BioLogos isn't authentic Christianity. That's based on the fact that the authority of Scripture and the doctrine of original sin are and always have been deemed Christian essentials by every major branch of the church—and BioLogos does seem very keen to do away with both doctrines.

For example, BioLogos's relentless attack on the historicity of Adam entails an implicit denial of the doctrine of original sin (or in the very best case, a totally different, extrabiblical re-imagination of how humanity fell). Dr. Falk himself rejects the views of those who believe in the historicity of Adam and the Fall. In his reply to Dawkins he seems to be pleading for patience as they seek a way to humor the minority in the BioLogos community who crave the "comfort" of believing all humanity descended from a single pair—not a specially-created Adam and Eve, mind you, but a pair of humanoids who evolved from the higher primates. I thought that part of his post came across as especially condescending and dismissive. You can decide for yourself whether I'm reading too much attitude into it.

In any case, his rejection of the historicity of Adam and the Genesis account of original sin simply isn't consistent with biblical and historic Christianity. The doctrine of original sin is and always has been the starting point of Christian soteriology and the doctrine of atonement. Ecumenical councils, Catholic Church councils, and mainstream Protestants (including Calvinists and evangelical Arminians alike) have always explicitly, emphatically, and repeatedly affirmed original sin as a cardinal doctrine of the Christian faith. Denying original sin is the identifying mark of Pelagians, rank heretics, and quasi-Christian cults.

The authority, inspiration, and inerrancy of Scripture is a matter of similar import, and this too has been the subject of sustained and systematic attack at BioLogos. Remember, in their president's own words, BioLogos "exists in no small part to marginalize this view" (i.e., the view "that Adam and Eve were created with apparent age"). That goal obviously will require a systematic campaign to undermine Christians' confidence in the Genesis account, starting with an open attack on evangelical convictions regarding biblical inerrancy.

Which of course is precisely what the team at BioLogos are currently doing.

BioLogos is by no means the first group in church history to attack the foundations of the Christian faith in the Name of Christ—shamelessly pleading for charity and acceptance as true believers from the very saints whose faith they are determined to dismantle. (Read the saga of Arius and Athanasius if you want a gripping tale of doctrinal intrigue and heresy in the name of Christian brotherhood. It'll cure you of thinking it's uncharitable to take a hard-line stance against heresy.)

In short, I don't apologize for saying that the worldview BioLogos promotes is a challenge to—and by no means an affirmation of—the authentic, biblical, and historic Christian faith.

I'm certain that fact will become more and more obvious the more material BioLogos publishes. But for those still in doubt, here's a simple test: Apply their Genesis hermeneutic consistently to the bodily resurrection of Christ (or the deity of Christ, for that matter), and see what you come up with. Then ask how reasonable it is to accord the BioLogos worldview the right hand of Christian fellowship.

Over at the Grace to You blog Travis Allen has posted a response to yesterday's BioLogos piece. Check it out. Also, Fred Butler has weighed in here, replete with a quotation from Mr. Miagi.

---

Is this the central issue in Christian thought, life and ministry? — 1

by Dan Phillips

Introductory

Of course, the central issue is the Lordship of Christ. But there is an issue that I see coming in direct descent from that question: Is the Bible the one fully-sufficient source for all we need to know as Christians?

Note the careful wording. It doesn't deny that other resources can be helpful, be they creeds or commentaries or books or sermons. Nor does it assert that everything that can be known or that needs to be known on other subjects, is in the Bible. It simply asks whether the Bible is the one genuinely and truly sufficient source to teach us all we need to know, as Christians.

I want to think that all Christians would answer "Yes." Formally, surely Christians would answer "Yes." But I am coming to see that the rubber meets the road just at the point where practice parts from theory.

Charismatic leader Pat Robertson answered "No," for instance. On page 114 of his book The Plan (Nashville: Nelson, 1989), Robertson writes: “Probably 95 per cent of all the guidance we need as Christians is found in the clearly understood principles of the Holy Bible.” I have no doubt Robertson thought that he was exalting God's Word by according it such a large number: ninety-five per cent. Why, that's almost 100%!

Almost, but not quite. Math isn't my best subject, but I'm pretty sure that if you take away 95 from 100, you're left with 5. So five per cent of "all the guidance we need as Christians" is not "found in the clearly understood principles of the Holy Bible." Now, notice: Robertson says "clearly understood principles." So even legitimate extrapolation won't get us there. We simply must look someplace else for the guidance we "need as Christians."

Turning from what some might try to style extremist Charismaticism to doctrine accepted broadly within the good ol' Southern Baptist Convention, we have the Blackaby doctrine.

Once I attended an SB church where the pastor suddenly paused in his sermon, announced that the Holy Spirit had "told" him to stop preaching, and if he continued it would be in his own power — so he stopped. One wonders why the Spirit had not told him where to stop when he prepared his sermon. It leaves the impression that the Spirit changed His mind, which I'm confident this good brother would not affirm. Why would he do such a thing? On a hunch prompted by a thought from my dear wife, I asked him if he were an admirer of Blackaby's teaching.

"Oh yes," came the enthusiastic response. "We've taught that material here!"

A newcomer might well wonder, "What's the problem with the Blackabys?" I went into that at great length in a pair of posts titled "Non Sola Scriptura: the Blackaby view of God's will." The Blackabys sound very like Robertson when père et fils write that the Bible is "the primary way God communicates with His people" (How Then Should We Choose? [Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2009; 55). There it is again: "the primary way" — 95%? more? less? — but far from the only way.

Of course, the whole unique contribution of the Blackabys is devoted to filling that gap. As I argue in the posts to which I linked, it is a massive chasm. Most of what we do (viewed one way) is not directly touched on by Scripture. Should I read Pyromaniacs? Using which browser? Which version of that browser? On what brand computer? What size monitor? At what resolution? With which OS? Accepting which security patches? Using which antivirus software — or should I "trust God" to protect my pc? And on and on and on and on.

That being the case, the Blackabys helpfully tell us how to listen to that non-inscripturated never-promised voice of God, to fill in the immense, continental gaps their view finds in Scripture. Since the Bible is absolutely silent on the subject, they must be (and are) very creative. Clearly what they are selling has resonated broadly within evangelicalism.

But let us return to the broad landscape of Charismaticism. I critiqued the language and thinking in Francis Chan's note about his decision to leave the church he pastors.  The critique was very upsetting to a couple of Tim Challies' readers. Yet here is maybe the central issue of my critique: I am simply asking the question, "Are you really saying that you are experiencing the inerrant prophetic revelation we see in the Bible as your language implies, or are you saying something else? If something else, where is the Biblical authority for it?"

As to Chan himself, I do not pretend to know. Perhaps he is "saying something else." If so, he is one in a vast company. Many Christians today are "saying something else." Not only are many Christians "saying something else," but they are passionately and insistently "saying something else." Touch that sacred cow, and you might as well have caught a rock with the same hand on the Sabbath in Jesus' day.

You will note in all the discussion that, like a modern Charismatic trying to instruct someone in how to get tongues (against the complete silence of the NT), the absence of data doesn't even slow the view's advocates. They'll appeal to Biblical stories of direct, verbal, inerrant revelation as analogous to their feelings and hunches and leadings. But they're not analogous. Are they saying that they're experiencing the same thing, or not? I observe that they will appeal to the Biblical story, then back off from it when confronted — but still insistently cling to it as analogous.

We should require honesty and candor, though, if nothing else.

If they are claiming the exact same experience we see in Scripture, then they must be called to say so explicitly. They need to tell Christians: "I hear God speaking to me in inerrant, binding, prophetic words."

For instance, a fellow on FreeRepublic (I don't want to send traffic to his blog) regularly posts words written in the personna of Jesus Christ. Written words of Jesus. Inerrant? Universally-binding on the conscience? I don't know if he thinks so. He should say so.

If they are not claiming the exact same experience we see in Scripture, they need to tell Christians: "I have a model of spirituality whose core premises I cannot directly demonstrate from the Bible. I do not see the Bible as fully-sufficient for all we need to know as Christians."

Believe it or not, all that was introductory. I plan to develop what I mean and make my point more specifically, in the next post.

UPDATE:

Part Two

Part Three

---