Sermon -Must keep on working until the Lord Comes, 2 Thes. 3:6-15

For Barth Lovers

Richard Dawkins is fine with "mild" Pedophilia

Outrages, and shows that atheist don't have a moral compass:

In a recent interview with the Times magazine, Richard Dawkins attempted to defend what he called “mild pedophilia,” which, he says, he personally experienced as a young child and does not believe causes “lasting harm.”

Dawkins went on to say that one of his former school masters “pulled me on his knee and put his hand inside my shorts,” and that to condemn this “mild touching up” as sexual abuse today would somehow be unfair.

“I am very conscious that you can’t condemn people of an earlier era by the standards of ours. Just as we don’t look back at the 18th and 19th centuries and condemn people for racism in the same way as we would condemn a modern person for racism, I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild pedophilia, and can’t find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today,” he said.
Plus, he added, though his other classmates also experienced abuse at the hands of this teacher, “I don’t think he did any of us lasting harm.”
Child welfare experts responded to Dawkins’ remarks with outrage — and concern over their effect on survivors of abuse.

 Now, let's see how his peers defend pedophilia.

Is your tablet/iPad replacing your Bible in the Pulpit and at church.

The people at The Gospel Coalition (don't get me wrong, there are some nice folks there, but sometime they come up with the most amusing things!) are bringing this issue to the forefront.

How many of you have fallen into the "sin" of not taking your bible to the pulpit, but your tablet/iPad? Matthew Barret, one of the folks over that TGC, has blogged how this may be a detriment to our churches today.

Michael Bird, from Ridley College, has answered with a bit of sarcasm, but facing the fact that the introduction of any theology into the church, causes bad taste and rejection.

From a personal view, is like those churches that don't allow any musical instruments at their service, yet preach with iPads, or have the latest types of sitting at church.

Enjoy the readings.

Free Books from Amazon to your Kindle or tablet by Martin Luther and John Calvin

One must take advantage of this offers!!

Click on the pictures to be taken to Amazon. If you have an e-reader, this is a good chance.

"Liberate" the Middle East, decimate the Christian population in the area

Archbishop Cranmer writes in his conclusion to a sage essay on the West's intervention in Middle Eastern politics:

The more we 'intervene', the more Christians are marginalised. In Syria, they are happier living under the the Shia Alawite dictatorship of President Bashar al-Assad than under those we call the 'rebels' or 'opposition forces', who are, in fact, disparate groups of Al Qaeda-affiliated, Wahhabi-Islamist jihadists.

There used to be 80,000 Christians in Homs. The last one was murdered almost a year ago. Only five months ago in Benghazi, Libya, 60 Christians were rounded up by extremist vigilantes. Some were tortured; one was murdered. The media didn't stream the horrors live into our living rooms: HM Government 'stood by' and 'did nothing'.

We liberated Iraq for Christians to be cleansed. We bombed Libya for Christians to be persecuted. We 'stand by' and watch a military coup in Egypt for Christians to be oppressed and exiled. We 'send a message' to Syria for the exodus to continue.

Our brothers and sisters are being killed and we are enabling it with every attempt to 'liberate' various lands for 'democracy'.

Via Zwinglius Redidivus. 

Some cat's don't believe in dogs, does not mean that dogs don't exist.

Where the Protestant politicians hang out

Nine Reasons to Run from a Church from Roger Olson

From Roger Olson:

So here are my suggestions for behaviors that should cause people to RUN from a congregation EVEN IF it is perfectly orthodox doctrinally and even though its reputation is evangelical:

1) Condoning (including covering up) sexual abuse or sexual immorality of leaders within itself.

2) Silencing honest and constructive dissent.

3) Treating leaders as above normal ethical standards, above questioning.

4) Implying that “true Christianity” belongs to it alone or churches in its network.

5) Using intense methods of “discipleship training” that involve abuse of persons–including, but not limited to, teaching them they must absolutely lose their own individuality and sense of personal identity in order to become part of an “army” (or whatever) of Christ and using methods of sensory deprivation, brainwashing and/or abject obedience to human authority.

6) Teaching (often by strong implication) that without the church, especially without the leaders, members lose their spiritual connection to God. (This happens in many, often subtle, ways. For example a church may claim that its “vision” of the kingdom of God is unique and to depart from it is to depart from God’s kingdom, etc.)

7) Simply closing itself off from all outside criticism or accountability by implying to its members that the “whole world” outside the church is evil.

8) Falling into magical, superstitious beliefs and practices such as “spiritual warfare” with an emphasis on destroying all of a certain kind of object because objects “shaped like that” are often inhabited by demons. (A few years ago some churches were teaching people that if they were having marital problems it was probably because they had owl-shaped objects in their homes. I was told by members of a church that having books about world religions or cults in my library would corrupt my spiritual life. A church held bonfires to burn records and books considered unholy. Etc., etc., etc.)

9) The pastor literally owning the church lock, stock and barrel.

George B. Caird New Testament Theology Audio Lectures (1979-1982)

Matthew D. Montonini has provided us with a good list of G. B. Caird lectures on the NT.

Have a listen, you will learn heaps.

A contradictory message

Objections against the Church

Intro:

Some people who want to defend the faith, start by trying to destroy the belief of the one they want to “witness” to, cf. II Cor. 10:4-5. Yet, we have to take into consideration what the whole of Scripture tells us about this matter, cf. I Peter 3:15 and Jude 3. 

We have a mandate to refute others in their beliefs, but to do it wisely. There are a lot of objections against the church, but we must learn how to answer them, so we can win those making the objections over to our side.

We will see 3 examples. 1. Paul at the Aeropagus. 2. People think they are spiritual, therefore, they don’t need to come to church. 3. Christians are just too hypocritical.

1. Paul at the Aeropagus. Acts 17:16-32.

Paul finds a way to connect to his audience. Explain who the Epicurians are, who the Stoics are. A good connection till the resurrection of the dead is mentioned.

2. Spiritual but no need of Church.
God is everywhere, so no need to go to church. Some churches are unspiritual. Some churches don’t promote love for one another. I believe in the Bible, yet don’t believe in what the church says.

But following the horoscope, the lottery, spiritual sightings, become also a chain, and one that does not help our spiritual life. This is also a very individualistic approach to the spiritual life.

Heb. 10:25.   Rom. 8:9-11.

3. Christians are Hypocrites.

I grew up in church, and saw the hypocrites. My mom and dad were hypocrites. The pastor/priest was a hypocrite.

We don’t stop going to work because our co-workers are hypocrites. We don’t stop going to a party, because we know some of our friends or hypocrites.

Is anyone who is not a hypocrite? Matthew 19:17;  Mark 10:18; Luke 18:19 and Romans 3:11, 22-23. 

If they believe in the Bible, and want to different from the hypocrites, they must obey what the Bible says.

Right Wing craziness. Supporting Israel, with lies and made up stories.

Last night, Glenn Beck traveled to Washington, DC to address John Hagee's annual Christians United for Israel conference where he delivered remarks that were predictably filled with Bible prophecy, doom and gloom, and dire warnings about the need to turn this nation back to God.

During his speech, Beck boldly declared that the United States was "established for the establishment of Israel," meaning that the United States was established by God specifically for the purpose of re-establishing the nation of Israel.

And, as proof that our Founding Fathers were well aware of this, Beck pointed out that even our dollar bill contains a Star of David, as well as representations of the cloud and fire that led the Israelites while they wandered in the desert.

It's not true, of course, but that is what happens when you get your history from people like David Barton:

Total disregard of Biblical and logical coherence. See the direct link here.

That's why following this woman is so dangerous. If her followers would think, she would go broke!

Itinerary for the Society for New Testament Studies in Perth, Australia

Seminars

1. Christliche Literatur des späten ersten Jahrhunderts und des zweiten Jahrhunderts / Christian Literature of the late first century and the second century

   Conveners: Prof. F. Prostmeier, Prof. W. Pratscher and Prof. J. Kelhoffer. Terminates in 2014
   Wed: Wilhelm Pratscher (Vienna), "Motive paulinischer Theologie im 2. Clemensbrief"
   Thu: Ferdinand R. Prostmeier (Freiburg): "Geistig-soziale Milieus des Diskurses über "Religion" in der frühen Kaiserzeit"
   Fri: Vicky Balabanski (Adelaide) "Cosmological categories and the writings of Ignatius of Antioch: Reflections on Trallians 5 and Ephesians 19"

2. The Dead Sea Scrolls in Relation to Early Judaism and Early Christianity (5*)

   Conveners: Prof. J.J. Collins and Prof. J. Frey. Terminates in 2013.
   This seminar will meet jointly with Seminar 5 (Johannine Writings) in 2013.
    
   Wed: Harry Attridge (Yale): “The Making of Disciples: Predestination in the
   Scrolls and the Fourth Gospel”
   Thu: Hermann Lichtenberger (Tübingen):”Tempel und Tempelmetaphorik
   in Texten vom Toten Meer und im Johannesevangelium”
   Fri: John J. Collins (Yale) and Jörg Frey (Zürich) will each present a review
   of the book by Mary L. Coloe / Tom Thatcher (eds.), John, Qumran, and the
   Dead Sea Scrolls. Sixty Years of Discovery and Debate, SBLEJL 32, Atlanta: SBL 2011

3. [The Greek of the New Testament]

   Conveners: Prof. C. C. Caragounis and Prof. J. W. Voelz. Terminates in 2014.
   This seminar will not meet in Perth.

4. Inhalte und Probleme einer neutestamentlichen Theologie

   Conveners: Prof. C. Landmesser and Prof. M. Seifrid. Terminates in 2014.
   
   Wed: Brendan Byrne, S.J. (Melbourne): "Jerusalems Above and Below: Revisiting the Hagar-Sarah Allegory (Gal 4:21—5:1) and Paul’s View of Non-Messianic Judaism"
   Thu: Dorothy Lee (Melbourne): "Law, Grace and Truth: The Symbolic Role of Moses in Johannine Christology"
   Fri: Brian Rosner (Melbourne): "Paul and the Law: A Hermeneutical Solution to the Puzzle"

5. The Johannine Writings (2*)

   Conveners: Prof. M. Gruber and Prof. Ch. Karakolis. Terminates in 2015.
   This seminar will meet jointly with Seminar 2 (Dead Sea Scrolls) in 2013. Sign up for Seminar 2.

6. The Jewish World in New Testament Times (11*)

   Conveners: Prof. S. Freyne, Prof. J.W. van Henten, Prof. W. Horbury. Terminates in 2013.
   This seminar will meet jointly with Seminar 11 (Jewish Theologies). Sign up for Seminar 11.

7. The Origins and Development of the Jesus Tradition

   Conveners: Prof. T. Holmén and Prof. S.E. Porter. Terminates in 2017.
   
   Wed: Michael F. Bird (Melbourne): “Why the 'Jesus Tradition'? Its Purpose and Preservation”
   Thu: Craig L. Blomberg (Littleton, Colorado): “When Occam's Razor Shaves Too Closely: A Necessarily Complex Model of the Development of the Jesus Tradition”
   Fri: Paul Foster (Edinburgh): “Memory, Orality, and the Fourth Gospel: Three Dead-Ends in Historical Jesus Research”

8. The Mission and Expansion of Earliest Christianity

   Conveners: Prof. Eugene Eung-Chun Park, Prof. Paul Trebilco, and Prof. Gosnell Yorke. Terminates in 2015.
    
   Wed: Eugene Eung-Chun Park (San Anselmo, CA): “The itinerant philosophers in the Cynic literature and the Galilean wandering missionaries in the Gospel of Matthew”; respondent: Manabu Tsuji (Hiroshima)
   Thu: Eric Wong (Hong Kong): “Mission – The Reception of Paul in the Synoptic Gospels”
   Fri: Mark Keown (Auckland): "Paul's Vision of Evangelisation and the Church: Taking the debate forward"

9. Christian Apocryphal Literature

   Conveners: Prof. T. Nicklas, Prof. C.M. Tuckett and Prof. J. Verheyden. Terminates in 2015.
   
   Wed: Francis Watson (Durham): “Harmony or Gospel: On the Genre of the Diatessaron”
   Thu: Majella Franzmann (Perth): “Johannine Material in the Manichaean Psalm Book”
   Fri: Claire Clivaz (Lausanne): “New Testament Apocrypha and the Emergence of the New Testament Canon. A Research Project by Tobias Nicklas and Claire Clivaz”

10. Social History and the New Testament

    Conveners: Prof. H. Löhr, Prof. M. Öhler, and Prof. A. Runessen. Terminates in 2014.
    
    Wed: Albert Harrill (Columbus OH):“Ethnic Fluidity in Ephesians”.
    Thu: Kathy Ehrensperger (Lampeter): “Shared Culture and Diverse Ethnic Identities: The Pauline Discourse of Israel and the Nations”
    Fri: Anders Runesson (Hamilton ON): “The Impact of Ethnic Identity on Theology and Salvation in Matthew’s Gospel”

11. Jewish Theologies and the New Testament (6*)

    Conveners: Prof. J. Herzer and Prof. G. Oegema. Terminates in 2014.
    This seminar will meet jointly with Seminar 6 (Jewish World).
     
    Wed: John J. Collins (Yale): "The Law of Moses and Jewish Identity in the Second Temple Period"
    Thu: Dieter Sänger (Kiel): "Man ist, was man isst. Speisegebote und jüdische Identität in Joseph und Aseneth"
    Fri: Roland Deines (Nottingham): "Righteousness in the Psalms of Solomon: Reading the Psalms of Solomon as a Book"

12. Reconsidering Literarkritik of the Pauline Letters and its Impact on their Interpretation

    Conveners: Prof E-M. Becker and Prof. R. Bieringer. Terminates in 2015.
    The seminar will focus on 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, and Philippians.
    
    Wed: Geoffrey Dunn (Brisbane): "The Letter 'Credebamus post' from Boniface I or Leo I?"
    Thu: Malou Ibita (Leuven/Manila): “The Story of Paul and the Corinthians’ Ongoing Reconciliation:
    A Narrative-Critical Reading of 2 Corinthians 1-7”
    Fri: Sean Winter (Melbourne): “Re-framing the Unity Debate: The Rhetorical Situation of Canonical 2 Corinthians”

13. Matthew in Context: an Exploration of Matthew in Relation to the Judaism and Christianity of its Time

    Conveners: Prof M. Konradt, Prof. W. Kraus and Prof. W. Loader. Terminates in 2015.
      
    Each paper addresses the issue: What light does Matthew’s use of Mark in relation to the topic throw on Matthew’s theological location?
    Wed: Boris Repschinski (Innsbruck): “Ethics and Law”; respondent: Roland Deines (Nottingham).
    Thu: Edwin Broadhead (Berea): “Discipleship and Ecclesiology”; respondent: Amy-Jill Levine (Vanderbilt).
    Fri: Wolfgang Kraus (Saarbrücken): “Matt 16:21 – 18:35”; respondent: David Sim (Melbourne).

14. Papyrology, Epigraphy and the New Testament

    Conveners: Prof P. Arzt-Grabner and Prof. J.S. Kloppenborg. Terminates in 2013.
     
    Wed: Peter Arzt-Grabner (Salzburg): “The Date of Jesus’ Birth and of His Death: a Contribution from Papyrology”; respondent: Helen Bond.
    Thu: Scott Charlesworth (Sydney): “A Thoroughly Literary Text: the Greek Papyri of the Gospel of Thomas”; respondent: James Harrison.
    Fri: Giovanni Bazzana (Harvard): “Legal Terminology and Violence in Q. The Contribution of Documentary Papyri”; respondent:Christina M. Kreinecker.

15. Reading Paul’s Letters in Context: Theological and Social-Scientific Approaches

    Conveners: Prof. William Campbell and Prof. Michael Bachmann. Terminates in 2013.
     
    Wed: William S Campbell (Lampeter) "Theological and Social-Scientific Perspectives on 'Being in Christ'"
    Thu: Kar Yong Lim (Malaysia): "Paul's 'Remembering the Poor' as Ritual in the Corinthian Letters"
    Fri: Andrew Clarke (Aberdeen): "The Locus and Scope of Paul's Apostolic Authority"

Some people give thanks to God for such mundane, and uneventful things

The Myth of Candida Moss - Carl Trueman takes on her wrong view of Martydom in the Early Church

Candida Moss, has finally being criticised and corrected, by another top gun of evangelical history, Carl Trueman. 

Some may love this woman, but if you love true, and history, she does is more like the Bart Ehrman of history.

Good on Trueman, to set the record straight about this woman.

The Myth of PersecutionARTICLE BY CARL TRUEMAN  JUNE 2013
Candida Moss, The Myth of Persecution: How Early Christians Invented a Story of Martyrdom (New York: HarperOne 2013), 320 pp., $25.99 
This is an entertaining, at times thought-provoking, but deeply flawed book. For all of its underlying scholarship, it is reminiscent of those Christmas Specials on the History Channel where some learned scholar announces to the camera that the Bible never specified that there were three wise men. Cue portentous pause, the assumption apparently being that somewhere in the ensuing silence one can hear two thousand years of Christian theology (rather than a mere century of kitsch festive season artwork) collapsing into a heap of rubble. 
Moss wears her learning lightly and obviously enjoys her role as aspiring iconoclast. She articulates her basic thesis in clear, readable prose: in the first three centuries empire wide, intentional, targeted persecution of Christians specifically for their Christianity was extremely rare; and martyrs were more significant because of the manner in which they were represented in literature than they were in their own times and contexts. Further, it is often difficult to date with precision the martyrs who do survive or to ascertain how historically reliable they are. As a historical thesis it is scarcely radical and reflects what I was taught as an undergraduate and what I teach in my M.Div. classes at Westminster Theological Seminary; it is the political thesis to which she moves that is far more contentious.
Moss's historical thesis depends upon a number of points. She points out that it was not Christianity in itself but certain implications of Christianity (for example, the problematic nature of loyalty to the emperor and the civic sphere for those of an exclusive religion) which created much of the hostility. She also tends to posit late dates for martyr accounts, tying them to developments concerning what we might describe, for want of a better phrase, as the fetishizing of the body exemplified in the rise of monasticism and the cult of the saints in fourth-century Christianity.
There is a sense in which the general thesis relies heavily upon the ignorance of the reader.  Throughout the book, the impression is given that the paucity of empire-wide persecution of Christians and the lack of reliable first-hand accounts of the same will somehow deal a devastating blow to the faithful. It may be that there are some out there who think the Romans organized mass persecution for centuries before it all ended rather unexpectedly with the sudden conversion of Constantine; but surely no first year undergraduate or modestly well-read churchgoer would believe such a narrative. Further, it is also true - and not seriously contested by any scholar of which I am aware - that Christians are severely persecuted in numerous areas of the world today. True, this is not really the case in America; but persecution today is no myth. A dove may not have emerged from Polycarp's side as he died; but millions of Christians have died for their faith, or for the social outworking of their faith, throughout the centuries. To talk of the 'myth' of persecution is somewhat mischievous.
This presumption of ignorance on the part of the reader leads to some oddly patronising comments. On page 89, for example, we are informed in parenthesis that 'yes, the Christians owned slaves.' Cue History Channel pause and sound of distressed faithful abandoning the church in droves? I doubt it. The fact that Christians owned slaves is surely news only to anyone who has not read the New Testament or seen any of the many new atheist polemics which delight in texts such as Colossians 3:22. Moss's comment thus left me wondering whether her target audience was not, after all, benighted Bible-thumping Christians but rather the fan base of Jersey Shore.
Further, even though the early church accounts of martyrdoms are stylized or enhanced, it does not really undermine claims about the general reality of persecution even if it should make us very cautious about the details of individual accounts. We know from the writings of Ignatius of Antioch that persecution and death for the faith (at least as assumed in the mind of the Christian even if not legally defined as such by Rome) became an ideal for some Christians very early on in the post-apostolic world. There is also the rise of monasticism in the fourth century. Moss is possibly correct to locate the rise of martyrdom literature with the fetishizing of saints' bodies; but I am not sure that one can draw too many hard conclusions about the reality or prior function of martyrdom from such later use, even if true. It would seem at least arguable that the accounts are designed to maintain, as an aspirational ideal, the kind of physical asceticism which the church had previously found in the persecution it had suffered from the state.
I would also dispute her reading of the early second century letter of Pliny, governor of Pontus Bithynia, who uncovered a Christian community in his territory and meted out harsh punishment upon those who refused to abjure their religion. We know from Pliny's other letters that he was an unctuous creep. This was, after all, the man who did well under the despotic Domitian and yet switched sides and survived to prosper under Trajan. That in itself is eloquent testimony to his political astuteness. He was a man always wanting to ingratiate himself with those higher up the political ladder in order to bolster his own standing. Given the confident way in which he deals with the Christians and yet, despite his 'ignorance' of proper process, happens upon essentially the correct process, it seems to me a perfectly reasonable reading of the letter to Trajan that Pliny did know of precedents for treating Christians but wanted to present his actions to the Emperor as a form of wise guesswork which might therefore elicit praise from his master.  Maybe my interpretation is wrong but it is at least worth pondering. That it is not even considered reflects a methodological flaw that runs throughout the work: a 'maybe' in interpretation becomes a certain foundation for further historical argument and confident assertion. A tad more self-awareness regarding appropriate levels of certainty based upon contestable interpretations of narrow evidential bases would have been most welcome in Moss's work.
Now to Moss's political thesis. The most contentious and indeed mischievous part of the book is the connection Moss makes between what one might call the breakdown in modern political discourse and the 'myth of persecution.'  While she says that she is not targeting the Right in particular (p. 12), in the context of the book as a whole such a claim seems like so much throat-clearing. I am no fan of the American Right and have no sympathy with the Glenn Becks and right-wing conspiracy theorists; but, brief protestation notwithstanding, Moss does seem to focus rather exclusively upon the Right and its shortcomings.
Her argument is simple: the myth of the persecution of Christians has fuelled a paranoid victim mentality on the political Right that imperils intelligent civil discourse. Ironically, as she makes this case, she herself engages in precisely the kind of myth making that she rightly decries. On page 252, she recounts her shock at hearing two students at Notre Dame expressing no sympathy for a nine-year old rape victim who had had an abortion.  She was right to be shocked; but if her point is that the Christian mythology of persecution polarizes the world around and destroys civil discourse, then she herself here provides a good example of how alternative myths do much the same.
Moss's definition of myth seems to mean 'a narrative which radically distorts actual historical realities'. Surely it is then the case that, of all current political issues, abortion more than any other depends upon an established mythology: the idea that its primary reason for existence is to serve the victims of rape and incest? Like the little girl referenced by Moss, there are such victims and it is indeed horrible to hear of two young women expressing no sympathy. But if Moss can claim this lack of sympathy is somehow connected to a myth of Christian martyrdom, then how much more is lack of sympathy for babies in the womb connected to a 'mythology' of rape and incest? I wonder if Moss will follow this volume with one that debunks the pro-choice myth of persecution that poisons current political and ethical debate far more than that of Christians with, I have to say, far less historical and contemporary evidential support. That would be most useful.
Thus, given the ultimate political purpose of the book, the final problem with Moss's thesis is not really historical at all. It is the fact that she fails to set the function of martyr narratives within the wider framework of modern politics. The problem is not martyr myths; it is that politics, stripped of any common ground and left only as an increasingly angry struggle between competing and incommensurate narratives, has become a species of mere emotivism, of which stories of persecution are simply one obvious tool. How iconoclasm, which creates its own mythology by building certainties, historical and moral, on debatable readings of history, is to serve in overcoming this impasse is entirely unclear to me. But, then again, I am not part of the Jersey Shore fan base.
Carl R. Trueman is Paul Woolley Professor of Church History at Westminster Theological Seminary. His latest book is The Creedal Imperative (Crossway, 2012).

What Is Wrong With the Young, Restless and Reformed Movement? An Interpretive Essay by Dr. Paul Owen

Below is a solicited essay by Dr. Paul Owen. Dr. Owen is Professor of Greek and Religious Studies at Montreat College in North Carolina, where he has taught since 2001.  Founded in 1916, Montreat College is the only liberal arts college in North Carolina that holds membership in the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities.  Dr. Owen’s academic articles and book reviews have been published in numerous venues, including the Calvin Theological Journal, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Journal of Biblical Literature, and Journal for the Study of the New Testament. (see a fuller bio at the article's end).

Dr. Owen is an occasional contributor on the comment threads at SBC Tomorrow, and it was his insightful comments on the so-called "young, restless, and reformed" theological trend which occasioned my request he tease his thoughts out further. He did.

Thus, the essay below is a spirited look at what TIME magazine listed in 2010 as one of 10 ideas changing the world right now--New Calvinism. Some will dismiss Dr. Owen's analysis as much too blustery. Others will praise his insight as spot on. Still others may raise suspicions concerning his conclusions since Dr. Owen's theological tradition is rooted in the Episcopal Church (unfortunately, we Baptists are at times prone to consider only Baptist contributions). What one cannot do, however, is ignore his studied, scholarly opinion.

I trust that whether or not one agrees with Dr. Owen, he will receive the respectful response a scholar deserves.

What Is Wrong With the Young, Restless and Reformed Movement?

by

Paul Owen, Ph.D.

I'm an Episcopalian. That means that I belong to the only major branch of historic Protestantism which has maintained apostolic succession through the historic episcopate (a linear succession of catholic bishops). My Christian beliefs and practices are shaped by the Bible (our only infallible source of doctrine), as read and interpreted by the undivided catholic Church, the consensual faith of the Patristic witness, the Book of Common Prayer, and the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion. But at the same time I'm also happy to be called a Calvinist. Clergymen from my Anglican church were present both at the Synod of Dort and the Westminster Assembly.

In keeping with the Calvinist wing of Anglicanism, I affirm both the helpless depravity of man (his unwillingness to repent and believe without the operation of God's grace), and unconditional election (not based on God's foresight of human choice or use of his free will). That is to say, I believe that God's actual saving grace is bestowed only upon those persons whom God has chosen for eternal salvation before the foundation of the world. I also believe that the atonement which Jesus offered up to the Father on behalf of the whole world (strict adherents to limited atonement would differ), had its ultimate effect as its final and intended end—the salvation of all those elect believers out of the world. I believe that the grace God bestows on his elect people, because of its divinely intended effect, certainly and infallibly accomplishes their conversion unto eternal salvation. And I believe that none of God's elect saints, once truly converted by grace, can totally and finally fall away from the path of discipleship and salvation in Christ, but will certainly persevere to the end and be eternally saved. At the end of the day, I am still among those who see predestination as the primary reason why the grace offered to all becomes actual saving grace in the case of some, as opposed to my Arminian friends, who believe that it is the undetermined use of free will on the part of man which makes the primary difference.

So why then do I have so many misgivings about the state of Calvinism in the evangelical Church today? Why am I not more enthusiastic about what I see going on around me amongst the Young, Restless and Reformed? Why do I sometimes feel more of a kinship with non-Calvinists of various flavors, than with the children of Geneva? Having observed Calvinism "on the ground" (in America and Scotland) for around twenty years now, what follows are some of my misgivings and observations.

The TULIP Personality

Calvinism today seems to appeal mostly to a certain sort of personality, and that personality is not always healthy. I have discovered that the person who really spends a lot of time talking about the "doctrines of grace," tends to fit a typical profile. They tend to be male (rarely do you find women sitting around arguing about the details of TULIP), intellectually arrogant, argumentative, insecure (and therefore intolerant), and prone to constructing straw-man arguments. In order for the typical Calvinist's faith to remain secure, he seems to feel the need to imagine all others outside his theological box as evil, uninformed, or just plain stupid. I have seen this in men of all ages, some Baptist, some Presbyterian, some laymen, some ordained ministers.

I don't think there is any necessary connection between Calvinism and such traits, so why does it seem to be so prevalent today? Part of the reason, which I do not have time or space to develop here, is that the evangelical church has no robust ecclesiology, and thus no structured spirituality to put into practice as the body of Christ. And given the absence of a structured spiritual life, Reformed Christianity tends to be reduced to a set of doctrines to contemplate, which attracts mainly certain kinds of people, and encourages certain kinds of attitudes among believers. Thus, when you remove Reformed theology from its proper historical place in the structured life of Reformed religion and ecclesiology, and plant it in the foreign soil of modern evangelical gnostic spirituality, it takes a grotesque shape that is contrary to its origins.

One thing I have noticed is that such features tend to display themselves most dramatically in those who experience Calvinism as a "second blessing." They grow up either in a non-Christian home, or a Christian environment that did not talk about issues related to Calvinism. When they first encounter the "doctrines of grace," they are suddenly captured by the intellectual beauty of a logical system that "makes sense" to them. When listening to Calvinist newbies over the years, as they describe their first exposure to Reformed theology, there is an evident "conversion narrative." New TULIP converts speak in hushed tones about when they first "came to accept" the doctrines of grace. You get the sense that they entered a deeper state of Christian spirituality and walk with Christ by discovering that God arbitrarily saves and arbitrarily destroys whomsoever He chooses. I think that there is a certain obnoxious personality that likes to feel superior to others, and unfortunately, the "doctrines of grace" seem to do this for them.

The TULIP Gospel

On numerous occasions, I have seen Calvinists equate the gospel with the doctrines of grace. Supposedly, the doctrines of grace are simply the pure expression of the Christian gospel, and Calvinism is simply Christianity without the corruption of human merit mixed into the equation. Unfortunately, I have seen even men of great learning, who really should know better than to fall into such over-simplifications, talk in this manner. So any dilution of Calvinism is effectively a dilution of the gospel itself. Given this way of thinking, no wonder Calvinists seem to have a hard time playing with their friends in the theological sandbox! Who wants to be nice to people who are mixing human merit in with the pure gospel of Christ? Didn't Paul pronounce an anathema on people like that in Galatians?

This makes it very difficult for some Calvinists to acknowledge common ground with non-Calvinist theologies, or to admit when they are making good points. I have tried to avoid this insular way of thinking in my own theological reflection. There are verses in the Bible that Arminians seem to handle with more integrity than the typical Calvinist does. As far as it is possible, I try to listen to Catholic, Arminian and Lutheran theologians, and be willing to modify my Calvinism when I perceive it to be chastened by the Word of God. And the broad stream of theology which I follow is enriched not only by the views of Calvin, Beza, Turretin, Owen and the Westminster Confession of Faith (which seem to dominate the landscape of Calvinism today), but also by more moderate tributaries: Augustine and Aquinas, Garrigou-Lagrange, Bullinger, Vermigli, Hooker, Amyraut, Ussher, Davenant, Ward and the Second Helvetic Confession.

What follows are some of my concessions to my non-Calvinist brothers:

1. Non-Calvinists are certainly correct when they note that Scripture everywhere confronts man with the obligation (not only the duty) and the opportunity to repent of his sins and believe the gospel of the true God (Acts 17:27, 30). This must mean that man, even in his fallen state, retains the operative faculties of human nature which make conversion possible in principle. God does not command absurd impossibilities, nor does He tell people without eyes, to look, or people without ears, to listen. Notice how even a Calvinist-sounding text like Isaiah 6:10 presumes that the unsaved still possess the faculties which could embrace salvation, if they were to put them to good use. The problem is not that fallen man is literally unable to believe, but that (without divine grace) fallen man is unwilling to believe. Men still have operative mouths whereby they might feed on Christ, but in their fallen state they lack any and all appetite to do so. God's grace operates so as to give man a spiritual appetite, not a mouth to eat.
2. Non-Calvinists are correct to see conversion as an active movement of the will of man, and not merely a passive reception of the gift of faith. God's grace does not exclude consent and a cooperative response on the part of man. Philippians 2:12-13, for example, says to "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure." God's being at work in them does not exclude their free response, but provides the rationale for it. Notice Paul does not say, "for it is God who works in you, to work for his good pleasure." That might give the impression that human effort or action is the mere effect of God's monocausality. Instead he says "both to will and to work," which means that the effort expended is caused both by God's working and the working of our human will. The working out of our salvation that we perform as we grow in sanctification surely begins with conversion and the first work of God's grace in us. But the work that we do (since it is we who do it by God's grace) is still our own doing, and thus the "willing" which characterizes the working out of our salvation is likewise still our own willing (not simply the irresistible effect of regeneration upon passive objects).
3. Since this is the case, there is no reason for Calvinists to continually shy away from language which includes man's free consent and cooperation in conversion. When Ephesians 2:8 says of salvation by grace through faith, "And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God," it does not mean that we do not freely perform the act of believing. By way of parallel, 2:10 goes on to say, "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand." The fact that the good works we do were "prepared beforehand" by God does not mean that we are not expected to willingly perform them. God's grace does not exclude our free, active, consenting, cooperating response in the arena of salvation; rather, it makes conversion possible for all, and actual in the elect (however "elect" be understood).
4. But are we not "dead" in trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1)? How can a dead corpse do anything to contribute to his conversion? We often hear Reformed people talking like this. But it's a bad argument, and needs to be set aside by Calvinists who wish to speak biblically on these matters. A similar statement appears in Colossians 2:13, "And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him." This obviously does not mean that man is purely passive in the process of conversion, since the previous verse says that "you were also raised with himthrough faith in the powerful working of God" (2:12). Being "raised with him" is a plain image of new life or regeneration, and yet Paul insists that regeneration happens "through faith"! Since regeneration happens through the operation of faith (an act on our part), man's consent and cooperative response to God's grace is constitutive of that regeneration, and not only the effect of it (as Calvinists sometimes assert when they wrongly insist that regeneration precedes faith).
5. Non-Calvinists are correct to insist that God gives sufficient grace to everyone so as to constitute a real opportunity to respond to the summons of the gospel. Whenever men hear the gospel, it is truly possible for them to put to good use their natural faculties in the process of conversion. The preaching and hearing of the Word of God is always accompanied by the ministry of the Holy Spirit in the lives of the audience. Romans 10:17 says that "faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ." The "word of Christ" is the gospel, and wherever the gospel is heard, faith is truly possible (otherwise Paul could not call hearing the source of faith). Reformed theology has sometimes given the impression that the Word and the Sacraments are inwardly operative in the elect alone, and only outwardly operative in the lives of the non-elect. This does not seem to be the view of Paul, who says that faith comes from hearing (something not limited to the elect). He does not simply say that the command to believe, or the appeal to believe, or the outward call to believe, comes from hearing, but faith itself. If hearing the word of Christ does not make faith truly possible for everyone, then this would be odd thing to say, since, again, the elect are not the only ones who hear the gospel. I am not saying that Calvinists who disagree cannot explain this (by saying that hearing is the instrument God uses in regenerating the elect); but I am saying that a person who believed what Calvinists typically assert, would not naturally talk about faith as the effect of hearing the gospel, as the apostle Paul does here.
6. Note also how 1 Peter 1:23-25 attributes regeneration ("since you have been born again") to "the good news that was preached to you." Who is the "you" here? Clearly, the good news was not only preached to the elect, but to elect and non-elect. And yet regeneration is directly attributed to this preached word (not simply to the Spirit's secret operation in the elect). Such an assertion makes no sense if the preached word did not provide a real opportunity for regeneration to all who hear; and since we know fallen men will not make good use of their natural faculties without the help of God's grace, this must mean that the preached word is accompanied by the operation of the Spirit, which supplies grace sufficient to make actual conversion a real possibility. Some of those who heard the good news responded with "obedience to the truth," which "purified" their souls (1:22). Man's obedient response to the gospel is (from the human end) what distinguishes between those who are regenerated "through the living and abiding word of God" (1:23) and those who do not benefit from the grace put at their disposal through the preaching of the good news.
7. Non-Calvinists often raise points that make better sense of numerous other texts of Scripture. Why would Stephen fault those who are "uncircumcised in heart" (i.e., unregenerate) for "resisting the Holy Spirit" (Acts 7:51), unless cooperating with the Holy Spirit could produce a circumcised heart (i.e., regeneration)? Since those addressed by Stephen remained unregenerate, it must mean that they were resisting the grace of God which was sufficient to bring about their conversion. And is it not clear that since Jesus is the "true light, which gives light to everyone" (John 1:9), that all who are presented with the gospel have the real opportunity to receive Christ? What kind of light would it be, that leaves people without the chance to escape from the darkness? And is not that opportunity itself a real operation of God's grace? When John 1:11-12 goes on to distinguish between those who received him and those who did not, it seems clear that the fact that Jesus "gives light to everyone" was not highlighted in verse 9 to make a comment about the elect only, but also to show why those who did not receive him were fully culpable. "And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light" (John 3:19).

The TULIP Cult

People are sometimes surprised to hear me speak of the TULIP cult. What do I mean when I speak this way? By a cult, I mean a sect within the broad landscape of Christianity which takes as its operating center some principle other than Christ crucified. This is certainly the case for the Young, Restless and Reformed. It is obvious that the operating center which holds this movement together is TULIP, not the gospel of the cross. One gets the impression that their sense of identity is inseparable from their sense of superiority, and thus it is tied to their adherence to and promotion of the doctrines of grace.

It is not the name of the Lamb that is constantly on the lips of these men, but the names of Calvin (though I have found most of the YRR have actually read very little of him) and the personalities featured at Calvinist conferences, gatherings and websites. What seems to be of paramount importance to these people is the demonstration of the superiority of the arguments for TULIP and its consequences for thinking out the logic of the Christian faith. The Christian faith, in other words, finds its coherence in the "doctrines of grace," rather than in the person of our Lord Jesus Christ. Rather than glory in Christ, and see in Christ's face the focus of divine revelation, Calvinists these days glory in the doctrines of grace, and see the focus of God's revelation in today's preachers of TULIP religion. And just as reflecting on Christ makes us more like Christ (2 Cor. 3:18), reflecting on these Calvinist personalities seems to shape many Christians into a far less pleasing image.

Some of these Calvinist ministries have been plagued with scandals of a sexual nature in recent days. I can't say this surprises me. I strongly suspect it is because they are expressions of the TULIP cult. When Christianity is reduced to talking, singing, arguing, and teaching about the "doctrines of grace" and their manifold ramifications, their spiritual well is bound to run dry pretty quickly. This is simply because the TULIP cult is not the time-tested, historic Christian religion. It is no different from the Prosperity Gospel movement, although it operates on different theological principles. In both cases, you have a movement which derives its theological center from something other than Christ crucified. The Christian religion starts at Calvary and works outward from there. The Prosperity Gospel works outward from the principle of material blessing in response to human faithfulness (at best a sub-theme developed in parts of the Bible). And the TULIP cult works outward from the principles of the doctrines of grace, though not as cautiously expressed in Scripture, but as dogmatically expressed in the highly fallible writings and sermons of men who have attempted to popularize Reformed theology for the masses.

The Spirit of God is not going to be present and operative in the promotion of TULIP as the essence of the Christian religion, any more than He would ever participate in promoting the empty "gospel" of the prosperity message. Where the Spirit of God is not present, you will only find the doctrines and myths of men, and where people are being fed on such a diet of spiritual junk food, it should not shock us to see all manner of spiritual diseases and dysfunctions. It is particularly dangerous when the pious-sounding doctrines of universal human depravity, and Christ's perfect active and passive obedience on our behalf, are distorted by unstable and untaught men, so that the gravity of sin and the necessary obligations of Christian holiness are minimized. No wonder people begin to think that it is normal for Christians to use filthy speech, to adopt the world's view of sexuality, and to engage in heinous sex crimes. (We're all just wretched sinners after all!) But thank God for his unconditional grace, and that perfect, imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ! Let's sing a few cool songs about that….

One final note. I am not a Baptist, but I suspect much of the discussion about Calvinism in the SBC is looking more at the symptoms than the disease. The disease is not Calvinism. There have been strict Baptist Calvinists on the scene since at least the seventeenth century. The disease is the TULIP cult of today's spiritually sick Church. It is the TULIP cult mindset that seems to be tearing apart the SBC. For whatever else you can say about the Baptist tradition, it is most certainly a version of Christianity which finds the gospel of the Cross and the offer of free forgiveness through the shed blood of Jesus as its operating center. When you have men in the SBC who are more zealous evangelists for conversions to Calvinism than conversions to Christ, more earnest in their apologetics for TULIP than for the existence of God and the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, more excited about the doctrines of grace than the gospel itself—coexistence is going to be difficult.

And there are further related problems. When adherence to TULIP is the ultimate priority, other things, which should be of greater priority take a back seat. As long as the "doctrines of grace" are promoted, it matters very little to these men how the Church worships, how the pastor dresses and conducts himself, the order of the service, the form and content of the prayers, the atmosphere promoted through the structure of the service, the tone and substance of the sermons, the tempo, content and style of the music, and the themes which are viewed as suitable subjects for Christian teaching and reflection. There should be (and have been) distinctively Baptist patterns for "doing" church, grounded in a distinctive theology of what the Church is, and what exactly is its purpose. But in the TULIP cult, rather than being based on principled theological convictions, all these matters are up for grabs, for they have no substantive, distinctive theology to undergird preaching, ministry and worship. At least no theology that they have the time to reflect upon. Thus, you have churches today which are making all manner of compromises and accommodations to the trends of our shallow culture, but pride themselves on their adherence to the "doctrines of grace." The TULIP cult is certainly not alone in this regard (as seeker-sensitive church growth fads have shown for decades); but it is ironic that men who claim to be building on the insights of the Reformation and its recovery of the sovereign majesty of God, the sole authority of the Bible, the power of expository and doctrinal preaching, and a Reformed worship that is humbly subject to the commandments of Scripture, can be so tolerant of worldliness, shallowness and cultic devotion to know-nothing Calvinist celebrities.

For those who want to defend a particular Bible Version - Total non sense

I've been talking to a person who believes in conspiracies against bible translations. For him, only the translations done during the Reformation are good, the rest, are corrupted by ecumenism.

When I ask if he had done Greek or Hebrew formally, or know anything about textual criticism, or any knowledge of how we got the Greek text, the answer is "I have studied greek and hebrew for a long time".

I offer you this post by our friend, Jim West, that I think hits the nail in the head.

That’s idiotic.  It’s like saying that if you spell one word wrong you’ve spelled them all wrong or if you are wrong about one thing you’re wrong about everything.  No one treats anyone that way- why would anyone treat the Bible that way?  Not to mention the simple fact that these KJV only people are more historically ignorant and more uninformed about the transmission of Scripture than any atheist could ever hope to be.  Indeed, even worse, they are idolaters, worshipers of a book.

How we got our Bible?

Scot McKnight has written an excellent, yet, accesible introduction into how the Canon was accepted, and created within the church. I am grateful for McKnight's take on the issue, and it is something that every christian should be aware of.

I share it with my readers, and hopefully, it will help them to comprehend, and defend their faith.

Which Books Get to be in the Bible? Says Who?

Jun 3, 2013 @ 0:05 By Scot McKnight Leave a Comment

Go to your Bible, open up to the New Testament, and you will find a collection of 27 books — every New Testament begins with Matthew and everyone ends with Revelation (not Revelations). 27 books is taken for granted today but for about 400 years that wasn’t the case. In fact, there was no such thing as a “New Testament” for a long time, and even then there were some books still in dispute. There is no need to resort to conspiracy theory here, but at least we should recognize that these books were not golden tablet like books dropped from the sky with the obvious and indisputable marks of divinity. Luther, in the 16th Century, spoke disparagingly about some books in the New Testament.

Is there space in  your church for teaching this topic? Do ordinary Christians know how we got our Bible?

How did it happen? Warren Carter, in his book Seven Events that Shaped the New Testament World, proposes a five-fold process. But he observes this prices is known only after the event. As he says, When Paul wrote Romans he didn’t propose sending it to the canon selection committee! (Think about that, or have a discussion with someone about it.)

Stage 1: Writing: the texts were written over time, they were sometimes issued in more than one edition, they interacted with one another, they bring together bits and bobs from early Christian settings (like hymns and confessions), some books were written (by Paul) that didn’t make it…

Stage 2: Use: these texts were used by early Christians in various settings, often in church gatherings where the writings were read aloud. He refers and quotes Justin’s First Apology 67. (Look it up.)

Stage 3: Collections. Eventually folks began collecting various books into groups, and the earliest one appears to be Gospels, but also there were collections of Paul’s letters and of the other letters. Some disputed the four fold Gospels and proposed a harmony of them (Tatian’s Diatesseron).

Stage 4: Lists and Selection. A major list, provided not long ago on this blog, was the Muratorian Canon. But there are some important observations about early listings: some books were secure, but not all of our NT books made each list; some books were disputed and some of these did make it; some books were definitely not in but were to be read (Didache, Shepherd of Hermas, et al). Some disputed books include James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Revelation. One of the earliest “whole” NT manuscripts has all 27 books but also has Epistle of Barnabas and Shepherd of Hermas.

Stage 5: Ratification. Between 350 and 400 AD the 27 books were settled upon, not all at once, not by one group though Athanasius (367) had the 27 list as we have it and in 397 the Council of Carthage listed the 27 books though not all accepted Carthage. Luther wasn’t fond — according to Carter — of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation.

So there we have it: God gave us the NT but didn’t drop the books from the sky. They came to the surface in the church over time and with some struggle.

The arguments used were things like antiquity, apostolicity, acceptable theological content, and widespread use (catholicity). These were judgments, used in a variety of ways for different books, but I do think Carter doesn’t value enough the regula fidei to Nicea as a major substance shaper of what was NT and what was not. What was within the canon of faith was put in the canon of Scripture.