Of Dogs and the "Traditional" SBC Soteriology

Recently, a statement was published by several leaders in the Southern Baptist Convention entitled “A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation.” This statement has roused much response by those who hold to the antithetical position to this document, namely the Calvinists in the Southern Baptist Convention. Now, of course, I am not a leader in the SBC so my words do not count for much. Neither am I in fellowship with an SBC church and, therefore, have no dog in this fight. However, with my being only six months removed from being a member of an SBC church, with the countless friends I have who are Southern Baptists as well as Calvinists, and with the small-scale battles against Calvinism within individual churches that have been driven by the mindset expressed in this new statement as well as the controversies that will undoubtedly emerge due to this document, I have decided to make a statement concerning this predicament.

            I could proceed, with as much elegance and skill as I could muster, to lay to waste the statement, article by article, laying to waste the not only the logically fallacious but also the biblically lacking assertions and denials presented by these SBC leaders, but indeed many Reformed Southern Baptists, young and old, seminary trained or not, could do this and will do this, probably with more ease and prowess than I. I could dispel their notions of “traditional” Southern Baptist doctrine concerning God’s salvation with a brief survey of Southern Baptist history, highlighting the key Calvinistic figures who played a part in the formation of the SBC, their schools, and their churches; furthermore, I could show that various statements drafted around the time of the SBC’s formation by SBC churches and seminaries are strikingly Calvinistic, affirming all five points. Another chink at which I could stab would be the false equivocation between a majority view, tradition, and truth that is found in this statement.  I could explain that their statements of faith to which the drafters of this new document have alluded, the 1963 and 2000 Baptist Faith and Message, are not only vague and weak confessions but are influenced greatly by the beliefs of the theological moderates/liberals of the mid to late 20^th century who held pastorships in SBC churches and professorships in SBC colleges and seminaries. I was a Southern Baptist for the first twenty-one years of my life and an ardent student of theology, creeds, confessions, and church history for the past five, and though that is not much time, I’m convinced that it requires even less to show forth the pitiful nature of this statement from a confessional, theological, historical, and biblical point of view. But, as I have said, I have no dog in this fight. Calvinism is no issue in my denominational context, that is, unless you reject it as unbiblical.

            Though this statement will never affect me, though I stand far off and shake my head at it, and though I may even laugh at the theological dunghill that these “theologians” pass as “traditional” Southern Baptist views on salvation, it pains me still. Their error hurts me because it elevates sinful man upwardly, making him nothing less than a demigod, and defames the glory of God in His sovereign salvation. It moves me and provokes me to want to write long, in depth diatribes with a biting, harsh, and accusing tone because of this maligning of the character of my God and exaltation of sinful man. To quote Calvin: “A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent.” Yet it is not cowardice that stays my hand. This is an in-house debate, and I live down the street.

            To those of my Calvinist friends in the SBC, you are in the thick of this mess. You are in the dock. It is you and your beliefs that are the subject of this document. This statement should not only discomfort you but enrage you. You should be showing your teeth and howling, not because you are being attacked, but because your Master is being attacked.

            As most of you with whom I am associated are in Mississippi, you should know that the executive director of your state convention has signed this document. Several pastors in the state have signed the document and more will undoubtedly join them. It is the consensus of the majority of the Southern Baptists laymen in the state, and all of them are seemingly building up in opposition against you and your views. It is increasingly becoming more dangerous to hold to the views of the Protestant Reformers concerning salvation, views that have been gleaned through the careful reading of Scripture. Friends, it is time to ask yourself, “Is this a hill on which I am ready to die? Will I stand firm to my Scriptural convictions or will I compromise for some sort of ethereal, idealistic, and even false sense of unity? Will I allow for the reputation of my God to be lessened and the name of sinful man to be lauded? Will I bark when my Master is attacked?”

            To my Calvinist friends in the SBC who desire to be teachers or pastors, do you see the danger you are in? I have heard various stories of state conventions aiding churches in the ousting of Reformed pastors by giving these churches anti-Calvinistic propaganda that wrongly informs congregations about what you believe. Will you compromise when pressed, or will you gladly and even joyously be run out of churches because you proclaim the truth of God’s Word?

            My heart goes out to you who already have and who inevitably will have to give an account for your convictions concerning the Doctrines of Grace. My prayer is that the Spirit of unity and truth would come to those in error, but if it is not God’s will to do so, may He grant boldness to you, brothers, to stand firm in your Scriptural convictions, to not waiver in the face of adversity. May He give you minds of compassion but minds keen and quick to defend the truths of His Word. Be diligent, brothers, and zealous for the glory of God.

“For from Him, and through Him, and to Him are all things. To Him be glory forever. Amen.”

- Romans 11:36

The Christian Aesthetic: Beauty in Light of the Biblical Worldview

 In the study of Christian systematic theology, one usually begins studying the area of "the knowledge of God." Basic questions are put forth and answered, questions like "Can God be known," "What can be known about God," "How do we know what can be known about God," etc. Here is where one finds the understanding that God can be known, as He is personal, to the extent that He reveals Himself through three media: the created order, the Word of God, and the Word made flesh, i.e. Jesus Christ in His taking up the office of Prophet.

Once that/how God has revealed Himself is established, the next step in systematics is theology proper: the study of God qua God. Questions concerning God's essence, attributes (both incommunicable and communicable), triunity, and the connections between such are raised and answered. One sees here, particularly, that God's Being is indelibly tied to His attributes. As Louis Berkhof writes, "[The attributes of God] are essential qualities of God, which inhere in His very Being and are not co-existent with it. These qualities cannot be altered without altering the essential Being of God... each one of them reveals to us some aspect of the Being of God" (Systematic Theology pg. 46).

This is essential to understanding our world, the world that has been created by God. In God, we have a positive standard for the world in which we live, a standard particularly revealed to us in His Word, both written and Incarnate. For instance, something is objectively good if it appeals to the goodness of God. One sees this in God's Law; as the Law reflects the Law Giver, so what God sets as a standard for goodness reflects His goodness. Something is objectively good because the One who is good declared it to be so. Goodness cannot be independent of God's nature. Hence in Christian ethics, goodness is only truly good in reference to God and His goodness.

Truth, too, is only objective in light of the Being of God and His proclamation and knowledge of truth, which by necessity flows from His Being. The veracity of God depends on no higher logic or reasoning than God Himself. There is nothing higher than Him to which one can test truth claims. If God does not exist, there can be no objective truth. Truth is bound to God's truthfulness and His sovereign knowledge. In a sense, for us to know truth we must know God's definite knowledge after Him. For example, the formula used to find the area of a circle (A= πr^2) can only be true if God ordained it to be so and then subsequently knows it to be true. God can not ordain and know the validity of A= πr^2 and it not be objectively true. The ordination of God and definite knowledge that comes from His ordaining establishes objective truth.

So goodness is determined by God, as is truth, and both depend upon His attributes. This post is not about Christian ethics or Christian epistemology; as the title suggests, the topic is of beauty. Is beauty completely objective on the same basis as goodness and truthfulness, God's Being, thus leaving no room for subjectivity? Can beauty truly be "in the eye of the beholder?"

Before I continue to answer this question, I will give you the reason as to why I am thinking of such. As one may know, I am a philosophy major. This past semester I took a survey course on the history of Western Philosophy from the 16th century to the 20th century. We focused on foundationalism and methodism in modern philosophical thought, particularly how these two things are different between the two major lines of epistemic thought in Western Philosophy: rationalism and empiricism. Rationalism, crudely speaking, desires to know universal truths in order to establish particular truths. Empiricism is the opposite, desiring to know particular truths in order to establish universal truths. Empiricism is the reigning conception today especially within the field of science. One day, I saw a quote on twitter by a well known atheistic empiricist named David Hume who wrote, in the 18th century, "Beauty in things exists merely in the mind which contemplates them." In other words, beauty is purely subjective, "[only] in the eye of the beholder." Knowing that this is coming from the same man who says the same thing about ethics and causality, that neither exist in reality but only in the mind, I began to think of the causal connection of the atheistic, empirical, subjective aesthetic to the subjectivity of ethics and truth that necessarily comes about in the atheistic world view, which have been discussed in previous posts. Therefore, this post has come about after ponderings that I have had concerning theistic absolutism its relation to beauty.

The first step is to find a reference point for beauty. God is said to be the measuring stick of truth and goodness; can it also be said that He is the same for beauty? Can God be called "beautiful" as He is also called "good" and "true?" The Scriptures are clear concerning the beauty of God: "One thing have I asked of the LORD, that will I seek after: that I may dwell in the house of the LORD all the days of my life, to gaze upon the beauty of the LORD and to inquire in His temple" (Psalm 27:4). Psalm 29:2 parses out the conception a bit more for there David speaks of the "splendor of [His] holiness." Beauty is found in the holiness of God; one could speak of this beautiful holiness as moral purity, but, perhaps, the holiness spoken of in Psalm 29:2 is referring to majesty, the absolute overpowering nature of the Godhead. Such holiness is spoken of in Isaiah 6. There, Isaiah finds himself in the presence of God and, subsequently, crying out in anguish and woe because of His fear of being consumed by God's holiness because of his sinfulness. Is this not the same situation in which David desires to be in Psalm 27:4, "to gaze upon the beauty of the LORD and to inquire in His temple?" David tells us that the LORD's beauty is seen when one is in His presence; Isaiah shows us that the LORD causes fear and trembling when one is in His presence. Perhaps Rudolph Otto was correct in his understanding of the holy, that it provokes both fear (mysterium tremendum) and attraction (mysterium fascinans). Perhaps this is why awe inspiring phenomena like lightening can also be some of the most terrifying. However this may manifest itself in the world, one can be sure that God's holiness, though it provokes fear, is also inherently beautiful according to the Scriptures.

There is, however, another way in which one can view the beauty of God. Grudem describes the beauty of God as a collective attribute; it is an attribute that is a summation of the other attributes. He writes: "God’s beauty is that attribute of God whereby He is the sum of all desirable qualities" (Systematic Theology 219).  In a sense, one can think of the beauty of God as the positive affirmation of perfection, where perfection is the attribute whereby God does not lack any undesirable qualities and is therefore viewed from a negative perspective.

Whatever perspective is taken concerning God's attribute of beauty, it being closely related to His holiness or it being more of a summation attribute, it seems clear that God is the consummate objective standard of beauty in the same way as He is the standard of goodness and truth. Therefore, one having a biblical worldview must conform his or her understanding to this reality, that beauty is ultimately objective as it is an attribute of God. Just as God is the ultimate object of goodness and truth, therefore making the subjectivity of goodness and truth impossible, so, too, God being the ultimate object of beauty makes any sort of aesthetic based upon subjectivity false. To hold to an aesthetic that is based upon subjectivity is to be outside of the biblical worldview as it appeals to the concept of beauty for it denies the consummate, objective beauty that is found in God alone. The beauty of God is the standard of all beauty, and, therefore, a Christian aesthetic must be built from this foundation.

How, then, does the universal manifest itself in the particulars? How does the objective beauty of God translate into the created world? As beauty seems to be in the same category as truth and goodness, it would seem that something in this world is beautiful as it reflects the being and nature of the beautiful God. This shall be broken down in two ways: 1.) as it relates to man and 2.) as it relates to things that are perceived, particularly through vision and hearing.

The manifestation of beauty as it relates to man is simple: God is beautiful; man is made in the image of God, therefore, man is an image of God's beauty. The constitution of man by nature demands the designation of beauty. Granted, because of the entrance of sin into the world, the image of God in man was marred and distorted. However, man is still made in God's image; he still has residual beauty that reflects in some way the beauty of God. The mere fact that man can will, reason, communicate, has personality, etc. because of His being made in the image of God makes him beautiful though he is tainted with sin.


Yet there is a promise for those who believe in Christ, that the blotches and imperfections that are caused by sin will be removed in the last day when believers will be fully conformed into the image and likeness of the Son, God incarnate. I find it to be no coincidence that Paul speaks of that day with terms concerning the beauty of the Church as Christ has made her beautiful in Ephesians 5:27: "so that He might present the church to Himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish." As Christ restores the Church back to the consummate image of God, He makes her beautiful as she will more fully reveal the beauty of God in holiness.

There is, therefore, an innate beauty that is a part of man as he is made in God's image, and through Christ's work, the pock marks, wrinkles, and zits of sin are being and will be removed from His Church on the last day, therefore bringing man back to his original beauty, to his original state before the Fall when he was more fully reflective of God's image.

Yet this is mostly metaphysical regarding man and his constitution. How does the beauty of God manifest itself in the physical? How does it appeal to the senses? To begin, one must first ask, "What is God's primary relation to the physical?" The simple answer is this: there is God and everything else that exists has been created by Him. The eternal God created the heavens and the earth. That is His primary relation to the universe: Creator.

It is in the creation narrative of Genesis 1 that one finds how God, Who acted in accordance with His attributes, created the world: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void..." (Genesis 1:1-2a). From the structure of the narrative, it seems as though God first created matter, for prior to His creative work there was only Spirit as only He was in existence then. After initially creating matter, He saw that it, particularly the earth, was "without form and void." It is interesting how the LXX translates the Hebrew into Greek. There, the Hebrew term translated as "without form" in English, which is often translated as "confusion," was translated as "αόρατος" (aoratos), loosely meaning "unsightly." "Without form," "confusion," and "unsightly" are all indicative of  something: chaos. There is no form, no order, and, by correlation, no beauty as the earth was "unsightly." Chaos, the lack of form,the lack of order, seems to be tied to ugliness.

One can think of the Fall in light of this conception. Sin, the ugly transgression against the beautiful command of God, is ultimately a subversion of the order which God has established for man. Man thought it wise to transgress the command of his Creator, thereby attempting to establish himself as ruler. This is the ugliness of sin, the reordering of the structure that God had established for man.

But God did not leave the creation in chaos, in formlessness. He acted by His nature, in accordance with His attributes which show forth the collective attribute of beauty, to form all things as they are by the power of His Word. He turned chaos into cosmos, which literally means "order." Thus, what was once "unsightly" became beautiful by the hand of Him who created all things. Creation is a work of God which was done in accordance with His attribute of beauty; therefore, beautiful things were produced. It is through the creative work of God that things are beautiful. This is how the metaphysical becomes physical, through creation.

Order, then, seems to correlate to beauty, as order is the opposite of chaos, which correlates to ugliness. It is no wonder why "cosmetics" come from the root "cosmos" for what are cosmetics supposed to do but bring order out chaos? Now, I say that somewhat jokingly, but that is definitely how they are perceived to work.

This is why truly beautiful music is harmonious, well balanced in volume and tone and tempo. Order has been established from the chaos that would otherwise exist with the screeching and squawking of instrumentalist playing on their own accord. This is why a mere rock is aesthetically different from the Venus de Milo. One shows shapelessness and formlessness, the other form, order, and structure.

So order, then, correlates to beauty, for order is expressed in how God has worked in creation and is a reflection of Himself, who is both orderly and beautiful. But man in recent years, in his want of independence and in his rebellion against God's beautiful, structured, formed, and ordered law, has want to establish for himself a definition of beauty that is contrary to God's being and work. He wants to deny the objectivity of beauty and establish for himself the measuring stick of beauty: his own opinion, his subjectivity. The beauty in the arts has followed the same path as morality and truth. It has been dwindled down into a subjective study because of the changing tides of the relativistic worldview. 

Chaos and nothingness has now become beauty for many in the existential and postmodern period of the past fifty or so years. Simply compare the art of the days when absolutes were upheld to the art of more recent periods, and you will see that there has been a shift in the "opinion" of beauty. Stylistically, art of the past was built upon order and form, the art of the late 20th and early 21st centuries for the most part reflect chaos. One merely has to compare the works of Rembrandt to Picasso or of Ambrosius Holbein toPollock. In music, compare Mozart to John Cage, or Bach to Schoenberg. The shift in the understanding of aesthetics is large and trails behind the shift in worldview. As society's understanding of truth and goodness have changed from objectivity and cosmos to subjectivity and chaos, so, too, has society's understanding of beauty conformed to relativism and mere feeling. 

Considering the nature of God in relation to His beauty, particularly related to His having the summation of all desirable attributes, should Christians cleave themselves to the recently formulated idea of subjective beauty? It would be unwise to do so for such denies the objective nature of beauty that is present by necessity due to the beauty of God. 

Should Christians find chaos beautiful, as many do in this culture that has been deeply influenced by philosophical existentialism and postmodernism? Such would be a denial of a fundamental element of cosmology, that God has made things ordered, formed, and beautiful for our enjoyment and His glory. To cave to the world's system of aesthetics is to deny what God has deemed to be beautiful and to upset the established order even more, leaving more deformity and ugliness behind it. Simply put, the aesthetic of this day is itself ugly as it shows forth a rebellion against God's order.

Christians should notice this trend, the trend moving from objective order to subjective chaos, and see how it is manifesting itself in the worldview of today. Not just in the realm of truth and goodness should these things be identified and combated, though these are first and foremost, but also in the area of aesthetics. Christians are called to conform themselves totally to the will of God as expressed in the Scripture, and that conformity includes how one views this world. What the Word says about beauty is the foundation of true aesthetics.

May we be transformed by the renewing of our minds concerning all things, concerning truth, goodness, and beauty, and recognize the objectivity of all three as true truth, true goodness, and true beauty as they appeal to and glorify God in their expression and in our enjoyment of them.

Foundational Problems of Atheistic Ethics

I have, in a previous post, attempted to show that any means of gaining knowledge outside of the existence of the Creator God, the God of the Christian Scriptures, is fruitless. There can be no objective validation of truth outside of the existence of the infinite, personal God. Though there is much more that could be said concerning the subject of "truth" and the denial of the God of the Scriptures, this post will not deal with truth qua truth. Instead, ethics/morality shall be the topic of discussion.

In the Christian worldview, there is one basis for morality: the existence of the holy, creator, covenant making, law giving God. Because God has created the world, the world is naturally in a position to do His bidding. Whatever He asks, creation must respond in obedience. Take, for example, the creation account in Genesis 1. God gives a command, and that command is obeyed. One sees this throughout the chapter: God says, "Let there be X" and there was "X." The sovereignty of the creator God demands the world to fall into accord with His command.

When the creation of man occurs, man is made in the same way, through the command of God, but he is made different. He is made in the image of God. God gave man a mind, a will, and affections by which he may willingly and freely follow God's towards the end of glorifying God and enjoying the blessings God has granted to him (marriage, work, and the rest of creation itself). By following God's commands, man is happy. By honoring what God has established as law, man is blessed. As the law reflects the lawgiver, so to the commands of God reflect who God is, and by inviting man, who is made in God's image, to follow His statutes, God is inviting man to be like Himself. Thus you have the command of Jesus in Matthew 5:48: "You must be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect." God, then, is not only the one who establishes the law but is the objective standard, the highest example, by which one is to measure His actions. "I am the LORD your God. Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am holy" (Leviticus 11:44; cf. 1 Peter 1:16).


To recap, the Christian sense of morality is primarily concerned with obedience to God. He has established His law and is our example by which we are to live. To know how to live unto God, one must turn to His Word, the Scriptures, for "the Scriptures principally teach what man is to believe concerning God [, the objective example for obedience,] and what duty God requires of man [, the commands that He has given us to follow for our good and His glory]" (Westminster Shorter Catechism Q. 3). However, this is only the vertical relationship, how one is to act in relation to God. Of course, horizontal relationships, particularly that of interpersonal ethics, are established by God in His law, there is another foundation as to why we are to act ethically and show respect to other people.


I said earlier that man is made in the image of God. Apart from this fact, man is merely an animal. He has no objective respectability. His dignity and worth are indelibly tied to him being made in God's image. When we act in an unethical manner toward's man, we are show disdain for the image of God. Now, of course, some might argue that man has lost worth and dignity after the Fall, but this simply is not the case. Both the fact that man's worth is tied to him being made in God's image and that that image is still present as part of the fundamental constitution of man's nature is found in an account after the Fall, Genesis 9: "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image" (v.6). Now, I wish not to get into the discussion of capital punishment, but one basic principle that is exemplified here is that man must not murder another man because that man is made in the image of God. Further more, one is supposed to love their neighbor as themselves (Leviticus 19:18; cf. Matthew 19:19). I have no doubt that such a command is based upon the fact that man is made in the image of God.


Therefore, in the Christian ethic, God is in view first and foremost. His commands are to be followed. He is the ultimate, objective ethical standard. He has made man in His image, and, therefore, man is by nature worthy of respect, love, and dignity. If one sees these things and acts upon them, they are acting in a right and good manner. If they tarry from these things and act to the contrary of them, they are acting in a wrong, sinful, and evil manner. This is the Christian ethic in a nutshell. This is the only ethic which can stand. It is either this ethical system or no ethical system at all.


Now, those last statements might sound a little obtuse to some. How can I say that? Are there not secular ethical systems in existence? Cannot atheists follow these systems and be ethical? The rest of this post shall deal with how any and all ethical systems that exclude the existence of God, particularly the Christian God, cannot stand from an epistemological standpoint.


I propose that for an ethical system to stand firm it must have two things: a universal, objective, authoritative "oughtness" (a God who exists and commands), and objective human dignity (man being made in the image of God). Without these things, no ethical system can stand.


Without the existence of the God who commands, by what authority can there be an "ought"? If all there is is this universe, what sort of objective ethical "oughtness" can we have? The laws of this universe cannot give an ethical imperative. Indeed, if we hold to an atheistic, particularly scientistic, worldview, and believe that all there is is this universe, made up of subatomic particles, atoms, and molecules that move and work by law, and we, as humans, are made up of subatomic particles, atoms, molecules, cells, etc., how can we have an ethical system apart from "what is, is right?" We are left with a completely mechanical universe, determined by the laws of physics. How can this produce an ethical imperative? Will we not, no matter what we do, follow these laws of physics? Does it then matter if we kill, steal, or destroy? If it happens, it happens, and that is right.


However, how we act, how we move, how we live, cannot have any sort of tag of "goodness" or "evilness" to it objectively speaking without something or someone authoritatively defining these words, giving them ultimate meaning. How can universals such as "good" or "evil" be anything objective in a closed system universe? Sure, one could call "good" that which follows the laws of physics and "evil" that which does not, but how can one defy such laws in a mechanistic, deterministic, universe? Would that not make, then, "ethics," "goodness," "evilness," "right," "wrong," merely subjective terms as they cannot be defined objectively? Thus, the ethical system of scientism could not be "what is, is right" for "right" has no objective meaning. Therefore, all that can be said is "what is, is" (though "being", "is-ness", or "existence" cannot be defined without God either, but that's a different topic).


There is, then, silence from an atheistic worldview. There can be no imperative; there can only be what is. No right, no wrong. No intellectually honest ethical system based upon objective imperative, on "oughtness". If an atheist does believe in an objective ethical system, then he does so on borrowed theistic presuppositions: authoritative "oughtness" and objective definitions of ethical terms.


The second necessity of an ethical system is objective human dignity. If we are to treat other humans in an ethical, respectable manner, do they not have to have such a dignity, the dignity as implied in the Christian understanding of man being made in the image of God? But we are working from the presupposition that there is no God; therefore, there is no one in whose image man is made. If one wants to take the position of atheism, which presents itself today mostly in scientism, then all than man is is a complex organism made up of cells. And all cells are are complex collections of molecules. And all molecules are are a complex collection of atoms. And all atoms are are a complex collection of subatomic particles. Man is merely made of subatomic particles. If this is the case, on what basis can anyone call him "dignified?" Sure, man is complex, but complexity does not impart worth and value by any objective means. What value does he have over that of a rock, which is simply a less complex compilation of subatomic particles? One might say that life is more valuable that non-life; but what is life? Is life not a bunch of atomic structures and energy working in a specific, complex manner? Sure, we can stand in amazement at the complexity, but to import objective respectability is to do so without warrant. Human dignity, respectability, worth, etc. can only be subjective in the atheistic worldview. To think of human dignity objectively is to lie to one's self apart from the existence of the personal, creator God who made man as the crown of creation, a being made in His own image.


The conclusion, then, if one is willing to deny the existence of God, is that morality, good, evil, right, wrong, etc. have not objective meaning and thus have no objective hold on anyone's life. Any ethical system is merely a clever, but dishonest, construct built by complex, yet impressive, collections of atoms, what we would call "humans." One is left to do what one wants, free from the bonds and restraints of "imperatives" and "objective authority." The universe doesn't care. What is, is. One might call this freedom, others might call this insanity.


Yet is there not a yearning, a yearning to do good, to do right? A want to stop evil? A desire for things to be in order? A desire for man to treat his fellow man with dignity and respect? There are two choices: either you can live in the lie which you know is a lie, that there is objective, ethical meaning apart from the existence of God, or you can acknowledge this yearning as a sign that there is Someone in whose image you are made, making you dignified, and that there are universal, objective imperatives found in the Scriptures and in the One of whom the Scriptures speak.




Soli Deo Gloria

The Existential Maneuver and the "Worship Experience"

"If one who lives in the midst of Christendom goes up to the house of God, the house of the true God, with the true conception of God in his knowledge, and prays, but prays in a false spirit; and one who lives in an idolatrous community prays with the entire passion of the infinite, although his eyes rest upon the image of an idol: where is there most truth? The one prays in truth to God though he worships an idol; the other prays falsely to the true God, and hence worships in fact an idol... It is the passion of the infinite that is the decisive factor and not its content, for its content is precisely itself. In his manner subjectivity and the subjective 'how' constitute the truth" (From Faith and the Absurd in Concluding Unscientific Postscript).

The above words of the "Christian" existentialist philosopher Soren Kierkegaard may seem striking, even heretical, to the conservative Christian. For someone to say that it is completely arbitrary as to what or whom religious devotion is directed but that only the manner in which said devotion is conduction can decide the truthfulness of the situation is preposterous, a manifestation of the denial of the Scriptures, and a clear sign of a liberal conception of plurality.

Kierkegaard, in other works, speaks of the "letting go" of the objective rationality of God's existence, attributes, etc. and making a "leap" of faith into the unknown. Only such, says Kierkegaard, can be constituted as a genuine faith (See Kierkegaard's The Absolute Paradox found in Philosophical Fragments).

Yet it is this same conception, this conception of the subjective, existential, passionate moment, this "letting go," this "leap" contrary to rationality, that drives many "conservative" Christians today in both doctrine and worship.

Dealing with doctrine first, I don't know how many discussions I have been in with other Christians and have found a certain point of disagreement concerning what the Bible says. When something of this sort comes up, my first move is to systematically work from the Scriptures, to exegete a passage of Scripture that elaborates the point of discussion, not merely to cherry pick a verse, drop it, and leave it at that. Of course, if the person opposite of my position is one of at least some biblical competency, they will retaliate with Scripture concerning their position. My next response is one of dismantling their usage of the passage, explaining what it says in light of the context. More often than not, their response to my correction is one like this: "Well, there are some things we just can't know about God. He's much greater than our understanding." The existential move of the "letting go" of objective knowledge is instituted, side stepping the issue, though the Bible clearly attests to the objective truth to which I am holding for the purpose of our understanding said truth. In essence, such a person is saying, "My faith is pure enough to the point that I don't need to know this. I am leaping into the unknown, but you have to have things figured out. Shame on you, you unfaithful rationalist!"

Now to be sure, I in no way believe God can be comprehended  in His entirety, but I do believe that the Scriptures teach us what we are to believe concerning God. Such an existential move of "letting go" of the reasoning of Scripture cannot hold such a view, that God reveals Himself in the Scriptures. If one treats a single truth concerning God that is clearly attested to in Scripture as something that cannot be known, on what basis can any other truth concerning God that is clearly attested to in Scripture be known? A single negation of the efficacy of the Scripture to reveal to us a truth that is expressed in the Scriptures must cause either skepticism concerning the rest of what Scripture says concerning Him or a flat out denial of the rest.

Perhaps a tangible scenario should be given. Let us say that a self-proclaimed Bible-believing Christian states that God does not sovereignly control all things but leaves some things to contingency, to chance. Some verses that are contrary to this view are Matthew 10:29 ("Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? And not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father.") and Ephesians 1:11 ("[He] works all things according to the counsel of His will."). One can either accept what the Scriptures say, that God is sovereign over creatures that aren't worth a penny and, indeed, all things, however small and insignificant they are, or one can make the existential maneuver and say, "We can't really know this about God. This is a mystery." If the latter is the position stated, then what the person is really saying is, "We can't really know this about God because the Bible is insufficient in imparting such knowledge to us on this topic." And since such truth is clearly laid down in Scripture, one is saying, by implication, "We can't really know anything about God from the Bible because it lacks sufficiency." Indeed, this is where Kierkegaard ultimately fell, believing that revelation is objective and is, therefore, against faith, which is subjective. One is therefore forced to believe in a God who they cannot know about for they have denied the sufficiency of Scripture to impart knowledge. They must take a leap of faith unguided by the objective truth, the Scriptures.


Such a position cannot be lauded as biblical Christianity. Scripture teaches that truth is objective; it is outside of our own conceptions. We do not determine truth subjectively. God is truth (John 14:6). The Word of God is truth (John 17:17). Such an existential maneuver as seen above is a denial of the truth, God and His Word.


Such an existentialist view of the Scriptures makes its way into Christian worship. The emphasis on subjectivity rather than objective truth in much of Christian worship is quite apparent. Lighting, lazers, and the like are used in order to provoke the passionate, existential moment. "Real worship," "true worship," "spiritual worship," turns into something that has to be felt, something that makes one warm and fuzzy inside, though there may be no appeal to the mind. The elements of it must appeal to the affections first and foremost. Thus worship, to the Christian existentialist, is more about the experience than objective truth. The existential moment of passion is in the hyped feelings of the worship experience. It is with this passion of the infinite, the mysterious, the unknown, that the cause of "true worship" is found.


This is, however, not what worship is about. A very simple statement in the Scriptures is very indicative of how one is to worship. John 4:24 states that "Those who worship [God] must worship in spirit and in truth." There is no doubt that the existentialist Christian worships in spirit, disregarding mere formality. Passionate worship I believe is much needed. They have passion, but passion for passion's sake. They reject the objective "truth" in which Jesus commands people to worship; they jettison the truths concerning God in the Scriptures for God is "unknown." And by neglecting the truths concerning God found in Scripture, they neglect God who has revealed Himself in the Scriptures. 


Worship is to be informed by the truth of the Word concerning God. If we do not know who God is and what He is like from the Scriptures, our passionate worship is merely worship of self.


I find what John Piper said concerning John 4:24 to be very true:

The two words, spirit and truth, correspond to the how and the whom of worship. Worshiping in spirit is the opposite of worshiping in mere external ways. It's the opposite of formalism and traditionalism. Worshiping in truth is the opposite of worship based on an inadequate view of God. Together the words "spirit and truth" mean that real worship comes from the spirit within and is based on true views of God. Worship must have heart and worship must have head. Worship must engage your emotions and worship must engage your thought. Truth without emotion produces dead orthodoxy and a church full of unspiritual fighters. Emotion without truth produces empty frenzy and cultivates flaky people who reject the discipline of rigorous thought. True worship comes from people who are deeply emotional and who love deep and sound doctrine (http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/sermons/god-seeks-people-to-worship-him-in-spirit-and-truth).

Truth about God must be known to worship God aright. And such objective truth concerning God can be only be found in the Scriptures. If those truths do not spark a passion in worship, then those truths are not really true to the worshiper. If there is a presence of passion in worship without truth, then it cannot be said to be the God of Scripture who is being worshiped.


In conclusion, to avoid false worship, one must accept what the Scriptures say concerning God. To pull an existential maneuver, calling something that is clearly stated in Scripture to be ambiguous in order to protect one's own favored position from the accusation of falsity, leads not only to a practical denial of Scripture's sufficiency to convey truth and, if one actually believes that their existential maneuver is correct, the denial of the "truth" aspect of biblical worship.




Soli Deo Gloria.

My Take on the Rapture

May 21st has come and gone for Jerusalem. That means that the "bible prediction" announced by Harold Camping, that the rapture was going to happen at 6:00 p.m. Jerusalem time, was wrong. Sure, there were a few people that took him seriously in his proclamation, but the vast majority of evangelicals failed to fall under his teaching. Now there are many different reasons why Christians dismiss Camping and his kooky predictions. I will talk about two of them in this post and discuss on which side I fall concerning my dismissal of the May 21st rapture.


The first category of Christians who deny Camping's prophecy are one's that do believe in the rapture. The vast majority of these people are adherents to a system of theology known as Dispensationalism, though they may not be familiar with this title. As I grew up in the south, in a Southern Baptist church, I was taught the system of Dispensationalism from an early age. I was told that Israel was and still is God's chosen people and that "bible prophecy" was being fulfilled concerning them today as evidenced by all the turmoil in the middle east. Because of this, I was told, we are in the end times, which entail a rapture, seven years of tribulation, the Anti-Christ, sacrificial systems being restored, Jesus ruling for a literal millennium after His second coming, and then judgement day. This teaching is prevalent in the south, particularly in "conservative" Baptist and Methodist churches.


This camp asked this question: "Will the rapture happen when Camping says it will?" This is the question they had to answer for Camping is himself a Dispensationalist- a radical Dispensationalist, but a Dispensationalist nonetheless.


In order to answer this question as to whether or not Camping is correct in his prediction, the Dispensationalist, as I have seen them do, will appeal to the Olivet Discourse's teaching on the matter, which states, "But concerning that day and hour no one knows... but the Father only" (Matt. 24:36, cf. Mark 13:32). Camping is wrong, therefore, because no one can know when these things will come about according to Scripture. 


Their reasoning and usage of Scripture is sound; because of what Scripture says concerning the knowledge of the end in the Olivet Discourse, Camping couldn't be said to know these things definitively. Now, of course, the Dispensationalist must grant that there was a possibility for the rapture to happen on the 21st of May even though Camping had no ground of proof for it. However, completely ruling out the possibility for the rapture happening on the 21st for the Dispensationalist (at least the pre-tribulation rapture Dispensationalists) would be self contradictory for the "no one" in Matthew 24:36 applies to them as well. According to their system, God, at any time, could cause the rapture to happen. Therefore, to say definitively that the rapture could not have happened on the 21st would be against their own understanding of Matthew 24:36.


But there is another camp that did not believe Camping's prophecy: those who are not Dispensationalists. This is where I fall personally; as to why I fall on this side of the boundary line will be discussed later in the post. Of course there are different subcategories in this camp; my personal belief is that of Amillennial Covenantalism. I will display this camp's basic eschatological views in juxtaposition to the one shown forth by Dispensationalism. We believe that God's chosen people are those who believe in Christ; it does not matter what nationality you are, if you believe in Christ, you are included into the metaphorical Israel, Abraham's offspring, the Church (John 1:13; Romans 4:16; Romans 9:6; Romans 11:1ff; Galatians 3:28). We believe that Christ rules over His Kingdom, the Church, now through the Spirit (Matthew 4:17, Matthew 28:18; Luke 17:19,20, Acts 1:7,7). We believe that there will not be a literal millennium in which Christ will reign but that He is reigning now in a metaphorical millennium as it has been nearly 2000 years since the beginning of Christ's reign on earth in His Church. We believe that there will be no "secret rapture" or seven year tribulation. Tribulation is metaphorical and is something that the Church militant will have to endure until Christ returns to judge the living and the dead. Considering that this view lacks a rapture and seven year tribulation, the "Anti-Christ" is not some political player that will unify the world but is viewed as anyone who denies and teaches against Christ (1 John 2:18). One will find this teaching within Reformed, Reformed Baptist, and Presbyterian churches mostly. 


The ground for our disbelief in Camping's "Bible prophecy" concerning the rapture was not based upon the Olivet Discourse statement, that no one knows the day or the hour. Instead, we do not believe in the rapture at all as we believe that it is not biblical and is nothing more than a form of escapism with hints of Platonism mixed in, hence why I felt as though I could joke about it freely without worry about not only Camping's false teaching but also the false teaching that is Dispensationalism.


Now, that last sentence used some strong words against Dispensationalism and, by implication, its eschatological teaching; allow me to make a statement toward the end clarification. I do not believe that adherence to Dispensational systematic theology/eschatology will nullify salvation in Christ. This is not a damnable heresy like Trinitarian or Christological heresy. I hope those who might read this who are Dispensationalists feel the same way towards me and other adherents to Amillennial, Covenantal theology. If we agree on the Gospel then let that be enough ground upon which we can address each other as brother or sister and view these things as secondary.


However, a teaching that is wrong should be addressed. As many have not been taught anything other than Dispensational theology, these statements may come as a shock, but as one who has seen both sides of the eschatological coin, I shall now point to the reasons why I do not view Dispensational as a valid system of Scripture interpretation and why I find some of their doctrines lacking. First are some statement concerning its history.


The method of biblical interpretation known as Dispensationalism and all the doctrines that arise out of that method can be traced to one individual for the most part. His name was John Nelson Darby (1800-1882). Prior to Darby and his teaching in the United Kingdom, no one spoke of a "secret rapture," that one day Christians will disappear and the unbelievers will be left behind or spoke of Jewish people as still God's chosen people. C.I. Scofield (1843-1921) popularized this teaching in the United States through his published Bible notes. In later years, Tim LeHay has furthered the teaching through his Left Behind series, bringing Dispensationalism into the hands of laymen by means of fiction. From a historical perspective, Dispensationalism is very weak. Why has no one in church history prior to Darby spoken of the rapture or the nation of Israel being God's chosen people after Christ's incarnation? One can only have two conclusions: either everyone in church history prior to Darby could not see these things or Darby is wrong. Here, evidence seems to go against Dispensationalism.


Secondly, I want to talk about the misuse of genre in the Dispensational eschatological hermeneutic. Now, they must be praised for their view of Scripture in some regard for they viewed it as the divinely inspired, inerrant Word of God. That is something with which I will agree. However, where they err is when they say that they want to interpret some parts of the Bible literally when they should not; when this is done, harm is done to the meaning of the text. Let me explain. When one reads a history textbook they are to read it as a history textbook; when one reads poetry, one is to read it as poetry. To extract the intended meaning out of a chapter in the history text one cannot read it as poetry, i.e. by searching for literary devices, focusing on meter, etc. To do so would be absurd. Likewise, one should not read poetry as one would a history textbook, as factual prose intended to be taken literally. One will miss the entire meaning of the poem if this is done. This is exactly what the Dispensationalist goes wrong, reading one genre in a way in which the genre should not be read. This becomes a problem because much of what Dispensationalists base their system of eschatology on is found in the books of Daniel and Revelation, which are examples of Apocalyptic. Apocalyptic literature uses vivid imagery and heavy symbolism to convey a simple message and should not be read in the same way that narrative, history, or even prophecy is read. Using all of the symbols of the book of Revelation as if they have a one-to-one relationship with something in the future was not the intention John when he wrote it. The symbolism and imagery is meant to convey this simple theme: the Church must persevere through hardship for many will seek to over throw her, but Christ the Lord shall prevail over all the Church's foes when He comes again in judgement.


Thirdly, Dispensational teaching states that Israel, i.e. the Jewish people, is God's chosen people even into the New Covenant era. This, however, establishes a two fold covenant by which God works, one for Jews and one for Gentiles, though Paul seems pretty adamant about abolishing the Jew/Gentile distinction concerning admittance into the one Covenant that is entered into by faith in Christ (Galatians 3:28; Colossians 3:11). With that said, it should be noted that Israel is God's chosen people, but Israel understood in light of the New Covenant is the Church of Christ. In other words, I am Christian, therefore, I have been granted the covenant promises reserved for Israel in the Old Covenant and am metaphorically an Israelite. This is why Paul, writing to Gentiles and Jews, states in Romans 4:11,16 that Abraham is the father of all those who believe in Christ. Bloodline does not matter; nationality does not matter; Christ matters and breaks down the Jew/Gentile covenantal distinction. If a Jewish person believes in Christ, he is proven to be one of God's chosen people; if a Jewish person does not believe in Christ, he is proven not to be one of God's chosen people (Romans 9:6). Also see Romans 11 showing the ingrafting of Gentiles into Israel.


Fourthly, along with the teaching of Israel, Dispensationalism proclaims that the last days, the faithful Jews will reestablish the sacrificial system that will continue even after the establishment the millennial kingdom. This makes no sense for Hebrews 10 clearly exclaims that Christ has fulfilled the sacrificial system through His once for all sacrifice. To say that the sacrificial system must be re-instituted in the millennial kingdom implies that Christ's sacrifice was not enough for those chosen by the Father.


Fifthly, the Dispensational understanding of the "secret rapture" adds to the teaching of the second coming of Christ. According to the teaching of the "secret rapture" in pre-tribulation, pre-millennialism Dispensationalism, Christ will come again to first call the dead saints and then will secretly "rapture" (from the Latin "raptare" which means "to snach" or "to seize") the living saints prior to the seven year tribulation. After that period of seven years, Jesus will come back to judge. Now, if Christ comes back for the secret rapture and then comes back again to judge, would that not mean that there are two returnings of Christ? I do believe that if Christ will come back to earth twice that the Scriptures would declare that He will do so; however, only one return is evidenced in Scripture. Also, there are no Scriptures that teach the "secret rapture" of the saints. The ones that supposedly do are taken out of context, such as Matthew 24:31-44, or are not understood in light of the Roman cultural analogies that are instituted in the text, 1 Thessalonians 4:13ff. Scripture tells us that Christ will come to judge, not that He will come to take us a way to Heaven for a little while and then come again to judge.


Fundamentally, this is what I do believe. Christ is coming again to judge the living and the dead. Christ will give all of His saints, dead and living, who are united to Him by faith, glorified bodies and will continue His reign of the His Kingdom, the Church, physically when He does come back. The wicked shall be cast into Hell. Most of all, God will be glorified in all of these things, in salvation and in judgement.

"’Mid toil and tribulation,
And tumult of her war,
She waits the consummation
Of peace forevermore;
Till, with the vision glorious,
Her longing eyes are blest,
And the great Church victorious
Shall be the Church at rest."

 "The Churches One Foundation" by Samuel J. Stone

SDG