A Short Reflection on Philippians 3:1b

“Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things to you, to me indeed is not grievous, but for you it is safe (Php 3:1).”

Biblical scholarship in today’s world is considered to be the ongoing discovery of fresh perspectives and new interpretations of various passages of the Bible. The traditional meaning of Scripture must be reinterpreted according to novel discoveries in archeology, science or Near Eastern literature. This itch for publicity and respect amongst scholars finds its way into the pulpit at various points of spiritual troughs of the Church Age. The preacher of God’s Word is suddenly apprehensive of preaching from the familiar passages of Scripture. He must dig deeper into the wisdom of man, so as to apologize for the foolishness of the Cross. The congregation does not come under the conviction of the Holy Ghost, but under the spell of contemporary scholarship which the preacher attempts to draw from the latest journals and publications. Instead of feeding the sheep with the meat of God’s Word, the goats are fed with the fodder of positivism, pragmatism and secular humanism.

But God’s Word should never be too familiar for Christians, and familiarity must not breed contempt. Paul wrote, “To write the same things to you, to me indeed is not grievous, but for you it is safe (Php 3:1b).” For the Apostle “to write the same things (ta auta graphein)” to the Philippians, probably concerning the matter of “rejoicing,” is not grievous. The usage of the present active articular infinitive indicates “the going on writing of the same things.” Paul is obviously not weary of ongoing repetitions of the same things. It is, indeed, not irksome or tiresome for Paul to repeat the same things to the Philippians, simply because it is safe (asphales) for them. The reiteration of certain truths is sometimes the best safety measure against error.

According to Matthew Henry:

1. Ministers must not think any thing grievous to themselves which they have reason to believe is safe and edifying to the people.

2. It is good for us often to hear the same truths, to revive the remembrance and strengthen the impression of things of importance. It is a wanton curiosity to desire always to hear some new thing.

I have observed that, sometimes, by the countenance of the congregation, the impression is conveyed that church members are very “familiar” with the message being preached on the Lord’s Day. The incessant yawns and the constant quibbles, which often occur at the back aisles, may be misconstrued as an overenthusiastic response to the sermon so much so that the congregation begins to open their mouths in prayer. Children might appear to be so delighted with the pastor’s preaching that their parents allow them to run amok.

As a reminder to all, we should not be inattentive whenever the pastor preaches the same message, or the same passages from the Bible. Faithful is the minister who hammers away at the same warnings and the same exhortations to the backsliding congregation, in a bid to draw them back from perdition and error. Faithful is the minister who refuses to acquiesce to the congregation’s demand, and feed the sheep according to their needs. Faithful is the minister who preaches only the pure Word of God, and expounds on the precious, eternal truths of the Bible for the edification of the saints.

And if the sermon contains those “same things,” it is not tiresome for the minister, but is safe for us all. We do not need to listen to church growth theories, or how Paul changes his perspective every decade or so according to the whims of certain scholars. The unchanging, unerring Word of God is our all-sufficient source of heavenly wisdom and knowledge.

Prayer: Heavenly Father, deliver us from the itch for novelty and scholarship. Help us to be faithful to your Word, even if it cost us members and mammon. Thou must increase, and I must decrease. Amen.

Thou shall not Plagiarize

I was reading an interesting article by Tim Challies on "plagiarism in the pulpit" today. He was discussing how certain ministers utilized the sermons of other preachers, and passed them off as their own.

Tim wrote:

Of course we would be remiss to read about this issue and to neglect asking why pastors feel it necessary to preach other peoples' sermons. I'm sure that in some cases pastors are simply lazy and are looking for a way to avoid what can be a long, tedious task. But in many cases I suspect pastors preach these sermons because they feel their congregations will demand a certain quality and a certain level of entertainment that they cannot provide. The spirit of pragmatism lives in the church today and I know of many pastors who have succumbed to it. They feel that their congregations will be better served by a sermon that is witty and contemporary than by a pastor who absorbs himself in a week-long study of the Bible. Some churches expect far too much of their pastors, demanding that they be leaders and entertainers more than preachers. Some pastors are not allowed sufficient time to adequately prepare their sermons. In many cases, the pressure for plagiarism may well originate in the pews and not in the pulpit.

Of course, plagiarism involves at least a certain degree of dishonesty on the part of the plagiarizer. But this issue is not only plaguing ministers in the pulpit, but also certain lay leaders and teachers of God’s Word. I believe Tim’s perception, that certain ministers resorted to plagiarizing sermons because of their desire to please the congregation, is rather accurate. In such cases, "the pressure for plagiarism may well originate in the pews and not in the pulpit."

Despite Tim’s article on this issue, I am still rather perplexed as to why a teacher of God’s Word must resort to plagiarizing the work of other Christians. If the congregation wants to listen to "Chicken Soup for Itching Ears," and refuses a steady diet of God’s Word, should the minister or teacher change his feeding methodology? Should he then acquire the scraps and offal from animal farms to feed the humans in the church? Perhaps, the proverbial "congregational" squeeze of the wallet is sometimes too difficult to bear. The minister usually has a large family to start with (say, wife and six children), and coupled with an already minimal sum of monthly allowance (for some Reformed ministers at least), a "tightening" of his salary might even mean a tightening of his belt, more gastric ulcers, and tattered pants for the Lord’s Day worship. This does not apply to pastors of megachurches, as their earnings can even be substantially more than that of plastic surgeons. I know that in Singapore, a certain pastor’s house has even a lift to carry him up and down his multistorey bungalow. Now, that is definitely better than my church’s building! As a matter of fact, my church does not even have one. We are currently renting a room to worship in.

Furthermore, if the minister were to preach systematically from the Bible, I believe there will never be a lack of biblical text to preach from. Unless, of course, such passages from the Word of God are deemed boring, unentertaining, and banal. The true child of God should desire the sincere milk of God’s Word, not the fermented and spoilt milk from the world. If the congregation is indeed averse to listening to sound preaching, feeding them the poison of human philosophy and carnal wisdom will only worsen their spiritual illness. Entertaining sermonettes limited to 30 minutes - peppered with a few jokes along the way - would not do these folks any good. What they need is the sound preaching of God’s Word, not exhilarating punch lines or motivating speeches.

Even among bloggers, there may be a temptation to plagiarize another’s ideas, or even words. Whether one is a lay leader, Christian writer, or theologian, it is generally good policy to give due credits to the sources one uses. Even if one is using the ideas, and not exactly the thought-flow or words of another writer, it is good to include a footnote stating the original source.

On the another hand, the fact that two writers present similar ideas in their work is not always necessarily plagiarism. Certain concepts are so widely known that, to put these ideas into one’s writings without quoting the original source may be acceptable. For example, Covenant theology has its roots in the works of Caspar Olevianus (1536-1587), Scottish Theologian Robert Rollock (1555-1599), the church fathers and, of course, the great reformer John Calvin. To use the concepts of Covenant theology in one’s theological writings without actually quoting the original sources (in this case, the writings of, say, Caspar Olevianus) is absolutely acceptable. This is because any theologue would know that the originator of Federal theology is not the writer in question. If, however, the source of such ideas is not widely known, the onus is upon the writer to ensure that due credits are given to the author of these concepts.

A further note of warning to budding writers: paraphrasing another’s writings does not make those ideas yours. Even in academic writings, plagiarism is sometimes rampant. I have read books by high profile academics who sometimes utilizes the concepts of another theologian, which were presented in some obscure journals, without ever giving a single clue as to the original sources. Paraphrasing another author’s writings might make it more difficult for the reader to "google" search for the original quotations, but the truth will eventually find you out.

So readers, do your own research, and quote all the original sources in your writings, okay?

PS: As I am currently going through the draft of my writing project, I am particularly conscious of this "plagiarism" issue. So, in a way, I am directing this post to myself first and foremost.

Another Reason for the Lack of Spiritual Discernment: The Doctrine of Balaam

Balaam is a popular name in the Bible, but I am not suggesting that the reader should name his son Balaam. Balaam is mentioned by name three times in the New Testament: once by Jesus (Rev. 2:14), once by Jude (Jude 11), and again by Peter (2 Peter 2:15). Our Lord adjured the church in Pergamos to repent of “the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.” Both Peter and Jude lamented that false teachers had gone in “the way of Balaam (Jude 11, cf. 2 Peter 2:15).” In this post, I will briefly reflect upon how this “doctrine of Balaam” is closely related to the lack of spiritual discernment in some churches today, although I am aware that the context of these passages has to do with false teachers.

So who is this Balaam? According to biblical records, Balaam was the son of Beor, a king of Edom (Genesis 36:31-32). He settled in Pethor, beyond the river Euphrates in Mesopotamia (Numbers 22:5; Numbers 23:7; Deut. 23:4). By the way, this place is actually quite far from where I live in Singapore. Having a widespread reputation of being able to prophesy and to pronounce a curse or blessing on people, he was called by Balak, king of Moab, to curse Israel (Numbers 22:5-6). It is fortunate for us that Saddam Hussein was not alive when Balaam was developing his career in Palestine. No one could have predicted what Hussein will require Balaam to do for him - with much cash, of course.

As we have read in the Bible, King Balak (not Hussein) and his minions tempted Balaam repeatedly with filthy lucre and honor to betray Israel. Balaam finally yielded; he taught Balak how to tempt Israel to sin so that God would curse them Himself (Numbers 22:7,17-18; Numbers 24:11-13; Numbers 25:1-18; Numbers 31:16; Deut. 23:4-5; Joshua 24:9-10; Neh. 13:2; Micah 6:5; 2 Peter 2:13-16; Jude 1:11; Rev. 2:14). Finally, to cut the story short, Balaam returned to his home after having gained a reward by teaching Balak to ensnare Israel in sin (Numbers 24:25; 2 Peter 2:15; Jude 1:11; Rev. 2:14).

Balaam went astray because he “loved the wages of unrighteousness (2 Peter 2:16, Jude 1:11).” He taught aberrational doctrines for reward (Rev. 2:14). He compromised God’s Word and betrayed God’s people for physical benefits, temporal gains and personal honour. This is the error of Balaam, and tragically, some churches have followed in his fungal footsteps.

In the worldly sense, compromise brings great dividends. The rejection of false teachings and teachers will greatly narrow the number of churches with which one can cooperate. “Loving” acceptance of all sects, cults and denominations would guarantee the unending contribution ($$$) and cooperation (even more $$$) from such organizations. By being accommodating to errors and deviant doctrines, and by pandering to the lowest common denominator in their confession of faith, these leaders would establish better rapport with a wider range of institutes and churches. For them to be “narrow-minded” and unyielding would only mean forsaking friends, “open doors” and financial help.

Do you want to know what Balaam’s maxim is? As the saying goes, “Maintaining a conspiracy of silence with an inclusivistic philosophy is the ultimate strategy for sustaining profit margins.”

Therefore, discernment has to be abandoned if one wants to be a successful clergyman in today’s churches. Perhaps it is time to purchase donkeys for these compromising leaders, and preferably, talking ones.

Yours truly,

Balaam’s Ass

Reincarnation in the New Testament

Answer

Some well-meaning Christians insist that we are not to judge another’s position in Christ. But unless we affirm universal salvation, we have to make this kind of judgment when witnessing to the lost, don’t we? When we preach Christ to, say, a Buddhist, aren’t we assuming that he, being a Buddhist, does not know Christ as Savior? And unless we make some kind of judgments based on the Bible, we can never discern truth from error.

The quotes from my previous post were taken from the following book:

James Morgan Pryse, Reincarnation in the New Testament, new ed. (Whitefish, MT: Kessinger Publishing, 1997).

ISBN: 1564594513

In fact, the entire book is available online for your reading pleasure, whatever that might be.

In theology, words alone are not very helpful, unless these words are stringed together as propositional truths. Likewise, terms such as “sin,” “Christ,” and “repent” are quite ambiguous unless these words are explained.

To reiterate my point, orthodox sounding terminologies do not mean much, unless one defines what is meant by those terms. I had previously mentioned that this writer believes in Jesus, original sin, the resurrection, the vicarious atonement of Christ, heaven, hell, the sacrament of baptism, and salvation by faith. The reader is welcomed to call him a Christian, but I for one will see him as a Theosophist. And this is what he calls himself.

As a Theosophist, James Pryse was also the founder of the Gnostic Society in Los Angeles:

“The Gnostic Society has existed in Los Angeles since 1928. It was founded by noted author James Morgan Pryse and his brother John Pryse for the purpose of studying Gnosticism and the Western Esoteric Tradition generally.

After the establishment of the Ecclesia Gnostica in the United States, the Gnostic Society has united with the Ecclesia and is now functioning as its affiliated lay organization. Neither the Ecclesia Gnostica nor The Gnostic Society have a formal, dues-paying membership. The activities of both are open to all. Free will offerings are accepted.”

The reader can excuse himself for being unfamiliar with theosophical terminologies, but he must not presumptuously embrace any orthodox sounding lingo as Christian. Perhaps Pryse is, indeed, “growing in grace and knowledge” of some god. Unless the reader deems Theosophy as part of orthodox Christianity, I wouldn’t advice the reader to consider joining this society. And yes, I know membership is still free of charge.

Again, it’s nothing personal, really.

As conversion is not merely an existential, but also an intellectual, assent to scriptural revelation, I had mentioned in my previous post that the seeker has to understand and embrace certain salient doctrines to be considered a Christian. The apostle Paul pronounced anathema upon those, even if it were an angel from heaven, who would preach an alternative gospel. Saint John warned that we must not have any fellowship with those who deny the doctrine of Christ, and I would add, God. The Apostles and the Antenicene fathers battled furiously with the Gnostic heresy. Councils were held to repudiate erroneous teachings on God, Trinity and Christ. Even the Council of Orange felt that the doctrine of anthropology was important enough to label Semi-Pelagianism heresy.

But it seems that there is a growing latitudinarianism pervading Christendom today. The narrow way is now getting broader to accommodate men of diverse faiths. Those that mock the Reformed doctrine of justification are now considered respectable scholars and friends of the gospel. In prominent American seminaries, these “respectable scholars” teach others, who would be future pastors and shepherds, to preach this false gospel in Presbyterian churches. They utilize the lingo of the cognoscenti to mesmerize the students, while the laity dribbles at their every word with wide-eyed stares and adoration. In the meantime, the masses sit at the feet of Cain and beg for his scraps to be thrown to them.

But I am comforted to receive an interesting comment on my previous post. Jim Swindle from http://vineandfig.blogspot.com/ gave me the following helpful suggestions:


“Hello. I just found your blog.

Maybe my thoughts will be useful here.On the Day of Pentecost, I'm virtually certain that not all of the thousands who were saved believed all of the things listed in the original post. Were they Christians? Well, that word wasn't invented yet, but it appears that the great bulk of them were true believers.

Still, as time went by, they needed to "grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and savior Jesus Christ." They needed to mature spiritually.

Some of us take longer than others to mature, and each of us matures faster in some areas than in others. When I became a Christian, I was not a Trinitarian. I wasn't anti-Trinitarian, either. I just hadn't thought deeply about that matter until I was going door-to-door evangelizing and came to the home of some Jehovah's Witnesses. They challenged me on the issue. Through study and insight from the Lord, I came to believe that they were wrong.

It was not until a year or two later that I came to believe in the inerrancy of the Bible (that is, inerrancy of the original manuscripts and sufficient providential preservation of the text for us to have full confidence in every spiritual truth in the Bible).

Now, many years later, I'd agree with you concerning all of the items on your list, except perhaps number 17. I believe in election and in predestination and also that we are commanded to believe. I'm not quite sure how all of that fits together.

I believe the original post was correct in establishing a distinction between what someone believes, and what someone believes after correction.

May the Lord guide you and me and your other readers into a deeper knowledge of himself through [the real] Jesus.

I hope some of this helps.”


I can agree with the general thrust of Swindle’s comment. Young believers may not know the details of various fundamental doctrines, but their basic understanding is sufficient to bring them to the knowledge of God. I had previously clarified that my list of aberrant doctrines is NOT MEANT TO BE A CHECKLIST TO DISCERN WHO IS CHRISTIAN AND WHO IS NOT. Somehow, many readers misunderstood my intentions, and seem to think that I am propounding that one has to adhere to the whole list in order to be saved.

A Cordial Response to Swindle’s Comments

There are certain premises for us to consider. According to Acts, on the day of Pentecost in Jerusalem, “there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven (Acts 2:5).” Jews and Gentiles proselytes were there in Jerusalem on Pentecost for a particular purpose, and that purpose is not a city tour, a sightseeing excursion, or shopping at Palestine’s largest mall. These devout men, both Jews and Gentiles, are there for the Feast of Pentecost. They are proselytes of Judaism, and they had prior knowledge of the God of the Bible. They were acquainted with the Old Testament, and had expected a Messiah to come, the Son of David.

Peter, in his sermon on Pentecost, preached about the deity of Christ, His resurrection, the need for repentance and turning from sins to God. “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36).” He said, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call (Acts 2:38-39).”

By the time of Pentecost, the word “repent” has already acquired the nuance similar to that used by John the Baptist and the Prophets. “Now, therefore,” says the LORD, “ Turn to Me with all your heart, With fasting, with weeping, and with mourning (Joel 2:12).” Likewise, John preached, “Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance (Matthew 3:7b-8a).” Repentance must produce fruits; in the same vein, an alleged repentance without visible fruits is dubious.

Did Peter’s gospel agree with that of the “free-grace” teachers? Or did Peter propose a fresh, new perspective on the gospel of Christ, which leads to a sarcedotal religion in our days? Besides, the recipients of the Gospel were not heathens without any prior knowledge of the Law and the Prophets. They did not receive the Good News with the presupposition that the Bible (that contains this Gospel) is capable of error.

Seekers today are seldom initiates of Second Temple Judaism. They have little, if not zero, knowledge of God. Most Singaporeans and Americans today believe that we came from primordial slime some three billion years ago, and that our ancestors were probably arboreal monkeys. How many of them will understand the biblical meaning of “sin,” “Jesus,” “God,” and “repent?”

While I agree that sanctification is progressive, and varies from Christian to Christian, certain biblical truths have to be assented to before the person can indeed be called a Christian.

Imagine the following scenario:

Tommy hears the Four Spiritual Laws and prays the sinner’s prayer, “Lord Jesus, I need You. Thank You for dying on the cross for my sins. I open the door of my life and receive You as my Savior and Lord. Thank You for forgiving my sins and giving me eternal life. Take control of the throne of my life. Make me the kind of person You want me to be.”

Terms such as ‘sin,’ ‘Lord,’ ‘Saviour,’ and ‘God’ are quite meaningless unless they are defined clearly. Tommy claims to believe in the God and Christ of the Bible, but he has never read the Bible all his life. So, when Tommy says he loves Jesus, while lacking any further knowledge concerning who this Jesus is except that He died for sins, can we truly claim that he understood the Jesus of the Bible? Likewise, if this “believe” is only a mental agreement with the Four Spiritual Laws, without any sincere or genuine repentance, can Tommy be considered born-again? Furthermore, without knowledge of the attributes of God, His holiness and holy hatred against sin, will Tommy understand what ‘sin’ really is? Does Tommy truly understand what is meant by the term “sinner?”

Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons will have little problems praying the sinner’s prayer to “receive” Christ. Both will similarly desire the love of this loving God, who is hoping to give sinners a “wonderful plan” for their lives. Perhaps this plan includes getting rich and successful. I doubt Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons will have problems with the Four Spiritual Laws. According to the Four Spiritual Laws, Jesus is Lord and Saviour, but what about being fully God and fully Man? On the other hand, will we (like the Mormons) get eternally pregnant and produce zillions of spiritual kids in heaven? Or perhaps Jesus is only a begotten God, but He is also the Lord and Saviour according to the Arian understanding.

Quiz Time

There is also another person who would pray the sinner’s prayer, but his understanding of several theological terms is very different from that of orthodoxy. Let us peruse abstracts of his writings:


The "original sin" was the descent of the soul into the material world, and the generation of physical bodies, man being thenceforth a God dwelling in the animal form.

"Resurrection" (anastasis) is any ascent from a lower to a higher state of existence, whether of individual man or of the entire race. Rev xx 5, 12; John v 29. As relating to the Aeon, or world-period, the "first resurrection" is the awakening to spiritual life, during the cycle, of the "just men" who have been "made perfect"; while the "second resurrection" is "that of all mankind at the close of the world-period, when they are "judged every man according to their works".

"Salvation" is freedom from the bondage of rebirth. Jesus is represented as a Saviour in that he taught and exemplified the right-conduct that alone can emancipate the soul from the material, animal existence, and awaken it to the realities of the spiritual life.

"Faith" is intuitive knowledge, the dim reminiscence which the soul retains of its pristine state; true faith, instead of being but ignorant opinion, is the beginning of spiritual wisdom, "an assurance of things hoped for, a proof of things not seen". Heb xi I.

"Righteousness" is right-conduct, the perfect performance of duty in the light of a purified conscience.

"Baptism", or lustration, is a ceremonial rite of purification, symbolizing successive degrees of initiation into the divine Mysteries. The exoterist, or "earthy man" (choïkos), when he first comes to recognize the reality of the spiritual life, becomes a "believer" (pistos); by the lustration of Water he becomes a "psychic" (psuchikos); by that of Air (pneuma), a "spiritual person " (pneumatikos); by that of Fire, a "perfect man" (teleios); and by that of Blood (ether), a full Initiate or Christos. "My little children, of whom I am again in travail until a Christos be formed in you." Gal iv 19

The "Atonement" is the union of man's purified human self with his spiritual and divine Self; it is "vicarious" in the sense that the sinless spiritual Self is incarnated for the salvation of the animal-human creature formed " of the dust of the ground " - that is, evolved from the elements.

"Regeneration" is the ‘birth from above’ when the soul, freed forever from the prison of clay, puts on its "first garment" - the deathless glorified body of the Initiate.


So, in summary, this writer believes in Jesus the Lord and Saviour, original sin, the resurrection, the vicarious atonement of Christ, heaven and hell, the sacrament of baptism, and most of all, salvation by faith. And I can confidently say he will pray the sinner’s prayer.

Will the reader tell me whether this man can rightly be called a Christian? Or maybe we should not judge him, because he is “growing in grace and knowledge of the Lord and Saviour.”

Multiple choice answer

A) He is probably a young believer, and needs to grow in grace and knowledge of Christ.
B) He is a bona fide Christian. Why did you ask?
C) He is a theologian, and you shouldn’t question his Greek.
D) He is a young believer, and needs to be led to the Truth.
E) He is not a Christian, and someone needs to preach the Truth to him.
F) Thou shall not judge. That’s the eleventh commandment.

The reader may choose more than one answer. I will inform the reader later as to the name of the writer, and which book I quoted from.

PS: Please do not google search for the writers name.

An update for this blog

Dear Readers,

As some of the bloggers in Christian blogosphere might have realized, I do not have the time to write proper posts in the last few weeks (that’s terrible, terrible, Vincent). I am trying to finish a writing project, which has really taken too long to complete. I am glad to have completed the final chapter, and presently, I am going through the entire project and rewriting certain chapters that I deem as poorly written or analyzed.

I believe my (preliminary?) research has taken me into a very controversial and, perhaps, novel area of study in the arena of current dispensational-covenantal dialogue. With regard to the subject of contemporary theology, the definition of a dispensationalist has evolved through the last few decades, partially due to the helpful academic contributions of our progressive dispensational brethren. In defining the sine qua non of Dispensationalism, Dispensationalists have inadvertently drawn a line of demarcation, which Reformed theologians should not cross. To embrace this sine qua non would mean a redefinition of one’s hermeneutical-theological grid, which is definitely not similar to that of Reformed theology. The ramifications of this sine qua non would also be apparent in one’s ecclesiology and eschatology. Therefore, one cannot embrace this sine qua non and continue to maintain the designation of Reformed. This is because, by definition, a Dispensationalist is one who adheres to this sine qua non.

I have referred to Bible Presbyterianism in Singapore as the archetype of such a theological dilemma, and via this writing project, I intend to encourage our Bible Presbyterian brethren in Singapore to consider a redefinition of their theological-hermeneutical grid. So, in a nutshell, this is what I am working on.

In my study of Bible Presbyterianism, I am absolutely convinced that this system of theology would greatly benefit the theological community if it acquires the necessary impetus in its definition and development, as well as an existential evaluation of where within the dispensational-covenantal continuum it should place itself. Although Far Eastern Bible College describes itself as a Reformed seminary, its adherence to the sine qua non of Dispensationalism might confound further dialogue between dispensational and Reformed brethren. For the sake of ongoing and future theological developments within Dispensationalism and Reformed-Covenantal theology, it is paramount that proponents of each school of thought are precise and candid with their self-appraisal and appellation. Surely, no sincere and godly theologian would want to appear to be ambiguous or worse, confused. But I am confident that Far Eastern Bible College will continue to develop its system of theology in a direction consistent with the sine qua non, and arrive at a comfortable zone within the dispensational-covenantal continuum.

I would like to express my gratitude to those who have agreed to proofread the manuscript for me. The Lord willing, I should be able to submit the manuscript to them by the end of this year, and if not, by early 2007. I have multiple reservist (military) obligations to fulfill in the next few months, which might cause a resultant suspension of my scheduled writing. Coupled with compulsory lectures to attend on weekends - which are actually the most productive time for me to write - there is the likelihood of a delay in the completion of the manuscript. Nevertheless, my aim is to complete it within these 2 months.

Once again, thanks for dropping by!

Yours truly,
Vincent Chia

Does Food Get in the Way of Social Cohesion?

After reading the article “Does God get in the way of social cohesion?” in Insight, Straits Times (Saturday 21st October 2006), I felt I have to express my insights with regard to this intricate, and especially sensitive, issue in multi-racial and multi-religious Singapore.

The caption of the article reads, “Singaporeans seem more religious these days. Will it lead to social enclaves as they mix and mingle more and more only with those who share their faith? By Li Xueying and Keith Lin.”

Daniel has voiced his thoughts concerning this article in this post of his. And I do applaud his “no mincing of words” approach. But I intend to be a little more politically correct in this blog of mine, lest I get put behind bars for expressing my thoughts too directly.

Tell me; are there any legal ways of expressing yourself in Singapore other than to write in parables? Unfortunately, I am not good with concocting parables. So, I wrote what I suppose would turn up in a fictional newspaper in Singapore in the near, or perhaps distant, future. And please do excuse me if things don’t turn up the way I have described.

Does Food Get in the Way of Social Cohesion?

Heterophilic Insights, The Straight Times 21st Oct 2016.

The following are quotes from the aforementioned article:

At work, if increasingly devout Gluttons use lunchtime for mastication sessions, when will they find time to sit with those of different interests in the coffee shops?

When a person becomes more gluttonous, he is likely to spend more time on activities at his place of eating. He or she may end up hanging out with gluttons from the same hemisphere when doing non-masticatory activities such as baking and social drinking. This leaves less time to interact with those of other interests.

“The increase in repast ardor,” says Institute of Grub Studies academic Lai Ah Beng, “will lead to weakening social cohesion only if gluttons are aggressively consuming their favourite grub everywhere, competing for tables in coffee shops by deriding each other, and if recipe interpretations are exclusivist, self-righteous and/or extremist.”

And it is this that has the most-revered Mr Yas Man (aka Mr Sycophant) worried. The former Chief Executive Officer of the Gluttons Anonymous of Singapore (GAS) speaks of the rise of what he calls ‘exclusive consumerism’ in Singapore since the 1970s.

“There is this prevailing ‘consumerism’ which calls for consumption of even animals that are close to extinction, and the claim that they have the one true recipe and the only way to cook a particular dish,” says the Yas Man, also a member of the Immediate Relieve of Antagonism (IRA).

“But no one recipe has the monopoly on absolute truth. Each recipe can claim to be the true concoction, but we don’t have the complete recipe, therefore we need to have a dialogue with one another in continuously seeking the full culinary truth.”

Chocoholic leader Brother Milky Belgian, also of the IRA, shares the concern, noting the “growth of fundamentalist sects within our gluttony groups, which are normally quite understanding.”

Says the deputy chef of St Joan of Arc’s Restaurant: “If you have really exclusive ideas about culinary truth, it sometimes can lead to great misunderstanding, that because I belong now to a school of cookery that is true, everyone else that doesn't belong to my restaurant, cafe, coffee shop, whatever, is false . . . that something is wrong with the rest of humanity, something is wrong with the rest of the gluttons of Singapore who do not subscribe to my gastronomic passions.”

“It's very simplistic thinking, but the trouble is that you're dealing with a lot of young people who consume enthusiastically with fervour everything they're given.”

The problem of an exclusivistic interpretation is not confined to Gluttony. Prof A. Sot highlights the presence of some “extremist bibbers who want to minimize contacts with non-bibbers.”

Does God get in the way of social cohesion?

Insight, Straits Times 21st October 2006

The following are quotes from the aforementioned article:

At work, if increasingly devout Christians use lunchtime for prayer sessions, when will they find time to sit with those of different faiths in the coffee shops?

When a person becomes more religious, he is likely to spend more time on activities at his place of worship. He or she may end up hanging out with friends of the same religion when doing non-religious activities such as volunteer work and social activities. This leaves less time to interact with those of other faiths.

“The increase in religious fervour,” says Institute of Policy Studies academic Lai Ah Eng, “will lead to weakening social cohesion only if religions are aggressively competing for members by deriding each other, and if religious interpretations are exclusivist, self-righteous and/or extremist.”

And it is this that has the Reverend Yap Kim Hao worried. The former Methodist bishop of Singapore speaks of the rise of what he calls 'evangelical Christianity' in Singapore since the 1970s.

“There is the prevailing conservative theology which calls for conversion of people of other faiths and the claim that they have the one true faith and the only way to salvation,” says the Rev Yap, a member of the Inter-Religious Organisation (IRO).

“But no one religion has the monopoly on absolute truth. Each religion can claim to be the true faith, but we don't have the complete understanding, therefore we need to have a dialogue with one another in continuously seeking the full truth.”

Catholic leader Brother Michael Broughton, also of the IRO, shares the concern, noting the “growth of fundamentalist sects within our religions, which are normally quite understanding.”

Says the deputy principal of St Joseph's Institution: “If you have really exclusive ideas about truth, it sometimes can lead to great misunderstanding, that because I belong now to a school of thought that is true, everyone else that doesn't belong to my denomination, church, temple, whatever, is false...that something is wrong with the rest of humanity, something is wrong with the rest of the citizens of Singapore who do not subscribe to my religious belief.”

“It's very simplistic thinking, but the trouble is that you're dealing with a lot of young people who embrace enthusiastically with fervour everything they're taught.”

The problem of an exclusivistic interpretation is not confined to Christianity. Prof Alatas highlights the presence of some “extremist Muslim Singaporeans who want to minimise contacts with non-Muslims.”

Reformed Lawsuits? An Update.

Are Lawsuits Amongst Believers In Vogue?

After reading about Mr Lim Seng Hoo and his lawsuit against the pastors of Calvary (Pandan) Bible Presbyterian Church in Singapore, it is distressing to peruse yet another article concerning the well-known Ligonier’s Ministries, and their defamation suit against a Mr Frank Vance. By the way, it’s Brandon (from Simply Christian) who alerted me to this issue.

Quoting from the post in Ministry Watchman:

“I find it incredible that the Reformation Study Bible, which R.C. Sproul is the General Editor for, clearly condemns the practice of Christians suing Christians, because of the disgrace that it brings upon the church, and how it ruins the church’s testimony for the Lord Jesus.

In the commentary for 1 Corinthians 6:7 the Reformation Study Bible says:

“Nevertheless, if the Corinthians understood the serious implications of all the improprieties in their church, and if they appreciated the qualities that should characterize believers (cf. 12:4-7), they would much sooner bear injustice than bring disgrace upon the Christian community by publicly exposing their misdeeds in the civil courts.’”

Frank Vance, the defendant, writes:

“RC Sproul’s good pastor friend John MacArthur certainly seems to understand why Christians shouldn’t sue Christians. In his Study Bible John MacAurthur says:

6:1 Dare. Suing another believer in a secular law court is a daring act of disobedience because of its implications related to all sin — the displeasure of God: a matter against another….

6:4 …the basic meaning is clear; when Christians have earthly quarrels and disputes among themselves, it is inconceivable that they would turn to those least qualified (unbelievers) to resolve the matter.

6:5,6 Shame. Such conduct as suing a fellow believer is not only a sinful shame, but a complete failure to act obediently and righteously. Christians who take fellow Christians to court suffer moral defeat and spiritual loss even before the case is heard, and they become subject to divine chastening.

6:7 why…not…accept wrong? …Christians have no right to insist on legal recourse in a public court. It is far better to trust God’s sovereign purpose in trouble and lose financially, than to be disobedient and suffer spiritually.

One of the reasons that we as Christians shouldn’t “dare to go to law before the unrighteous” is because it’s a lot like disrobing in front of strangers, or as others have put it, “it’s like airing our dirty laundry for the whole world to see.’”

This is all so shameful for the Church of Christ. I do wonder who is having the last laugh.

Nothing personal, really.

I have a couple of questions for myself, and perhaps someone out there can help me with answering them.

Background

I was reading a post by Daniel, when I came across a comment from brother Jenson that might cause a little storm in my brain’s teacup, whatever that might be. Brother Jenson wrote:

“I say this with good-will, but with Biblical separation, one has to do it carefully and graciously. Not all believers have reached a level of maturity to be able to handle criticisms and some will inevitably say ‘that is your interpretation!’ when you confront them with a topic as big as ‘Justification by Faith’.”

Of course, Jenson’s comment must be read within the context of Daniel’s post. At first reading, it seemed that I had a little difficulty understanding the second sentence of Jenson’s comment, especially when he “appeared” to have said that believers may not “have reached a level of maturity” to understand “a topic as big as ‘Justification by Faith.’” Having known Jenson better than this, I am sure this is not what he is trying to insinuate. But again, this post brought certain thoughts to mind.

When does a seeker becomes a true believer of biblical Christianity?

Perhaps I can better frame my thoughts in the form of another question:

Can one be considered a true believer if he believes in any one of the following, and yet refuses to change his mind about it (i.e. repent) at a particular point in time? Let me know what you think.

Using simple terminologies:

Soteriology

1. Salvation is not by faith alone.
2. Salvation is not in Christ alone.
3. Salvation is not by grace alone.

Christology

4. Jesus is fully God, but not man in any sense.
5. Jesus is fully Man, but not God in any sense.
6. Jesus is a kind of god, but he is not exactly like the Father in terms of Godhood.
7. Jesus didn’t really rise from the dead.
8. Jesus didn’t really die. He appeared to have died.

Theology

9. There is one God, but not three Persons.
10. God does not know everything in advance.

Theology of the Word

11. The Bible becomes the Word of God when a believer reads it. But this “Word” or “Truth” defers from believer to believer.
12. The Bible is not inerrant or infallible. In other words, the Bible contains errors here, there, and everywhere.
13. The Bible is not the inspired Word of God. Only the message is inspired.

Eschatology

14. Christ is not coming back.
15. Christ really came back, but only spiritually, invisibly.

Anthropology

16. Man is not fallen. He has the innate ability to perfectly keep the Law of God.
17. Man needs Jesus, but he also needs to help himself. God does not help a man who does not help himself. A man must exercise his ability to believe.
18. There is no such thing as original sin. Man is born sinless.

Kindly take note that some of the aforementioned doctrinal points are actually heresies.

Clarification: I am not saying that such a person is not saved. What I am saying is that, can such a person be considered a true believer, if he holds to any of the aforementioned doctrines. Of course, if such a person refuses to be taught, and persists in believing a heresy, he can truly be named a heretic (Titus 3:10).

Again, none of us know who is an elect and who isn’t. I was from a Romish church, and I did believe in salvation by works. This brings us back to the original question: If a person does not believe in “justification” by faith alone (like myself back then), can he really be considered to have understood the gospel? If not, then is he a true believer in biblical Christianity at that point in time? This is, of course, from Man’s point of view.

Let’s Break That Guilty Silence

Note: I have yet to post further with regard to reasons for the lack of discernment in the Christian church today. But before I burden you with my perspectives, I would like to commend to you the following article by one of my favorite preacher and writer, Aidan Tozer.

In the following article, he decries the spiritual cowardice so inherent within contemporary Evangelicalism, and rightly calls it sin. Therefore, one further reason for the absence of discernment today is not the lack of understanding, but the lack of moral courage to stand up for what is true, and the preoccupation with a shameful, cowardly lust to please man rather than God.

Let’s Break That Guilty Silence
by A. W. Tozer

Taken from Aidan W. Tozer, God Tells the Man Who Cares (Cumbria, UK: OM Publishing, 1994), 176-180.


One of the great saints of the past, in a well-known hymn, calls on his tongue to break its “guilty silence” and praise the Lord.

The logic behind the stanza is that if it is right to praise God it is wrong not to praise Him and for that reason the tongue that is silent is sinful. Dr. R.A. Torrey taught that, since the greatest commandment is to love God, the greatest sin is failure to love Him. Such sins as not praising and not loving are called “sins of omission” because no positive act has been committed. The guilt lies in what is not done and might be designated as passive guilt rather than active. But though passive, it is nonetheless real.

Under the law of Moses a man could incur guilt by keeping still about some evil he knew was present in the camp of the Lord, and in the New Testament James tells us bluntly, “Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins” (James 4:17). Is it not a serious thought that many clean-living, decent persons, against whom no overt act of wrongdoing can be charged, may yet be deeply guilty and inwardly stained with the sin that does not show, the sin of silence and inaction? There are moral situations where it is immoral to say nothing and basely immoral to do nothing.

The Bible has much to say in praise of prudence and circumspection, but it has nothing but condemnation for the coward. It is plainly taught in the New Testament that the soul that is too timid to own Christ before men on earth will be denied before the Father who is in heaven (Matthew 10:33). And in the book of the Revelation the fearful are classed with the unbelievers, the murderers, the whoremongers, the sorcerers, the liars, and all are relegated to the lake which burns with fire and brimstone (Revelation 21:8). Obviously moral cowardice is a sin, a grave and deeply injurious sin.

The fear that keeps us quiet when faith and love and loyalty cry out for us to speak is surely evil and must be judged as evil before the bar of eternal justice. The fear that prevents us from acting when the honor of God and the good of mankind call for bold action is unalloyed iniquity. God will not overlook it and, if it is persisted in, He will not forgive it.

The sinfulness of silence and inaction is more than academic; it is sharply practical and may impinge upon the soul of anyone of us at anytime. Let a moral situation shape itself so that righteousness demands speech and action, and theory becomes practical fact instantly. We have but to keep still and sit tight to become guilty of real sin.

A Political Example: Communism

The world situation today is such that sin by silence may be more widespread than at any other time in the history of the world. For the first time in human history a shockingly wicked ideology has been organized into a world conspiracy, shrewd, cruel, inhuman and fanatically determined. Of course, I mean international Communism, the devil’s most cunning and most effective imitation of Christianity to date. It is as if the boiling cauldrons of Gehenna had sprung a leak and the noxious vapors had entered the brains of men and turned then into moral cavemen without any conscience or any sense of common decency. They appear to be possessed and morally demented to a degree known nowhere else on earth. These men, though numerically few, yet constitute a threat to the world so grave, so deadly, that nothing else on earth can be compared to it.

Standing as we do under the shadow of such a mighty evil, how can any informed person be still? How can any member of the non-Communist world be indifferent as he sees every value that differentiates man from the beasts being destroyed and every spiritual quality that makes life worth the living being extinguished? The statesman who refuses to take sides has already taken sides. His tolerance has made him a traitor to his own country and to the human race.

A Spiritual Application

Serious as all this may be, there is something more serious still. It is the failure to take sides and to speak up when the enemy stalks into the very sanctuary and pollutes the holy place. Precious as human values may be, such values as freedom and decency and the dignity of the individual, divine values, are infinitely more precious. As high as is the heaven above the earth so great are the spiritual treasures revealed to us by the inspiration of the Spirit and secured to us by the blood of the everlasting covenant. The wisdom of God contained in the message and practice of the redemptive revelation is above a king’s ransom. “For she is more profitable than silver/ and yields better returns than gold./ She is more precious than rubies;/ nothing you desire can compare with her./ Long life is in her right hand;/ in the left hand are riches and honor./ Her ways are pleasant ways,/ and all her paths are peace” (proverbs 3:14-17).

At this hour in world history the state of religion is such that the church is in grave danger of losing this priceless treasure. Her gold is being turned to copper and her diamonds to glass. The religion of Cain is now in the ascendancy - and marching under the banner of the cross. Even among those who make a great noise about believing the Bible, that Bible has virtually no practical influence left. Fiction, films, fun, frolic, religious entertainment, Hollywood ideals, big business techniques and cheap, worldly philosophies now overrun the sanctuary. The grieved Holy Spirit broods over the chaos but no light breaks forth. “Revivals” come without rousing the hostility of organized sin and pass without raising the moral level of the community or purifying the lives of professing Christians. Why?

Could it be that too many of God’s true children, and especially the preachers, are sinning against God by guilty silence? When those whose eyes are opened by the touch of Christ become vocal and active God may begin to fight again on the side of truth. I for one am waiting to hear the loud voices of the prophets and reformers sounding once more over a sluggish and drowsy church.

They’ll pay a price for their boldness, but the results will be worth it.

Reasons for the Absence of Discernment 2

A Compromising Spirit

Another reason for the absence of discernment is the attitude of compromise. This is the spirit of New Evangelicalism. It is the “criticize not”, “judge not”, “let’s be positive” and “just love everyone” philosophy. In contemporary Christianity, the irenic spirit of New Evangelicalism is so pervasive that the term “Evangelical” is almost synonymous with “New Evangelical.”

This philosophy of neutralism and compromise is naturally appealing to the carnal mind. Who would like to “reprove and rebuke (2 Tim. 4:2-5)” others when he can appear to be amiable, obliging, and agreeable? Who would choose to be a pungent, unpopular preacher when he can be the fashionable, positively loving pastor? Deviant doctrines are quietly tolerated in the name of love. All criticisms of questionable doctrines are quickly undermined as negativism and pharisaism. It is of little wonder that the spirit of biblical discernment is despised and even labeled as “narrow-mindedness,” “bigotry,” and “judgmental-ism.”

Let me recount an incident as an illustration. In a church I visited, there was a discussion on the issue of “househusband” during Sunday School. The pastor preached on the topic of God-ordained roles for Man and Woman, and subsequently elucidated the subject of biblical Fatherhood and Motherhood. The discussion group appeared to be fairly agreeable with the pastor’s teachings, which are, of course, according to the Word of God.

However, when the pastor was away to preach to a mission church the following week, another discussion group gathered after Sunday Service to reevaluate what was discussed the previous week during Sunday School. An elder of the church asked, “So, everybody agree with what was taught last week?” What subsequently followed was a torrent of disagreements and repudiation of the biblical views taught by the pastor last week.

Some proposed that it is good for a “well-qualified” woman to work outside the home, and to bring in the bread and butter, especially if the husband is unable to acquire a lucrative salary (for example, if the husband is a road-sweeper or hygiene officer). Others commented that if the husband is doing home-based work (e.g. Web-based work), he can be the “househusband” and take care of the children, while the wife earns extra salary outside the home. After all, why “waste” the wife’s qualification, and allow an incapable husband to earn the meager “few dollars?”

But the Bible is very clear as to what the roles of the husband and wife are. The husband is to be the provider, protector, and spiritual leader of the family. The wife is to submit to the husband’s authority, and to be a “keeper at home (Titus 2:4-5).” The father is never meant to breastfeed the kids, and neither is he endowed with the necessary glands for that purpose. Apparently, pragmatic concerns inundated biblical guidelines, and the opinions of men are elevated above the Word of God.

I was absolutely astounded as to why an apparently “doctrinally sound” church (I would like to refrain from naming this church, or stating its ecclesiastical associations) would succumb to such a compromising spirit and pragmatic philosophy. If church elders could not even figure out what the biblical roles for father and mother are, how can they lead the home, let alone the church? Most likely, the leaders know what these roles are (according to the Bible), but they would rather please men than to glorify God and to uphold His Word.

When a brother-in-Christ spoke up vehemently against these unbiblical views of Fatherhood and Motherhood, he was criticized as being “unloving” and “judgmental.” By associating any form of discernment or criticism with such pejorative terms, the leaders are covertly stifling the testimonies of these faithful brethren.

Also, the leaders hinted that he should not “despise” his weaker brethren who adhere to such alternative views. It was also declared during a discussion group that all views are correct, and that we should not “judge the views held by other brothers and sisters.” A session member even commented that a mature Christian would be able to “accept” and “love” another brethren, including his erroneous views. He insinuated that a mature Christian would not criticize others, let alone “judge” the other brother-in-Christ.

My reply is this, “A mature Christian will seek to please God rather than men, and will endeavor to honor God’s word rather than men’s mere opinions and preferences. A mature Christian will care for his brethren’s spiritual welfare, and will correct him if he is wrong. The failure to correct serious doctrinal errors, especially the failure for elders to do so, is tantamount to spiritual murder!”

In view of such a careless attitude to doctrine and truth, it is of little wonder that churches infiltrated by the irenic spirit of New Evangelicalism will inevitably follow the slippery slope down to greater compromise and spiritual privation.

May the Lord help us in this age of error.

Note: As I am trying to invest my after-work hours to research my project and writings, I have only my lunchtime to write for my blog. So do excuse me if there are any errors in my posts.

Reasons for the Absence of Discernment 1

It appears that spiritual discernment is deficient amongst Christians today, especially within Contemporary Evangelicalism. But what could be the reasons that might account for such a deficiency? Again, why are serious doctrinal errors and multifarious “movements” ensnaring Evangelical Christians? If the Holy Spirit guides us into all Truth, why are Christians so confused with regard to the teachings of the Bible?

Spiritual Immaturity

Peter exhorted the Christian Diaspora to “desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby” (1 Peter 2:2). Likewise, Paul chastised the Corinthian Christians for being spiritual babes. Subsisting only on spiritual milk, they were unable to take solid food. “I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able” (1 Cor 3:2).

Therefore, the first obvious reason for the lack of discernment is spiritual immaturity. This can be the consequence of slothfulness, the unwillingness to study the Bible, a lack of interest in spiritual things, or the inadequacy of good teachers. A spiritual baby will not be able to discern right from wrong, truth from error, or the shepherd from the wolf.

Caught up with the cares and worries of this world, some are unwilling to invest more time for the study of God’s Word, while others are too exhausted after slaving for riches and honor. When the world ceases to be a battleground for the pilgrim, it is transformed into a playground where carnal believers wallow in its lusts, pride and beauty.

Some Christians even claim to glorify God by doing well in examinations, securing a prestigious job in a company, or achieving an impressive post-graduate degree. One wonders how God is glorified by the sacrifice of personal devotional time, the neglect of Bible study, and the desecration of the Lord’s Day by missing church services and fellowship. There is nothing wrong with achieving good results in examinations or acquiring a doctorate per se, but when priorities are confused, these pursuits can easily dominate a person’s life. Precious resources such as time and energy are consequentially invested in areas other than the Lord’s work.

The conscience has an uncanny way of defending selfish desires by camouflaging it in “Christianized” uniforms and garbs. The quest for personal gains is sometimes disguised as “God glorifying” deeds. Nevertheless, when self is placed on the pedestal of worship, the only “god” that is glorified is the god of this world.

When addressing the Greek-speaking Jewish Christians, the author of Hebrews wrote, “For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat (Hebrews 5:12).”

This rebuke is true for many who (choose to?) remain in spiritual infancy, when they ought to have matured to consume strong meat. “But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil” (Hebrews 5:14).

The ability of spiritual discernment will not be available to those who choose to remain in spiritual infancy. If they refuse to study the Word of God, the Holy Spirit is unable to use the Bible to transform the mind of the believer (Romans 12:2).

Spiritual maturity does not come via sudden visions, dramatic dreams, exhilarating experiences, electrifying emotions or fanciful magic shows and skits. The Holy Spirit works by applying the written Word. The Bible and the Third Person of the Holy Trinity work in tandem to bring about spiritual growth. No amount of fables, newspaper headlines or “Chicken Soup for the Christian Soul” from charismatic preachers will bring about spiritual revival. The only “revival” observed here is a biological, pheromonal ecstasy or an adrenaline rush to the unthinking brain.

To be continued

So What Is Wrong With Taylor’s Book?

Firstly, I must apologize for using some difficult, and probably, vague quotes from Taylor’s book. But I wouldn’t want to insult anyone’s intelligence by using the obvious and easy ones.

I think all of you know that there is, indeed, something wrong with Taylor’s book. All of us are forced to return to basic Theology 101, and in that sense, I believe most of us benefited from this little exercise.

Jenson actually mentioned John 1; Taylor did spend a chapter discussing John’s prologue and gospel in order to attack Christ’s deity. Wenxian posted a little summary on the doctrine of the Trinity, a doctrine which many Christians do not take time to study. The next time we meet a Jehovah Witness, a Mormon or a Unitarian, let us be prepared to defend the Divinity of Christ, and the doctrine of the Trinity. Daniel mentioned Sabellianism, which comes fairly close to Taylor’s direction of development for his Christology and Theology.

Nevertheless, I believe the most basic lesson for all of us is this: a book can begin with the language of orthodoxy and love (Taylor reiterated the concept of love numerous times), but its content might prove poisonous for the soul.

Finding Taylor’s book in the “Christian” section of the Tampines Regional Library is not the most disappointing event last week. But chancing upon Richard Dawkin’s The God Delusion at the top-most shelf of MPH “Christian” section is. And guess whose work Dawkins used to support his atheism? On pages 95ff., he quoted the writings of Bart D. Erhman, the apostate textual critic. By the way, are Dawkins and Bertrand Russell related? They seem to speak the same things.

And again, what is Dawkins book doing on the shelf of the “Christian” section of MPH? Why was it not placed in other “Religion” sections?

Answer:

In the following brief commentary on Taylor’s latest work, I have included several quotes that I did not publish in my previous question.

Let us read what Taylor has to say:

“[The Council of] Nicea seems to have little awareness of Old Testament use of such symbolic terms as Logos (Word), Wisdom, Spirit, etc. All of these biblical terms do not refer to separate divine persons or entities. (p 36)”

To understand terms such as Logos and Spirit as symbolical representations of Yahweh is to undermine the doctrine of the Trinity. Although Christians do not see the Persons of the Godhead as being “separate,” such terms do refer to distinct Persons within the Trinity.

“[The Council of Chalcedon] shows little knowledge of or respect for Scripture’s many literary forms and figures of speech. Where the Old Testament often spoke of God’s nature and activities by means of symbolic terms and personifications, such as Spirit, Wisdom, Word, etc., Chalcedon personalizes (or hypostasizes) these ways of speaking about God’s immanent activity without any critical elaboration of why it feels justified in doing so. The council mostly prefers the abstract metaphysical terms of philosophy to the biblical and historical descriptions of Jesus. (p 40)”

Again, by referring to the terms Logos and Spirit as “symbolical” literary forms or “figures of speech,” Taylor is directly denying the “hypostasizing” (using his language) of Biblical “ways of speaking.” This is a subtle denial of the Trinity as consisting of three Persons (hypostasis or subsistence).

“Earlier Christians would find the saving God in a fleshing of the descending Logos. Today Christians find the same God in the human Jesus, for in him God dwells fully with his transforming love and through his love has made Jesus a perfect image of himself. (p 42)”

This quote is quite blatant in its denial of Christ’s deity. Taylor implies that the divine Logos in the flesh is an “early” Christian concept, which is subsequently (or allegedly) replaced with the notion of a “human Jesus” in whom God’s love dwells.

“In my view, the prologue of John [John 1:1-5] speaks about the concept of God’s Logos, not to identify Jesus as the Logos himself, but dramatically to show why Jesus in the coming gospel is all-sufficient to the spiritual needs of John’s community. Jesus for John is the one in whom God’s Logos dwells. It is the Logos that descended from heaven. The term Logos in the Old Testament is a biblical metaphor for God’s outreaching love. For John it is probably his way of translating the term Wisdom, which is also a biblical figure of speech for God’s love when he exercises it within his creation. (p 70)”

Taylor, once again, seems to deny that Jesus is the divine Logos. According to Taylor, Jesus is “the one in whom God’s Logos dwells,” not the Logos Himself.

“For [the apostle] John salvation is realizing and possessing within oneself unity with God’s selfless love. John’s unique genius is in showing his readers this wonderful truth. His Jesus is not a divine visitor intervening from heaven. He is one of us, our human brother, who with God’s help has accomplished the divine purpose and in that glorious state has realized complete human fulfillment, manifest in his Resurrection from death and glorification in heaven. (pp 70-71)”

Taylor’s Jesus “is not a divine visitor intervening from heaven. He is one of us, our human brother.”

“Certainly if John saw Jesus as a singular divine person, equal in divinity to the Father, he would not have him say in chapter 5 that he “can do nothing on his own, but only what the Father shows him.” Rather, Jesus is loved and taught by the Father. His power derives from the Father. His judging role is given him by the Father. If Jesus seeks people’s submission and faith, it is not because he himself is claiming divinity, but because he is God’s chosen instrument to mediate his saving activity on earth (5:19-24). God is always present in the words and works of his mediators. (p 76)”

Taylor is putting words into the Apostle John’s mouth. He seems to understand that Jesus is not “a singular divine person, equal in divinity to the Father.”

“When Jesus was spoken of as the Son of God, it probably did not at first mean believers saw him as literally divine. More likely it was a way of showing that Jesus was understood to have had a privileged mission from God which he carried out faithfully. Eventually it was used to indicate in Jesus, his words and deeds, people saw a human embodiment of God and his will for them. (p 95)”

Now Jesus is a missionary. He is simply a “human embodiment of God,” not God Himself.

Conclusions:

1. We can safely say that Taylor denies that Jesus is co-substantial with the Father. This would place his Christology at least on the same level as Arius. But I sincerely suspect that his Christology is lower than that of Arius.

2. Taylor also denies Christ’s eternal pre-existence, and in effect, repudiates His divinity. It seems to be quite clear that Taylor does not believe in a Jesus who is 100% God and 100% Man.

3. According to Taylor, Christ is a man, the spiritual leader, teacher and model. He is “the one who shows them the way to salvation. (p 41)” But He is not the way itself (John 14:6).

4. Taylor’s view hints of the ancient heresy called Dynamic Monarchianism or Adoptionism, but again, it is difficult to label a Christology which is in the process of development.

What Is Wrong With That Quote?

A Very Trivial Encounter




As I was browsing through the “Christian” section of the Tampines Regional Library yesterday, hoping to find a book that might introduce a young believer to orthodox Christian theology, I was at first pleasantly surprised to find this: Michael J. Taylor, Theological Reflections: On the Trinity, Christology, and Monotheism (Maryland: University Press of America, 2001).

Well, the title - “Theological Reflections: On the Trinity, Christology, and Monotheism” - seemed to indicate that the book was probably a primer to Theology proper and Christology. At last, good Christian books find their way to the national libraries of Singapore! Or so it seems.

My initial gladness was quickly inundated by the gloom from within the pages of Taylor’s little book. It was not a primer to Theology proper and Christology. It was an attack on historical Christianity. And why was this book placed in the “Christian” section of the library?

I was taught since primary school that we should not attack the religions of fellow Singaporeans, all in the name of religious and racial harmony. But here in my hands, in the “Christian” section of a national library of Singapore, is a book that repudiates orthodox Theology and Christology confessed by the Evangelical, Baptist, Reformed, Anglican, Methodist, Lutheran and Catholic churches of Singapore.

The author of this book is a Jesuit priest. This was my first surprise, as I had assumed that Catholics around the globe confessed Nicene Christology. He is also a respected scholar, professor and prolific writer.

If you think that I am going to review this book, you are sincerely mistaken. In the present post, I intend to quote from a few passages of Taylor’s book, and offer the readers an opportunity to discern his theological slant. I would then post a reply to your educated guesses (if any).

I am supposed to continue with my series on “Spiritual Discernment.” But before I continue with this series of posts, I believe this “exercise in discernment” would be beneficial for all orthodox Christians. Well, you ought to know what orthodox Theology and Christology is, at the very least.

Here goes:

"If Jesus were to be called Son of God, in Arius’ view his sonship would be through adoption, not from any equality of essence. The council refused to see any “lessness” in Jesus. Rather, it ascribed to him the ontological divinity of the Logos. . . . Although few scholars today would embrace or defend Arius’ approach to Christology, many do find the terminology of Nicea and its manner of expressing the “divine dimension” of Jesus to be too narrow and confusing. (p 35)"

"Nicea seems to have little awareness of Old Testament use of such symbolic terms as Logos (Word), Wisdom, Spirit, etc. All of these biblical terms do not refer to separate divine persons or entities. (p 36)"

"[The Council of Chalcedon] shows little knowledge of or respect for Scripture’s many literary forms and figures of speech. Where the Old Testament often spoke of God’s nature and activities by means of symbolic terms and personifications, such as Spirit, Wisdom, Word, etc., Chalcedon personalizes (or hypostasizes) these ways of speaking about God’s immanent activity without any critical elaboration of why it feels justified in doing so. The council mostly prefers the abstract metaphysical terms of philosophy to the biblical and historical descriptions of Jesus. (p 40)"

"After centuries of understanding Jesus almost exclusively as a divine, pre-existent being who descended from heaven (the assumed Johannine perspective), no wonder scholars today ask that our Christological search for Jesus’ full identity begin where the earliest books of the New Testament (Paul and the Synoptics) began - with the historical human Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus should first and foremost be one of us who lived his life the way God intended it should be lived, and whom God finally raised to glory. It is there that we find a very appealing, gifted, vulnerable human being that we can identify with, one who is obviously united in prayerful intimacy with God. We see him as a man called to preach and reveal a saving Father. He gave us a deeper meaning and purpose to our lives. He showed us how we should properly live them, so that at the end of them we would rise to eternal glory with him in the love of the Father. This Jesus is close to us. He is our brother. He is imitable and fulfills the role of teacher and model. His picture of God is clear and appealing. Christians accept this man as their spiritual leader and rightly call him Lord, the one who shows them the way to salvation. (p 41)"

"Earlier Christians would find the saving God in a fleshing of the descending Logos. Today Christians find the same God in the human Jesus, for in him God dwells fully with his transforming love and through his love has made Jesus a perfect image of himself. (p 42)"

Clues:

1. Study the meaning of the Logos and Spirit in Scripture. Are these terms symbolical?

2. Check up what is meant by the theological term hypostasis. You will then understand what Taylor meant by “hypostasizes” in page 40.

3. Do you think Taylor agrees that Jesus is “a divine, pre-existent being who descended from heaven?”

4. Is Jesus “the one who shows [Christians] the way to salvation?”

I have deliberately included quotes that are not so obviously “anti-Nicene.” See if you can deduce Taylor’s Christological stance.

Note: I will post the answer within the next few days. Please do not surf the Web for answers.

What does it mean to be Reformed?

Note: I cannot resist making a quick post on this issue, as this was mentioned in the comments of my previous post.

In response to the aforementioned question, Professor Byron Curtis, Assistant Professor of Biblical Studies at Geneva College, wrote:

“To be Reformed means:

To confess with the orthodox churches the consensus of the first five centuries of Christianity, including:

a) Classic theism: One omnipotent, benevolent God, distinct from creation.
b) Nicene and Chalcedonian Trinitarianism: one God in three eternally existent persons, equal in power and glory.
c) Christ, the God-Man, the one mediator between God & the human race, incarnate, crucified, resurrected, ascended, & coming again.
d) Humanity created in the image of God, yet tragically fallen & profoundly in need of restoration to God through Christ.
e) The Visible Church: the community of the redeemed, indwelt by the Holy Spirit; the mystical body of Christ on earth.
f) The one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.
g) The Sacraments: visible signs and seals of the grace of God, ministering Christ's love to us in our deep need.
h) The Christian life: characterized by the prime theological virtues of faith, hope, and love.”

Although Reformed theologians generally adhere to the “consensus of the first five centuries of Christianity”, this consensus is not exclusive to Reformed theology. Classic Theism and Nicene Christology, for example, are generally confessed by various theologians from different end of the spectrum, including Classical, Revised and Progressive Dispensationalists. From the aforementioned listing of the consensus of historic Christianity, probably only the view that “the Sacraments as visible signs and seals” is considered exclusively Presbyterian (which in turn is distinguished from the Lutheran, Zwinglian, and Romish views). But again, the above listing cannot be conclusively made the sine qua non of Reformed Theology.

Professor Curtis continues:

“To be Reformed means:

To confess with the Reformation churches the four great "Solas:"

a) RE the source of authority: Sola Scriptura.
b) RE the basis of salvation: Sola Gratia.
c) RE the means of salvation: Sola Fide
d) Re the merit of salvation: Solus Christus"

It is widely known that Historic Protestantism confesses the four Solas; this includes our Lutheran and Anglican brethren. Salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone, plus the doctrines of the authority and sufficiency of Scripture are not exclusively Reformed teachings, but are also traditionally confessed by the Protestant churches. In addition to Protestantism, historic eighteenth century Evangelicalism (as distinguished from New Evangelicalism and Neo-Orthodoxy) likewise confesses essentially the principles of the four Solas. Twentieth century Pentecostalism and the Fundamentalist movement can also be safely included into this category. Once again, the four Solas cannot be the sine qua non of Reformed Theology.

In addition to the above characteristics, Professor Curtis points out that the Reformed Christian ought to “confess with the Reformed churches the distinctives of the Reformed faith:

a) In salvation: monergism, not synergism. God alone saves. Such monergism implies T.U.L.I.P., the Five Points of Calvinism from the Synod of Dordt:

T = Total Depravity
U = Unconditional Election
L = Limited Atonement, or, better, Particular Redemption
I = Irresistible Grace
P = Perseverence and Preservation of the Saints

b) In worship: the Regulative Principle of Worship. “Whatever is not commanded in public worship is forbidden.” God alone directs how He is to be worshiped in the assembly of the visible church.

c) In the Visible Church: Covenant Theology & Covenant Community. The Church is the New Israel, incorporating believers among Jews and Gentiles alike. Infant Baptism ordinarily follows from this understanding. Sacraments are not merely human observances, but acts of Jesus Christ, marking out the visible church.

d) In life: Life is religion: there is no sacred/secular destinction. As such Christians have neither jobs nor careers; they have vocations (callings). Every calling is "full time Christian service," because every Christian is a full-time Christian.”

Most would agree that the five points of Calvinism form the basis of Reformed Theology. At the same time, it is important to realize that these five points are not sufficient to define Reformed Theology itself. Although the five points of Calvinism were born out of the Reformation, these five points can theologically be compartmentalized within the confines of soteriology and anthropology. In other words, it is possible to adhere to these five points, and not be Reformed in one’s overall theology. Before anyone vehemently disagrees, please allow me to elaborate upon this.

One problem with restricting the definition of Reformed Theology with merely the “five points of Calvinism” is this: there are avowedly dispensational theologians who adhere to these points as well. John F. MacArthur, Jr. of The Master's Seminary, for example, has consistently claimed an allegiance to the five points. But it is clear to all that his theological-hermeneutical grid is that of Dispensationalism. No Dispensational or Non-Dispensational theologian would ever say that MacArthur is Reformed. MacArthur himself proclaims that he is a Dispensationalist! Therefore, it is evident that these five points are not sufficient to define what Reformed Theology is.

So what does it mean to be Reformed? It cannot be simply an adherence to the five Solas or the five points of Calvinism.

Reformed theologians have consistently used Covenant theology as a unifying theological-hermeneutical grid to understand Scripture. Covenant theology sees an overarching unity within the Old and New Testaments, specifically, the Covenant of Grace. There is continuity instead of discontinuity.

There is continuity between Israel and the Church, not a distinction. Likewise, there is continuity between the various administrations of the Covenant of Grace, not discontinuity between diverse dispensations. It must be added that Reformed Theologians similarly see at least two different economies or “dispensations,” especially if one prefers that terminology: the Old Covenant and the New Covenant economy (Jer. 31:31-34). Therefore, seeing distinctive dispensations within the Bible is not a sine qua non of either Dispensationalism or Reformed Theology per se. It is how the Covenant theologian relates and ties the various economies, which distinguishes him from a Dispensationalist.

Reformed ecclesiology likewise arises from a “covenant” theological-hermeneutical grid. The Church age is not seen as a parenthesis within the 69th and 70th weeks of Daniel’s prophecy. The Church is the true, spiritual Israel. God does not have two “divine purposes,” one for Israel, and one for the Church.

Covenant theology sees the Church present in the Old Testament. Furthermore, many prophecies directed to national Israel are fulfilled in Christ and His bride, the Church (contra the literalistic hermeneutics of Dispensationalism). Consequently, a more precise definition for Reformed theology would be found within the theological-hermeneutical grid that undergirds the theological system itself.

Professor Curtis concludes, “Finally, in everything, as Christians everywhere joyfully affirm: Soli Deo Gloria. ‘To God alone be the glory.’”

According to Charles Ryrie, Dispensationalism is “a view which sees the glory of God as the underlying purpose of God in the world.” In this sense, the fifth Sola cannot be used as a distinguishing feature of Reformed Theology.

So what are we left with? What would be the sine qua non of Reformed Theology?

The two diametrically opposed systems of theology – Reformed and Dispensational Theology – are derived from their hermeneutical presuppositions. It is ultimately the theologian’s hermeneutics, and his peculiar theological grid, which give rise to a resultant theological system.

Essential to a Reformed theologian’s theological-hermeneutical grid is Covenant theology, which includes the unifying covenant of grace, and the consistent continuity between Israel and the Church. This, I would say, is the fundamental difference between Reformed and Dispensational theology.

PS: This post is deliberately brief. I will explore this topic further in my future writings, and especially in the project I’m working on now.

What do YOU think of the Millennium Temple?

I am currently ruminating about the various attempts by sympathizers of Dispensationalism to steer a “safe” course through the minefield of a literal Millennial Temple. In view of this newly acquired (or rather, required) pet topic - which might bog me down for another week or two - I might as well post a teaser on this issue of concern.

I am curious to know how fellow brethren, both Dispensational and Non-dispensational, reconcile the animal sacrifices reiterated in Ezekiel 40-48 with a literal, historical-grammatical hermeneutics. After going through numerous papers written by Dispensationalists, plus an article written by Dr Prabhudas Koshy of Far Eastern Bible College (who is also my previous pastor!), I will try to classify these “commando” exegeses into the following broad categories:

The Various Views on the Ezekielian Sacrifices

1. Memorial view: Animal sacrifices have no expiatory value, and are offered in the Millennium to commemorate Christ’s death.

2. Whitcomb’s view: Animal sacrifices are offered for ceremonial “cleasing,” and in this sense, do have expiatory value.

3. No literal animal sacrifices. Despite their “consistently literal hermeneutics,” some Dispensationalists actually understand that these sacrifices will not be restituted in the Millennium.

I chanced upon Randall Price’s article “An Overview of the Future Temples” today, which contains a fairly accurate summary of the Dispensationalist’s position. Rapture-ready Randall Price wrote:

“The Millennial Temple will be built by Christ (Zech. 6:12-13), redeemed Jews (Ezek. 43:10-11), and representatives from the Gentile nations (Zech. 6:15; Hag. 2:7; cf. Is. 60:10) at the beginning of the Messianic kingdom (Ezek. 37:26-28). As a sign of the restoration of theocratic rule the Shekinah Glory will return to its Holy of Holies (Ezek. 43:1-7; cf. Is. 4:5-6). . . . [A] feature of Ezekiel's Temple that indicates its literal interpretation is the ceremonial system including blood sacrifices. This is in keeping with other prophetic predictions where the Temple includes a priesthood and sacrifices (Is. 56:6-7; 60:7; Jer. 33:18; Zech. 14:16-21). The function of these sacrifices may be memorial in nature, just as the Lord's Supper is today (1 Cor. 11:24-26), however, the fact that they are said to be for "atonement" may also indicate the need for a ritual purification. This would be necessary, as in the past (Heb. 9:13), for those saints living in mortal bodies throughout the Millennium and seeking approach to the Temple since God's holy presence will be resident there (Jer. 3:17; Zech. 14:20-21).”

According to Price, “the function of these sacrifices may be memorial in nature.” But again, he seems not to be able to make up his mind on this issue, and added ambiguously that “the need for a ritual purification” and atonement might become necessary in the Millennium. Do we suppose that, after the substitutionary death of Christ our Passover Lamb, animal sacrifices might again be needed to “purify” and ceremonially “cleanse” the worshipper in the millennial temple? If, indeed, legal, ceremonial cleansing is required in the Millennium to approach God, why is there no necessity today for this “ceremonial,” temporal cleansing?

Do read up Dr Koshy’s article “The Millennial Temple” in The Burning Bush, Volume 6 Number 1 (January 2000). Dr Koshy is, according to the college’s Statement of Faith, a Reformed theologian adhering to the Reformed doctrine of the atonement. It is interesting to note that Koshy and Price embrace essentially the same view on the Ezekielian sacrifices.

There are some questions we might want to ask ourselves when pondering upon this “mammalian, sacrificial” issue:

1. Firstly, what should be our hermeneutical approach when studying the visions of Ezekiel?

2. What should be our interpretational grid when seeking to understand Ezekiel, especially in employing the principle of progressive revelation, that is, the interpretation of the Old Testament with New Testament Revelation (and not vice versa)?

3. What does Leviticus teach with regard to bloody sacrifices? What are the etymological implications regarding the Hebrew word for “atonement,” especially when applied to the Book of Ezekiel?

4. Can a Reformed theologian consistently adhere to such distinctives of Dispensational Premillennialism - i.e. the temple, the sacrifices, the priesthood, the rite of circumcision and the restitution of Jewish Feasts and Festivals in the millennium – and remain distinctively Reformed?

5. Last but not least, here is the most important question of all, “What does it mean to be Reformed?” Does it mean a mere adherence to the five points of Calvinism, or is there more to the theological label? (Hint: I believe that the Reformed faith is more than a mere adherence to the 5 points!)

Finally, let me refresh our memories with regard to my previous statement in paragraph two, “I am curious to know how fellow brethren, both Dispensational and Reformed, reconcile the animal sacrifices reiterated in Ezekiel 40-48 with a literal, historical-grammatical hermeneutics.” Therefore, if you see me, bump into me, or when you remember to drop me a note, do let me know what you think.

How do you, as a child of God, understand the visions of Ezekiel in chapters 40 to 48?

That will be all for now, after a very busy week of research and writing. Thanks for dropping by.