Posts Tagged ‘Tim Keller’

Kevin Bauder Examines Conservative Evangelicals

Posted: April 2, 2013 in Church Ministries
Tags: , , , , , , ,
3

Kevin Bauder, President of Central Baptist Theological Seminary, writes in his In The Nick of Time, about the separation issue today being fought between some Fundamentalists and Conservative Evangelicals. This is a current aspect of separation being discussed by concerned fundamentalists at Fundamentally Reformed.

Who are some leading conservative evangelicals according to Bauder?

John Piper, Mark Dever, John MacArthur, Charles Ryrie, Bruce Ware, Bryan Chapell, Wayne Grudem, D. A. Carson, Al Mohler, Tim Keller, John D. Hannah, Ed Welch, Ligon Duncan, Tom Nettles, C. J. Mahaney, Norman Geisler, and R. C. Sproul.

Some of the CE organizations are: Together for the Gospel, the Gospel Coalition, the Master’s Seminary, the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, The National Association of Nouthetic Counselors, and Ligonier Ministries.

What do these men have in common?

Their commitment to defend the gospel. This is where Historic Fundamentalism started in the 1920s and 30s in the Modernist/Fundamentalist Controversy.

What are some of the differences between Fundamentalists and Conservative Evangelicals?

1. Conservative evangelicals are anti-dispensational. Bauder says CE is less vitriolic than the anti-Calvinism of some Fundamentalists. There is, however, plenty of vitriolism on both sides. Some CE doubt if dispensationalists are believers.

2. CE is tolerate of Third-Wave charismatic theology.

3. CE accommodate a more contemporary version of popular culture. The weakness of some Fundamentalists is to separate so from far from culture to never impact the people for whom Jesus died.

4. CE disagree about what to do with Christian leaders who make common cause with apostates.

Right wing Fundamentalists declare that CE are new evangelicals. New evangelicals, however, are committed to a policy of re-infiltrating ecclesiastical organizations captured by apostates. Chuck Colson with his leadership in producing Evangelicals and Catholics Together and The Manhatten Declaration represents new evangelicalism. CE reject this positions and attitude.

CE defend a different set of doctrines than the some Fundamentalists. The right wing Fundamentalists fight over the King James Version and anti-Calvinism. Right wing Fundamentalists are battling over versions, dress, and music. CE battle Open Theism, evangelical feminism, opponents of inerrancy, the New Perspective of Paul and the Emergent Church.

Some Fundamentalists insist that CE are the enemy.

More and more Fundamentalists are not entering into full cooperation with CE but they are working together in certain targeted areas. Bauder documents:

One seminary recently hosted John D. Hannah for a lecture series, and another hosted Ed Welch. A Fundamentalist mission agency brought in John Piper to challenge its missionaries. A leader who is a Fundamentalist pastor and seminary president has written for a conservative evangelical periodical. A very straight-laced Bible college sent its students to T4G. One elder statesman of Fundamentalism chose to preach in the chapel of a conservative evangelical seminary. Other Fundamentalist schools are slated to host Michael Vlach from Master’s Seminary and Mark Dever from Capital Hill Baptist Church. These steps are being taken, not by disaffected young Fundamentalists, but by the older generation of leadership within the mainstream of the Fundamentalist movement.

Bauder adds: These leaders are neither abandoning Fundamentalism nor embracing conservative evangelicalism. They are simply recognizing that the Fundamentalist label is no guarantee of doctrinal fidelity. They are aware that historic, mainstream Fundamentalism has more in common with conservative evangelicals than it does with many who wear the Fundamentalist label.

The group, Bauder calls the hyper-fundamentalist Right, reject these associations as compromise.

What is Kevin Bauder’s position?

We Fundamentalists may not wish to identify with everything that conservative evangelicals say and do. To name these men as neo-evangelicals, nonetheless, is entirely unwarranted. To treat them like enemies or even opponents is to demonize the very people who are the foremost defenders of the gospel today. We do not have to agree in every detail to recognize the value of what they do.

If we did not have conservative evangelicals to guard the borders, the real enemy would have invaded our camp long ago. Fundamentalism has exhibited a remarkable freedom from Open Theism, evangelical feminism, New Perspective theology, and other present-day threats to the gospel. The reason is not that Fundamentalists have kept the enemy at bay. The reason is that other thinkers—mainly conservative evangelicals—have carried the battle to the enemy. Conservative evangelicals are the heavy artillery, under the shelter of whose barrage Fundamentalists have been able to find some measure of theological safety.

So let’s get clear on this.

Conservative evangelicals are not our enemies. They are not our opponents. Conservative evangelicals have proven themselves to be allies and even leaders in the defense of the faith.

If we attack conservative evangelicals, then we attack the defense of the faith. We attack indirectly the thing that we hold most dear, namely, the gospel itself, for that is what they are defending. We should not wish these brothers to falter or to grow feeble, but rather to flourish. We must do nothing to weaken their hand in the face of the enemies of the gospel.

What is your position in this left to right spectrum? Admittedly there is overlap in Bauder’s labels. Most people do not fit neatly into a single category.

New Calvinists: What Do They Believe? Part 2

Posted: September 15, 2012 in Salvation
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
0

There are major differences when it comes to Christian liberty in New Calvinism. Both Mohler and MacArthur have expressed concern over matters of personal conduct and church ministries that include alcohol. MacArthur voiced his insights in a series of blog posts about the weaknesses of what he calls the Young, Restless, and Reformed New Calvinism. These posts have drawn much criticism from some in New Calvinism.

In his post, Beer, Bohemianism, and True Christian Liberty, MacArthur wrote:

If everything you know about Christian living came from blogs and websites in the young-and-restless district of the Reformed community, you might have the impression that beer is the principal symbol of Christian liberty.

For some who self-identify as “Young, Restless, and Reformed,” it seems beer is a more popular topic for study and discussion than the doctrine of predestination. They devote whole websites to the celebration of brewed beverages. They earnestly assure one another “that most good theological discussion has historically been done in pubs and drinking places.” They therefore love to meet for “open dialog on faith and culture” wherever beer is served—or better yet, right at the brewery. The connoisseurs among them serve their own brands and even offer lessons in how to make home brew.

It’s clear that beer-loving passion is a prominent badge of identity for many in the YRR movement. Apparentlybeer is also an essential element in the missional strategy. Mixing booze with ministry is often touted as anecessary means of penetrating western youth culture, and conversely, abstinence is deemed a “sin” to be repented of.

After all, in a culture where cool is everything, what could be a better lubricant for one’s testimony than a frosty pint?

Of course, beer is by no means the only token of cultural savvy frequently associated with young-and-restless religion. All kinds of activities deemed vices by mothers everywhere have been adopted as badges of Calvinist identity and thus “redeemed”: tobacco, tattoos, gambling, mixed martial arts, profane language, and lots of explicit talk about sex.

Cast a disapproving eye at any of those activities, and you are likely to be swarmed by restless reformers denouncing legalism and wanting to debate whether it’s a “sin” to drink wine or smoke a cigar. But without even raising the question of whether this or that specific activity is acceptable, indifferent, or out-and-out evil, we surely ought to be able to say that controlled substances and other symbols of secular society’s seamy side arenot what the church of Jesus Christ ought to wish to be known for. In fact, until fairly recently, no credible believer in the entire church age would ever have suggested that so many features evoking the ambiance of a pool hall or a casino could also be suitable insignia for the people of God.

It is puerile and irresponsible for any pastor to encourage the recreational use of intoxicants—especially in church-sponsored activities. The ravages of alcoholism and drug abuse in our culture are too well known, and no symbol of sin’s bondage is more seductive or more oppressive than booze. I have ministered to hundreds of people over the years who have been delivered from alcohol addiction. Many of them wage a daily battle with fleshly desires made a thousand times more potent because of that addiction. The last thing I would ever want to do is be the cause of stumbling for one of them.

Besides, deliberately cultivating an appetite for beer or a reputation for loving liquor is not merely bad missional strategy and a bad testimony; it is fraught with deadly spiritual dangers. The damage is clearly evident in places where the strategy has been touted. Darrin Patrick, who helped pioneer “Theology at the Bottleworks,”acknowledges the gravity of the problem:

As I coach and mentor church planters and pastors, I am shocked at the number of them who are either addicted or headed toward addiction to alcohol. Increasingly, the same is true with prescription drugs. One pastor I know could not relax without several beers after work and could not sleep without the aid of a sleeping pill. [Church Planter (Wheaton: Crossway, 2010), 51]

In biblical times, wine was necessary for health reasons. The risk of amoebae and parasites in drinking water could be significantly reduced or eliminated by mixing the water with a little wine (1 Timothy 5:23). The result was a greatly diluted wine that had virtually no potential for making anyone drunk. Purified tap water and refrigeration make even that use of wine unnecessary today.

Contrary to the current mythology, abstinence is no sin—least of all for someone devoted to ministry (Leviticus 10:9; Proverbs 31:4; Luke 1:15). It is, of course, a sin to give one’s mind over to the influence of alcohol or to bedeck one’s reputation with deliberate symbols of debauchery. As a matter of fact, drunkenness and debauchery are the very antithesis of Spirit-filled sanctification (Ephesians 5:18)—and men who indulge in them are not qualified to be spiritual leaders.

Yes, I realize Jesus Himself was referred to by His enemies as “a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners” (Matthew 11:19). But He was none of the things that expression implied—nor did He seek such a reputation.

He was indeed “a friend of tax collectors and sinners” in the sense that He specialized in lifting them up out of the miry clay and setting their feet on a rock. But He did not adopt or encourage their lifestyle. He did not embrace their values or employ expletives borrowed from their vocabulary in order to win their admiration or gain membership in their fraternity. He confronted their wickedness and rebuked their sins as boldly as He preached against the errors of the Pharisees (Matthew 18:7-9).

Note, too, that He ate and drank with Pharisees (Luke 7:36) as readily as He ate and drank with publicans. The only significant difference was that the typical tax collector was more inclined to confess his own desperate need for divine forgiveness than the average self-righteous Pharisee (Mark 2:16-17; Luke 18:1-14).

But there is no suggestion in Scripture that Jesus purposely assumed the look and lifestyle of a publican in order to gain acceptance in a godless subculture. He didn’t.

This tendency to emblazon oneself with symbols of carnal indulgence as if they were valid badges of spiritual identity is one of the more troubling aspects of the YRR movement’s trademark restlessness. It is wrong-headed, carnal, and immature to imagine that bad-boy behavior makes good missional strategy. The image of beer-drinking Bohemianism does nothing to advance the cause of Christ’s kingdom.

Slapping the label “incarnational” on strategies such as this doesn’t alter their true nature. They have more in common with Lot, who pitched his tent toward Sodom, than with Jesus, who is “holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens” (Hebrews 7:26).

Real Christian liberty is not about flouting taboos and offending conventional notions of propriety. The liberty in which we stand begins with full indemnity from the law’s threats and condemnation—meaning we are at peace with God (Romans 5:1; 8:1). Christian liberty also removes the restrictions of the law’s ceremonial commandments (Colossians 2:16-17)—freeing us from asceticism, superstition, sensuality, and “human precepts and teachings” (vv. 18-23).

But sober-minded self-control and maturity are virtues commanded and commended by Scripture; these are not manmade rules or legalistic standards. As a matter of fact, one of the main qualifications for both deacons and elders in the church is that they cannot be given to much wine. In other words, they are to be known for their sobriety, not for their consumption of beer.

It should not take a doctor of divinity to notice that Scripture consistently celebrates virtues such as self-control, sober-mindedness, purity of heart, the restraint of our fleshly lusts, and similar fruits of the Holy Spirit’s sanctifying work in our lives. Surely these are what we ought hold in highest esteem, model in our daily lives, and honor on our websites, rather than trying so hard to impress the world with unfettered indulgence in the very things that hold so many unbelievers in bondage.

New Calvinists: What Do They Believe? Part First

Posted: September 11, 2012 in Salvation
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
0

Time Magazine listed New Calvinism as one of the 10 Ideas Changing the World Right Now. In the article, David Van Biema said, “Calvinism is back.”

Before Time’s article, Collin Hansen in 2006 wrote an article in Christianity Today and alerted us to New Calvinism. The article Young, Restless, Reformed later expanded into a book. In the article, Hansen wrote, “Calvinism is making a comeback—and shaking up the church.”

Whatever New Calvinists believe, according to Time, they are impacting the world and according to Christianity Today, evangelicalism.

Mark Driscoll responded to Time’s article with his Four Ways ‘New Calvinism” is so Powerful. Driscoll drew four contrasts between New and Old Calvinism:

  1. Old Calvinism was fundamental or liberal and separated from or syncretized with culture. New Calvinism is missional and seeks to create and redeem culture.
  2. Old Calvinism fled from the cities. New Calvinism is flooding into cities.
  3. Old Calvinism was cessationistic and fearful of the presence and power of the Holy Spirit. New Calvinism is continuationist and joyful in the presence and power of the Holy Spirit.
  4. Old Calvinism was fearful and suspicious of other Christians and burned bridges. New Calvinism loves all Christians and builds bridges between them.

There was some pushback to Driscoll’s four contrasts. James Grant responded with his post: Driscoll’s Confusion on “Old Calvinism.” Grant, a Calvinist, rebuts each of Driscoll’s summaries of Old Calvinism. In response, Driscoll walked back some of his generalizations in his Long Live the Dead Guys Week post. James Grant, however, doesn’t think Driscoll erased the confusion: The problem is that Driscoll still didn’t really clarify anything or admit that he created some of the false dichotomy.

From a discussion between two traditional Reformed confessionalists, Kevin DeYoung and Ligion Duncan, and a Southern Baptist theologian, Albert Mohler, we learn that New Calvinism is an eclectic doctrinal mix. New Calvinism is TULIP, Charismatic, Theistic evolution, etc.

The Gospel Coaltion (TGC) is a national network for the New Calvinists movement. New Calvinists like, John Piper, Tim Keller, Matt Chandler, Mark Driscoll, Al Mohler, and John MacArthur are regular contributors. Again, the word eclectic, comes to mind. MacArthur is a pre-tribulational dispensationalist and the rest are not. MacArthur and Mohler are cessationists and the rest are not. Driscoll goes so far as to call cessationalism worldly and akin to Deism.

What ties them all together is TULIP. As far as the Fundamentals of the faith are concerned, they are on the same doctrinal page.

John MacArthur, who is thankful for much in New Calvinism, said that New Calvinism is a “very encouraging trend: large numbers of young people (college age and younger) are discovering the doctrines of grace, embracing a more biblical and Christ-centered worldview, and beginning to delve more deeply into serious theology than most 20th-century evangelicals were prone to do. In short, Calvinism, not postmodernism, seems to be capturing the hearts of Christian young people.”

MacArthur, however, has expressed in a series of blog posts serious concern about the weaknesses of what he calls the Young, Restless, and Reformed New Calvinism. These posts drew criticism from some in New Calvinism. In Part 2, we will listen to MacArthur’s concerns.

New Calvinism: Where did New Calvinism Come From? Part 1

Posted: September 8, 2012 in Salvation
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
0

This video discusses my topic in my next two posts: Where did New Calvinism come from. Dave Miller is the editor of the Southern Baptist Voice (SBC Voices) and as a Southern Baptist, Miller was greatly offended by Mohler’s comments on the video from Together for the Gospel called, “DeYoung, Duncan, Mohler: What’s New about the New Calvinism?”. In the dialogue, Mohler implied that Non-Calvinists are non-theological, not committed to the Gospel, etc. Here is Miller’s response:

I am a fan of Dr. Al Mohler! I am glad he is one of our leaders.

I am constantly amazed at Dr. Mohler’s ability to articulate his positions. His statement on homosexuality at the SBC Annual Meeting this year was one of the best, most concise and biblical statements of a Christian approach to the subject I’ve ever heard. I’ve seen Dr. Mohler on national programs and always have been impressed at his ability to express unpopular biblical ideas in a persuasive way. When he speaks, I listen.  And usually I think he hits it out of the park!

In a video from 2010 that has recently been making the blog circuit, Dr. Mohler swung and missed. He is articulate and persuasive again.  But what he said was unwise, unkind and unhelpful to the future of the SBC. The video is from Together for the Gospel and is called, “DeYoung, Duncan, Mohler: What’s New about the New Calvinism?”  The key section starts at 6:25 of that video.

Al Mohler has every right to be a Calvinist and to advocate Calvinism. In fact, the Abstract of Principles at SBTS requires him to be such. No one should question his right to promote his beliefs. Calvinism is within the boundaries of the BF&M 2000 and is historically evident in SBC Life. But the statement he made in that T4G video is destructive to the promotion of unity in the SBC. Here is a transcript of his words on that video.

There’s another aspect of this, and that is, where else are they gonna go? I mean, what options are there? If you’re a theologically minded, deeply convictional young evangelical, if you’re committed to the gospel and you want to see the nations rejoice in the name of Christ, if you want to see gospel-built and structured and committed churches, your theology is just gonna end up basically being Reformed, basically being something like this New Calvinism or you’re gonna have to invent some other label for what’s just gonna be the same thing. There just are not options out there. And that’s something that I think frustrates some people. But when I am asked about the New Calvinism, I will say just basically, where else are they gonna go? Who else is gonna answer the questions? Where else will they find the resources they need? And where else are they gonna connect? This is a generation that understands, they want to say the same thing Paul said. They want to stand with the Apostles. They want to stand with old, dead people. And they know they are going to have to if they are going to preach and teach the truth.

Dr. Mohler has the right to believe and advocate Calvinism. But it is not right when he denigrates all non-Calvinists as his does here. His words are disrespectful and demeaning to those who do not share the Reformed or Calvinistic perspective. I have heard the wailings from my Calvinist circles when our views were demeaned and misrepresented by anti-Calvinists. But, my fellow Calvinists, can you understand how offensive these words are to anyone who does not share Calvinist soteriology?

  • Non-Calvinists are not theologically-minded? Deeply convictional? Committed to the gospel?  Want to see the nations rejoice in Christ?
  • Non-Calvinists do not want to see gospel-built, structured and committed churches?  The only churches that are real, valid gospel churches are Calvinistic?
  • There are no (presumably reasonable, biblical) options out there?
  • Non-Calvinists have no answers and no resources to offer?
  • Non-Calvinists do not preach and teach the truth or stand with Paul and Apostles?

I’ve listened to the whole discussion (almost 13 minutes long) and it is hard for me to see a context under which we can argue that Mohler’s quote is not insulting to non-Calvinists.  If he has corrected, revised or expanded on these comments since this year-old video, I would love to see that quote.  If he has apologized, wonderful.  But this kind of statement is divisive and destructive.

Mark Dever wrote that Non-Calvinists used to wrongly belittle Calvinists for not being evangelistic and that Calvinism would kill churches. It seems now that some think, like Dave Miller, that Calvinists are denigrating non-calvinists with similar accustations.

Two TGC founders, pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church, Tim Keller and Trinity Evangelical Divinity School professor D.A. Carson, do not like the label, New Calvinism. These two men, who most would tag as New Calvinists, expressed to World Magazine, a more inclusive approach than Mohler:

“We’re not defining it in a way that unnecessarily makes people feel excluded,” Keller told me. “There are just too many folks who we know are with us who may not use exactly the same terms or labels. . . . Why should anybody have to label themselves to be a part of this? It’s Reformed, and people who are traditionally Reformed recognize it as Reformed. And yet we’ve got people who say, ‘I’m not a Calvinist,’ but still sign on to it because it’s just what they see the Bible teaching.”

In my next post, I will explore (on a more positive note) what Mark Dever, Justin Taylor, and Tim Challies say about the origin of New Calvinism.

The Pastor and Personal Criticism, By C. J. Mahaney, Part 2

Posted: May 31, 2012 in Pastoral Theology
Tags: , , , , , , ,
0

Here is another excerpt on Pastors and Personal Criticism.

Mahaney begins his post by quoting Tim Keller:

Tim Keller is familiar with the temptations that come with personal criticism. He writes, the biggest danger of receiving criticism is not to your reputation, but to your heart. You feel the injustice of it and feel sorry for yourself, and it tempts you to despise the critic.

Mahaney confesses, I am tempted to despise the critic. I sinfully judge the motive of the one criticizing me, wondering if they’re offended with me, rather than focusing on the content of their communication. Worse, I am tempted to dismiss the content if it is imprecisely communicated or if the illustrations are not completely accurate. I did this just yesterday when someone kindly corrected me. This is pride, and I’ve seen it in my own heart.

When criticism arrives, temptations to sin come fast and furious in the heart of the pastor. And if a pastor isn’t prepared for criticisms, if he doesn’t prize growth in godliness, he will despise criticism rather than embrace it. Sadly I have many times.

But by God’s grace, there is an alternative. We can view personal criticism as a God-appointed means to produce humility in our lives, even if the criticism isn’t accurate. As John Newton wrote,

The Lord abhors pride and self-importance. The seeds of these evils are in the hearts of his own children; but rather than suffer that which He hates to remain in those He loves, He will in mercy pound them as in a mortar, to beat it out of them, or to prevent its growth.

Criticism is just one of the many ways God will pound the pride out of a pastor. But only when we have this perspective, will we humbly embrace—rather than proudly react to—the criticism when (not if) it arrives.

Mahaney quotes Bill Farley, in his excellent article, “The Poison of Self-Pity,” writes that “the roots of self-pity are ‘pride-in-action.’ It is the propensity to feel sorry for yourself because you are not getting what you think you deserve.”

In the Letters of John Newton, Newton wrote to a pastor who was preparing to write his opponent a letter. Newton gave this advice:

As to your opponent, I wish that before you set pen to paper against him, and during the whole time you are preparing your answer, you may commend him by earnest prayer to the Lord’s teaching and blessing. This practice will have a direct tendency to conciliate your heart to love and pity him; and such a disposition will have a good influence upon every page you write.

In other words, as Jesus taught, “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them who hate you, and pray for them who despitefully use you, and persecute you” (Matthew 5:44).

David Powlison explains how the Lord used this criticism to expose the idols in his heart and how Psalm 31 served his soul in the process.

Contextualize without Compromise, Part 2

Posted: June 9, 2010 in Contextualization
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
0

GBC Sermon Audio – June 6 PM, 2010

I was recently asked by a church member about Bob Harrington, who was named “The Chaplain of Bourbon Street” by the major of New Orleans in 1963. I had almost forgotten about him. Billy Graham said Bob Harrington was “bringing a witness for Jesus Christ to the middle of hell.” Bob Harrington engaged a wicked culture for 20 years until that culture overtook him and he fell into immorality. His daughter gives her perspective on this sad episode in her family’s life. She writes about her “Prodigal Father.” Engaging the culture is like trying to stand on a razor’s edge. You can easily fall to the left into syncretism or to the right into isolationism. Paul’s three principles will support us to maintain our balance.

1. We Do Not Change our Message to Engage our Culture. See Part 1

2. We Do Adapt our Methods to Engage our Culture.

We want to observe three Biblical examples of our second principle (Timothy, Paul, and Jesus).

A. This is what Paul did with Timothy in Acts 16 when Paul had Timothy circumcised. There are two differences between the circumcision of Titus and Timothy. Paul would not allow Gentile Titus to be circumcised by Jewish Judaizers because the issue was salvation. Paul did permit Timothy who was half Jew and half Gentile to be circumcised in order to witness to Jews. Timothy was to be circumcised because the men in his Jewish audiences were circumcised. This is called “Incarnational missions.”

J. Hudson Taylor lived among the Chinese and became one with them to win them. Without changing his message he dressed like the Chinese and cut his hair like them because he was one of them. He shaved his head except for a long pony tail. He engaged their culture without compromising his message.

If you are going to reach unsaved motorcycle gangs you don’t wear a three piece suit and drive a BMW. You wear boots, blue jeans, a leather jacket, with your wallet chained to your belt and ride a Harley.

B. Paul gave guidelines on how far we go in adapting to the culture we are seeking to reach in 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 . We do what we do for “the sake of the gospel.” We have gone too far when the Gospel message has been diluted.

1. To the Jews Paul became like their Jewish culture. This is why Paul had Timothy circumcised. Paul in Acts 18:18, after observing a Jewish Nazarite Vow, cut his hair.

2. To the Gentiles Paul became like their Gentile culture.

When Paul preached to Jews, he preached from the Old Testament. When Paul preached to Gentiles, he did not preach from the Old Testament. In Acts 17:22- 27, Paul built bridges to the pagan culture.  He refers to the altar of the unknown God and told them that he was going to inform them who that unknown God was. I had a student one time who was witnessing to a Jehovah’s Witness and used her Bible to prove the deity of Christ and to win her to the Lord. This is not the same as using the Koran which declares belief in the deity of Christ blasphemy. The altar to the unknown God was not a denial of the deity of Christ. The New World Translation is the Bible mistranslated in key verses pertaining to the deity of Christ, however, with other verses that can be used to prove the deity of Christ.

Tim Keller contrasts Paul’s methods:

Examples of how Paul adapts to new cultures abound in Acts. They are literally everywhere. Even Jay Adams, fairly rock-ribbed conservative in everyway, wrote a book Audience Adaptations in the Sermons and Speeches of Paul. In Acts 13 we see Paul sharing the gospel in a synagogue to those who believed in the God of the Bible, and in Acts 14 we see him sharing the gospel to a pagan, blue-collar crowd. The differences and similarities are striking.

a) His citation of authority is very different. In the first case he quotes Scripture and John the Baptist. In the second, he argues from general revelation–greatness of creation.

b) They differ in emphasis of content. Hard to miss that with Jews and God-fearers he ignores the doctrine of God and gets right to Christ; with pagans here and Acts 17, he labors the very concept of God.

c) Finally, they differ in even the form of the final appeal–how to ‘close’ with Christ–is different. In Acts 13:39 Paul speaks of the law of God and says, essentially: “you think you are good, but you aren’t good enough! You need Christ to justify you.” But in 14 he tells them to turn from “worthless things”–idols–”to the living God” who he says is the real source of “joy”–he, not material things–is the real source. So he is saying, in effect: “you think you are free–but you are not! You are enslaved to dead idols.”

d) Despite all these very profound differences– (1) Both audiences are told about a God who is both powerful yet good (13:16-22; 14:17), (2) in both he tells the hearers they are trying to save themselves in a wrong way (moral people by trying to obey the law 13:39 and pagans by giving themselves to idols and gods that cannot satisfy 14:15), and (3) both tell hearers not to turn to some scheme of performance, but that God has broken in to history now to accomplish our salvation. Even the speech of chapter 14, which was a spontaneous outburst, though it doesn’t mention Christ directly, still points to the fact that salvation is something accomplished by God for us in history, not something we do.

3. Paul adapted to his audience without changing his message.

C. Jesus adjusted to His culture according to John 1:1, 14.

1. The Son of God not only became man but He became a Jewish man. Jesus was circumcised, attended the synagogue, ate Kosher food, and keep the Sabbath. He perfectly kept the Jewish Law (Matthew 5:18-18).

2. Jesus adjusted to his culture without compromising His message. It was because of His clear claims to be the Messiah and God that His Jewish culture perfectly understood. They just disagreed and crucified Him as a false prophet.

3. Jesus was also criticized for going too far in His associations with sinners. Jesus was accused of being a glutton and binge drinker (Matthew 11:19). Martin Luther said if you are never accused of antinomianism you are not preaching the gospel.

4. Engaging the culture, however, can go too far and lead to syncretism. King Solomon in his exposure to the surrounding cultures, succumbed and added the gods of the pagan cultures to Israel’s religion (1 Kings 11).

The SBC International Mission Broad (IMB) Principles of Contextualization says, “The theological construct represented by the term “Allah” in the Quranic system is deficient and unacceptable. However, the primary issue is not the term. The same name is used by devout Christians and it represents a sound, scriptural view of God. In fact, historically, the Christian use of “Allah” predates the rise of Islam. The missionary task is to teach who “Allah” truly is in accord with biblical revelation.” Even though Ed Stetzer approves this method I have some problems with the extent of this contextualization. Why not just teach the Muslim culture a new word, “God” or “Jesus?

Another example is provided by John Hammett. “Phil Parshall, one of the leading advocates of contextualizing the church in Islamic culture, has recently written of the danger of contextualization crossing a line and becoming syncretism, a harmful blending of Christianity with other teachings. He examines the strategy of a Christian missionary joining a Muslin mosque for the purpose of becoming a Muslim to reach Muslims, and concludes that the practice is open to the charge of unethical and sub-Christian activity” (John Hammett, Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches: A Contemporary Ecclesiology. Grand Rapids: Kregal, 2005, 345).

I like this example from David Sills on the contextualizing the gospel without compromise: Many missionaries provide a biblical worldview by teaching the grand narrative of God’s revelation through chronological Bible story telling. Some detractors of contextualization believe that we need only preach the gospel as we do back “home,” and this will be sufficient. However, in matriarchal societies, for instance, the mother is the most important figure. Women run the home, serve as rulers, and inherit from their female family members. If the father is even known, he is viewed as a biological necessity and not as an important person in life. When there is an important male figure, it will be the mother’s brother. How will we present the gospel here? Without studying to know the culture to contextualize the gospel, a sermon on God the Father would leave the hearers with a deficient view of God. In such cases, should we allow the culture to contextualize at will and preach God the Mother? Or, should we strike a compromise and preach God the Uncle? Of course, none of these would result in a biblical understanding of the gospel. The missionary preacher who has studied the culture must recognize the challenges and teach the culture the biblical view of God as Father. While such a practice flies in the face of modern anthropology, it is the biblical approach to properly contextualizing the gospel and Christianity among a people.
In my next post, I will give the third principle for engaging our changing culture without compromising our message.

Week 10: The NEW Bible Institute on Ephesians: Slaves and Slave Owners, Part 2

Posted: December 31, 2009 in Ephesians Class, Sermons
Tags: , , , , , , ,
0

Tim Keller in chapter four, “The Church is Responsible for So Much Injustice,” responds to skeptics who throw up slavery in the Bible as evidence of injustice by saying, “Even though slavery in some form was virtually universal in every human culture over the centuries, it was Christians who first came to the conclusion that it was wrong.” Christian abolitionist, such as William Wilberforce, helped abolish slavery in the British Empire.

Albert Mohler reports what is unknown to many is that slavery is still a world-wide problem. Free The Slaves reports there are 27 million slaves today who are forced to work without pay. In Haiti, there are 300,000 slaves.

Journalist, Dan Harris wrote for ABC news on July 8, 2008, “How to Buy a Child in 10 Hours.” That is how long it took Harris to drive 45 minutes to Kennedy Airport, fly 3 1/2 hours to Port-au-Prince, Haiti and complete a transaction. Harris continues, “by the time my team and I have collected our luggage, gone through immigration and customs, and are loaded into our vehicles, it’s about 3:15 p.m….By 4:45 p.m., I’m poolside at one of the city’s few upscale hotels. I’m wearing a hidden camera built into the strap of a bike messenger-style bag that’s around my neck. There’s another hidden camera in a leather satchel on the table, right next to the fruit plate and Evian water. My colleagues are manning cameras in hotel rooms overlooking the pool. Our security guards are sitting discretely nearby. That’s when the man with whom I’ve arranged a meeting shows up. He says he’s a former member of parliament and that he has connections. In broad daylight, with hotel waiters walking by, he doesn’t even flinch when I make a horrific request. ‘If I would like to get a child to live with me and take care of me,’ I ask. ‘Could you do that?’

‘Yes,’ he says, ‘I can.’

The trafficker assures me he’s done this sort of transaction many times before.

‘A girl or a boy?’ he asks.

‘A girl probably,’ I say.

‘How old?’

‘Mayby 10 or 11.’ (You can watch this videoed conversation by clicking ABC news)

Slavery is a 21st Century issue in more ways than the one just discussed. Many employees today view their work as slavery and their bosses as a slave masters. Others refer to their work place as the “salt mine” or the  ”sweatshop.” MacArthur describes Ephesians 6:5-9 as Paul’s “final illustration of the principle of Spirit-produced mutual submission….applying it to relations between slaves and masters—and, by extension, to all employer-employee relationships” (John MacArthur. The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: Ephesians. Chicago: Moody, 1986, 321).

Since nearly half of our waking hours are spent at work it is necessary for our own sanity, spiritual growth, and witness to the lost that we Biblically view work.

1. God Ordained Work.

After God first worked creating the universe, He made man and woman workers as well giving them tasks in the garden. John R. W. Stott observed, “Work is the consequence of creation, not the fall, the fall aggravated the problems without destroying the joy.” One of the first foundational commandments of Israel was, “Six days shall you labor.”

2. God Prescribed What Our Attitudes Should be Toward Work in Ephesians 5:18-6:9.

Paul is still describing Spirit-filled submission in three life-relationships in the household:

1. The wife/husband relationship in 5:22-33.

2. The child/parent relationship in 6:1-4.

3. The employee/employer relationship in 6:5-9.

MacArthur explains why Paul exhorts believers in these three life-relationships together in one text. “Paul’s instructions to masters and slaves continues in the setting of the household. The vast majority of businesses in New Testament times were family operated, and therefore most servants were part of an extended household. In agrarian situations the servants, or slaves, worked in the fields or tended the flocks. If the master had a shop the servants worked as craftsmen or helpers. If he was a merchant they would do whatever chores were required to help in the business. In any case, the head of the household was also head of the business. He was usually the employer and the servants were his employees” (pages 322-323).

Perhaps, fresh in Paul’s thinking was the labor/management conflict that he was currently arbitrating concerning the runaway slave Onesimus from his master, Philemon. Paul writes these three Prison Epistles (Ephesians, Colossians, and Philemon) about the same time while in his first Roman imprisonment in Acts 28.

Paul begins his letter to Philemon in a very unusual manner because of the complicated situation: “Paul, a prisoner of Jesus Christ…to Philemon…and to our beloved Apphia (Philemon’s wife), and Archippus (Philemon’s son who is serving as interim pastor) and to the church in your house.”

The reason Paul has to address all of these family members and the entire church is because all of them were affected by Onesimus running away. The wife probably now had to do more household chores. Philemon the head of the house and business also was affected. He has not only lost money but a laborer in his workforce. The pastor and the entire Colossian church also were impacted because they all meet in the home of Philemon. So the household lived in the same house that was perhaps the workplace and the place of worship. Therefore home, business, and church were intertwined. The only way for there to be unity in this kind of household or any household or workplace is for each involved person to be saved and Spirit-filled, submitting to each person’s role in that household as Paul instructs in Ephesians 5:18-6:9.

In the next post, I will discuss in detail the Spirit-filled attitudes of submission of the employee and employer in the workplace as Paul prescribes in 6:5-9. What Paul instructs in these verses is really the remedy for any abusive workplace. “New Testament teaching does not focus on reforming and restructuring human systems, which are never the root cause of human problems. The issue is always the heart of man—which when wicked will corrupt the best of systems and when righteous will improve the worst. If men’s sinful hearts are not changed, they will find ways to oppress others regardless of whether or not there is actual slavery. On the other hand, Spirit-filled believers will have just and harmonious relationships with each other, no matter what system they live under. Man’s basic problems and needs are not political, social, or economic but spiritual, and that is the area on which Paul here concentrates”   (MacArthur, page 324).

Week 10: The NEW Bible Institute on Ephesians: Slaves and Slave Owners (Eph 6:5-9) Part 1

Posted: December 26, 2009 in Book Reviews, Ephesians Class
Tags: , , , , , ,
0

Week  10 Assignment: Read pages 321-329 in MacArthur and Ephesians 6:5-9. Read and comment on the four posts for week ten.

Mark Driscoll said in his sermon on Slaves and Masters, “Slavery is a shameful page in the history of our nation and history of the American church. Many of the framers of our Constitution claimed to be Christians who considered white men to be created by God with inherent rights deserving representation. But, many were also slave owners who claimed black men deserved only 3/5 representation (as if they were less image bearers of God), an atrocity not corrected until the passage of the 13th Amendment.” The Emancipation Proclamation was only an Executive Order from President Lincoln that freed slaves but did not make the institution of slavery illegal. That required the 13th Amendment.

Tim Keller agrees when he writes “a deep stain on Christian history is the African slave trade. Since Christianity was dominant in the nations that bought and sold slaves during that time, the churches must bear responsibility along with their societies for what happened.” This is one of the many arguments that skeptics raise against Christianity that Keller addresses in “The Reason for God.”

It is a tragic fact that not only did our nation split over slavery but major denominations in America split over New World Slavery: The Presbyterians split in 1838 and the Methodists in 1844. The Southern Baptist Convention was established in 1845 in Augusta, Georgia in order to maintain human slavery. This is regrettable. The southern cotton plantations needed cheap labor whereas the more industrialized north did not.

Scriptures on slavery in the Bible were used to justify slavery in America. There is a problem, however, using verses on slavery in the Bible to justify slavery in America because the two are not equal. “Slavery was taken for granted in all of ancient society” (Homer Kent. Treasures of Wisdom . Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978, 156).

  • Slavery in the Old Testament was protected against abuse (Exodus 21:2).
  • Slaves maimed by their masters were set free (Exodus 21:26-27).
  • The murder of slaves was a capital offense (Exodus 21:12).
  • Kidnapping (a major source for the African slave trade) was forbidden (Deuteronomy 24:7).
  • Old Testament bond-service and indentured servanthood was only temporary (Exodus 21:2).
  • Jews sometimes sold themselves into slavery to raise their standard of living (Leviticus 25:39).
  • Slaves were sometimes just like family and a slave could volunteer to remain a slave if he loved his master (Deuteronomy 15:16-17).

In Some Ways Slavery In Paul’s Day Was Like American Slavery.

In Greek writings, slaves were viewed as property or inanimate tools and not complete humans. Slaves were considered stupid and incapable of providing for themselves and therefore slavery was thought to be a benefit (Harold W. Hoehner. Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary, page 801).

The treatment of slaves depended on the character of the owner and some owners grossly mistreated their slaves. For example, Emperor “Caligula had the hands of a slave cut off for stealing a piece of silver. He hung them around his neck and paraded him around the dining hall with a placard that stated the reason for the punishment” (Hoehner, 803).

In Many Ways Slavery In Paul’s Day Was Different From American Slavery.

In 1st Century Roman Empire there was little difference, in some areas, between slaves and freemen in race, speech or occupations. Homer Kent writes that slaves were clerks, accountants, doctors, nurses, teachers, advisors, musicians, and artists. There was no climate of unrest among slaves in the first century and the institution of slavery was rarely debated. So when Paul admonishes slaves to obey their masters it is much like saying today that Christians should be the best employees in their company.

1. Slavery in Paul’s day was not based on race or skin color. Slaves were from different nationalities and in some cases slaves owned slaves. Whereas in America, slavery was a white/black issue. This prejudice led to the Civil Rights Movement.

2. Free persons could sell themselves into slavery for a contracted time period and when the agreement was over, the slave would be free. Therefore slavery was not life-long. This was not the case with the slavery in America. People in the first century would sell themselves into slavery to raise their standard of living. For example, Epictetus, a first century Stolic philosopher who was born in slavery, reports that when he was a slave he was provided with food, clothes, and shelter, and taken care of when sick. These benefits were not provided when he became a freeperson” (Hoehner,  802).

3. Slaves could be educated in the 1st century as tutors which is referred to in Galatians 3:24. Slaves tutored the sons of their masters in morals and manners. Slaves were also professors in higher education, physicans, and philosophers as in the case of Epictetus.

Scripture Does Not Directly Advocate The Abolition Of The Institution Of Slavery.

Scripture does condemn slave owners  in 1 Timothy 1:10 but not the institution of slavery.

1. People became slaves in the 1st century because of infanticide. Children were abandoned and some were rescued by becoming slaves. To abolish the institution of slavery would mean leaving these children abandoned.

2. People became slaves because of debt. Since people in debt could not file “chapter 11″ they would sell themselves into slavery to pay off their debt. To abolish the institution of slavery would leave the creditors unpaid.

3. Paul taught obedience to government in Romans 13 and to propose the abolition of the institution of slavery would defy government.

Scripture Does In Principle Condemn The Institution Of Slavery.

1. The Bible teaches us to “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:39). You cannot love your neighbor and own him/her as a piece of property because he is only 60% the human you are.

2. The Bible teaches that we are to treat others the way we would want them to treat us (Matthew 7:12). We would not want to be kidnapped from our homes, families, country, and shipped to another nation to be abused for the rest of our lives.

3. The Bible condemns self-righteousness which is the essence of racism and the slavery of black people. Jesus condemned self-righteousness in Matthew 5:20. An example of self-righteousness is in Luke 18:9-14 where the Pharisee prayed, “I thank you, that I am not as other men are.” The self-righteous racist prays, “I thank you, that I do not have the color of skin as other men.”

4. Paul taught that slaves and masters are equal brothers in Christ (Galatians 3:28 and 1 Timothy 6:2).

5.  Paul instructed slaves to obtain their freedom if possible (1 Corinthians 7: 21), that slaves are free persons in Christ (1 Corinthians 7:22), and for free persons to avoid slavery (1 Corinthians 7:23).

6. Christianity emphasized the transformation of the individual who could change his culture rather than the reformation of society. Paul instructs both slaves and slave owners to be servants of Christ, who was master of both, in treating each other properly in Ephesians 6: 5-9.

In Part 2, I will show modern day examples of slavery and explore Ephesians 6:5-9 in detail.

Science Verses Christianity, Part Last

Posted: September 11, 2009 in Creation
Tags: , , , , , ,
15

Tim Keller rejects the view of Richard Dawkins who “argues that you cannot be an intelligent scientific thinker and still hold religious beliefs.” But Keller believes the view of a six twenty-four-hour day creation is “fortunately…losing credibility with a growing number of scholars.” In both Dawkins’ and Keller’s view, science has undermined the interpretation of Scripture. Keller even says, “There is no necessary disjunction between science and devout faith.” Keller repudiates the literal interpretation of Genesis one and two in order to believe in theistic evolution: “It is false logic to argue that if one part of Scripture can’t be taken literally then none of it can be.” The theologians who hold to the different forms of theistic evolution contradict themselves in rejecting the creation of the universe in six twenty-four-hour days in order to accommodate the science of atheistic evolution.

The reigning Baptist theologian from the late 1800’s to Millard Erickson was Augustus Strong. He was a staunch conservative for the fundamentals of the faith. Strong, however, had his problems. He did not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture nor in a six twenty-four day creation.

Millard Erickson, who replaced Strong as the reigning Baptist theologian, is a progressive creationist. Both Strong and Erickson believe God used the process of evolution to varying degrees. Strong believed that God used evolution to a greater degree than Erickson: “Evolution is only the method of God.” In Strong’s view, evolution brought brute beast to a certain development and then God miraculously intervened and created a soul in Adam, the first man. “We are compelled, then, to believe that God’s ‘breathing into man’s nostrils the breath of life’ (Gen. 2:7), though it was a mediate creation as presupposing existing material in the shape of animal forms, was yet an immediate creation in the sense that only a divine reinforcement of the process of life turned the animal into man” (Systematic Theology, pages 466-467).  So, according to Strong, evolution provided the body and God the soul.

As a progressive creationist, Erickson, believes that “between these special acts of creation, development took place through the channels of evolution. For example, it is possible that God created the first member of the horse family.” In regard to man, unlike theistic evolutionists, Erickson believes that “when the time came for man to be brought into existence, God made him directly and completely, God did not make him out of some lower creature. Rather, both the physical and spiritual nature of man were specially created by God.” 

Erickson argues against the theistic evolutionary view that the “dust” of Gen. 2:7 cannot be literal dust but must be symbolic for already existing creatures. Here is how Strong explains “dust” in Gen. 2:7: “The ‘dust’ before the breathing of the spirit into it, may have been animated dust” (page 465). Also from other statements of Strong the dust must have been evolved animals before God breathed into them and the animal became the first man. Erickson presents a good argument against this allegorical interpretation of Scripture.

“The word dust occurs not only in Genesis 2:7 but also in 3:19, ‘You are dust, and to dust you shall return.’ If we understand it in 2:7 to represent an already existing creature, we are faced with two choices: either the meaning of the term must be different in 3:19 (and in 3:14 as well), or we have the rather ludicrous situation that upon death one reverts to an animal. It should be noted that in those severe degenerative cases where a person becomes virtually subhuman, the change occurs prior to actual death. It would be better, then, to let the reference to dust in 3:19 (the clearer) interpret that in 2:7 (the less clear)” (Christian Theology, Vol. 2 page 483).

And yet, Erickson does not hold to a literal interpretation of “dust.” “The Bible tells us that God made man from the ‘dust’ of the ground. This dust need not be actual physical soil. It may be some elementary pictorial representation which was intelligible to the first readers” (Christian Theology, Vol. 2 page 482). To use Erickson’s logic against theistic evolution’s rejection of the literal meaning of “dust” then at death we do not return to actual physical soil but to some pictorial representation of death. Why cannot we just read the Word of God in the normal sense of language and except what it says? It is this refusal to take God’s Word at face value that has led to theistic evolution, progressive creationism and the age/day theory.

Gleason Archer, who advocates the day-age theory argues against using these passages in Exodus for literal solar days of creation.

“But this does not necessarily presuppose literal, twenty-four hour days, for the seventh day is explicitly hallowed in terms of the completion of the work of creation. For this purpose of memorial observance, the only possible way in which the seventh age (the age of completion, according to age-day theory) could be hallowed would be a literal seventh day of a seven-day week. It would certainly be impractical to devote an entire geologic age to the commemoration of a geologic age” (A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, page 188).

Science at times has been wrong, as Wayne Grudem reminds us: “For example, when the Italian astronomer Galileo (1564-1642) began to teach that the earth was not the center of the universe but that the earth and other planets revolved around the sun (following the theories of the Polish astronomer Copernicus (1472-1543), he was criticized, and eventually his writings were condemned by the Roman Catholic Church….Galileo was forced to recant his teachings and had to live under house arrest for the last few years of his life” (Systematic Theology, page 273).

Ken Ham, who is with Answers in Genesis, in a taped lecture, tells about two Sunday school girls who were discussing the six days of creation and one asked the other, “Why did God take so long?” How would you answer that Sunday schooler? Six days were a long time for our all powerful God of the universe to create everything. Could not God have created the universe in six seconds, or six minutes, or in six hours? Why did God take six days? The answer is in Exodus 20:8-11 and 31:15-18. These two passages argue for six literal 24 hours days of creation and not ages. Just as God took six literal solar days to create the universe and then rested on the seventh, he has commanded us to labor six days and rest one. If God interprets Genesis one and two literally, why cannot we?

Reading the Fourth Commandment in Ex. 20:8-11 in the normal sense of language, gives the sense that God is comparing the six literal days of creation and his one day of rest to our six days of labor and one day of rest. There is no idea of analogy or allegory is either the Genesis or Exodus texts.

 What is the Biblical account of the origin of the universe and man?      

Gen.1:1-3 is the biblical origin of man and the universe. In Genesis, God is blessing all nations through His people. This theme is seen in the overall outline of the book. In Genesis 1-11, we read of God’s blessings on the human race and then in Genesis 12-50 God’s blessings on His chosen people, Israel. The theme is also explicitly stated in the special promise in Gen. 12:3 where God promised to bless all nations through His people.

The beginning of God’s blessings is in the creation of man in Genesis one and two. There are two accounts of creation in the first two chapters. The general account of the creation of the universe is narrated in 1:1-2:3 and the specific account of the creation of man is given in 2:4-25. Each of these accounts begins with summary statement of introduction (1:1; 2:4) followed by the specifics.                                                                                     

What was the raw material or the states of things when God began to create? The incomplete planet is described in Genesis 1:2 as useless or “without form” as a desert in Dt. 32:10 which is uninhabited. The earth was also lifeless. The planet at this stage was covered with darkness and water. So the planet in verse two was useless, lifeless, and covered in darkness. “Darknesss” in Scripture does not always mean evil as here and in Psalm 104:19-24 where the darkness of night is seen as a blessing from God for which he is to be praised.                                                       

The planet at this stage is full of potential. How did God bring this raw material to its full potential? With this raw material, the great Potter formed the earth and then man out of the dust of the earth. First, the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters and then God spoke his first creative words in Gen. 1:3 and day by day for six days God removed the incompleteness and deficiencies of earth.

Paul draws an analogy between the incomplete earth and the sinner before salvation in 2 Cor.4:3-6. The sinner before salvation was also useless, lifeless (Eph. 2:1), and in darkness (Eph. 4:18). But then “God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, has shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (2 Cor. 4:6). How did God do this work in the sinner’s life? The same as He did with the useless, lifeless, and in darkness planet. The Spirit of God moved on the sinner’s life (John 16:8) when God’s Word was spoken or preached (Rom. 10:17).

Paul himself, as Saul of Tarsus in Acts 9, is an illustration. Saul, on the road to Damascus, in his spiritual uselessness, lifelessness, and darkness, was struck to the ground by a light that was brighter than the noon day sun. That light was Jesus Christ the Son of God who was and is the Light of the world. As you and I witness the Word of God to unregenerate sinners, God’s Spirit will work at opening satanically blinded eyes so the Creator of the universe can once again create a new creation in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17).

Science Verses Christianity, Part Next

Posted: September 9, 2009 in Creation
Tags: , , , , , , ,
10

The first tenet of evolution that we discussed was the Eternality of Matter.

Next, we will discuss Spontaneous Generation which states that the first life, the first cell sprung from non-life. Darwin in 1871 wrote in a letter advancing the idea of spontaneous generation. “We could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat and electricity. . . .that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes” (Darwin, Francis. The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, pages 101, 102). Erwin W. Lutzer has an insightful quote.

In 1954, experiments were conducted in the United States by Stan Miller, whose synthesis in a laboratory produced sizable quantities of amino acids and other organic molecules. Later, adenine, one of the components of DNA, was synthesized from a mixture of ammonia, methane, and water. Thus, the building blocks of life were brought about through human experimentation. But even with the synthesis of amino acids in a highly controlled laboratory, scientists agree that life cannot be sustained without protein, and proteins come only from life. In other words, life would already have to have been here before it began. As evolutionist Taylor admits, ‘The fundamental objection to all these theories is that they involve raising oneself by one’s own bootstraps. You cannot make proteins without DNA, but you cannot make DNA without enzymes which are proteins. It is a chicken and egg situation.’ Creationist A. E. Wilder-Smith uses this example: If a baby suddenly appeared without a mother, it would die. Hence, even if a cell were to begin random forces, it would immediately die because there would be no cradle for it” (Lutzer, Erwin. Twleve Myths Americans Believe, Chicago: Moody Press, page 35).

In stark contrast to evolution’s naturalistic spontaneous generation, God’s Word in Gen. 2:7 declares that human life came from God as a special creation when He formed man out of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul. As Ryrie notes, the creation of Eve presents a special problem for theistic evolutionists who believe Adam came from a long line of pre-Adamic creatures. God finally intervened in the evolutionary process and breathed into Adam the breath of life. But Eve is said by Scripture (Gen. 2:21) to have been created directly from Adam’s side while he slept not from a long line of ever increasing in complexity sub-human beings. Theistic evolutionists, Derek Kidner, must admit a special creation of Eve (Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary, TOTC [London and Chicago: InterVarsity Press, 1967], page 28). If God specially created Eve, then why not Adam?

Other tenets of evolution are that a living cell reproduces itself with mutations which produce new species and through natural selection, or the survival of the fittest these new mutations and species survive. However, as Wayne Grudem brings out, after hundreds of years of experimental breeding of various kinds of animals there are no new species. Dogs which are selectively bred for generations are still dogs (page 280). God’s Word says God created “according to their kinds” (Genesis 1:11, 24). There can be some differentiation among the species. Even among humans there is much variety in size and appearances. “Kind” is used to describe species of animals that are different and the fixity of the species. Lev. 11:14-22 speak of the different species that God uniquely created.

“And the vulture, and the kite after his kind; every raven after his kind; and the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind, and the stork, the heron after her kind, even these of them you may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after this kind.” From this list we learn that God is a God of infinite variety. There is much diversification among these animals and the fixity of the species. There are several different kinds of  owls listed but an owl never becomes a hawk.

Another tenet of evolution is time, that is, the necessity of millions of years for all of this to take place. From my teenager’s biology textbook this view is expressed: “Given enough time, however, even improbable events are almost bound to occur at least once— and once may have been enough for the origin of life on earth” (Arms, page 308). This tenet runs against the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics which says everything is growing older and wearing out and running down. This tenet also violates the Law of Entropy which states that nature left to itself tends toward disorganization not complexity. Wayne Grudem illustrates. Put all the parts of a new BMW in the cargo bay of a 747 and fly to 6000 feet and dump all of the parts. Will they organize themselves before they hit. No! But the evolutionist says, “We need more time”. All right, fly to 20,000 feet and dump all of the parts. Will more time solve the situation? No! Genesis 1, 2 say that God created the universe in six days.

In my last post on Science verses Christianity we will observe that evangelicals like Tim Keller, Derek Kidner, and Millard Erickson reject six twenty-four-hour day creation.

Older Entries