Setting the Record Straight on Waltke

The blogosphere has been set ablaze since the resignation of Bruce Waltke from Reformed Theological Seminary. Dr. Waltke, an Old Testament scholar for whom I have a great deal of respect made a regretable video for Biologos, an organization which seeks to advance the theory of evolution among evangelicals. I have posted on the situation already (here & here).

I have checked around on some Christian blogs which are hostile toward the idea of biblical inerrancy and the conclusion is that Dr. Waltke was bullied and that those rascally fundamentalists will be the ruin of us all. But this is a gross mischaracterization.

Don Clements has written a very helpful article for the Aquilla Report that sets the record straight.

After viewing the video, Dr. Cannada [RTS President] contacted Professor Waltke via e-mail suggesting that he wanted to set up a time to talk to him about the video. In his return e-mail, Waltke immediately offered his resignation for the good of the seminary. He apparently knew by then that what he had said in the interview was problematic. This fact – Waltke’s offer of resignation at the very beginning of discussions with RTS – appears to be contrary not only to a number of blogs antagonistic to RTS but also contrary to a number of the secular media reports.

In their first phone discussions, Cannada told Waltke that he did not want to accept the resignation and that he had the hope that a detailed explanation might be possible to resolve the issues. Cannada did ask Waltke to request that BioLogos remove the videos from the web, which he did. Although BioLogos did not agree that they should be removed, they honored the professor’s request.

It was the desire of the RTS Administration, as well of Dr. Waltke, that every effort would be focused throughout the process on seeking peace for everyone involved, as well as maintaining the confessional integrity that is important to institutions like RTS that work so closely with and hire faculty from confessional based denominations.

Waltke himself was clear that the videos were misleading. He explained that he was used to writing his materials and that writing could be edited before publication, but in this case – his first venture at a video statement – he did not have the ability to edit it prior to it being published.

In asking that the video be removed, Waltke also wrote an explanation that BioLogos published. That statement was as follows:

I had not seen the video before it was distributed. Having seen it, I realize its deficiency and wish to put my comments in a fuller theological context:

· Adam and Eve are historical figures from whom all humans are descended; they are uniquely created in the image of God and as such are not in continuum with animals.

· Adam is the federal and historical head of the fallen human race just as Jesus Christ is the federal and historical head of the Church.

· I am not a scientist, but I have familiarized myself with attempts to harmonize Genesis 1-3 with science, and I believe that creation by the process of evolution is a tenable Biblical position, and, as represented by BioLogos, the best Christian apologetic to defend Genesis 1-3 against its critics.

· I apologize for giving the impression that others who seek to harmonize the two differently are not credible. I honor all who contend for the Christian faith.

· Evolution as a process must be clearly distinguished from evolutionism as a philosophy. The latter is incompatible with orthodox Christian theology.

· Science is fallible and subject to revision. As a human and social enterprise, science will always be in flux. My first commitment is to the infallibility (as to its authority) and inerrancy (as to its Source) of Scripture.

· God could have created the Garden of Eden with apparent age or miraculously, even as Christ instantly turned water into wine, but the statement that God “caused the trees to grow” argues against these notions.

· I believe that the Triune God is Maker and Sustainer of heaven and earth and that biblical Adam is the historical head of the human race.

· Theological comments made here are mostly a digest of my chapters on Genesis 1-3 in An Old Testament Theology (Zondervan, 2007).”

Read the entire article HERE.

Sunday's Sermon

Sunday's message was part 31 in our current series through the book of Hebrews. It is entitled "Faith and Justification" and is based on Hebrews 11:4. You can listen to or download it HERE.

Baptizing Our Hunches

Anthony Bradley has a good piece in the latest issue of World entitled "Calling" vs. choice" in which he challenges the ease with which contemporary Christians spiritualize the choices they make.

Here’s the bottom line: the Bible simply does not generally use “calling” to justify everyday choices or big-life decisions. There are a few notable exceptions for a few biblical characters. The Bible, however, does not generally use “calling” in terms of vocations, college attendance, numbering children, whom to marry, house purchases, which city or neighborhood to live in, and so on. In fact, the Greek word for “calling” is only used in the New Testament around 11 times and its almost always in reference to a divine callings related to salvation or callings to live a holy life. This is what it means to “live in God’s will.” God’s “will” may have nothing to do with whether or not one should move to Seattle instead of Chicago but it does have something to do with what kind of person one will be in either Seattle or Chicago in whatever job one chooses while living in whatever neighborhood one desires.

Until Christians adopt better language we will continue to set people up for disappointment and theological crises when their “callings” don’t work out. You do not have to be “called” in order to choose something good. If your choice turns about out to be a disaster, it’s OK, God is sovereign.

Bradley includes a helpful insight from Dr. James Meek:

Evangelicals have developed an unfortunate habit of seeking and claiming divine direction to a degree that Scripture does not appear to justify. We deceive ourselves by claiming that our wishes and hunches are divine instructions when we have no solid reason (biblical or otherwise) for believing them to be so. But once one person begins talking this way, it’s hard not to want to sound as 'spiritual.’

I think what we actually do is to baptize hunches and wishes in the mistaken belief that these represent divine guidance. It’s a way of thinking (and talking) that has simply become accepted in many evangelical circles.

Read the entire article HERE.

Updates on Waltke, Warren, and Piper

There is a new development in the dust-up over Bruce Waltke's statements regarding evolution HERE.

Also, for those of you who have been following the controversy of John Piper's invitation to Rick Warren to speak at the Desiring God National Conference, Phil Johnson and Trevin Wax offer some helpful insight.

Is it possible to be too Gospel-centered?

I remember about ten years ago hearing for the first time from C.J. Mahaney a vision for the Christian life and the church that was "Gospel-centered." It was like a conversion experience for me. I knew that I would never think of the church and Christianity in the same way ever again. About that same time I discovered Mark Dever's 9 Marks Ministries. As a young Southern Baptist pastor I was profoundly encouraged to hear from another SBC pastor who was declaring this same vision of Gospel-centeredness.

Briefly, to be Gospel-centered is to understand that the message of Christ's perfect obedience, substitutionary death, and victorious resurrection is the theological well spring and functional center of the Christian life and the church.

It seems like a no-brainer. And yet for many of us who grew up in conservative evangelicalism the Gospel was thought of simply as the abc's or something attached to evangelism. We loved the Gospel but it was a piece of the whole, not the central reality. I had never been given a vision of the Gospel as the very center of my life. What made the message so powerful (and as it turns out, lasting) is that it is biblical. A vision of the Gospel-centered life is the vision God gives us in His Word. For a man who had grown up in the never ending ebb and flow of evangelical fads, this was different. This wasn't higher life. It wasn't seeker sensitive. It wasn't purpose driven. This was not about prophecy seminars, power point, or vision statements.

Gospel-centeredness, I came to see, is a rock-ribbed, biblical vision for God's people. The Gospel illuminates the grand narrative of Scripture. The Gospel is the great theme for preaching. The Gospel is God's power for our efforts to evangelize. It is reality that brings wholeness to our brokenness. The Gospel provides the only satisfying rationale for Christ-like ethics like mercy and sacrifice. It is no wonder why Paul calls this message of the doing, dying, and rising of Christ "the matter of first importance" (1 Cor 15:3).

Dane Ortland has a helpful post addressing whether or not "Gospel-centered" is merely a fad.

There has been a wave of books, blogs, messages and movements in recent years calling, in various ways, for the church today to be (more) ‘gospel-centered.’

Publically, I think of Ray Ortlund, Zack Eswine, Tim Keller, Sovereign Grace, Acts 29, the Gospel Coalition, Jared Wilson, Joe Thorn, Jonathan Dodson, Paul Tripp, David Powlison, Jerry Bridges, Mike Bullmore, D. A. Carson, Graeme Goldsworthy, Covenant Seminary, Tullian Tchividjian, and many others (see e.g., here). Privately, I think of friends like Brian Martin, Nate Conrad, Dan Orr, and Jim Lane, who have personally helped me understand the gospel as the engine (keeping us going), not the runway (getting us off the ground at conversion and landing us in heaven at death but unnecessary in between), to life and theology.

In more recent days, though, some are raising the question of whether this is getting a bit out of hand, asking whether we can emphasize the gospel to the exclusion of other things, and, perhaps most of all, simply expressing a general cynicism about the current trendiness of being gospel-centered (whatever “gospel-centered” means — I use the phrase here to refer to viewing the gospel not as something beyond which Christians graduate but which rather remains the heartbeat of life, to be not only confessed doctrinally and evangelistically but also appropriated emotionally and psychologically, the non-negotiable of all non-negotiables, summed up best biblically in 1 Cor 15:3-4).

There are three possible responses to the current trendiness of being ‘gospel-centered.’

1.Uncritically dismiss it due to its trendiness
2.Uncritically absorb it due to its being embraced by others we know or respect; vicariously feed on others’ excitement without personally digesting it ourselves
3.Consider what it means, and whether it is biblical; ponder what istrue in it; ask why it is trendy.

The last option is the way of wisdom. Before either dismissing it or absorbing it, let’s consider it, test it, and, if we find that in fact deeper awareness of sin and sin’s healing in Christ is indeed the place to start and end every day happily and humbly, pass it on.

Remember, trendiness is not bad in itself. Justification by faith alone was suddenly trendy among significant church circles in the 1520s and 30s. Thank the Lord for all those who neither uncritically dismissed it nor uncritically absorbed it but personally wrestled with it, saw it in their Bibles, found fresh liberation, and passed it on.

The Thin Red Line?

The International Cinephile Society has posted their picks for the top 100 movies of the 1990's. In at number one is "The Thin Red Line" which is pretty shocking to me since I would not have rated it in the top 50. Terrance Malick's WWII epic had some interesting moments but was, in my opinion, a confused and confusing hash. There are other movies that do not belong on the list as well (that's what is fun about these lists). "Eyes Wide Shut"? Are you kidding me? "Naked Lunch?" It's unwatchable! "Starship Troopers"? Now you're making me mad! "Husbands and Wives" is far from Woody Allen's best effort.

My own pick for the best film of the 1990's is "The Remains of the Day."

"Non-Overlapping Magisteria"

Mark Jones has written a good piece on the recent controversy over statements made by Pete Enns' unsurprising and Bruce Waltke's rather surprising comments concerning evolution. Moreover, Jones offers some helpful thoughts on the effort to harmonize evolution and biblical faith.

Those who refer to themselves as theistic evolutionists need to be pressed on “the blind watchmaker thesis” that is so crucial to Darwinism. As noted in the previous chapter, Richard Dawkins has explained the idea of the “blind watchmaker” and its implications for how we view the theory of evolution: “Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view.”[15] The blind watchmaker thesis explains the philosophical implications of evolution, which cannot in any way be squared with what the Bible says about creation and providence. Phillip Johnson claims that he has found it “very difficult to get theistic evolutionists to discuss the blind watchmaker thesis.”[16] No wonder. How can a Christian, in any meaningful sense of the word, admit that life, generally speaking, has no purpose? Plus, to insist that God would choose natural selection as his undirected creative method seems to require more faith than the idea that God created animals of their kind (Gen. 1:24). Darwinian evolution cannot guarantee that humans would have come into existence. Of course, a theistic evolutionist could maintain that God intervened from time to time to provide the required mutations to ensure that humans would eventually evolve, but this becomes mere philosophical speculation, and technically not science. Indeed, this position is neither Darwinism nor Christian theism. Collins assumes the truth of Darwininsm and then he constructs his own form of Christianity that will not contradict his understanding of evolution.

Historically, Reformed theologians have addressed the relationship between science and theology by beginning with the idea that the God of the Bible is a personal God who knowingly and willingly decrees all events. In other words, they begin with God, not Darwin.[17] Darwinism appeals to naturalists because, at present, it remains the most suitable explanation for explaining the diversity of life assuming that God had nothing to do with the process. That is a big assumption, of course. But the Christian can point to defects in the fossil record, the origin of life problem, the irreducible complexity of organisms, and many other problems in the Neo-Darwinian synthesis, to rest secure that Darwinian evolution has not provided a better alternative to the Bible in explaining how the present world came to be. Collins admits that modern science still cannot explain the origin of life, but “this is not the place for a thoughtful person to wager his faith.”[18] Coming from a supposed theist this comment is interesting. Collins argues for God’s existence based on moral life (i.e. altruistic behaviour among humans), but he urges extreme caution for God having anything to do with creating life. Moreover, Collins finds the Darwinian explanation for the moral law unsatisfying and therefore bases his belief in God in part on the argument for moral law. Yet, his reasoning about the origin of life problem should be equally applied to his reasoning for the moral law. Perhaps Darwinians will one day provide a satisfactory explanation for a moral law? Indeed, a number of scientists have done their best to explain altruistic behaviour among animals (which, for them, includes humans).[19]

In the end I expect that Darwinians will not find [Francis] Collins’ synthesis sufficiently convincing; nor do I expect Christians to be overly enamored with his various proposals. Theistic evolution is basically a contradictory worldview, and Collins’ synthesis should be rejected with fervor. And yet Bruce Waltke has explicitly embraced Collins’ version of evolution, which is Darwinian evolution, not evolution which can be empirically observed. Of course, Waltke has theological commitments that he cannot abandon. The problem for him, at least, is that he cannot maintain with any consistency his theological commitments and his appreciation for Collins’ work.

Read the entire article HERE.

Why do they listen?

In the latest volume in his epic work on worship Hughes Oliphant Old includes an insightful article on the preaching of John MacArthur.

His concluding paragraph moves me deeply.

Why do so many people listen to MacArthur, this product of all the wrong schools? How can he pack out a church on Sunday morning in an age in which church attendance has seriously lagged? Here is a preacher who has nothing in the way of a winning personality, good looks, or charm. Here is a preacher who offers us nothing in the way of sophisticated homiletical packaging. No one would suggest that he is a master of the art of oratory. What he seems to have is a witness to true authority. He recognizes in Scripture the Word of God, and when he preaches, it is Scripture that one hears. It is not that the words of John MacArthur are so interesting as it is that the Word of God is of surpassing interest. That is why one listens.

Read the entire article HERE.

Sunday's Sermon

Easter Sunday's sermon was entitled "Do Not Be Afraid" and was based upon Matthew 28:1-10. You can listen to or download it HERE.

George Washington Memorial Chapel, Valley Forge

Abortion, Taxation, and Christian Citizenship

With the passage of "Obamacare" it is almost a certainty that those Americans who pay taxes will be forced to subsidize abortion. Only the most naive will conclude that the President's executive order will provide any protection for the tax payer. This raises serious questions about the nature of Christian citizenship.

Al Mohler has written a thoughtful and thought provoking article on the subject.

Abortion is a moral catastrophe. The murder of the unborn is one of the greatest sins any society can tolerate, much less subsidize by taxation. The impact of the new “Obamacare” health care legislation is not yet fully clear, but the legislation lacks any adequate protection for the unborn. Immorality is added to immorality when the power of the government to tax and confiscate the funds of citizens is involved in such a catastrophe.

For this reason, Christian citizens should be involved at every level in the political process, seeking to use legitimate means to establish full protection for the unborn and for all other vulnerable persons. Elections have consequences, and this new legislation is a reminder of the power of government to do both good and evil.

But to refuse to pay taxes is to deny the legitimacy of the government itself, and to declare it beyond political remedy. Even to Christians suffering under the repressive, murderous, and dictatorial yoke of Rome, Jesus instructed the payment of taxes. Caesar, Christ knew, will one day face the judgment of Almighty God. Rome would one day be brought under his own feet and made subject to him.

We do not “render unto Caesar” because of our confidence in Caesar. We render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, because we are committed with our lives and confidence and consciences to render unto God that which is God’s.

Read the entire article HERE.

The Silence of God

Three Precious Words

But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for fall have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
- Romans 3:21-26

Martin Luther refered to Romans 3:21-26 as, "“the chief point, and the very central place of the epistle, and of the whole Bible.” There are three words in this text that ought to be a part of every Christian's personal lexicon.

1. Redemption
We are “justified by His grace as a gift through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus” (v.24).

Redemption applies to our bondage to sin. It carries with it the notion of being purchased. In this case we have been bought back from slavery to sin. We are told in 1 Corinthians 6 that we have been “bought with a price.” The purchase price of our redemption was the death of God’s beloved Son. In 1 Corinthians 1 we’re told that Christ has “become our redemption.” In Titus 2:14 Paul tells us that Jesus, “gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works.”

2. Propitiation
“…Whom God put forward as a propitiation, by his blood, to be received by faith” (v.25).

Propitiation applies to God’s wrath toward us as sinners and rebels. To propitiate is to turn away wrath. John Murray writes, "To propitiate means to placate, pacify, appease, conciliate.” Propitiation, the satisfaction of God’s wrath, is an idea that is attacked quite often. But it is essential to our understanding of ourselves, our understanding of God, and our understanding of what God has done to save us.

We will never understand the cross apart from a proper appreciation for God’s wrath. Graham Cole writes, “Wrath seems unworthy of God only if our own sense of sin has become so atrophied that we think that it is God’s business to forgive it” (74). James Denney in his classic The Death of Christ wrote:
“Christ’s death, we may paraphrase (Romans 3:25), is an act in which God does justice to himself…He would not do justice to himself if he displayed his compassion for sinners in a way which made light of sin, which ignored its tragic reality, or took it for less than it is. In this case he would again be doing himself an injustice.”

Christ’s atoning work on the cross fundamentally changed God’s attitude toward us. We moved from being “children of wrath” (Eph 2) to being children of mercy. This is why we sing, “In my place condemned he stood. Hallelujuah! What a Saviour!”

3. Justification
Justification applies to the reality of our guilt and the alienation that comes from that. Justification presupposes two realities: 1) God is our Judge and 2) our problem is that we are guilty. And just as people resist propitiation because it necessitates belief in God’s wrath, people resist justification because it necessitates belief that God is Judge.

Theologian Miraslav Volf, a Croation who experienced first hand the bloody war in the former Yugoslavia and was himself tortured helps us understand the importance of God as Judge:

To the person inclined to dismiss [divine judgment], I suggest imagining that you are delivering a lecture in a war zone. Among your listeners are people whose cities and villages have been first plundered, then burned and leveled to the ground, whose daughters and sisters have been raped, whose fathers and brothers had their throats slit. The topic of the lecture: A Christian attitude toward violence. The thesis: We should not retaliate since God is perfect noncoercive love. Soon you would discover that it takes the quiet of a suburban home for the birth of the thesis that human nonviolence corresponds to God’s refusal to judge. In a scorched land, soaked in the blood of the innocent it will invariably die (Cole, 76).

We all need to be justified. We need to be made right. We need to be fit in such a way that we will not be obliterated the moment we appear before a God who is holy. To be justified means that we have received the pronouncement of “not guilty” from our Righteous Judge. And this extraordinary change from guilty sinner to justified saint all comes about by God’s grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

Justification is both acquittal and acceptance. That is to say, it involves both the forgiveness of sins and the receiving of the righteousness of Christ. God not only declares us "Not guilty!", he also declares us "Righteous!" Pardon alone would leave us spiritually naked with no righteousness. Pardon might save us from hell but it alone is not enough to bring us into the presence of God. For this we need the fullness of Justification.

Paul is amazed by God’s grace. He is not surprised that the God of the Scriptures is gracious. He is well acquainted with God’s grace throughout human history. What amazes Paul is that the God of grace shows His grace and bestows His grace in such a way that His justice is not compromised.

In Proverbs 17 God Himself had said, "Cursed is the judge who condemns the innocent and who acquits the guilty." But we are being told here that God, the Judge, does indeed acquit the guilty. And this is the thrilling reality of the gospel. Because in the gospel, God’s justice and His righteousness and His grace and His mercy are all displayed side by side, never warring against or contradicting one another. The cross is where the holy justice and tender mercy of God meet in a beautiful expression of God’s perfections.

Nothing natural about death

From Russell Moore:

On a Saturday long ago, our Lord Jesus was a corpse. This isn’t natural.

Problem is, death seems normal to us. Darwinian naturalism, along with most contemporary philosophies, assumes that death is the natural ending point to life. The Christian gospel insists otherwise, seeing death as an alien invader of the cosmic order, a curse from the Edenic fall, and a strategy of an enemy spirit to crush God’s image-bearing humanity (Heb. 2:14-15).

In Scripture, death is personified as itself an enemy, indeed the final enemy to be placed under the feet of a triumphant King Jesus (1 Cor. 15:24-26).

Death in all its forms, from animal predation to “natural” disasters to “old age” expiration, all point to the cold truth that God is not ruling the cosmos through his human mediators in the way he intended at the start.

In the present age, all people still grow old, get sick, and die. There is a sundering of the body from the soul, a violent act that tears at God’s original creational purpose of breathing his life into the man of the dust (Gen. 2:7). When a man dies, his flesh reverts back to the dust of the earth, a seeming contradiction of God’s creation.

There is one Man, however, who does not owe death as the wages of sin. He cannot be accused by the ruler of this age, because He alone has an untroubled conscience before the tribunal of God. He’s not a corpse anymore.

The resurrection of Jesus is the first wave of a counter-revolution that will turn back death’s tyranny and satanic rule forever.

Death isn’t natural at all.

Nothing more important...

From Al Mohler:

The Christian faith is not a mere collection of doctrines — a bag of truths. Christianity is a comprehensive truth claim that encompasses every aspect of revealed doctrine, but is centered in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And, as the apostolic preaching makes clear, the Gospel is the priority.

The Apostle Paul affirms this priority when he writes to the Christians in Corinth. In the opening verses of 1 Corinthians 15, Paul sets out his case:

Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me. Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

Paul points directly to the events of the cross and resurrection of Christ. He is not concerned with just any gospel, but with the only gospel that saves. This is “the gospel I preached to you,” Paul reminds the Corinthians. The same Paul who so forcefully warned the Galatians against accepting any false gospel reminds the church at Corinth that the very “gospel I preached to you” is the gospel “by which you are being saved.” Their stewardship of the gospel is underlined in Paul’s words, “if you hold fast to the word I preached to you.”

Paul’s statement of priority is a vital corrective for our confused times. Without hesitation, Paul writes with urgency about the truths that are “as of first importance.” All revealed truth is vital, invaluable, life-changing truth to which every disciple of Christ is fully accountable. But certain truths are of highest importance, and that is the language Paul uses without qualification.

And what is of first importance? “That Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,” and “that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures.” The cross and the empty tomb stand at the center of the Christian faith. Without these, there is no good news — no salvation.

Read the entire article HERE.

Bruce Waltke on Adam and Eve

Adam and Eve have been taking a bit of a beating from some well known scholars within the Reformed tradition. Tremper Longman made statements recently that allowed for the first couple to be mythical as has Pete Enns. Bruce Waltke, one of the world's great Old Testament scholars recently made statements that seemed to indicate he too allowed for Adam and Eve to be something less than historical figures. I was therefore encouraged by the following clarification by Dr. Waltke:

I had not seen the video before it was distributed. Having seen it now, I realize its deficiency and wish to put my comments in a fuller theological context.

1. Adam and Eve are historical figures from whom all humans are descended; they are uniquely created in the image of God and as such are not in continuum with animals.

2. Adam is the federal and historical head of the fallen human race just as Jesus Christ is the federal and historical head of the Church.

3. I am not a scientist, but I have familiarized myself with attempts to harmonize Genesis 1-3 with science, and I believe that creation by the process of evolution is a tenable Biblical position. I apologize for giving the impression that others who seek to harmonize the two differently are not credible. I honor all who contend for the Christian faith.

4. Evolution as a process must be clearly distinguished from evolutionism as a philosophy. The latter is incompatible with orthodox Christian theology.

5. Science is fallible and subject to revision. As a human and social enterprise, science will always be in flux. My first commitment is to the infallibility (as to its authority) and inerrancy (as to its Source) of Scripture.

6. God could have created the Garden of Eden with apparent age or miraculously, even as Christ instantly turned water into wine, but the statement that God “caused the trees to grow” argues against these notions.

7. I believe that the Triune God is Maker and Sustainer of heaven and earth and that biblical Adam is the historical head of the human race.

8. Theological comments made here are mostly a digest of my chapters on Genesis 1-3 in An Old Testament Theology (Zondervan, 2007).

Bruce Waltke, Professor of Old Testament Reformed Theological Seminary

Review of "Magnifying God in Christ"

I recently reviewed Tom Schreiner's excellent Magnifying God in Christ for The Gospel Coalition.

I have a simple rule of thumb when it comes to Thomas Schreiner: If he writes it, I read it. I have been sharpened by his commentaries on Romans and 1&2 Peter. His book on the doctrine of the saint’s perseverance, The Race Set Before Us is a wonderful synthesis of sound exegesis and exhortation. Believer’s Baptism is the best defense of credo-baptism I have read. I remember being excited when his massive New Testament Theology was released. It was well worth the time and attention required to read it. However, I remember thinking along the way that a condensed and more accessible version would be a coup for thoughtful lay persons. Thus, I welcomed the publication of Magnifying God in Christ with enthusiasm. I was even more enthused as I realized that this may well be the most helpful summary of the theology of the New Testament I had yet to read.

Thomas Schreiner is both a Professor of New Testament Interpretation at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and a teaching pastor in a local congregation. I point this out because it is clear that, for Schreiner, careful attention to matters of interpretation and doctrine are not to be confined to the academy but have devotional and doxological implications. In short, this is biblical scholarship in service to the church which is what all biblical scholarship ought to be.

You can read the entire review HERE.

Coming to Church of the Saviour

The speakers for Full Confidence at Church of the Saviour will be:

Carl Trueman

David Garner

Lane Tipton

John Currie

CSM weighs in on the new Calvinism

The Christian Science Monitor recently ran an article that has been getting some attention throughout the blogosphere. It is about the renewed popularity of Calvinism. Of course, this is anything but a new story. Several years ago Christianity Today and many other publications noted the resurgence of Reformed theology. Some have wanted to dismiss this simply as a fad. Certainly there is always the reality of "bandwagonism" with any popular movement. But my experience is that the Reformed resurgence has been primarily driven by two factors: 1) a more careful study of Scripture by a growing number of Christians and 2) a corresponding disgust for the lack of sound doctrine and preaching within evangelicalism.

Of particular interest to me was the article's attention to Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington D.C. I admire very much Capitol Hill Baptist and their pastor Mark Dever.

Membership at CHBC isn't for the faint of holy. Classes on theology and Christian history are required before joining. At the "Lord's Supper" once a month, members stand and recite an oath that ties them to one another. In addition to Sunday worship and Wednesday night Bible study, they spend hours each week in small-group study or one-on-one "discipling." They say those sessions – a time for confessions, encouragement, and prayer – are the most challenging and rewarding feature of church life.

"Christian fellowship is so much more than hanging out with friends," says Claudia Anderson, a magazine editor. "It involves spiritual intimacy, support, learning, counseling, and stunning acts of kindness."

Christopher Brown, a lawyer, concurs. "I came for the theology but stayed for the community," he says. "As Americans, we're so individualistic. But the New Testament rebukes this 'rugged individualism.' We're not saved to be lone rangers."

The BlackBerry-wielding Millennials who worship here say they crave teaching that challenges them – "preaching for PhDs," as one puts it. Ask them what books they're reading, and they won't mention "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo." They'll reel through names of 17th-century Puritan preachers like a pack of baseball cards...

At CHBC, several members say they became authentically Christian only after a friend studied the gospel with them verse by verse. "As I studied the Bible, I saw that God has every reason to send me to hell," says Connie Brown, a kindergarten teacher. "God broke me down – and renewed my heart."

New Calvinists talk about their sin a lot. Despite that – or rather because of it – they exude not guilt but great joy. Their explanation: If we play down our sinfulness, we'll play down our gratitude for the magnitude of God's love and forgiveness.

Many members were drawn to CHBC precisely because they had yearned to be "convicted of their sin" again and grown frustrated with "watered-down preaching." School vice principal Jessica Sandle says she came after the pastor at her former church read a book on growth and became consumed with filling pews. "So he stopped talking about sin, and why we need God," she says.

The article concludes with some less than illuminating thoughts from Phyllis Tickle, a leader in the emergent church movement.

Carl Trueman has posted an appropriate response to Miss Tickle's historical revisionism.

Why we need a righteousness not our own

One of the key doctrines generally rejected by adherents to Federal Vision theology, New Perspective on Paul, and various emergent types is the imputation of Christ's righteousness to believers. Dr. James McGoldrick of Greenville Presbyterian Seminary addresses the meaning and necessity of this doctrine in a recent article.

One of the most pressing questions ever asked comes from one of the ancient books of the Bible. Job asked, “How can a mortal [man] be righteous before God?” (Job 9:2). The apostle Paul found the answer in the gospel of Christ. After describing his impressive achievements as a rabbi, he related how he obtained the righteousness he needed. To his friends in the church at Philippi he wrote:

I consider them [my attainments] rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith (Philippians 3:8-9).

In the gospel Paul discovered alien righteousness, which means the righteousness of another—in this case, the righteousness of Jesus Christ. Jesus, the Son of God, is perfectly righteous. Of him God the Father said “This is my Son, with whom I am well pleased” (Matthew 3:17). Jesus pleased the Father because of his sinless perfection—his flawless righteousness. By active obedience to God, Jesus met all the divine requirements. He therefore could dare his critics by asking, “Can any of you prove me guilty of sin?” (John 8:46). The sinless character of Christ made it
appropriate for the apostle Peter to refer to him as a “lamb without spot or defect” (1 Peter 1:19).

The righteousness of Christ is his by nature. It becomes an alien righteousness when sinners admit their failure to meet God’s demands and trust in Christ alone for forgiveness and eternal salvation. At that point the righteous God imputes, or accounts, the righteousness of his Son to the credit of believing sinners. Like Paul, at that instant, those who trust in Christ obtain the righteousness “which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith” (Philippians 3:9).

Read the entire article HERE.

Keeping Christ the Center

Recently Robert Godfrey, President of Westminster Seminary California was the featured speaker at the Christ-Centered Christianity Conference in Lynden, Washington. Very good stuff. Take time to listen.

Christ at the Center of the Church

Christ at the Center of Worship

Christ at the Center of Preaching

Christ at the Center of Salvation

"A Mass of the Tremulous Jelly of Mutual Flattery"

I cannot endure false doctrine, however neatly it may be put before me. Would you have me eat poisoned meat because the dish is of the choicest ware? It makes me indignant when I hear another gospel put before the people with enticing words, by men who would fain make merchandise of souls; and I marvel at those who have soft words for such deceivers.

"That is your bigotry," says one. Call it so if you like, but it is the bigotry of the loving John who wrote—"If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: for he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds."

I would to God we had all more of such decision, for the lack of it is depriving our religious life of its backbone and substituting for honest manliness a mass of the tremulous jelly of mutual flattery.

- Charles Spurgeon

Golden Compass author calls Jesus Christ a "scoundrel"

Philip Pullman, author of the highly acclaimed His Dark Materials trilogy has now authored an anti-Christ screed. It seems he likes "the historical Jesus" just fine. It's "the Christ of faith" that has him so bummed. Of course there is nothing new here. Liberal, so-called "Christian" scholars have been saying basically the same thing for a hundred years. It's also been the theme of such schlocky novels as The DaVinci Code.

Sunday's Sermon

Sunday's message was entitled "In My Place Condemned He Stood" as was based on Romans 3:21-26. You can listen to or download it HERE.

A Christ-Haunted Atheist

John Piper is taking a break

I hope that John Piper's theological and pastoral influence will continue with his decision to take an eight month sabbatical. Since I am a pastor of a local congregation I hope I don't seem self-serving in posting the following thoughts from Matthew Lee Anderson. However, Anderson's reaction to Piper's announcement so closely mirrored my own that I wanted to pass it along.

I for one am thrilled to hear that John Piper has asked for, and been granted, an eight month leave from each of his ministries.

But I don’t quite know why I’m so excited by his decision. After all, eight months is a relatively short amount of time, and I don’t know Piper at all.

But I suspect there’s a lesson here that all evangelical pastors and their churches need to pay attention to. And I hope that Piper’s influence can help them learn it.

Growing up within evangelicalism, I saw almost no emphasis on sabbatical periods for pastors, especially in those evangelical communities that have under 200 members and a small support staff. For them, sabbaticals require a greater level of sacrifice by the whole church community, as most pastors fill roles well beyond the pulpit.

But preaching the word of God every week, even when not writing a book a year, is (I have observed) incredibly difficult work and frequently spiritually draining. While Piper cites a growing pride, I suspect that many pastors who have labored long and hard have a sense of numbness to the power of the Word of God and its ability to transform their own lives.

I don’t know what kind of Biblical warrant there is for this sort of sabbatical (though I’ve always thought that if the land got a break from producing every seven years, we ought to allow our pastors the same). But it strikes me as enormously wise, and as bearing witness to the reality of God’s action in a significant way.

Within evangelicalism, we tend to expect a level of spiritual hyper-productivity from our pastors. And so we rarely, if ever, let them enjoy the sort of sustained rest from their labors that is truly required to replenish their hearts and their minds. Sabbaticals, in their core, are breaks from activity to let God be God, and to create space for him to work in us anew. So it is encouraging to see one of our most prominent relinquish his duties and simply enjoy the world and relationships that God has given to him.

I prayed today–and I don’t often pray for people I don’t know–for John Piper and his wife. And you should too.

But more importantly, I pray that evangelical churches around the United States will seek to follow his example and allow their pastors space to replenish, space to delight in their wives, space to seek the renewal of their hearts in their from their labors.

Worthy Reads for Holy Week

The Cross He Bore by Frederick Leahy

The Seven Sayings of the Saviour... by A.W. Pink

The Truth of the Cross by R.C. Sproul

The Cross of Christ by John Stott

Does it matter if Adam was an historical person?

That was the topic in a recent discussion at Christ the Center. You can listen to or download it HERE.

Religious Liberty?

From the Aquilla Report:

Rancho Cucamonga, a city in Southern California, is demanding that a small home Bible study group stop meeting because it does not have an expensive permit. The permit is not required for similar-sized gatherings in homes, such as book clubs, birthday parties or gatherings centered around sporting events. City officials have also indicated that they might not even grant a permit if it is requested. The city's stance has similarities to, but is perhaps even harsher than, a pending situation in Gilbert, Arizona, and a flare-up last year over a home Bible study in San Diego County.

In Rancho Cucamonga, the Bible study group, which meets on Friday nights, averages about fifteen attendees. The group is affiliated with Shiloh Tabernacle, which rents out a community center for its Sunday morning service and, like countless other churches across the country, offers smaller Bible studies that meet in members' homes during the week.

The City of Rancho Cucamonga has sent a letter to the homeowner insisting that the home Bible study is not allowed because it is a "church," and churches require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in residential areas. The City has also indicated that no CUP would be granted and the gatherings must cease by Good Friday, April 2.

Related stories HERE and HERE.

Take and Read

WTS Bookstore is offering two great books at 50% off.
You Can Change by Tim Chester
What is the Gospel by Greg Gilbert

Why is N.T. Wright speaking at Redeemer?

I like Tim Keller. His passion for urban church planting has served as both model and inspiration for a new generation of church planters. His commitment to biblical exposition and clarity in the Gospel are an encouraging alternative to the doctrinal carelessness which prevails in far too many churches. Redeemer Presbyterian Church, which Dr. Keller serves as senior minister, is a theologically conservative member of the PCA and fully affirms the Westminster Confession of Faith. For these reasons I am confused, indeed concerned why N.T. Wright has been invited to speak at Redeemer Presbyterian.

N.T. Wright, the Anglican Bishop of Durham is the most effective spokesperson for what is termed "The New Perspective on Paul" (NPP). To be extremely brief Dr. Wright denies the doctrine justification by faith alone. He also denies the doctrine of imputation whereby our sins were imputed to Christ as His righteousness is imputed to us through His work on the cross (Rom 5). Wright argues that the church has been wrong on these central doctrines. Now, however, he and few others equally enlightened scholars are here to help us understand what the Bible really says.

These are not small matters. It would be one thing if Redeemer had invited a premillenialist to speak or someone who believes in an old earth (or young earth). But they have invited a man who has fundamentally redefined the Gospel and the doctrine of justification. They have invited a man to speak who denies that the righteousness of Christ has been imputed to the believer. These are not peripheral doctrines.

Now, some may say, "It is good to hear various views. N.T. Wright is an important biblical scholar. It's a good oportunity to engage in meaningful discussion." But we must remember that the church is not a lecture hall or university. We do not gather to entertain various "opinions" on the Gospel and justification. We are called to proclaim and defend the faith once for all delivered to the saints.

Dr. Scott Clark of Westminster Seminary California puts it well:

If there is anything about which a church must be unapologetically clear and unequivocal it is the good news of Jesus Christ and the good news is not that we’re in by grace and we stay in through faith and works. The good news is not that in the resurrection of Christ God has vindicated himself and merely broken down the old ceremonial barriers between Jew and gentile. The truth is that the Rev Dr Wright has fundamentally re-defined what justification is. He has re-defined the good news such that it isn’t “the” good news any more, i.e., it’s not that Jesus has died as the substitute for elect sinners and that his suffering active obedience and his death have been imputed to all who believe in him and that he was raised on the third day for their righteousness with God.

I fear that Redeemer's invitation to N.T. Wright will be seen as an endorsement, at least at some level, of his views. But if not an endorsement Wright's appearance will likely suggest that redefining the Gospel and justification is not that big a problem. It will give his views a veneer of acceptability from one of the most influential Reformed churches in the country. It is not, in my opinion a good idea.

Coming soon from Crossway

Crossway is one of the most reliable publishers of Christian books. You can check out the Crossway virtual catalogue HERE.

FAQ on Abortion and Healthcare

Check out this very helpful post from Matthew Lee Anderson over at First Thoughts. Anderson addresses such questions as:

• Does the Senate bill cover abortions?
• Is this bill covered by the Hyde Amendment?
• Did Bart Stupack get anything for supporting the bill?
• Does the Executive Order solve the problem of tax payer funded abortion?

And speaking of abortion, it’s fitting that in the final hours, the outcome of the vote hinged on the issue. While many saw abortion as tangentially related to the health care debate, in reality the dispute is central to it, and a harbinger of things to come.

The expansion of government’s role in health care will elevate the importance of social issues and trigger contentious battles in the future over the government’s role in personal decisions. Given that abortion is a legal procedure in a free market, government cannot restrict private policies from covering it. But once ostensibly private policies are regulated by the federal government and subsidized with tax dollars, Washington has a say in the matter.

While the year-long debate over whether this particular legislation should pass this particular Congress has just ended, the broader debate over the future of America’s health care system has only begun.
- Phillip Klein

Professionalizing Pastors

“We pastors are being killed by the professionalizing of the pastoral ministry. The mentality of the professional is not the mentality of the prophet. It is not the mentality of the slave of Christ. Professionalism has nothing to do with the essence and heart of the Christian ministry. The more professional we long to be, the more more spiritual death we will leave in our wake.”

- John Piper from Brothers, We are not Professionals

Sunday's Sermon

Today's message was part 30 in our series through Hebrews. It is entiteld "What Faith Is" and comes from Hebrews 11:1-3. You can download or listen to it HERE.

Happy Birthday Johan

I share a birthday with J.S. Bach. The following is his Brandenberg Concertos No. 3 - Allegro Moderato. Enjoy...

How to sell out the pro-life cause...

The following is Planned Parenthood's reaction to Bart Stupak's (D-MI) decision to vote "yes" on on the Senate's health care bill:

“While we regret that this proposed Executive Order has given the imprimatur of the president to Senator Nelson’s language, we are grateful that it does not include the Stupak abortion ban.”

Planned Parenthood knows full well what Mr. Stupack apparently does not. The Senate's bill will not ultimately protect us from paying for abortions.

From National Right to Life Committee:

The executive order promised by President Obama was issued for political effect. It changes nothing. It does not correct any of the serious pro-abortion provisions in the bill. The president cannot amend a bill by issuing an order, and the federal courts will enforce what the law says.

From Andrew McCarthy:

That EOs can be rescinded at the president’s whim is of course true. This particular EO is also a nullity — presidents cannot enact laws, the Supreme Court has said they cannot impound funds that Congress allocates, and (as a friend points out) the line-item veto has been held unconstitutional, so they can’t use executive orders to strike provisions in a bill. So this anti-abortion EO is blatant chicanery: if the pro-lifers purport to be satisfied by it, they are participating in a transparent fraud and selling out the pro-life cause.

It is a sad day indeed.

On Preaching That is Truly Christian...

"Harry Emerson Fosdick, pastor of the Riverside Church in New York City and perhaps the most famous (or infamous) preacher of the twentieth century's early decades, once defined preaching like this: 'Preaching is personal counseling on a group basis.' Earlier evangelicals recognized Fosdick's approach as rejection of biblical preaching. An unabashed theological liberal, Fosdick paraded his rejection of biblical inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility--and rejected other doctrines central to the Christian faith. Enamored with trends in psycholocial theory, Fosdick became liberal Protestantism's happy pulpit therapist. The goal of his preaching was well captured by the title of one of his many books, On Being a Real Person.

"Shockingly, this approach is now evident in many evangelical pulpits. Urged on by devotees of 'needs-based preaching,' many evangelicals have abandoned the text without recognizing that they have done so. These preachers may eventually get to the text in teh course of the sermon, but the text does not set the agenda or establish the shape of the message. The sacred desk has become an advice center, and the pew has become the therapist's couch. Psychological and practical concerns have displaced theological exegesis, and the preacher directs his sermon to the congregation's perceived needs rather than to their need for a Savior...

"The preaching of the apostles always presented the kerygma--the heart of the gospel. The clear presentation of the gospel must be a part of the sermon, no matter the text. As Charles Spurgeon expressed this so eloquently, preach the Word, place it in its canonical context, and 'make a bee-line to the cross.'

"The approach of many preachers is to present helpful and practical messages, often generalized Christian content but without any clear presentation of the gospel or call to decision and accountibility to the text or to the claims of Christ. The apostles should be our model here, consistently preaching the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Of course, in order for the gospel to make sense, authentic preaching must also deal honestly with the reality of human sin and must do so with a candor equal to that of the biblical text. All this presents the preacher with some significant challenges in our age of 'sensitivities.' But in the end, preaching devoid of this content--preaching that evades the biblical text and biblical truth--falls short of anything we can rightly call Christian preaching."

Al Mohler from He Is Not Silent

Son of Hamas

From Justin Taylor:

Tonight on the Albert Mohler Radio program (5-6 PM ET—streamed online for free) his guest will be Mosab Hasson Yousef, son of a founder of Hamas turned double-agent for Israel turned Christian. His new book, Son of Hamas, has become a NYT bestseller.

For more info on the book, see this recent review by Tim Challies.

See also this interview with him in GQ Magazine.

See also this WSJ interview.

Peter Hitchens - The Rage Against God

"Preachers Who Do Not Believe"

Al Mohler comments on a fascinating, if not disheartening new study released by Tufts University. The name of the study is entitled "Preachers Who Do Not Believe." The title is self-explanatory. One of the authors of the study is the well known atheist Daniel Dennett. I do not believe that Dr. Dennett is a disinterested or impartial observer of the data. He is among the new school of aggressive atheists who believe religious faith is not only specious but potentially dangerous. That said, the study ought to concern those of us who love God and His church.

Dennett and LaScola undertook their project with the goal of looking for unbelieving pastors and ministers who continue to serve their churches in "secret disbelief." Their "small and self-selected" sample of ministers represents a microcosm of the theological collapse at the heart of many churches and denominations.

In their report, Dennett and LaScola present case studies of five unbelieving ministers, three from liberal denominations ("the liberals") and two from conservative denominations ("the literals").

Ironically, Dennett the atheist has a better grasp of the nature of theological liberalism than do many professing evangelicals.

Interestingly, Dennett also proposes a new interpretation of theological liberalism. Noting that many modern people claim to be Christians while holding to virtually no specific theological content, Dennett suggests that their mode of faith should not be described as "belief," but rather as "believing in belief."

Another portion of Mohler's post struck me as especially important for the church. It is a reminder that clear definitions and boundaries in all things doctrinal are vital.

Early in their report, Dennett and LaScola point to a problem of definition. Many churches and denominations have adopted such fluid and doctrineless identities that determining who is a believer and who is an unbeliever has become difficult. Their statement deserves a close reading:

The ambiguity about who is a believer and who is an unbeliever follows inexorably from the pluralism that has been assiduously fostered by many religious leaders for a century and more: God is many different things to different people, and since we can't know if one of these conceptions is the right one, we should honor them all. This counsel of tolerance creates a gentle fog that shrouds the question of belief in God in so much indeterminacy that if asked whether they believed in God, many people could sincerely say that they don't know what they are being asked.

In other words, some theologians and denominations have embraced a theology so fluid and indeterminate that even an atheist cannot tell the believers and unbelievers apart.

"Preachers Who Are Not Believers" is a stunning and revealing report that lays bare a level of heresy, apostasy, and hypocrisy that staggers the mind. In 1739, Gilbert Tennett preached his famous sermon, "On the Danger of an Unconverted Ministry." In that sermon, Tennett described unbelieving pastors as a curse upon the church. They prey upon the faith and the faithful. "These caterpillars labor to devour every green thing."

I would add that these "caterpillars" are not found only in the church. They can be found in many seminaries and so-called Christian colleges and universities. I know what it is to sit with students and graduates of Christian universities who no longer believe because a Bible professor convinced them that they could not rely on the accuracy of the Scriptures. I was told once by a now unbelieving young graduate, "Todd, if I cannot believe what the Bible says in the Old Testament then how can I believe what it says about Jesus?" Indeed.

Read Mohler's entire article HERE.