Why it is wise to believe in the historical Adam

It used to be that only "liberals" denied the historical fall and the special creation of mankind beginning with a first human couple. Unfortunately, those denials have now crept into otherwise conservative evangelicalism through scholars such as Peter Enns and Tremper Longman (both of whom once affirmed an historical Adam). It is done, I suppose, to assuage the loud complaints of Darwinists whose philosophy of life and morality depends upon man's ascent from lower species. But God's Word is plain and a real fall by a real man is an indispensable part of the gospel narrative of Scripture (Romans 5).

The following is from a helpful post by Kevin DeYoung:

[Let] me suggest ten reasons why we should believe that Adam was a true historical person and the first human being.

1. The Bible does not put an artificial wedge between history and theology. Of course, Genesis is not a history textbook or a science textbook, but that is far from saying we ought to separate the theological wheat from the historical chaff. Such a division owes to the Enlightenment more than the Bible.

2. The biblical story of creation is meant to supplant other ancient creation stories more than imitate them. Moses wants to show God’s people “this is how things really happened.” The Pentateuch is full of warnings against compromise with the pagan culture. It would be surprising, then, for Genesis to start with one more mythical account of creation like the rest of the ANE.

3. The opening chapters of Genesis are stylized, but they show no signs of being poetry. Compare Genesis 1 with Psalm 104, for example, and you’ll see how different these texts are. It’s simply not accurate to call Genesis poetry. And even if it were, who says poetry has to be less historically accurate?

4. There is a seamless strand of history from Adam in Genesis 2 to Abraham in Genesis 12. You can’t set Genesis 1-11 aside as prehistory, not in the sense of being less than historically true as we normally understand those terms. Moses deliberately connects Abram with all the history that comes before him, all the way back to Adam and Eve in the garden.

5. The genealogies in 1 Chronicles 1 and Luke 3 treat Adam as historical.

6. Paul believed in a historical Adam (Rom. 5:12-21; 1 Cor. 15:21-22, 45-49). Even some revisionists are honest enough to admit this; they simply maintain that Paul (and Luke) were wrong.

7. The weight of the history of interpretation points to the historicity of Adam. The literature of second temple Judaism affirmed an historical Adam. The history of the church’s interpretation also assumes it.

8. Without a common descent we lose any firm basis for believing that all people regardless of race or ethnicity have the same nature, the same inherent dignity, the same image of God, the same sin problem, and that despite our divisions we are all part of the same family coming from the same parents.

9. Without a historical Adam, Paul’s doctrine of original sin and guilt does not hold together.

10. Without a historical Adam, Paul’s doctrine of the second Adam does not hold together.

Christians may disagree on the age of the earth, but whether Adam ever existed is a gospel issue. Tim Keller is right:
[Paul] most definitely wanted to teach us that Adam and Eve were real historical figures. When you refuse to take a biblical author literally when he clearly wants you to do so, you have moved away from the traditional understanding of the biblical authority. . . .If Adam doesn’t exist, Paul’s whole argument—that both sin and grace work ‘covenantally’—falls apart. You can’t say that ‘Paul was a man of his time’ but we can accept his basic teaching about Adam. If you don’t believe what he believes about Adam, you are denying the core of Paul’s teaching. (Christianity Today June 2011)

DeYoung then offers some recommendations for further reading:

Did Adam and Eve Really Exist? by C. John Collins.

For more on the relationship between faith and science, you may want to look at one of the following:

•John C. Lennox, God’s Undertake: Has Science Buried God?
•Should Christians Embrace Evolution: Biblical and Scientific Responses, edited by Norman C. Nevin
•God and Evolution, edited by Jay Richards
•Vern S. Poythress, Redeeming Science: A God-Centered Approach
•C. John Collins, Science and Faith: Friend or Foes?

Beale and Trueman on Biblical Inerrancy

Thanks to Justin Taylor for posting these videos of the Q & A with Drs. Greg Beale and Carl Trueman from the 2011 Clarus Conference:

Komen, Planned Parenthood, and the god of Money

Dr. Russell Moore has written an important article on the recent decision by the Susan Komen Foundation for the Cure to restore its funding to Planned Parenthood. Dr. Moore sees the worship of money at the core of this sad decision and urges the church not to try to compete in this pagan arena.

He writes:

We don’t need a Christian foundation to compete with the merchants of death. We don’t need one more coalition with enough signatures to counter the threatened boycotts of the abortion rights peddlers. And we sure don’t need to sell bumper stickers with a line drawn through a pink ribbon.

What we need, first of all, are churches who recognize that this isn’t all that surprising. Mammon is a jealous god, and he’s armed to the teeth. We need to create the kind of counter-culture that constantly shines the light of Christ wherever these false gods exist in our own affections. And then we need to demonstrate what it means to believe that a person’s life consists in more than the abundance of his possessions.

Let’s stop highlighting how God “blesses” the millionaire who tithes. Let’s stop trumpeting the celebrity football players and beauty queens as evidence of God’s blessing. Let’s show that God has blessed us in a Christ who never had a successful career or a balanced bank account, but who was blessed by God with life, and with children that no one can number, from every tribe, tongue, nation, and language.

Planned Parenthood has won this one. They spent a lot of money, and they’ll make a lot of money. And they’ll do so off the shredded corpses of children and the raped consciences of women. If Jesus’ kingdom were of this world, we’d be fundraising to keep up with them.

But what we have is greater than that. We have a word that tells a pregnant young woman that we believe her Down Syndrome baby is a gift, not a health care burden. And we can offer the kind of gospel that cleanses the conscience and offers what outlasts money and power: life and that to the uttermost.

Let’s work to legally protect women and children. And let’s grieve that old Mammon has won the day, again. But let’s not grieve like the pagans who have no hope. When it comes to the struggle for life, the color of victory isn’t pink like a ribbon. It’s red like a cross.

Read the whole article HERE.

HT: Justin Taylor

The "Prosperity Gospel" is not the Gospel

It is appropriate that a prosperity gospel be born in the hedonistic, self-centered, get-rich-quick milieu of modern American society. We are, by nature, pagan. Either our religion will transform us or we will transform our religion to suit our sympathies. . . .

The prosperity Bible does not deal only with freedom from sickness. It would have us read, ‘He himself bore our sicknesses and poverty in His body on the tree, so that we might die to infirmity and lack; for by His wounds you have been healed.’ In contrast, there was no question in the mind of the apostles that the gospel promised, ‘spiritual riches in heavenly places in Christ’ (Ephesians 1:3), not earthly ones. Our Lord was afflicted so that we could be healed. But that is a metaphor for the wonderful truth that the penalty justly meant for us was endured by Christ, our substitute. The rod of justice that dealt the Lamb of God such bitter blows declared us righteous!

It is to trivialize greatly the work of Christ to suggest that God the Father sent His only-begotten Son into the world to bear the world’s blasphemy, insults, and violence, and, most of all, to bear the Father’s wrath—all for increased cash flow and fewer bouts with asthma. It is to make a joke out of the great displeasure, anger, and wrath God has toward sin and sinful persons. God’s real problem, say the faith teachers, is not that we are wicked, selfish, God-hating rebels who deserve eternal punishment, but that we aren’t enjoying ourselves!

- Michael Horton
quoted in John MacArthur, Our Sufficiency in Christ, Word Publishing, Dallas, 1991, pg. 251.

Keller and Carson on the Elephant Room

Tim Keller and D.A. Carson have written a helpful article on the Elephant Room controversy. I would encourage you to take the time to read it. If you are not used to reading about biblical interpretation, their second point ("Biblicism One and Biblicism Two") is very important. Please read carefully and digest it. They help correct the fallacy of "I'm into the Bible, not creeds."

Carson and Keller also respond to those who say that the Elephant Room provided an important opportunity for brothers to converse in order to see if there could be agreement. However, as the authors point out, it is no secret what T.D. Jakes believes and preaches.

Talking with T. D. Jakes in ER2 has been cast as listening to someone first before we say anything critical of him. Relationships precede evaluation. Anyone who ventures a critical evaluation of Pastor Jakes before ER2 is simply being judgmental. With respect, this argument does not hold up to either Scripture or reason. Pastor Jakes is not a private individual about whom some people might have heard a few negative things. If that were the case, it would be imperative to uncover the truth before passing on what would in that case be nothing more than gossip. Pastor Jakes, however, is a public individual. He himself publishes his views in various media; they circulate widely. He is read and heard around the world. Not long ago in a Christian bookshop in South Africa, one of the writers of this article discovered that the author with the greatest number of books on the shelf was T. D. Jakes. It is the responsibility of Christian pastors to become aware of such a preacher and teacher if his works are significantly influencing their own flocks. To imagine that no fair evaluation is possible before an ER2-type public event does not square with apostolic practice. When in 2 Corinthians 10-13 Paul learns of interlopers who are preaching another Jesus, he does not begin by arranging a fireside chat. The content and direction of the interlopers' ministry is already public, and Paul confronts it.

Read the entire article HERE.

Making Sense of the Elephant Room

If you are wondering what the whole controversy over the Elephant Room is about, check out this very helpful post by Mike Riccardi.

Would Augustine invite Muhammad?

A few months before Elephant Room 2 Thabiti Anyabwile wrote an excellent article outlining his concerns over James MacDonald's invitation to prosperity preacher T.D. Jakes. Sadly, his counsel, and that of many others was rejected.

Pastor Anyabwile wrote:

This kind of invitation undermines that long, hard battle many of us have been waging in a community often neglected by many of our peers. And because we’ve often been attempting to introduce African-American Christians to the wider Evangelical and Reformed world as an alternative to the heresy and blasphemy so commonplace in some African-American churches and on popular television outlets, the invitation of Jakes to perform in ‘our circles’ simply feels like a swift tug of the rug from beneath our feet and our efforts to bring health to a sick church. […] This isn’t on the scale of Piper inviting Warren. This is more akin to Augustine inviting Muhammad.

Elders, Pastors, and Protection

From Mike McKinley:

Last Spring, Thabiti shared some statistics about pastors compiled by the Schaeffer Institute. These numbers emerged from research done from 1989-2006, and my guess is that things have gotten worse, not better, since then. The one that struck me most in the report was the fact that 1,700 pastors left the ministry every month. That number is astounding to me.

At a recent gathering, Carl Trueman was asked what churches could do to stem the tide of men leaving the pastorate. His answer was that elders of the church needed to do a good job protecting the pastor of the church (for the sake of brevity, allow me to make the distinction between "elders" and "pastors" in the church).

I think Trueman is right. Pastoral ministry requires a lot of work with sin-sick, spiritually wounded people. It can require unpleasant confrontation and rebuke. And while church members often appreciate the pastoral care they receive, sometimes spiritually unhealthy people react in spiritually unhealthy ways. And so pastors are particularly vulnerable to attack and accusation from the very people they are called to serve and love. I Timothy 5:19 seems to assume that this is the case, thus the apostle's instruction not to consider accusations against him lightly.

So it might be good for you to think about how you can protect your pastor, particularly if you are in church leadership.. Do you listen willingly when people complain about him. Do you pray for his spiritual protection regularly? If your pastor is discouraged, what can you do to help him?

Tim Tebow shows discernment

Tim Tebow had been scheduled to speak at an event in Ohio led by mega-church pastor Rod Parsley. Parsley, an advocate of prosperity teaching will be sharing the stage with notorious word/faith prosperity preacher Kenneth Copeland. Tebow canceled his plans to appear at the event. That was the right decision. Had Tebow appeared at that particular event he would have been lending credibility to two false teachers. Read the story HERE.

Voddie Baucham to preach at The Shepherd's Conference

Great decision by John MacArthur to host Voddie Baucham as one of the preachers for this year's Shepherd's Conference.

Grace Community Church's youth pastor explains why in a thoughtful post.

Carl Trueman weighs in on Trinitarianism, celebrity pastors, and the race card

Dr. Trueman has apparently seen this video.

He responds with a very helpful post on historic Christianity and the cost of defending the truth.

Still, let us go back to the fourth century and see how the `middle aged white guy’ critique measures up. Well, at the Council of Nicea in 325, many of the participants were no doubt middle aged — which Paul in the Pastorals would actually seem to think is quite a good thing in a church leader. But white? I suspect they were ethnically more akin to modern day Turks or south eastern Europeans, not that racial categories really meant anything then. The key category in the fourth century was that of Roman citizenship, not skin colour.

More significantly, of course, had you been there yourself and looked around the council, you would have seen that many of the delegates had body parts missing – an arm here, a leg there, an occasional eye – because they were survivors of the terrible persecutions under Diocletian and Galerius. Indeed, many had probably lost close friends and family members too. Thus, the foundations for the creedal doctrine of the Trinity were laid by men who thought doctrine was something for which it was actually worth suffering and dying.

Read the entire post HERE.

The Elephant Room - A Timeline

Justin Taylor has written a helpful post on the dust up over Elephant Room 2 complete with a timeline. You should read it HERE.

"A Win for Team Jakes"

Prior to Elephant Room 2 there were a number of black pastors who expressed deep concern about two pastors as influential as Mark Driscoll and James MacDonald lending broad credibility to T.D. Jakes, an unrepentant Modalist (Jakes says now that he is not a Modalist although he is still vague and has never actually repudiated Modalist heresy and clearly affirmed biblical Trinitarianism) and propagator of prosperity heresy. These black pastors were rightly dismayed and even vexed that some of their white brothers were going to offer public approval to a man whose theology has done great damage to the black church.

One of those thoughtful pastors, Anthony Carter, who cares deeply about biblical Christianity wrote about his concerns prior to Elephant Room 2. As it turns out his concerns were entirely valid.

Jakes is no dummy. He will be careful not to say anything that would indict him as a false teacher. He is a smart man. You don’t get to his position being stupid. Therefore, I fear that by the end of the discussion, when all the rounds have been fired, and the dust has settled, the elephant in the room will be Mr. Jakes himself. He will be standing tall shaking everyone’s hand and thanking them for giving him another platform on which to promote himself. No matter what is said, unless Jakes denounces his previous teachings or is exposed as a false teacher, it’s a win for team Jakes and a loss for those of us left to clean up after the elephant has done his business.

Another black pastor, Thabiti Anyabwile gave voice to the same concern:

If Jakes could be won over and would publicly teach orthodox Trinitarian views, that could be huge. If the discussion turns warm and fuzzy, “aren’t we all brothers in the end,” the damage could be irreparable—to everyone. (emphasis mine)

Please read Thabiti's entire post HERE.

To make matters worse, charges of racism are now coming against those who voiced their dismay that MacDonald and Driscoll would embrace T.D. Jakes.

But what would explain James MacDonald's decision to cancel Voddie Baucham's appearance at a Harvest Bible Chapel men's conference?

I was naive to think that there would be no fallout if I decided to go forward with the Men’s Conference. The Men’s Conference was scheduled to take place two days after ER2. Once my worst fears were realized at ER2 (i.e., Jakes equivocated on modalism, was not even challenged on WOF gospel, etc. see here for a detailed analysis), there was no way for me to 1) keep silent on this growing controversy, and 2) attend the Men’s Conference, without giving tacit approval to ER2. The decision to go public was inevitable. The only question was how.

I have a regular practice of posting notices of upcoming events in my monthly newsletter, and on my Facebook fan page. These have been invaluable tools that keep people apprised of when I’m coming to their area (or the area of friends and family whom they’d like to invite to one of our events), how they can pray for me, and what kind of doors the Lord is opening for the ministry.

As per my practice, I posted a link to the Men’s Conference and asked, “Any fan page members planning to attend...” As you can imagine, there were more than a few questions about my position on ER2, my relationship with James MacDonald and Harvest Bible Chapel, and a whole host of other things. I answered those questions as honestly as I could. I made it clear that I opposed the decision to invite Bishop Jakes; pointed out what I saw as his masterful ‘dodge’ on the trinitarian question (and subsequent affirmation of modalist language), and gave a brief explanation of my reasoning for keeping this prior commitment (see here for a recap).

This did not go over well with James MacDonald. Upon my arrival at the church the next day, he and I sat down (along with my assistant and several members of his staff) and had a candid conversation about my decision to answer questions in a public forum. Ultimately, we agreed that it was not a good idea for me to speak at the conference. We prayed, shook hands, embraced, and ended the meeting as brothers. James also insisted on paying the agreed honorarium (Added 1/31/12). MacDonald had already made arrangements for a replacement speaker. My assistant and I were escorted to a waiting car and taken back to the airport.

Read the whole thing HERE.

So Voddie Baucham was disinvited after stating that it was not wise to give a platform to a false teacher. T.D. Jakes was given the hand of fellowship. Voddie Baucham was escorted out.

Intelligent Design

Thanks to Justin Taylor for posting R.C. Sproul's interview of Dr. Stephen Meyer on the subject of Intelligent Design. The following is the first part of that interview.



Check out the following titles:
Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer
Should Christians Embrace Evolution? Norman Nevin ed.
Who Made God? by Edgar Andrews
Darwin on Trial by Phillip Johnson
Redeeming Science by Vern Poythress

Voddie Baucham and the Elephant Room

Voddie Baucham has written a thoughtful reflection on the recent broo-ha-ha over the Elephant Room. Baucham writes from an interesting vantage point. He was actually invited to participate in Elephant Room 2 but declined for reasons he makes clear. That decision, he found out, would have some rather interesting consequences.

I will offer this diclaimer: I know Voddie Baucham. I don't know him well, mind you. However, while a youth pastor I worked with him on several events. And, while serving as a pastor in Kansas, Voddie filled the pulpit for me one Sunday. I respect Voddie Baucham. He is a quality man and minister. He cares about historic Christian orthodoxy. He loves the church of Jesus Christ. He is a thoughtful apologist.

Pastor Baucham's unfortunate experience with some of the Elephant Room leadership demonstrates, among other things, the problems with the celebrity culture currently infecting evangelicalism. I urge you to read Voddie's entire post. It is important and timely.

In October of 2011, I was invited to participate in The Elephant Room 2. The invitation followed Mark Dever’s decision to pull out. James MacDonald called me and asked me to take his place. He also informed me of the controversy at that time surrounding the invitation to Jakes and Dever’s decision to pull out, and that Crawford Loritts had agreed to fill in. I knew James MacDonald only indirectly, and I had only recently heard of the Elephant Room.

Initially, it sounded like a very good idea to “pin Jakes down” on the Trinity. My area of emphasis in my theological training is Evangelism/Apologetics. Moreover, I addressed Jakes’s modalism in my first book in 2004, so I am well aware of the issues in question, and believed I could make a contribution. Also, to my delight, James indicated that Jakes had abandoned Oneness Pentecostalism, rejected Modalism, and, he believed, Jakes would make that clear at ER2.

I called my fellow elders to make them aware of the invitation (we usually meet monthly to review and consider invitations, but this was an urgent matter, and MacDonald had asked for a decision by the next day). We agreed that I should 1) find out more about the Elephant Room (specifically, was this an apologetics forum, or a forum that would assume Jakes’s orthodoxy), and 2) find out why Dever had backed out.

After investigating the matter, I decided to decline the invitation. My decision was based on four major areas of concern (Note: I voiced these four concerns to James MacDonald during our phone conversation the next day):

1.T.D. Jakes has a history of holding to, teaching, and associating with modalism, and ER2 was a forum wherein he would be assumed to be a “brother”.

I was already on record concerning Bishop Jakes’s modalism (see: The Ever Loving Truth, LifeWay, 2004), and I have kept up with the matter. Jakes had never repudiated Oneness Pentecostalism. Nor had he come out with an unambiguous, credal/confessional statement on the doctrine of the Trinity. There was absolutely no basis for me to assume that Jakes was suddenly orthodox, and therefore, no basis for me to welcome him as a brother.

2.The “Word of Faith” gospel he preaches is heterodox and harmful.

Even if Jakes had come out with a statement on the doctrine of the Trinity, it would not have done anything to change the fact that he preaches “another gospel.” (Gal 1:8–9) Having studied the “Word of Faith” movement, and seen the devastation it leaves in its wake, I was disinclined to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the man who has been this country’s most popular purveyor of this heresy in the past two decades (Note: James MacDonald and Mark Driscoll had both preached against the Word of Faith movement and called it heresy, so I did not believe I was informing James of anything he did not know already).

3.Jakes’s influence in the Dallas Metroplex has been negative, at best.

My wife is from Dallas, and my in-laws still live there (her parents and five siblings). I have preached in Dallas on many occasions, and at numerous churches, and have many acquaintances in the city. I know firsthand what kind of influence T.D. Jakes has had on the evangelical community, and broader Christian witness there. Suffice to say that he has not brought greater gospel clarity and fidelity. He has, however, brought a charismatic, theatrical, excessive, “Word of Faith” flavor to the city that permeates many churches (especially black churches).

4.Bishop Jakes is an example of the worst the black church has to offer.

One of the goals of ER2 was to address the issue of “racial” unity. Thus, Bishop Jakes was there (at least in part) as a representative of the “black church.” In light of the aforementioned issues, I was disinclined to participate in such an event. You see, Jakes was an invited guest; an invited ‘black’ guest. If he were mistreated, he had the race card; if he was accepted, he had entree into a new audience. It was a win-win for Jakes, and a lose-lose for evangelicalism. Obviously, he was not going to spout unadulterated modalism. Nor was he going to repudiate his roots (remember, this is his “heritage,” both ethnically and theologically). He had a perfect opportunity to find a middle ground and show “humility” in an environment that would be portrayed as “hostile” even though hostility was forbidden in light of the unwritten rules surrounding his blackness. Thus, his opponents had to choose between outright defeat and pyrrhic victory.

Moreover, I rejected the invitation because I did not want to give even the appearance of tokenism. The participants in the Elephant Room (and ER2), though they disagree methodologically on how we “get there,” are all virtually identical in their general profile. They are all successful mega-church pastors who have leveraged innovative and/or controversial methodologies to grow their churches, media empires, and/or pare-church ministries. I, on the other hand, am a pastor serving at a church with less than five hundred members; I’m not on television or radio; and my books aren’t best sellers. I don’t fit the profile! Whether MacDonald meant to or not, he was painting a picture of tokenism. If he meant it, I didn’t want to be used, and if he didn’t mean it, I didn’t want to be the source of misunderstanding.

While Pastor MacDonald said he “respected” my decision, he made it clear that he did not agree with me. We agreed to disagree and he moved on. At this time, I made two important decisions. First, I decided not to get involved in the public furor over ER2. I had spoken my piece to James, and saw no advantage in getting involved any further. There were others who were making many of the same points, and I did not want to pile on (James White, Phil Johnson, Thabiti Anyabwile, Anthony Carter, and others were pressing the issue, and bringing the pertinent points to light). I do not regret this decision. My second decision, however, is another story altogether. My second decision was to move forward with the scheduled Men’s Conference. That was unwise.

Read the entire article HERE.

Sunday's Sermon

On Sunday I preached part 4 in our current series through Philippians, Partners in the Gospel. It is entitled "A Knowing and Discerning Love" and can be listened to or downloaded HERE.

Russell Moore on Sanctity of Life Sunday

Listen to the audio HERE.

The elephant that went unnamed...

As the video posted below demonstrates, James MacDonald and Mark Driscoll have been faithful to point out the heresy of prosperity teaching. T.D. Jakes is a great popularizer of this heresy. And yet, at Elephant Room 2 T.D. Jakes was received as a brother and never confronted on his continued propagation of this false gospel.

"Bishop took two pawns"

Thanks to Carl Trueman for posting a link to a fascinating interview with a former Oneness Pentecostal.

RB: Assuming the best and that Jakes now affirms the orthodox view of the Trinity, if you were Mark Driscoll would you have asked him if he was going to publically recant for teaching damning heresy for so long?

JD: Yes. If he truly affirms an orthodox view of the Trinity, he must repent of his former teaching. The two views are totally incompatible.

RB: Elaborate on the practical implications of moving from modalism to the orthodox view in terms of Jakes’ church and world-wide impact. In other words, what would you do if you were T. D. Jakes and you now hold to the orthodox view of the Trinity after confusing so many people for such a long time?

JD: If I were Jakes, I would start to teach the Bible. That may sound like an oversimplification but men like Jakes may use the Bible every Sunday but don’t really teach it. I would start there.

RB: Comment on the following tweet I saw the other day: “The way Jakes played MacDonald & Driscoll, you could say Bishop took two pawns.” Why do you think the tweeter said that?

JD: Jakes quickly neutralized their objective questions with a bit of reverse psychology. MacDonald and Driscoll, who came to ER2 thinking the issue was doctrine, were very quickly routed by the Bishop, and before long they were talking about unity. It is always tempting to abandon our pursuit of doctrinal purity for church unity.

RB: On your Face Book page, you said, “Jakes’ chair was certainly no hot seat for he is an expert in vagueness and unfortunately they were charmed by his charisma.” Explain what you mean.

JD: He has capitalized on his cult of personality. His speaking skills, social diplomacy, and celebrity status can be overwhelming. He is a master at saying a lot without saying a lot. He is also a very likable fellow and the 30,000 Texans who make up his congregation are proof that theological ambiguity can fill a church building. I have been to conventions where he was the main speaker and have seen multitudes swoon over him. Driscoll and MacDonald were easy pickings.

RB: What would you say to folks who may be confused about ER2 and the discussion with Jakes?

JD: It may come as a surprise but men like T. D. Jakes are not epistemologically self-conscious. By that I mean that they spend so much time on motivating speech and platitudes that they’ve given very little time or thought to expound why they believe what they believe. They have reduced their doctrinal expressions to harmless sound-bytes intended to offend the least amount of people possible, and this is why he could neither call himself a Trinitarian nor fully renounce Oneness.

Read the entire interview HERE.

I must say that I am very concerned about the consequences of the Elephant Room. Driscoll, MacDonald and the other participants now affirm T.D. Jakes as orthodox. It is clear from Jakes' own words that he now desires to identify himself as Trinitarian while still holding on to modalist language. Driscoll and MacDonald should have called him on this. By failing to do so they diminished the importance of this central doctrine of biblical Christianity. By failing to mention, much less confront Jakes on his prosperity preaching, they failed further.

The clean bill of doctrinal health given to Jakes by Driscoll and MacDonald will only mean greater confusion within the church. It will mean pastors such as myself will need to be increasingly vigilant. Of course pastors expect this. What we do not expect is for false teachers to be given entree by influential evangelicals.

Borrowed Logic

In 1985 Christian philosopher Greg Bahnsen debated atheist Gordon Stein. It has since become known as The Great Debate. Dr. Stein was caught flatfooted as Dr. Bahnsen, rather than defending traditional arguments for the existence of God, effectively demonstrated that Stein's appeal to logic, science, and morality presuppose a Christian worldview. It is a brilliant display of Presuppositional Apologetics.

Take time to the listen to (or read) the debate that the atheists would rather forget.

AUDIO

Transcript in PDF

Resources on Presuppositional Apologetics:

The Great Debate (CD/DVD) - Bahnsen & Stein

Presuppositional Apologetics by Greg Bahnsen

Always Ready by Greg Bahnsen

Apologetics for the Glory of God by John Frame

Every Thought Captive by Richard Pratt

HT: The Resurgence

The Elephant Room did not do pastors any favors...

As I stated in an earlier post, the endorsement of T.D. Jakes (and it was an endorsement!) from the folks at the Elephant Room will only lead to more confusion among evangelicals who already struggle with discernment. Because of this, pastors who care about historic Christianity will have more work to do to guard their congregations from the likes of Jakes.

Carl Trueman affirms this reality:

Thanks to the great and the good (both the vocal and, more worryingly, the strangely silent), I am sure many pastors of churches will now have to waste a lot of valuable time reading the works of T D Jakes in order to help their congregations understand why there is concern not simply about his doctrine of God but also his understanding of how the Lord blesses his people. You can probably skip the diet book; his nutritional advice is not, as far as I know, a matter of heated debate

Justin Taylor has brought my attention to a very helpful survey of his writings at 9 Marks. This may well help to save some time which could then be spent on other things, like pastoral care and preparing sermons.

One thing in all this is very puzzling: few evangelical leaders have hesitated to warn in the past against Joel Osteen. Jakes' theology of prosperity seems little different yet there is comparative silence in those same quarters on this man. Is Osteen simply a soft-target? Or is it just that he does not hang in the right crowd these days? There is no doubt who is going to be being read in more evangelical congregations in the coming weeks and months.

I have, on a number of occasions, warned my congregation about the dangers of prosperity teaching. In response, several have voiced to me their dismay. From their perspective, "We don't struggle with that." What these good brothers and sisters have not understood however is that there are renewed efforts to "mainstream" these false teachers. The most recent Elephant Room proves the point. Whose more "mainstream" than James MacDonald? Even Southern Baptists like Ed Young Jr. and Stephen Furtick have enthusiastically endorsed and partnered with T.D. Jakes.

What is more, these errors regarding the nature of God, the nature of faith and how God blesses his people snake their way into the church in ways more subtle than the vaudevillian antics of Creflo Dollar and Kenneth Copeland.

A resting, restless faith...

Ultimately, in the deepest sense, for Paul “our good works” are not ours, but God’s. They are his work begun and continuing in us, his being “at work in us, both to will and to do what please him” (Phil. 2:13). That is why, without any tension, a faith that rests in God the Savior is a faith that is restless to do his will.

In 1 Corinthians 4:7 Paul puts to the church those searching rhetorical questions, “Who makes you different from anyone else? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not?” (NIV). These questions, we should be sure, have the same answer for sanctification as for justification, for our good works as well as for our faith. Both, faith and good works, are God’s gift, his work in us. The deepest motive for our sanctification, for holy living and good works, is not our psychology, not how I “feel” about God and Jesus. Nor is it even our faith. Rather, that profoundest of motives is the resurrection power of Christ, the new creation we are and have already been made a part of in Christ by his Spirit.

Richard Gaffin from By Faith, Not By Sight

On asking better questions...

The latest gathering of the Elephant Room is now history. It stirred up no small amount of controversy. James MacDonald's decision to host prosperity preacher T.D. Jakes, whose views on the Trinity have been murky at best, was greeted with concern from a number of quarters. The concern was due to the fact that the stated purpose of the Elephant Room was to gather brothers who differed on issues not central to the gospel or Christian orthodoxy for the purpose of promoting greater understanding. A worthwhile goal, I would say. But that little detail about the discussion being among brothers who differ on secondary matters is a substantial detail. Promoting understanding and unity is really only possible when brothers agree on the essentials of Christian orthodoxy. It seemed, and seems to many that T.D. Jakes certainly did not fit the bill.

Concern was voiced by some of MacDonald's fellow council members at the Gospel Coalition. Mark Dever, who was involved in the first Elephant Room discussion, withdrew from further involvement. Thabiti Anyabwile, another Gospel Coalition council member, wrote a moving and eloquent article explaining how the inclusion of Jakes in such a forum would undermine those black pastors who, seeing the damage done by prosperity preachers, have labored to build churches on sound doctrine. Even some pastors from within the Harvest network of churches expressed their deep concern over the inclusion of Jakes.

But now the event is over and nothing has changed. Not really. Jakes was asked about his beliefs regarding the Trinity. His answers, while satisfying to those in the Elephant Room, we actually not nearly as clear as some claim. Glaringly absent were any questions about Jakes' continued propagation of the abhorrent prosperity and word/faith heresies. These are every bit as troublesome as his ambiguity on the Trinity.

Carl Trueman and Frank Turk have both written worthwhile posts on this whole affair.

This request that we ask hard questions in the right venue, and consider the ER to have signally failed in this regard, will no doubt evince cries of `Hey, hater!' from some quarters. That is apparently the standard reaction now when anyone questions the actions of a successful pastor of a large church. If, however, we take true doctrine seriously, then surely we will see false teaching for what it is: soul destroying. Reflect on a parallel situation for a moment: let us say that, week after week, I see a congregant's wife with a black eye and an arm covered in cuts and bruises; eventually I ask her husband, `Did you do that?' to which he says `No, I abhor violence and despise the sort of people who beat their wives'; in such circumstances, is it unloving, Pharisaical or hateful of me to press the question a little further? I think not. Indeed, failure so to do would be moral delinquency of the highest order. To press the matter is actually responsible pastoring. The same thing applies with those whose public teaching seems to be deviant. It is not hateful to press the hard questions, and to do so with appropriate competence and in a suitable context; rather, it is right and necessary.

- Carl Trueman

Pro-Life Resources

The Case for Life by Scott Klusendorf

Abortion: A Rational Look at an Emotional Issue by R.C. Sproul

Abortion: Open Your Mouth for the Dumb by Peter Barnes

Healing After Abortion by David Powlison

Resources from Randy Alcorn

Resources from Desiring God

180 Movie

Sunday's Sermon

On Sunday I preached part 3 of our current series through Philippians. The title of the sermon is Gospel Partnership (pt 2) and can be listened to or downloaded HERE.

A dread anniversary

It was 39 years ago today that the Supreme Court of the United States passed the inconceivably bad and immoral decision in the case of Roe V. Wade. Since that day over 50 million babies have been ruthlessly slaughtered in the wombs of their mothers. Abortion is undiluted evil. It is not a pragmatic necessity. President Obama's recent remarks celebrating the passage of Roe put on vivid display the moral blindness one must adopt in order to approve of such wickedness. Last year at least 500,000 African American babies were killed in the womb. Where are the social justice advocates? Where are the prominent evangelical pastors who are so gifted at contextualization and reaching hip urbanites? They preach and write about justice. But is there a graver injustice than the slaughter of our most vulnerable? What about the pastors, like myself, who lead large churches but are often afraid to mention abortion because of the wrath they will face from some of their congregants? Shame on us, truly.

Endangered

Free eBook from John Piper

Desiring God is providing a free eBook by John Piper concerning abortion. Read it HERE.

If the foundations be destroyed...

Thanks to Derek Thomas for reading Peter Enns' newest book. It deals with the historicity of God's special creation of a first man (Adam). Dr. Enns, formerly of Westminster Seminary, now denies an historical Adam.

Enns concludes:

"...the scientific evidence we have for human origins and the literary evidence we have for the nature of ancient stories of origins are so overwhelmingly persuasive that belief in a first human, such as Paul understood him, is not a viable option." (P.122).

"Admitting the historical and scientific problems with Paul's Adam does not mean in the least that the gospel message is therefore undermined. A literal Adam may not be the first man and cause of sin and death, as Paul understood it, but what remains of Paul's theology are three core elements of the gospel: 1. The universal and self-evident problem of death 2. The universal and self-evident problem of sin 3. The historical event of the death and resurrection of Christ. These three remain; what is lost is Paul's culturally assumed explanation for what a primordial man had to do with causing the reign of sin and death in the world." (123-124).

I am stunned by the arrogance that casts aside the very clear teachings of Scripture. I have to wonder where else Dr. Enns believes Paul leads us astray. Of course the unavoidable conclusion is that Jesus also erred in his conclusion that man was the special creation of God and not the outcome of natural selection from a common ancestor. Enns is simply wrong to say that denying an historical Adam has no implications regarding the gospel. Unless, of course, he is planning on re-writing Romans.

You may want to check out Dr. Jack Collins' book Did Adam and Eve Really Exist?

HT: Ref21

Preaching the truth when the truth is not popular...

Matt Chandler preached at Elevation Church this month and told the truth. As a result his sermon was pulled from the Elevation site. Thank God for men like Chandler who preach the God-centered revelation of Scripture rather than the "narcissistic eisegesis" so common today.

Getting some help with Revelation

The book of Revelation has caused no small amount of debate over the years. Various approaches to interpreting Revelation and understanding the last days have generated untold divisions, confusion, and outright lunacy. So, I appreciate those careful, well-studied, and sane voices who help us understand this beautiful book.

Kevin DeYoung recently posted a helpful article on the identity of the 144,000 mentioned in chapter seven of Revelation. DeYoung offers a model of sound biblical interpretaion.

And I heard the number of the sealed, 144,000, sealed from every tribe of the sons of Israel. (Rev. 7:4)

Many sincere Bible-believing Christians would understand the 144,000 like this: The church is raptured prior to the great tribulation. During the time when the church is gone, a remnant of 144,000 ethnic Jews is converted (12,000 from each tribe). These Jewish converts, in turn, evangelize the Gentiles who make up the great multitude in white robes in v. 9. That’s one understanding of Revelation 7. A lot of godly people hold that understanding. Let me explain why I understand the 144,000 differently.

The 144,000 are not an ethnic Jewish remnant, and certainly not an Anointed Class of saints who became Jehovah’s Witnesses before 1935. The 144,000 represent the entire community of the redeemed. Let me give you several reasons for making this claim.

First, in chapter 13 we read that Satan seals all of his followers, so it makes sense that God would seal all of his people, not just the Jewish ones.

Second, the image of sealing comes from Ezekiel 9 where the seal on the forehead marks out two groups of people: idolaters and non-idolaters. It would seem that the sealing of the 144,000 makes a similar distinction based on who worships God not who among the Jewish remnant worships God.

Third, the 144,000 are called the servants of our God (Rev. 7:3). There is no reason to make the 144,000 any more restricted than that. If you are a servant of the living God, you are one of the 144,000 mentioned here. In Revelation, the phrase “servants of God” always refers to all of God’s redeemed people, not just an ethnic Jewish remnant (see 1:1; 2:20; 19:2; 19:5; 22:3).

Fourth, the 144,000 mentioned later in chapter 14 are those who have been “redeemed from the earth” and those who were “purchased from among men.” This is generic everybody kind of language. The 144,000 is a symbolic number of redeemed drawn from all peoples, not simply the Jews. Besides, if the number is not symbolic then what do we do with Revelation 14:4 which describes the 144,000 as those “who have not defiled themselves with women”? Are we to think that the 144,000 refers to a chosen group of celibate Jewish men? It makes more sense to realize that 144,000 is a symbolic number that is described as celibate men to highlight the group’s moral purity and set-apartness for spiritual battle.

Fifth, the last reason for thinking that the 144,000 is the entire community of the redeemed is because of the highly stylized list of tribes in verses 5-8. The number itself is stylized. It’s not to be taken literally. It’s 12 x 12 x 1000—12 being the number of completion for God’s people (representing the 12 tribes of Israel and the 12 apostles of the Lamb) and 1000 being a generic number suggesting a great multitude. So 144,000 is a way of saying all of God’s people under the old and new covenant.

And then look at the list of the tribes. There are over a dozen different arrangements of the twelve tribes in the Bible. This one is unique among all of those. Judah is listed first because Jesus was from there as a lion of the tribe of Judah. All twelve of Jacob’s sons are listed—including Levi who usually wasn’t because he didn’t inherit any land-except for one. Manasseh, Joseph’s son (Jacob’s grandson), is listed in place of Dan. So why not Dan? Dan was left out in order to point to the purity of the redeemed church. From early in Israel’s history, Dan was the center of idolatry for the kingdom (Judges 18:30-31). During the days of the divided kingdom, Dan was one of two centers for idolatry (1 Kings 12:28-30). And there is recorded in some non-Biblical Jewish writings that the Jews thought the anti-Christ would come out of Dan based on Genesis 49:17. The bottom line is that the number and the list and the order of the tribes are all stylized to depict the totality of God’s pure and perfectly redeemed servants from all time over all the earth. That’s what Revelation means by the 144,000.

Science and Faith Conference

Does modern biology support or undercut human uniqueness? Are the discoveries of brain research compatible with personal responsibility? What does it really mean to be “created in the image of God?” And what are the social and ethical implications of our view of the human person? Explore these vital questions and more at the third annual Westminster Conference on Science and Faith to be held on April 14, 2012 at the ACE Conference Center in the greater Philadelphia area. Conference sessions will run from 8:45 am-5:15 pm and examine scientific evidence for human uniqueness, evolutionary claims about human origins, theological views of the image of God, the “blame it on the brain” mentality, and current conflicts over animal rights, euthanasia, and abortion.

Speakers will include psychologist Edward Welch, author of Blame It on the Brain; physician Michael Emlet, author of CrossTalk: Where Life and Scripture Meet; biologists Richard Sternberg and Ann Gauger of the Biologic Institute; biologist Ray Bohlin of Discovery Institute; Discovery Institute bioethicist Wesley J. Smith, author of A Rat Is A Pig Is A Dog Is A Boy; Biblical scholar C. John Collins, author of Did Adam and Eve Really Exist?; theologians Vern Poythress, K. Scott Oliphint, William Edgar, and David Garner of Westminster Theological Seminary; and social scientist John West of Discovery Institute, author of Darwin Day in America.

This event will be of special interest to seminary students, college students, and pastors and other church leaders. The conference is sponsored by Westminster Theological Seminary and Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture.

Register HERE.

Sunday's Sermon

On Sunday I preached part 2 of our current series through Philippians called Partners in the Gospel. It is entitled "Gospel Partnership" (pt. 1) and can be listened to or downloaded HERE.

Pastors Beware

Publicity stunts can be dangerous.

But is it true?

Kevin DeYoung weighs in on the "Jesus Hates Religion" video that is all the rage.

Before I say anything else, let me say Jefferson Bethke seems like a sincere young man who wants people to know God’s scandalous grace. I’m sure he’s telling the truth when he says on his Facebook page: “I love Jesus, I’m addicted to grace, and I’m just a messed up dude trying to make Him famous.” If I met him face to face, I bet I’d like Jefferson and his honesty and passion. I bet I’d be encouraged by his story and his desire to free people from the snares of self-help, self-righteous religion.

And yet (you knew it was coming), amidst a lot of true things in this poem there is a lot that is unhelpful and misleading.

This video is the sort of thing that many younger Christians love. It sounds good, looks good, and feels good. But is it true? That’s the question we must always ask. And to answer that question, I want to go through this poem slowly, verse by verse. Not because I think this is the worst thing ever. It’s certainly not. Nor because I think this video will launch a worldwide revolution. I want to spend some time on this because Bethke perfectly captures the mood, and in my mind the confusion, of a lot of earnest, young Christians.

Read the whole post HERE.

Update:
"Are Christians Religious?" by Burk Parsons

Resources on Philippians

On Sunday I began preaching through Philippians. I have had a number of requests to post my schedule for the series so that individuals and families can prepare before each Sunday by reading (even memorizing!) the text I will be preaching. Needless to say, I love those sorts of requests.

1 – Servants, Saints, and the Savior (1:1-2)
2 – Gospel Partnership (1:3-8)
3 – A Knowing and Discerning Love (1:9-11)
4 – Capturing Calamity for Christ (1:12-14)
5 – So Long as Christ is Preached (1:15-18)
6 – How to Live When Dying is Gain (1:18b-26)
7 – Living Worthy of the Gospel (1:27-30)
8 – Have This Mind (2:1-11)
9 – The Song of the Savior (2:5-11)
10 – Of Working and Willing (2:12-13)
11 – The Fruit of Paul’s Labors (2:14-18)
12 – Worthy Ministers (2:19-30)
13 – Rejoice in the Lord (3:1)
14 – When Loss is Gain (3:2-11)
15 – Restful Striving (3:12-16)
16 – Following the Right Example (3:17-4:1)
17 – The Agreement That Trumps Division (4:2-3)
18 – Living in Light of the Nearness of God (4:4-7)
19 – What Do You Think? (4:8-9)
20 – Strengthened for Contentment (4:10-13)
21 – Gospel-Driven Giving (4:14-23)

The following are some excellent resources for those of you who may want to study further:

Frank Thielman's commentary on Philippians in the NIV Application series is outstanding. Thielman is a noted New Testament scholar but this commentary is quite accessible.

For a more scholarly commentary, Gordon Fee's volume in the NICNT is excellent. Another commentary that fits the scholarly (but not ridiculously inaccessible) sort is Moises Silva's volume in the Baker Exegetical series.

I love the IVP series The Bible Speaks Today. They are written for a popular audience but are grounded in solid scholarship. Alec Motyer's volume on Philippians is excellent for individual or group study.

Sinclair Ferguson is the author of the Philippians volume from the Let's Study series from Banner of Truth. This is perfect for small group study.

Top Three

Justin Taylor has posted some lists of top three articles, sermons, etc. chosen by some sharp dudes:

Bryan Chapell:
•J.I. Packer, “What Did the Cross Achieve? The Logic of Penal Substitution“
•Francis Schaeffer, “A Day of Sober Rejoicing“
•Thomas Chalmers, “The Expulsive Power of a New Affection“

Carl Trueman:
•R. V. G. Tasker, “The Biblical Doctrine of the Wrath of God“
•Martin Luther, “Two Kinds of Righteousness“
•George Orwell, “Politics and the English Language”

Stephen Nichols:
•J. Gresham Machen, “The Good Fight of Faith"
•Jonathan Edwards, “The Most High, A Prayer-Hearing God"
•John Chrysostom, “Homily 21, On Ephesians 6:1-4"

The Best of Apologetics

I continue to be concerned by the number of Christians I meet who seem unable to offer a defense of the faith.

The following books are outstanding resources to help equip Christians wanting to know why they believe and offer those reasons to others.

Defending the Faith:

Every Thought Captive by Richard Pratt

Apologetics to the Glory of God by John Frame

Presuppositional Apologetics by Greg Bahnsen

Always Ready by Greg Bahnsen

The Battle Belongs to the Lord by K. Scott Oliphint

Science & Philosophy:

Who Made God? by Edgar Andrews

The Reason for God by Tim Keller

God's Undertaker by John Lennox

God and Stephen Hawking by John Lennox

The Dawkins Letters by David Robertson

God Is: How Christianity Explains Everything by Doug Wilson

The Devil's Delusion by David Berlinski

Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer

Should Christians Embrace Evolution? ed. by Norman Nevin

DVD's:

Science and Faith: Friends or Foes?

Does God Exist?

The Reason for God by Tim Keller

The Christ Files: A Search for the Real Jesus by John Dickson

Life of Jesus by John Dickson

Websites:

The Discovery Institute

Centre for Public Christianity

Simple Apologetics

Ehrman Project

John Dickson

The Christ Files

"Counterfeit Spiritualities"

Idolatry is all manner of seeming holiness and worshipping, let these counterfeit spiritualities shine outwardly as glorious and fair as they may; in a word, all manner of devotion in those that we would serve God without Christ the Mediator, his Word and command.

In popedom it was held a work of the greatest sanctity for the monks to sit in their cells and meditate of God, [solitude] and of his wonderful works; to be kindled with zeal, kneeling on their knees, praying, and having their imaginary contemplations of celestial objects [meditation], with such supposed devotion, that they wept for joy.

In these their conceits, they banished all desires and thoughts of women, and what else is temporal and evanescent. They seemed to meditate only of God, and of his wonderful works.

Yet all these seeming holy actions of devotion, which the wit and wisdom of man holds to be angelical sanctity, are nothing else but works of the flesh. All manner of religion, where people serve God without his Word and command, is simply idolatry, and the more holy and spiritual such a religion seems, the more hurtful and venomous it is; for it leads people away from the faith of Christ, and makes them rely and depend upon their own strength, works, and righteousness.

Martin Luther from his Table Talk

Thinking biblically about homosexuality

David Peterson is a terrific New Testament scholar. I have benefited much from his work. Dr. Peterson recently wrote three essays on the homosexuality as understood through the grid of of the Bible's teaching on holiness.

1. Holiness and God’s Creation Purpose
2. Holiness and Sexuality in the Pauline Writings
3. Same-sex Unions and Romans 3

Take time to read these helpful essays.


HT: Justin Taylor