Douglas J. Douma's Blog, page 16

Review of Pushing the Antithesis by Greg Bahnsen

Pushing the Antithesis, The Apologetic Methodology of Greg L. Bahnsen, ed. Gary DeMar, Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 2007, 285 pp.

There is much that is good in this book, though it is marred by significant use of and dependence on the “transcendental argument.”

Pushing the Antithesis begins with a foreword by its editor, Gary DeMar. There DeMar defines “push the antithesis” to mean “force the unbeliever to live consistently with his rationalistic and materialist presuppositions that underlie and seemingly support his worldview.” (p. xv) I assume, however, that he really means to extend this to all sorts of non-Christian worldviews; not just rationalistic and materialistic ones. Against these there are various arguments, not the least of which is Alvin Plantinga’s “Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism.” But not all non-Christians are modernists holding to rationalistic, materialistic, and naturalistic views. Among the millennial generation post-modernism is more prominent than modernism. And in addition to the various philosophical views, there are religious ones like Islam, Bahai, and Oneness Pentecostalism. It is not as clear how members of these religions could not live consistently with the presuppositions of their worldviews while the Christian can.

Note: While the chapters of the book are said to be based on Bahnsen’s lectures, he is sometimes quoted in the second person. But since DeMar is said to be the editor and not the author, for simplicity sake in the following review my comments will refer to the chapter material as Bahnsen’s.

Chapter 1: The Myth of Neutrality

Bahnsen rejects trying to prove the existence of God with any supposedly neutral, independent, or unbiased reasons. To do so, he says, would fall victim to “the myth of neutrality.”

He then gives something of the “Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God,” though he doesn’t here provide that name for it. He writes, “If you don’t start with God as your basic assumption, you can’t prove anything. The assumption of God’s existence is essential to all reasoning.” (p. 7) While this argument (or rather, assertion) purports to be “starting with God” it seems that its own validity itself has become Bahnsen’s starting point. That is, Bahnsen is not starting with God’s existence but is starting with an appeal to the logical necessity of God’s existence. Bahnsen here (and Van Til) would do well to heed Van Til’s words later quoted, “It is Christ as God who speaks in the Bible. Therefore the Bible does not appeal to human reason as ultimate in order to justify what it says.” (p. 37) And Bahnsen’s words also, “When Genesis opens with the simple declaration ‘In the beginning God,’ it does not argue for God’s existence, it assumes and asserts it.” (p. 49)

Getting back to the myth of neutrality, he rightly points out the inherently hostile nature of the world to Christianity. This is shown in the world’s assumption of Evolution and Deconstructionism, and is spread with subliminal messages in the classroom. Fallen man is not neutral but is “actively hostile to God.” (p. 14) The attempt at neutrality is the sinner’s resort in seeking to escape the truths of the Scriptures.

On a practical level, to avoid neutrality, Bahnsen writes, “While in college, Christians should not be passive sponges merely absorbing the material, but instead be active filters sorting out the issues through a biblical grid.” (p. 16)

Chapter 2: Destroying Philosophical Fortresses

In this chapter Bahnsen contends that unbelievers are “not neutral” and believers “should not be neutral.” Because of the effects of sin, the mind of man has a distorted and destructive orientation.

A distinction is made between the knowledge of believers and unbelievers. Bahnsen explains, “We are not saying unbelievers ‘know nothing.’ We are saying that they do not know anything ‘truly,’ because they do not recognize the most fundamental reality: All facts are God-created facts.” (p. 32) But is not the lack of knowing anything ‘truly’ equivalent to not knowing anything at all? Can one know something falsely?

The “myth of neutrality,” Bahnsen well explains, is repudiated by the Scriptural teaching that one is either a slave to Christ or a slave to the world. And there should be no division in life between religious and non-religious realms.

Chapter 3: Defining Worldviews

There is an interesting comment here that “Many Christians are so anticipating the Lord’s ‘snatching’ them out of this world by an ‘any moment’ Rapture that they see no sense in the long term implications of worldview analysis.” (p. 42) Backing this up, it is true that most discussions of worldview by Christians have occurred within the context of the Reformed faith, not in the context of dispensationalism.

A definition of worldview is settled upon as “a network of presuppositions (which are not verified by the procedures of natural science) regarding reality (metaphysics), knowing (epistemology), and conduct (ethics) in terms of which every element of human experience is related and interpreted.” (p. 42-43) I rather prefer James Orr’s definition as “the widest view which the mind can take of things in the effort to grasp them together as a whole from the standpoint of some particular philosophy or theology.” That is, while a worldview is a network it is comprised not only of presuppositions but of all of one’s beliefs, presupposed or deduced. Closer in line with this idea is Bahnsen’s definition of a network as “a complex web of numerous beliefs organized in an interlocking, independent, self-contained truth system.” (p. 43) And he well explains that Christian faith is “a coherent system of interlocking truth claims.” (p. 43)

Chapter 4: Worldview Features

The point is made that while the Christian is “not on neutral ground with the unbeliever” there is a “common ground” or a “point of contact.” Bahnsen says, “You need to understand this point of contact in order to engage him properly.” (p. 58) Five pages later we finally learn “we do have a point of contact with the unbeliever: he is the image of God and sees the glory of God in nature so that he knows deep down in his heart-of-hearts that God exists.” (p. 63) While there the point of contact is that all men are the image of God, it is soon thereafter said to be that “we both live in God’s world.”

I loved Bahnsen’s comment on the absurdity of naturalism: “When asked if something can miraculously pop into being from nothing in an instant, the non-Christian vigorously responds in the negative. Instant miracles are out of the question! But when asked if something can come out of nothing if given several billion years, the non-Christian confidently responds in the affirmative.” (p. 61) While I did find this a comical insight, more capable naturalists might be less self-contradictory in holding that the world has always existed.

Perhaps it is the transcendental argument that is returned to when it is said “The unbeliever will not be able rationally to account for the orderly universe which he experiences, since he is committed to the ultimacy of chance.” (p. 63) This is an improvement because an argument is offered rather than just an assertion. But again, while this may be a good argument against naturalism, not all unbelievers are committed to the ultimacy of chance. Fatalistic Islam is even more deterministic than Calvinism.

Chapter 5: Alternative Worldviews

It is explained that “Presuppositional Apologetics does not require you to be an expert in the entirety of human knowledge” but you only need to “dig down to the basic presuppositions men hold, showing that their most basic assumptions cannot support their worldview.” (p. 75)

Here the book expands to discuss the worldviews of Hindusim, Behaviorism, Marxism, and Existentialism. These worldviews are said to have “worldview cores” of monism, dualism, atomism, pragmatism, and skepticism.

The first three of these cores (monism, dualism, and atomism) are said to be directly related to the problem of “the one and the many” or “universals and particulars.” (p. 81) This is said to be the question, “Which is more basic: The one (universals) or the many (particulars)?” (p. 82) This dilemma is then said to be solved by the doctrine of the Trinity that in God there is an equal ultimacy of “Oneness and Manyness.” (p. 82) But this seems confused to me because in philosophy the discussion is about many particular chairs and the one ideal chair, where with the Trinity it is not many persons and one ideal person, but many (three) persons and one essence.

Under the “worldview cores” Bahnsen has New Age, Christian Science, and Hare Krishna as forms of monism; Platonism as a form of Dualism; materialism, behaviorism, and Marxism as forms of Atomism; and Pragmatism and Skepticism as their own forms. I had expected the author to show how each of these worldview cores failed to solve the problem of the one and many, but this information was not forthcoming.

Chapter 6: Worldviews in Collision

Here is made the “bold claim” that “faith is the necessary foundation or framework for rationality and understanding.” (p. 96) Since “faith” and “rationality” have had various meanings in the history of thought, one would hope that Bahnsen would define the terms as he uses them and then explain this bold claim. Rather, he simply moves on to a Biblical history of the antithesis doctrine and recommends that you “prod the unbeliever” by asserting that “he cannot explain being good, helping a stranger, having meaning, and so forth, in his worldview.” (p. 102)

The transcendental “argument” is re-asserted: “only on the basis of your Christian worldview can anyone make sense of reality, logic, and morality.” (p. 104) But while I can understand how one might show the Christian view makes sense of these things, and how one might show a particular non-believing worldview fails to be consistent or have explanatory power, I am unable to understand how this is supposed to show that Christianity is the “only” successful worldview. What feature (or features) is unique to Christianity and gives it success over Islam, Oneness Pentecostalism, or Arminianism?

Chapter 7: Overcoming Metaphysical Bias

Bahnsen contends that “the proper approach to apologetics is by means of worldview analysis.” (p. 110) The question is asked “how can you intelligibly establish your view of reality, knowledge, or ethics?” (p. 111) Logical positivists and other post-enlightenment thinkers are anti-metaphysical. But Christians reject this stance because they see God as foundational to all reality. Metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics are “bound up together in a mutually self-supporting system.” (p. 118) Yet “epistemology necessarily presupposes metaphysics.” (p. 119) Those who claim to be anti-metaphysical are found to have a “hidden metaphysical program” all along. The claim is made that Christianity alone (in God) has a “self-validating, self-attesting authority.” Finally there is a discussion of “circular reasoning” before returning to criticism of the anti-metaphysical position. This chapter, like all of the others so far except Chapter 6 is primarily focused on opposing logical positivism / modernism.

Chapter 8: Approaching the Unbeliever

Here is an explanation of Proverbs 26:4-5 (“Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes.”) as it applies to apologetics. “You must present the truth, and, negatively, you must warn of folly.” (p. 142) Though both steps are necessary “you do not have to use them in this order.”

He returns again to the transcendental argument in saying, “The proof of Christianity is the impossibility of the contrary.” This phrase seems to be sort of a mistaken use of what in philosophy is commonly called “proof by contradiction.” That is, the falsity of a contrary does not prove the truth of anything, since both a proposition and a contrary to it can be false. But the falsity of the contradictory does necessarily implies the truth of the original proposition. While not explained here, it seems that Bahnsen and Van Til believe that the “impossibility of the contrary” is sufficient since they limit the possibilities to two; the Christian view and the non-Christian view. But this seems inappropriate to me as the only thing that all of the various non-Christian views have in common is that they are not Christian. A very clear definition of Christianity is needed. If, for example, Arminianism is not Christianity but a heresy as the Synod of Dordt maintained, but Arminianism holds to the doctrine of the Trinity, is it not the Trinity but the sovereignty of God that is the important feature of Christianity in view? Or is it both the Trinity and the sovereignty of God that are necessary since some religions like Islam might accept the latter but not the former?

The chapter returns to some excellent criticisms of the naturalistic, materialistic worldview but again overlooks other non-Christian views.

Chapter 9: The Problem of Moral Absolutes

There is a “dangerous problem today,” “the denial of absolute moral standards.” (p. 167) After providing a plethora of quotes from moral relativists, he notes that “those who deny moral absolutes have at least moral absolute: ‘You should not believe there are moral absolutes.’” (p. 172) Thus a contradiction is found in their view. Therefore “moral absolutes are inescapable.”

Chapter 10: The Uniformity of Nature

“Science is absolutely dependent upon uniformity.” (p. 187) But the unbeliever has a problem in accounting for the uniformity of nature. Bahnsen claims, “only the Christian worldview can account for it.” (p. 189) But while it is clear that “The uniformity of nature is perfectly compatible with the Christian worldview” there is no argument as to why no other worldview—again say Islam—is not compatible, which is necessary to establish that only Christianity can account for it. This same logical error or lack of argument runs throughout the book.

Chapter 11: The Problem of Universals

The whole problem with the “transcendental argument” becomes apparent when one of its advocates, like here in this chapter, also advocates “engaging in an internal critique of [the unbeliever’s] worldview.” If the transcendental argument were sufficient, this internal critique would be unnecessary. If all non-Christian views are proven false by the “impossibility of the contrary” then there would be no need to critique each of them separately. The apologist wouldn’t even need to the know the first thing about the unbeliever’s view.

It is asserted that universals and the laws of logic cannot be accounted for on “the unbelieving worldview.” A critique of empiricism is given, but this hardly suffices for all non-Christian worldviews.

Chapter 12: Personal Freedom and Dignity

This chapters has returned to putting an “s” on the end of “non-christian worldviews” but no new arguments are given.

Though Bahnsen argues for the “impossibility of the contrary” and “not the superiority of Christianity” I believe there is another option. That is, not only is Christianity superior to other worldviews, it is the only known worldview that is consistent and liveable. And we can only chose from live options. Each non-Christian worldview must be critiqued individually.

Review of Children of Doom by John W. Drakeford

Children of Doom, A sobering look at the commune movement by John W. Drakeford, Nashville: Broadman, 1972, 143 pp.

The “Children of God” run “an apocalyptically-minded youth commune” and “Training Center” near the West Texas ghost town of Thurber. It is a place where, for protection against Cowboy-types who have harassed them in the past, they have developed a “comprehensive security system” with fences, walls, gates, padlocks, and surveillance cameras.

For John W. Drakeford, the author of Children of Doom, the colony at Thurber “stands as a unique sociological phenomenon”; an “enclave in the midst of a materialist world,” and a place where a group of people were hoping to recreate the religious experience of the early church—especially the perceived socialism of Acts chapter 2. One of 30,000 communes said to exist at the time this book was written in 1972, the Children of God emphasize—or overemphasize—the family aspect of communal living. Thurber is only one of the forty or so colonies of the 2,500 member group. In his “sobering look” Drakeford is largely impartial and has “not tried either to glamorize or vilify the ‘Children of God,’” for he is “both attracted and repelled.” (p. viii)

A 19 year-old member named Jethro explains their attitude to the Bible: “We are the super-fundamentalists.” All members of the commune, one finds out, have been given new, Biblical names. And use of the King James Bible is exclusive, of course. For them, “Bible study is synonymous with memorization.” They are, in Drakeford’s words, “a strange shotgun marriage of conservative religion and a rebellious counterculture.” Certain of an impending apocalyptic doom, the Children of God are aptly called by Drakeford the Children of Doom.

Drakeford explains that these communes are not a new phenomenon in American history. The search for Utopia started as early as 1680 and many socialistic experiments have come and gone. Some have succeeded for a time,;most fail rather quickly.

At the Children of God commune everyone is divided up into tribes names after each of the twelve tribes of Israel. The living quarters are quite haphazard with people staying in overcrowded cabins, others in old trailers. With in-house midwives, the community promotes natural childbirth. They have an extensive training program too, and not only in the Bible but in various trades. But Drakeford sees “a barn that looks like a haunted house” and “no evidence of any efforts to produce crops.” They have a detailed daily schedule, but everyone is sleeping in on this day. Drakeford is told that God runs the show, but when he presses the issue he is told there is a “multitude of counselors.” This group of counselors proves to be 7 elders with a man named Ezekiel (of course) really in control of the show. Drakeford is welcomed as the journalistic article on the commune he is researching for is expected to bring beneficial publicity.

At the community there is a preponderance of men. Members are, in theory, monogamous and children are encouraged following marriages. At their school house they use the Montesorri method.

“Jehoshaphat” was hooked on drugs for five years before “finding deliverance” with the Children of God. And he is by no means the only one there who has overcome drug addiction. They call drug abuse sin and insist on complete renunciation of all drugs and stimulants. They are even a “no smoking” community. But in the whole facility there is only one communal shower and only two faucets. Interestingly the neighbors (minus the raucous cowboys) are verbal defenders of the commune. But parents have formed organizations against the Children of God and pressed the attorney general to investigate them. “Many parents are set to wondering whether the change over of their children from drugs to religion is for better or for worse.” Parents complain of hypnosis and their children being turned against them. But others praise the organization saying that while there were some things they did not like they were much closer to their children than ever before.

The Children of God often witness and provide food at rock festivals.

Throughout the book, Drakeford compares and contrasts the Children of God with other movements including the early American utopian communities, the Children’s Crusade, and the Israeli Kibbutzim. His questions frequently center around the sustainability of communal life.

Because of their apocalypticism, or just counter-culture hippiness, the Children of God are missing a central element from their otherwise Protestant worldview; a work ethic. They spend most of their time memorizing Scripture and witnessing to others; doing little work beyond the necessary. Financially the organization is a sinkhole; it consumes wealth rather than creating it.

In the final chapter the Children of God are evicted from their Thurber residence and 400 men, women, and children scatter to other communes.

Review of Creation Regained by Albert M. Wolters

Creation Regained, Biblical Basics for a Reformational Worldview by Albert M. Wolters, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985, 98 pages.

Al Wolters writes Creation Regained from the “Reformational” tradition of the Dutch philosopher, Herman Dooyeweerd. While I’ve found Dooyeweerd’s works to be nearly unreadable, Wolters has put together a concise and well-written book.

This Reformational movement is greatly influenced by Abraham Kuyper. In Creation Regained, Wolters has not only the Kuyperian “every inch of the earth belongs to God” Christian worldview, but extends God’s sovereignty to those non-physical elements of civilization as well: marriage, culture, arts, politics, etc. God’s created law includes not only the laws of physics, but extends to normative laws.

I must credit Wolters with proper humility when he speaks of his view as “a biblical worldview” rather than “THE Biblical worldview” as some Christian authors are known to say. This is not to say that the Bible has a plurality of meanings, but only that the reader, not the author, should judge whether the view presented is “THE” Biblical one.

In this particular Christian worldview it seems to me that Wolters gives an unjustly high place to so-called “General Revelation.” He has it that experience or empirical study in the world can “make known” God’s will; and not only generally, but for each specific person. (p. 31) How he might surmount the is-ought problem the reader is left to guess. And while he has it that God’s will for each man can be known via general revelation, he says “we can discern creational normatively best in the light of Scripture.” (p. 32) But since knowledge is already said to be the result of general revelation, is there some category of supra-knowledge that we should use for those better discernments of special revelation? His example is ridiculous. He writes:

“The Scriptures teach us to look for God’s norms in our experience and also serve to greatly improve our vision. … Scripture is like a miner’s lamp, which lights up the world wherever we turn to look at it. Miners working in an unlighted underground mind shaft cannot do their work without the lamp fitted to their helmets; they are helpless without it and therefore must take great care to see that it functions properly. Yet their attention while they work is turned to the rockface, not to the lamp. The lamp serves to illuminate the environment in which they are called to work, to enable them to discern the nature of what lies before them: earth and rock, ore and gangue. The Scriptures are like that. “Thy word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.(Ps. 119.105)” (p. 33)

Since on Wolters view the Scriptures illuminate the creation from which we then learn, he has ultimately made knowledge to come not from the lamp (i.e. the Bible) but from one’s feet!

Other points of interest are that Wolters seems to hold to a Privation Theory of evil (p.48) and that he rejects the liberal view of the Genesis creation story. (p. 51)

Like the Kuyperian focus on redeeming culture, Wolters emphasizes the redemption of all of creation. But, while this focus is rightly related to or even part of the Gospel, its emphasis tends to distract from the central Gospel message of personal salvation in Jesus Christ.

Review of Prophecy and the Church by Oswald T. Allis

Prophecy and the Church, An Examination of the Claim of Dispensationalists that the Christian Church is a Mystery Parenthesis which Interrupts the Fulfillment to Israel of the Kingdom Prophecies of the Old Testament, by Oswald T. Allis, Presbyterian and Reformed, 1945, Third Printing 1972, 339 pp.

In Prophecy and The Church Oswald T. Allis argues that following a hermeneutic of strict literalism, dispensationalists reject as allegorical many of the traditional Christian interpretations of Old Testament prophecy fulfillment in the New Testament. This pushes the fulfillment of these prophecies out to a yet future period, and makes the Church itself a parenthesis in God’s history not predicted in the Old Testament. But defending this futurism leads to various fanciful allegorical interpretations, conflicting with the original supposition of strict literalism and thereby proving dispensationalism false.

Allis makes his case exegetically, working from passage to passage through the Scriptures. But he is sometimes difficult to understand, and the version of the book I have inexplicably changes to a smaller font size for some paragraphs. As these paragraphs are not quotes, I’m left guessing that they either signify material copied from Allis’s previous writings or perhaps were reduced to accommodate the publisher’s space constraints.

The book might make a good reference for contesting the dispensationalist interpretations of various passages. But, as I understand, the dispensationalists have modified their positions considerably since the time Allis wrote, and so his critique is likely quite dated.

 

Reformed Author Groups

In his excellent book Reformed Theology in America, David F. Wells distinguishes five groups that might be said in some sense to follow Reformed theology. He lists them as “The Princeton Theology,” “The Westminster School,” “The Dutch Schools,” “The Southern Tradition,” and “Neoorthodoxy.”

There are many other Reformed groups however that could be distinguished. Some of these more closely follow John Calvin while others are further afield.

To make sense of the scene, I’ve listed the following groups of Reformed (or Reformed-ish) Theology in chronological order by their approximate founding and have listed who I think are the top five authors in each tradition. As I am not particularly knowledgeable on some of the groups, I welcome suggestions for improvement.

My own influences come from the Clarkians, Calvinist Reformers, Princetonians, PRCA, and L’Abri authors in that order. I have not read any 1689 Federalists or Dooyeweerdians. And I am seriously opposed to much of the Neoorthodox and Federal Vision literature.

Calvinst Reformers

John Calvin (1509-1564)

John Knox (1513-1572)

Jerome Zanchius (1516-1590)

Theodore Beza (1519-1605)

Francis Turretin (1623-1687)

Puritans

William Perkins (1558-1602)

Thomas Goodwin (1600-1679)

John Owen (1616-1683)

John Bunyan (1628-1688)

Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758)

1689 Federalists

Benjamin Keach (1640-1704)

James Haldane (1768-1851)

Richard Barcellos

Pascal Denault

Samuel Renihan

Common-Sense Realists

Thomas Reid (1710-1796)

Adam Ferguson (1723-1816)

James Beattie (1735-1803)

Dugald Stewart (1753-1828)

James McCosh (1881-1894)

Princetonians

Charles Hodge (1797-1878)

A. A. Hodge (1823-1886)

B. B. Warfield (1851-1921)

J. Gresham Machen (1881-1937)

Southern Presbyterians

James Henley Thornwell (1812-1862)

Benjamin Palmer (1818-1902)

Robert Lewis Dabney (1820-1898)

John Girardeau (1825-1898)

Morton Smith (1923-2017)

Reformed Baptists

Charles Spurgeon (1834-1892)

Carl F. H. Henry (1913-2003)

Neo-Calvinists

Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920)

Herman Bavinck (1854-1921)

Auguste Lecerf (1872-1943)

Louis Berkhof (1873-1957)

PRCA

Herman Hoeksema (1886-1965)

Herman Hanko

David Engelsma

Neo-Orthodox

Karl Barth (1886-1968)

Emil Brunner (1889-1966)

Reinhold Niebuhr (1892-1971)

Van Tillians

Cornelius Van Til (1895-1987)

John Frame

Lane Tipton

Clarkians

Gordon Clark (1902-1985)

John Robbins

Cal Beisner

Robert Reymond

Sean Gerety

Bible Presbyterians

J. Oliver Buswell

Carl McIntire

Allan MacRae

R. Laird Harris

Dooyeweerdians

Herman Dooyeweerd (1894-1977)

Evan Runner

Al Wolters

Roy Clouser

Danie Strauss

L’Abri

Francis Schaeffer (1912-1984)

Os Guiness

Chuck Colson

Nancy Pearcy

Jerram Barrs

Theonomists

Rousas J. Rushdoony (1916-2001)

Greg Bahnsen (1948-1995)

Gary North

Joe Morecraft

Reformed Epistemologists

Alvin Plantinga

Nicholas Wolterstorff

Kelly James Clark

William Alston

Ligonier

R. C. Sproul (1939-2017)

John Gerstner (1914-1996)

Steven Lawson

Steven Nichols

Keith Mathison

Federal Visionists

Peter Leithart

James Jordan

Norman Shepherd

Douglas Wilson

Rich Lusk

Two-Kingdom Theology

D. G. Hart

Michael Horton

David VanDrunen

Carl Trueman

Sermon on Romans 3:27-31 – “The Narrow Road of Faith”

Sermon on Romans 3:27-31 – “The Narrow Road of Faith”

Preached on June 3, 2018 at Emmanuel PCA, Franklin NC.

[Rom 3:27-31 ESV] 27 Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30 since God is one–who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. 31 Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.

INTRODUCTION STORY:

Driving in the mountains of Western North Carolina can be a challenging undertaking. Often the roads are windy, narrow, and steep. It seems to me that the roadbuilders a century ago must not have heard in this wilderness the voice of one crying out “Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths STRAIGHT.” But this is not to blame them, for it would literally require the “moving of mountains” to make straight paths in Appalachia.

On these mountain roads you may find that there is a cliff (or a creek or some other natural obstacle) on the right side of the road. And so you do your best to avoid driving near it. You might even move over a little bit towards the center of the road, for falling off the right side of the road is a dangerous proposition.

On other occasions you may find that there is a cliff (or some other natural obstacle) on the left side of the road. And a cliff on the left side of the road is equally as dangerous as a cliff on the right side of the road! And so you do your best to avoid it. You might even shift your driving a little bit to the shoulder just so you don’t come too close to the cliff, for falling off the left side of the road is a dangerous proposition. And falling off the left side of the road is just as bad as falling off the right side of the road.

While sometimes there is a cliff on the right and other times a cliff on the left, occasionally when driving in the mountains you come to a place where there are cliffs on both sides of the road. I’ve seen such a place in Western Colorado. It is a place called the million-dollar highway (which has its name either because of the million-dollar views along its length, or because it cost a million dollars per mile to build). And it runs North of the town of Durango and on up to Ouray passing by the beautiful and imposing Uncompahgre Peak. And on one section (at least) of the million dollar highway the road rides along a ridgeline of a mountain and so there are cliffs both on the right and on the left. In such a case as this it is equally as important to avoid falling off in one direction as it is in the other. There you must follow the narrow road, avoiding the cliff on the right and the cliff on the left. You must follow the narrow road.

In our sermon text today there is a situation much like this ridgeline scenario on the million dollar highway. In the Christian life we must avoid the twin evils, the cliffs of legalism and antinomianism. One must stay on the narrow road of faith.

CONTEXT:

Paul has just explained the Gospel in the previous section in his letter to the Romans. After explaining that all men are sinners who have fallen short of the glory of God, he recounts with great joy the Gospel of God’s grace; salvation not by works but given to man as a gift from God mediated through faith. The righteousness of God, he tells us, has been manifested apart from the law and is given through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe.

Paul continues that same note in our current passage. The Gospel is for all who believe. He explains here that the Gospel is not only for the Jews but also the Gentiles. And this is important for the church at Rome to whom he is writing because it is comprised of both Jews and Gentiles. God will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. Christianity is not a national religion; it is worldwide. While in the ancient days each nation had its own gods, and while in more modern ages various regions of our planet have their prominent religions, Christianity is everywhere. The spread of Christianity is great evidence of its truth. Not merely the spread itself—which certainly is impressive—but also that Christianity spread as it was predicted; that the Gentiles will be grafted in. In so doing, the Gospel expands beyond all national, ethnic, and political boundaries.

In discussions over Christian doctrine the question often comes up as to what the New Testament means by “All” or “the world.” When God is said to save the whole world, what does this mean? In today’s passage when Paul says “one is justified by faith apart from the law” he means “ALL who are justified are justified by faith apart from the law.” And then he qualifies, he explaines, what he means by ALL—both Jew and Gentile. This, in many places in the New Testament, is what is meant by ALL. ALL does not mean a universalism of salvation to each and every person, but a expansion and extension of God’s covenant to bring in the Gentiles. The Jews were the people of God; now God’s people come from ALL nations.

And this Gospel is the great doctrine of salvation by faith that overthrows any thoughts of the legalism of salvation by works. The Gospel is shown to be good news because while we who are sinners cannot of ourselves satisfy God’s demand for holiness, He has sent his son Jesus Christ to justify us. Thus salvation is not of man but of God. What a relief! What a joy!

But in following this doctrine of faith, we have a narrow road. On the one side is the cliff of legalism and on the other is the cliff of anitnomianism. In saying that salvation is a gift of God, manifested apart from the Law, Paul rejects the idea of Legalism. But if one goes too far in avoiding the cliff of legalism, they risk falling off the cliff of antinomianism. Thus, despite salvation apart from the Law, Paul says “we uphold the law.”

How are we to understand this language? What is the right way to understand the upholding of the law? Or, what is the purpose of the law?

In understanding the purposes of the law it is important that we avoid the cliffs of both legalism and antinomianism. We must walk the narrow road of faith between these two errors.

I. Legalism.

First is the cliff of legalism.

A. Definition

Legalism is a term that is very often misused. Some will say it is legalism if you favor the existence of a single law in society or desire any pious practice in your life. It is said to be legalistic if you support no-smoking zones, or oppose drunkenness, or exercise regularly, or attend church every Sunday. Legalism becomes a catch-all term for libertines who do not want a single constraint on their lives. Legalism, for some, means simply “things that I do not like to be told to do.”

Let us then properly define legalism.

Legalism truly is the false idea that one must act in a certain way in order to achieve salvation; legalism is works righteousness. It is legal-ism because it is law-ism. It is the false teaching that obeying the laws will save you.

This is certainly a cliff we must avoid. We are not saved by our works. We are not made righteous by our works. To say that we are is legalism. And, if nothing else, Paul’s letter to the Romans is a treatise on salvation by grace through faith, full of opposition to legalism.

Though we reject the legalism of works righteousness—or at least we should—we often fail to live up to what we believe and teach. That is, even though we know we are saved by God’s grace through faith, as sinful men we easily fall into the temptation to want to contribute something to our salvation. But our contributions prove to be filthy rags; not contributions at all. We need the pure spotless lamb of Jesus Christ. God is impressed by Christ, not by us.

Opposition to the works righteousness of legalism is a hallmark of the Protestant Reformation. And it is a strongly emphasized point in the New Testament. And so we rightly seek to combat this tendency of wanting to contribute to our salvation; a tendency which is sinful as it discounts Christ’s effective saving work. The legalist implies that Christ is not good enough; that he needs to add something to Christ’s work.

Paul’s opposition to legalism is clear when he says “For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.” That is why he can say here, as he does also in Ephesians, that our boasting is excluded. There is no boasting because salvation is a gift from God. We are justified by the grace of God which we receive through the faith we have because of the Holy Spirit working in us.

Anyone who boasts in himself proves that he does not know the Gospel, for you have nothing to do with it. The Gospel is of Christ. It is of God. It is not of you. I cannot boast in myself for I am a wretched sinner. Paul’s opposition to boasting destroys any view of salvation that allows man to contribute. The works, penance, and merit approach of the Roman Catholic Church is ruled out because works, penance, and merit would provide man with a reason to boast. The decision-theology of Arminianism is ruled out, for if the difference between those who are saved and those who are not saved is based on their own decision to come to faith, then there would be a reason to boast.

Thus we cannot boast of our own holiness leading to salvation, nor can we boast of our own choice in choosing to have faith in God. Boasting is excluded.

The true Gospel allows for no boasting in ourselves. Thus Paul says in 2ndCorinthians “Let the one who boasts boast in the Lord.” (2 Cor. 10:17)

Legalism is ruled out because we are justified by faith apart from the works of the law.

But many people in their zeal to avoid the cliff of legalism shift their driving so far away from its cliff that they fall off the cliff on the other side of the road; the cliff of antinomianism.

So opposed (and rightly so) to the false doctrine of salvation by works, the antinomian looks upon the law as an enemy of sorts. He is opposed to all law.

II. ANTINOMIANISM

And so it is of great important that we avoid also the cliff of antinomianism. If legalism is an often misused or misunderstood term, antinomianism is a term rarely used or understood at all. To be an antinomian is to be entirely opposed to the law. It is from the Greek “anti” meaning “against” and “nomos” meaning “law.” The antinomian is anti-nomos, a person who opposes the law. Those who advocate antinomianism advocate lawlessness.

Though Paul warns against antinomian attitudes, there are many through history and still today who have fallen into the error. And, in one sense, it is hard to imagine that we’ve gotten to the this place. That is, the Old Testament is full of God’s law. The Psalmist says that we are to delight in the Law of the Lord. And Jesus tells us that he came not to abolish the law but to fulfill it. (Matthew 5:17)

So why is their opposition to the law? It is—for one— caused by an overemphasis on the rejection of legalism. Overcorrecting to avoid the one cliff some run the risk of the other. Of course, it is also because there is sin. People do not like the law telling them what to do. Nevermind that it is God’s law, and only He knows what is truly best for us. Some have taken the opportunity of salvation by faith to go out and live profligate, recklessly extravagant lives; living according to their own laws for their lives rather than God’s laws.

III. ANTINOMIANISM IN HISTORY

There is a long history of opposition to antinomianism in the church. Martin Luther wrote against the view a number of times including once in an open letter titled “Against the Antinomians.”

Controversies related to antinomianism rose in the Massachusetts bay Colony in the 17thcentury and in Scotland in the early 18thcentury. And they continue today.

One variant today of antinomianism is found in a movement called “Hyper-Grace.” The hyper-grace movement teaches falsely thatall sin, past, present, and future, has already been forgiven, so there is no need for a believer to ever confess it. Advocates of hyper-grace so oppose God’s law in its application to our lives that they believe even the 10 commandments are no longer applicable. I recommend that you avoid any church, book, or conference under the “hyper-grace” umbrella.

Paul rejects all forms of antinomianism not only in our passage today from Romans 3, but also in Romans 6.

He writes there: What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? (Romans 6:1-2)

This is the perversion of antinomianism—giving man license to sin, or even advocating sin so that grace may abound. Really this is a tempting view for sinful man. Man is tempted to take Jesus but keep his sins. But this is not an option. You must either take Jesus or remain in sin; not both! You are either a slave to Christ or a slave to the world; not both!

IV. THE PROPER USE OF THE LAW

So what is this narrow road of faith that avoids both of the deadly cliffs of legalism and antinomianism? What is the proper use of the law?

The law in the Christian faith is neither to be elevated so high as to make the following of it be necessary for salvation, nor is the law to be valued so low that it is ignored entirely.

Rather, the law serves its purpose. The law has, in Reformed theology, three purposes, but none of these three are the works righteousness of legalism. The three valid purposes of the law are to convict man of being a sinner, to restrain evil in society, and to guide Christians into good works.

To say it another way, the law shows us our sin, makes evildoers think twice before committing a crime, and it teaches us how we should live. These functions have been called a mirror, a curb, and a guide. The law functions as a mirror when it shows us our sins. It functions as a curb when it keeps someone from committing some sin or crime, and it functions as a guide when it teaches us the way of righteousness.

So let us not say the law is useless. And let us not ignore the law. While we are not saved by the law but by faith, we yet uphold the law for all its proper purposes. We delight in the Biblical law, for it is the very law of God.

EXCURSION ON “THEONOMY”

In talking about the proper use of the law, there may be some who are interested in the question of “Theonomy.” This is a movement without Reformed and Presbyterian circles, primarily in the last 50 years. It has been at the center of lots of a debate. Although Theonomists vary among themselves they generally have strong views in upholding God’s law. Naturally they are quite opposed to the anti-nomianism who are against God’s laws. Although I do not follow some of the more extreme suggestions of the Theonomists as far as implementing Old Testament Law in society today, certainly their have been benefits gained from their focus on the law. For one, a greater appreciation and respect for the law of God has—and should—strengthen our focus on keeping the Sabbath Day holy as God commanded for us.

IV. US TODAY.

But what about today?

There are still people who say (or at least think) “I will break this or that Biblical Law, and it is OK because Christ will forgive me anyways.” This is the wrong attitude to take. It is antinomianism.

Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary we uphold the law.

Because there is a cliff one side of the road should we drive off the other side of the road? By no means! Just because we are not justified by means of the law does not mean the law is without its uses. We uphold the law, not for our justification but for its valid purposes.

Paul says “we uphold the law” to counteract anyone who might think the law can be discarded now that Christ has come. Paul is an ANTI – Antinomian. That is, he is against those who are against the law. Or, to say it another way, Paul is supporter of the law. He is a supporter of the law not in that it can save a man, for it cannot, but in that it has its positive purposes.

EXTENDING THE ANALOGY

Let’s now extend our analogy of the double-cliffed highway. There is the cliff of legalism on one side and the cliff of antinomianism on the other. But let us also add that we are traveling by horse and carriage like the oldtimers who first built these mountain roads. And the horse pulling our carriage has a name. It’s name is “Faith.”

Faith leads the way down the path of salvation. It is not you that is pulling cart. It is not your work, your effort that is making the carriage travel up the road. But it is God’s grace through Faith that brings you to your destination.

And to continue the analogy further, the carriage that you are on—like works—follows behind the horse named faith. Good works follow faith. The carriage does not pull itself up the road! The carriage does not guide itself to the destination. Works neither save us (as in legalism) nor are they something to be ignored (as in antinomianism) but they are to follow from faith. And we know that they are good works when they are in accord with the law.

CONCLUSION

While trusting in God for our salvation through Jesus Christ, let us, like Paul, seek to “uphold the law.” Teach your children (and yourself) not to take the Lord’s name in vain. Strive to live each day according to the laws God has given us in his Holy Word. Like the Psalmist, let us delight in the law of the Lord.

If you are using the excuse that God has saved your through faith in Jesus Christ in order for you to then go and do as you want; to go out and sin. Then, stop! The liberty we have in Christ is not license to sin. The liberty we have in Christ is freedom from the punishments of sin. It is freedom FROM sin, not freedom TO sin. To the person that thinks there sin is no big deal they must be reminded of all of the warnings God gives in the Scriptures. You need conviction of sin! Then, only when one is convicted of sin can they truly apprehend the Gospel. For God came to save sinners! And if you refuse to believe you are sinning—with the result that you sin openly thinking it no big deal—then you do not know the Gospel, and you cannot know of the peace of God until you know of the seriousness of sin.

Let us thank God for the faith he has given us to avoid the cliffs of legalism and anti-nomianism. Let us thank Him that He has provided the way. And we pray that he will keep us straight along that path.

 

I grew up in a place that does not exist.

I grew up in a place that does not exist. Not that it was in the Twilight Zone, but rather just a non-descript zone unsure of its identity and location. While our address said Grand Rapids, technically we were in the city of Walker. And our school district—Grandville—somehow crossed over from that neighboring city and swallowed up our elementary school. Nearby, and technically within Walker (which was more of an area than a city one could actually point to) there was the village of Standale, which can be found on only the most detailed of maps. Where was I from? Did I ever even ask this question? Confusion abounds.

This did not lead so much to divided loyalties in my mind, but rather no loyalty all. There was hardly a city in which I felt at home. And I suspect I was not alone in this feeling. While our elementary school existed in our non-existent place, it was the only one in the Grandville school district that was not in Grandville itself. And so traveling—bussing—to junior high brought us into a city as outsiders, and brought us in as generally poorer than those from the other feeder elementary schools. The popularity contest of junior high was stacked against us. We had not played in the same sports leagues growing up as the rest of the kids and so did not have many social contacts. Being outside of Grandville, I believe in all my years before junior high, I had never been to a high school football game, wrestling match, or any other event in “my city.” I didn’t know that one was supposed to do these things.

I doubt, however, that my experience is uncommon. What was unusual about the place—or lack thereof—of your childhood?

Review of The Gospel as Taught by Calvin by R. C. Reed

The Gospel As Taught By Calvin by R. C. Reed, Grand Rapids: Baker, Reprinted 1979, 159 pp.

Contrary to what one might think based on the title, this book is not a analysis of Calvin’s written comments on the Gospel. While the author’s understanding of Calvinism is on display, he almost never actually quotes from Calvin’s writings. Essentially the book has Calvinism contrasted with Pelagianism and especially Arminianism to repeatedly show it to be Biblically superior.

Yet, while the book is a defense of Calvinism, the reader might be surprised to find the following statement by Reed:

“For many years Calvinism and Arminianism were at deadly strife. They could not speak peaceably to one another. Experience has proven conclusively that Christ can live at peace with both. He can use both for his glory and for the saving of men. He has at length ‘broken down the middle wall of partition,’ and abolished the enmity between them. They exchange civilities, stand in each other’s pulpits, and join hands in concerted warfare against the common enemy. This is as it should be, and it is far from our purpose to store the embers of old strife.” (p. 20-21)

Perhaps even more surprising is that this old book (the original date of publication however not noted) has a modern “publisher’s preface” written by Morton Smith in which he says Reed was “fully committed to the historic position of his Presbyterian heritage.” I, however, know of no Presbyterians heritage that advocates exchanging pulpits with Arminians.

Far over and above Reed’s book, on the topic at hand I recommend David Steele’s The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended, and Documented.

Review of Getting the Message by Daniel M. Doriani

Getting the Message, A Plan for Interpreting and Applying the Bible by Daniel M. Doriani, Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1996, 255 pp.

I had recently contacted Dr. Doriani, who teaches at Covenant Seminary, to ask him about what courses on American Presbyterian history he taught there. In our email conversation he mentioned his appreciation for Gordon Clark. This earned him some respect in my mind and so finding his book on hermeneutics I decided it might be a worthwhile read. Reading this book is part of my quest to distinguish Reformed hermeneutics from non-Reformed alternatives. This quest arose because I’ve found that conservative Christian writers of various denominations have virtually complete overlap in their expressed hermeneutical principles. Since the various camps, however, do not reach the same conclusions in theology they must either be starting with different hermeneutical approaches or one or more of them must be misusing their expressed principles.

Doriani provides excellent, insightful example for each of the principles of interpretation that he gives. His approach is based on an acrostic “CAPTOR”—meaning “Context, Analysis, Problems, Themes, Obligations, Reflection.” He emphasizes the benefits to proper interpretation of approaching the text with humility and patience, focusing on the details, and studying the historical and literary context. He presents a number of general interpretive principles focused more on diligent study than certain logical principles (e.g. to interpret the Old Testament through the lends of the new).

So, to my question, does Getting the Message help to distinguish Reformed from non-Reformed hermeneutics? While it is in many ways an excellent book, I can’t say that it is did. Though Christian character (humility, patience, respect for God’s word, etc.) are important to interpretation, it cannot be validly defended that interpretation in one tradition—say Presbyterianism—have an advantage in these virtues over the Baptists, Mennonites, or Moravians. Piety benefits interpretative work, but does not account for the interpretations themselves. In fact, none of the elements of the CAPTOR acrostic themselves account for the differences in theology between the various Christian views. But let this not be a criticism of Doriani though, since it was not his goal in writing Getting the Message to answer this question.

Review of The Story of Philosophy by Will Durant

The Story of Philosophy, The lives and opinions of the greatest philosophers by Will Durant, New York: Time, 1926, 2nd ed. 1962, 497 pp.

It is never a poor use of one’s time to read a history of philosophy. Even for learned philosophers (which I am not) there must value in such an undertaking. There will always be perspectives that one has not previously considered. For my own studies, there were whole philosophers—Schopenhauer and Spencer—who I was entirely ignorant of, and another—Benedetto Croce—whose name I wasn’t even familiar with prior to reading Will Durant’s The Story of Philosophy.

The editor’s preface to the volume is of value in itself. There is a short history there of Durant himself and the story of the surprising success of this volume. Teaching philosophy  to public audiences for $15 a week at the Labor Temple in New York after resigning as a professor at Columbia University, Durant was unable to turn down a check sent to him for $150 offering to turn his lectures into short books. When he followed up writing the longer The Story of Philosophy he warned his publisher not to expect to sell more than 1,100 copies. But, “within four years it had sold more than 500,000 copies and ranked among the greatest bestsellers of the ’20s. The total sale reached nearly four million, probably a record among works of philosophy.” This was the beginning of a public revival of sorts for philosophy.

Naturally, Durant came at his work from a particular viewpoint. Having rejected Catholicism, it seems he was probably an atheist. As for what he positively believed, Gordon Clark wrote of Durant’s likely having been influenced by John Dewey:

“Not everyone agrees in so emphasizing the importance of the theory of knowledge. Will Durant in The Story of Philosophy, expresses his belief that ‘epistemology has kidnapped modern philosophy, and well-nigh ruined it.’ This expression, in conjunction with the subtitle of the book, The Lives and Opinions of the Greater Philosophers, may explain why he devotes fifty-eight pages to Voltaire, who can hardly qualify as a Greater Philosopher, and only eight pages to Hegel. Such a lack of balance is evidence that a refusal to face the question, How do you know? determines the outcome as completely as any positive answer. Duran’t repudiation of epistemology doubtless originates with John Dewey. This voluminous writer has consistently disparage epistemology because, according to Blanchard, a careful study of the problems of knowledge almost inevitably leads to an idealistic or dualistic metaphysics which would be inconsistent with Dewey’s naturalism.” (Gordon H. Clark, A Christian View of Men and Things, p. 285-6)

Durant’s volume naturally then is colored by his perspective. And while a Christian reviewer such as myself might not agree with his perspective, I appreciated the color in which he commented upon the lives of philosophers.

Reading of the Greek philosophers I was struck with the contrast I see between their views and that of Christianity; infanticide vs. life, state education vs. parental education, polygamy vs. monogamy, public ownership vs. private ownership, women as lessers vs. woman as equals,  disdain for manual labor vs. Christian work ethic, etc.

Skipping all the way from Aristotle to the 16th century Francis Bacon, Durant shows his antipathy for Christian thought referring to it merely as a thousand years of darkness.

Next were sections on Francis Bacon and Baruch Spinoza which each greatly expanded my minimal knowledge of these philosophers.  Yet I honestly don’t understand why some consider Spinoza’s contributions to philosophy to be great—he seems like a run-of-the-mill pantheist. Durant then has a section on Voltaire but largely skips over Hegel and Hume. The sections on Durant’s own contemporaries are understandably short because each of their efforts were still underway. It makes me wonder who of today might be included in a story of philosophy written in the future.

Durant is warmly descriptive of his subjects and frequently draws out the humor of their lives and writings. Though the book is tedious in places that is the fault of the subject matter more than the author.