Justin Taylor's Blog, page 114

Stephen Nichols Named New President of Reformation Bible College and Chief Academic Officer for Ligonier

Hearty congratulations to Steve Nichols upon being named the new president of Reformation Bible College and the chief academic officer of Ligonier Ministries.

From the announcement:

Dr. R.C. Sproul and the Board of Directors of Ligonier Academy of Biblical and Theological Studies are pleased to announce the appointment of Dr. Stephen J. Nichols as the second president of Reformation Bible College. This appointment is concurrent with Dr. Nichols accepting the position of chief academic officer for Ligonier Ministries.

Dr. R.C. Sproul, the first president of RBC and soon-to-be chancellor of the institution, expressed his delight on the occasion of this announcement. “Our long-term plan to ensure that Reformation Bible College grows under the direction of godly, qualified leadership enables me to maintain effective oversight of all of the outreach of Ligonier Ministries. Adding Dr. Nichols as president of RBC advances our outreach significantly,” Dr. Sproul said. “In Dr. Nichols, God has provided us with a leader whose passion for the great truths of the Christian faith, the wisdom of the Reformed tradition, and love for education will serve the needs of our students and faculty well in the years ahead.”

You can read the whole announcement here.

Thoughts on Celebrity Pastors, Repentance, Silence, Criticism, and New Calvinism

I always appreciate when Kevin DeYoung weighs in on a subject, because it is invariably thoughtful and careful and biblically grounded. His latest post, 9 Thoughts on Celebrity Pastors, Controversy, the New Calvinism, Etc., is no exception.

I am going to highlight just a few of his nine points, but I encourage you to read the whole thing.

5. When we criticize others for their faults (real or perceived) let us broadcast the news just as widely when they repent of their faults and correct them. The same is even more true when it turns out we were wrong in our information or accusations. Of all people, Christians should not put the bad news in bold face and the good news in a footnote.

6. Discernment is hard work. On the one hand, journalists or bloggers have every right to dig into the facts of some brewing controversy. When the smoke leads you to a fire, let’s not be afraid to sound the alarm. Done in the right spirit, public accountability for public figures is good and right. On the other hand, let’s not fall foul of 1 Corinthians 13 by believing nothing, overlooking nothing, bearing nothing, and hoping for nothing except to find more dirt. How sad it is when a love for the truth becomes a love for exposing thy neighbor.

8. There are many possible reasons for silence in the midst of controversy. Some of them are cowardly. Some are wise. It’s not always easy to know when to speak and when to shut your mouth, especially when the former can get you accused of acting too churchly and the latter can land you in hot water for enabling the problem. Along these lines, it may be worth pointing out that TGC blogs commented on the Elephant Room here, here, here, and here; on plagiarism, ghost writing, and buying your way on to the best sellers list here, here, here, and here. And this is simply what I found after searching for 15 minutes, and excluding articles linked to on Twitter and commentary from other TGC council members (e.g., Piper’s strong denunciations of ghostwriting here and here).

9. Is the New Calvinism dead or dying? In a couple ways yes. In most ways no. “Yes” in so far as we are seeing that some of the networks in the movement probably don’t actually belong in the same movement and some of the popular voices in the movement may not really be singing from the same sheet of music. But a resounding “no” in so far as the commitment to and interest in these twelve features seems to me to be growing rather than receding. Where the New Calvinism is about propping up our puny empires and making pastors rich and famous let it die a thousand deaths and die quickly. Where the New Calvinism leads people to the Bible, points to good books, produces good resources, promotes a winsome evangelical Calvinism, strengthens the local church, exults in Christ, proclaims the gospel, and  magnifies the glory of God, let it grow ten thousand fold. And if it grows and in some quarters becomes potent and popular, let us not have a whiff of triumphalism for its success, nor a hint of rooting for its demise.

You can read the rest here.

What Were the First Historical Documents to Examine Religious Freedom?

Robert Louis Wilken—professor emeritus at the University of Virginia, where he was William R. Kenan Jr. Professor of the History of Christianity, and the author most recently of The First Thousand Years: A Global History of Christianity (Yale University Press, 2012)—answers this question:

Happy Saint Patrick

From Timothy Paul Jones and Church History Made Easy:

There are few people I would rather read or listen to on the life of Patrick than Michael A.G. Haykin. You can listen to his lecture, read his essay, or look at his biographical sketch.

Professor Haykin also has a new book due out soon: Patrick of Ireland: His Life and Impact (Christian Focus, 2014). This is part of a series of short biographies and analyses from the early church. Here are some commendations:

“A fine balance between a biography of an extraordinary servant of Jesus Christ and an explanation of the beliefs that sustained Patrick.”

—Michael Ovey, Principal, Oak Hill Theological College, London

“To read this account is to fill us with thankfulness for the Lord’s work in history and with hopefulness for . . . another era of lost-ness.”

—Edward Donnelly, Principal, Reformed Theological College, Belfast, Northern Ireland

“Judicious . . . knowledgeable . . . insightful . . . Readers will be impressed.”

—D. H. Williams, Professor of Patristics and Historical Theology, Baylor University, Waco, Texas

“Beautifully detailed portrait in miniature . . . all Christians will benefit from learning more about this mighty figure in the great cloud of witnesses.”

—Lewis Ayres, Professor of Historical Theology, Durham University, Durham, England

Darrell Bock on Fox News Talking about the Resurrection of Jesus

Darrell Bock of Dallas Theological Seminary was recently interviewed by Lauren Green on Fox News to talk about some of the issues addressed in his new book, Truth Matters: Confident Faith in a Confusing World (B&H, 2014), co-authored with Andreas J. Köstenberger and Josh Chatraw. This looks like a very helpful resource dealing with a number of objections.

John Piper’s Lecture at Westminster Theological Seminary on New Calvinism and the New Community

I found this talk very helpful, delivered March 12, 2014, at the seventh annual Richard B. Gaffin Jr. Lecture on Theology, Culture and Missions at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. The title of the lecture is “The New Calvinism and the New Community: The Doctrines of Grace and the Meaning of Race.”

Why Christians Need to Stop Citing “All Things Are Lawful” in Cultural Arguments

In his book, What Is the Meaning of Sex? (Crossway, 2013), Denny Burk explains why it is contrary to Paul’s intended meaning for us to cite “all things are lawful” (1 Cor. 6:12) as if it is something he approves. In fact, the context makes clear that this is actually something he is refuting:

Almost every modern translations and a near consensus of commentators treat “all things are lawful” not as Paul’s words but as a slogan that Corinthian men used to justify their visits to prostitutes (cf. 1 Cor. 6:15). The NIV captures the correct interpretation: “‘I have the right to do anything,’ you say—but not everything is beneficial. ‘I have the right to do anything’—but I will not be mastered by anything” (1 Cor. 6:12).

. . . [T]he Corinthians had twisted Paul’s law-free gospel into a justification for bad behavior. Thus the phrase “all things are lawful” is not an expression of Christian freedom from the apostle Paul but rather an expression of antinomianism from fornicators! Paul’s aim in 1 Corinthians 6:12-20 is to correct the Corinthians’ misunderstanding. One of the reasons for the Corinthian error was the fact that they viewed the physical body as inconsequential in God’s moral economy (see 1 Cor. 6:13b). Yet Paul refutes the Corinthians on this point and gives them an ultimate ethical norm with respect to their bodies: “You have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body” (1 Cor. 6:20). . . . Paul’s question is not “Is it lawful?” but “Does it glorify God with my body?”

This is not to say that every evangelical who uses this phrase has the wrong general idea. Christian freedom is a legitimate doctrine, rightly interpreted and applied. But I think it’s fairly clear that this is an example of a legitimate intention from the wrong text.

Three Aspects of Logic

 
structural parts
Act of the mind
Mental product
fundamental question
aspect of reality
good arguments
bad arguments


term
none (it’s a basic unit of meaning)
simple apprehension
concepts
what it is
essences
clear
unclear


proposition
subject term +

predicate term
judging
judgments
whether it is
existence
true
false


argument
premises

+ conclusion
reasoning
arguments

 
why it is
causes
valid
invalid

Adapted from Peter Kreeft, Socratic Logic.

The Erosion of Religious Liberty and the Conscience of American Christianity

Alan Jacobs, writing on the erosion of religious liberty in the US:

It’s possible that in the coming years there will be at least a temporary slowing in the erosion of religious liberty, but I can’t see the long-term trends altering. All Americans, including those who call themselves conservatives, are gradually growing accustomed to the elimination of the “third sector” of civil society and will find it increasingly difficult to understand why either the free markets or the State should be restrained from exerting their powers to their fullest. I expect that quite soon most Christians will cease even to ask for anything more from the State than freedom to worship.

For those of us who believe that civil society should be stronger, not weaker, and especially if our primary concern is for the health of religious institutions as the most important mediating forces in society, this change will pose a wide range of problems. For instance, the removal of tax breaks for religious institutions will surely be complete within a generation, and a range of policies will discourage charitable giving, which will make generosity harder — but not impossible for most of us. That’ll be a way for us to discover what we are made of.

But there may be stronger challenges. I suspect that within my lifetime American Christians, at least those who hold traditional theological and moral views, will be faced with a number of situations in which they will have to choose between compromising their consciences and civil disobedience. In such a situation there are multiple temptations. The most obvious is to silence the voice of conscience in order to get along. But there are also the temptations of responding in anger, in resentment, in bitterness, in vengeance. It might be a good exercise in self-examination for each of us to figure out which temptation is most likely for us.

You can read the whole thing here.

See also Ross Douthat’s thoughtful post pushing back on the notion that American Christians are being persecuted here, but also soberly preparing for the complex realities to come:

The reality — which Catholics, given our longer history, should appreciate even more than Protestants — is that there are all kinds of ways that church and state can tangle, all sorts of establishments and disestablishments, laicités and kulturkampfs and dhimmitudes, that don’t fall into a “Canossa or the catacombs” binary. I don’t know what religious life in the United States will look like in fifty years if current trends (the decline of religious affiliation, the political weaknesses of the churches, the emergence of a kind of liberal anti-clericalism) accelerate, but I do know that beliefs can be pressured without being persecuted; disfavored without being explicitly discriminated against; challenged without being subjugated. And preparing for that complexity, rather than for a perfectly clarifying, “all priests to jail” moment, seems to me to be the task facing believers now.

Natural Law: Basic Principles, Objections, and Responses

A basic summary from Greg Forster’s very helpful book, The Contested Public Square: The Crisis of Christianity and Politics (IVP, 2008):

Basic Principles of Natural-Law Thought

Natural law is an eternal moral law revealed to all people through human nature.
Natural law influences (but cannot save) even fallen and sinful humanity.
Natural law is the proper basis of political authority.
Natural law authorizes society to establish a government.
Governments are themselves subject to the natural law.
Each society’s laws should apply the natural law to that society’s particular circumstances.

Objections to Natural Law and Responses

Objection #1: The natural revelation of moral law is obstructed by our sinfulness.

Response: Natural knowledge of right and wrong is damaged by sin, but not eliminated.

Objection #2: Affirming the authority of natural law compromises the authority of the Bible.

Response: The Bible itself teaches the authority of the natural law.

Objection #3: Natural law is a law made by human nature rather than by God.

Response: Natural law is a law made by God and revealed through human nature.

To explore the concept of natural law in a bit more depth, here’s a helpful conversation Douglas Wilson had with J. Budziszewski (pronounced BOOjee SHEFski), author of Written on the Heart: The Case for Natural Law (InterVarsity, 1997), What We Can’t Not Know: A Guide (Spence, 2003), Natural Law for Lawyers (Blackstone Fellowship, 2006), The Line Through the Heart: Natural Law as Fact, Theory, and Sign of Contradiction (Intercollegiate Studies Institute Press, 2009).