A Response to Those Who Deny the Historicity of Adam

It’s clear that the Biblical writers not only held, but also purposefully wrote into the Scriptures, a non-negotiable belief in a literal individual named Adam who was the head of the human race (federally and physically). Any attempt to deny this is a direct assault on the Gospel, which includes the belief that all mankind is under a curse resulting from the disobedience of that literal individual named Adam. It is also an insult to the Holy Spirit, Who inspired the words of the apostles and prophets. Did He lead them to write things untrue? Non-factual? Errant? God forbid we should even entertain such a thought.

I’m sure I don’t believe EVERYTHING that Luke and Paul believed (in fact it’s not even possible that they believed exactly the same things). But when it comes to the matters about which the Holy Spirit of God (an inerrant witness!) led them to write, I can only bow my intellect before HIS perfect and pure wisdom. There they certainly agreed, and there I must agree. The sophistry of Peter Enns and his many disciples is a path leading directly away from the cross. I would urge any of those walking on it to repent and turn back to the God who breathed out His infallible Words through fallible men. Just as Jesus was fully God and fully man yet sinless, Scripture itself is fully divine and fully human yet inerrant. To deny this is blasphemy.

Any gospel divorced from historical accuracy is not the Biblical Gospel. The idea that one can “believe” in Scripture without believing in the historical reliability of Scripture is a postmodern fantasy that will drift away like paper and fire when the next big philosophical shift hits Western society (will it be post-postmodernism or neo-postmodernism? Or a move back to some form of modernism?). Either way, whoever has bought a ticket on the train of humanity’s best philosophy is going to get a bumpy ride when REALITY comes to light. Because REALITY comports with the Word of God. All men are like grass . . . but the Word of the Lord endures forever.

Therefore, let us reject modernism and postmodernism and whatever comes next, along with all human philosophy. Why? Because God has graciously told us that the very first and very best mere-human-being He made fell into sin – mind, body and soul. We are the sad progeny of that individual, following pitiably in his accursed footsteps (and thought patterns). This is why we are called to trust the testimony of God in all respects and to test everything by it. Ironically, the denial of Adam’s existence is just a furtherance of the disaster he started.

HT: to Jeff at ScriptureZealot.com for inspiring this polemic.

Cornelius Van Til - "Why I Believe In God"

If you would like to know more about Dr. Cornelius Van Til, the father of presuppositional apologetics, you may find the following video useful. It contains the narration of a long letter written by Van Til to defend his belief in God, and more specifically the Christian faith. This is extremely thought provoking and insightful material, and even includes some interesting autobiographical information regarding Van Til's upbringing in Holland (you'll love his jokes about wooden shoes).

Here is a great example of Van Til's presuppositional method:
  

"... I propose to argue that unless God is back of everything you cannot find meaning in anything. I cannot even argue for belief in Him without already having taken Him for granted. And, similarly, I contend that you cannot argue against belief in Him unless you also first take Him for granted. Arguing about God's existence, I hold, is like arguing about air. You may affirm that air exists, and I that it does not, but as we debate the point we are both breathing air all the time." 
- 2:43 on the video


I especially liked his critique of the presupposition behind rationalistic atheism:

"You have made the reach of your intellect the standard of what is possible or not possible. You have thereby virtually determined that you intend never to meet a fact that points to God. Facts, to be facts at all - facts, that is, with decent scientific and philosophic standing - must have your stamp instead of that of God upon them as their virtual creator."
- 44:30 on the video

Cornelius Van Til - "Why I Believe in God"



There is much more on Van Til here: www.VanTil.info

Calvinists Aflame for God

Some say Calvinism tends toward a cold, cerebral piety that is devoid of compassion. They claim Reformed theological convictions produce ineffective or just downright annoying Christians. In some cases this has undeniably been true. You can probably think of examples. 

Great. Point conceded.
 
On the other hand, many of the most zealous servants of Christ have been Calvinists. Some of the most pioneering, devoted, self-sacrificing missionaries in the history of the Church have been Calvinists. Many of the martyrs who have testified passionately and died for Christ's cause have been Calvinists. Many of the greatest devotional works - the ones that point to the glories of Christ and call us to love-inspired labors - were written by Calvinists. Newton, Bunyan, Spurgeon, Baxter, Whitefield and Watson come to mind.
 

How is it that some Calvinists have demonstrated such intense devotion, while others have gone flat? It's a good question, and an important one. Below are a few thoughts about how we Calvinists can stay aflame for God, speaking Truth in love and maintaining the simplicity of devotion to Christ, even as we wrestle Calvin-style with the hard doctrines of Scripture and refuse to back away from any of their philosophical implications.

• Never think about the doctrine of Total Depravity without considering your own sins. Especially your recent sins. Let the desperate plight of fallen humanity inspire a fresh compassion for the lost people around you.
• Never think about the doctrine of Unconditional Election without reminding yourself that nothing in you influenced God's choice. That's what unconditional means. Know that it was purely of His mercy that He took pity on you and saved you.
• Never think about Christ's atoning work without thanking Him for what He has done for you at the cross, and in the resurrection, and the way He applies that work to your life now. Be affected by how much you need the cross on a daily and moment-by-moment basis.
• Never think about the doctrine of the Effectual Call without marveling that God miraculously changed your stony heart. 
• Never think about the doctrines of the Perseverance and Preservation of the Saints without recognizing that all your godly fruit is an effect of Christ's unmerited mercy toward you. Remember that a lack of godly fruit is a sign of trouble that must move you to re-examine your heart. Don't use the doctrine of election to exempt yourself from this.
• Never think about the sovereignty of God without surrendering yourself afresh to His glorious rule.
• Never let logical deductions about the secret will of God lessen your adherence to His revealed will in the Scriptures. Don't get carried away by speculations.
• Read plenty of Reformed books and blogs if you like, but devote yourself to the study and application of Scripture. Read the whole Bible and spend more effort applying it than thinking philosophically about it.
• Share the Gospel regularly and stay involved in missions. Prove that you believe in the free offer of the Gospel.
• Worship God alone. Don't let theology become your idol.
• When you speak, boast in the goodness of God rather than just spouting theological facts you have learned.
• Repent thoroughly, earnestly and often. Confess your sins to God daily, and rejoice in His outpoured grace daily. Repent to other people when you sin against them (it's wonderfully humbling).
• Stay close to your Lord, and tremble if you gain a head full of knowledge without corresponding affections for Him.

Where in the World is Paul Manata?

Paul Manata's "Aporetic Christianity" blog mysteriously disappeared awhile back, and I wasn't able to find him for a few months. But now, at last, I've tracked him down! He has been posting HERE since April.

I'm thankful for the work of Reformed philosophers like James Anderson and Paul Manata. Any Christian who is interested in logic and philosophy will find the work of these men to be an invaluable resource.


The video below is an old debate between Manata and atheist Dan Barker. It's both informative and fun to listen to.

Bavinck on the Limits of Theology and Philosophy

The will of God is, and from the nature of the case must be, the deepest cause of the entire world and of all the varietas and diversitas found in it. There is no more ultimate ground for this than the absconditum Dei consilium (the hidden counsel of God). The unfathomable mystery of the world compels the intellect and the heart, theology and philosophy alike to fall back upon the will of God and seek rest in it.


It frequently happens, however, that theology and philosophy are not contented with this. They then endeavor, after the manner of Plato and Hegel, to offer a rational explanation of the world. Or, while falling back upon the will of God, they make out of this will a Βυθός άγνωστος (deep unknown), as is done by Gnosticism, or a blind, irrational and unhappy will, as is done by Schopenhauer, or an unconscious and unknowable power, as is done by von Hartmann and Spencer. By his Christian faith Calvin was kept from these different forms of pantheism. It is true, Calvin upholds with the utmost energy the sovereignty of the divine will over and against all human reasoning. Predestination belongs to the divinae sapientiae adyta (shrine of the divine wisdom) which man may not enter and in regard to which his curiosity must remain unsatisfied; for they form a labyrinth from which no one can find the exit. Man may not even investigate with impunity the things God meant to keep secret. God wants us to adore, not to comprehend, the majesty of His wisdom.

Excerpted from Herman Bavinck's article, "Calvin and Common Grace"
Source: The Princeton Theological Review, Vol. 7, No. 3 (1909), p. 450, the parenthetical translations of Latin and Greek terms are mine.

Modernism, Postmodernism, and a Biblical Worldview

Note: I haven't posted in a while, I guess I needed a blogging break and took one without even trying to. I've been working and re-working a post called, "Your Doctrine of the Atonement is Too Small - Part 2", and just about baffled myself beyond any recovery with that topic! But that post should be up before long. In the meantime, there's this . . .

Some in the Christian community today are overtly embracing "postmodernism." That term is a bit difficult to define, and it apparently means different things to different people (which is almost in itself a definition of the word, ironically. How do you define the idea that there is no such thing as a meaningful definition? If the idea is valid, there may be no point in defining it). Rather than attacking postmodernism itself, I would like to point out an erroneous assumption which leads some Christians to embrace it. 


Many who embrace and defend postmodernism point a condemning finger toward those who criticize it, accusing them of being stuck in the old paradigm of "modernism" and a "foundationalist" worldview. It's as if those are the only choices available. In this way, some postmodernists prove they are just as prone to thinking in terms of a false dichotomy as the next philosopher is. They seem to think it is impossible to have an objective, Biblical worldview that is free (or at least in the process of being freed) from the inescapable errors which arise from contextualization within a social movement. The whole idea presupposes that God is incapable of communicating objective Truth to us, separating our thinking from cultural trappings, and enabling us to see and know an exclusive, unquestionable reality.


The Apostle Paul warned the Colossians to beware man-made philosophy, and embrace God's Truth instead. Let the philosophers fight over abstractions and absurdities. Biblical Christians will hold to THE WORD OF GOD, which points us to the WORD MADE FLESH. Bible believers aren't into modernism, and we certainly aren't into postmodernism, any more than we are into Post-enlightenment Rationalism or Renaissance Idealism, or Neo-Platonism, or Aristotelianism, or any other "-ism" that describes a temporary period of humanity's ongoing descent into the mind-darkening depths of sin. We believe what the Bible says: that man is totally, pervasively depraved, and so his only hope lies in the reliable light of an objective, clear, life-giving revelation from God.


Jesus Christ repeatedly declared, "I tell you the truth," and then He said to His disciples, "You shall KNOW THE TRUTH, and then He said, "I AM the Truth." The underlying assumption of postmodernism is at least as old as Pilate, who looked at the Truth and asked Him, "What is Truth?" He left the decision in the hands of others, washing his own hands in pretended innocence - but he had stared Truth in the face - rejected Truth - and will not escape responsibility for that. Though fallen man suppresses the Truth in unrighteousness, he is without excuse.


Jesus Christ transcends culture. He transcends philosophy. He transcends humanity. But He does not transcend Truth. He IS Truth. Nay, much more, He is THE Truth. "The" is a crucial article of grammar which overthrows any possibility of Christian postmodernism and establishes  the basis for an objectively knowable, definable Biblical worldview. Modernism is not more Biblically accurate than postmodernism. Both fall short of the glory of God. Both represent a departure from divine revelation, though perhaps postmodernism is a step further. It is sad to see fellow believers dredging the deep muck of misguided human speculations when the Word of God rises before us, full of grace and Truth.  Hopefully they will be like Peter, who momentarily denied the Truth but repented quickly. Hopefully they are not like Judas, who wore the name of Christ but sold Truth for something more appealing.

Proverbs 23:23 Buy truth, and do not sell it; buy wisdom, instruction, and understanding.

Christianity is so ... Aporetic

Paul Manata has been posting some wonderful articles at a new blog called Aporetic Christianity. With a philosophical flourish, he lays out the basic values that drive THEOparadox: God's infinite greatness, man's fallenness and finitude - and the pure, holy bafflement which sometimes results when they meet. If I can find a picture of him somewhere, Manata will surely be wearing one of our famous t-shirts soon.

Check out his article about the meaning of "Aporetic" and you will quickly see why.

Needs & Neediness - Part 1

Editor's Note: I suppose the recent post on "Hogwash, Bad Hermeneutics and Psychology" was provocative. This article will go a little further in explaining exactly what might be wrong with an "emotional needs" approach to marriage, relationships, and life in general. This is a more or less formal response to a good question asked by Barry Wallace in response to the earlier post.

Affirming Neediness

Neediness, in-and-of-itself, is not a bad thing. God made us needy. He made us to need, more than anything else, HIMSELF. This was true even for Adam before the fall, when he enjoyed the blessedly pure life of innocence. God had made him naturally dependent on God, and the entrance of sin only proved that dependence. This has caused all sorts of problems for us, because when we reject God we start stuffing all sorts of other things into the big empty void of neediness that was designed for Him to occupy. He made that spot for Himself, but we've filled it with everything good and bad that isn't God. It's called idolatry, spiritual adultery, and (more generally) sin. Grace found in repentance is the wonderful path back out of this accursed situation, and grace is especially reserved for the needy. It is offered to the poor in spirit, those who break under the weight of sin, and those who come to God in abject defeat and total surrender. It's for the lowly and it's for the broken-hearted and it's for the needy. This kind of neediness is explicitly called "blessed." (Matthew 5:3-6). Interestingly, the words "hunger and thirst for righteousness" in Matthew 5:6 are an expression of want-and-need in perfect harmony. We're blessed when we finally begin to want what we need.

So, neediness is not a bad thing. In fact, it's a very good thing. God made us needy so that we would be continually drawn to Him. This is effectively illustrated by the way our children are born in utter helplessness. What a magnificent bond is formed as a baby learns to receive EVERYTHING from its parents. It's part of the reason why we must be born again, and why we are instructed to become like little children.

Defining Neediness

The idea of "need" is built on two related concepts: dependency and purpose. In other words, for anything to be a "need," it has to be something on which the needy one depends, and it has to have some legitimate purpose tied to it. Neediness implies a relationship of dependence and a purpose to be fulfilled. The legitimacy of the need is determined by the legitimacy of the purpose and by a clearly defined relationship of dependence.

Some things are needs by definition, but are not tied to a legitimate purpose. For example, I need alcoholic beverages in order to get intoxicated - but that doesn't make alcohol one of my legitimate needs. I would have to need to get drunk for that to be the case. Often a need is merely assumed, but the legitimizing factor (an established relationship of exclusive dependence) is missing. For example, I think I need my job in order to make ends meet, but in actuality it's money that I need (and if we take it a step further, it's not even money I need, but the food and shelter and other things I buy with the money). I think I need a car in order to get to work, but that's not true - I only need a means of transportation (it could be a bus, a bicycle, or even my two feet). Let's consider a few more examples of apparent needs for the sake of discussion . . .

• My wife needs food and water in order to live.
• My guitar needs strings in order to make resonant music.
• My car needs oil in order to operate properly.
• My friends need my encouragement in order to fight sin.
• My cell phone needs a battery charger in order to operate continuously over time.
• My driveway needs to be swept in order to look nice.
• My mind needs a steady dose of Scripture in order to maintain Biblical thinking.

To qualify as a genuine need, the subjective purpose has to be truly dependent on the object.

• My wife can't live without food and water (at least not for very long).
• My guitar can't make resonant music without strings (at least not in any way I can conceive. It does make a fairly good sounding drum, though).
• My car can't operate properly without oil (although someone may be able to suggest an alternative to oil that works just as well).
• My friends can't fight sin without encouragement (but they can get this encouragement from many different places, not just from me).
• My cell phone can't operate continuously over time without a battery charger (and a battery, and a reliable source of energy, and a person to plug it in - needy little device, eh?).
• My driveway can't look nice (in my opinion) without being swept (although there might be an alternative option - what about spraying it down with water?).
• My mind can't maintain Biblical thinking without a steady dose of Scripture (although the dose can come from many different sources: reading, listening to the Bible, sermons, reciting from memory, a friend's encouragement, emails, even blogs).

As you can see from this list, defining actual needs can be tricky and complicated. Often, we imagine needs where they don't exist, and it requires a logical process of deduction to drill down to the actual dependence and purpose involved. Who ultimately determines whether my driveway needs to be swept? Who decides that it looks nicer that way? What are the consequences of not sweeping a driveway? It isn't going to crumble to pieces because there are a few leaves on it. Ultimately, I determine the driveway needs to be swept because I want it swept. This one is purely a matter of compulsion driven by opinion (that's another way of saying desire), and there's no real need here at all. Maybe I just "need" to be less picky about the appearance of my property.

On the other hand, my wife's need for food and water is undeniable. She can't live without these basic essentials. Our central and most defining need is equally clear and unquestionable: GOD.

Man's need for God is radical. We depend on Him for our very existence. We depend on Him for everything related to our existence. Apart from Him we can neither exist nor exist well. And it's not actually what God provides that we need the most - it's God Himself. This truth is foundational.

Acts 17:28 for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, 'For we also are His children.'

In part 2, we will examine the differences between needs and desires, explore the way purposeful dependence relates to our emotions, and we will attempt to further define God's appointed means for the meeting of our various legitimate needs.

The Servant Who Suffered to Save Sinners - Introduction

It's always interesting to speak abstractly and philosophically about Calvinism and theology. That's something I've done extensively of late. But I sense a need to get my focus back on the simple truth of the Gospel through a study of the Word in a more devotional/exegetical manner.

Even the best theological systems and philosophies cannot feed the soul. For that purpose, God has given us His Living Word and His Precious Spirit. This is why some of God's dear children can be theologically off the mark, but are still full of the life and love of God. Strange as it may seem, some who are steeped in egregious philosophical errors that are obviously unbiblical have nonetheless fed on the Word and received abundant grace from it. They walk in the Spirit, and love God with all their hearts. His Word is powerful and often works secretly within us, even when we miss the point (philosophically speaking). This is also why some of those who seem to be most theologically right can be dry wells, with little love or joy to offer. They've abandoned their pure devotion to the Word and run after every obscure question for which their heart craves an answer. It's the idolatry of philosophy, which can even exist in theologically grounded philosophy. It's easy to treat the Bible like an encyclopedia for reference and information gathering. Yet God gave His Word to us as an endless fountain of water, and daily bread to our souls - rich, refreshing, nutritious, and life-sustaining. It's not that deeper theological pondering is bad (it's not), but it has to be kept in balance. We don't want to have our "head in the clouds" (at least not all the time).

With that in mind, this post begins a new series called "The Servant Who Suffered to Save Sinners." Several years ago (at a time when, by God's grace, I began to grieve over a perceived hardening of my heart), I sensed a stirring from the Lord to pursue a study of Christ's work on the cross. It was as if He said, "Look to the cross, for in seeing My brokenness you will be broken again." For weeks thereafter, I meditated upon the words of Isaiah 53. The fruit of those meditations continues to feed Gospel truth to my soul to this day. Now, dear friend, I pray that these studies will feed your soul as we look to the cross together.

Isaiah 53 is a remarkable passage of Scripture for many reasons. Here are a few of them.

1. It was written more than 700 years prior to the birth of Christ, and yet it predicts His sufferings with undeniable accuracy.

2. It serves as a key link between the Old and New Testaments, being one of the clearest Old Testament passages which unambiguously states doctrines related to the Gospel. Thus, it demonstrates the unity of the Bible's message.

3. It sets forth divine sovereignty and human responsibility; describes key facets of the incarnation; affirms the total depravity and universal guilt of mankind; offers some explanation of human suffering; shows the humility, obedience and sinless innocence of Christ; reveals Christ's ministry as a sin-bearing sacrifice; implies substitutionary atonement; promises lost sinners a way of reconciliation with God; predicts Christ's suffering, death, burial, resurrection and glorification; and it unveils the justification of sinners through faith in God's Own righteousness.

We'll explore these things more deeply as we examine the text theme by theme, concept by concept, line by line, phrase by phrase, and word by word. Join me as we fix our gaze lovingly on the Lord Jesus Christ . . .

THE SERVANT WHO SUFFERED TO SAVE SINNERS