Category — Doctrine

Fantastic post from Peter Leithart.

God says, “I forgive you,” but I’m not sure he really means it, so I have to find some ground of certainty more certain than the promises of God. That is unbelief.

Answers in Genesis is offering free shipping at their online store through September 30th. Shipping has always been something to keep me from ordering from there, so this is a good opportunity if you want some creationist books. Use coupon code SENDFREE

If I were ordering, I’d be interested in these titles:

Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils
The Chronology of the Old Testament
Vestigial Organs are Fully Functional
The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods
Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study

And a dvd, Astronomy and the Bible

p.s. no, this is not a hint for gift ideas to loved ones

Several weeks back I posted about that that deny even the possibility of an interpretation of observations that conforms with a ~6000 year old universe. In the comments I said that it was arrogant and unscientific to hold such a position (which, I want to add for clarity’s sake, is not the same as saying it is unscientific to believe in an old universe).

Since then, there was a discussion with some folks at church on the issue. I argued that we should interpret our observations of the natural world in light of what is revealed in Scripture. No exegetical arguments have convinced me that the creation days are not ordinary, 24 hour days that we observe today. I am open to being wrong, but it would have to be an exegetical argument to convince me. Most arguments for other interpretations begin with an old age, and then come to the text figuring out how (or if) it can be read to fit with that.

One friend brought up geocentricism, arguing that some texts (he mentioned Psalm 19) shape the interpretation of the our observation of the Sun incorrectly. According to this text, the Sun moves around the earth. Thus, we do shape our interpretation of some texts by our observations.

But, there are several problems with this. First, the text does not require a geocentric reading anymore than our every day use of ‘sunrise’ and ‘sunset’ do. We know the Sun doesn’t move around earth, and yet we still talk about it moving. It seems like special pleading (from the opposing side) to handle the text this way, saying it teaches a geocentric cosmology. Second, geocentricism is not based on Scripture. The Medieval Church did not hold to a geocentric galaxy because of Scripture… it was because Aristotle did. It was the popular scientific cosmological understanding of the time.

My friend concluded that if, at some point in the future, it was determined that the earth was, in fact, billions of years old, his faith would not be damaged. I replied that such a determination is impossible (barring the possibility of time travel, which another friend suggested), but if it weren’t, and what he said happened, then it would damage the trustworthiness of Scripture. He seemed to be shocked by this. But if the topic were the resurrection, I don’t think any Christian would be troubled. If it were proven that Jesus did not in fact rise up again after three days… where would we be left? We couldn’t trust what the Bible says without seriously twisting it.

Which leads to my conclusion. Being a YEC [1], I do interpret our observations of the natural world in light of Scripture, which I believe to teach a young universe. Opponents may argue that what I’m actually doing is twisting the evidence. It’s pejorative, but I can accept it so long as it is acknowledged that the only possibilities are to twist our interpretation of evidence, or twist our interpretation of the text of Scripture.

Which will it be?

[1]I accept the Young Earth Creationist category for simplicity’s sake. When it comes down to it, I deny the earth is young… it is at least six thousand years old!

If you must have a list, then here are two that are a good start…

How to be spiritual according to the Bible and 5 Things You are Not Allowed to Do on a Holy Day of Worship

David Field gives insight and good advice into assessing a man’s qualification for office in the Church:

Since there is a clear relationship between a man’s ‘pastoral care’ of his family and his fitness to hold pastoral responsibility in the Church, what happens to the young children when they are under their father’s care is a very, very, very simple test to apply.

HT: The Presbyteer

I’ve been meaning for some time to post something on The Federal Vision, where I stand and how I see some issues involved with it. Steve Wilkins recently published online a letter (pdf) he wrote for his presbytery regarding the 9 Declarations of the PCA study committee report, and I find it as good a time as any to use that as a platform to share some of my thoughts. Just for background information, I do consider myself in the FV camp, if there is such a camp, but there are still things being said that I wouldn’t sign off on. I give those guys the benefit of the doubt, and even the places I disagree I don’t see them as being unconfessional. I just don’t see the benefit in the position they’re arguing.

I was discussing Wilkins letter on a message board I frequent, and some my points of disagreement or misunderstanding of Federal Vision stuff comes out. It has to do with the “covenantal” vs. “decretal” usages of various terms (elect, regeneration, justified, sanctified, etc.). Wilkins talks about this in his letter under discussion of several Declaration numbers… 2, 6, and 8 .

Here’s what I have to say about that:
>
At the end of the day, though, I still feel that the “covenantal” versus “decretal” system that Wilkins is arguing for is confusing. I would opt for the second of the alternatives that Wilkins offering, and only add that I don’t like the “judgment of charity” language, because it suggests (at least to me, it does) ignorance and ‘just being nice’. While I believe we can’t know for certain whether an individual is decretally elect or not, it isn’t pure guess work. We have reasons to believe people are elect (and vice versa), and we should use them. I don’t think it’s just to be nice that we regard fellow covenant members as elect, sanctified, justified, etc. My position is that we should actually believe it, just like we do of our spouses, for example. We don’t have absolute certain knowledge, but we trust and believe it to be true… it isn’t that we’re ignorant and just giving them the benefit of the doubt. Rather, we don’t doubt… we believe.

However, I will take this opportunity to say that I do agree with Wilkins that he isn’t contradicting the standards in what he’s doing. I don’t see the benefit in pushing for what he’s pushing for, but from within his paradigm, I don’t see how he’s denying anything in the confession.
>

I also wonder what exactly Wilkins is referring to when he talks about the blessings experienced by Non-Elect Covenant Members (NECMs). Several times in his letter he makes reference to such blessings, either saying NECMs experience some blessings, or they do not receive all the blessings. I wonder what blessings they receive, and what blessings they don’t receive.
The same question applies to Peter Leithart, in the letter he wrote last month to his presbytery. He wrote, “Baptism expresses God’s eternal sovereign choice of an individual to be a member of the people of God; and those who are members of the church stand righteous before God, are holy, and are sons because they are members of the body inseparably joined to the Son of God, who is the righteous and holy Son; these benefits of baptism, however, belong finally only to the baptized who respond to God’s grace in faith; there are some who are made sons by baptism who fall away.”

When I first read that, I thought it was rather contradictory, saying that baptism inseparably joins one to the Son of God, but that the benefits of baptism only ‘finally’ apply to those who do not fall away. How can one fall away if he is inseparably joined? Reading it again, though, I think “inseparably joined” refers to the church (the body), and so isn’t what I thought it was. But I still would like more explanation on what that means, and also further development on the idea that a NECM stands righteous and holy before God (at least temporarily), and, if since the benefits of baptism “finally” belong to those who respond to God’s grace in faith, in what sense do they belong to the NECM, who does not respond in faith?

So there you go.

Kirsten Sanford, host of a radio show, This Week in Science, wants to start a Unicorn Museum.

It’s an attempt to mock Answers Genesis’ Creation Museum, but she is sure to state that she’s not anti-religion. “There may have been some act of creation by some greater being at some point in history”, she says. She just doesn’t think she has any way of knowing that. But any young earth creationist… you’re ignorant and blind to the world around you. In other words, you can be religious if you want… but if you are, you’re a stupid twit. And you belong in the Dark Ages, where everyone was a stupid twit.

So here’s my question, Kirsten… and I’ll ask here because when I emailed a question to her (that similarly challenged her interpretation of evidence), I got nothing. Is there no possible explanation for the observations we make that would be consistent with a ~6000 year old Earth? Be scientific about it, now… no possible explanation at all?

In reality, I think Kristen is all for religion… as long as it’s her religion. But everyone else’s, especially anyone with the audacity to believe that ancient book the Bible, is an idiot and their religion is ignorant.

Many FV proponents argue, correctly, I believe, that they are only saying what has been said before, time and again by the Reformers themselves, and others throughout the history of Reformed Theology. Steve Wilkins, at the 2003 AAPC, gave a whirlwind of quotes at one point that stands out in my mind as one of the strongest proofs for this FV position. Mark Horne more recently demonstrated that Calvin spoke in a way that, I’m confident, many FV opponents would not be comfortable speaking (to put it lightly).

Many FV proponents also argue that we should not feel constrained by 17th century language and formulations (and I assume they would feel the same about the 16th century). We should speak to the needs of our day, to our people, in ways that are relevant in our time. I also agree with them on this point.

However, I wonder if FV guys are failing to apply the second point to the first? All the controversy surrounding this FV stuff certainly applies as the needs of our day, doesn’t it? Why do FV guys argue so strongly for using language that rubs against the Reformed culture as it has changed over the past 400 years or so? Would it be so difficult to use the language common and accepted by most in our day to work out these doctrines? Is it impossible to do so, or is it that there’s a little flame inside of us that likes the rebellion, and likes the fight, especially when we honestly can defend ourselves with accepted, even honored, historical positions? We are Machen’s Warrior Children, afterall, right?

Maybe we FV folks should take our own advice and take a step towards those that are throwing accusations against us? Speak to them with language that they understand?

Brad Peppo initiates a discussion on the place of children in the church.

Raekwon illuminates…

The result has been an entire breed of “soft men” — men who take no risks in life, who take no responsibility for their own actions, who run from marriage and fatherhood, and who spend time defending nothing but their own foolish self-interests.

Report of Ad Interim Study Committee on Federal Vision, New Perspective, and Auburn Avenue Theologies

Ron shares some helpful thoughts on dating.