Who Hardens Whom?

There is a major debate over whether or not Pharaoh hardened himself or whether God hardened him. I think if you just read the Bible plainly it seems pretty obvious,

Exodus 3:19-20, "But I know that the king of Egypt will not permit you to go, except under compulsion. So I will stretch out my hand and strike Egypt with all of my miracles which I shall do in the midst of it; and after that he will let you go."

4:21, "The Lord said to Moses, 'When you go back to Egypt see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders which I have put in your power; but I will harden his heart so that he will not let you go."

6:1, "Then the Lord said to Moses, 'Now you shall see what I will do to Pharaoh; for under compulsion he will let them go, and under compulsion he will drive them out his land.'"

7:3-5, "But I will harden Pharaoh's heart that I may multiply My signs and My wonders in the land of Egypt. When Pharaoh does not listen to you, then I will lay My hand on Egypt and bring out My hosts, My people the sons Israel, from the land of Egypt by great judgments. The Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord, when I stretch out My hand on Egypt and bring out the sons of Israel from their midst."

7: 13, "Yet Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he did not listen to them, as the Lord had said."

7:22, "[A]nd Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he did not listen to them, as the Lord had said."

8:15, "But when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart and did not listen to them, as the Lord had said."

8:19, "But Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he did not listen to them, as the Lord had said."

8:32, "But Pharaoh hardened his heart this time also, and he did not let the people go."

9:7, "Pharaoh sent, and behold, there was not even one of the livestock of Israel dead. But the heart of Pharaoh was hardened, and he did not let the people go."

9:12, "And the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he did not listen to them, just as the Lord had spoken to Moses."

9:16, "But, indeed, for this reason I have allowed you to remain, in order to show you my power and in order to proclaim My name through all the earth."

9:34 - 10:1, "But when Pharaoh saw that the rain and the hail and the thunder had ceased, he sinned again and hardened his heart, he and his servants. Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he did not let the sons of Israel go, just as the Lord had spoken through Moses. Then the Lord said to Moses, "Go to Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart and the heart of his servants, that I may perform these signs of mine among them."

10:20, "But the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he did not let the sons of Israel go."

10:27, "But the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he was not willing to let them go."

11:9-10, "Then the Lord said to Moses, 'Pharaoh will not listen to you, so that My wonders will be multiplied in the land of Egypt.' Moses and Aaron performed all these wonders before Pharaoh; yet the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he did not let the son's of Israel go out of his land."

14:4-5, "Thus I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and he will chase after them; and I will be honored through Pharaoh and all his army, and the Egyptians will know that I am the Lord.' And they did so. When the king of Egypt was told that the people had fled, Pharaoh and his servants had a change of heart toward the people, and they said, 'What is this we have done, that we have let Israel go from serving us?'"

14:8, "The Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and he chased after the sons of Israel as the sons of Israel were going out boldly."

14:17-18, "But as for Me, behold, I will harden the hearts of the Egyptians so that they will go in after them; and I will be honored through Pharaoh and all his army, through his chariots and his horsemen. The the Egyptians will know that I am the Lord, when I am honored through Pharaoh, through his chariots and his horsemen."

From the get-go, from 3:19, 4:21, 6:1, and 7:3-5, God made it plain that He was the one doing the hardening and that He would be the one making Pharaoh do stuff under compulsion. There really is no way around it, every phrase that says that Pharaoh "hardened his heart," is governed by the opening of the book. God told Moses he would harden Pharaoh's heart and that Pharaoh would let them leave only under compulsion before Moses ever left Midian.

Indeed, 9:34 - 10:1 is of greatest importance in understanding this. Who hardened whom? While it says that Pharaoh and his servants hardened their own hearts, it promptly responds, "Just as the Lord had spoken through Moses!" When did the Lord speak through Moses? Oh that's right, back in 3:19, 4:21, 6:1, and 7:3-5. Not only this but then the Lord claims responsibility for the same hardening that Moses attributes to Pharaoh only a verse earlier! For what purpose? "That I may perform My signs among them."

From first to last, the sovereign hand of God is wielded for one purpose and one purpose only, the glory of God. God hardened Pharaoh so that the nation of Israel and the nation of Egypt would not be in doubt as to who God was and is and so that those respective nations would throw themselves prostrate before Him in awe and worship.

Thus, the sovereignty of God in hardening Pharaoh's heart is eminently practical because it brings to a deep heart knowledge of God's greatness and His majesty and our smallness and depravity. It shows how little we can control anything and how little and weak and non-existent our so-called "will" is.

According to Exodus, this should lead to only one thing: Worship and adoration of the Almighty.

Indeed when all was said and done, Moses could only say in Exodus 15:11-13, "Who is like you among the gods, O Lord? Who is like You, majestic in holiness, awesome in praises, working wonders? You stretched out your right hand, the earth swallowed them. In your lovingkindness you have led the people whom you have redeemed; in your strength you have guided them to your holy habitation."

Therefore, the purpose of the sovereign working of God in both believers and unbelievers, in working salvation and in damning to hell, in hardening and in softening hearts to believe and to work, in keeping all of Israel's livestock and in killing all of Egypt's livestock, in killing all the Egyptian firstborn and keeping all the Israelite firstborn, in leading Israel through the Red Sea safely and in destroying Pharaoh and his army completely in the Red Sea, indeed, in controlling both good and evil causes, is to the magnification of His majesty and the glorification of His greatness.

If our response be anything but worship it is a wrong response. The sovereignty of God in the power to harden and soften hearts is a terrifyingly majestic truth and it demands that we bow low to the King of the universe.

Would you do this? May I plead with you to bow to the almighty, soverign, ordaining, hardening, softening, merciful, wrathful, loving, prescient, ominpotent God of the universe rather than rebelling and saying such an untruth as, "God permitted Pharaoh to harden his heart." This is unbiblical and, dare I say, contrary to the whole point of Exodus 1-15.

God hardened Pharaoh so that you and I would worship. So let me plead with you, please worship this all-controlling and wonderful God!

Soli Deo Gloria

R.D. Thompson

Have We Come Full Circle?

There was once a day, a couple thousand years ago, when pragmatic relativism reigned. In the Roman Empire in the early days of Christianity it could have been said, though it may not have been coined quite the same way, "What's good for me is good for me and what's good for you is good for you."

Let us examine a brief testimony to this. In the early years of what would eventually become known as Christianity, many gods were worshiped by the Romans and many religions were allowed in the empire. There was indeed a god for everything. What is interesting is that you could have believed in any of these gods and worshiped in any form you desired and in fact held to any strange religion so long as you kept the peace, sacrificed to the local deities, and paid due respect the deity of the emperor. So long as you kept social peace and bothered no one you were an accepted part of society. You could have worshiped any god you pleased and practiced any religion you desired just as long as you kept to yourself about it and allowed society to run. This is why the Christians were persecuted on the odd charge of "atheism": because they refused to worship any but the one true and living God. In the Roman's minds they did not have enough gods. Indeed, for them to enter the cultural milieu of the Roman Empire and announce that there was indeed only one truth and that there was indeed only one way was a direct affront to the lackadaisical idea that one could worship whatever god one might choose so long as he worshiped the local deities and kept social peace.

Is this not the same position in which we find ourselves? Have we not in fact come in a full circle back to this point? Have the philosophers really come to a new form of thinking in postmodernism?

From 313 A.D. forward the one true and living God was simply the assumed normative for thought. This came about, not only through Constantine's Edict of Milan but also through the strenuous and tireless efforts of men who were Christians who fought the cultural milieu and fought to establish a Christian culture instead. Men like the early apologists and later fathers. These men spoke into the vacuum of Roman society that there was a real tangible reality to be found in the gospel and that this reality defined all of life. These men worked so hard that eventually one day Rome became a Christian empire whether for the better or for the worse.

Is this not what we find ourselves moving towards? While all truth has truly in a sense been lost to the modernists who killed us and who killed all rational thinking which led to postmodernism it would seem to me that we have come full circle. Where there was little need for a whole generation of apologists from 313 A.D. to the Renaissance there has been a surge of great apologists speaking to a defunct and decadent society in which one may worship any god he so desires so long as he pays tribute to the gods of politics and does not disturb the social peace. This sounds terribly repetitive. Have we not trod this ground before?

My suggestion is that, just like the apologists of old and the fathers after them, we stick to our guns and stand for the absolute tangible reality of the biblical gospel and the absolute tangible reality that God is reality. The apologists made their arguments from all they had: the Bible. They were reasonable arguments, they were cogent arguments, and they were spoken into a confused and lost generation in which "the only heresy was to say that there was heresy."

We should not be surprised at the state of thought in today's world and we must not, indeed we dare not conform to it. It is as Solomon once said, "There is nothing new under the sun." The postmodern conception of truth, if indeed it can be called that, is nothing fresh. It is nothing fresh for the only "truth" to be that there is no truth. It is nothing fresh to exclaim, as did Pilate in his air of scepticism, "What is truth?"

For these statements to be uttered once more and these thoughts to be thought once more has rocked four generations of Christians back on their heels in confused surprise. Ignorant of the fact that this is nothing new there has been much condemnation and hiding inside of our calm little sects in Evangelicalism, primarily out of fear if I am correct, and this is a great sin. There has likewise been an extreme conformity to this "new" conception of truth and it is likewise just as dangerous a sin. We must, as the apostles, as the apologists, and as the fathers, speak of the absolute tangible reality of the gospel of Jesus Christ. To Pilate Jesus simply said, "For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to testify to the truth." To which Pilate asked, "What is truth?"

Truth is put into one simple verse by Christ Himself, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, no one comes to the Father but by me." Christ himself is the truth. His birth, life, death, resurrection, current reign, and eventual theocracy are truth. His revealing of the almighty powerful and sovereign God is truth. His revealing the sin of man in a clear light is truth. His solution for that sin, the cross, is truth.

Have we not come full circle? In a world desperate for truth, though they may not look it, and as in the Roman Empire, we must do as the men of old and stand on the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ as inerrantly inspired in the Bible.

Let us do no other.

A lui sia la gloria in eterno,

R.D. Thompson

The Return

After many months away from this blog I have at last decided to return. For any who have been here before you may have noticed that I "slightly" tweaked my blog to be a bit more...attractive.

I have little to blog about right now but there shall certainly be more soon.

My sermons are now available on the right sidebar for download or just for streaming. I recommend downloading them.

A lui sia la gloria in eterno,

R.D. Thompson

Are The Emmaus Faculty Calvinist?

Over at Puritanical recently I received a question (in the comments section of a post) that I think it would be good for me to address. A certain Central Bible Chapel asked, "Do you see the faculty and leadership as a whole at Emmaus leaning towards calvinism and reformed theology?"

I answer below.

Central,

I understand your concern in asking this question. I cannot tell whether you are asking it hostile-like or just as a question so I will answer it just as a question.

I am well aware that this is a topic (unfortunately) of hot debate among the "Peculiar People". Before I came to Emmaus I was warned by some well meaning friends, "Don't go to Emmaus they'll just make you Calvinist!" This was always said with a grimace and gasps. I therefore came to Emmaus terrified that I would be indoctrinated into this awful system of Calvinism.

I tell my friends now that Emmaus had zero impact on my becoming Reformed in my Soteriolgy and I mean zero.

I think it is best to let our president speak for himself. President Kenneth Alan Daughters has recently said this, "Our teaching is moderate, falling in the spectrum between consistent Calvinism and Arminianism. Our faculty is not loyal to either doctrinal system. We seek to be biblical in our explanation of relevant texts, balancing all that God's Word says on the subject. We do not indoctrinate our students in a negative manner. We teach them to think critically, and equip them with the tools to exegete the biblical passages themselves. Our professors teach from their own perspectives and are respectful of the views of our students as we seek to understand the Scripture together. As a faculty we represent the range of beliefs found in North American assemblies."

I think it is good to be forthright: Emmaus has professors that lean Calvinist. BUT Emmaus also has professors that lean Arminian! Neither side predominates and neither side makes demands or fights with the other side. In fact, I almost speak as if we have a divided faculty and like this is an issue. I have been here 6 years and I would honestly say that among the spectrum of our faculty this is a non-issue!

I heard a girl at one of our DEW weekends say that she couldn't come to Emmaus because someone told her that the profs teach only hardcore Predestination here. I laughed aloud when I heard that. Sure we talk about Predestination and some teachers more than others, but even in classes the professors disagree with each other and the students debate it (though I can only remember 2 instances where the topic actually came up).

No, Emmaus faculty and leadership as a whole does not lean towards Calvinism. And to say that they did as a whole would be laughable. It would be like looking at Notre Dame and saying that because George Marsden and Mark Noll teach there Notre Dame must be a Protestant Presbyterian Reformed grad school. Which we all know isn't true since Notre Dame is a Catholic/Secular school and loudly professes to be so on their website.

So you may ask, how did I become Reformed? I had a friend who came to Emmaus a lover of John Piper and he introduced me to Piper. I have read and listened to Piper (and therefore Jonathan Edwards, Augustine of Hippo, John Owen, Francis Schaeffer and many many more) for years now and am convinced that the Reformed view of Soteriology is Biblical. I personally would love to see our assemblies embrace a passionate and graceful Calvinism (not the Dave Hunt kind, which is a gross misrepresentation of Calvinism) and would especially like to see our youth embrace a Reformed Soteriology. My professors may speak for themselves on this issue, some would agree, some would disagree, a great example of the spectrum of beliefs at Emmaus.

I'll tell what Emmaus did make me was a passionate Dispensational Pre-millennial and a passionate Biblicist! THOSE things are definitely weaved into every class at Emmaus.

soli deo gloria

RDT

Why Oh Why Does Ryan Always Wear Black?

For some reason people don't like it when I wear black, which I do often. They all need a reason for why I dress up and carry a generally somber appearance. Besides the simple answer that I do it because I respect the good doctors and authorities that are around me and the standard among them is to dress snappy and appropriately for a professional culture, may I add that there is little reason to dress and act like everything is great when hundreds and thousands of babies are mutilated at the whim of a mother's "freedom of choice". One day, when I'm heaven, I'll be happy to wear neon pink or happy green and lavender if thats what suits the purpose and the praise, but for now, lets realize that there is a somber world we live in and that while we take great joy in the realization that Jesus Christ is Lord, King, Substitute, and therefore Savior, that God is the Almighty Benevolent and Electing Sovereign of the universe, and that we have the incredible "hope of glory" in Christ Jesus, life is a somber ordeal. We are still weighed down with sin, we are still in our earthly bodies, we are not yet in heaven, we see hundreds of thousands of precious, sweet, little human lives taken in the name of our "freedoms".

What good is it to walk around like everything is wonderful when there is cause for groaning? Yes of course, I know there is also great cause for joy if you noted the above words. I think Johnny Cash would suit this situation beautifully,

Well, you wonder why I always dress in black,
Why you never see bright colors on my back,
And why does my appearance seem to have a somber tone.
Well, there's a reason for the things that I have on.

I wear the black for the poor and the beaten down,
Livin' in the hopeless, hungry side of town,
I wear it for the prisoner who has long paid for his crime,
But is there because he's a victim of the times.

I wear the black for those who never read,
Or listened to the words that Jesus said,
About the road to happiness through love and charity,
Why, you'd think He's talking straight to you and me.

Well, we're doin' mighty fine, I do suppose,
In our streak of lightnin' cars and fancy clothes,
But just so we're reminded of the ones who are held back,
Up front there ought 'a be a Man In Black.

I wear it for the sick and lonely old,
For the reckless ones whose bad trip left them cold,
I wear the black in mournin' for the lives that could have been,
Each week we lose a hundred fine young men.

And, I wear it for the thousands who have died,
Believen' that the Lord was on their side,
I wear it for another hundred thousand who have died,
Believen' that we all were on their side.

Well, there's things that never will be right I know,
And things need changin' everywhere you go,
But 'til we start to make a move to make a few things right,
You'll never see me wear a suit of white.

Ah, I'd love to wear a rainbow every day,
And tell the world that everything's OK,
But I'll try to carry off a little darkness on my back,
'Till things are brighter, I'm the Man In Black

Let us not be too foppish and cavalier about the gravity of the situation that surrounds us.

soli deo gloria

R.D. Thompson

The 10 Books That Changed How I View My God, Myself, and My Hope

Over the next few weeks I will be saying a thing or two on these books and why they have been the most affective books in my aged 22 years.

This is the order in which I read them (or read in them),

1. Jonathan Edwards on Knowing Christ
2. God is the Gospel - John Piper
3. Hebrews: The Epistle of Warning - John Owen
4. Jonathan Edwards: A New Biography - Iain Murray
5. Brothers We Are Not Professionals - John Piper
6. God Transcendent - J. Gresham Machen
7. Evangelicalism Divided - Iain Murray
8. Trilogy - Francis Schaeffer
9. Understanding End Times Prophecy - Paul N. Benware
10. Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood - Eds. John Piper and Wayne Grudem

Obviously, I'm only 22 so this list will change over the next lifetime...praise the Lord!

Open Theism: A Response To A Comment

Well...I had hoped I would never have to deal with an internet controversy again, but it appears that I have to.

I recently commented on a friend's blog concerning "Free Will vs. Determinism. I can't say that I was overly impressed with what Kevin said (not that it was bad but seriously, a paragraph and a poem simply won't do just to try and make peace in a 1900 year old debate) but it was his friend, Evan, whom I both agreed with and objected to.

It is to Evan that this response must go. It seems that Evan is possibly (no pun intended) an Open Theist. I do not know this for sure but he sure hits a keyword of Open theology and demands an answer. Says Evan,

"And enters the Hellenistic thought with an appeal to consequences. So, just reiterate, there is no verse that definitively and specifically says that God knows all our decisions prior to our decision making process. And there are passages that suggest that God hasn't known what people's decisions would be. In light of this, where are the verses that you believe define meticulous control specifically of all people's decisions?"

There are some incredibly touchy keywords here. Attacking me for "Hellenistic thought" (a common concern for Open proponents), God knowing decisions "prior" to their occurring (again, the future is open in Open theology), and especially the term "meticulous control" hint to me that maybe Evan has been reading some Greg Boyd or John Sanders, or perhaps he has recently acquired some William Hasker or David Basinger. Or maybe his pastor is an Open Theist. I know not. But I do think that Evan's question deserves a winsome (and theological!) answer. It will not do to hide away with my tail between my legs after being called a Hellenist thinking in terms of meticulous control. Otherwise known as a Calvinist in some circles (especially the Open Theist circles).

First, I am a Calvinist, lets just be plain with it, and I do not apologize for being a Calvinist. I see there being an incredibly strong theme of God having meticulous control of future decisions, knowing them both possibly and definitely. That is, the future is not open to any millions of possibilities any one of which a human may choose without God seeing (much less ordaining) prior to its occurrence. That is, I believe the Bible resoundingly proclaims that God knows the future and ordains definitely what happens in it.

Second, I understand the ache of the Open Theist to know a loving God and realize without a shadow of a doubt that many Calvinists have been cold and brutal, or just plain cowardly, in their holding to Calvinist principles. I am attempting not to fulfill this stereotype and respond in love. I apologize in advance if any part of my response fails to be winsome and loving. This does not mean that I will not unflinchingly proclaim the truth of the Bible.

Thus, let me proceed.

Evan begins by accusing me of holding Hellenistic thought with appeal to consequences. I originally said,

Though I disagree that the Bible doesn't say God doesn't [know] all of men's choices, He must if He is to remain the God of order and not the God of chance.

I believe that this is what Evan responded to. To begin with, appealing to consequences has little to do with Hellenistic thought. And holding an immutable God who does not change has little to do with Hellenistic thought (I anticipate this one, Evan did not actually object to this, but if he called me a Hellenist for consequences he would call me a Hellenist for this to). In fact, simply throwing it out there that I am being Hellenistic is little more than a disguised ad hominem. It is very popular nowadays to just accuse anyone thinking in a "Western" linear fashion that they are so influenced by the Greeks that their theology has been compromised. It is almost to be accompanied by a gasp from whoever hears and meant to send those arguing in such a fashion packing with a blush and apologies. No friend, I have not been influenced by the Greeks in this way, I have been influenced by a much older line of thinking which has passed down through the ages: Judaism. Indeed, the Jews have held that God must be the God of order and not chance from their founding as God's people. The rabbis have long held to what I am accused of stealing from Philo. Moses knew it on the mountain, Job knew it in the whirlwind, and Jeremiah knew it in the broken city. The rabbis have long held it and continue to hold it. Having addressed this accusation (albeit briefly), almost reductionisticly), we must see that this is not the main issue at all. It actually borders of a sarcastic jab. But, I must admit that a portion of my comment to which Evan responded was foolish and a sarcastic jab so maybe I deserved it. It is a small thing. Let us proceed to the real issue.

What Evan objects to is that I have said I believe the Bible says that God knows and controls defintively and meticulously what all of men's future decisions will be. For this, he says, there is no verse. In fact he appeals to the verses which say God does not know man's choices beforehand (probably Jonah 3:10, Isaiah 38:1, 2 Kings 20:1, 5-6, Exodus 32:14, and Genesis 6:5-6, 22:12 et al). I believe that these verses must be explained but I do not have time or space to attempt to explain every facet of those verses. There are many arguments to come at them and say that in fact they have nothing to do with God's omniscience (like for instance, those verses aren't even talking about or teaching anything about omniscience, that isn't even the subject of the story of Abraham, or Jonah, or Hezekiah). In fact that is not what has been asked if me. I am to give verses that say God has meticulous control and knows our future decisions definitely.

So here it goes. If one looks at the spectrum of Scripture there are many verses that imply this kind of control. Shall we mention them all? I do not think so. I shall try not to use these verses out of context, or just as proof texts, but I think they are pretty important in this debate.

How about Psalm 139:1-4?

1LORD, You have searched me and known me.
2You know when I sit down and when I rise up;
You understand my thought from afar.
3You scrutinize my path and my lying down,
And are intimately acquainted with all my ways.
4Even before there is a word on my tongue,
Behold, O LORD, You know it all.

Or perhaps Ephesians 1:3-5, to which there are many parallells in the New Testament (33 or so in fact),

3Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ,

4just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him In love

5He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will,

Maybe we could go back to Isaiah and look there. Isaiah, in condemening the Israelites and their whoring with idols dares them to prove that the idols know and control the future as he does,

41:23 - Declare the things that are going to come afterward, that we may know that you are gods; Indeed, do good or evil, that we may anxiously look about us and fear together. [i.e. if the idols can declare the things that are going to come afterward, than they are indeed gods. This they cannot do, thus...?]

41:45-26 - 25"I have aroused one from the north, and he has come;
From the rising of the sun he will call on My name;
And he will come upon rulers as upon mortar,
Even as the potter treads clay."
26Who has declared this from the beginning, that we might know?
Or from former times, that we may say, "He is right!"?
Surely there was no one who declared,
Surely there was no one who proclaimed,
Surely there was no one who heard your words.

[i.e. God did, the idols didn't, they could not do so, they are not God who both knows and declares from the beginning!]

42:8-9 -
8" I am the LORD, that is My name;
I will not give My glory to another,
Nor My praise to graven images.
9"Behold, the former things have come to pass,
Now I declare new things;
Before they spring forth I proclaim them to you."

46:8-11 - 8"Remember this, and be assured;
Recall it to mind, you transgressors.
9"Remember the former things long past,
For I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is no one like Me,
10Declaring the end from the beginning,
And from ancient times things which have not been done,
Saying, 'My purpose will be established,
And I will accomplish all My good pleasure';
11Calling a bird of prey from the east,
The man of My purpose from a far country
Truly I have spoken; truly I will bring it to pass.
I have planned it, surely I will do it.

Shall we go on? Shall we mention Romans 8-9? Or 1st Peter 1:18-20? Or every verse in Isaiah 40-48? Or Matthew 16:21? Or Acts 2:31? Or Jesus own words in John 13:19,

"From now on I am telling you before it comes to pass, so that when it does occur, you may believe that I am He.

Indeed, the Bible is full of the language of Meticulous Sovereignty! It is packed with the all knowing God knowing the future definitely. It is packed with the glorious Almighty (LOVING!) God meticulously knowing and controlling all things.

If we are to read these texts honestly and in a "plain vanilla" hermeneutic, we must come to one and only one conclusion: The classical definition of omiscience is the Biblical definition of omniscience!

soli deo gloria,

R.D. Thompson

Schaeffer and Machen

I was watching Schaeffer's How Should We Then Live? last night and came across pure gold,

If there is no absolute by which to judge society, society is absolute.

This of course is the climate we live in. He spoke of this one sentence directly after showing that arbitrary law had snuck into western culture. He basically points to the Roe v. Wade decision concerning abortion and shows that indeed, arbitrary law is alive and well in America.

People do not believe that there is an absolute and they therefore have no basis to make any laws much less moral laws. So Roe v. Wade was made essentially in a vacuum with no real moral absolute on which to base the deicison. So what essentially is the measuring rod to make the choices in our immoral and godless age? Society.

Thus, society becomes the absolute.

A dangerous thing if you think about the constantly shifting moral wasteland of America and the West.

On a similar note, I have been hard at Machen's Christianity and Liberalism in which he shows that Liberal "Christianity" and the Orthodox Stream of Christianity simply are not the same thing. He approaches several issues head on. One of the greatest issues of course is doctrine. I was taken aback quite a bit when he pointed out that the problem in Liberalism was the that they had a problem with doctrine. They would say essentially, "Christianity is a life, not a doctrine! Away with doctrine! Let's get back to Jesus!" Sounds familiar doesn't it? Before I point any fingers I should note what Machen says,

"[This assertion] is radically false, and to detect its falsity one does not even need to be a Christian."

He points out strongly,

"The Christian movement at its inception was not just a way of life in the modern sense, but a way of life founded upon a message. It was based, not upon mere feeling, not upon a mere program of work, but upon an account of facts. In other words it was based upon doctrine."

This, of course, is absolutely true. Yes Christianity is a life and a life indeed but to do away with doctrine, and dogmatic doctrine for that matter, does away with the life itself.

I am most astounded because what the liberals said of old, "Do away with doctrine! Christ unites! Doctrine divides!" is exactly what my friends say now. Not just my friends, but the whole Emergent movement (it's not a conversation, when you have thousands of members, your own conference, a website, and books being titled An Emergent Manifesto, you're a movement) is wrapped up in this very heresy.

I do not do away with the entire Emergent movement, but when men echo the liberals of old by saying such things as,

"Doctrine is a wonderful servant but a horrible master."

I tend to listen up and red flags start flying.

Machen nails the issue over an over. For the sake of brevity I will not pepper you with tons of quotes. He moves through the stream of historic orthodoxy and points first to Paul. Did Paul think doctrine was necessary? Of course he did, any fool who reads Romans knows this. So what of doctrine in Paul then?

"Certainly, then, Paul was no advocate of an undogmatic religion; he was interested above everything else in the objective and universal truth of his message. . .Paul was not interested merely in the ethical principles of Jesus; he was not interested merely in general principles of religion or of ethics. On the contrary, he was interested in the redeeming work of Christ and its effect upon us. His primary interest was in Christian doctrine, and Christian doctrine not merely in its presuppositions but at its centre. If Christianity is to be made independent of doctrine, then Paulinism must be removed from Christianity root and branch."

So basically, if you want to really believe that you can be a Christian and get out of hashing out doctrines and taking stands, you need to chuck Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, the Letters to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon out of your Bible.

Are you comfortable with that Emergent people?

So then what? Well, we got rid of Paul. So now we can really live as we are supposed to live. Now we just look to the early church and live like they did. A real 1st century Christianity. Lets just get back to the teaching of primitive Christianity.

Problem,

"What is it that forms the content of that primitive teaching? Is it the general principle of the fatherliness of God or the brotherliness of man? Is it a vague admiration for the character of Jesus such as that which prevails in the modern Church? Nothing could be further from the fact. 'Christ died for our sins,' said the primitive disciples, 'according to the Scriptures; he was buried; he has been raised on the third day according to the Scriptures.' Form the beginning, the Christian gospel, as indeed the name 'gospel' or 'good news' implies, consisted in an account of something that had happened. And from the beginning, the meaning of the happening was set forth; and when the meaning of the happening was set forth then there was Christian doctrine, 'Christ died' - that is history; 'Christ died for our sins' - that is doctrine. Without these two elements, joined in an absolutely indissoluble union, there is no Christianity."

Well. . .dang. Now what? "Oh," said the liberals, "but Jesus was not wrapped up in the rightness or wrongness of doctrines. He was a great moral teacher and taught ethical principles to live by as a marginalized peasant." Machen again,

"Jesus certainly did not content Himself with the enunciation of permanent moral principles; He certainly did announce an approaching event; and He certainly did not announce the event without giving some account of its meaning. But when He gave an account of the meaning of the event, no matter how brief that account may have been, He was overstepping the line that separates an undogmatic religion, or even a dogmatic religion that teaches only eternal principles, from one that is rooted in the significance of definite historical facts ; He was placing a great gulf between Himself and the philosophic modern liberalism which today incorrectly bears His name."

In other words, Jesus taught doctrine. He knew He was the Messiah, he proclaimed it in tangible real words as abrasively as it could be proclaimed. Even at the Sermon on the Mount, where he uttered such beautiful ethical principles was,

"A stupendous theology, with Jesus' own Person at the centre of it, [and was] the presupposition of the whole teaching."

Oh! I must mourn that so many of my friends abandon doctrine or believe the right doctrines yet do not allow it to impact their beings. I must weep when my friends say,

"What need is there, then, of defining 'effectual calling,' what need of enumerating 'justification, adoption and sanctification and the several benefits which in this life do either accompany or flow from them'?. . .Should not our trust be in a Person rather than in a message; in Jesus, rather than in what Jesus did; in Jesus character rather than in Jesus' death?"

What does Machen say of this?

"Plausible these words are - plausible, and pitifully vain."

And again,

"Certainly we shall remain forever in the gloom if we attend merely to the character of Jesus and neglect the thing that he has done, if we try to attend to the Person and neglect the message. We may have joy for sadness and power for weakness; but not by easy half-way measures, not by avoidance of controversy, not by trying to hold on to Jesus and yet reject the gospel. What was it that within a few days transformed a band of mourners into the spiritual conquerers of the world? It was not the memory of Jesus' life; it was not the inspiration which came from past contact with Him. But it was the message, 'He is risen.' That message alone gave the disciples a living Saviour; and it alone can give us a Saviour today. We shall never have vital contact with Jesus if we attend to His person and neglect the message; for it is the message which makes Him ours."

Friends, please hear this plea, we will do no good in the world or in eternity if we ditch doctrine or are indifferent to the great teachings of the Bible. We will be nothing more than silly foppish nothings if we remove doctrine from our lives.

Machen says most profoundly and I think most relevantly for us,

"Indifferentism about doctrine makes no heroes of the faith."

Indeed to abandon doctrine is to abandon, "not only Paul, not only the primitive Jerusalem Church, but also Jesus Himself." In this moral wasteland we must cling to our absolutes. Our absolutes are found in objective statements of truth within the Bible that were meant to be studied, learned, expounded, and defended. We must stop allowing society to norm our minds as the only absolute, and start allowing great doctrines of God to permeate our thinking.

To do otherwise is a disservice to the gospel and leads down the slippery slope to liberal heresy.

soli deo gloria

R.D. Thompson

Francis Schaeffer: Thesis and Antithesis Don't Equal Synthesis

Francis Schaeffer continues to blow me away. I am left astounded continually when I read his works. Earlier this summer I read The God Who Is There for pure and sheer enjoyment. I was left without breath the book was so good. Recently I have been enjoying Perkins or occasionally Starbucks with a friend just to talk about our lives and how we got to where we are. This of course involves talking about our spiritual journeys, an incredibly uncomfortable topic for those brought up in a society where speaking about one's private spirituality is certainly not the norm.

For instance, I may just disagree with something you have experienced. I may just look at you and tell you that the experiences you have had reflect deep problems in your thinking. I may just look at you and tell you that if you keep going that way you will end up where the liberals ended up. I may just tell you you're wrong. Or you may do the same to me.

This of course is infuriating. In today's culture personal spirituality must never be attacked and personal experience must never be negated. "Authentic" pursuit of "god" is enough in today's relative culture to apparently make anyone acceptable to whatever deity one worships. This makes you a good person and no one should be allowed to impede into your privacy to tell you, "I have a thesis and what you believe is the antithesis to my thesis, you are in the wrong."

The greatest heresy, it would seem, is calling anything a heresy.

Thus, when my friend and I arrived at the fork in the road concerning methodology and epistemology (how we come to know what we know and how we know what we know) Francis Schaeffer immediately popped into my head.

My friend said, in essence, "I do not believe that anyone can truly know that something is true. You only say that Christianity is true because you have come to believe it through your limited experiences and from your personal perspective, however, the Buddhist is really doing the same thing and they believe based upon their one experience of knowing. I do not have to believe Jesus Christ is the truth just because you believe this is so. Your knowledge of this truth does not validate it as true any more than the Buddhist's sure knowledge that he is true."

This of course addresses things that Schaeffer drives at in the very first chapter of The God Who is There. He opens with one of the greatest lead lines of all time, "The present chasm between the generations has been brought about almost entirely by a change in the concept of truth." This is precisely what my friend needs to hear. The concept of truth is under attack.

Schaeffer stunningly launches into an explanation of his present situation (which sounds frighteningly like our present situation and exactly what my friend said) in explaining that one day there was a concept of truth that went like this, "All A is A and all Non-A is Non-A and therefore A cannot be Non-A and Non-A cannot be A." This is the concept of thesis and antithesis. The concept that there is an absolute objective linear truth and that thesis and antithesis make a contrast.

There was a day when everyone believed this to be the case. No one doubted that there was a thesis and an antithesis. Everyone would have agreed that to say that A and Non-A could go together was preposterous and ridiculous. But they could not agree on what the correct thesis was. They tried again and again but for the life of them no one could figure out what the right one was.

This is because they started at fallible finite man and built from there.

Somewhere along the line after yet another someone had claimed that their thesis was the correct thesis the philosophers realized that this wasn't working for them. So some guy named Hegel showed up and said that thesis and antithesis shouldn't equal contrast, they should equal synthesis.

In other words, there are no absolute truths, there is no "right" thesis, only many ideas that may result in synthesis.

Of course, you can see how this is damaging. This leaves us reeling. Not only is there no longer a basis for truth, there is no truth. Schaeffer called it The Line of Despair.

My friend, really quite a few of my friends, could use a good solid dose of this truth. It is ridiculous to believe even for a moment that A and Non-A could be the same thing. A and Non-A are mutually exclusive, and therefore one or both of them must be wrong.

Schaeffer issues one of the greatest challenges I have ever faced in my life,

Those standing in the stream of historic Christianity have been especially slow to understand the relationships between various areas of thought . When the apostle warned us to, "keep ourselves unspotted from the world," he was not talking of some abstraction. If the Christian is to apply this injunction to himself he must understand what confronts him antagonistically in his own moment of history. Otherwise he simply becomes a useless museum piece and not a living warrior for Jesus Christ.

And this after only two chapters! Schaeffer must have been a prophet,

Soli Deo Gloria!

R.D. Thompson

Al Mohler on the Changing Cultural Climate and Moral Relativity

A good word from Mohler today,

Our current challenge is not only to tell the truth about homosexuality, but to recover any notion of a moral norm when it comes to sexuality. That will take more intellectual energy than the evangelical movement has yet devoted to this task.

See the full article here.