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.

Separation: A Tough Decision

I have been reading through some of Gresham Machen's sermons recently in the book God Transcendant which is a mighty little book containing some wonderful sermons. Today I read one called "The Separateness of the Church" which speaks of a topic which has been close to my heart this summer and speaks of something I am sure was close to Machen: Ecumenism.

I started this summer by reading Iain Murray's Evangelicalism Divided which more or less tracks Ecumenism in Britain and America. I had no idea how relevant the issue would be for me but I have been in an argument with a friend recently concerning the so called "Limited Atonement" in which my friend says that if we do not come to an agreement on this doctrine than we have no unity and must part ways. I am all for standing for doctrine in a world of shifting sands and a church of silly Ecumenism but for two solid Christians to part ways over the extent of the of the atonement seems a bit much to me. My friend of course defines unity from John 17, "I pray Father that they may be one as you and I are one." I have no problem with this and I long for the unity of which Jesus speaks but I do yet have a problem. I don't think that perfect agreement on the extent of the atonement is quite what Jesus was talking about, or if it was, it isn't expected to be absolutely fulfilled on this planet or in this age. This is the issue: Ecumenism. You see, if I say, "We can agree to disagree on this" I sound Ecumenical to him, in fact I begin sounding Ecumenical to myself.

Let this be my sounding point, I feel that Christians should never be ultra tolerant or even a little tolerant of a world comprised of insidious Postmodernism.

I have a similar problem with my school librarian. I love my school librarian, he is one of the coolest people I know and I call him the "Iain Murray of the Brethren" because of his hair and the way he talks and how much he knows about books and controversies. But the problem I have with my librarian is the same problem I have with my friend only with the roles reversed. He takes the stance of George Mueller and the Bristol Brethren and says that he will for the moment "bear with their infirmities" when it comes to the issues which break unity. However, I feel that when the strongest Protestant in the Anglican world goes and joins in with a load of Catholics we shouldn't be simply "bearing with their infirmities" we should be fighting for the faith. The same goes for Protestant Liberals and Emergent Church Postmoderns.

Here is where Machen comes in,

"[The apostles as new Christians] were living Christian lives because they were devoted to Christian truth. 'Ye turned to God,' says Paul, 'from idols to serve the living and true God; and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.' That was the secret of their Chistian lives; their Christian lives were founded upon Christian doctrine - upon theism ('the living and true God'), upon christology ('His Son...whom He raised from the dead'), and upon soteriology ('which delieverd us from the wrath to come'). They kept the message intact, and hence they lived the Christian life."

Further,

"If the sharp distinction is ever broken down between the church and the world, then the power of the church is gone."

I believe this wholeheartedly. We should not let the little things in that quietly destroy the church and as Machen was saying, "Make the salt lose its savor." We should contend earnestly for the faith. But I am simply not sure where the line is drawn, it is such shady line, and I hate shady lines. I want to be separate from the world, clearly separate from the world, but I also don't know how I am going to avoid losing one of best and only friends over the issue of the extent of the atonement. I have no desire to return to the recycled Liberal Ecumenism of the Emergent world but I also have no desire to go down the road of small, tiny, sectarian, 20 person and shrinking churches where if you don't agree with every jot and tittle of the unspoken doctrines of the church you don't go to that church.

Decisions, decisions.

For the glory of the almighty risen Savior,
R.D. Thompson

Until September

Well This has been an enjoyable last few months of writing. I think I will take a few months before I begin writing again. When school is going it is easier for me to focus on cultural commentary. My summer plans are:

• Preaching 2 sermons at my home church Asbury Community Chapel
• Preaching a 5 sermon series on the book of Habakkuk in Lake Geneva
• Photographing the Banner of Truth Trust's Minister's Conference
• Doing some non-profit photography for Camp Elim
• Photographing several weddings
• Doing Greek and other assignments in preparation for next school year
• Doing a personal assignment on lighthouses in Michigan for 4-5 days

My reading list includes:

• The Life and Diary of David Brainerd, Jonathan Edwards
  
• Meet the Puritans, Joel Beeke
• The Reformed Pastor, Richard Baxter
  
• The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God, D.A. Carson
  

As well as several commentary's on the book of Habakkuk the best of which I will eventual'y write a post on. I may put together all of my sermons into a sort of 5 post commentary on the book of Habakkuk with an emphasis on the word "may".

Closer Than He Realizes

Surprisingly, David Von Drehle comes closer to the truth than most people realize, and perhaps even he himself realizes, in his Time Article It’s All About Him published this week post Virginia Tech. It is almost sickening how quickly the media, politicians, and various gun control groups fell on the Virginia Tech Incident and proceeded to hurl blame in all ways but one. It is heartbreaking that the very day that everyone began to hear about the killings, people were calling for “healing”. I don’t stand on any side in gun control issues and I think that an eventual call to healing would have been called for. But I always get so frustrated when popular media and people in general forget the one thing I said they failed to mention above, human nature.

Like I said, David Von Drehle almost gets it. He says, probably echoing hundreds,

I’ve lost interest in the cracks, chips, and holes and broken places in the lives of men like Cho Seung-Hui, the mass murderer of Virginia Tech. The pain, grievances, and self-pity of mass killers are only symptoms of the real explanation...They are raging Narcissists.

That is surprisingly clear, and while I’m not sure that David Von Drehle gets exactly to the heart of the issue he comes startlingly close. Killers are self centered, self, gratifying, self worshiping, self pitying maniacs who fulfill their need for further self worship by mercilessly murdering as many as they can. Video games? Sure. Bullying? Sure. Poor Security? Sure, but what is the real problem? Drehle puts it well,

Psychologists from South Africa to Chicago have begun to recognize that extreme self-centeredness is the forest in these stories, and all other things – guns, games, lyrics, pornography – are just trees.

Drehle is saying, essentially, that narcissism is “the problem”. Further,

Only a narcissist could decide that his alienation should be underlined in the blood of strangers. The flamboyant nature of these crimes is like a neon sign pointing to the truth. Charles Whitman playing God in his Texas clock tower, James Huberty spraying lead in a California restaurant, Harris and Klebold in their theatrical trench coats – they’re all stars in the cinema of their self absorbed minds.

I find it somewhat humorous, and also sad, that everyone is trying so hard to nail down the “motive”. What is the “motive”? We get closer and closer in Drehle’s article to what the actual “motive” is,

Earnestly and honestly, detectives and journalists dig up apparent clues and weave them into a sort of explanation. In the days after Columbine, for example, Harris and Klebold emerged as alienated misfits in the jock culture of their suburban high school. We learned about their morbid taste in music and their violent video games. Largely missing, though, was the proper frame around the picture: the extreme Narcissism that licensed these boys, in their minds, to murder their teachers and their classmates.

Going on,

[W]e must stop explaining killers on their terms. Minus the clear context of Narcissism, the biographical details of these men can begin to look like a plausible chain of cause and effect – especially to other Narcissists.

Drehle ends exactly how I would,

The real problem can be found in the killer’s mirror.

Now that sounds closer to a plausible answer then I have found anywhere heretofore. Write it down, put it in a book, use it as a proverb, the real problem friends is not with the guns, porn, video games, or TVs, though those all play a gigantic role in bringing these men and boys to Narcissism. And that is where I part ways with Mr. Drehle, maybe. I say maybe because Drehle doesn’t actually state anything other than a vague “self-centeredness” to the actual problem. Or necessarily even put himself in front of the mirror. I would say that what is called for here is, yes put the proper frame of Narcissism around the picture, but we need to, I dare say, we must, see what the frame is made of. We absolutely are forced to examine what the trees and dirt in the forest are made of.

What I am saying is this, the real problem with the whole world can be found in my mirror and in the mirrors of all living. The real problem is human sin. As humans we are infected (as Augustine would imply) because of what our representative Adam did in the Garden if Eden (as most Protestants would imply). I mix these two views because I personally feel a little of both, I feel infected even if in correct interpretation and theological terms I am not infected I have only been represented by Adam, who failed. Read Romans 5:12

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned…

Death came through Adam because of the sin of Adam and we all die because we sin. Well we have not all sinned exactly as Adam did, and we weren’t biologically there while Adam was sinning, and Adam wasn’t just a great example for us not to follow but Adam did represent us there in that garden and when God tested Him he tested the whole race, and Adam failed and died; as a consequence in his representation of us we failed, and die though we did not sin exactly like Adam.

We know this, all in Adam die. That’s us. We are the problem because we are inherently sinful and guilty, and as such we are condemned. We should turn our eyes for minute away from Cho Seung-Hui and look in the mirror and see that we aren’t very good people. In fact, we’re inherently depraved and sinful and by ourselves will most definitely die roasting in eternal deserved torment for our sin nature.

I say praise God. Why? Why on earth can anyone say praise God after what I just said. Because of the rest of the portion of Romans 5:12-19

If many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift of Jesus Christ abounded for many…if because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.

I must stress this point, and this is why I emphasized it above, this is not talking about universalism. The all is not “all men everywhere no matter what” it is all in Christ. Look at the phrase, “those who receive” and you will see that this is not universalism. But what I am stressing is this, all men in Adam die, all men in Christ live.

Mass murderers need to look in their mirrors, but friends, we need to look in our mirrors too. I hope that David Von Drehle isn’t saying that if anyone looks in a mirror he is a narcissist, but I agree that if anyone looks to long in the mirror he is a narcissist. We need to look in the mirror, see that in Adam all die, and that that sin is inherent in ourselves, and understand that as such we deserve condemnation.

Do you know what we need to do after that? We need to look at Christ, God, Almighty, “through whom are all things and through whom we exist”. Because friends, if you or I receive the “abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness [found in Christ]” we will, “reign in life through the one man, Christ Jesus”. Receive Jesus who paid the penalty for your sins, Amen.

Being Changed From One Degree of Glory To Another by My Glorious Savior’s Face,

R.D. Thompson

Mortor...Not What Usually Ends Up On This Blog

Absolutely everybody should see this at least once in their lifetime.

Where is God When The Shooter Opens Fire? Or What Would the Psychologists Have Said at Siloam?

Being in a Bible college setting, I had no idea what happened at Virginia Tech until today. I haven't blogged in a while so I thought this would be a good time to do it.

The question, "Where is God?!" when evil things happen, is a perfectly legitimate, understandable, and, perhaps, necessary question. I assure you, those who showed up to Virginia Tech to counsel people psychologically, if they mentioned God at all, probably said something to the effect of, "God couldn't know, it wasn't his fault," or (more likely), "There is no God". The last one is surprisingly the most hopeless bunch of chatter imaginable (though most answers to the question have been a hopeless bunch of chatter). When the Tower of Siloam fell over and killed 18 people, what would today's psychologists who showed up to counsel grieving family members have said? Or when Pilate killed Galileans and mixed their blood with the blood of his sacrifices to Roman gods? Some may say, "The VT Incident is God's judgment on a sinful people" if they are Christian, others may have the responses I mentioned above. To this last answer I say, perhaps. But it is less likely that this is a judgment on particular people and more likely that it is exactly what Jesus said of the the tower of Siloam, "Were these Galileans greater sinners than all other Galileans because they suffered this fate?...Or do you suppose that those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them were worse culprits than all the men who live in Jerusalem? I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish" (Luke 13:4-5, italics added).

There is a very straightforward answer for the question, "Where is God when evil things happen?" it is the answer given by Scripture, "[He] rides upon the highest heavens, which are from ancient times" (Psalm 68:33). Where is God? God is in heaven, from whence he judges the heavens and the earth and will exercise his wrath upon men who will turn to His only way of salvation, Jesus. It is that salvation, that answers the inevitable question as to whether God is loving or not. Is God loving or not sinner? You you worthy of judgment? Absolutely, just because these souls at Virginia Tech have experienced massive tribulations does not mean that they are being judged any more than the masses dying from any variety of evil things, or the most natural, death. The reason that these become so tragic, is that we are all likewise trying to avoid death. Funny that millions will die today, but will not appear on television. 33 die in a violent way and we shout, "There is no God!" which simply is not true.

Jesus' ultimate answer to the Galilean's question about the ones Pilate had killed and the Tower at Siloam almost doesn't sound like an answer, "Unless you repent, you will all likewise perish". God has sent His Son into the world to save men from sins and to save them from what our one short death symbolizes, eternal death. In times of mass murders and wars, we must turn to Jesus, we must turn to the Almighty, we must trust His sovereign work in lives and believe that Jesus is, "The Way, the Truth, and the Life and [that] no one comes to the Father but by [Him]". Is there hope in the answer of the psychologists? No, there is no hope in God not knowing, or not being able to intervene, or not caring, or not existing. But friends there is hope in repentance, there is hope in God's sovereignty, there is Hope in Jesus. Turn to Jesus,

For His Sovereign Glory and None Else,
R.D. Thompson

Book Review: Brothers We Are Not Professionals

Piper is probably my favorite modern writer and seems to have the most logical flow of thought in evangelicalism today. His Passionate Calvinism attracts many people and his ministry is changing lives and seeing converts by the extraordinary grace of God. I know that Piper is a controversial figure in the church for a few reasons

1. He uses the word Hedonism
2. He is New Covenant theology
3. He is a 7 Point Calvinist
4. He is Amillenial

Maybe I show my cards a little bit too much considering I go to a Dispensational school and attend a largely (99%) Dispensational church, but I sympathize greatly with New Covenant theology and call myself at the least Progressive Dispensational.
I wholehaertedly agree with the use of the word Hedonist whatever people may say and I (somewhat jokingly) ascribe to a 7 point system of Calvinism. These are things I feel have Biblical merit and are the arguments of Holy Scripture. As for the Amil' stance? I don't agree with it only because I go to a Dispensational school and know no better.


Those things said let's talk about John Piper's "Brothers". Firstly, I am not a pastor though I have preached on occasion. I don't think in my denomination we even have such a thing as a "Pastor" but we do have elders, and I have been and Lord willing will continue to be in leadership situations. When Piper says a "plea for Pastors" he really means a plea. I got this feeling throughout the book. It was as if Piper was begging the brothers to come back to true ministry. It could almost be called a modern day "Reformed Pastor" as it often kicked me in the rear. I think that Piper's point is stated throughtout the book but stated most plainly,

All...other so called Gods make man work for them. Our God will not be put in the position of an employer who must depend on others to make the business go. Instead he magnifies His all-suffiency by doing this work Himself. Man is the dependant partner in this affair, His job is to wait for the Lord.

This is essentially Piper's plea throughout the book. He touches some especially importat points calling Pastors (Elders I guess in my case) to avoid a Debtors Ethic (we owe God something), preach Justification by Faith, return to the study of the original languages, and read biography.


Probably the most influential chapter has been the chapter, "Brothers, Let the River Run Deep". In this chapter he says in wonderfully Piperian fashion,

Emotions are like a river flowing out of one's heart. Form is like the riverbanks. Without them the river runs shallow and dissipates on the plain. But banks make the river run deep. Why else have humans for centuries reached for poetry when we have deep affections to express? The creation of a form happens because someone feels a passion. How ironic, then, that we often fault form when the real evil is a dry spring

This is of course at the heart of Christian Hedonism, and we would be wise to listen. All pastors and preachers must foremostly be enamoured with God and satisfied by Him. I recommend the reading of John Piper's Brothers We Are Not Professionals as I would recommend Richard Baxter's Reformed Pastor, every leader type should read it.

For The Glory of The Risen Lord,
R.D. Thompson