Does Your Church Practice Satanic Church Discipline?
Ordinarily, I would think that the following fact is bizarre: the vast majority of church discipline practiced today is unbiblical. But the fact of the matter is, as a former elder, I was on an elder body that practiced errant discipline. What we were doing had a semblance of biblical correctness and the church had always done it that way – it’s an easy trap to fall into. In the Christian life, most assumptions (concerning truth not verified) are dangerous; you eventually learn that. However, my past error will serve to make my initial points.
Like everyone else, we used Matthew 18:15-20 as a schematic for church discipline. That was our first mistake. The passage has nothing to do with church discipline, it is clearly a procedure initiated by Christ to resolve conflict among Christians. But worse yet, we didn’t even use the wrong text the right way once we decided to use it that way. Like many elder bodies, instead of calling on the whole congregation to confront the individual before the fourth and final step of excommunication, we instead announced that it was a done deal, and the person was to be treated “like” an “unbeliever.” Supposedly, calling on the whole church to confront the individual was “impractical” because of the size of some churches. Therefore, that certainly isn’t what Christ meant, right? Wrong. That’s exactly what Paul called on the church at Philippi to do in the case of Euodia and Syntyche. We have no idea how large that church was and apparently it’s not relevant. Besides, if the church is really a body, and there is a problem with a member or organ, it is certainly the business of the body to aid in the cure.
As if that would not be enough, using a text for the wrong premise, and then not even following the premise correctly, we then instructed the congregation to treat the individual “like” an “unbeliever” and to present the gospel to them if they (any member of the congregation) crossed paths with the individual. In the first place, were we leading the congregation into sin by telling them to present the gospel to the person instead of discussing the unresolved matter? Yes, because their correct role was initially short-circuited by skipping the supposed third step. But in the second place, how do we get from “treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector” to “treat him as an unbeliever”? If Christ wanted them treated like an unbeliever, why wouldn’t He simply say so? The word “pagan” is the Greek word “ethneekos.” It means “ethnic,” and referred to Gentiles. Not all Gentiles were unbelievers and the Temple had a separate court for them known as the court of the Gentiles. Also, Matthew, one of the twelve, was a tax collector. To say that Christ was making Gentiles and tax collectors synonymous with the unregenerate is an assumption at best. Most likely, Christ was saying not to treat them with the same intimacy that you would a fellow believer that had no unresolved conflict with the body; in other words, as if nothing were going on, or business as usual. In the final analysis on this point, it is far less assumptive. And by the way, this is consistent with how Paul said to treat an idle brother. Rather than the usual fellowship you would enjoy, you entreat him as a brother, but you don’t feed him and give money while acting like there are no issues going on (2Thess. 3:6-15).
When it gets right down to it, the New Testament addresses several different circumstance that are to be handled in their own unique ways ( Sins against brothers: Matt.18:15-20. False teaching that causes division:1Tim. 6:3-5, 2John:10,11 Titus 3:10, Rom.16:16,17. Sinning Elders:1 Timothy 5:19. Broken fellowship between parishioners: Phil. 4:2,3. Idleness: 2Thess. 3:6-15. Gross Immorality: 1Cor. 5:1- 13). Though concepts from Matthew 18 could certainly be borrowed, to apply a Matthew 18 grid to all other circumstances requiring confrontation is sloppy hermeneutics, and that’s being kind.
Another important point to look at here is in regard to actual excommunication, or expulsion from the body. The only account that we have, or cause for an expulsion from the assembly, is in 1 Corinthians 5:1-13. This is the only passage were expulsion is not in doubt, and the reason is gross immorality of the sexual kind. Paul says in no uncertain terms: “Shouldn’t you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this?” And, “Expel the wicked man from among you.” Again, this is the only place where expulsion is explicitly instructed. Also note: in all of the other sins confronted in the letter to the Corinthians, this is the only place that any kind of disciplinary action is commanded! I think this is a point well worth mentioning. Paul motivates them throughout the letter to obey because of God’s promise of reward, loss of reward, judgment, the coming resurrection, etc.; but chapter 5 is the only place where God’s people are commanded to take specific action to remove a parishioner from the fellowship. I believe this speaks volumes toward an argument that church discipline is reserved for sins of the baser sort, those “of a kind that does not occur even among pagans.” Likewise, Jonathan Edwards agreed, stating in his Yale commentary that expulsion is only for the “visibly wicked” sin of the “gross” sort, and “gross public sin” accompanied by a stiff-necked, unrepentant arrogance (volume 22, pages 69 and 78).
But now we come to the other side of the coin that contains my above arguments, but states the value. Even in this one explicit case where we have a man expelled from the congregation, Paul does not declare him to be an unbeliever, but rather assumes the opposite: “When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.” Bottom line: nowhere does the Bible say that a professing believer should ever be “declared” an unbeliever for any reason; to the contrary, Paul states the opposite by assuming that the expelled Corinthian was saved. It is also worth mentioning that Jesus assumes that the lost sheep that stray from the flock are in fact part of the flock and should be diligently sought after (Matt. 18:10-14). Perhaps the idea that we can do this (declare individuals to be unbelievers) is spawned by the belief that it is the church that actually does the disciplining when the term its self (“church discipline”) is a misnomer. In rare circumstance we expel, but it is the Lord that does the disciplining outside of the church: “What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside.” There is discipline by the Lord inside and outside of the church ( Hebrews 12:5-11, 1Cor. 11:30), and self discipline (1Cor. 11:31-32), but there is no “church discipline” practiced by elders or the church. It begs the question thus far: how many different ways can the church get this wrong?
But now we come to a biblical reality that swallows hard when mixed with the information above. There is a fellow that is in the business of accusing the brethren of being unbelieving. It is the mode of operation practiced by Satan. Though we cannot find any reference to a duty of the church to “declare” someone an unbeliever, the Scriptures are replete with examples of Satan doing so. In fact, God calls him the “accuser of the brethren” (Rev. 12:10). And trust me, he (Satan) has plenty of reasons to bring the accusations as Paul did in regard to the Corinthian man, but in contrast, Paul assumed the opposite was true. We get a good picture of what I am saying in Zechariah 3:1-4;
Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right side to accuse him. The LORD said to Satan, “The LORD rebuke you, Satan! The LORD, who has chosen Jerusalem, rebuke you! Is not this man a burning stick snatched from the fire?” Now Joshua was dressed in filthy clothes as he stood before the angel. The angel said to those who were standing before him, “Take off his filthy clothes.” Then he said to Joshua, “See, I have taken away your sin, and I will put rich garments on you.”
I might also add that in Matthew 13:24-30, Jesus said the following:
Jesus told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared. “The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’ ‘An enemy did this,’ he replied. “The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’ ” ‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’ “
It is clear that the “servants” in this parable are unable to ascertain the true spiritual standing of anyone in the church. Christ makes it clear that they could be mistaken. It would follow then that we are in no better position to “declare” anyone an unbeliever. The whole notion is patently absurd, unless you’re Satan.
Here is also something I know at ground level from being a reformed leader / elder for several years: the types of “church” discipline being practiced today rarely produce a happy ending. Some Reformed churches that I know of have excommunicated hundreds of people, and have no outcomes worth celebrating. Out of all my years in the Reformed realm (about 15), I know of one story that turned out well. Funny, in the New Testament, we have but one example, and it turned out well. We know this from Paul’s second letter to the Corinthians. This is something that really haunted me for years; if our discipline was being done according to Scripture, where were the results?
The practice of something that’s not in the Bible with the wrong text, and the wrong premise, and then the wrong application of the wrong premise; maybe that’s why.
paul
Poodles Gone Wild: Reformed Leaders are Teaching Southern Baptists How to Drive
I entered into God’s kingdom labeled as a Southern Baptist in 1983, and I’m not blind to the many problems, well, serious problems within the denomination. In fact, I left the denomination for 15 years because I actually thought there was something better. As I pined away in Dallas, Texas, longing for the means to move to Sun Valley and join John MacArthur’s church, how disillusioned I would have been to arrive there and find Larry Crabb in charge of the “biblical counseling” at Grace Community Church. After reading Larry Crabb’s abominable Inside Out, I could have only stood shell shocked, and 3000 miles from home to boot. Also, the discovery that Mac wrote an endorsement for John Piper’s Desiring God, a theological novel that made Timothy Leary weep with envy, could have only added to the insult.
That was the 80’s; moving into the 90’s, after jumping ship from the SBC, I was nevertheless delighted to see Southern Baptist leaders recruiting the influence of John MacArthur and his Reformed Light theology. But my, how times have changed. For the most part, the Reformed movement, which has been picking up steam over the past 30 years, has been fairly balanced (as far as Reformed goes, relatively speaking) while adding many spiritual benefits to the evangelical community and even the SBC. But its (the Reformed movement) recent transformation in-process via “New Calvinism” is quickly becoming a fast forward study in lunacy. As a matter of fact, it would be hilarious if not for the fact that theology has life consequences. Always. This reality has brought me back home to the Southern Baptist Church, and also thankful for what I have learned. But upon my return, I see the lunacy I fled invading the motherland. The SBC is now moving from the barking Poodle in the Bud Light commercial ( Reformed Light), to the Poodle driving the car (too heavy / New Calvinism), with accompanied occupants in the backseat being terrified while the crazy Poodle runs other cars off the road and mows down fire hydrants:
So, what is the “New Calvinism” that the Reformed movement is morphing into at breakneck speed? Well, it primarily focuses around the Gospel-Driven Life and New Covenant Theology, but the crux of what is driving it is what I want to focus on here. Namely, hermeneutics. Namely, Grammatical-Historical hermeneutics verses Redemptive-Historical hermeneutics. I am going to keep this post simple and two-fold because really, method of interpretation is at the very core of what is driving all of the other issues here. I think my very simple definitions that follow will also serve the purpose of this post as well.
First, GHH holds to a (for lack of a better term) literal approach to interpretation. As the title would suggest, conclusions are drawn from the biblical text in regard to its grammatical formations of verbs, nouns, subjects, prepositional phrases etc. In the RHH, the Scriptures are approached with the idea that all words in the text are formulated for the sole purpose of projecting the finished work of Christ in both justification and sanctification. In other words, it is at least fair to say that the RHH is a much more subjective method than GHH. Many, many, many, examples could be given of how proponents of RHH often ignore tense, the location of the subject in the sentence, the plain sense of prepositional phrases, and which subject is receiving the action of the verb in order to come to a redemptive conclusion.
Though many examples could be given in regard to how these differences of interpretation effect practical theology and life, there is no more glaring, vivid example than church discipline. The difference in application determined by method of interpretation has been, and will continue to be dramatic. To begin with, A literal interpretation of Scripture will usually result in a very limited use of church discipline. Church discipline in the GHH realm will usually, and primarily, be applied to Parishioners Gone Wild. But in the RHH realm where the interpretation of every verse of Scripture is redemptive, church discipline will be seen to have a redemptive purpose. And as we know, the goal of redemption is to redeem us from sin, right? So, instead of church discipline being seen as a practical, judicial type process to keep order in the church, RHH leaders will see it more as a process to save us from any and every sin, since we were saved by the gospel, and are still being saved by the gospel everyday. In antithesis, GHH leaders will not see church discipline as a means of tweaking the saints in the same way Bible study and one on one discipleship does; but to the contrary, RHH leaders will see church discipline as a tool for fine tuning the saints. The result? Leaders Gone Wild.
I don’t even know where to begin to document the madness. There are a lot of Poodles driving out there. Instead of specific guidelines for specific categories of situations within the church; now, the failure to obey any, and every biblical imperative is game for church discipline. And remember, the goal is redemptive, so a mere verbal repentance that a literal interpretation would suggest will not suffice. More than likely, the discipline will be a protracted counseling situation (they use Galatians 6:1 for this) in which you will be in the discipline process (and not free to vacate membership) until you are released from counseling. As a matter of fact, in many reformed churches (including some reformed Southern Baptist Churches), when you enter into counseling with a pastor or leader, you are automatically considered to be in the redemptive church disciple process. I know of a case where an individual was meeting an elder for breakfast / discipleship every week. At some point, the parishioner took a job out of state, but was told by the elder that he was not free to leave the church because of struggles that were discovered in his life while those meetings were taking place. To leave the church at that time would have been the equivalent of leaving the church while under church discipline, according to the elder. This is by no means an isolated incident. Many, many parishioners have been under church discipline in the past without knowing it because their counseling turned out well, while others find out that “heavy counseling” and church discipline are the same thing.
Furthermore, as more and more Southern Baptist leaders continue to tag along from Reformed Light to New Calvinism, we have Southern Baptist churches bringing parishioners up on church discipline for non-attendance, not tithing, questioning doctrine, and just about anything else that falls short of holy perfection. It is unclear as to whether some implement a “process” view of the actual discipline or a “repentance” view.
What we do have, is a scary coalition of Southern Baptist leaders joining with barking Poodles and driving Poodles to supposedly stand for the gospel (T4G: Together for the Gospel [but what gospel?] ). Their new pastor-buddy club consists of those who hold to the GHH (MacArthur [I think, anyway] ), and several Poodles driving. As their doctrine (the driving Poodles) reeks havoc among God’s people in many other categories besides unbiblical church discipline, Al Mohler, MacArthur, and others continue to hang out with them in conferences to oppose the likes of Joel Osteen, who is supposedly a bigger threat to the well-being of God’s people than the Christian mystics that they give creditability to. However, as one example, I would be willing to bet anything that the divorce rate in Osteen’s church could not touch that of churches that hold to New Calvinism, which are experiencing exploding divorce numbers due to there view of divorce from a “redemptive” perspective.
I conclude with two observations:
1. The SBC is already on life support, we don’t need Dr. Kevorkian presiding.
2. Any SB or Reformed saints looking for a new church home need to be privy in regard to the Poodles running any given church; do they just bark, or do they drive?
paul
Piper’s Sabbatical is a Reflection of Reformed Idol Worship and Arrogance
“Is Piper taking an eight-month sabbatical to put Paul Tripp’s theory of change to the test? If he is, God help us.”
“Per the usual, Scripture takes a backseat in regard to judging such situations. In fact, Scripture isn’t even in the car.”
Well, I have read through several commentaries on John Piper’s “heroic” decision to take an eight-month “sabbatical” from his, um; stand by while I find a replacement word for “duties,”…….ok, activates. We don’t want to use the ‘D’ word, especially when we are talking about an eight-month leave of absence (this is sarcasm in regard to Piper’s constant dissing of “duty”; this dissing serves him well in regard to his sabbatical). No surprise, all of the reviews were stellar, as the Reformed rock stars of our age can do no wrong. But, I still stand perplexed in this development, especially in regard to the plain sense of Scripture, and really, just good-old-fashioned common sense as well.
First, from a common sense point of view, it’s inconsistent with all of the clamor about not putting Reformed leaders on pedestals. In his formal letter regarding this latest episode, dated March 28, 2010, he, himself, eludes to this by saying the following: “Not only that, others could use similar time away. Most working men and women do not have the freedom to step back like this.” Ya, so why are you? The very thought by him that he has a right to do this, also confirms that he thinks of himself as distinct from most other Christians, and Christian leaders. Eight months? Why not just resign and be done with it? Simply put, it’s arrogance. But, per the usual, all these guys have to do is mention that they acknowledge a possible objection, and the objection goes away like the wind drives away chaff in the minds of their koolaid-drinking followers; “Oh, he knows this is reality, all must be well.” Actually, he makes the statement in conjunction with the fact that he requested not to be paid while on his sabbatical. Apparently, the elders of Bethlehem Baptist Church rejected the request. Surprise, surprise. What a huge disconnect, some leader taking an eight-month sabbatical to reconnect with his family while getting paid. And he’s just like us?; struggling in the same spiritual trenches? Doesn’t seem to compute.
Not only that, didn’t he write a book entitled “Brothers, We Are Not Professionals”? What is more indicative of professionalism than some guy getting paid to take a leave for eight months from an incorporated church? Not only that, as well, didn’t he thank a well known Evangelical leader for inviting him to speak, by publicly rebuking his leadership (the leaders of the church he was invited to), from the very pulpit he was invited to, for honoring him (Piper) with embellished accommodations? I guess they treated him like a professional, or something. My guess is as good as any, as to why Piper and other Reformed leaders get a pass on their extreme hypocrisy. I guess, like GM, Piper and other Reformed leaders are just “too big to fail.”
But I will now address another issue that just makes me want to jump in the river. Per the usual, Scripture takes a backseat in regard to judging such situations. In fact, Scripture isn’t even in the car. Anyone who has a big picture grasp on the New Testament should know that such an endeavor by an elder is foreign to Scripture. Can you imagine the Apostle Paul doing something like this? Better yet, could you imagine the same apostle, with his scared-up body, being at that elder’s meeting? “You want to do what?” “Eight months?” “And you will be doing what?; spending time with your wife?” And would the apostle also insist that he be paid as well? I seriously doubt it.
But I may be digressing a bit, Piper’s reasons were stated as follows: “I see several species of pride in my soul that, while they may not rise to the level of disqualifying me for ministry, grieve me, and have taken a toll on my relationship with Noël and others who are dear to me.” First of all, these types of statements that continually come out of Piper’s mouth raise all kinds of questions: 1. Several “species” of pride? How many are we talking about? What specific “species” are they, and where do we find them in Scripture? 2. What do you mean when you say you “see” them in your soul? How, exactly, do you “see” them? Please specify. I’m sorry, but the guy was in an elder’s meeting; therefore, the solution to any of his problems were right there:
“Is any one of you in trouble? He should pray. Is anyone happy? Let him sing songs of praise. 14Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. 15And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven. 16Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective” (James 5:13-16).
I don’t know how many elders serve with him, but his actions make it clear that, supposedly, the prayer, confession to, and counsel of these men are not enough, he needs a lengthy sabbatical. In fact, he calls it a eight-month “….reality check from the Holy Spirit.” He’s such a super, high-powered, man of God, that he needs a special fix. Again, it’s arrogance. I could see a couple of weeks in addition to his vacation time. I could certainly see a cut-back in ministry duties, uh! I mean, activities, sorry; but an eight-month leave of absence? C’mon, what’s really going on here?
Well, we get a clue of sorts. Here is what he is quoted as saying in The Christian Post : “One of the goals of fasting,” he noted, “is to determine levels of addiction or, as Paul Tripp of [of?] Tim Keller would say, levels of idolatry.”
Per the usual, Piper can make statements like this and nobody blinks. Where does the Bible talk about determining levels of idolatry through fasting? I wish the whole reformed movement would fast and pray to determine its level of addiction to the teachers they worship. An idol is anything you cannot say no to, and trust me, not many followers of John Piper say no to him, including his elders. They can’t even say no to him when he doesn’t want to get paid for not working, and by his request! Furthermore, he mentions Paul Tripp, who believes that you can empty your heart of idols by determining what they are by identifying their relationship to sinful desires. These sinful desires are discovered by asking yourself “X-ray questions,” which are like interpretive questions of sorts. I believe Tripp borrowed this concept from Nero-linguistic Programming, a method of change used by psychologist. His treatise on this method of change can be observed in “How People Change,” published in 2006. Is Piper taking an eight-month sabbatical to put Paul Tripp’s theory of change to the test? If he is, God help us.
I suggested to my daughter, Heather, a missionary in PR, that this sabbatical could result in Piper repenting of his Christian mysticism. She suggested instead, that as a teacher that survives from novelty to novelty, that he will more than likely come back with all kinds of fresh, new ideas. Frankly, I find this possibility terrifying.
paul
Biblical Thinking Leads to Joy in the Midst of Trials: James 1:2-4,13,14
“But we must remember, the God who bestows the same blessings on the just and the unjust, may also shower us with the same trials as well.”
I don’t know about you, but I like it both ways. I want life to go my way down here and then retire to Heaven. Hey, I’m not asking for much, cats have 9 lives, I only want 2. Trials are annoying, disruptive, inconvenient, and downright painful. Wouldn’t you agree with that? I hope not. If you agree with that, you are well on your way to adding more misery to your life.
James begins with the word “consider” (Ecc. 7:14), or as some commentators note: “evaluate.” The first thing you must employ in a trial is biblical reason. Emotions will be there, but it must take a back seat to reason. Specifically, biblical reason. Verses 13 and 14 (of chapter 1) used to perplex me in James’ line of thinking here, and I confess that I do not entirely understand all of the implications in regard to trials, but think I’m on safe ground in regard to the following: (“Let no one say when he is tempted, ‘I am being tempted by God,’ for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire”) In the beginning and midst of a trial, we will be tempted. This is clearly the context of verses 13 and 14. How will we be tempted? By desire. Whatever meaning you want to attach to desire here, the following cannot be refuted; our desires produce thoughts, and it’s not our “desire” to be in a trial. Let the warfare commence; the mind of Christ verses desire. Desire and emotions produce thoughts that “lure” us away from right thinking that leads to stability and right doing. This can clearly be seen when Satan approached Eve to do warfare with her. His goal was to first change her thinking, and then appeal to desire. Obviously. Be sure of this; when you are in a trial, philosophies contrary to God’s word will come knocking and desire will be there waiting to help. The source of the desires James is speaking of is the “flesh” (Eph 2:3, Ro 13:14, Ga 5:16 Ga 5:17 Ga 5:24).
If you are looking to James for some deep and philosophical knowledge in regard to why bad things happen to good people, you have come to the wrong place. I can’t wait to meet James because he is a nuts and bolts guy. The last thing we need when we are in a trial is a long in-depth course in philosophy. The trials of life are no time to be figuring things out, James shows the way in no uncertain terms. Please hear me; when a friend is in a trail, do not take him, or her, a stinking book written by some big name theologian. Do your job, go to them with the mind of Christ and his compassion.
Our first thought when we find ourselves in a trial needs to be the following: “this is a good thing” (consider it ALL joy). James cushions his direct style with, “my brothers.” Before we get into the specific reason for joy stated by James, let me interject some other scripture that speaks to the why we should be thankful and joyful for trials: It is proof positive that God is working in our lives.
“If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons” (Heb 12:8).
Though this verse speaks of reproof, a reading of this verse in context reveals the very close relationship between discipline and trials (Heb 12:3-17). God is completely sovereign and always has a specific purpose in bringing events into the lives of believers and even unbelievers (Matt 5:45 1Thess 5:18 Pro 16:9). Trials exhibit God’s care for us and indicate that we belong to him. It also indicates the very working hands of God in our life. That is why 1Thess 5:18 tells us that we can be thankful in “every circumstance.” Furthermore, trials lead to comfort that equips us to help others have comfort (2Cor 1:3-7). Therefore, trials have yet another purpose of training us in order to help others.
James also cites the specific benefit of developed perseverance or steadfastness. Apparently, growing in perseverance facilitates growth in all area’s of life (“perfect and complete, lacking nothing”). There are many other elements of trials that could be gleaned but the point is this: pondering the various truths concerning what God is up to in trials should give us hope, joy, peace and assurance.
However, don’t miss what James says about being caught off guard. He says trials are of “various kinds.” Often, trials are not what we expect. Trials often come in a form or type that we would never dream could happen to us. Peter put it this way: “Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery trial when it comes upon you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you” (1 Peter 4;12). What kind of trial could happen to me? Anything. Usually, Christians can be caught off guard by the severity of a trial (“fiery”). But we must remember, the God who bestows the same blessings on the just and the unjust, may also shower us with the same trials as well (Matt. 5:4,5 Ecc. 7:14). Being dazed and confused is not helpful in regard to sound, Christlike thinking. Sometimes, clarifying this reality is where you might have to begin.
paul
Will the Creation Museum Add a Wing Dedicated to Geerhardus Vos?
“The theological differences between Reformed theology born of traditional hermeneutics, verses Reformed theology born of redemptive historical hermeneutics, are significant, and those who claim to be Reformed should know the difference.”
As my grandmother used to say: “nothing is sacred anymore.” Likewise, proponents of the “new Calvinism,” or “neo reformed movement,” or “the gospel driven life,” or “gospel sanctification,” or whatever other nomenclature you would like to attach, are busily writing articles that supposedly puts the beloved Creation Museum (just outside of Cincinnati, Ohio) into “proper perspective.” In their endeavor to save the church from the false gospel of exegetical interpretation of the Scriptures, they boldly proclaim that the age (how long ago they existed) of dinosaurs and how they became extinct is not the point; those dinosaurs were preaching the gospel, that’s the point. Therefore, attempts to arm our youth with creation science (what I thought the museum was doing, until being recently “corrected“) instead of redemptive historical hermeneutics is supposedly misguided, and many of these pundits have said as much. Granted, our children’s contentions in a public school setting that evolution is not the point, but the fact that all of creation is the gospel, may initially get the attention of opponents; that is, until they start asking how the creation of birds is a gospel presentation.
One article even insinuated that the founders of the museum installed the “Last Adam” film presentation at the end of the scientific gallery to emphasize that the Genesis, chapters 1 and 2 account is really a gospel presentation, and specifically speaks of Christ and Him only. However, though I doubt the Creation Museum folks reprinted the article because they really understood where the author was coming from; never the less, does this mean they will soon be installing a new wing dedicated to Geerhardus Vos?
“Black’s evaluation gives testimony to how extremely complex the Vos hermeneutic is, relegating the followers of those who pontificate its supposed revelatory results to a Pope-like reliance.”
Some of you may be asking: “Who is Geerhardus Vos?” Well, he is known as the father of Reformed Biblical Theology. You say: “Oh, that’s the biblical theology of the second phase of the Protestant Reformation (begun by Luther) by the likes of Calvin and Zwingli.” No. Biblical Theology originated in Germany under the liberal teaching and writing of Johann Philipp Gabler (1753-1826), who emphasized the historical nature of the Bible over against a “dogmatic” interpretation thereof. Nearly a century later, Vos (1862-1949) was instrumental in taking the discipline of biblical theology in a, supposedly, more conservative direction. Also known as redemptive historical hermeneutics, the debate that came out of the Reformed churches in the Netherlands (in 1940) is helpful in defining the difference between biblical theology and more orthodox forms of interpretation. The following quote is a helpful description:
“Redemptive-historical preaching is a method of preaching that was forged in the fires of debate in the Reformed churches of the Netherlands in the early 1940s. The debate concerned itself with the question: “How are we to preach the historical narratives of the Bible?” On one side of the question were the proponents of “exemplaristic” preaching. This method of preaching taught that the biblical narratives in general, and the Old Testament stories in particular, were to be preached as examples of how Christians today should (or should not) live their lives. Old Testament believers were held up as examples (or anti-examples, as the case may be) of how we should conduct ourselves.
On the other side of the debate were the advocates of preaching that was “redemptive-historical” (the term used to translate the Dutch heilshistorisch). They argued that Old Testament narratives are not given to us by God primarily to be moral examples, but as revelations of the coming Messiah. The narratives of the Old Testament served as types and shadows pointing forward in history to the time when Israel’s Messiah [however, more contemporary versions include superessionism] would be revealed in the person and work of Jesus Christ. In support of this view, the advocates of redemptive-historical preaching drew heavily upon the text of Luke 24:27, where Jesus is teaching the disciples on the road to Emmaus: “And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself” (English Standard Version). Further support was taken from verse 44 of the same chapter, where Jesus says, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.”
I might mention three things before continuing:
1. This hermeneutic is, by all accounts, very new in church history. Catch my drift?
2. It’s contention against orthodox hermeneutics is strange when one considers 1Corinthians 10:6; “Now these things occurred as examples to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things as they did.” And 1 Corinthians 10:11; “These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the fulfillment of the ages has come.”
3. Furthermore, Luke 24:27,44 doesn’t say that every narrative and verse in the OT is about Christ, but rather that He fulfilled prophesies about Himself contained in the OT. There are no adjectives in these verses that suggest a plenary, OT soteriolgy.
Today, the RHH is primarily carried forward and propagated by Northwest Theological Seminary, Westminster Theological Seminary, and Westminster Seminary California. The theological differences between Reformed theology born of traditional hermeneutics, verses Reformed theology born of redemptive historical hermeneutics, are significant, and those who claim to be Reformed should know the difference.
However, “The Biblical Hermeneutics of Geerhardus Vos: an Analysis, Critique, and Reconstruction,” by Tim Black, is probably the most extensive and technical work ever done on Vos hermeneutics. It is a massive work that cannot even be summarized here, but I would like to glean some relevant observations by Black that cast additional information on RHH that falls under the category of ominous. But before I do, let me interject that Black’s evaluation gives testimony to how extremely complex the Vos hermeneutic is, relegating the followers of those who pontificate its supposed revelatory results to a Pope-like reliance.
“But in my estimation, Black’s contribution concerning the likelihood of Historicism and Nature Freedom philosophies (Aristotle, Hagel, Compte, Marx) being a significant influence in regard to Vos’s biblical theology, is more worthy of mention:”
Vos believed that the Bible is a historical revelation of one person and one thing only; Christ and his redemption (Don’t worry, I am not going to park here long. You will soon see the relevance of this promise in the following). He also believed that the Bible’s revelation is organic, like in the following example: It is a living organism like a large plant. All that the plant will be is contained in the seed, but as the plant grows, it gives continuing revelation (in regard to Christ and redemption only) as to what was originally contained in the seed. Therefore, the continued growth of the plant reveals the former. The Bible is a progressive revelation in regard to redemption, so everything from the beginning to the end is a evolving revelation in regard to Christ and his redemption. So, the New Testament interprets the Old; the new is a more exact representation of the full revelation to come. So then, the Old Testament is a limited revealing of redemptions fullness. This is also accomplished on two different plains, the earthly and the heavenly. Black explains it this way on page 38:
“Everything which falls between these two ends of both history and Vos’s system is a gradual process of synthesis whereby the definitive antithesis between the age to come and this present evil age is “organically” synthesized through the progressive motion from “earth” to “heaven.” The earlier and lower moves to the later and higher.”
In other words, earth’s history is redemptive, and is growing toward its heavenly fullness in an organic synthesis. I would then add that creation must also be in the act of progressive sanctification as we also are, though Black never makes this point in his thesis. Hopefully then, you can at least see why proponents of RHH would say the creation account in Genesis is, in fact, a gospel narrative. But we now move on to the point that is easier to grasp: Biblical revelation (according to Voss) is by historical narrative rather than “textually presented ideas.” Black presents this Vos concept in the following ways:
1. “Rather, Vos emphasizes that the historical events (redemptive deeds/acts of God) which are described in Scripture are revelatory in themselves, and even form the central and foundational core to all other revelation”(page 23).
2. “As a result, despite his recognition [Vos] of the existence of a distinction between word and deed, he [Vos] focused on the deeds of God [historical deeds] as if they were more central than God’s words to Biblical revelation” (page 25).
3. “For the present let it suffice to say that the intuition arises again that for Voss, it is more important for the interpreter of Scripture to follow the organization of the historical events than to follow the organization of the text of Scripture” (page 26).
4. “Thus Vos finds it better to focus in Scripture first and foremost on the events rather than on the textually-presented ideas” (page 28).
Black also eludes to one of my own primary concerns with RHH, an overemphasis on any one member of the Trinity always leads to trouble:
“Further, it appears that Scripture is not only primarily centered around Christ but rather around the Triune God, including Christ” (page 57).
Furthermore, Black also contends that interpreting Scripture through covenants would find much more biblical cause than redemptive history:
“As argued above, the particular purpose of Genesis 1-2 is not redemptive, but covenantal–its purpose is the presentation of the covenant” (page59).
“I propose, therefore, that we do not refer to our method of interpreting Scripture as “Redemptive Historical” but rather “Covenantal Historical” or even “Covenantal” under the assumption that the covenant has an historically-progressive aspect built into its structure. This is more true to the actual history to which Scripture refers, and concomitantly is more true to Scripture itself” (page61).
For sure. From a “plain sense of Scripture” viewpoint, as well as a pure biblical data perspective, a much stronger argument could be made for a “Covenantal Historical” hermeneutic if one was inclined to do so.
But in my estimation, Black’s contribution concerning the likelihood of Historicism and Nature Freedom philosophies (Aristotle, Hagel, Compte, Marx) being a significant influence in regard to Vos’s biblical theology, is more worthy of mention:
“It is the critical thesis of this SIP that Vos’s two main emphases were shaped in part by
the philosophical context within which he worked. It appears that his emphasis on the historical progress of redemption and revelation is influenced by Historicism, and that his view of the 2 ages is influenced by the modern Nature-Freedom scheme. Both Historicism and the Nature-Freedom scheme must be explained at this point. I do not know how to keep Vos’s two emphases separate in this critique, and so I will allow them to run together to some extent. Just as the 2-age construction seems to be found as the flower of the historical progression, the Nature-Freedom scheme appears to be built out of Historicism. I will begin with a discussion of Historicism, move to an analysis of the Nature-Freedom scheme, and then attempt to demonstrate the presence of both in Vos’s thought.
i) Historicistic
In order to understand Vos’s hermeneutics in context, it is necessary to understand the
nature of Historicism. It should become apparent in the following that Vos’s view of history and of the study of history follows the central structures of the basic ideas of Historicism.
The best understanding of the nature of Historicism to which I have been able to come is
summarized by Maurice Mandelbaum in his book History, Man, & Reason. Mandelbaum gives a helpful general definition of Historicism. His definition is that “Historicism is the belief that an adequate understanding of the nature of any phenomenon and an adequate assessment of its value are to be gained through considering it in terms of the place which it occupied and the role which it played within a process of development.” Mandelbaum fleshes this definition out throughout his book but the best summary of what he means is given in four points concerning the historicistic construction which is characteristic of Hegel’s thought as well as Compte’s and Marxism.
First, there is a unified historical process which involves all historical entities in its movement and which must be studied by the historian.
Second, beneath all historicistic thought “was presupposed an underlying substance or subject which changes. Thus, a pattern of change conceived in the terms made familiar by Aristotle and by Hegel is not to be construed simply as a sequence of related forms; these successive forms are regarded as having an inherent connection with one another because each of them is viewed as a phase in a single, unified process, and because each expresses some necessary feature of that process.”
Third, Mandelbaum notes that the the substance which changes has an organic nature. He states that ‘both Compte and the Marxists shared Hegel’s view that, during any phase of this developmental process, the various attributes of society were organically related to one another, forming a coherent whole.’
Fourth,
‘The second basic presupposition connected with treating history in terms consonant with the Aristotelian and the Hegelian views of developmental processes is the fact that the later stages of these processes were
considered as being higher realizations, or fulfillments, of what was only implicit in the earlier stages. To be sure, significant differences existed between the Aristotelian doctrine of the relation of act to potency and Hegel’s dialectical emphasis on the role of negation in change. Nevertheless in both cases the end was
conceived as representing a higher and more perfect level than had been attained in any of the developmental stages preceding it. This did not entail that, according to Hegel (or even according to Aristotelianism), the value of each of the earlier stages was wholly relative to the value of the end. Since the end could not be attained in one leap, but only through transformations from one stage to the next, each stage had its own value. That value, however, could only be adequately appreciated through understanding how each stage in the development was related to the goal-directed process of which it was a part….it is only in terms of the later stages of development, when latent powers have become fully explicit, that we are in a position fully to understand the nature of a developmental process and adequately interpret the earlier stages of that process. This familiar teleological theme is, of course, most manifest in Hegel’:
‘The living substance…is that which is truly subject, or what is the same thing, is truly
realized and actual (wirklich) solely in the process of positing itself, or in mediating with its own self its transitions from one state or position to the opposite….It is the process of its own becoming, the circle which presupposes its end as its purpose, and has its end for its beginning; it becomes concrete and actual only by being carried out, and by the end it involves.’’
Note here that although Mandelbaum calls this his second point elsewhere he considers it his fourth point. Mandelbaum’s summary of the essential features of Historicism, then, are 1) that it posits a unified historical process, 2) it posits a substance which changes according to the laws of that process, 3) it posits the organic nature of the substance, and 4) it posits that the not only the process as a whole but also each stage of the process and the organic substance which changes within that process all aim toward a goal and are all properly understood only in terms of the way in which they are progressing toward the attainment of that goal. Further, this goal-orientation assumes that the fulfillment of the goal is the best situation possible, and each stage along the way, although of some value in itself is yet not to be considered perfect. I must mention that every description of Historicism I have found has described it in similar terms to the terms used by Vos, but more importantly those descriptions have followed the general outlines which Mandelbaum has laid out.
While I do not think I understand Historicism as well as some other people, nevertheless it is undeniable that Mandelbaum’s general definition of Historicism fits Vos’s system to a ‘T,’ especially in regard to his focus on the progress of redemptive history toward the goal of heaven, and the fuller-meaning method of interpreting that progress which he roots in Paul’s eschatological interpretation of the Old Testament.’’”
Black continues on, in several pages filled with mind-numbing data and references to show the irrefutable correlations between Vos’s hermeneutic and pagan philosophies.
The bottom line is this: the gospel driven life, New Covenant Theology, gospel sanctification, and most other things that come out of Westminster Seminary, stand or fall on Vos’s hermeneutic, and it ain’t lookin’ good for the standin’ part. Vos’s hermeneutic is new, disregards the plain sense of textual content, contains pagan philosophy, and in reality, is just plain goofy. Furthermore, Reformed folks need to determine what type of Reformed they are: Calvin, or Vos? Secondly, editors should get some discernment before they print silly articles that make “cool, green grass” that squishes “between our toes,” synonymous with the gospel. And these guys built the Creation Museum?!
Lastly, in Proverbs 8, wisdom is personified as a women. She’s not a story, neither is she a narrative; she is, understanding (v.1), truth (v.7), justice (v.8), knowledge (v.9), instruction (v.10), wisdom (v.12) fear of the Lord (v.13), counsel (v.13), righteousness (v.20), the first fruits of God’s works (v.22). And guess what?: before creation, she was with God:
“23 I was appointed from eternity, from the beginning, before the world began.
24 When there were no oceans, I was given birth, when there were no springs abounding with water;
25 before the mountains were settled in place, before the hills, I was given birth,
26 before he made the earth or its fields or any of the dust of the world.
27 I was there when he set the heavens in place, when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep,
28 when he established the clouds above and fixed securely the fountains of the deep,
29 when he gave the sea its boundary so the waters would not overstep his command, and when he marked out the foundations of the earth.
30 Then I was the craftsman at his side. I was filled with delight day after day, rejoicing always in his presence,
31 rejoicing in his whole world and delighting in mankind.”
I conclude with a pleading for Christians not to be led away from Lady Wisdom, but I think I will let her do the talking:
32 “Now then, my sons, listen to me; blessed are those who keep my ways.
33 Listen to my instruction and be wise; do not ignore it.
34 Blessed is the man who listens to me, watching daily at my doors, waiting at my doorway.
35 For whoever finds me finds life and receives favor from the LORD.
36 But whoever fails to find me harms himself; all who hate me love death.”
2 comments