Daniel Chew, a dear Reformed brother of mine in Singapore, draws an interesting parallel between New Calvinism and New Evangelicalism, the movement New Calvinism emerged from. Chew notes how one of New Evangelicalism’s characteristic traits (being positive) has not been on the list of items needing reform by New Calvinists and as a result has crossed over into the New Calvinist movement becoming a characteristic trait shared with their parent-movement.
Chew sees the New Evangelical doctrine of positivity dominating some of the strands within the New Calvinism and uses a recent controversy started by Tim Challies as an example of the ill effect of the New (syncretistic) Calvinism.
Personally, I disagreed with most of what Challies wrote. His unwarranted attack severely lacked Scriptural support and was based on his feelings and autonomous self-reflection. Whenever someone offers doctrine or ethics based solely on an introspective reflection, the first task for the Christian is to test it by Scripture. Once I saw that his main authorities were appeals to himself and to Neil Postman it became clear to me that his faulty humanistic method would not lead to the prevailing light revealed only in Scripture. Since the Bible has plenty to say about not leaning on our own understanding and the consequences of following ways that seem right to our minds, I was able to interpret the whole controversy in light of God’s word and concluded that according to Scripture he was in the wrong and should not be followed. But I am thankful that Daniel Chew has given this response.
Chew writes: The desire to be loving and positive, both New Evangelical traits, have never been repudiated by the New Calvinist movement, a successor of the conservative wing of New Evangelicalism. In fact, these twin related traits manifests themselves in the blogosphere in New Calvinist Tim Challies’ blog post attacking so-called watchbloggers. In his highly inflammatory post, Challies utilizes zero Scripture and through analogy with the secular world accuses watchblogs or discernment blogs as utilizing evil as entertainment, merely because such watchblogs act as watchmen in portraying the errors within the professing visible Church. The irony that Challies is, in this one post of his, doing exactly what he accuses the watchblogs as doing (portraying the errors within the professing visible Church) is seemingly lost on him…
Chew spends “well-spent” effort criticizing Challies’ articles that caused the controversy, and it will be well-worth your effort to read the entire article a few times or more. Chew ends his article with an exhortation to Biblical Christians with:
We are to be positive and negative; positive towards godliness and truth and negative towards ungodliness and error. New Evangelicalism threw out the need to be negative, while Fundamentalism in general tend to throw out the need to be positive. Biblical Christianity is both, and may we therefore embrace both.
Daniel Chew’s response to Tim Challies can be read here.
—– Related to this is an email I wrote to someone the first week Challies’ article began to buzz. I was asked for my opinion and the following is a portion of the email I sent (to an anonymous inquirer).
Dear [so and so],
Thank you for the links. Having read both of Tim Challies’ posts on watchblogs, I want to offer some thoughts on where I agree and disagree. First, I disagree with the method used as the basis of his criticism. But I agree with some of the points he made along the way. Second, I disagree with the lack of Scriptural support for his position and his appeal to nonbiblical sources for authority on matters that Scripture clearly addresses. But I agree with the use of Scriptural references he provided at times although they were not used to support his overall thesis. Third, I disagree with his use of certain Scripture references. But I appreciate his attempt to use them anyway.
1. Tim Challies reaches his conclusion through introspection. He says:
“I was thinking about such blogs a few days ago and arrived at a conclusion about them that actually rather surprised me. This is what I realized: these blogs are really little more than entertainment.”
There is no appeal to any objective standard by which to judge such blogs. By “thinking” about them he “arrived” at a conclusion. But how can he assure us that his arrival at the conclusion is valid? He does not reveal his method of reasoning used to reach the conclusion, he simply states that he thought and arrived. Is this not a display of an epistemology called Rationalism? I think it may be, because he proceeds to “build up” knowledge from his premise reached by autonomous reason. He says, “And once I had these blogs filed in that way in my mind, their popularity and their draw began to make much more sense to me.” Should we assume that “if” these blogs were filed differently in his mind that their popularity and draw would have made different sense “to him?” Here’s the point, things are not what they are because of what autonomous thinkers think they are. They are what they are independently and irrespective of what thinkers think they are. If I filed my car in my mind as a drinking fountain, surely the windshield wiper fluid ducts would make much more sense to me. But would my mind have filed an accurate account of the reality of my car?
2. Tim Challies offers a dogmatic, humanistic perspective.
“There is really no value in watching boys do stupid things on skateboards and laughing when they crack their ankle bones in half; there is really no value in watching the worst pastors in America preach to the worst churches in America.”
It is unclear as to the value theory he uses as a criterion to judge YouTube videos and America’s worst pastors and churches. Since he does not speak from an objective reference point of true value we are left wondering what he means. This is a less than helpful critique, but it lends to the overall question of how he reached the conclusion that “watchblogs” are entertainment. One could equally stand up and declare, “there is value in watching skateboarders wreck on youtube!” Then we would be faced with two opposing views, each equally dogmatic. Then what? Whom shall we choose, if anyone at all? Humanism interprets all of reality through the way they see it, experience it, feel it, think it, etc. The opposite of humanism is Biblicism which interprets all of reality through the lens of Scripture, given by the only infallible Interpreter of reality!
More evidence of his humanistic perspective is presented in his statement that “he thinks” watchblogs offer what Neil Postman referred to as “context-free information.” The problem here is that Postman is appealed to the way Christians appeal to Scripture. Christians are sure that God’s Word is true, but how can Challies know that Postman is true? Rather than tangling with Postman’s numerous logical fallacies and outright errors at this point, let us acknowledge that when men appeal to men and only men, the result is nothing more than man. Challies’ post is about man looking to man to understand man. O, man!
3. Tim Challies uses Scripture improperly.
“I want you to be wise as to what is good and innocent as to what is evil” (Romans 16:19b). He wants these Christians to invest their time studying not what is evil, but what is good. When they have confidence in all that is good, the evil will become ever-more apparent.”
Is that what Paul is saying? Does Paul mean “wise to what is good and ignorant to what is evil.” And is that what Paul means in 1 Cor. 14:10? Or what Jesus meant in Matt. 10:16? We see Challies equating innocence with ignorance. I cannot recommend/support his exegesis.
In Jesus,
Stephen Macasil
—–end—–
Although many errors have contributed to the overall failure of Challies’ articles to pass the biblical test, another potential unbiblical outcome is the emboldening of the true evil marginalized as entertainment. I hope that Challies’ dogma is rejected and not followed on this. I would be grieved if, say, Rob Bell or Rick Warren and their respective religions became compatible with this new theological trend called the New Calvinism.
Again, read Daniel Chew’s article for more.
{ 32 comments… read them below or add one }
Hello Steven,
good post, and thanks for the link. I think you do a much better job in revealing the faulty epistemological method Challies utilizes in his attack article.
Hello Stephen,
sorry for the mistake. I’ll get it right.
I guess I fail to see what the problem was with Tim’s post. You both seem to have a hyperbolic overreaction to what he was stating, that being, watchblogs have a bad tendency to bring out the bad in people. I didn’t take it that Tim was saying a blogger can’t blog about heresy when such is warranted, but that there is just a negative fixation that can result with over emphasizing the bad. Even Phil made this clarification in his post in response to Tim.
Believe me, I have encountered my share of “watch bloggers” who are self-appointed, have no accountability to any church or group of elders, who are usually embittered against a Church or a group of Christians, and make some of the most ignorant pronouncements against what they are attacking. I would imagine you would have a similar opinion of all the “bloggers” bagging on Robert Morey in recent months, correct? Being a member of Grace Church, believe me, I encounter at least once a month some crank spewing his paranoid delusions against John MacArthur, warning the Christian world to stay away from him.
These are the kind of individuals who need to be rebuked, not lauded, and I took Tim’s post as an expressed opinion against encouraging these types of individuals.
Fred
Fred:
how do you know whether such a negative fixation exists in watchblogs? Certainly, a negative fixation is wrong, but how do you know watchblogs have this negative fixation? Are you or Tim or anyone privy to their thoughts and motives? If not, why judge what you do not know (Mt. 7:1)?
With regards to criticism, I have said in my article: If criticizing someone equates to discernment, then non-believers sure have a lot of discernment! Do you for once think that ONLY pastors are criticized; that ordinary Christians who go about doing God’s work are not criticized? Why is it that most of us can suffer for doing right and not grumble about being slandered and attacked by all manner of persons, professing Christians or not, while others just have to attack such people, not because they are in error, but merely because they criticize others? Is criticism qua criticism wrong, or the content of the criticism that may be wrong?
If those who criticize are in error, prove it! Why sully the gift of discernment by calling all who are critical as “discerning in the flesh”?
Tim’’s two articles are not about rebuking individuals who criticize falsely and are not accountable to anyone. His posts attack ALL watchblogs; ALL who in his opinion are more “negative” in “tone” than he is. If he wishes to rebuke individuals with a critical spirit and/or who slander others, then he should differentiate such from legitimate watchblogs, and provide examples! As it is, his criteria has already thrown Chris Rosebrough’s Museum of Idolatry under the bus, a watchblog site which Phil Johnson has defended as being legitimate in his reply to Challies’ first article.
Stephen
I don’t know anything about this new this & that, I mostly hang out with old people in Convalsecent Homes, like the other day we sang that grand old song, “Give Me That Old Time Religion”. But I did want to say that I loved your definition of Humanism & Biblicism. I’d like to quote you if I may.
Joh 7:24 Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.”
Heb 5:14 But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice TO DISTINGUISH good from evil.
While Challies makes a sweeping smear of Discernment sites that actually HELP others to obey Scripture, HE HIMSELF embraces the very evil we seek to caution others about (for example see Challies’ glowing endorsement of Don Whitney’s book in which he offers Eastern Mystic Emergent Quaker Richard Foster to his readers). His lack of discernment has led to embracing/promoting at least one false teacher world-wide via the Web. He makes our point, or rather God’s: HIS gift of discernment IS needed.
And why is it that Challies is the determiner of what is relevant or not, useful or not, for everyone? And who determines what is “positive” and “negative” and why is one seen as more spiritual than the other? Are we then to say that ol’ Joel Osteen, Mr. Positive himself, along with Schuller, are more godly because they are more positive? We’d have to, given Challies’ own claims.
Discernment is seen as unloving and negataive, but it is precisely because of God’s agape that He has gifted some of His children and therefore churches, with it. He is, afterall, the Great Shepherd of our souls. People who have a distain for discernment like to determine how the discernment is to operate (or put them OUT of operation).
Scripture is replete with the call to discern, and even names names: 2Tim. 2:17-18 about Hymenaues and Philetus; 2Tim. 4:14-15 about Alexander the metalworker; and 3John 9-11 about Diotrophes. V. 11 is crucial, b/c while publically denouncing Diotrophes (the letter like all the letters in Scripture (was CIRCULATED BEYOND THE LOCAL CHURCH), is the command to not immitate evil but what is good.
1Co 12:7 To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit FOR THE COMMON GOOD….10 to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues….18 But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose….21 THE EYE CANNOT SAY TO THE HAND , “I HAVE NO NEED OF YOU,” NOR again THE HEAD TO THE FEET, ” I HAVE NO NEED OF YOU.”22 ON THE CONTRARY, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable,
The Discernment Naysayers ARE saying “I have no need of you”, when GOD says, “Oh yes you do!” and “Don’t say you don’t!” Why do they quarrel with their Maker? And where is the reverence of the Sovereignty of God they say they hold to? And why do professing Christians reject God’s gift of Discernment He saw as necessary? Seems this is not in line with the Doctrines of Grace they claim they believe.
Daniel Asks,
“how do you know whether such a negative fixation exists in watchblogs? Certainly, a negative fixation is wrong, but how do you know watchblogs have this negative fixation? Are you or Tim or anyone privy to their thoughts and motives? If not, why judge what you do not know (Mt. 7:1)?”
How do I know, Daniel? Quite simply for the fact I have had to defend my pastor from the smears of such bloggers. That’s how. Fundy preacher David Cloud’s “Way of Life” (which should be called “Way of Strife’) could easily be considered a “watchblog,” but I have documented countless errors both in fact and substance when he attacks John MacArthur as being in bed with new evangelicals.
There isn’t a need to be privy to their thoughts and motives. When they twist facts, publish half truths, and fail to provide a substantive context for what they criticize, it is apparent they have an agenda. Those who defend them as speaking the “truth in love” with out considering their gross errors in what they proclaim, can certainly be said to be fixated on the negative. I will ask you what I mentioned to Stephen: Were those “watchblogs” who attacked Robert Morey over the last many months until he retired, a good thing or a bad thing? Did they and their supporters who eagerly waited for new entries “fixated on the negative?” I mean, you aren’t privy to their thoughts any more than I am. Yet you would condemn Tim Challies for speaking out against such stuff.
Like I said, I don’t think Tim was specifically condemning bloggers who go after heresy as such, just the negative fixation such blogs produce in Christians. Still, I am left scratching my head as to why you over reacted to his post to the point of having to write a long winded piece against him.
Fred
Fred, I think you are being very sensible, but I just can’t accept your premise that Tim was speaking of only the most radical fringe of psychotic internet blog-mongers (such as the ones you and I both have to encounter).
Since there was very little clarification as to whom Tim might have been referring to, it is beyond reason to reduce all of his criticism and funnel it down to one narrow target. If that had been the case, then don’t you think he should have conditioned the posts to responsibly (proactively) counter any possible misconstrued interpretations that Ken Silva, Chris Rosebrough, CRN, Daniel, et al., are in view? I mean, he speaks so broadly in his posts – too broad for your thesis to be justified. In fact, the opposite occurred. Once Silva, Rosebrough, et al, were dragged into it, Tim did not (to my knowledge) stipulate any exclusions. It seems as though he was fine with the way it was being interpreted…
From Tim’s post:
“I want to say a word today about watchblogs or discernment blogs or whatever you want to call them. I am referring to blogs that specialize in sharing bad news.”
Prima facie, unless you “specialize” in sharing “happy” or “positive” news, you’re a watchblog or discernment blog and he’s talking ’bout you! The term is never clearly defined enough to the point where your conclusions can be (validly) deduced. I would suggest, and I hope you would agree, that if Cloud and the Morey-psychofixationists were in view that Tim would have chosen much more pristine language to make his point. But from his rather vague explanation of who the objects of his warnings are, it is any blog that:
“share stories and videos and anecdotes about Christians and churches and supposed Christians and supposed churches.”
And…
“Day after day they offer examples of all that is wrong in the church. They may vary what they offer a little bit, but what is true of them is that they offer a steady diet of negative content related to the church in general or perhaps related to just one person or one ministry. You know of some of these sites, I am sure.”
There isn’t any qualifying language that limits the scope to only the radical mental cases that indeed plague the internet and cause serious spiritual harm to those fixated on such “evil as entertainment.”
But this all falls under the broad category of morals / ethics. He’s saying, do this – it is good and right to do this – and bad and wrong to do that… Regardless of the word-choice, whether it was good or bad, my rebuttal deals with the invisible framework of his humanistic, non-Christian method which is representative to the most grievous of errors in the history of mankind. I would contend that even “if” he made the most cautious of stipulations and even said he was referring to Cloud et al, that his argument would have failed on the exact basis as I’ve outlined above.
Question: Is it a good thing or a bad thing for the “World’s Most Famous Christian Blogger” to continue operating with the ultimate presupposition of unbelief?
I feel like I’m late to the party, but then again, this post is a little late on the topic.
“Watchblogs” cover a lot of territory. This blog could probably qualify as one on occasion. So it would be difficult to discuss the errors of such without over generalizing. I think Tim realized this, at least based on his responses at Pyromaniacs, and felt the need to clarify his initial post.
And to my dear brother, Stephen. You admit that you agree with some of the points he made, but you all of your time whittling Tim down and no time offering any encouragement or exegetical advice on how he could have properly arrived at the conclusion with which you agreed. Just because somebody arrived at a conclusion improperly doesn’t mean that the conclusion itself is wrong. Not everyone is equipped to express a proper exegetical foundation for their conclusion about why something is wrong. Some, myself included, sometimes need a little help in preparing that sound foundation.
I bring that up, because you didn’t address a couple issues that I think should be addresses as a result of his post. The following is stolen from Phil Johnson: “(1) There is a vocal segment of the fundamentalist/evangelical community for whom an obsession with sensational exposés and nattering negativity has proved seriously unhealthy. It has given them a sour attitude, a perpetually angry tone, and a really bad reputation. (2) I also agree wholeheartedly with Frank Turk’s point: certain amateur and self-anointed “discernment” specialists are a serious blight on the church and an impediment to the cause of truth. (Especially those who have no accountability to or involvement in a real church with a serious pastor and legitimate elders.) People like that give discernment itself a black eye.”
And some of those are persons who frequent here.
Fred:
I am starting to wonder if any of you have actually READ my article. I have addressed the issue of the radical fringe “discernment groups”, and how to properly deal with them, yet you write as if I am happy to defend such groups.
Sir Aaron:
I agree with the essence of Phil’s and Mr. Turk’s complaint as put forward in those two points of yours. But is Challies’ post the proper way of addressing this issue? I have proposed an alternative method on my article as to how to better address the issue, which is far better than sweeping over-generalized attacks on “watchblogs”. No doubt implementing the proposed method ACTUALLY requires Challies to do some in-depth research and engage in more serious reflection, something which he hasn’t been doing of late. It is so very easy to assume a holier-than-thou attitude and go along with the Zeitgeist instead of ACTUALLY interacting with those so-called errant “watchblogs” and proving how exactly they have gone wrong.
Daniel, Stephen:
I did read your article and though you did separate crack pot watch bloggers from the more responsible watch bloggers, I just thought devoting an entire article (which probably took you a few hours to compose) gripping about what Tim Challies thinks or should think or how general or overgeneral he was, or what he didn’t clarify, or should have clarified, to be a bit petty. Who really cares what Tim thinks? And to suggest he is operating from the presupposition of unbelief? What do you mean by that?
At any rate, his broader points he made in his initial article, and what Phil confirmed in his blog article, as Aaron related above, are what I think are the more important for us to consider. Watchblogs do highlight the negative and as a result of a steady diet of such negativity, people tend to become jaded as to the true nature of the Christian church. Watchbloggers would have more credibility and overall impact if they were associated with and actively involved with a biblical church. Generally they are not. They are lone ranger style Christians who take it upon themselves to pronounce their declarations on the internet because it is free and easily accessible. It would also help if they actually knew what they were talking about when they do their watchblogging, because again, what I have found is a whole lot of ignorance paraded about as if the person has done his or her homework when such is not the case.
Anyhow, getting all indignant as to what you think Tim should have said, I just think is stirring up strife when none is really warranted.
Fred
I know this is way off topic, but I listened to Dr. Morey preaching at Harvest to the “well group”. That sermon absolutely rocked. What an outstanding word, the first 5 min I was in tears and it didnt get better..
I want you to know, Dr. Morey preached with such anointing and genuineness…I cant even explain it. Let Dr. Morey know I received from God …..life and joy.
John
Fred:
ISTM that my main difference with you is that you want to utilize the word “watchblogs” to refer to “crack pot watch blogs”, whereas I do not agree with such a usage. Language and words mean something, and we should try to be as clear as possible so as to minimalize miscommunication.
With regards to why I wrote that article, part of it is that Challies’ articles undermine the ministry of biblical watchblogs, and would serve to contribute to the growth of the anti-discernment Zeitgeist although Challies probably does not intend it to do so. The New Calvinist movement is diverse, but the direction of the movement worries me. Challies is just one person in the movement, yet his posts reflect the attitude of the New Calvinists I encounter. The issue therefore is not Challies per se, but Challies as an example of something deeper.
As I hope to show soon, the direction of the New Calvinist movement is away from biblical Christianity. Those who have studied at least to some degree the issue of New Evangelicalism of half a century ago can see the writing on the wall, and would be very much concerned about the New Calvinism, notwithstanding their stated commitment to be Gospel-centered.
Fred:
while I am sure Stephen can speak for himelf, if we truly believe in the principle of Sola Scriptura, shouldn’t the way we come to our conclusions (whether right or wrong) matters? Shouldn’t our presuppositions be of concern too?
Hi everyone. Sounds like Emergent Church teaching a little??? Does Phil Johnson or John MacArthur believe this???
Daniel:
Phil Johnson did a very good post on the subject of Challies’ article. He criticized Challies pretty thoroughly but did address some points with which he agreed. And btw, Challies responded by commenting on Phil’s blog and saying that he agreed with Phil so he was going to make some sort of correction.
And of course, the methodology of how we come to your conclusions matter. But when a correct conclusion is made, it is likewise important to admit that the conclusion is correct then show how the proper methodology would have reached that conclusion. You can’t simply throw out the baby with the bath water.
Sir Aaron,
I doubt that Challies truly agreed with Phil. That said, if you want my opinion, I think Challies did made some good points, but he destroyed whatever good he has done by attacking the brethren. In the end, his point would be lost to those who need to hear it most, no thanks to his uncalled for bellicose attitude and shallow unbiblical argumentation.
You doubt Challies truly agreed with Phil? Oh wise one, how is it that you have divined this?
Speaking of bellicose and shallow, you might want to look in the mirror.
Sir Aaron,
You said: And to my dear brother, Stephen. You admit that you agree with some of the points he made, but you all of your time whittling Tim down and no time offering any encouragement or exegetical advice on how he could have properly arrived at the conclusion with which you agreed. Just because somebody arrived at a conclusion improperly doesn’t mean that the conclusion itself is wrong. Not everyone is equipped to express a proper exegetical foundation for their conclusion about why something is wrong. Some, myself included, sometimes need a little help in preparing that sound foundation.
>>>I think that I did do what you said I didn’t do. In the OP I expressed my disagreement on the basis that it severely lacked biblical support and that it assumed the ultimate presupposition of unbelief, which is human autonomy. I offered the following in an effort to be helpful: “Whenever someone offers doctrine or ethics based solely on an introspective reflection, the first task for the Christian is to test it by Scripture.”
I went on to give my commentary based on the same method I’ve been using for years which is to begin with Scripture and subject out thinking unto its pattern of thought revealed.
I also articulated my disagreement with the absence of absolute, objective standards and in its place, subjective human autonomy. This obviously reveals that I am promoting biblicism over humanism.
I ended with my disapproval of his use of Rom. 16:19 for equating “ignorance” with “innocence.” It should be plain Jane to anyone with a Bible and a lexicon that Challies gave the text a foreign reading. You’ve known me for a long time and have engaged extensively here at BT. Based on my perception of your theological method I’m surprised that you do not support my critique but rather oppose it. I hope this is not the case, but do you reject biblicism now and opt for humanism? Like I said, I hope not. But I cannot see any other way to approve Tim Challies’ generic condemnation of all blogs as he’s described them. He begins from within himself and proceeds outward to legislate reality. I began with Scripture and interpreted reality on its terms not my own. Can you not see the great chasm between???
But you can see from my brief interaction with Fred that I have raised legitimate, valid points that have yet to be dealt with. If anyone does not agree with my points and wishes to argue against them, by all means do it. If my arguments are not valid then they should be easily refuted. But I have received silence toward my points and very brief surface-level interaction from Fred (a brother whom I love just like you!).
Besides, the OP is featuring Daniel’s work – of which I only added commentary along the way. If it is required of me to give a detailed exegetical case for the foundation of my thinking, I can do that. Fred asked: “Who really cares what Tim thinks?” My answer is, “lots of people!” He’s the most famous Christian blogger! The real question is, “Who really cares what Stephen thinks?” The answer to that is “hardly no one!” But if it is required of me to provide an exegetical case then I will, regardless of the quantitative imbalance. I usually pour out that stuff in person though…(as you know).
Sir Aaron,
let me get this straight. You are offended because I express how offended I am at Challies’ attack on the brethren. Perhaps you may want to look at yourself in the mirror for the “bellicose and shalow” comment you have directed at me.
I just have an inspiration for a possible new post, Topsy-Turvy Christianity, where pop “Christianity” has almost every single Christian practice backwards or opposite. We attack the brethren and are nice to heretics. It is no wonder the Church is sick! With “friends” and “brethren” like these, who needs enemies?
I think my time here on this post is done. Nobody it seems is able to defend Challies from Scripture, and all I see is mere subjective opinions and ad-hominem attacks. As I have mentioned to my friends before, if not for God, I wold have left the Faith long time ago. Official “Chrstianity”, even of the “Reformed” type, make me sick!
Dear Daniel, (or anyone else with a teachable spirit)
Perhaps it is best, as you’ve suggested, to withdraw from this “discussion.” But first, please hear me out on a couple things…
In Morey’s article, How To Witness To Mormons he says: “Remember that we are not to argue over doctrine or Scripture. The authority of Joseph Smith as a “prophet” of God is the real issue.”
By taking the argument to where its life hinges, the apologist avoids getting caught (i.e. trapped) in the infinite conundrum of meaningless, endless bickering and instead deals with the “real issues.” The real issue here is the authority of Scripture. Like arguing over doctrine with the Mormon, the apologist will not achieve resolution or be successful in his argument unless the interlocutor is freed from his ultimate commitment to Joseph Smith as a true prophet of God. Once that belief is destroyed and replaced with the authority of Scripture, then the apologist may proceed to make biblical arguments since both parties will be appealing to the same Objective standard.
Much of the same framework applies here. If participants in this discussion are not all agreed that the Scriptures are the final judge in all matters of religious controversy (WCF i.iv, i.x [9], [24]), then it is like arguing over Jn. 17, Heb. 7, etc., with a Mormon. No matter how sound and persuasive the exegesis and argument of the apologist is, since it is demanded of the Mormon to relinquish faith in JS as a true prophet of God, until s/he does so it is all for not. Dethroning JS is logically prior to presenting sound exegesis of texts such as Heb. 7:24 etc…
I have attempted to dethrone human autonomy via my comments and present the Bible as the Absolute Authority in this discussion. Whether it be human autonomy, Joseph Smith, or any other object of idolatry that functions as an impediment to understanding and thinking rightly, it must be destroyed!
Since the Reformed tradition is rich in the exegesis of the relevant applicable texts to support my thoughts laid out above, I will refrain from reproducing them here. Besides, since this discussion involves supposedly “Reformed” proponents, then it should have already been understood by now (I don’t see how one can claim to be Reformed without knowing this…).
I leave with this:
We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ, being ready to punish every disobedience, when your obedience is complete. (2 Cor. 10:5-6)
and,
[T]he Lord put out his hand and touched my mouth. And the Lord said to me,
“Behold, I have put my words in your mouth.
See, I have set you this day over nations and over kingdoms,
to pluck up and to break down,
to destroy and to overthrow,
to build and to plant.” (Jer. 1:9-10)
From these two brief citations of God’s Word, we see that the apologist is justified in actively warring against all intellectual activity that is not in obedience to the Lordship of Christ, and that there is a destructive process that is logically prior to any “positive” upbuilding.
Christ demands that you die in order to have life. You cannot put the cart before the horse when it comes to biblical theism. Therefore we take every thought captive to obey Christ and continue to administer punishment until obedience is complete. We also tear down the high towers of opposition prior to building and planting, just as the soteriological activity of God does as salvation is applied ti His elect. A radical disconnect is on radiant display whenever so-called Calvinism is reduced to a mere verbalized adherence to TULIP.
I have to leave now and will not be able to write much more today. But I challenge all to examine yourself to see if you have biblical warrant to advance your ideas to other Christians, because if you do not – you stand with the enemies of Christ and are numbered among them. Biblical Christians will advance the kingdom with violent force, and if you are in the way, no matter how nice you may be, you’ll be run over! Redemptive history is on a divine time-table. It stoppeth for no one, so get right with the God of redemptive history today lest you find yourself another spiritual casualty in the past…
(I was going to end with Jude 3, but Matt. 3:2 seems more fitting!)
Stephen,
you are right. It it frustrating interacting with people who refuse to listen. I don’t know why, but generally, the more “biblical” and “reformed” a person is, the less teacheable they are. I must admit I am not above this unfortunate weakness myself, but I so much admire new Christians with their desire to know God and His Word, which really puts me to shame.
Hey Daniel,
I have observed and have experience the same frustrations and horrid treatment simply because I “touched the Reformed anointed” (and as a woman, at that!). I continue to see the sin of favortism wallowed in and excused by folks in these circles and it amazes me that for so many who claim to be knowledgable in the Scriptures and well-read, they miss the simplicity of Truth AND commands. Moreover, they are FAR MORE TOLERANT of those in error than those in Truth!
What has emerged is a Magesterium menality: if Prof. So and So,or Dr. Such and Such says it, it MUST be true, and who cares if he’s a little “off” in practice or doctrine and has no Scripture to support this? The little truth the man gives is EVIDENCE that he must be listened to, right? If he’s got the stamp of approval by a seminary or famous author he must be good! Right? WRONG! This IS how false teachers SECRETLY SNEEK IN AMONG YOU.
Claiming “Sola Scriptura” they hold see Scripture as mere milk, but theologians as the REAL MEAT.
One of the problems with this group of people is that they hold to “all truth is God’s truth” therefore they are unwilling to reject a heretic after the first and second warning. They rather ignore the heresies, but keep the man. Funny how they don’t see the TRUTH proclaimed by those who try to hold God’s Word above all things (Ps. 138:2). They will NOT separate from error. They are not concerned with purity in doctrine and practice. “Who’s got perfect doctrine?” is their view, not unlike the typical liberals in other camps.
Jas 2:9 But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors.
Read James 2 and see–whether its the rich or the intellectual or famous elite, favoritism is condemned by God.
***correction*** “Claiming to hold to “Sola Scriptura”, they actually see Scripture as mere milk, but the theologians as the REAL MEAT.
Sorry!
Also, to be clear, I hold to the Doctrines of Grace because they are biblically and clearly taught throughout Scripture.
Daniel:
I don’t get offended. As you’ll see in the meta, initially you agreed with me. It wasn’t until you “doubted” that Challies agreed with Phil Johnson that things got ugly.
“We attack the brethren and are nice to heretics.” Who is the we that does this? All I see is mere subjective opinions and ad-hominem attacks. Really? Where do you see subjective opinions? Did I defend Challies post? No. I didn’t even offer an opinion about Challies post. In fact, I told you that Challies was criticized by many and that he actually repented. Therefore, I actually supported both yours and Stephen’s point of view. But YOU said you “doubted” that Challies actually believed what Phil said. You didn’t even offer a basis for such doubts. Pure ad hominem. Then YOU started with the “bellicose and shallow” comments. And then you were the last one to throw the term around. So where are the ad hominem and subjective opinions coming from again?
Stephen:
Brother, did I say I opposed your critique? Did I even say you were wrong in your analysis? NO! Nobody is arguing that Scripture shouldn’t be our guide. I’m not even arguing that Challies was correct. I only pointed out that Challies made some points with which you said you agree and that I would have liked to see you put forth some effort into showing us how to arrive at those points from a Biblical basis rather than using introspection. You didn’t. And btw, somebody can arrive at a conclusion, for example, “murder is wrong,” through introspection. Granted, the methodology is wrong and that should be corrected but the conclusion is still valid and can be supported from Scripture (even if the person needs some help in that regard).
So I am NOT saying is that your critique is wrong. I just wish you would have expanded on the points with which you agreed and showed us how one could have used Scripture to arrive at those points. And Tim Challies, after he was called out by Phil, did graciously admit error (despite Daniel’s “doubts”).
I do hope you aren’t suggesting that I don’t have a teachable spirit (because that is the implication from my perspective) especially as long as you have known me.
Denise:
I have much to say to you, but I have to spend some time pondering the appropriate time, place, and substance of what it is I plan to say. Perhaps one day we’ll be able to clear the air. Until then, the grace of the Lord Jesus be with you.
P.S. This conversation has unfolded so slowly, I have to reread the whole thing everytime I post just to recall what was said.
Ok, As you were.
I do want to apologize to you, Chew. I shoudn’t have spoken to you as I did in my post on my May 7, 2009 post.
Sir Aaron:
Apology accepted. With regards to Challies’ opinion, my doubt is not that Challies does not agree with Phil Johnson. My doubt is that he does not agree with Johnson’s emphasis. His constant refusal to differentiate between legitimate and ilegitimate watchblogs aids the enemy, as can be seen in the AODMers’ hypocritical watchbogs.
I agree that there needs to be differentiation. The term “watchblog” also needs to be defined.
I do have a growing concern that some Christians are engaging in gossip rather than discernment when blogging about certain issues. The regular attacks against Dr. Morey are examples that readily come to mind.
Sir Aaron:
I agree with you. Such ‘Christians’ need to be silenced. Thing is: Guess which side most of such ‘Christians’ think they are on? They most certainly are not calling themselves watchblogs; at least most of them aren’t. I have stumbled onto an anti-Morey pro-Driscoll blog – rhzblog, and guess which side he thinks he is in?
Sir Aaron,
you may wish to take a look at this guy’s post here in which he uses Challies’ post to attack Morey. (http://rzhblog.wordpress.com/2009/05/02/stephen-macasil-attacks-tim-challiess-posts-attacking-watchblogs/). This guy certainly has a huge ego, as if anybody is interested in attacking him! I don’t know whether to laugh or cry when I see the nonsense posts he writes attacking me.
P.S. He evidently lurks around in this blog collecting decontextualized quotes to use against all who blog here. So to rzhblog: You’re not worth it; don’t think I am going to bother with you. Unlike you, I rather spend time reaching out than attacking certain groups of people.
Daniel: I agreee. You have to define exactly what a “watchblog” is before you can identify what it is that watchblogs are doing wrong.
The post you referenced was against Stephen, but I saw some of his other posts. It appears rzhblog exists only to blog about all anybody and everything related to Morey. Apparently he has now taken a liking to bashing Denise’s blog too. I think rzhblog’s defense of Driscoll is pretty funny too. He harps on Stephen but Stephen’s criticism of Driscoll is tame compared to MacArthur’s shop.
There is no excuse for a Christian posting anybody’s home address and photos of such on a public blog. rhzblog is gossip blog and nothing more. It reminds me of the magazine US Weekly which is a magazine that gossips about celebrities.