A friend of mine posted this on their Facebook page, and I figured I would do the same on my blog.
Why Christian Music Stinks
I'll take Nirvana over Newsboys any day of the week.
Wednesday, May 06, 2009
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Evaluating John Piper's Theology
Steve Hays at Triablogue has written a nice critique of a few elements of John Piper's theology. Like Steve, I respect Piper as one of the greatest pastors of our time, but I have reservations with him.
God is the Gospel
God is the Gospel
Thursday, January 08, 2009
The North American Anglican
Good news from Canterbury... well, it was news to me, I must admit. There is a new theological journal that is theologically conservative, orthodox, and Anglican. It is called The North American Anglican. Here is the link to their website:
www.39articles.com
Here is a section from the website:
This is very exciting to me because, for a long time, the Anglican church has been of great interest to me. The problem is that the dominant incarnation of the Anglican church in America has always been The Episcopal Church, which has the reputation of being perhaps the most liberal of the mainline denominations in America. I have been aware of the fact that there are conservative denominations that exist, but they are often few and far between. This new journal is reassuring that there is a movement of the Spirit of God among the Anglican church in North America. There are still those in the Anglican tradition who do not question the inspiration and authority of Scripture, the exclusivity of Jesus Christ as the way of salvation, and that still hold to a solidly Biblical view of marriage and sexual ethics. Thanks be to God for his faithfulness to preserve a remnant for himself.
www.39articles.com
Here is a section from the website:
The Anglican Church was not founded upon Canterbury. The Anglican Church was founded upon the Scriptures, the ancient Creeds, the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, and the historic Book of Common Prayer (BCP). And at a time when the Episcopal church has become apostate, and portions of the worldwide Anglican communion have fractured, millions of faithful Anglicans have expressed a desire to return to the orthodox doctrines contained in these classic formulations of biblical Christianity.
The North American Anglican journal is a quarterly publication and our goal for each issue is to publish a range of articles that are theological, historical, & practical, all of which support the 39 Articles and historic BCP. Of course, tactful discussion is permitted on non-central issues where Christians may honestly differ. We do desire ecumenical dialogue, but not at the expense of core doctrines of the “faith once received”.
We are thankful to have a talented board of contributing authors and editors from across several denominations, including the Reformed Episcopal Church (REC), the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA), the Anglican Mission in America (AMiA), The Anglican Coalition in Canada (ACiC), the Anglican Province in America (APA), the Diocese of the Holy Cross (DHC), the Episcopal Missionary Church (EMC), the United Episcopal Church in North America (UECNA), the Charismatic Episcopal Church (CEC), the Orthodox Anglican Church (OAC), churches affiliated with the Southern Cone, and several other conservative denominations as well.
This is very exciting to me because, for a long time, the Anglican church has been of great interest to me. The problem is that the dominant incarnation of the Anglican church in America has always been The Episcopal Church, which has the reputation of being perhaps the most liberal of the mainline denominations in America. I have been aware of the fact that there are conservative denominations that exist, but they are often few and far between. This new journal is reassuring that there is a movement of the Spirit of God among the Anglican church in North America. There are still those in the Anglican tradition who do not question the inspiration and authority of Scripture, the exclusivity of Jesus Christ as the way of salvation, and that still hold to a solidly Biblical view of marriage and sexual ethics. Thanks be to God for his faithfulness to preserve a remnant for himself.
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Keeping a Journal
For the past few months I have been keeping a journal. I write all sorts of things in it. Sometimes I write about my spiritual life, sometimes about other more "mundane" things. I don't write in it every day, nor do I set aside specific time for it. I write as the mood strikes me, or as I have a free moment to get away from everything, or head down to Starbucks or something. And after doing so for these last few months, I would like to recommend journaling to you as a very helpful life aid.
The reason I find it to be so helpful is that, in writing down your thoughts, you have the ability to go back and read over them later. The benefit here is that you have a tangible way of tracking the progress you are making in your sanctification. Quite often we don't even realize the progress we have made because, while we would love to be able to grow by leaps and bounds all the time, spiritual growth normally occurs in subtle ways over long periods of time. When you write your thoughts and experiences down, you can look back and see ways that you have grown that you may not have even realized, and it can be a source of great encouragement.
Also, if you are going to keep a journal, I would strongly suggest that you resolve within yourself to be completely and totally honest with yourself as you write. Don't worry about the possibility of someone finding your journal and reading it. Find a safe place to keep your journal so that it won't be found, and feel the freedom to just write whatever is on your heart and mind. Don't try to "church it up". Even if you are having sinful thoughts, it is still good to write them down. If you are angry, jealous, bitter, or whatever you may be feeling, God already knows what you are thinking, so it isn't like you are keeping your thoughts hidden from him by holding them inside. I suppose there is an element of danger here, because your journal shouldn't be your personal "sin book", where you write in such a way to indulge your sinful thoughts. I'm not saying that if you happen to be struggling with having lustful thoughts about some woman you work with that it is good for you to write out your fantasies. But if you are able to write openly and honestly about what you are thinking and feeling, aside from the fact that it can be therapeutic, it also allows you to see your struggles on paper, and as such, I find it to be easier for me to confess my sins and pray about my struggles when I can see them in my journal.
Additionally, journaling is also a good method for prayer, because you can write out a prayer that is specific to what you are feeling and experiencing at that time, and then you will always have it to look back and reflect on, and even use again later in your personal devotions. I guess that's the Anglican in me talking, but I find that to be helpful.
Anyway, that's my two cents on journaling. Take it or leave it.
The reason I find it to be so helpful is that, in writing down your thoughts, you have the ability to go back and read over them later. The benefit here is that you have a tangible way of tracking the progress you are making in your sanctification. Quite often we don't even realize the progress we have made because, while we would love to be able to grow by leaps and bounds all the time, spiritual growth normally occurs in subtle ways over long periods of time. When you write your thoughts and experiences down, you can look back and see ways that you have grown that you may not have even realized, and it can be a source of great encouragement.
Also, if you are going to keep a journal, I would strongly suggest that you resolve within yourself to be completely and totally honest with yourself as you write. Don't worry about the possibility of someone finding your journal and reading it. Find a safe place to keep your journal so that it won't be found, and feel the freedom to just write whatever is on your heart and mind. Don't try to "church it up". Even if you are having sinful thoughts, it is still good to write them down. If you are angry, jealous, bitter, or whatever you may be feeling, God already knows what you are thinking, so it isn't like you are keeping your thoughts hidden from him by holding them inside. I suppose there is an element of danger here, because your journal shouldn't be your personal "sin book", where you write in such a way to indulge your sinful thoughts. I'm not saying that if you happen to be struggling with having lustful thoughts about some woman you work with that it is good for you to write out your fantasies. But if you are able to write openly and honestly about what you are thinking and feeling, aside from the fact that it can be therapeutic, it also allows you to see your struggles on paper, and as such, I find it to be easier for me to confess my sins and pray about my struggles when I can see them in my journal.
Additionally, journaling is also a good method for prayer, because you can write out a prayer that is specific to what you are feeling and experiencing at that time, and then you will always have it to look back and reflect on, and even use again later in your personal devotions. I guess that's the Anglican in me talking, but I find that to be helpful.
Anyway, that's my two cents on journaling. Take it or leave it.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Words of Wisdom
This is one of the greatest blog posts I've ever read. More wisdom from our brother Steve at the Triablogue. While specific to pornography, there are many other tidbits of wisdom here as it pertains to male and female interaction and intimate relationships.
Porn Addiction
Porn Addiction
Friday, November 21, 2008
Happy Holidays or Merry Christmas?
(Originally Written 11/26/07)
For several years, I worked a second job at a Christian mens ministry called Man in the Mirror doing fundraising via telephone. Every year when we got close to Christmas, my supervisor would tell all of us that we are not allowed to use the phrase "Happy Holidays". Instead, we are required to say "Merry Christmas". He always said it with a laugh, but I think he was really about two-thirds serious. It was always interesting to me that he would bring the issue up since we were all Christians calling other Christians, and it just didn't seem reasonable to me that anyone would be tempted to say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" for fear of offending anyone.
But all of this begs the question--What exactly is wrong with saying "Happy Holidays" in the first place? Are we morally obligated to say "Merry Christmas"? I think a great many laypeople in the world would either say that we are, or would at least be unsure. After all, isn't remembering the incarnation of the Lord Jesus the TRUE meaning of Christmas? And by saying "Happy Holidays", are we not robbing Christmas of it's true meaning and contributing to its secularization? I believe it was last year that the American Family Association boycotted Target for using "Happy Holidays" in their Christmas advertising. Conservatives such as Bill O'Reilly and the Fox News channel have also launched campaigns in the last few years against the secularization of Christmas. And then, of course, there are hundreds of sermons preached all across the country at this time of year about how we need to remember to tell our lost loved ones that the meaning of Christmas is not buying gifts for each other, but remembering God's gift of his Son to mankind.
As a Christian, I don't have a problem with the theology that drives other Christians to campaign against the secularization of Christmas. I heartily affirm the incarnation of Christ and the gospel message that accompanies that doctrine. But I have to say that all this time and energy that Christians and other conservatives are investing into preserving the "true" meaning of Christmas is time that is better spent on actually celebrating the holiday and/or doing real work for God's kingdom. The fact is, Roman Catholicism aside, we are nowhere bound by Scripture to celebrate Christmas at all, let alone to require other people to celebrate it, and to do it in any particular way.
Most Christians are ignorant of the origins of Christmas. My own recollection of the historical details isn't perfect, but basically, a great many of the traditions we typically observe at Christmas have their origins in the pagan holidays and festivals of the first few centuries A.D. The giving of gifts and lighting of candles can be traced back to the pagan festival of Saturnalia, a Roman holiday which honored the god, Saturn. Other pagan holidays that influenced the rise of Christmas celebration include the Roman holiday Sol Invictus, observed on December 25 at the time of the winter solstice, and Yule, a holiday celebrated in Scandinavian countries where yule logs were burned to honor the god, Thor. It wasn't even until the 300's that Christians began to incorporate these various practices into a holiday called Christmas.
Many Christians in our contemporary culture are shocked to learn that there are actually Christians in this world who oppose the celebration of Christmas entirely, and one reason is precisely because of the pagan origins I have mentioned above. Of course, that's a stupid reason to oppose the celebration of Christmas because that is a textbook example of what is known as the genetic fallacy (i.e., condeming a practice based upon its past or origin). But the point is that there are Christians in this world--born again Christians who are going to heaven when they die, many of whom will have a mansion much closer to Jesus than I will when I get there--that refuse to celebrate Christmas at all because they feel it is immoral to do so. I wonder what the Christians who are campaigning to "put Christ back into Christmas" would say to the Christians who don't believe Christ has ANYTHING to do with Christmas?
What we need to keep in mind is what the apostle Paul taught us in Romans 14:5-10:
One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks. For none of us lives to himself, and no one dies to himself. For if we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. Therefore, whether we live or die, we are the Lord's. For to this end Christ died and rose and lived again, that He might be Lord of both the dead and the living. But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
Paul tells us in crystal clear language that whether we view one day as being more important than another, or if we view all days as being the same, we are doing nothing wrong provided we are doing it to the glory of God, which is the proper condition of all moral behavior. This is a freedom that God has given us. As a result, we are free to celebrate Christmas or not celebrate it, whichever our conscience allows us.
But notice what Paul also says. He says that although we have freedom to celebrate festival days, we do NOT have the freedom to judge or condemn one another because we have differing views of days. This is because whether we do celebrate holidays or we don't, we all belong to Christ and whether we live or die, we are his.
So why is this relevant to the "Happy Holidays/Merry Christmas" debate? Well, it's relevant because it only stands to reason that, if the celebration of holidays is an area of freedom in the realm of Christian ethics, rather than an obligation, then non-Christians are doing nothing wrong by ignoring the religious side of Christmas altogether, and observing only the "secular" side (e.g., Santa Claus, presents, and all that stuff). My conviction is that Christians really have no business trying to force anybody, including non-Christians, to celebrate Christmas or any holiday if that person does not want to celebrate it. And if a person wants to say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas", let them say it. Most of the offense people take at these types of expressions are just evidence that people need to stop behaving like children and grow up anyway.
Of course, none of this is to say that non-Christians do not have a moral obligation to submit themselves to the Lord Jesus, who was born of the virgin Mary and took human flesh upon himself 2,000 years ago to be the Savior of the world. No, the Bible commands all men everywhere to repent and turn to Christ. The sin of the non-Christian is not that they refuse to acknowledge the religious elements of Christmas, but that they refuse to acknowledge Christ as their Lord and Savior, regardless of what day it is. The gospel is equally true and authoritative on December 25 as it is on July 25 or any other day of the year. So my advice to my Christian friends this year is simply this: If you're going to preach to your unsaved friends and family this year, don't preach to them about honoring a day, but about honoring the Lord.
With that said, I wish everyone a Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, and all that jazz. And for those of you who don't celebrate anything, just keep it real.
For several years, I worked a second job at a Christian mens ministry called Man in the Mirror doing fundraising via telephone. Every year when we got close to Christmas, my supervisor would tell all of us that we are not allowed to use the phrase "Happy Holidays". Instead, we are required to say "Merry Christmas". He always said it with a laugh, but I think he was really about two-thirds serious. It was always interesting to me that he would bring the issue up since we were all Christians calling other Christians, and it just didn't seem reasonable to me that anyone would be tempted to say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" for fear of offending anyone.
But all of this begs the question--What exactly is wrong with saying "Happy Holidays" in the first place? Are we morally obligated to say "Merry Christmas"? I think a great many laypeople in the world would either say that we are, or would at least be unsure. After all, isn't remembering the incarnation of the Lord Jesus the TRUE meaning of Christmas? And by saying "Happy Holidays", are we not robbing Christmas of it's true meaning and contributing to its secularization? I believe it was last year that the American Family Association boycotted Target for using "Happy Holidays" in their Christmas advertising. Conservatives such as Bill O'Reilly and the Fox News channel have also launched campaigns in the last few years against the secularization of Christmas. And then, of course, there are hundreds of sermons preached all across the country at this time of year about how we need to remember to tell our lost loved ones that the meaning of Christmas is not buying gifts for each other, but remembering God's gift of his Son to mankind.
As a Christian, I don't have a problem with the theology that drives other Christians to campaign against the secularization of Christmas. I heartily affirm the incarnation of Christ and the gospel message that accompanies that doctrine. But I have to say that all this time and energy that Christians and other conservatives are investing into preserving the "true" meaning of Christmas is time that is better spent on actually celebrating the holiday and/or doing real work for God's kingdom. The fact is, Roman Catholicism aside, we are nowhere bound by Scripture to celebrate Christmas at all, let alone to require other people to celebrate it, and to do it in any particular way.
Most Christians are ignorant of the origins of Christmas. My own recollection of the historical details isn't perfect, but basically, a great many of the traditions we typically observe at Christmas have their origins in the pagan holidays and festivals of the first few centuries A.D. The giving of gifts and lighting of candles can be traced back to the pagan festival of Saturnalia, a Roman holiday which honored the god, Saturn. Other pagan holidays that influenced the rise of Christmas celebration include the Roman holiday Sol Invictus, observed on December 25 at the time of the winter solstice, and Yule, a holiday celebrated in Scandinavian countries where yule logs were burned to honor the god, Thor. It wasn't even until the 300's that Christians began to incorporate these various practices into a holiday called Christmas.
Many Christians in our contemporary culture are shocked to learn that there are actually Christians in this world who oppose the celebration of Christmas entirely, and one reason is precisely because of the pagan origins I have mentioned above. Of course, that's a stupid reason to oppose the celebration of Christmas because that is a textbook example of what is known as the genetic fallacy (i.e., condeming a practice based upon its past or origin). But the point is that there are Christians in this world--born again Christians who are going to heaven when they die, many of whom will have a mansion much closer to Jesus than I will when I get there--that refuse to celebrate Christmas at all because they feel it is immoral to do so. I wonder what the Christians who are campaigning to "put Christ back into Christmas" would say to the Christians who don't believe Christ has ANYTHING to do with Christmas?
What we need to keep in mind is what the apostle Paul taught us in Romans 14:5-10:
One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks. For none of us lives to himself, and no one dies to himself. For if we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. Therefore, whether we live or die, we are the Lord's. For to this end Christ died and rose and lived again, that He might be Lord of both the dead and the living. But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
Paul tells us in crystal clear language that whether we view one day as being more important than another, or if we view all days as being the same, we are doing nothing wrong provided we are doing it to the glory of God, which is the proper condition of all moral behavior. This is a freedom that God has given us. As a result, we are free to celebrate Christmas or not celebrate it, whichever our conscience allows us.
But notice what Paul also says. He says that although we have freedom to celebrate festival days, we do NOT have the freedom to judge or condemn one another because we have differing views of days. This is because whether we do celebrate holidays or we don't, we all belong to Christ and whether we live or die, we are his.
So why is this relevant to the "Happy Holidays/Merry Christmas" debate? Well, it's relevant because it only stands to reason that, if the celebration of holidays is an area of freedom in the realm of Christian ethics, rather than an obligation, then non-Christians are doing nothing wrong by ignoring the religious side of Christmas altogether, and observing only the "secular" side (e.g., Santa Claus, presents, and all that stuff). My conviction is that Christians really have no business trying to force anybody, including non-Christians, to celebrate Christmas or any holiday if that person does not want to celebrate it. And if a person wants to say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas", let them say it. Most of the offense people take at these types of expressions are just evidence that people need to stop behaving like children and grow up anyway.
Of course, none of this is to say that non-Christians do not have a moral obligation to submit themselves to the Lord Jesus, who was born of the virgin Mary and took human flesh upon himself 2,000 years ago to be the Savior of the world. No, the Bible commands all men everywhere to repent and turn to Christ. The sin of the non-Christian is not that they refuse to acknowledge the religious elements of Christmas, but that they refuse to acknowledge Christ as their Lord and Savior, regardless of what day it is. The gospel is equally true and authoritative on December 25 as it is on July 25 or any other day of the year. So my advice to my Christian friends this year is simply this: If you're going to preach to your unsaved friends and family this year, don't preach to them about honoring a day, but about honoring the Lord.
With that said, I wish everyone a Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, and all that jazz. And for those of you who don't celebrate anything, just keep it real.
Some Thoughts On Christmas
(Originally written 11/23/05)
Well, I know it's been a while, but I decided to sit down and write a blog entry. I just had some things on my mind I wanted to vent about, and they are concerning the celebration of holidays, and in particular, Christmas. Yes, it is getting closer to that time of year, and more and more people are starting to blog and post in messageboards about this issue and whether or not it is appropriate for Christians to celebrate Christmas. It is no stretch to say that these discussions are intense. The celebration of Christmas is an emotionally charged issue, and I will readily admit that for myself. I love Christmas. In fact, I love the entire church calendar and all the holidays it includes. The reason I love these things is because I believe I have been given freedom by God to enjoy such things. Now I know there are a great many individuals who are held in much higher esteem than myself by the church who oppose and argue against celebrating Christmas, and a great many of them come out of the Reformed tradition. Let me say up front that I do respect these people, but I cannot respect their reasoning on this issue. Frankly, I believe many of the arguments against Christmas are some of the silliest and worst arguments I have ever heard. They are all too often full of fallacies and misrepresentations. And what frustrates me more is how zealous and tenacious those More Reformed Than Thou types (hereafter MRTT's) are who use the arguments in spite of these things.
Let me first say that I believe the Scriptures are clear that such things as the celebration of different seasons and days are well within the bounds of liberty and freedom. And when I say clear, I mean crystal clear. Paul writes in Romans 14:5-10:
One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks. For none of us lives to himself, and no one dies to himself. For if we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. Therefore, whether we live or die, we are the Lord's. For to this end Christ died and rose and lived again, that He might be Lord of both the dead and the living. But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
So there you have it. Paul tells us not to judge one another over the observance of days. I should not be judged for my observance of Christmas, and neither should my brethren who do not observe it because after all, we are all doing what we do as service rendered unto God. Could this be any clearer? Well, the MRTT's are not convinced by this. They try to say that Paul was addressing a unique situation in the church where the Jewish Christians were still observing the Old Testament feast days, while the rest of the church was not, and he was trying to stop the bickering between the two parties. Brian Schwertley elaborates further:
When Jesus Christ died on the cross, the ceremonial aspects of the law (e.g., animal sacrifices, Jewish holy days, circumcision, etc.) were done away with. Yet prior to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in A.D. 70, the apostles allowed certain practices by Jewish Christians as long as no works-righteousness was attributed to these practices. In Acts 21:26, we even encounter the apostle Paul going to the Temple "to announce the expiration of the days of purification." Jewish believers who were already accustomed to keeping certain holy days of the Mosaic economy were allowed to continue doing so for a time. But once the Temple was destroyed, the canon of Scripture was completed, and the church had existed for a whole generation, these unique historical circumstances ceased. (You can find the article against Christmas somewhere at www.reformed.com)
I'm not sure why the MRTT's think that the fact that Paul was talking about the Old Testament ceremonial days in Romans 14 somehow supports their position. Sure, that was the immediate issue that Paul was addressing in that day, but Paul addressed it with a timeless truth, an objective principle for the New Covenant:
"He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it."
And why?
"For none of us lives to himself, and no one dies to himself. For if we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. Therefore, whether we live or die, we are the Lord's. For to this end Christ died and rose and lived again, that He might be Lord of both the dead and the living."
This is Paul's point. And this point did not cease with the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70. It is for this reason that Paul asks, "But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ." Contrary to Schwertley, Paul's point is not, "Well, we're living in these special, intertestamental times where it will be okay for you to keep Jewish holidays if you want to until the temple is destroyed". After all, the efficacy of Christ's sacrifice on the cross was not contingent upon nor was it affected by whether or not there was a temple standing. If Paul was really of the same opinion as the MRTT's, he would have put a stop to the animal sacrifices and festival days immediately, so as not to impugn the sacrifice of our Savior.
Furthermore, would one of the MRTT's care to demonstrate where there is even a hint anywhere in this text or anywhere else that after the temple would be destroyed that this "special intertestamental period" where we can celebrate holidays would cease? This is pure conjecture on the part of Schwertley and others who argue likewise. Who is adding to Scripture now? Certainly not those of the pro-Christmas persuasion.
Another common argument is that churches that celebrate Christmas unlawfully bind the consciences of God's people to celebrate a day that is not commanded by him. This argument is based upon the Regulative Principle of Worship (a.k.a. the MRTT's sacred cow), which states that whatever is not commanded by God in worship is forbidden.
Well, there are many things that could be said to such an argument (such as the fact that I don't even believe the Regulative Principle is biblical in the first place... but that's for another day). But first, I'd like to just point out what to me is highly ironic about this Regulative Principle argument. Schwertley himself states in an anti-Christmas article at www.reformedonline.com that the Regulative Principle was one of the two pillars of the Calvinistic branch of the Reformation. Indeed, it is very common to hear those who hold firmly to the Puritan Regulative Principle as laid out in the Westminster Confession that they are continuing the legacy of regulating worship that goes back to Calvin and the Reformers. But here is the part they always forget to tell you: Calvin and the Reformers celebrated Christmas!
Note Calvin's own words (see Calvin's Letters, Bonnet edition, January 2, 1551 to Haller and March, 1555 to Seigneurs of Bern):
Since my recall, I have pursued the moderate course of keeping Christ's birthday as you are used to doing.
And again, he says:
For the rest, my writings bear witness to my sentiments on these points, for in them I declare that a church is not to be despised or condemned, because it observes more festivals than the others.
Sound clear enough? It does to me. Calvin was a Christian holiday observer.
But there is more. Consider these words from Francis Turretin, perhaps the next great Continental Reformed systematician after Calvin, from his Institutes of Elenctic Theology:
The question is not whether anniversary days may be selected on which either the nativity, or circumcision, or passion, or ascension of Christ, and similar mysteries of redemption, may be commemorated, or even on which the memory of some remarkable blessing may be celebrated. For this the orthodox think should be left to the liberty of the church. Hence some devote certain days to such festivity, not from necessity of faith, but from the counsel of prudence to excite more to piety and devotion. However, others, using their liberty, retain the Lord's day alone, and in it, at stated times, celebrate the memory of the mysteries of Christ... ...we deny that those days are in themselves more holy than others; rather all are equal. If any sanctity is attributed to them, it does not belong to the time and the day, but to the divine worship. Thus, the observance of them among those who retain it, is only of positive right and ecclesiastical appointment; not, however, necessary from a divine precept. (p. 101)
Then again he says:
Hence we cannot approve of the rigid judgment of those who charge such churches with idolatry (in which those days are still kept, the names of the saints being retained), since they agree with us in doctrine concerning the worship of God alone and detest the idolatry of the papists. (p. 104)
So Turretin had no qualms with celebrating Christmas. But he did have qualms with charging churches that do celebrate Christmas with idolatry. So perhaps I should start setting forth the argument that if you believe celebrating Christmas is idolatrous, then you are not really Reformed!!!
But wait, there's still more. From the Second Helvetic Confession, composed by Heinrich Bullinger:
Moreover, if in Christian Liberty the churches religiously celebrate the memory of the Lord's nativity, circumcision, passion, resurrection, and of his ascension into heaven, and the sending of the Holy Spirit upon his disciples, we approve of it highly.
And then there is the Church Order of Dordt. Would anybody accuse Dordt of being guilty of popery? Yet here is what they say:
Each year the churches shall, in the manner decided upon by the consistory, commemorate the birth, death, resurrection, and ascension of the Lord Jesus Christ, as well as His outpouring of the Holy Spirit.
Now, my point in bringing all of this up is that if it is really true that the Regulative Principle that the MRTT's are using to argue against celebrating Christmas has its roots in the Calvinist Reformation, then one must wonder why the Continental Reformers celebrated Christmas at all. Or maybe it is the MRTT's who are mistaken in their rigid application of the Regulative Principle as being a litmus test to begin with.
The second point in response to this whole Regulative Principle argument is that nobody's consciences are bound like the MRTT's suggest because, at least as far as Protestants are concerned, Christmas is not a holiday that is morally required to be observed. Granted, in the Roman Catholic tradition, it is required to observe both Christmas and Easter, and one is required to partake of the mass on both of these holy days. Indeed, if one misses one of these holy days in the Roman tradition, one is sinning before God! But I don't need to remind anybody reading this that I am not a Romanist, nor am I defending the Roman view of holy days. Rather, I am defending the Protestant view of the observance of holidays as a free observance as part of our Christian liberty. And this is important because if nobody is required to observe Christmas, then nobody's conscience is being bound by its observance. Simply put, if you don't want to celebrate Christmas, then don't! Nobody is forcing you to. The only day that is required to be observed in Protestant and Reformed Christian theology is the Lord's Day, and that day alone.
But what if Christmas falls on the Lord's Day? Is a person's conscience bound to observe the holiday? Three things:
First, the person is still required to attend services, but not because of an obligation to celebrate Christmas, but because of their obligation to the Lord's Day.
Second, I would argue that nothing that takes place in a Christmas service (at least from a Reformed perspective) is contrary to the MRTT's Regulative Principle (assuming, of course, that exclusive psalmody is NOT biblical). There is nothing added to the commands of God in preaching a sermon about the birth of Jesus, singing songs about that event, praying prayers to that effect, and observing the sacraments. Christmas observance does not of necessity add any extra, man made ceremonies to the worship of God. Now, I grant that there are probably churches out there that have created new ceremonies in their worship on Christmas that might give the MRTT's headaches. If people are praying to God through candles or mistletoe or wreaths or trees or some other weird superstitious ritual, they should be ashamed and repent. But whatever these ceremonies are, they are not necessary for Christmas observance.
And third, and really this is my biggest gripe, if you know a particular church observes Christmas and other holidays, and you do not observe those days, then for crying out loud go to a different church! The quotes I provided above from historic Reformed documents and writings mention the liberty that not only individuals have, but particular churches as well. A church can choose to observe the holidays or not. And if a person does not feel that they can worship the Lord properly in one type of church, then they should go to the other. It really is as simple as that. I mean really, if you were attending a church that sang uninspired hymns, and suddenly one day you became convinced of exclusive psalmody, what would you do? Would you stay at the church and throw a temper tantrum every Sunday about how the whole church, which disagrees with your exclusive psalmody position, is violating your conscience? Or would you go to a different church that held to exclusive psalmody where you felt you could properly worship? If you have half a brain in your skull you will do the latter, rather than destroying the people of God with your schismatic behavior in doing the former.
Another thing I see far too often in the MRTT's argumentation is an unnecessarily long time spend demonstrating that the celebration of Christmas arose either of pagan or Roman Catholic origin, and therefore should not be observed by Christians at all. Unfortunately for them, this is a textbook example of the genetic fallacy. It is fallacious to either endorse or condemn an idea based upon its past. The fact that the Roman Catholics originated the observance of December 25th as a Christian festival says nothing whatsoever as to whether or not the observance of such a day in itself is either right or wrong.
Furthermore, the people who raise this argument, though it is fallacious, they still often fail to consistently apply it to other areas. On the same line of reasoning, I can condemn the Christian use of musical instruments altogether, be it in worship or for leisure, simply because we know from Genesis 4 that it was the pagan descendents of Cain who were the fathers of all who play such instruments. So since instruments have pagan origins, we dishonor God by our use of them.
In the same vein, not even God follows the line of reasoning that the MRTT's follow here, because God himself instituted the use of musical instruments in the Old Testament as part of temple worship! Here we have an infallible example of a practice with pagan origins being implemented by the people, and in the divine worship of God in the temple, no less! But since this is a fallacious line of reasoning, it really does not matter where instruments originated, since that has no bearing on their appropriateness in worship.
It also is not uncommon for MRTT's to assert that those who observe Christmas are guilty of turning such things as Christmas trees, candles, wreaths, etc. into sacraments or icons. Unfortunately, I witnessed an online conversation not too long ago where a person was labeled a papist because he used the various elements of a Christmas tree as a way to present the gospel to a lost person. But this is ludicrous. First of all, whoever made this argument has no clue what a sacrament is because sacraments are means of grace. Something mysterious and spiritual actually happens to us when baptism and the Lord's supper are observed. The sacraments are not dry ordinances where we simply remember Christ, at least not in Reformed Theology. Even the Westminster Confession XXVII.2 says that there is "a spiritual relation, or a sacramental union between the sign and the thing signified: whence it comes to pass, that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other." No one can say this of a tree or a candle, and the fact that some people may be superstitious and try to say something like this about these things doesn't change the fact that they are not and cannot be sacraments. So whoever thinks that the fact that a Christmas tree might remind a person of the work of Jesus makes the tree a sacrament either has a very un-Reformed view of what a sacrament is, or they are intentionally misrepresenting those who celebrate Christmas. (By the way, be careful when you stare at a beautiful sunset at night so that it doesn’t remind you of the Almighty Creator of the universe, which then reminds you of how you have sinned against him and how you stand in need of his grace, which then leads you to have a brief time of worship and fellowship with God as you thank him for saving you… you might just be turning that sunset into a sacrament!)
I suppose there are countless other things that could be said here, but right now I can't think of anymore, so I'll stop. For those of you who refrain from celebrating Christmas, I trust that you are doing so for the glory of God. For those of you who do celebrate Christmas, do it for the glory of God.
By the way, here is a helpful link I have found on this subject:
Jeffrey Meyer in Defense of Christmas
Well, I know it's been a while, but I decided to sit down and write a blog entry. I just had some things on my mind I wanted to vent about, and they are concerning the celebration of holidays, and in particular, Christmas. Yes, it is getting closer to that time of year, and more and more people are starting to blog and post in messageboards about this issue and whether or not it is appropriate for Christians to celebrate Christmas. It is no stretch to say that these discussions are intense. The celebration of Christmas is an emotionally charged issue, and I will readily admit that for myself. I love Christmas. In fact, I love the entire church calendar and all the holidays it includes. The reason I love these things is because I believe I have been given freedom by God to enjoy such things. Now I know there are a great many individuals who are held in much higher esteem than myself by the church who oppose and argue against celebrating Christmas, and a great many of them come out of the Reformed tradition. Let me say up front that I do respect these people, but I cannot respect their reasoning on this issue. Frankly, I believe many of the arguments against Christmas are some of the silliest and worst arguments I have ever heard. They are all too often full of fallacies and misrepresentations. And what frustrates me more is how zealous and tenacious those More Reformed Than Thou types (hereafter MRTT's) are who use the arguments in spite of these things.
Let me first say that I believe the Scriptures are clear that such things as the celebration of different seasons and days are well within the bounds of liberty and freedom. And when I say clear, I mean crystal clear. Paul writes in Romans 14:5-10:
One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks. For none of us lives to himself, and no one dies to himself. For if we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. Therefore, whether we live or die, we are the Lord's. For to this end Christ died and rose and lived again, that He might be Lord of both the dead and the living. But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
So there you have it. Paul tells us not to judge one another over the observance of days. I should not be judged for my observance of Christmas, and neither should my brethren who do not observe it because after all, we are all doing what we do as service rendered unto God. Could this be any clearer? Well, the MRTT's are not convinced by this. They try to say that Paul was addressing a unique situation in the church where the Jewish Christians were still observing the Old Testament feast days, while the rest of the church was not, and he was trying to stop the bickering between the two parties. Brian Schwertley elaborates further:
When Jesus Christ died on the cross, the ceremonial aspects of the law (e.g., animal sacrifices, Jewish holy days, circumcision, etc.) were done away with. Yet prior to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in A.D. 70, the apostles allowed certain practices by Jewish Christians as long as no works-righteousness was attributed to these practices. In Acts 21:26, we even encounter the apostle Paul going to the Temple "to announce the expiration of the days of purification." Jewish believers who were already accustomed to keeping certain holy days of the Mosaic economy were allowed to continue doing so for a time. But once the Temple was destroyed, the canon of Scripture was completed, and the church had existed for a whole generation, these unique historical circumstances ceased. (You can find the article against Christmas somewhere at www.reformed.com)
I'm not sure why the MRTT's think that the fact that Paul was talking about the Old Testament ceremonial days in Romans 14 somehow supports their position. Sure, that was the immediate issue that Paul was addressing in that day, but Paul addressed it with a timeless truth, an objective principle for the New Covenant:
"He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it."
And why?
"For none of us lives to himself, and no one dies to himself. For if we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. Therefore, whether we live or die, we are the Lord's. For to this end Christ died and rose and lived again, that He might be Lord of both the dead and the living."
This is Paul's point. And this point did not cease with the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70. It is for this reason that Paul asks, "But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ." Contrary to Schwertley, Paul's point is not, "Well, we're living in these special, intertestamental times where it will be okay for you to keep Jewish holidays if you want to until the temple is destroyed". After all, the efficacy of Christ's sacrifice on the cross was not contingent upon nor was it affected by whether or not there was a temple standing. If Paul was really of the same opinion as the MRTT's, he would have put a stop to the animal sacrifices and festival days immediately, so as not to impugn the sacrifice of our Savior.
Furthermore, would one of the MRTT's care to demonstrate where there is even a hint anywhere in this text or anywhere else that after the temple would be destroyed that this "special intertestamental period" where we can celebrate holidays would cease? This is pure conjecture on the part of Schwertley and others who argue likewise. Who is adding to Scripture now? Certainly not those of the pro-Christmas persuasion.
Another common argument is that churches that celebrate Christmas unlawfully bind the consciences of God's people to celebrate a day that is not commanded by him. This argument is based upon the Regulative Principle of Worship (a.k.a. the MRTT's sacred cow), which states that whatever is not commanded by God in worship is forbidden.
Well, there are many things that could be said to such an argument (such as the fact that I don't even believe the Regulative Principle is biblical in the first place... but that's for another day). But first, I'd like to just point out what to me is highly ironic about this Regulative Principle argument. Schwertley himself states in an anti-Christmas article at www.reformedonline.com that the Regulative Principle was one of the two pillars of the Calvinistic branch of the Reformation. Indeed, it is very common to hear those who hold firmly to the Puritan Regulative Principle as laid out in the Westminster Confession that they are continuing the legacy of regulating worship that goes back to Calvin and the Reformers. But here is the part they always forget to tell you: Calvin and the Reformers celebrated Christmas!
Note Calvin's own words (see Calvin's Letters, Bonnet edition, January 2, 1551 to Haller and March, 1555 to Seigneurs of Bern):
Since my recall, I have pursued the moderate course of keeping Christ's birthday as you are used to doing.
And again, he says:
For the rest, my writings bear witness to my sentiments on these points, for in them I declare that a church is not to be despised or condemned, because it observes more festivals than the others.
Sound clear enough? It does to me. Calvin was a Christian holiday observer.
But there is more. Consider these words from Francis Turretin, perhaps the next great Continental Reformed systematician after Calvin, from his Institutes of Elenctic Theology:
The question is not whether anniversary days may be selected on which either the nativity, or circumcision, or passion, or ascension of Christ, and similar mysteries of redemption, may be commemorated, or even on which the memory of some remarkable blessing may be celebrated. For this the orthodox think should be left to the liberty of the church. Hence some devote certain days to such festivity, not from necessity of faith, but from the counsel of prudence to excite more to piety and devotion. However, others, using their liberty, retain the Lord's day alone, and in it, at stated times, celebrate the memory of the mysteries of Christ... ...we deny that those days are in themselves more holy than others; rather all are equal. If any sanctity is attributed to them, it does not belong to the time and the day, but to the divine worship. Thus, the observance of them among those who retain it, is only of positive right and ecclesiastical appointment; not, however, necessary from a divine precept. (p. 101)
Then again he says:
Hence we cannot approve of the rigid judgment of those who charge such churches with idolatry (in which those days are still kept, the names of the saints being retained), since they agree with us in doctrine concerning the worship of God alone and detest the idolatry of the papists. (p. 104)
So Turretin had no qualms with celebrating Christmas. But he did have qualms with charging churches that do celebrate Christmas with idolatry. So perhaps I should start setting forth the argument that if you believe celebrating Christmas is idolatrous, then you are not really Reformed!!!
But wait, there's still more. From the Second Helvetic Confession, composed by Heinrich Bullinger:
Moreover, if in Christian Liberty the churches religiously celebrate the memory of the Lord's nativity, circumcision, passion, resurrection, and of his ascension into heaven, and the sending of the Holy Spirit upon his disciples, we approve of it highly.
And then there is the Church Order of Dordt. Would anybody accuse Dordt of being guilty of popery? Yet here is what they say:
Each year the churches shall, in the manner decided upon by the consistory, commemorate the birth, death, resurrection, and ascension of the Lord Jesus Christ, as well as His outpouring of the Holy Spirit.
Now, my point in bringing all of this up is that if it is really true that the Regulative Principle that the MRTT's are using to argue against celebrating Christmas has its roots in the Calvinist Reformation, then one must wonder why the Continental Reformers celebrated Christmas at all. Or maybe it is the MRTT's who are mistaken in their rigid application of the Regulative Principle as being a litmus test to begin with.
The second point in response to this whole Regulative Principle argument is that nobody's consciences are bound like the MRTT's suggest because, at least as far as Protestants are concerned, Christmas is not a holiday that is morally required to be observed. Granted, in the Roman Catholic tradition, it is required to observe both Christmas and Easter, and one is required to partake of the mass on both of these holy days. Indeed, if one misses one of these holy days in the Roman tradition, one is sinning before God! But I don't need to remind anybody reading this that I am not a Romanist, nor am I defending the Roman view of holy days. Rather, I am defending the Protestant view of the observance of holidays as a free observance as part of our Christian liberty. And this is important because if nobody is required to observe Christmas, then nobody's conscience is being bound by its observance. Simply put, if you don't want to celebrate Christmas, then don't! Nobody is forcing you to. The only day that is required to be observed in Protestant and Reformed Christian theology is the Lord's Day, and that day alone.
But what if Christmas falls on the Lord's Day? Is a person's conscience bound to observe the holiday? Three things:
First, the person is still required to attend services, but not because of an obligation to celebrate Christmas, but because of their obligation to the Lord's Day.
Second, I would argue that nothing that takes place in a Christmas service (at least from a Reformed perspective) is contrary to the MRTT's Regulative Principle (assuming, of course, that exclusive psalmody is NOT biblical). There is nothing added to the commands of God in preaching a sermon about the birth of Jesus, singing songs about that event, praying prayers to that effect, and observing the sacraments. Christmas observance does not of necessity add any extra, man made ceremonies to the worship of God. Now, I grant that there are probably churches out there that have created new ceremonies in their worship on Christmas that might give the MRTT's headaches. If people are praying to God through candles or mistletoe or wreaths or trees or some other weird superstitious ritual, they should be ashamed and repent. But whatever these ceremonies are, they are not necessary for Christmas observance.
And third, and really this is my biggest gripe, if you know a particular church observes Christmas and other holidays, and you do not observe those days, then for crying out loud go to a different church! The quotes I provided above from historic Reformed documents and writings mention the liberty that not only individuals have, but particular churches as well. A church can choose to observe the holidays or not. And if a person does not feel that they can worship the Lord properly in one type of church, then they should go to the other. It really is as simple as that. I mean really, if you were attending a church that sang uninspired hymns, and suddenly one day you became convinced of exclusive psalmody, what would you do? Would you stay at the church and throw a temper tantrum every Sunday about how the whole church, which disagrees with your exclusive psalmody position, is violating your conscience? Or would you go to a different church that held to exclusive psalmody where you felt you could properly worship? If you have half a brain in your skull you will do the latter, rather than destroying the people of God with your schismatic behavior in doing the former.
Another thing I see far too often in the MRTT's argumentation is an unnecessarily long time spend demonstrating that the celebration of Christmas arose either of pagan or Roman Catholic origin, and therefore should not be observed by Christians at all. Unfortunately for them, this is a textbook example of the genetic fallacy. It is fallacious to either endorse or condemn an idea based upon its past. The fact that the Roman Catholics originated the observance of December 25th as a Christian festival says nothing whatsoever as to whether or not the observance of such a day in itself is either right or wrong.
Furthermore, the people who raise this argument, though it is fallacious, they still often fail to consistently apply it to other areas. On the same line of reasoning, I can condemn the Christian use of musical instruments altogether, be it in worship or for leisure, simply because we know from Genesis 4 that it was the pagan descendents of Cain who were the fathers of all who play such instruments. So since instruments have pagan origins, we dishonor God by our use of them.
In the same vein, not even God follows the line of reasoning that the MRTT's follow here, because God himself instituted the use of musical instruments in the Old Testament as part of temple worship! Here we have an infallible example of a practice with pagan origins being implemented by the people, and in the divine worship of God in the temple, no less! But since this is a fallacious line of reasoning, it really does not matter where instruments originated, since that has no bearing on their appropriateness in worship.
It also is not uncommon for MRTT's to assert that those who observe Christmas are guilty of turning such things as Christmas trees, candles, wreaths, etc. into sacraments or icons. Unfortunately, I witnessed an online conversation not too long ago where a person was labeled a papist because he used the various elements of a Christmas tree as a way to present the gospel to a lost person. But this is ludicrous. First of all, whoever made this argument has no clue what a sacrament is because sacraments are means of grace. Something mysterious and spiritual actually happens to us when baptism and the Lord's supper are observed. The sacraments are not dry ordinances where we simply remember Christ, at least not in Reformed Theology. Even the Westminster Confession XXVII.2 says that there is "a spiritual relation, or a sacramental union between the sign and the thing signified: whence it comes to pass, that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other." No one can say this of a tree or a candle, and the fact that some people may be superstitious and try to say something like this about these things doesn't change the fact that they are not and cannot be sacraments. So whoever thinks that the fact that a Christmas tree might remind a person of the work of Jesus makes the tree a sacrament either has a very un-Reformed view of what a sacrament is, or they are intentionally misrepresenting those who celebrate Christmas. (By the way, be careful when you stare at a beautiful sunset at night so that it doesn’t remind you of the Almighty Creator of the universe, which then reminds you of how you have sinned against him and how you stand in need of his grace, which then leads you to have a brief time of worship and fellowship with God as you thank him for saving you… you might just be turning that sunset into a sacrament!)
I suppose there are countless other things that could be said here, but right now I can't think of anymore, so I'll stop. For those of you who refrain from celebrating Christmas, I trust that you are doing so for the glory of God. For those of you who do celebrate Christmas, do it for the glory of God.
By the way, here is a helpful link I have found on this subject:
Jeffrey Meyer in Defense of Christmas
Christmas Re-posts
Well, it's that time of year again. So in the spirit of getting ready for Christmas before Thanksgiving has even gotten here (much like the rest of the culture... what can I say? I'm a product of my surroundings...), I'm going to once again post my annual Christmas blog posts that I wrote like three years ago, but feel the need to re-post every year. Also, maybe I will consider writing a new one in the coming weeks just to be a little edgy. Enjoy, and as always, comments are welcome.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
New Shift to Old Earth
I just thought I would throw up a quick blurb on my blog to the effect that I think going forward I am going to consider myself to be an Old Earth Creationist. Up until now, I have taken a basically agnostic position on the question of the age of the earth, and I still believe there is plenty of room for discussion, and I fully respect my Young Earth Creationist brothers and sisters in the Lord. I am not in any way, shape, or form ready to lash out at anyone for holding to a the YEC view. It definitely is not a hill to die on, but since being agnostic isn't any fun, I decided to finally plant a flag on one of the available hills.
One of the reasons I have decided to take the OEC view is because I just don't believe the universe looks young. I do think that those who take the "apparent age" view of the earth can reasonably argue their case. I fully grant that it is possible that God created the earth 6,000-10,000 years ago, and also created all the fossils in the ground already. I know it is possible that for those stars that are too far away for their light to reach earth within a 6,000-10,000 year period that it is fully possible for God to create the light already in transit. I know that. After all, God created Adam and Eve with the look of apparent age. Why couldn't he have done this with the rest of the creation?
Still, I find it a much more intellectually comfortable position to take the view that the earth really is old, and that the creation days of Genesis are not meant to be literal 24 hour days. One key reason I feel this way is because the history of the church has never been uniform in its understanding of the creation account, and there have been many who have not taken a literalistic approach to understanding the creation days. Indeed, taking the Bible as God's inspired, authoritative, infallible Word has never meant that every single passage is meant to be understood in a wooden or literalistic kind of way. That being the case, I fail to see why I should feel some kind of pressure to affirm the YEC view out of some fear that the OEC view is a slippery slope toward theological liberalism.
There is obviously a whole lot more to be said on this issue, and at this point, I'm probably not competent enough to argue the position as well as I would like, but I will just list a few points:
1. While I hold to OEC, I am not claiming to affirm evolution. These are two different issues. The age of the earth is a geological question, while evolution is a biological question. On the question of evolution, I'm not convinced that every type of evolutionary view is incompatible with Christian theism, but I do believe that the view that all species eventually evolved from a single-celled organism is incompatible with the Christian worldview.
2. I have still not decided exactly which view of the creation days I am going to take. I lean toward the Framework Hypothesis, but I am still studying that issue.
3. I still believe that Genesis 1-3 describes real events. I believe Adam and Eve were real persons who were really tempted by that old serpent, Satan, and that the Fall was a real event. I believe the rest of Scripture treats these events as real events, and not just poetic stories with spiritual meanings. I believe that the first Adam was a real person, just like the second Adam, Christ, was a real person.
4. Finally, I believe that science is a friend of Christianity, and not an enemy. By science, of course, I mean the discipline of doing science, since obviously there are many scientists out there who most certainly are the enemies of the faith. But science is a helpful aid in helping us know how to understand and apply Scripture. To this effect, I will quote John Frame:
One of the reasons I have decided to take the OEC view is because I just don't believe the universe looks young. I do think that those who take the "apparent age" view of the earth can reasonably argue their case. I fully grant that it is possible that God created the earth 6,000-10,000 years ago, and also created all the fossils in the ground already. I know it is possible that for those stars that are too far away for their light to reach earth within a 6,000-10,000 year period that it is fully possible for God to create the light already in transit. I know that. After all, God created Adam and Eve with the look of apparent age. Why couldn't he have done this with the rest of the creation?
Still, I find it a much more intellectually comfortable position to take the view that the earth really is old, and that the creation days of Genesis are not meant to be literal 24 hour days. One key reason I feel this way is because the history of the church has never been uniform in its understanding of the creation account, and there have been many who have not taken a literalistic approach to understanding the creation days. Indeed, taking the Bible as God's inspired, authoritative, infallible Word has never meant that every single passage is meant to be understood in a wooden or literalistic kind of way. That being the case, I fail to see why I should feel some kind of pressure to affirm the YEC view out of some fear that the OEC view is a slippery slope toward theological liberalism.
There is obviously a whole lot more to be said on this issue, and at this point, I'm probably not competent enough to argue the position as well as I would like, but I will just list a few points:
1. While I hold to OEC, I am not claiming to affirm evolution. These are two different issues. The age of the earth is a geological question, while evolution is a biological question. On the question of evolution, I'm not convinced that every type of evolutionary view is incompatible with Christian theism, but I do believe that the view that all species eventually evolved from a single-celled organism is incompatible with the Christian worldview.
2. I have still not decided exactly which view of the creation days I am going to take. I lean toward the Framework Hypothesis, but I am still studying that issue.
3. I still believe that Genesis 1-3 describes real events. I believe Adam and Eve were real persons who were really tempted by that old serpent, Satan, and that the Fall was a real event. I believe the rest of Scripture treats these events as real events, and not just poetic stories with spiritual meanings. I believe that the first Adam was a real person, just like the second Adam, Christ, was a real person.
4. Finally, I believe that science is a friend of Christianity, and not an enemy. By science, of course, I mean the discipline of doing science, since obviously there are many scientists out there who most certainly are the enemies of the faith. But science is a helpful aid in helping us know how to understand and apply Scripture. To this effect, I will quote John Frame:
"Here I wish to make the general point that like linguistics, logic, and history, all sciences help us to apply and therefore to interpret Scripture. It is true that many sciences, perhaps all, today are dominated by unbelieving presuppositions, and therefore, we must spend a lot of effort in separating wheat from chaff. But once we are clearly operating on biblical ground, we can learn much from the sciences.
"(1) Sciences will sometimes lead us to reconsider the truth, not of Scripture but of our interpretations of Scripture. Galileo and others led the church to reconsider its view that Scripture taught geocentrism. In my opinion, that was a good thing, something that the church should have done earlier, rather than disciplining the heliocentrists. Geologists who believe in an "old earth" have led theologians to reconsider their exegesis of Genesis 1-2, convincing some evangelical and Reformed scholars to interpret the temporal indications in these chapters figuratively. At this moment, I do not know where the truth lies on that matter. But the discussion is a proper one. The geologists may turn out to be wrong (as the Creation Research Society argues), but until that is proved to the satisfaction of most Christians, we ought to consider at least the possibility of a revised exegesis..."
"(2) Science also aids application by describing the situation to which Scripture is being applied. Medical science gives us important data about the unborn child that may well influence our thinking on abortion. We must know what the unborn child is to know how Scripture relates to him. (Of course, Scripture also has some things to say about what the child is.) Similarly, we must know what an IUD does before we know whether the use of it is biblically right or wrong. To know that, we must consult some medical specialists."
--John Frame, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, pp. 314-315.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
