The 8th post popular post on my blog at the moment is the summary of my interview with Wayne Grudem.

At number 7 is my post defining "What is a Reformed Charismatic?" Don't miss two closely related posts — "Wanted - 1000 Reformed Charismatic Churches" and "I Don't Want Balance, I Want It All."

The 22nd most popular post is a summary post reporting on a debate over baptism and church membership between some of the "big guns" in theology, carried out online. When you realize both John Piper and Wayne Grudem have changed their positions on something, it's certainly worth a listen.

The 21st most popular post is a link to the most popular blond joke in the world. Make sure you follow this one and find that joke—you won't be disappointed!!

In connection with a post I wrote last week entitled—Has Wayne Grudem Been the Victim of Internet Pirates?—I can now confirm that the website offering a free electronic copy of his Systematic Theology is indeed theft.

Many bloggers were taken in by this scam. Although I was always suspicious of the site because of its numbers-only URL, I can see how easily bloggers could have innocently passed along such a link. Most have already removed their links. If you are a blogger and have yet to take it down, please do so now. I attach a public announcement from the publisher of the Logos electronic version of Grudem's epic work:

"Stolen Property"

It has recently come to the attention of Wayne Grudem and myself that an illegal copy of his "Systematic Theology" has been posted on the Internet and that word of this, along with links to the site where the illegal copy is posted, has found its way to many Christian blog sites. I am working with Dr. Grudem to contact all sites that have links to this illegal copy of his book to ask them to remove the links immediately.

Dr. Grudem and I jointly hold the copyright to all electronic versions of his "Systematic Theology." My company, Bits & Bytes, Inc., is the publisher of the Libronix, PC Study Bible, Pradis, and Olive Tree versions of this book. Posting a complete copy of "Systematic Theology" online is intellectual property theft -- a federal crime. Posting a link to the illegal copy or a link to a link is at the very least directing people to stolen goods.

On behalf of Dr. Grudem and myself, we respectfully request that all links to, and all links to links to, the illegal copy of "Systematic Theology" that is on the Internet be removed from all Christian blog sites.

Thank you for honoring this request.

Sincerely,
John Hughes, President

www.bitsbytescomputer.com
johnhughes@centurytel.net

A number of bloggers have been mentioning that Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology is online for free. I felt it was a bit suspicious, however, because of the web address that was being shared—it contained only numbers, i.e. in this type of format—202.202.202.202. That is generally not a good sign in a web address. I have deliberately NOT linked to that new site for the following reason:

I have made some inquiries with IVP, the UK publisher, and their initial response is that they are a bit concerned by this development and are looking into it. It is still possible that the site is legitimate and that permission was obtained by someone else within IVP and/or from Zondervan, the USA publisher. This is looking increasingly unlikely, however.

I am sure the rights and wrongs of this will emerge clearly with a bit more time. In the meantime, Christian integrity, not to mention the law of copyright, would require anyone who has innocently visited the site to desist from doing so again, and other bloggers to remove their links which, again, I am sure were innocently posted. If someone who becomes aware of this message has indeed made this file available in such a way without the publisher's permission, they ought to remove it immediately.

If you want an electronic copy of this resource, Logos Bible Software's version can be purchased for just a few dollars and will work even without one of their core software packages.

Today I can finally reveal that No. 1 on the list of most-read posts on this blog appeared on April 2, 2006, and was my interview with Mark Driscoll, the pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle, Washington.

Thanks to my friends at Crossway, a free copy of Mark Driscoll's new book, Vintage Jesus, will be winging its way to Vince, who e-mailed the correct answer, Hugh, who blogged it, Terry B, who guessed wrong, and Craig who deserves a prize for persistence.

Back in April 2006, I had only recently heard of Mark Driscoll. When we conducted this interview, he was already prompting quite a significant response online, and as the months progressed, he would become probably the most talked-about preacher on the Internet. Other recent and popular posts on my blog about Mark Driscoll include:

• Mark Driscoll, Terry Virgo, and Shepherding God's People
  
  
• Driscoll on the Defeat of Shame and the Scotland MP3s
  
  
• Mark Driscoll Preaches On the Atonement in Edinburgh, Scotland
  
  
• Mark Driscoll at Menmakers in Scotland
  
  
• Mark Driscoll Apologizes for Not Being Humble
  
  
• Mark Driscoll Firm, But Kind, About Joel Osteen on Prosperity Teaching
  
  
• Mark Driscoll in Christianity Today

I have also listed ways of obtaining Mark Driscoll's sermons online at "Audio Sermons: Mark Driscoll—The Charismatic With a Seat Belt."

It is an absolute pleasure to welcome to my blog, Mark Driscoll. Mark is known for having a prominent role in the early days of the Emergent movement, and for his rapidly growing Mars Hill Church. More recently, via his new venture, Resurgence, he has made an explosive entry into the Christian blog-world, which some have likened to none other than The Pyromaniac himself. More posts about Mark Driscoll are linked at the end of this article. You can also visit my interview with Wendy Alsup, a deacon at Mark Driscoll's church.

Adrian
So, Mark, tell us a bit about yourself and your ministry . . .

Mark
I was born in 1970 to a hard-working blue-collar construction worker dad. I was raised Irish Catholic, but did not know Jesus until God saved me while reading Romans in college at the age of 19. Shortly thereafter, God spoke to me, telling me to plant a church, train men, preach the Bible, and marry my girlfriend, who was a Christian I dearly loved. I married Grace at the age of 21, graduated with a degree in Speech at 22, moved back to my hometown of Seattle, and launched Mars Hill Church at the age of 25. Today I am the father of five children and remain one of the elders at Mars Hill Church.

Adrian
In my first post about you I said, "Mars Hill is one of those unique churches that is probably too emerging for some evangelicals to cope with, much too traditional for the emerging folks, too charismatic for the reformed folks, and too reformed for the average charismatic. It's a wonder anyone likes the church! Actually, the more I read of Mark the more he sounds like he is making his home in the same kind of center ground that my own church tries to occupy." Do you recognize that description of yourself—do you sometimes feel like something of a theological misfit?

Mark
I am a theological misfit and have learned to be okay with that. We are missional, which offends fundamentalists. We hold to the fundamentals, which offends the liberals. We are theologically charismatic, but not shake and bake holy rollers, which puts us in the middle of a big debate to be shot by both sides. We are reformed, but not old school, and don't baptize babies, don't hold to the regulative principle, and won't die on the hill of Limited Atonement, but hold a more unlimited/limited position, which upsets both sides of the debate. In the end, I hold to a high view of inerrant Scripture and am trying to be biblical, even when it makes a mess of my systematics.

Adrian
What other groups or individuals can you look at and say, "Yeah, they seem to have got it—I can follow them"? Who would you say have been your main influences?

Mark
I learn a lot from John Piper, D. A. Carson, Wayne Grudem, and Tim Keller. The dead guys I like tend to be Puritans and early church fathers. I also am a huge Spurgeon fan, and read every biography I can get on him. I love biographies and learn from the lives of Calvin, Luther, Aquinas, Augustine, Patrick, etc. . . .

Read more . . . Interview With Mark Driscoll

No. 4 on the list of most-read posts on this blog appeared on August 21, 2007, and was one in a series of posts that catalogued a major debate about baptism and church membership which took place online between such theological heavyweights as John Piper, Sam Storms, Wayne Grudem, Lig Duncan, and Mark Dever.

The posts listed below were all so popular they could have made the top 30 in their own right. It's worth reading all of them:

• The Pipers Respond to Dever in the Baptism Debate
  
  
• Wayne Grudem Changes His Mind on Baptism
  
  
• Wayne Grudem Replies to John Piper on Baptism
  
  
• John Piper Disagrees with Wayne Grudem Over Baptism Graciously
  
  
• Wayne Grudem Says Sam Storms is Right About the Lord's Supper
  
  
• Sam Storms Feels Mark Dever is Confusing on the Lord's Supper
  
  
• Mark Dever Joins the Grudem Versus Piper Baptism Debate
  
  
• John Bunyan and the Grudem & Dever Versus Piper Baptism Debate

The post begins as follows:

This whole baptism debate is shaping up to be very interesting indeed. It is surely the first time in living memory that those who I can only think to call the "big guns" have used the blogging medium to have a serious theological debate in front of the rest of us. While Lig Duncan and Justin Taylor have both helpfully shared a bit about what paedobaptists believe, this debate has rather been about whether our local churches must have clear stances on this issue.

Arguing for a more rigorous approach, we have seen Wayne Grudem (who also started the whole thing), Mark Dever, and his 9Marks buddy, Aaron Menikoff, while on the other side we have had comments from John Piper, Abraham Piper, John Bunyan, and now in this post, Sam Storms.

I and many others have very deliberately steered clear of joining in the debate because, for some reason, I'm finding it one that is very stimulating and interesting to observe from the touchline. It has been a model debate, and is a clear example of how we can disagree robustly on an issue while still loving and respecting each other. The following words from Sam Storms are no exception. Sam is a good friend, and has given me permission to republish the following complete article which appeared in his newsletter.

The rest of this post is taken in its entirety with permission from an e-mail from Sam Storms, who retains the copyright and is alone responsible for its content.

---

Reflections (46)

Piper, Grudem, Dever, et al. on Baptism, the Lord’s Table, and Church Membership

(Just how “Together for the Gospel” are we?)

A few days ago Justin Taylor alerted us to a slight change in Wayne Grudem’s view on baptism, to which John Piper then responded. Wayne then posted his response to John’s response, and one needed only to wait for the ripple effect. By the way, you can read these articles on Justin’s blog in the archive section (www.theologica.blogspot.com).

Recently (August 16, 2007), Mark Dever posted on this issue at the 9Marks blog (www.blog.9marks.org). My primary concern is less with the question of the relationship between baptism and church membership (as important as that is) and more with a related topic that emerges in the course of discussion.

Let me take you back to the Together for the Gospel conference that was held in late April, 2006. It was hosted by Mark Dever, Al Mohler, Ligon Duncan, and C. J. Mahaney, who also invited three others to deliver plenary messages: John Piper, R. C. Sproul, and John MacArthur. Registration for next year’s conference is now open and I strongly urge you to attend. I will certainly be present.

After the conference was officially over, on Friday afternoon, there was a small gathering of some 75 people in one of the adjoining rooms at the Galt House Hotel. The purpose of this meeting was to address an issue that was raised last year by John Piper, pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

To be brief, John has come to the conviction that the terms on which one enters the membership of the local church should be, generally speaking, as close as possible to the terms on which one enters the membership of the universal church. In other words, he grew increasingly unsettled by the fact that conscientious, born-again, Christ-loving, Bible-believing Christians who were only baptized as infants could not join his local church. It has been the policy of Bethlehem Baptist Church, a member of the Baptist General Conference, that in order to become a functioning member one must, among other things, be baptized as a believer. On this scenario, Ligon Duncan and R. C. Sproul, being Presbyterians, could attend but would not be permitted to join Bethlehem Baptist Church. . . .

Read more . . . Sam Storms' e-mail

No. 5 on the list of most-read posts on this blog appeared on November 21, 2004. I felt like a lonely figure back in 2004 with my strong criticism of Steve Chalke's views on the atonement. I argued that his words were close to blasphemy at the time. John Piper would subsequently accuse Chalke directly of blaspheming, and Wayne Grudem would first agree, then modify his position to something similar to what I had said back in 2004.

Many questions remain unanswered about this whole controversy, and I remain open to Steve coming on the blog and explaining his current position more fully to us, or indeed to quoting any clarification comments he wants to make elsewhere. Sadly, to date he has declined my repeated invitations to speak further about this controversy.

Another closely related post that was also very popular was a post which explained how Brian McLaren had supported Steve Chalke.

UPDATE #1
Controversy over Steve Chalke and the atonement continues to rage, and according to reports, may have been involved in the recent split between Spring Harvest and Word Alive.

John Piper also responded directly to Steve Chalke as follows:

"One of the most infamous and tragic paragraphs written by a church leader in the last several years heaps scorn on one of the most precious truths of the atonement: Christ’s bearing our guilt and God’s wrath . . .

With one cynical stroke of the pen, the triumph of God’s love over God’s wrath in the death of his beloved Son is blasphemed, while other church leaders write glowing blurbs on the flaps of his book. But God is not mocked. His word stands firm and clear and merciful to those who will embrace it."

ORIGINAL POST
It doesn't happen often, but the EA has issued a statement critical of a well-known UK Christian leader. Steve Chalke was criticized in quite strong terms for his book, which apparently says that the "penal substitutionary" aspect of the atonement is a false teaching. This latest criticism comes following a public debate and an article by Steve Chalke available online, during both of which he reaffirmed his views. The EA statement says:

We trust that instead of dismissing penal substitution out of hand as a false teaching tantamount to "cosmic child abuse," Steve will recognise its significant place in the range of atonement theories to which Evangelicals have characteristically subscribed. We also trust that he will interact more positively both with the theology which underpins it, and with that vast majority of Evangelicals across the world who continue to affirm it. It may be true, as Steve has claimed, that Evangelicals are often perceived to be harsh, censorious, and ungracious, and that this can hamper evangelism. However, we do not accept Steve's assertion of a causal or necessary link between affirming penal substitution and being harsh, censorious, and ungracious.

For these reasons, we do not believe that penal substitutionary atonement can be rejected as it is rejected in "The Lost Message of Jesus," and as Steve has persisted in rejecting it since. While affirming the many gifts which Steve has to offer, we urge him, as a much-loved brother in Christ, to reconsider both the substance and style of his recently expressed views on this matter.

So what was all the fuss about? Steve Chalk in his book says this:

The fact is that the cross isn't a form of cosmic child abuse—a vengeful father, punishing his son for an offence he has not even committed. Understandably, both people inside and outside of the church have found this twisted version of events morally dubious and a huge barrier to faith. Deeper than that, however, is that such a construct stands in total contradiction to the statement "God is love." If the cross is a personal act of violence perpetrated by God towards humankind but borne by his son, then it makes a mockery of Jesus' own teaching to love your enemies and refuse to repay evil with evil. The truth is the cross is a symbol of love. It is a demonstration of just how far God as Father and Jesus as his son are prepared to go to prove that love. The cross is a vivid statement of the powerlessness of love.

Read more . . . Steve Chalke and the Lost Message of Jesus

No. 6 on the list of most-read posts on this blog appeared on December 18, 2006, and was a summary of the highlights of my interview with Dr. Wayne Grudem, a man who is certainly a wonderful gift to the global Church! Other segments of this interview would have made the top 30 in their own right, as would my review of Dr. Grudem's supreme Systematic Theology.

At times it looked like it would go on forever, but the Wayne Grudem interview is over. In this post I look back on the whole interview and its aftermath. If you haven't got time to read through the whole thing, this will give you an overview and help you select the parts you may want to read in more detail. I will also share some personal reflections of the interview - some of which, of course, directly resulted in the sudden change to my comment policy

Part 1 - Personal Matters

If there is one thing that stands out from this whole interview, it's the fact that egalitarians simply don't understand what complementarians like Wayne Grudem are saying. The assumption made by some people seems at least to me to be that anyone who believes in a husband leading and taking responsibility for his wife is effectively a woman-hater. I hope that particular view is indeed rare, but we need to do everything we can to ensure that we are communicating across the divides caused in part by us using words differently.

This quote sums up the man, Dr. Grudem, in my mind, and reveals that - far from being the troublemaker some people think he is - this is a man of deep love and humility. Bizarrely to me given the way I understand the word, some poeple even held this quote up as an example of Dr. Grudem "submitting" to his wife. In reality, it is a great example of him taking the responsibility for a decision that would help his wife and simultaneously hurt his career. Perhaps if this was what every husband meant by leading his wife, the whole feminist issue would evaporate:

"We moved to Phoenix Seminary in Arizona in 2001, primarily because of Margaret’s health. She had been experiencing chronic pain after an auto accident a number of years earlier, and we found that the pain was aggravated by cold and humidity. Well, the Chicago area is cold in the winter and humid in the summer! After a couple of trips to Arizona, which is hot and dry, we realized that Margaret felt much better there. So I phoned the academic dean at Phoenix Seminary and asked if there might possibly be a job opportunity there for me. It is a long and wonderful story of the Lord’s guidance and provision, but the result is that we have been here since June of 2001, Margaret has felt much better, and I also love the seminary where I am now teaching. So we are thankful for God’s blessings in many ways. I am thankful to the Lord that when we were making a decision about whether to move to Phoenix, on the very day we were talking and praying about it, I came to Ephesians 5:28 in my regular schedule of daily Bible reading, and the Lord used this verse strongly in my own decision process: “In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.” After reading that, I thought it was important for me to move for the sake of Margaret’s physical body, her physical health.

Part 2 - Systematic Theology and Controversy

Dr. Grudem's answer to my question about his book, Systematic Theology, further demonstrated his humility, but in other ways was also quite revealing. A big difference between men like Grudem and certain other theologians is that he believes it is his task to make complex theological truths understandable by ordinary "lay" people without theological degrees - people like me. I cannot agree more, as quite frankly, if a theologian cannot write about his ideas and the evidence he bases them on in a way that a person of reasonable education can understand, then there is something very wrong. I thank God for men like Grudem who can do just that.

"I am surprised, and thankful to God for the way the book seems to continue to be a blessing to people – and not just to pastors and seminary students, but lots of other Christians from all walks of life. As you know, I believe that God intended His Word to be understood, not just by specialists, but also by ordinary Christians. The “blessed man” in Psalm 1 is held up as an example for all of us: “His delight is in the law of the LORD, and on his law he meditates day and night.” (Psalm 1:2)"

Read more . . . Dr. Wayne Grudem—Highlights and Reflections

I just received the following announcement in my e-mail about a blogging tour that Tim Challies will be taking next week. I have previously highlighted Tim's book here on my sidebar, and in my review of it, in which I said:

"Tim Challies takes us from the turbulent marketplace of ideas that is the modern western church back into the world of the Scriptures. Sadly, today many people fall into the trap of being naively blown from one wind of teaching to another. Others become so expert at straining out the gnats of what they believe to be error that they are unable to learn from anybody. Instead they believe themselves to be the guardians of "true" doctrine. Tim shows us from the Bible itself how to avoid both errors. Tim's reliance on the Bible is refreshing in an age when doctrinal pillars of our faith are being challenged by prominent preachers, and there is a constant search for novelty in parts of the Church. This book, like no other I have seen, aims to give ordinary Christians like you and me the tools we need to learn how to discern truth from error. I wholeheartedly urge you to get yourself a copy and read it, and then buy one for a friend."

RELEASE FROM CROSSWAY

Most Christians are a little fuzzy on the topic of discernment. We know that someone should apply discernment to the media, to teachings, and to important decisions. We've heard of discernment ministries, and we may have even used the phrase "the gift of discernment." The general tenor of our conversations could lead us to conclude that discernment is best left to the professionals.

Perhaps this conversation needs to be re-opened. Leading evangelical blogger Tim Challies initiates the dialogue with his new book, The Discipline of Spiritual Discernment, which contends that discernment is the call of every believer. In conjunction with the book's release, Challies is taking his message to the blogosphere. His two-week blog tour will start on Monday, January 7th and will run until Friday, January 18th. Watch for Challies on the following sites, and submit your comments to participate:

Jan 7: Evangelical Outpost

Jan 8: Tall Skinny Kiwi

Jan 9: A-Team

Jan 10: Adrian Warnock

Jan 11: Gender Blog

Jan 14: Jollyblogger

Jan 15: Between Two Worlds

Jan 16: Team Pyro

Jan 17: Internet Monk

Jan 18: Church Matters

Tim has written more about his tour and some foolish comment controversy some have been stirring up about his book. All I want to say for now is that a team of professionals built the Titanic. A single amatuer built the ark.

In my interview with Wayne Grudem he said something pertinent to this latest controversy over "professionalism" in the church:

". . . it is always wise to have a governing structure where the highest governing offices in the church and the highest positions of influence are open to lay people as well as ordained people. The denominations where only clergy have the highest of authority seem to be the ones that are never able to be brought back once they drift into liberalism because the ordinary lay people who have common sense and are reading their Bibles every day don’t have any way to regain control of a denomination that has gone astray if it has that kind of structure."

—Wayne Grudem

I have spent a bit of time over the last few days rediscovering Theopedia. It is not quite so frenetic and unstructured as Wikkipedia. This is probably due to its requirement that you acknowledge a statement of faith and be registered before editing items. They are keen for more contributors and if you have good quality material you have blogged and are willing to adapt, they are happy for it to be included in their articles with the appropriate acknowledgments. Would be great to have a few more bloggers over there. Here are the articles for which I have made some contributions so far (some more significantly than others):

• Gifts of the Spirit
• Gift of Prophecy
• Penal Substitutionary Atonement
• Pastor
• Steve Chalke
• Mark Driscoll
• Wayne Grudem
  
• C. J. Mahaney
  
• Together For the Gospel
  
• Mark Dever
• Ligon Duncan
• Albert Mohler
• Jacob
• Terry Virgo

Lig Duncan has promised us he will write more on the reasons why this debate is not an easy one to resolve. His statement got me thinking, and while I'm still resisting the temptation to state who I agree with, it has rattled around in my brain long enough for me to want to have a go at explaining why these disagreements are almost inevitable.

To me the whole issue is about something else altogether. It's really about authority. Different understandings of how to run a local church make these differences almost inevitable. If you believe that a church should be run by its congregation, then you will be more careful about who you allow to become a member. Churches have allowed flexibility in the view of baptism in their members before, and found that over time the church has switched sides on the issue of paedobaptism versus credobaptism. It is interesting that the congregation of John Piper's church has, so far, refused to allow him to follow his convictions on this issue. In fact, it is more surprising in a way that Piper feels the way he does, given that he has a congregational form of church government, at least on paper.

If your church is run by local elders, and the congregation can only show their dissent by speaking to their leaders or eventually by leaving, I can imagine that leaders may be more relaxed about allowing members to have a different viewpoint, presumably while insisting that future leaders will have a similar perspective to the existing leaders.

There are also differences about how the local church is viewed, and how tightly defined doctrinally church memberships should be. I think that one thing we can all agree on is that there are genuine Christians who differ from us theologically. I, for one, have a very loose definition of a Christian. When the Bible says, "If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved" (Romans 10:9), who am I to add further conditions?

However, I do believe that faith in Christ should be accompanied with trust in his Word and a humble submission to it. Thus, sometimes I find the boundaries of precisely who is saved and who is not hard to define. In fact, I do not feel that it is my job to say definitely that an individual is a genuine Christian or not. It is because of this grey area that many will place a further level of limits on church membership. Thus, a local church will usually define what it thinks is a Christian in good standing a little more tightly than the lowest possible denominator of professed faith in Christ. This makes sense, not least because it would exclude someone living in blatant sin while claiming to be a Christian. There are surely few churches that would allow membership to everyone who claims to be a Christian.

But for many the local church is not simply a collection of everyone we believe to be saved and in a good standing before God. For most churches there are secondary doctrines used as identification markers. As a result, some will define their membership requirements to include agreement with some of these doctrines. This is to protect the doctrinal integrity of the local church and becomes more important if authority in the life of the church rests with the congregation.

Since many Baptist churches in particular take a valid believer's baptism to be the gateway to church membership, it is little wonder that many of them would deny membership to the unbaptized. Since many paedobaptist churches will recognize either believer's or infant baptism as valid, it is no wonder that they allow people who hold to both perspectives to become members.

Similar issues arise about the Lord's Supper. People have differing perspectives about who should be allowed to partake. In a large church it can be next to impossible to manage a communion service which is in any way closed, so it often becomes a free-for-all. The issue of who can take the Lord's Supper then becomes an irrelevance. In smaller churches, frequently leaders believe that some care should be taken about to whom the Lord's Supper is administered. If the Lord's Supper is seen as a meal for church members rather than any professor, is it any wonder that some get to the position that those who do not qualify for membership in a local church should not share the Supper with that church?

In short, I believe that these kinds of decisions should be taken by the local church's leadership teams. I would not presume to tell them how they should act. I respect their right to have differing opinions and to change those opinions, as both Grudem and Piper have done.

As Duncan was insinuating, for those who truly believe in the truth of the Bible and the importance of doctrine, it is no surprise, given our fallibility, that we have different doctrinal positions and different opinions about how to act in the local church in light of those differences. Ecumenicalism hides our differences in order to pretend we are one. True biblical unity acknowledges our differences, respects them, and goes on to partner for the sake of the Gospel. We may find that we can partner only to a certain extent with some, since to go further would require us to compromise our convictions, which although secondary, we should not be forced to give up. Thus a complex web of partnerships will emerge, some closer than others. It is not wrong for us to agree to partner in some ways, but not in others, with those with whom we differ on many issues.

I hope that makes some sense, although I am sure that Lig will do a better job of explaining it!

Lig Duncan has responded resoundingly to both sides of the debate about whether he should be allowed to join a Baptist church. He argues that these differences are important and demonstrate a passion for truth that is critical. Here is just some of what he says:

". . . let me say that this significant difference (on baptism and church membership), far from being fatal to our unity, is precisely one of the reasons that Mark and Al and C. J. and I are in fact "Together for the Gospel." It is precisely one of the things that makes Together for the Gospel so different and extraordinary. Let me attempt to begin to explain.

The unity of T4G is not a unity in spite of doctrinal differences, in which we gain unity by downplaying doctrine, minimizing ecclesial differences and going with a lowest common denominator. Our unity is instead a unity of respect for the truth and for truth-in-practice, that sees in each other such a dogged commitment to God's Word in both faith and practice that we want to be together promoting biblical Christianity, even in the points of principle on which we seriously disagree . . .

I would never want to say to Mark or Al, "I will be with you 'Together for the Gospel,' as long as you relinquish your Baptist principles or as long as you do not follow your Baptist convictions in church practice." No, it is precisely their love of truth and their desire to see Gospel truth and love worked out practically in the life of the local church which causes my heart to love them as Jonathan did David.

I love Mark and Al's deep concern for truth and biblical church practice (even and especially at the points in which they disagree with me). I love the fact that they are not willing to compromise on points of biblical conviction, and yet at the same time they work so hard to promote principled unity. I love the fact that even though they believe me to be in serious error on this issue of baptism, they truly love me, constantly co-labor with me (and invite me to do the same with them), and reach out to numerous other non-Baptist evangelicals regularly, deliberately, nationally, and internationally to build biblical consensus and cooperation among the churches. To know Mark and Al is to know two men of unshakable conviction and broad sympathy, and I deeply value that.

There are actually good reasons why this debate should not be an easy one to resolve . . . "

In news that will shake the blogosphere, Justin Taylor has not only shown that he is with Sam Storms on these issues, he has exclusively revealed that Lig Duncan was not baptized as an infant! Anyone questioning his commitment to the Presbyterian cause would no doubt be told "It wasn't my fault my parents didn't baptize me!" which perhaps to a credobaptist is precisely the point! Anyway here is what Justin said:

Trusted sources tell Between Two Worlds that Ligon Duncan was not baptized as an infant, but was baptized as a believer! This certainly adds a wrinkle to the discussion, doesn't it? So shouldn't Dever accept Duncan both into membership and at the Lord's Table? Inquiring minds want to know!

I'm not sure why anyone would care what my position is, but I agree with old Piper, new Grudem, and unchanging Storms. I agree with Dever about membership and disagree with him regarding the Lord's Supper. And I think we'd all get along if we just followed the happy middlemen, Ted Christman and Vern Poythress!

In light of Sam Storms’ contribution to the great baptism debate yesterday, Wayne Grudem has sent me an e-mail which includes an extract from his Systematic Theology which, unlike his perspective on baptism and church membership, has not changed recently.

The rest of this article was written by Wayne Grudem and is published with permission:

Just for the record, I am already in print agreeing with what Sam Storms says on this question. (And, I would add, in the case of convinced paedobaptists, I would argue, as does my friend Sam Storms, that they should surely be allowed to participate in the Lord's Supper for their entire lives as non-members of the church, but as genuine believers and members of the universal body of Christ. I think the negative symbolism of not allowing these believers to partake of the Lord's Supper is surely something that Jesus did not intend in instituting this ordinance.) Here is the section from my Systematic Theology (it is on pp. 996-997 in both the old and new (2007) printings). My own view is expressed in paragraph 3:

D. Who should participate in the Lord's Supper?

Despite differences over some aspects of the Lord's Supper, most Protestants would agree, first, that only those who believe in Christ should participate in it, because it is a sign of being a Christian and continuing in the Christian life. Paul warns that those who eat and drink unworthily face serious consequences: “For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died” (1 Corinthians 11:29-30).

Second, many Protestants would argue from the meaning of baptism and the meaning of the Lord's Supper that, ordinarily, only those who have been baptized should participate in the Lord's Supper. This is because baptism is so clearly a symbol of beginning the Christian life, while the Lord's Supper is clearly a symbol of continuing the Christian life. Therefore if someone is taking the Lord's Supper and thereby giving public proclamation that he or she is continuing in the Christian life, then that person should be asked, “Wouldn't it be good to be baptized now and thereby give a symbol that you are beginning the Christian life?”

But others, including the present author, would object to such a restriction as follows: a different problem arises if someone who is a genuine believer, but not yet baptized, is not allowed to participate in the Lord's Supper when Christians get together. In that case the person's non-participation symbolizes that he or she is not a member of the body of Christ which is coming together to observe the Lord's Supper in a unified fellowship. (See 1 Corinthians 10:17: “Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.”) Therefore churches may think it best to allow non-baptized believers to participate in the Lord's Supper, but to urge them to be baptized as quickly as possible. For if they are willing to participate in one outward symbol of being a Christian, there seems no reason why they should not be willing to participate in the other, a symbol which appropriately comes first.

Of course, the problems that arise in both situations (when unbaptized believers take Communion and when they do not) can all be avoided if new Christians are regularly baptized shortly after coming to faith. And, whichever position a church takes on the question of whether unbaptized believers should take Communion, in the teaching ministry of the church, it would seem wise to teach that the ideal situation is for new believers first to be baptized and then to partake of the Lord's Supper.

UPDATE
In January 2008, the following post was identified as the 4th all-time most popular post with readers of this blog. The 5th most-read post was "Steve Chalke and the Lost Message of Jesus."

The 4th most widely-read post was one in a series of posts that catalogued a major debate about baptism and church membership, and took place online between such theological heavyweights as John Piper, Sam Storms, Wayne Grudem, Lig Duncan, and Mark Dever. The posts listed below were all so popular they could have made the top 30 in their own right. It's worth reading all of them:

• The Pipers Respond to Dever in the Baptism Debate
  
  
• Wayne Grudem Changes His Mind on Baptism
  
  
• Wayne Grudem Replies to John Piper on Baptism
  
  
• John Piper Disagrees with Wayne Grudem Over Baptism Graciously
  
  
• Wayne Grudem Says Sam Storms is Right About the Lord's Supper
  
  
• Sam Storms Feels Mark Dever is Confusing on the Lord's Supper
  
  
• Mark Dever Joins the Grudem Versus Piper Baptism Debate
  
  
• John Bunyan and the Grudem & Dever Versus Piper Baptism Debate

***************

This whole baptism debate is shaping up to be very interesting indeed. It is surely the first time in living memory that those who I can only think to call the "big guns" have used the blogging medium to have a serious theological debate in front of the rest of us. While Lig Duncan and Justin Taylor have both helpfully shared a bit about what paedobaptists believe, this debate has rather been about whether our local churches must have clear stances on this issue.

Arguing for a more rigorous approach, we have seen Wayne Grudem (who also started the whole thing), Mark Dever, and his 9Marks buddy, Aaron Menikoff, while on the other side we have had comments from John Piper, Abraham Piper, John Bunyan, and now in this post, Sam Storms.

I and many others have very deliberately steered clear of joining in the debate because, for some reason, I'm finding it one that is very stimulating and interesting to observe from the touchline. It has been a model debate, and is a clear example of how we can disagree robustly on an issue while still loving and respecting each other. The following words from Sam Storms are no exception. Sam is a good friend, and has given me permission to republish the following complete article which appeared in his newsletter.

The rest of this post is taken in its entirety with permission from an e-mail from Sam Storms, who retains the copyright and is alone responsible for its content.

---

Reflections (46)

Piper, Grudem, Dever, et al. on Baptism, the Lord’s Table, and Church Membership

(Just how “Together for the Gospel” are we?)

A few days ago Justin Taylor alerted us to a slight change in Wayne Grudem’s view on baptism, to which John Piper then responded. Wayne then posted his response to John’s response, and one needed only to wait for the ripple effect. By the way, you can read these articles on Justin’s blog in the archive section (www.theologica.blogspot.com).

Recently (August 16, 2007), Mark Dever posted on this issue at the 9Marks blog (www.blog.9marks.org). My primary concern is less with the question of the relationship between baptism and church membership (as important as that is) and more with a related topic that emerges in the course of discussion.

Let me take you back to the Together for the Gospel conference that was held in late April, 2006. It was hosted by Mark Dever, Al Mohler, Ligon Duncan, and C. J. Mahaney, who also invited three others to deliver plenary messages: John Piper, R. C. Sproul, and John MacArthur. Registration for next year’s conference is now open and I strongly urge you to attend. I will certainly be present.

After the conference was officially over, on Friday afternoon, there was a small gathering of some 75 people in one of the adjoining rooms at the Galt House Hotel. The purpose of this meeting was to address an issue that was raised last year by John Piper, pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

To be brief, John has come to the conviction that the terms on which one enters the membership of the local church should be, generally speaking, as close as possible to the terms on which one enters the membership of the universal church. In other words, he grew increasingly unsettled by the fact that conscientious, born-again, Christ-loving, Bible-believing Christians who were only baptized as infants could not join his local church. It has been the policy of Bethlehem Baptist Church, a member of the Baptist General Conference, that in order to become a functioning member one must, among other things, be baptized as a believer. On this scenario, Ligon Duncan and R. C. Sproul, being Presbyterians, could attend but would not be permitted to join Bethlehem Baptist Church.

Piper's desire was to make it possible for individuals who had been baptized as infants, and believed it would be a violation of their conscience to be baptized as adults, to join his church. They would not, however, be permitted to hold a leadership position as an Elder in the local body. As of today, the issue at Bethlehem has been temporarily put on hold, pending further discussion and prayer.

Now, back to Louisville. Mark Dever, Al Mohler, Ligon Duncan, and John Piper each began with a brief statement concerning their view on this proposed policy. Both Dever and Mohler, who are Southern Baptists, oppose it, while Piper and Duncan support it. But my primary concern is not with this policy per se, but with what happened in the course of discussion.

Let me be clear on one thing. I am a credo-baptist, not a paedo-baptist. That is to say, I believe that only those who believe in Jesus Christ should receive the ordinance of water baptism. I also believe that the proper mode of baptism is by immersion. Ligon Duncan, on the other hand, is a Presbyterian paedo-baptist. Because of this, both Mark Dever and Al Mohler made it clear that if Duncan were in attendance at either of their churches they would not permit him to partake of the elements of the Lord's Supper.

Let me repeat that. Because of Duncan's paedo-baptist convictions, both Dever and Mohler would prohibit his participation in the Eucharist. They would deny to him partnership in the table of our Lord. They would withhold the bread and the cup from him because of his disagreement with them on who are the proper recipients of Christian baptism.

As best I can tell (and I’m open to correction on this point), since Jesus clearly commanded (believer’s) baptism, a paedo-baptist (says Dever in his recent blog post) is guilty of “disobedience” and “unrepentant sin” (however unintentional it may be) and is thus disqualified from participating in the Lord’s Table.

Duncan believes that when an adult comes to faith in Christ he/she should be baptized in water (he prefers by effusion, but would acknowledge the validity of immersion). But he also believes that the infants of Christian parents should be brought to the baptismal font. I disagree with him on this latter point, but I'm disturbed that anyone would deny him access to the Lord's Table on such grounds.

I have tremendous respect for both Mark Dever (whom I count as a good, personal friend) and Al Mohler (although I don’t know Dr. Mohler personally). Truly I do. They are both an incalculable blessing to the body of Christ. I also agree with them concerning the proper subjects of Christian baptism. But I find it remarkable that they would turn away Ligon Duncan from that ordinance of the church that above all else signifies and expresses the unity of the brethren in the body of Christ.

This may be offensive to some, but the claim to be "Together for the Gospel" rings a bit hollow to me when some would decline to fellowship with others around the Lord's Table because of their disagreement on the proper recipients of baptism.

Let's be sure we understand what the Eucharist is designed to communicate. Aside from differences of opinion concerning the nature of Christ's "presence" (whether physical, spiritual, or merely symbolic), there can be no mistake that this ordinance signifies, embodies, and expresses the foundational essence of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Before us are the elements of bread and wine that unmistakably represent the body and blood of Jesus Christ given on behalf of sinners like Ligon Duncan, John Piper, Al Mohler, Mark Dever, and myself.

Jesus himself made it clear that the cup represented or pointed to or in some sense embodied "the forgiveness of sins" that would come from the saving efficacy of his atoning death (Matthew 26:28). In 1 Corinthians 11:26 Paul echoed this truth by telling us that every time we celebrate the Lord's Table we "proclaim the Lord's death until he comes." In other words, the Eucharist is a dramatic, visible, vocal enactment of the gospel itself. It stirs our hearts to meditate on Christ's redemptive work and is designed to stimulate the mind to reflect on the significance of all that he achieved on behalf of those for whom he died.

My question, then, is this: How can we claim to be "together" or "united" for the sake of the gospel and turn away a brother or sister from the very expression and proclamation of that gospel that is so central to the life and testimony of the church? What does this prohibition say to the world around us? What must they think of our professed "togetherness" or "unity" when the elements of the Eucharist would be withheld from a brother such as Ligon Duncan?

In effect, this is the message that is sent: "Ligon, we agree with you on the nature of the gospel. We agree with you that we must faithfully proclaim and preach the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ and salvation by grace alone through faith alone in what he has accomplished on Calvary. But you cannot share with us the table of the Lord or the elements that represent and proclaim that gospel."

I'm sorry, but that doesn't sound to me like "together" or "united" or any such thing for the sake of the gospel. It sounds rather like a narrow sectarianism that fails to consider the unity of the one body as represented by the one bread (1 Corinthians 10:17). It sounds like the colossal loss of an excellent opportunity to deepen and strengthen Christian fellowship and bear witness to a lost and dying world both of the gospel itself and our unity that is grounded in it.

For some brethren to look at Ligon Duncan (or others in his camp) and say, "We believe the same gospel, we preach the same gospel, but we refuse to express that belief and proclaim that gospel with you by means of the ordinance that Jesus commissioned as an expression of our unity and our confident hope in its capacity to save," calls into serious question the significance of the word "together".

I hope none will conclude from this that I think the conference was a failure or was not beneficial to those in attendance. As I said, I plan on attending again in 2008. I hope none will think that Al Mohler and Mark Dever do not love their Christian brother, Ligon Duncan. Indeed, they would no doubt contend that it is precisely because of their love for him (among other reasons) that they feel compelled to hold firmly to their position. True love is never served by compromising the truth. There is no greater expression of love for another than the willingness to make painful and unpopular decisions for the sake of bringing an errant brother into the light.

One more thing should be noted. In his recent post, Dever indicated that he planned on having an Anglican and a Presbyterian preach from his pulpit in the near future. In the comment section of his blog, one person said: “The implication . . . is that there are people whom you are happy to have in your pulpit but not at the Lord’s Table. That seems a little odd.” Yes, it does.

In a similar vein, another comment asked: “why would you let someone in unrepentant sin be teaching the flock at Capitol Hill?”

Finally, more directly to the point of this article, the question was asked: “If your Anglican . . . friend were preaching in your pulpit on a Sunday where the Lord’s Table was observed, would you exclude him from participating?” The answer, clearly, is that Dever would indeed exclude him from participating.

In fact, let’s suppose, just for the sake of argument, that the Lord’s Table is celebrated every Sunday at Capitol Hill Baptist Church (although I don’t think it is). This would mean that Dever’s Anglican or Presbyterian friend might conceivably preach a profoundly biblical message on the gospel of the dying and rising Christ and salvation through him alone, only to be told (if not in words then surely by the actions then taken) that he must sit to the side and refrain from receiving the elements that symbolize and embody the very dying and rising Christ whom he only moments before so faithfully and biblically proclaimed.

In this not unlikely scenario, the visiting paedo-baptist might even reinforce the truth of the gospel message by pointing to the elements on the table before him, articulating with passion and humility how the sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood, here symbolized by the bread and wine, have secured for all Christians forgiveness of sins and eternal life. He would then, I suppose, be led away from the elements and told that although he is no less trusting in what they represent than are his credo-baptist brothers and sisters, he cannot partake with them in the supper.

Does anyone see anything askew in this picture? I’d love to hear your comments.

Sam

Article now also available on Sam Storms Blog.

John Bunyan has been brought in to butress Piper's posisiton which had suffered from the declaration of Dever for the other side. This remains a very good natured discussion, and demonstrates clearly the ability to be united around the gospel but disagree on secondary issues. Aaron Menikoff of the 9Marks Blog begins his post as follows -

Maybe it simply worth noting that there is a long history, first in England, then in the States, of Baptists addressing the question of whether the unbaptized should be accepted into the membership of Baptist churches. To put it in a less sterile way, should the church really be split over a difference in baptism?

The most famous account, and one that Mark has lectured on in academic circles, involved the famous tinker from Bedford, John Bunyan. The author of Pilgrim’s Progress defended his practice of allowing the paedo-baptists to join Bedford Baptist Church in Differences about Water Baptism No Bar to Communion (1673). Bunyan offered ten reasons to allow the unbaptized into membership . . .

I am really enjoying the latest debate on baptism and church membership. My "lite blogging" plan for August has so far prevented me from entering the fray and declaring my own thoughts on it. Mark Dever has now posted briefly about his views. It is great to see some of our theological heroes respectfully disagreeing with each other. It is a model for the rest of us. (HT Alex)

Baptism SHOULD be required for church membership:

Because Jesus clearly commanded baptism and to disobey this command is sin [whether intentional or not]. To continue in such an unbaptized state is unrepentant sin [whether intentional or not]. Thus, no careful paedo-baptist will follow John P's apparent "generosity" about membership. That is, they will never knowingly admit someone to the Lord's Table that they understand to be unbaptized (even if they took that evangelical Quaker or believing Salvationist to be their brother or sister in Christ). John P wants us to admit to the Lord's Table those that he and we all agree are not baptized. John has no doubt that infant baptism is not baptism. He is solid on that point. But I think that actually leaves his position unusually open to other difficulties--knowingly admitting the unbaptized to regular communion. I simply don't want to take the responsibility to so disregard Jesus' commands (not that John P intends to in anyway disregard Jesus' commands). I especially don't want to do this in what has been an area of relatively unanimous Christian agreement from Jesus til now. Baptism precedes the Lord's Table.

In this "battle" of two of our theological giants, Grudem has struck back, but admits his wife is on Piper's side on this one!

I do not see denial of church membership as “virtually the same as excommunication,” nor do any of the Baptist churches known to me. Non-members who are clearly believers in Jesus Christ are welcomed as believers into many aspects of fellowship. They share in the Lord’s Supper together with members (in all but a very few of the most strict Baptist churches). They participate freely in worship and prayer and fellowship. Sometimes a Baptist church will even have a Bible-believing Presbyterian or Episcopalian or Methodist or Lutheran pastor preach as a guest from the pulpit. That is far from “excommunication”!

. . . There was an unexpressed assumption in my discussion, an assumption which your response makes clear to me. I did not express it because it is so commonly assumed in nearly all churches. The assumption is this:

Baptism is required for church membership.

I think I assumed this because, as far as I know, it has been the practice of all major denominations throughout history. Presbyterians believe that baptism is necessary for church membership (for they consider infant baptism true baptism). Episcopalians believe that baptism is necessary for church membership. Baptists believe that baptism is necessary for church membership. Pentecostals believe that baptism is necessary for church membership. Methodists believe this. The Evangelical Free Church of America (which allows both views of baptism) believes this. Independent Bible churches believe this. Even Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox churches believe this. Apart from some unusual groups that don’t practice baptism at all (such as the Salvation Army), I think that the whole church throughout its history has held that baptism is necessary for church membership.

. . . I think the reason churches throughout history have required baptism for membership is that the New Testament so clearly makes baptism the public act that every believer undergoes at the outset of the Christian life. It is right there in the Great Commission: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:19-20). There is no such thing in the New Testament as an unbaptized person being an active member of any local church. So how could we say today that we should start allowing unbaptized persons to be members of our churches? But that (it seems to me) is what my earlier position, and your current position, would have to say.

I do not think such a position is wise, or consistent with the New Testament, and I would not recommend any church to adopt it.

As a model of how two friends can honestly, robustly, and yet graciously disagree over an issue of importance, see the following post I have re-titled "Wayne, Wayne, Wayne...".

Justin Taylor has also linked to this, and there is interesting discussion in his comments section. I somehow suspect we may not have seen the last of this debate since surely Dr. Grudem won't pretend he hasn't read this!

Lots of people know that Wayne Grudem and I are the deepest of friends. We love to room together at conferences. We love to do things together with our wives. We were both in seminary together for a season. We have co-edited a book together. We taught together at Bethel College. And at this very moment I love him and would fly to his side in a crisis. But, Wayne, Wayne, Wayne, why did you rewrite page 983?

. . . Wayne’s new considerations are less compelling than what he wrote in the first edition. In the new edition, he writes:

For someone who holds to believer’s baptism, admitting to church membership someone who has not been baptized upon profession of faith, and telling the person that he or she never has to be baptized as a believer is really giving up one’s view on the proper nature of baptism.

No, Wayne, this is not true. I would gladly admit Ligon Duncan or Sinclair Ferguson or R. C. Sproul or Philip Ryken to membership at Bethlehem (if I were allowed by our constitution), and in doing so I would not be giving up my view on the proper nature of baptism.

I would say to them: “Brothers, I think you are not baptized. But you believe on biblical grounds as you see them, with as much humility and openness to truth as God has given you, that you are baptized. Your understanding of baptism does not imply that Christ’s command may be neglected or that infant sprinkling is regenerating. You give good evidence of being born again and that you embrace Christ as your Savior and Lord and Treasure, and you manifest an authentic intention, on the basis of that faith, to follow Jesus as Lord and obey his teachings. Therefore, since there is good evidence that you are members of the Body of Christ, you may be members of this local expression of that body. But understand this: I will spend the rest of my ministry trying to persuade you that you and your children should follow through on the full obedience to Jesus and be baptized. In admitting you, I do not give up on my view of baptism. That is the whole point. We are finding a way to work on this disagreement from inside the body of Christ in its local expression.”

Last year I intereviewed Wayne Grudem, the leading systematic theologian of our day — at least in terms of readership of his Systematic Theology. He spoke about changing his mind about baptism from a position that it is fine for a church to have a compromise position about it. You can read what he had to say here. Justin Taylor now reports that the relevant section in Grudem's book has been rewritten for a new reprint. Justin has the whole new section on his blog, but here is an extract:

But the most serious difficulty arises when people begin to think about what such a “compromise position” implies about the views of baptism held by the people who go along with this compromise. For people who hold to infant baptism, they have to be able to say that it is acceptable for believing parents not to baptize their infant children. But according to a paedobaptist view, this seems close to saying that it is acceptable for these parents to disobey a command of Scripture regarding the responsibility of parents to baptize their children. How can they really say this?

On the other side, those who hold to believer’s baptism (as I do) would have to be willing to admit into church membership people who have been baptized as infants, and who did not make a personal profession of faith at the time they were baptized. But from a believer’s baptism position, genuine baptism has to follow a personal profession of faith. So how can believer’s baptism advocates in good conscience say that infant baptism is also a valid form of baptism? That contradicts what they believe about the essential nature of baptism – that it is an outward sign of an inward spiritual change, so that the apostle Paul could say, “As many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Galatians 3:27).

For someone who holds to believer’s baptism, admitting to church membership someone who has not been baptized upon profession of faith, and telling the person that he or she never has to be baptized as a believer, is really giving up one’s view on the proper nature of baptism. It is saying that infant baptism really is valid baptism! But then how could anyone who holds to this position tell anyone who had been baptized as an infant that he or she still needed to be baptized as a believer? This difficulty makes me think that some kind of “compromise” position on baptism is not very likely to be adopted by denominational groups in the future.

However, we should still be thankful that believers who differ on the issue of baptism can have wonderful fellowship with one another across denominational lines, and can have respect for each other’s sincerely held views.

A couple of days ago, in the first of my posts on the atonement, I quoted Jeffrey John from an article in the London Telegraph. Today, I want to share more from the transcript of his talk, which is now available on Radio 4’s website. You can also listen to him for yourself here. The words of this talk are not really any different to those controversially aired by Steve Chalke. If you want to hear Chalke for himself, there is an interview in the archives here. Dr. Albert Mohler has come out strongly against the position aired by both Chalke and Jeffrey John. I hope that to most readers of this blog it will be immediately obvious why I disagree so strongly with the ideas expressed in this quote. I think these concepts are not only wrong, they are dangerous, and worse still, they risk robbing us of the true Gospel. I hope that as we study the issue of Jesus’ cross together, we will see that the biblical view of the atonement is neither what this vicar is responding to, nor what he explains as his view. For now, though, I am going to let him speak for himself:

“The explanation I was given went something like this. God was very angry with us for our sins, and because he is a just God, our sin had to be punished. But instead of punishing us, he sent his Son, Jesus, as a substitute to suffer and die in our place . . . In other words, Jesus took the rap, and we got forgiven, provided we said we believed in him. Well, I don't know about you, but even at the age of ten I thought this explanation was pretty repulsive, as well as nonsensical. What sort of God was this, getting so angry with the world and the people he created, and then, to calm himself down, demanding the blood of his own Son? And anyway, why should God forgive us through punishing somebody else? It was worse than illogical, it was insane. It made God sound like a psychopath. If any human being behaved like this we'd say they were a monster. Well, I haven't changed my mind since. That explanation of the cross just doesn't work, though sadly it's one that's still all too often preached. It just doesn't make sense to talk about a nice Jesus down here, placating the wrath of a nasty, angry Father God in heaven . . . the wrath of God is no more than a human projection . . . The cross, then, is not about Jesus reconciling an angry God to us; it's almost the opposite. It's about a totally loving God, incarnate in Christ, reconciling us to him. On the cross Jesus dies for our sins; the price of our sin is paid; but it is not paid to God, but by God . . .

On the cross God absorbs into himself our falleness and its consequences and offers us a new relationship. God shows he knows what it's like to be the loser; God hurts and weeps and bleeds and dies. It's a mystery we can hardly glimpse, let alone grasp; and if there is an answer to the problem of suffering, perhaps it's one for the heart, not the reason. Because the answer God's given is simply himself; to show that, so far from inflicting suffering as a punishment, he bears our griefs and shares our sorrow. From Good Friday on, God is no longer "God up there", inscrutably allotting rewards and retributions. On the Cross, even more than in the crib, he is Immanuel, God down here, God with us.” (Jeffrey John).

Continues with "The Historical Background to the Cross."

Today, topically, with Easter upon us, we reach possibly one of the most controversial articles in the entire Together for the Gospel Statement — Article 7 on the atonement. Links to my posts discussing Articles 1-6 can be found in my last post entitled Loving God — A Guide for Beginners. The atonement is a subject that has come up on my blog many times over the last few years.

A new book, Pierced for Our Transgressions, has sold out of its first print run in just three weeks. It will be available again very soon, and is on a special offer over at Beginning with Moses, where you can order it for delivery worldwide. The list of endorsements for this book over on the book’s own website looks like a Who's Who of evangelical Christianity, and if the extracts quoted there are anything to go by, it should be fantastic.

The series I am now beginning here is based on teaching I first gave at Jubilee Church. If you want a sneak preview of what is coming, you can download the audio (you may need to right click and save to your PC) or listen online here:

T4G Statement, Article VII

We affirm that Jesus Christ is true God and true Man, in perfect, undiluted, and unconfused union throughout His incarnation and now eternally. We also affirm that Christ died on the cross as a substitute for sinners, as a sacrifice for sin, and as a propitiation of the wrath of God toward sinners. We affirm the death, burial, and bodily resurrection of Christ as essential to the Gospel. We further affirm that Jesus Christ is Lord over His church, and that Christ will reign over the entire cosmos in fulfilment of the Father’s gracious purpose.

We deny that the substitutionary character of Christ’s atonement for sin can be compromised without serious injury to the Gospel or denied without repudiating the Gospel. We further deny that Jesus Christ is visible only in weakness, rather than in power, Lordship, or royal reign, or, conversely, that Christ is visible only in power, and never in weakness.

To introduce the series, let me begin by saying that I believe there is nothing more critical for us to be addressing than the subject of how Jesus saves us. This is the heart of the Gospel. Without it—and specifically without the substitutionary nature of Christ’s death—there is simply no Gospel left.

There was a time when evangelicals could safely almost assume this message. We would simply preach it without pausing to explain precisely what it does and doesn’t mean. Our Gospel was simply, “Jesus took the punishment for our sins, turning away the wrath of heaven so God could justly forgive us.” That remains the Gospel.

It is vital that we now examine these truths carefully and, I would add, preach them more wisely. A generation of people who wear the label "evangelical" are being raised up who would not feel comfortable signing their name to this article of the Statement. Indeed, one of the most prominent people in the Evangelical Alliance and the Spring Harvest Conference in the UK would not feel comfortable with this language. These things can cause controversy. (See for example this post and this retraction from my interview with Dr. Wayne Grudem.) Last Sunday, the Telegraph reported the way certain preachers are changing the traditional message of the cross under the rather appropriate headline:

Easter Message: Christ Did Not Die for Sin!
The vicar mentioned in the above story describes the typical evangelical view of the cross as follows: "In other words, Jesus took the rap and we got forgiven as long as we said we believed in him . . . This is repulsive as well as nonsensical. It makes God sound like a psychopath. If a human behaved like this we'd say that they were a monster."

It is easy for us to simply react angrily to words like that and the news that some now doubt this doctrine. I am sure I have been guilty of that in the past. I fear, though, that at least part of the reason for this new wave of concern about this most valued and crucial of all evangelical doctrines is that we have not been very good at articulating its truth well. One thing is clear—this is a doctrine that is central to the rejection of Christianity as a whole by some. I therefore feel that we need to take more seriously our responsibility to explain this doctrine clearly. People who then reject it on the basis of clear teaching are rejecting a well-explained perspective rather than an overly-simplistic one.

In this series I hope to provide an opportunity for us to consider this matter together carefully. If you or someone you know shares concerns about this doctrine, you are welcome to join the discussion in the comments section, or to post about it on your own blogs.

Continues with "Does the Cross of Jesus Matter?

The next two articles in the Together for the Gospel Statement discuss the nature of God. The concept of the Trinity is so entwined with God’s attributes and who He is I have decided to roll these two articles into one. I have already posted an extensive set of notes and an audio on the attributes of God and the Trinity. In my talk I demonstrated that Jesus can be shown from the Bible to share every major attribute of God that theologians describe. Enough of these are also ascribed clearly to the Spirit for us to say He must hold all the unique attributes of God also. There are also more articles on the trinity elsewhere on my blog.

Today, after sharing the two articles, I will share a long quote from what may possibly be the best article on the Trinity in the world. It is cited as by "Desiring God Staff" tho I am sure Piper was involved in it somehow. I encourage you to go read it all—I think it will be incredibly helpful.

Article V

We affirm that the Bible reveals God to be infinite in all his perfections, and thus truly omniscient, omnipotent, timeless, and self-existent. We further affirm that God possesses perfect knowledge of all things, past, present, and future, including all human thoughts, acts, and decisions.

We deny that the God of the Bible is in any way limited in terms of knowledge or power or any other perfection or attribute, or that God has in any way limited his own perfections.

Article VI

We affirm that the doctrine of the Trinity is a Christian essential, bearing witness to the ontological reality of the one true God in three divine persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each of the same substance and perfections.

We deny the claim that the Trinity is not an essential doctrine, or that the Trinity can be understood in merely economic or functional categories.

“WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT GOD IS A TRINITY?

The doctrine of the Trinity means that there is one God who eternally exists as three distinct Persons—the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Stated differently, God is one in essence and three in person. These definitions express three crucial truths: (1) The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons; (2) each Person is fully God; (3) there is only one God.

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons. The Bible speaks of the Father as God (Philippians 1:2), Jesus as God (Titus 2:13), and the Holy Spirit as God (Acts 5:3-4). Are these just three different ways of looking at God, or simply ways of referring to three different roles that God plays?

The answer must be no, because the Bible also indicates that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons. For example, since the Father sent the Son into the world (John 3:16), He cannot be the same person as the Son. Likewise, after the Son returned to the Father (John 16:10), the Father and the Son sent the Holy Spirit into the world (John 14:26; Acts 2:33). Therefore, the Holy Spirit must be distinct from the Father and the Son.

In the baptism of Jesus, we see the Father speaking from heaven and the Spirit descending from heaven in the form of a dove as Jesus comes out of the water (Mark 1:10-11). In John 1:1 it is affirmed that Jesus is God and, at the same time, that He was "with God"—thereby indicating that Jesus is a distinct Person from God the Father (cf. also 1:18). And in John 16:13-15 we see that although there is a close unity between them all, the Holy Spirit is also distinct from the Father and the Son.

The fact that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons means, in other words, that the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father. Jesus is God, but He is not the Father or the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is God, but He is not the Son or the Father. They are different Persons, not three different ways of looking at God.

The personhood of each member of the Trinity means that each Person has a distinct center of consciousness. Thus, they relate to each other personally—the Father regards Himself as "I," while He regards the Son and Holy Spirit as "You." Likewise the Son regards Himself as "I," but the Father and the Holy Spirit as "You."

Often it is objected that "If Jesus is God, then he must have prayed to Himself while He was on earth." But the answer to this objection lies in simply applying what we have already seen. While Jesus and the Father are both God, they are different Persons. Thus, Jesus prayed to God the Father without praying to Himself. In fact, it is precisely the continuing dialog between the Father and the Son (Matthew 3:17; 17:5; John 5:19; 11:41-42; 17:1ff) which furnishes the best evidence that they are distinct Persons with distinct centers of consciousness.

Sometimes the Personhood of the Father and Son is appreciated, but the Personhood of the Holy Spirit is neglected. Sometimes the Spirit is treated more like a "force" than a Person. But the Holy Spirit is not an it, but a He (see John 14:26; 16:7-15; Acts 8:16). The fact that the Holy Spirit is a Person, not an impersonal force (like gravity), is also shown by the fact that He speaks (Hebrews 3:7), reasons (Acts 15:28), thinks and understands (1 Corinthians 2:10-11), wills (1 Corinthians 12:11), feels (Ephesians 4:30), and gives personal fellowship (2 Corinthians 13:14). These are all qualities of personhood. In addition to these texts, the others we mentioned above make clear that the Personhood of the Holy Spirit is distinct from the Personhood of the Son and the Father. They are three real persons, not three roles God plays.

Another serious error people have made is to think that the Father became the Son, who then became the Holy Spirit. Contrary to this, the passages we have seen imply that God always was and always will be three Persons. There was never a time when one of the Persons of the Godhead did not exist. They are all eternal.

While the three members of the Trinity are distinct, this does not mean that any is inferior to the other. Instead, they are all identical in attributes. They are equal in power, love, mercy, justice, holiness, knowledge, and all other qualities.

Each Person is fully God. If God is three Persons, does this mean that each Person is "one-third" of God? Does the Trinity mean that God is divided into three parts?

The Trinity does not divide God into three parts. The Bible is clear that all three Persons are each one hundred percent God. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all fully God. For example, it says of Christ that "in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form" (Colossians 2:9). We should not think of God as like a "pie" cut into three pieces, each piece representing a Person. This would make each Person less than fully God and thus not God at all. Rather, "the being of each Person is equal to the whole being of God." The divine essence is not something that is divided between the three persons, but is fully in all three persons without being divided into "parts."

Thus, the Son is not one-third of the being of God, He is all of the being of God. The Father is not one-third of the being of God, He is all of the being of God. And likewise with the Holy Spirit. Thus, as Wayne Grudem writes, "When we speak of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit together we are not speaking of any greater being than when we speak of the Father alone, the Son alone, or the Holy Spirit alone."

There is only one God. If each Person of the Trinity is distinct and yet fully God, then should we conclude that there is more than one God? Obviously we cannot, for Scripture is clear that there is only one God: "There is no other God besides me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none besides me. Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other" (Isaiah 45:21-22; see also 44:6-8; Exodus 15:11; Deuteronomy 4:35; 6:4-5; 32:39; 1 Samuel 2:2; 1 Kings 8:60).

Having seen that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are distinct Persons, that they are each fully God, and that there is nonetheless only one God, we must conclude that all three Persons are the same God. In other words, there is one God who exists as three distinct Persons.

If there is one passage which most clearly brings all of this together, it is Matthew 28:19: "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit." First, notice that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinguished as distinct Persons. We baptize into the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Second, notice that each Person must be deity because they are all placed on the same level. In fact, would Jesus have us baptize in the name of a mere creature? Surely not. Therefore each of the Persons into whose name we are to be baptized must be deity. Third, notice that although the three divine Persons are distinct, we are baptized into their name (singular), not names (plural). The three Persons are distinct, yet only constitute one name. This can only be if they share one essence . . . .

How is God one? He is one in essence. How is God three? He is three in Person. Essence and person are not the same thing. God is one in a certain way (essence) and three in a different way (person). Since God is one in a different way than He is three, the Trinity is not a contradiction. There would only be a contradiction if we said that God is three in the same way that He is one.

So a closer look at the fact that God is one in essence but three in person has helped to show why the Trinity is not a contradiction. But how does it show us why there is only one God instead of three? It is very simple: All three Persons are one God because, as we saw above, they are all the same essence. Essence means the same thing as "being." Thus, since God is only one essence, He is only one being-not three. This should make it clear why it is so important to understand that all three Persons are the same essence. For if we deny this, we have denied God's unity and affirmed that there is more than one being of God (i.e., that there is more than one God).

What we have seen so far provides a good basic understanding of the Trinity. But it is possible to go deeper. If we can understand more precisely what is meant by essence and person, how these two terms differ, and how they relate, we will then have a more complete understanding of the Trinity.

ESSENCE AND PERSON
Essence. What does essence mean? As I said earlier, it means the same thing as being. God's essence is His being. To be even more precise, essence is what you are. At the risk of sounding too physical, essence can be understood as the "stuff" that you "consist of." Of course we are speaking by analogy here, for we cannot understand this in a physical way about God. "God is spirit" (John 4:24). Further, we clearly should not think of God as "consisting of" anything other than divinity. The "substance" of God is God, not a bunch of "ingredients" that taken together yield deity.

Person. In regards to the Trinity, we use the term "Person" differently than we generally use it in everyday life. Therefore it is often difficult to have a concrete definition of Person as we use it in regards to the Trinity. What we do not mean by Person is an "independent individual" in the sense that both I and another human are separate, independent individuals who can exist apart from one another.

What we do mean by Person is something that regards himself as "I" and others as "You." So the Father, for example, is a different Person from the Son because He regards the Son as a "You," even though He regards Himself as "I." Thus, in regards to the Trinity, we can say that "Person" means a distinct subject which regards Himself as an "I" and the other two as a "You." These distinct subjects are not a division within the being of God, but "a form of personal existence other than a difference in being."

How do they relate? The relationship between essence and Person, then, is as follows. Within God's one, undivided being is an "unfolding" into three personal distinctions. These personal distinctions are modes of existence within the divine being, but are not divisions of the divine being. They are personal forms of existence other than a difference in being. The late theologian, Herman Bavinck, has stated something very helpful at this point: "The persons are modes of existence within the being; accordingly, the Persons differ among themselves as the one mode of existence differs from the other, and-using a common illustration-as the open palm differs from a closed fist."

Because each of these "forms of existence" are relational (and thus are Persons), they are each a distinct center of consciousness, with each center of consciousness regarding Himself as "I" and the others as "You." Nonetheless, these three Persons all "consist of" the same "stuff" (that is, the same "what," or essence). As theologian and apologist, Norman Geisler, has explained it: "While essence is what you are, person is who you are. So God is one 'what' but three 'whos'."

The divine essence is thus not something that exists "above" or "separate from" the three Persons, but the divine essence is the being of the three Persons. Neither should we think of the Persons as being defined by attributes added on to the being of God. Wayne Grudem explains: "But if each person is fully God and has all of God's being, then we also should not think that the personal distinctions are any kind of additional attributes added on to the being of God . . . Rather, each person of the Trinity has all of the attributes of God, and no one Person has any attributes that are not possessed by the others. On the other hand, we must say that the Persons are real, that they are not just different ways of looking at the one being of God...the only way it seems possible to do this is to say that the distinction between the persons is not a difference of `being' but a difference of `relationships.' This is something far removed from our human experience, where every different human `person' is a different being as well. Somehow God's being is so much greater than ours that within His one undivided being there can be an unfolding into interpersonal relationships, so that there can be three distinct persons." READ MORE . . .
© Desiring God. Website: http://www.desiringgod.org/

I just had my third e-mail in as many days about Pierced For Our Transgressions — a forthcoming book on penal substitution. Regular readers will know that I have frequently posted on the atonement in the past. This book is aimed at addressing the debate over Steve Chalke's allegation of "cosmic child abuse."

You may remember that before Christmas Wayne Grudem, in my blog interview, first added his voice to that of John Piper's in accusing Chalke of blasphemy, then modified his statement to really quite a similar position to mine back in 2004 when I said Chalke was "close" to blasphemy.

If the website is anything to go on, this new book should be good. The following quote from an article, focused in part on the historic pedigree of penal substitution, published on the site gives a great foretaste:

"Some claim that penal substitution makes God guilty of injustice, inflicting punishment on an innocent man. Such a doctrine, they say, plainly contradicts the Scriptural teaching that guilty people, and only guilty people, should be punished: ‘Acquitting the guilty and condemning the innocent — the LORD detests them both’ (Proverbs 17:15).

Some who believe in penal substitution have replied by pointing out that Christ suffered willingly, or by noting that God gave himself in Christ to suffer in our place. But while these things are gloriously true, neither actually answers the objection. If guilty sinners are acquitted and an innocent third party is punished, then irrespective of his willingness an injustice has been committed, and it is unthinkable that God would do such a thing.

How are we to respond? The flaw in the argument is the unstated premise that Christ is unrelated to the believer, an unconnected third party. This is not true, for believers are in union with Christ — he is in us, and we are in him, indwelt by his Spirit (e.g. John 17:21; Romans 6:5; 8:1; 2 Corinthians 5:17; Colossians 1:27; Philippians 1:1). It is for this reason that the imputation of our guilt to Christ and his righteousness to us, his punishment and our acquittal, are just in the sight of God. The apostle Paul captures both sides of the exchange in a single verse: ‘God made him who had no sin to be sin for us so that in him we might become the righteousness of God’ (2 Corinthians 5:21). "

It's been awhile, so I thought it would be a nice idea to do a blogspotting post today. Blogspotting was initiated by Phil Johnson and ruthlessly copied by me and others. It is simply a way for me to thank all of you for linking to this blog. Links are the lifeblood of the Internet, and the more of them we send each other's way, the healthier the Internet is as a whole. They also help Google out a lot. Think of links as bonds of friendship that also form the signpost system for the Internet highway. It's the nearest thing the Internet has to a good old fashioned library card index system. It is because links are so central to the workings of the Google search engine that it has taken them so long to figure out a way of diffusing Google bombs. So here goes with some reciprocal linky love.

First up is my friend, Andrew Fountain. He has linked twice recently. He liked my sermon on Revival and shared about his meeting with John Lanferman.

Speaking of new friends, in a post entitled Adrian Warnock on Mars Hill Church, Mark Moore is incredibly kind.

John Schroeder links to me in a post Rules of Interpretation and Lessons for the Church.

Another friend, Phil Johnson, is almost as excited as I am about the revival of Charles Simeon's works.

In a move that might spark surprise in both the Warnock and Phillips camps, the Christian Reconciliation Carnival #1 holds us both up as examples of how to debate with brotherly love.

Jollyblogger tells the world I have joined LinkedIn, and is trying to encourage everybody to do that. Requests to join my network and complimentary testimonials gratefully received!

Steve Bishop has discovered my interview with Wayne Grudem. A visitor to our church, who at the time was clearly at the brink of conversion, now publicly identifies himself as a Christian and claims I wink a lot!

Wayne Leman predictably linked my quote from Lewis on translating into the vernacular to Bible translation. Kevin also links to my writings about the ESV Bible.

Morning Highlights and Mark Olson both describe Lloyd-Jones as "early modern," which seems like a strange phrase to me and makes me wonder which of them didn't "hat tip" the other.

Joe Carter's Outtakes of 02.06.07 linked to my still unsolved Spurgeon challenge.

In a post entitled "Revival and the Baptism with the Holy Spirit" the wonderfully-named A Debtor to Mercy blog linked to my post on Piper's view of the Doctor.

I received to my knowledge my first link in a foreign language blog "Confissões de Um Reformado Carismático"—a machine translation of the post reads reasonably well. Also, in a post entitled "Lütuf Doktrini (Seçilmişlik Öğretisi) ile ilgili ingilizce websiteler" by Les Huguenots, I noticed a link to a very old post of mine on Limited Atonement.

Speaking of new links to old posts, there was one to my definiton of the term "Reformed Charismatic".

My interview with a deacon at Mars Hill generated a few links, with one blogger saying Remember Wendy? Another asked Ever Heard of Wendy Alsup? And yet another replied I’ve heard of Wendy Alsup! One blogger surely gets the last word with "When Wendy Speaks, Everybody Listens."

One blogger is glad they followed the link for one of my adverts and says "LOGOS: Truly an Amazing Resource." Another agrees with my book review of What is Reformed Theology? Another linked to a post I wrote On Theological Argument for Argument’s Sake. Jeff Wright provides one of the few links I could find to anything I have written on revival. Priorities likes an observation I made about blogging.

Russell very kindly nominated me for one of the 2007 Weblog Awards. I didn't win!

The Pulpit Magazine is in the middle of a series Revisiting the Charismatic Question and links to me. I am not sure whether to go over there and see if they have any new arguments to interact with. Do you want to see more on this blog about that issue? I haven't forgotten, by the way, my intention to publish a summary post listing arguments in favor of a charismatic position or reviews of a couple more useful books on the subject.

I plan to make my way slowly through Calvin's Institutes. Many years ago I read through Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology. It did me much good. Calvin was the Grudem of his day, so after much careful thought, I've decided to make an attempt at reading through the Institutes. It may take me a very long time as I have so many other reading projects underway. I won't blog every page or even every chapter, but from time to time I will share a quote or let you know how I am getting on.

So here we are—at the beginning. Calvin begins with God, but argues that it is only in looking at the work of God in making us that we can fully understand Him. The first couple of paragraphs are nothing short of amazing:

Our wisdom, in so far as it ought to be deemed true and solid Wisdom, consists almost entirely of two parts: the knowledge of God and of ourselves. But as these are connected together by many ties, it is not easy to determine which of the two precedes and gives birth to the other. For, in the first place, no man can survey himself without forthwith turning his thoughts towards the God in whom he lives and moves; because it is perfectly obvious, that the endowments which we possess cannot possibly be from ourselves; nay, that our very being is nothing else than subsistence in God alone. In the second place, those blessings which unceasingly distil to us from heaven, are like streams conducting us to the fountain. Here, again, the infinitude of good which resides in God becomes more apparent from our poverty. In particular, the miserable ruin into which the revolt of the first man has plunged us, compels us to turn our eyes upwards; not only that while hungry and famishing we may thence ask what we want, but being aroused by fear may learn humility. For as there exists in man something like a world of misery, and ever since we were stript of the divine attire our naked shame discloses an immense series of disgraceful properties every man, being stung by the consciousness of his own unhappiness, in this way necessarily obtains at least some knowledge of God. Thus, our feeling of ignorance, vanity, want, weakness, in short, depravity and corruption, reminds us (see Calvin on John 4:10), that in the Lord, and none but He, dwell the true light of wisdom, solid virtue, exuberant goodness. We are accordingly urged by our own evil things to consider the good things of God; and, indeed, we cannot aspire to Him in earnest until we have begun to be displeased with ourselves. For what man is not disposed to rest in himself? Who, in fact, does not thus rest, so long as he is unknown to himself; that is, so long as he is contented with his own endowments, and unconscious or unmindful of his misery? Every person, therefore, on coming to the knowledge of himself, is not only urged to seek God, but is also led as by the hand to find him.

2. On the other hand, it is evident that man never attains to a true self-knowledge until he have previously contemplated the face of God, and come down after such contemplation to look into himself. For (such is our innate pride) we always seem to ourselves just, and upright, and wise, and holy, until we are convinced, by clear evidence, of our injustice, vileness, folly, and impurity. Convinced, however, we are not, if we look to ourselves only, and not to the Lord also—He being the only standard by the application of which this conviction can be produced.

Calvin, J., & Beveridge, H. (1997). Institutes of the Christian religion. Translation of: Institutio Christianae religionis.; Reprint, with new introd. Originally published: Edinburgh : Calvin Translation Society, 1845-1846. (I, i, 1). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

Just before Christmas, someone I know asked me what I was going to do on my blog to “follow” my interview with Wayne Grudem. In that moment I knew exactly how I was going to follow it — with silence. Sometimes the best way to try and follow something is quite simply not to! To be honest, I felt like I needed a break anyway. The good news for me (I think!) is that not one of my readers wrote to me asking me to write something on my blog. Either that means you haven’t missed me — perhaps because you have been busy yourself — or that you simply took me at my word that I was taking a “prolonged break.” Or perhaps more likely, it shows the place of a blog in the average reader’s day — it's a piece of light entertainment that we can live with or without — read in a snatched moment in-between everything else we do that is much more important. So my little “sabbatical” hasn’t cost you guys anything — there is always another blog to read — and in any case, if for some strange reason someone was desperate for a dose of “Warnie,” then this blog has been around long enough that simply looking in the archives would uncover something you hadn’t read yet.

So putting ourselves to one side for awhile to reflect is no bad thing — indeed it has biblical precedent, as does the thought that God tends to do things in “waves” or “seasons.” I really felt it was right for me to just stop blogging for a few weeks. It also coincided with a needed pause in my preaching commitments, and although I have still been working my day job, it has felt almost like a holiday. I thought that it might be a nice idea to start the blog this year with a personal post reflecting on a period of my life when it was God who put me on the substitute bench, and for a period that lasted several years and not just a few weeks.

It has been over a year since I posted part 4 of a series I have entitled “My Story” (and before that I wrote part 1, part 2, and part 3.) At this rate it will take me a long time to arrive at the present day in this tale, as back then, in my telling of the story, I had only reached the age of 18. But here goes with the next part . . . .

At 18, I had a lot of the over-confidence of youth, but that was tinged with the realization that I had a lot to learn. As I left the safety of my parental home and launched out to London to study medicine, God had a plan to teach me one of the most important lessons of my life — one which this recent relatively quiet spell over Christmas and the New Year reminded me that I still do not fully live in the good of.

My youthful enthusiasm for God was, at least in part, because in a church environment I felt I could hold my own socially much better than I could out in the world. It's funny, because like many outwardly confident gregarious people, I was far from confident on the inside. Although all my evangelistic activities at school made me feel like public enemy number one, I would console myself that surely God was pleased with me despite the views of my school colleagues. In church, I had a different role and I took a lot of solace from feeling that people there valued my contribution. As I already described, I had been given leadership and preaching experience and received a lot of encouragement. I was convinced that some sort of ministry awaited me having had a sense of “call” since early childhood. I foolishly persuaded myself that if life at school was hard, at least my work for God’s Church showed that I had something to offer. God was about to go to work to begin to destroy the pride that I didn’t even realize I had.

God has a way of taking a dream and killing it — stone dead. Sure, He will often resurrect it years later, but you don’t tend to think much about that at the time — all you can see is (to paraphrase Monty Python) your dream is “stone dead, demised, passed on, no more, has ceased to be, a stiff, bereft of life, snuffed out, up the creek and kicked the bucket, extinct in its entirety, an ex-dream.” This is what happened to me over the course of a few years, and much as you might think that it couldn’t have been of God, as I look back, I am more and more convinced it was, in fact, just that. I remember well that one time during those years, when someone suggested that I might preach, the thought that went through my mind was simply “no way!”

I am glad of two things — both of which suggest that perhaps the dream wasn’t totally dead. Firstly, although in a different kind of church, I kept my links going with newfrontiers by attending the Bible Weeks, and also through a friendship with a pastor — a dear man named Henry Tyler (who was my mentor for many years and who comes back into the story later on). Secondly, I did not lose my relationship with God, nor my love of reading theology and the biographies of preachers of the past. But I'm rushing ahead of myself — I haven’t told you how my dream came to die.

When I arrived at university I was suddenly a small fish in the big pond of London. The successful CU didn’t seem to need me to exercise the gifts of which I'd sadly become proud, nor did the charismatic church I attended in the morning or the evangelical Anglican church I attended in the evening. Suddenly I was not “doing things” for God anymore — no preaching, no leadership, not even leading Bible studies. This carried on for several years, and I didn’t press for things to happen, but instead slowly, and initially reluctantly, began to refocus my relationship with God from “doing” things to “being” His child.

Terry Virgo describes receiving a prophetic word early-on in his Christian walk that told him he was called primarily to be a worshipper of Jesus, and that anything else was a bonus. That was the lesson God was trying to engrave in me in those “fallow” years as a medical student. I only wish that I could honestly say that my teenage years were the last time I busied myself with too much activity and not enough falling in love with Jesus. The truth is, sadly, that like so many of us, there have been many times in my life where I have been so caught up with what I was doing for God that I forgot that the most important thing He wants from me is for me to simply be His son and worship Him. In fact, these last few weeks have left me wondering whether just maybe the busyness of 2006 was exactly one of those times.

How foolish we are to believe that we can give anything to God with our hard work. As Paul puts it in 1 Corinthians 4:7 - “For who sees anything different in you? What do you have that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if you did not receive it?” God has given us everything we have, and even our serving Him is just another expression of our dependence on Him. He is the one who gives us every breath that we take as a gift of grace, not our right. How often do we get cross because our so-called “rights” are violated, or because we didn’t get what we wanted, or because our hard work wasn’t appreciated, or even because our “ministry” isn’t recognized by others. The true servant of God is immune to such thoughts for he realizes that even the strength he uses to serve is given him by God, and that it is God who decides what paths He wants us all to take.

I wish I could learn this once and for all, but I guess we are put on earth to struggle with this issue all our lives — there is something within us that longs for self-sufficiency, self-fulfillment, and self-worth. God instead wants us to be God-dependent, God-fulfilled, and worthy only because of what Jesus has done for us.

In this new year, I want to refocus my life once more on Jesus and knowing Him better. Everything else will flow out from that. There is a sense of dissatisfaction within me once more with filling my life with activity and not leaving enough time to reflect and grow as a worshipper of Jesus. I am brought back to the passage I preached on in November.

But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith — that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead.

Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. Brothers, I do not consider that I have made it my own. But one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. Let those of us who are mature think this way, and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal that also to you. Only let us hold true to what we have attained. (Philippians 3:7-16)

Anyway, these so-called quiet years were a time of pruning. There were, however, a couple of things going on in addition to my education. Firstly, God had arranged for a family to mentor me during those years in understanding other cultures, which would prove very helpful later on. But secondly, my reading was slowly turning me into someone who thought he understood theology, and as the years went on, sadly I became more and more focused on having theological arguments with other Christians. I am ashamed to say that it got to the point where pretty much every time I met someone, I would sniff out the areas of theology I disagreed with them on and engage them in debate. I became someone who wasn’t always very pleasant to be around. Fortunately, God had a plan to help me to learn better social skills, and also to revive my dream of serving Him in some way. But you will have to wait for the next post in this long-running series to hear about that . . . .

Here's wishing all of you a great Christmas and a successful New Year where God blesses you richly in every way. Be prepared to be surprised, though, as God’s blessings don’t always look like we expect them to!

This time of year my thoughts always turn both forwards and backwards. So I'd like—in what will be my final post before the end of this year—to wish you all a great break, and to review the year. I did this last year and again in 2004.

Part of the purpose of this post is to give you a bumper post with links just in case you do go online during the Christmas break. Please don’t comment on the blog after the end of today (Friday, 22nd December) until I am back sometime in January after a prolonged break - that is not unless you are happy for your comment to wait in a queue. I will not be approving any comments or answering any emails either for a while. I need a rest, and so do you!

So . . . what of the year that has passed, and what glimmers of expectation do I have for the New Year? I will consider this under four headings — God, Family, Church, and Blog. You will notice the deliberate omission of work. I always try hard to keep my work out of the blog entirely — which I suspect is a wise move for most people. If you are a new reader, this blog is not my full-time job, nor is the preaching I do from time to time.

GOD

What can I say? Personally, this has been a great year for my relationship with my Savior. He has been so faithful — there have been hard times, such as beginning the year nervously wondering if my new job was the right move, and if we really would move to our new house in January. Also, my episode of shingles — which incidentally has still left me unable to sit behind a desk for more than a couple of hours at a time — was also a real low point, and yet in it I knew the peace of God in a more real sense than I had known it in other trials. I found myself able to trust God, knowing many times the sweetness of His presence. I also found myself grateful that things were not worse — that I didn’t have a job at all, or that I was homeless or dying of a serious illness. I have learned a lot, and this blog and all my preaching remains primarily addressed towards me.

I thank God for more evidences of His grace upon me, and for helping me begin to learn some key character lessons I have needed to learn for a long time. Looking forward into 2007 — I don’t think I have ever been as optimistic about the things I believe God has in store. I have a strong sense of commission from God in the things that I am currently doing. Oddly, unlike this past year, I do not expect major changes to occur in many areas of my life — although there is one to come as I will report in a moment.


FAMILY

On the 18th of January, I remember praying like I never had before. I was sitting outside the estate agent's, waiting for the money to go through so I could pick up the keys for our new house. As the hours went by, it really looked as if something else had gone wrong! Buying and selling property in the UK is never easy. You can imagine my joy when I realized that, with a matter of minutes to go before we would have faced broken contracts and a legal mess, I was given the all clear!

Buying this house has, God-willing, secured some aspects of the future of our family, and for this I am grateful. It is a nice location, and a reasonable drive from the church we all love. We now also live near two great schools, which should serve all our children right through to age 18. Like Tim Challies, we don’t home school.

You will notice that I never mention here the exact town in which I live — this is again an obvious precaution aimed at keeping my public life and private life separate — and one that I would recommend, especially to those with young children.

There was a lot of surprise among many of our friends when the news started to leak out over the last couple of months — some of you will know this already — but Andrée is now pregnant with our fifth child. Thoughts of her finding some kind of income-generating work she could do around four school-age children have, for now, evaporated, and we are preparing for what we had believed would not happen again. We are thrilled, and the poor child will undoubtedly be blogged about!

Each of our kids have grown up this year — each one has reached a new level of maturity, which is thrilling. I think that much of this has been because they have learned from such difficulties as the problems with the move — which was eventually resolved; my shingles — which caused major disruption to our lives for a while; my wife being put on bed rest for a few weeks in early pregnancy with recurrent bleeding and contractions — which stopped as suddenly as it had begun following prayers by some in the church; and more recently, the unexpected death of their pet rabbit.

Of all my roles and all the hats I wear, there is no doubt that the one that brings the most joy and biggest challenges is that of being a husband and father to these dear people God has entrusted to my care. If, at times, I neglect my blog, remember that I cannot and must not neglect my family. I am not convinced that up to now I have always had that balance right, so don’t be surprised if there are a few more times when the blog shuts down for a time, or if there is the odd day here and there when I don’t post at all.

I have a family that sacrifices a lot in order for me to be free to do the job I do, and on top of that, to blog and preach. I want to thank them all publicly now, and promise by God’s grace to try to ensure that when my time on earth is up, I will be most remembered as someone who loved his family. They are as dear to me as my soul — and I could easily adapt Jesus’ words to say, "What would it profit a man if he gain the whole world, but lose his family?"

My darling wife, and wonderful children, I truly do love you all more than anyone else alive. Let's make 2007 a great year for our family — which I trust will finally be complete after a four-year gap since the last arrival.


CHURCH

Again, what can I say? Being a part of Jubilee Church at this time of astonishing blessing and growth — both in numbers and maturity — is nothing short of a dream for me! My heart goes out in love and appreciation to every single person in Jubilee.

As our lead elder, Tope Koleoso, would say — we have a lot to be grateful for!


THE BLOG

I have deliberately left this to last; as important as it is to me, the blog definitely comes in below all of the above areas of my life in terms of the priority I place on it. Of course, I will spend more of my time in this post on the blog, but don’t think that’s because it is more important to me — far from it.

It started as a small hobby to fill idle time, and has grown into some kind of monster. I truly feel like a kite in God’s hurricane, as Driscoll describes himself.

Why do you guys keep coming back? I do everything I can to drive you away - don't I give you enough links to visit elsewhere? At the beginning of the year my strategy was to focus a lot of attention on the charismatic issue. I had only really come firmly out as a charismatic on the blog towards the end of 2005 — believe it or not, some people were surprised to hear it. Well, I was not surprised to drive about a quarter of the readers I had away in those early months by relentlessly posting on this subject. But the numbers came back, and many more, as the year drew to a close.

I don’t want to bore you with statistics — and I know it is easy for me to say, but these days I really rarely look at them. But there are a few interesting things that came out of looking at the last nine months of data I thought I would share with you.

• 37% of you have visited the blog more than once — which means there is a whole lot of passers-by, but a significant number who have stuck around to get to know me a bit more! You are welcome — old or new!
  
  
• Some of you visit the blog more than once per day — for your sakes, I just hope it is to check the Warnie Headlines box and get out of here — these days I rarely post more than once-a-day.
  
  
• 45% find the blog through Google, so thanks are due to them - assuming this was the kind of place you wanted to find!
  
  
• 15% of visits were thanks to my top 20 referring blogs; however, TeamPyro was the biggest individual referrer (i.e. not a search engine), but led to only 3% of visits, so a whole bunch of smaller blogs have sent me a whole lot of traffic between you. A BIG thank you to everyone who has linked or commented this year.
  
  
• 56% of visitors were from the USA, whilst 25% were from the UK and 5% were from Canada, but a staggering 188 countries were represented (although in many cases by just one visitor).

Whilst on the subject of statistics, I thought I would also share my 25 most visited pages over the last nine months, the non-search engine sites that have sent me the most traffic, and finally a list of the most popular and interesting searches that have led people here — not surprisingly, almost every one of these resonated with me in some way as I read them — if you want to find the posts to which the searches refer, just copy and paste these key words into the search box at the top of the blog.

But before I leave you with those lists, let's take a look at the year that was:

• January saw the pace of my interviews hotting up with two — Justin Taylor and Mark Dever. In fact, most of the interviews you see in the sidebar have been carried out this year, and I have certainly enjoyed every one of them.
  
  

• In February I had a brief period of bloggers' block — OK, it lasted less than a day — and ended when I received an email that would lead to my major blogging pre-occupation for the rest of the year — someone asked me to explain what charismatic gifts looked like in our church. I realised that it would cause an argument and send some readers away, but I felt I must blog about the Holy Spirit. I never did find out if I eventually managed to answer that reader's question to their satisfaction!
  
  Then, right at the end of February came a sovereign intervention from God that would change this blog forever - especially for those who notice typos and grammatical errors. An email from Annette Harrison arrived in my inbox and got my attention by mentioning Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones. God had a plan that neither of us could have imagined and within very little time I had an editorial and research assistant who does more to help keep this blog going than most of you could imagine.
  
  

• March was a momentous time, for it was when I discovered Mark Driscoll and was very, very impressed (although I had mentioned him in passing before). O for the days when a post about Driscoll would only generate two comments!
  
  

• April was dominated by the Together for the Gospel conference — the archive page is full of links to posts I wrote whilst “remote blogging,” something I like to do almost as much as Challies likes to live-blog. I did get to do an exclusive interview with Mark Driscoll, however, and that still only generated six comments!
  
  

• May was possibly my most eclectic month — with Driscoll, Together for the Gospel, and the Holy Spirit issue competing for my attention. Picking out an individual post is not so easy.
  
  
• June was dominated by the "Did God Kill Jesus?" debate — the atonement is never far from my blog, but then I was struck down by shingles and had to actually close the blog down.
  
  
• July saw me struggling to live-blog the Together On a Mission conference whilst I should really still have been in bed, and the beginning of the snail’s pace debate Dan Phillips and I had over the charismatic — I say "had," although it is always possible Dan will be bold enough to reply to my last installment! July also was the beginning of my 25% Off Logos Bible Software offer, which is still running today.
  
  
• August saw me traveling to Washington D.C., and to the church where C. J. Mahaney and Josh Harris serve — again there are loads of posts in the archive page.
  
  

• The weekend when September became October was the Desiring God 06 conference, and somehow the blogosphere hasn't stopped criticizing Mark Driscoll since then despite his fantastic talk and John Piper's public acknowledgement that he had something to learn from Driscoll.
  
  

• In November I was thrilled to interview Al Mohler, and also had a chance to visit Toronto.
  
  

• A look at the the archive page for December shows that from December 2nd when I reviewed his book, my blog has been completely taken over by an interview with the great theologian, Wayne Grudem. I thought interviewing him would give me a few days when I wouldn’t have to think much about the blog. How wrong I was! Unprecedented traffic and comment levels mean that some of these posts have gathered more traffic in the last few days than some of my most popular previous posts managed to gather in nine months. I have even had to change my comment policy, and thanks to the graciousness of Michael Burer, although the interview has finished, the debate goes on. Thanks, Dr. Grudem, for giving me the highlight of my blogging year of 2006!

  
  The 25 Most Visited Pages on My Site

• The Home Page
  
• Mark Driscoll Interview
  
• The Google Calendar
  
• The ESV Interview
  
• Free Christian Books
  
• The Best Blond Joke in the World
  
• Beginning of the Warnock-Phillips Charismatic Debate
  
• The Toronto Blessing
  
• C. J. Mahaney Interview
  
• Books Every Christian Should Read
  
• More Books every Christian Should Read
  
• Steve Chalke and the "Lost Message"
  
• Mothers Day Poem
  
• Did God really Kill Jesus?
  
• Wayne Grudem Interview Part One
  
• What is Love?
  
• Wayne Grudem Interview Part Six
  
• What is a Reformed Charismatic?
  
• What is Reformed or Calvinistic Theology?
  
• Wayne Grudem Interview Part Four
  
• Wayne Grudem Interview Part Five
  
• Thanksgiving Sermon by Tope Koleoso
  
• Justin Taylor Interview
  
• CJ Mahaney Sermons
  
• Josh Harris Interview
  
  
  The Top 20 Referrers
  
  
• teampyro.blogspot.com
  
• challies.com
  
• theologica.blogspot.com
  
• jollyblogger.typepad.com
  
• thebluefish.blogspot.com
  
• englishbibles.blogspot.com
  
• albertmohler.com
  
• benwitherington.blogspot.com
  
• boarsheadtavern.com
  
• esv.org
  
• hughhewitt.townhall.com
  
• solofemininity.blogs.com
  
• hughhewitt.com
  
• speakertruth.blogspot.com
  
• pigwotflies.blogspot.com
  
• worldofsven.co.uk
  
• psalm305.blogspot.com
  
• smartchristian.com
  
• joshharrisblogson.blogspot.com
  

• undersovereigngrace.blogspot.com
  
  
  The Top Most Popular and Interesting Searches
  
  anointing, baptism of the holy spirit, best joke in the world, blog sponsorship, brian maclaren christian blogs, christian counseling, christian psychiatrist, christmas greeting message, cosmic child abuse, daniel ekechukwu, davinci code, derek prince, does the future have a church, electrician, emergent church, english standard version, esv bible, esv journaling bible, esv reverse interlinear, finding god's will, flylady.net, free christian books, fruit of the spirit, gods will, google calendar and outlook, grace and the adventure of leadership, c. j. mahaney, greg haslam, halal meat, Halloween, holidays for large families, how to draw swords, how to preach, how to treat your wife, ikea catalogue, inclusive language bible, is the world overpopulated, jack deere, john eldridge, john piper, jonathan aitken, joseph the dreamer, josh harris blog, joshua harris, justin taylor, life goals, lig duncan, limited atonement, m25 traffic, macarthur, mark dever, mark driscoll, john piper, martyn lloyd-jones, michael shumacher, my heart is filled with thankfulness, newfrontiers, paedobaptist, patrick armstrong, pentecostal blogs, plymouth brethren, poems about school, prayer journals, random statistics, rebecca needs, reformed charismatic, remember, remember the fifth of november, richard cunningham, rick warren, rob rufus, sam storms, science of listener attention, scottish covenanters, gifts of the spirit, selwyn hughes, shingles, social styles, sovereign grace review "worship god live", speaking in tongues, spiderman layouts, steve chalke, T4G
  

This Christmas time, I thought I would share what might be a preach-er's wish list for Logos Bible Software. These resources all work best together with a core library product, but sharing some of these with you may start to whet your appetite for just what is possible. Remember that electronic books are much cheaper, smaller, and easier to use than their paper versions. They also allow you to have their entire contents effectively in your working memory. Want to search thousands and thousands of books and journal articles to find explanations of that obscure verse you are working on? Put Logos to work, and you'll have answers in seconds.

The first thing that would be on my list, and which I am actually about to get, would be the Gold Scholar's Library. Items such as all the major lexicons, the commentaries by the United Bible Societies that their translators use, other commentary sets, and translations of much of the major literature that gives historical background to the Bible should be enough to make any Bible geek's mouth water. (Remember - geek is the new chic, so I for one am glad to be known as a Bible geek!) Don't forget, I can still offer 25% off if you buy this through me.

Second only to getting at least a version of the library (and the cheaper ones are also worth having - you can always upgrade) is getting a hold of the electronic works of the master preacher and theologian of the 20th century. I reviewed Martyn Lloyd-Jones Electronic Works previously, and they continue to be worth their weight in gold. Buy them if you buy nothing else.

It should go without saying that you should get a hold of Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology electronically and then stuff your Logos Software stocking full of every free resource you can download from Truth is Still Truth. Recent additions include Calvin's commentaries, Warfield, and Whitefield and there is much, much more!

If you have Lloyd-Jones and Grudem, as well as the free stuff, but now want a more substantial systematic theology work, then the fourteen volumes of Berkouwer's Studies in Dogmatics might be the thing for you. The way the Doctor sells this is enough for me to really want this one.

"Here we have the classic Reformed theology con-sidered in a manner which is right up to date. Professor Berkouwer has always been known as a virile and stimulating theologian. He is one, more-over, who is able to do this in a modern manner and a popular style." - D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones

I have at least some of the volumes of the Theological Journals Library. Being able to have original journal articles at your fingertips is nothing short of amazing. I cannot recommend this one highly enough, and really must get round to obtaining some of the issues I don't yet have.

Next up is a crazy deal, which if I had the cash flow, I would snap up right now. A Christmas special with lots of commentaries is worth $4511.66, but being sold for a ridiculous $379.95. A great last minute present for any wife to give to her preacher husband. My only consolation is that I have bought separately some of these items.

Then comes something you cannot have yet. Still a standard work, Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, should be available soon for $299.95. People often ask what the secret of a man like Spurgeon was and how he came to preach so well. One big part of it was that he, too, was a Bible geek, and said of this multivolume set:

"The volumes greatly differ in excellence, yet none could be spared. We have nothing equal to them as a series."

Why, o why, can no one bring out a commentary set where ALL the volumes are fantastic was clearly the cry of Spurgeon's day as much as it is today. I remember reading this at the Evangelical Library, and boy do I want it on my PC!

Finally, if you want to be able to understand the man they call the greatest systematic theologian of the 20th century, Barth's Church Dogmatics (14 volume set) is your thing. I think I want the Berkouwer before this one simply because Lloyd-Jones recommended him as someone orthodox, and apparently Barth said that Berkower was one of the few of his critics who actually understood him. Here is how he is described on the Logos site.

Karl Barth, who lived from 1886-1968, was perhaps the most influential theologian of the 20th century. Church Dogmatics, Barth's monumental life-work that consists of more than 6 million words, was written over the span of 35 years. In it, Barth covers in depth the great doctrines of the Word of God, God, Creation and Reconciliation. He made it his task "to take all that has been said before and to think it through once more and freshly to articulate it anew as a theology of the grace of God in Jesus Christ."

. . . two characteristics that define Barth's theology are his emphasis on the person of Christ (Barth "works from Christ outward") and his insistence that ethics and theology cannot be separated. Barth taught that "theology is ethics," since knowing God entails doing His will.

Barth's theology was shaped by his experience of living and teaching in Germany during the rise of Nazism. By 1934, Barth had become a leader in the Confessing Church movement, which stood in courageous opposition to Nazism at a time when the German Protestant church had largely endorsed National Socialism. This stand cost him his professorship at Bonn University and he was forced to flee the country in 1935.

Barth has been called neo-orthodox, evangelical, and Reformed. Indeed, his views developed remarkably over his lifetime as he moved from a liberal position to one of dialectical theology (theology founded on paradoxes or tensions).

42: Dave Warnock apologises: "I confess and ask for forgiveness that despite my greatest desire and best intentions to love others as Jesus did, and as He told me to do as well, that I frequently fail, and that recently Adrian Warnock and Wayne Grudem have got the brunt of it.

I also confess that my failings to love also demonstrate my failings as a pacifist. It has seemed to me more and more a requirement that to follow Jesus closely I should renounce violence in all aspects of my life. I don't do this very well, and I am sure that this comes across in what I write here on 42. Therefore I specifically confess and seek forgiveness for my desire to wring Wayne Grudem's neck and my desire to shake some sense into Adrian."

Dave,

Thanks for this apology which is received warmly. I know you may find this hard to believe but I do not feel hostility towards you whatsoever. I am thrilled by this development as I think it is important and I would welcome a face-to-face meeting with my long lost "cousin."

There have also recently been some very encouraging and reasonable comments here on my blog and for that I am very glad. We have to be able to agree to disagree sometimes - without, of course, deciding that it doesn't matter!

 

The Dr Grudem interview is summarised in my post Dr Wayne Grudem Interview - Highlights and Reflections.

In the comments section of some of the Wayne Grudem interview posts, an article by Wallace and Burer on Junia the apostle came under fire. Dr. Burer has now emailed me and asked me to publish this response, which he has written and which Dan Wallace has seen and approved.

Specific posts where this issue is discussed on this blog are:

• Wayne Grudem - Part Three


• Wayne Grudem Replies to a Critic


• Blogspotting - Wayne Grudem Edition

Further information is available in the original paper (M. H. Burer and D. B. Wallace, "Was Junia Really an Apostle? A Re-examination of Romans 16:7", NTS 47 (2001): 76-91. The NET Bible footnotes (as they very frequently do) have a helpful brief description of this controversy over Junia, and there is an online article by Dan Wallace on this issue.

The point at stake is essentially whether it is appropriate to translate Romans 16:7 as the ESV does: "Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles", or as the NIV does: ". . . they are outstanding among the apostles".

This verse is used as a critical argument by some egalitarians because they believe that if Junia was a woman, and if she was an apostle (incidentally, this word may just mean messengers here) then that verse may be used to counteract some of the other verses which speak to male leadership.

Now this is, of course, an argument fraught with difficulty, even if it is allowed to stand up, since we should not use one verse of the Bible to neutralise another. Nonetheless, it is helpful for us to understand why many scholars do not even believe this verse says what the NIV translated it as. So please bear with Dr. Burer as he explains the technical details of the evidence which lies behind the kind of translation the ESV provides.

Additional Notes on Psalms of Solomon 2:6

Michael Burer

Because of the recent discussion surrounding our citation of Ps. Sol. 2:6, I would like to make a quick response. At issue here is whether ἐπισήμῳ should be taken as an adjective or as a noun. In our initial analysis in the NTS article, we took it to be an adjective and thus fitting our hypothesis that ἐπίσημος plus (ἐν plus) dative personal adjunct should be best understood as meaning “well known to . . .” as opposed to “distinguished among . . .” What I wish to offer here is a quick defense of our interpretation of this occurrence of the word as an adjective, not a noun. The text of Ps. Sol. 2:6 reads as follows (I have given an alternate translation for the disputed line):

οἱ υἱοὶ καὶ αἱ θυγατέρες ἐν αἰχμαλωσίᾳ πονηρᾷ ἐν σφραγῖδι ὁ τράχηλος αὐτῶν
ἐν ἐπισήμῳ ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν

the sons and the daughters in painful captivity, their neck in a seal,
in (a place) visible/notable/prominent/infamous among the gentiles
or: with a mark among the gentiles

There are two ways to understand ἐπισήμῳ in Ps.Sol. 2:6. It can either be the neuter dative form of the noun, ἐπίσημον, meaning “(distinguishing) mark” or the like, or the masculine dative form of the adjective, ἐπίσημος. At first blush the former seems to be correct based on the fact that the word ἐπισήμῳ is preceded by the preposition ἐν, which would imply a noun form following it. There is nothing in the verse which discounts this as a possibility; at issue is whether this is the only possibility.

Comparison of this construction with other uses of ἐν plus a form of ἐπίσημος leads to the conclusion that the noun form is not used here. Take, for example, the only other occurrence of ἐπίσημος in this text, Ps. Sol. 17:30:

καὶ ἕξει λαοὺς ἐθνῶν δουλεύειν αὐτῷ ὑπὸ τὸν ζυγὸν αὐτοῦ
καὶ τὸν κύριον δοξάσει ἐν ἐπισήμῳ πάσης τῆς γῆς
καὶ καθαριεῖ Ιερουσαλημ ἐν ἁγιασμῷ ὡς καὶ τὸ ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς

And he will have gentile nations serve him under his yoke
and he will glorify the Lord in (a place) visible from the whole earth
and he will cleanse Jerusalem to be as holy as she was from the beginning (literally, he will cleanse Jerusalem with sanctification as even [at] the beginning)

If the logic of arguing for ἐπισήμῳ as a noun in 2:6 is valid based on the fact that it is preceded by ἐν, then the same would need to be true here, but that would lead to a reading that is almost nonsensical: “he will glorify the Lord with a mark of all the earth.” A much more logical way to take this construction is as a reference to a place with the noun τόπος elided [Ed. - that is, left out, but assumed in the expression]: “he will glorify the Lord in a prominent [place] of the earth,” that is, Jerusalem. This is the way the standard translations render Ps. Sol. 17.30: See R. B. Wright, “in (a place) prominent (above) the whole earth” (Charlesworth, p. 667); G. Buchanan Gray, “in a place to be seen (of) all the earth” (R. H. Charles, II, p. 650); L. Brenton, “a place visible from the whole earth.” This use is also confirmed by our examination of the papyri. Let me cite that section from our original article here:

P.Oxy. 1408 speaks of “the most important [places] of the nomes” (τοῖς ἐπισημοτάτοις τῶν νομῶν). [Ed. - A “nome” was a province in Egypt.] In this text that which is ἐπίσημος is a part of the nome; the genitive is used to indicate this. On two other occasions this same idiom occurs, each time with a genitive modifier: τοῖς ἐπισημοτάτοις τόποις τ[ῶ]ν κωμ[ῶν] (“the most conspicuous places in the villages”) in P. Oxy. 2108 and τ[οῖς ἐπι]σήμοις τοῦ νομοῦ τόποις (“the well-known places of the nome”) in P. Oxy. 2705. In each of these instances, that which is ἐπίσημος is compared to its environment with a partitive genitive; it is a part of the entity to which it is being compared. This was a sufficiently common idiom (though occurring only these three times in the Oxyrhynchus papyri) that the editors conjecture the reading in the lacuna at P. Oxy. 3364, line 22: [τ]ῆς ἐπιστολῆς τὸ ἀντίγραφον ἔν τε ταῖς π[όλεσι καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἐπισήμοις τῶν νομῶν τόποις ([Place] “the copy of the letter in the c[ities and in the public places of the nomes]”).

The phrase in P.Oxy. 1408 is governed by ἐν, and the word τόποις is not in the text of the papyrus (although the editors do suggest that its omission was a mistake on the part of the original author of the papyrus); this is a nice parallel to the text in Ps. Sol. 17:30. Thus there appeared to be an idiom in Hellenistic Greek which allowed the adjective ἐπίσημος when it referred to a place to stand alone, the noun τόπος being elided. This makes a great deal of sense when applied to Ps. Sol. 2:6: “their neck with a seal in a [place] well-known to the nations.” Understanding this idiom to be in play allows one with warrant to interpret ἐπισήμῳ in that text as an adjective, not as a noun, even though it is preceded by ἐν.

In light of this subsequent analysis, our initial assessment of Ps. Sol. 2:6 would require some modification, but not wholesale revision. Regarding this passage we stated initially:

In Ps Sol 2:6, where the Jewish captives are in view, the writer indicates that “they were a spectacle among the gentiles” (ἐπισήμῳ ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν). This construction comes as close to Rom 16:7 as any we have yet seen. The parallels include (a) people as the referent of the adjective ἐπίσημος, (b) followed by ἐν plus the dative plural, (c) the dative plural referring to people as well. All the key elements are here. Semantically, what is significant is that (a) the first group is not a part of the second—that is, the Jewish captives were not gentiles; and (b) what was ‘among’ the gentiles was the Jews’ notoriety. This is precisely how we are suggesting that Rom 16:7 should be taken.

We appreciate that several writers have pointed out that our translation and citation of the passage in the original piece were not the best. (In reflecting on this, neither Dr. Wallace nor I could remember who was responsible for this part of the article.) We should have included more of the Greek text, including the preposition ἐν so that readers could see that there was another way of understanding the construction. The English translation we gave, “a spectacle among the gentiles,” was exactly the wording given in a recent, standard English translation of Psalms of Solomon, in James Charlesworth’s The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (1985), vol. 2, p. 652. The translation “spectacle” is a way of saying in English that they were “in a place visible/notorious” and so the translation is not incorrect, though not as literal as “in (a place) visible” or “in (a place) notorious” among the Gentiles. But that more literal translation still supports our understanding of Rom. 16:7 as “well-known to the apostles,” for in Ps. Sol. 2:6 the place was “visible” or even “well-known” to the Gentiles. (The text does not say, “in (a place) visible among other places” or something like that, which would be parallel to “outstanding among the apostles.”)

In retrospect, we now think it would be better to include the preposition ἐν before the word ἐπισήμῳ in our citation, and change the statement to “The parallels include (a) people as the referent of the adjective ἐπίσημος” to reflect that here most likely the referent of the adjective ἐπίσημος is a place, not people. We would not be willing to change, however, the basic conclusion that this passage confirms our hypothesis that ἐπίσημος plus (ἐν plus) dative personal adjunct should be best understood as meaning “well known to . . .” This is especially so for two reasons. First, the other use of ἐπίσημος in Ps. Sol. 17:30 uses the genitive case (different from the dative case in 2:6) to show that the prominent place was part of the earth in keeping with our hypothesis about the inclusive use of ἐπίσημος, but this instance in 2:6 uses the dative in keeping with our hypothesis about the exclusive use of ἐπίσημος. Second, point (c) in our initial assessment of Ps. Sol. 2:6 would stand, as it is very reasonable to see ἔθνεσιν here as referring to people.

We would also plead with others to tone down some of the rhetoric on this issue and refrain from intemperate language. Our goal is to pursue truth, wherever that may lead. Let us work together to understand the biblical text better without denigrating one another.

UPDATE
In January 2008, the following post was identified as the 6th all-time most popular post with readers of this blog. The 7th most read post was "What is a Reformed Charismatic?"

As stated below, this post summarized my interview with this gift to the global Church—Dr. Wayne Grudem. Individual segments of the interview would have also made the top 30 in their own right, as would my review of Grudem's supreme Systematic Theology.

***************

At times it looked like it would go on forever, but the Wayne Grudem interview is over. In this post I look back on the whole interview and its aftermath. If you haven't got time to read through the whole thing, this will give you an overview and help you select the parts you may want to read in more detail. I will also share some personal reflections of the interview - some of which, of course, directly resulted in the sudden change to my comment policy.

Part 1 - Personal Matters

If there is one thing that stands out from this whole interview, it's the fact that egalitarians simply don't understand what complementarians like Wayne Grudem are saying. The assumption made by some people seems at least to me to be that anyone who believes in a husband leading and taking responsibility for his wife is effectively a woman-hater. I hope that particular view is indeed rare, but we need to do everything we can to ensure that we are communicating across the divides caused in part by us using words differently.

This quote sums up the man, Dr. Grudem, in my mind, and reveals that - far from being the troublemaker some people think he is - this is a man of deep love and humility. Bizarrely to me given the way I understand the word, some poeple even held this quote up as an example of Dr. Grudem "submitting" to his wife. In reality, it is a great example of him taking the responsibility for a decision that would help his wife and simultaneously hurt his career. Perhaps if this was what every husband meant by leading his wife, the whole feminist issue would evaporate:

"We moved to Phoenix Seminary in Arizona in 2001, primarily because of Margaret’s health. She had been experiencing chronic pain after an auto accident a number of years earlier, and we found that the pain was aggravated by cold and humidity. Well, the Chicago area is cold in the winter and humid in the summer!After a couple of trips to Arizona, which is hot and dry, we realized that Margaret felt much better there. So I phoned the academic dean at Phoenix Seminary and asked if there might possibly be a job opportunity there for me. It is a long and wonderful story of the Lord’s guidance and provision, but the result is that we have been here since June of 2001, Margaret has felt much better, and I also love the seminary where I am now teaching. So we are thankful for God’s blessings in many ways. I am thankful to the Lord that when we were making a decision about whether to move to Phoenix, on the very day we were talking and praying about it, I came to Ephesians 5:28 in my regular schedule of daily Bible reading, and the Lord used this verse strongly in my own decision process: “In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.” After reading that, I thought it was important for me to move for the sake of Margaret’s physical body, her physical health.

Part 2 - Systematic Theology and Controversy

Dr. Grudem's answer to my question about his book, Systematic Theology, further demonstrated his humility, but in other ways was also quite revealing. A big difference between men like Grudem and certain other theologians is that he believes it is his task to make complex theological truths understandable by ordinary "lay" people without theological degrees - people like me. I cannot agree more, as quite frankly, if a theologian cannot write about his ideas and the evidence he bases them on in a way that a person of reasonable education can understand, then there is something very wrong. I thank God for men like Grudem who can do just that.

"I am surprised, and thankful to God for the way the book seems to continue to be a blessing to people – and not just to pastors and seminary students, but lots of other Christians from all walks of life. As you know, I believe that God intended His Word to be understood, not just by specialists, but also by ordinary Christians. The “blessed man” in Psalm 1 is held up as an example for all of us: “His delight is in the law of the LORD, and on his law he meditates day and night.” (Psalm 1:2)"

Part 3 - Evangelical Feminism - A New Path to Liberalism

At first sight Dr. Grudem's charge that it is inevitable that an evangelical feminist positon will erode confidence in the Bible seemed unduly harsh to many readers. If there was one quote that made his point well, it was this one. In its context he is essentially explaining that it just will not do for us to effectively remove certain passages from the canon of Scripture essentially just because we do not like them - relabeling them as "disputed."

"If I come to a pastor who is wanting to put women on the elder board, or to ordain women as pastors, and I say, “1 Timothy 2:11–14 prohibits that,” and he just says, “I don’t want to hear about that verse because it’s disputed,” then he has really decided that he won’t let that verse speak to the controversy. But that is the most central passage in the whole dispute, the one that speaks most directly to the issue! If we refuse to be subject to passages that speak most directly to an issue, then we are almost guaranteed to come to the wrong decision. I’m not sure if I can think of a better way to come to a wrong decision than excluding from the discussion the verses that speak most directly to an issue."

Part 4 - Ethical Trajectories, Feminism, and Homosexuality

Advocates of evangelical feminism argue for an "ethical trajectory" approach to Scripture, appealing to slavery as an example, shortly to be followed in the debates on the role of women. Grudem made a robust attempt to totally debunk that argument:

"Now today, what worries me about these “trajectory hermeneutic” advocates is that they seem unaware of this entire history of biblical arguments against slavery, and they wrongly assume that the Bible actually supports slavery of the kind seen in the horrible abuses in America in the 18th and 19th centuries. This is preposterous. To say that the Bible supports such evils would be to say that the Bible, at the time of the New Testament, supported things that were morally evil, and I am simply not willing to do that."

Supplement - Wayne Grudem Replies to a Critic

Dr. Grudem's patient, yet methodical, nature comes out in this detailed response to some of the comment critics. Already by this point I am beginning to be irritated rather than helped by the tone of some of the comments. Grudem also shows he is far from being a walk-over in this reply. I think it is a model of how to have a robust disagreement with someone without being rude to them.

Part 5 - Must a Woman Always Remain Silent in Church?

Although anxious to point out that he does not believe that Scripture intends for women to remain totally silent at all times in church, he reserves some strong words for those who want to say that a woman should be allowed to teach provided they are "under the authority" of a male elder.

"I don’t think a pastor can give a woman “permission” to do Bible teaching before the church, because the Bible says not to do that. Would we say a pastor, or a board of elders, could give a woman “permission” to violate the command, “You should not steal”, or to violate any other command of Scripture? No pastor or elder board has authority to give permission to anyone to disobey the Bible. It’s God’s Word and we need to obey it.

Part 6 - Did Steve Chalke Blaspheme About the Atonement?

If you are new to the debate about prominent UK evangelical leader, Steve Chalkes' criticism of the notion of Jesus' death being required to take the punishment for our sin, then this is the jumping off post for you - there are links to more details about the whole issue and a very interesting debate. Dr. Grudem was impacted by reading the comments section, for as a direct result he made a retraction of the word "blasphemy" afterwards. He did not, however, retract his agreement with John Piper's serious concerns about this issue:

"Evangelicals in the academic world battled against liberals in scholarly writings about this issue fifty years ago, and I think that evangelicals like Leon Morris won the argument and won the theological battle. Now Chalke is giving away the hard-won victory. He is giving away the heart of the Gospel. I would never agree to give my approval to anyone who denies penal substitutionary atonement to be an elder at a church I attended, or to be a pastor or Bible teacher, or to teach at a theological seminary where I had influence on the appointment."

Part 7 - Things We Can Agree to Disagree About?

Dr. Grudem appears to be very clear about his theological triage - explaining that he believes that some issues are much more important than others.

"I’m thankful that believers who differ on the issue of baptism can still have wonderful fellowship with one another across denominational lines, and can have respect for each other’s sincerely held views. I certainly do not put the question of baptism in the same category as the denial of penal substitutionary atonement which you mentioned [yesterday] because that seems to me to be a denial of the heart of the Gospel. And, as I mentioned, it seems to me that evangelical feminism involves, implicitly at least, a denial of the authority of the Bible. But differing views on baptism or the millennium do not have serious consequences of that type"

Justin Taylor has highlighted a section of this post in which Grudem explains he is reconsidering his position on baptism - this has led to an interesting discussion over at his place.

Part 8 - What Does the Future Hold for the Church?

Dr. Grudem is optimistic about the immediate future for the church. Sitting where I am, I tend to agree with him.

"I’m very hopeful. I see indications that God is bringing renewal and revival (as well as exposing sin and “cleaning house”) in many churches around the world. I am hoping that God will yet bring a great world-wide revival in our lifetimes, with many millions of people suddenly turning to Christ in genuine faith."

Part 9 - Models of Church Government and Theological Blind Spots

As we drew to an end exploring one of the issues Dr. Grudem and I disagree on, he came back to a point he made much earlier in the interview - it was a point that encouraged me as a preacher and blogger with no theological degrees.

". . . it is always wise to have a governing structure where the highest governing offices in the church and the highest positions of influence are open to lay people as well as ordained people. The denominations where only clergy have the highest of authority seem to be the ones that are never able to be brought back once they drift into liberalism because the ordinary lay people who have common sense and are reading their Bibles every day don’t have any way to regain control of a denomination that has gone astray if it has that kind of structure."

So, the hope for the church is bright if brilliant theologians like Dr. Grudem and jobbing preachers in local churches can forge a partnership. Whilst Dr. Grudem cannot possibly personally relate to the millions of preachers there are in the world, through the Internet something approaching a feeling of partnership can arise. I have had an amazing time interacting with him, and sharing those interactions with you. I hope that you, too, feel a bit more as though you know the man, as well as the theologian, as a result of this interview.

I thought that with the Wayne Grudem interview still fresh in my mind (and I still have a "highlights and personal reflections" post to write) I would take the time to do some housekeeping around here. These items seem like they fit together in a way. They could be considered as the "boring small print," but I intend to make this as jargon-free and hopefully as interesting as possible.

I would also welcome comments about each of these issues as, after all, you, my readers, are affected by every decision I take and policy I make. If you are one of the 99.99% of readers who never make a comment and are not interested in doing so, then do feel free to move along - perhaps just read the bit about links and my warning that you ought to be careful when following them. Keep reading, and I hope keep enjoying the blog!

A New Comment Policy

Over the course of my interview with leading theologian, Dr. Wayne Grudem, I have seen afresh both the value and the danger of comments. Dr. Grudem was drawn in to respond to comments here on two occasions - once to correct minor errors he had made in his post, and once to retract his agreement with the use of the word "blasphemy." A lot of helpful points were raised, and I enjoyed having so many comments.

With large numbers of comments, however, come many dangers which have become obvious to me. These dangers have crystalised in my mind a number of principles that will be guiding me as I now take responsibility for pre-vetting comments personally or via an associate. If you want to comment here, you would do well to try and follow them yourself up front - it should increase the likelihood of me approving your comments:

Guidelines for Commentators on This Blog

(Read in conjunction with the post Principles for God Bloggers.)

1. You do not have a right to say whatever you like on MY blog.

Some people seem to view it as their right to post a comment on this blog and get indignant when any restriction is placed on their "right" to say whatever they like.

They forget that this blog is something like a cross between on the one hand sitting in my front room at home chatting with me and a few of my guests and on the other reading a newspaper or magazine-like publication.

So, using the first analogy, if you were in my home and you were in any way rude about one of my guests, I would be tempted to ask you to leave - especially if you refused to listen to my warnings and just continued to repeat the same accusations again and again.

Also, if you wrote a letter to the editor of a major newspaper you would not expect to be published. Instead, you would be pleased if you were fortunate enough to be selected to do so. You would hope that someone, somewhere was reading your letter, but would recognise that the editor could choose which of the many comments coming in he would select for the honor of publication.

Whilst this is not anywhere near the league of a major newspaper, I hope you will understand that, in terms of my new policy of publishing comments, it will be similar. In the same way that a newspaper does not tell everyone who submits a letter for publication why they have not been selected to appear in the newspaper, I will not be writing to everyone whose comment I have turned down. I cannot even guarantee I will always be able to answer an email asking for clarification. (You are welcome to try and reach me that way, however.)

2. Stick to critiquing a person's teaching, not their character.

This is not primarily a news blog. Even if it were - and perhaps I will report more on news items in the future - I am not prepared to publish undocumented accusations about my fellow Christians' behaviour here. There is a time and a place for calling people out as immoral or whatever, but that time and place is not here on my blog in my comment section.

Quite simply, I will not allow ANY criticism of a person's character in a comment - no matter how minor. On the other hand, I do not usually reject postings that challenge the theological points made - please remember that I may well not agree with everything in a comment that I allow through onto the blog.

3. Mind your manners.

On a related front, rudeness, coarseness, and cussing will not be tolerated. Ulitmately I am the judge of how I define that, but if it would offend a homeschooling mum or an aging children's Sunday School teacher, the chances are it won't slip past me.

Please don't try and get something like that under my nose - then I might get in trouble for publishing something that might be perfectly appropriate for a conversation in a bar but not online on my blog! Remember, this is NOT a bar, it's my blog and anyone can read it.

4. Don't fall into the trap of anonymity.

One of my pet bug-bears is bloggers and commentators who for no real reason keep their true identities secret online. Put bluntly, I am far more likely to publish your comments if you let Blogger have your email, or at least complete something in your profile page, or if in your first comment you introduce yourself.

Think about why you need anonymity, and remember that even if you think you can hide your comments from everyone who knows you in real life, there is an audience of One who is watching you and will ask you to give an account for every idle word you say or write.

Actually, the anonymity trap works both ways. Those who commit murder and other horrible crimes use all kinds of tricks to "dehumanise" their victims. Don't allow youself to forget that those you are writing about are people, too - in fact, on this blog the chances are very high that - just like you - they believe that they are Christians. Remember that as much as they may disagree with you on a point, they almost certainly believe sincerely that their opinion is the correct one - they are also probably not deliberately trying to lead the Church astray from the truth. They may even have the same temptation to treat you as though you are a deliberate assistant of the Devil. Instead, treat them as you yourself would like to be treated by someone who loves you, but sincerely believes you are wrong. Do this for the sake of our Saviour Jesus, and the honor of His name.

5. Don't repeat yourself or post irrelevant comments.

OK, so I have finally succumbed. I now want you to stick to the topic of the post at hand and NOT to post things wholesale that have been written elsewhere. Please feel free to post brief comments that link back to pages on your own blog or comments elsewhere rather than merely copying and pasting. This MUST be done using the following format - <a href="http://yoururl.com">your text</a>. I am not willing to accept non-active links as I think they look ugly and mess with my layout. So, no long urls simply copied into comments, please.

6. Remember - whichever comments do get published is my decision alone.

There may be many comments that I reject simply for space reasons - i.e. not to swamp the blog with voluminous comments - or those which repeat the points others have made. Most of my readers do not get involved in the comment section - any more than most readers of newspapers ever send in a letter to the editor. Also, some posts which do not generate many comments generate higher readership levels than other posts which stoke the comment fires.

Please, if I do not publish your comment, do not take it personally - it need not mean that I think you have violated some bloggers' etiquette code.

Links In and Out of the Blog
Unlike on this blog, I, of course, have no influence on what people say on their own websites. As a result, posting at your own site, with a link to the specific page here, should result in a link appearing on the blogpost here. (Incidently, if those links don't work, make sure your feed is working, then stick it through feedburner.com to publicise it - if that doesn't work, it is a Google blogsearch issue that I can't help you with!)

There is, of course, a danger that some may abuse this privilege. Fortunately, I do have the power to block a specific link from appearing. Please do drop me an email if that appears to be the case.

This request for help in regulating the links equally applies to the automatically generated links that appear in the Warnie Winner Box at the top of my site, as well as the grey box for bloggers I know in real life, and before the comments at the end of each post.

Link Warning

I must warn you that you should exercise caution before following any of the links found on my site, especially those not included in the main text of a specific post. You may want to be sure that the link comes from a blog you recognise by hovering over it before clicking on it - I cannot guarantee the appropriateness of every link, and obviously not every blogger will follow my strict commenting rules on their own blogs.

Copyright Issues

I endeavor to respect copyright here, and ensure that my use of others' materials meets criteria for fair use. I ask that you do the same. If you believe you have discovered an infringement of copyright, either on this site or connected with it, please drop me an email to bring it to my attention.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons license. You are free to share - to copy, distribute, display, and perform the blog (although how you can perform a blog I don't know!) with the following conditions:

• Attribution. You must attribute the work by refering to this as Adrian Warnock's Blog or online by means of a hyperlink.
  
  
• Noncommercial. You may not use this work for commercial purposes without my explicit permission (requests to republish articles in any format are considered.)
  
  
• No Derivative Works. You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work without permission. (This does not apply to taking short quotes and attributing them, nor to building upon the ideas in a post whilst linking to it.)
  

Searching the Christian Web

I have implemented a modified Google seach engine at the top of this blog. You are free to implement this search engine on your site or to suggest major Christian websites I can include in it via email.

To include the seach engine on your site, simply utilise the following code:

<!-- Google CSE Search Box Begins --> <form
id="searchbox_013640929550799605651:siu5eokuslq"
action="http://google.com/cse"> <input type="hidden"
name="cx" value="013640929550799605651:siu5eokuslq" /> <input
name="q" type="text" size="40" /> <input
type="submit" name="sa" value="Search" /> <input
type="hidden" name="cof" value="FORID:1" /> </form>
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://google.com/coop/cse/brand?form=searchbox_013640929550799605651%3Asiu5eokuslq"></script>
<!-- Google CSE Search Box Ends -->

This interview is being serialised over several days. So far I have published part one, which focused on personal issues, and part two, in which we discussed Systematic Theology. In part three, we explored Grudem's charge that feminism inevitably leads to a denial of Scripture's authority. Part four honed in on the "trajectory" arguments used on both sides of this debate. In part five, we looked at the issue of women addressing church congregations. Part six examined John Piper's accusation of Steve Chalke over the atonement. In part seven, Dr. Grudem discussed two areas where we perhaps can agree to disagree - the charismatic and baptism. Part eight focused on Dr. Grudem's predictions concerning the future of the Church. This part concludes the interview. It addresses theological blind spots and an issue where there is clear disagreement between me and my theological hero.

 

The interview is summarised in my post Dr Wayne Grudem Interview - Highlights and Reflections.

I will shortly be posting a "highlights and personal reflections" round-up post, and have a couple of other things I want to say before I go on a Christmas break - so keep coming back!

Please join me in thanking Dr. Grudem for the time he has spent on this interview - I have enjoyed having him around! I hope you have, too.

Adrian
At the end of the day, with all these theological arguments, to me the most critical question boils down to "Can we accept the simple clear message of the Bible on this subject?" Do you agree that this is the most important question, and also, where do many go wrong?

Wayne
I tend to see many questions that way, and I hope others see them that way as well. The problem is that people on the other side of these questions wonder why I do not accept “the simple clear message of the Bible” on the subject at hand! And so we discuss these things with one another in Christian love.

But I do have to say that the egalitarian position is anything but obvious from the text of the Bible. It was hardly held by anyone (except the Quakers) for over 1800 years, as I explain in detail in my earlier book, Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth (2004).

Adrian
I do think that a humble attitude towards the Bible is perhaps the most important thing we should strive to have. Do you agree, however, that there are probably areas for many, if not all, of us where we are "blind" to the simple message of the Bible and allow either our traditions or our human reasoning to shape our teaching?

Wayne
Yes, I’m sure there are areas for all of us where we have made mistakes. I just wish I knew where they were! James has a good caution for us: “Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness. For we all stumble in many ways, and if anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man, able also to bridle his whole body” (James 3:1-2).

Adrian
I recently heard a respected Bible teacher criticise one chapter of your Systematic Theology and essentially accuse it of having just such a blind spot. He said that throughout the rest of the book you were constantly simply asking - "What do the verses say?" - but that on the subject of the structure of the church, that seemed to suddenly change and you were merely describing, "Well, this is what the Methodists do . . . this is what the Anglicans do . . ." How would you answer this accusation, and do you believe that the New Testament does have a clear model for church government that could be applied today?

Wayne
I’m not sure that he took account of the whole chapter. I did describe what various denominations have done about church government in the history of the church because I wanted students to understand how different denominations govern themselves, and how they’ve reached different conclusions about this question. But I also argued for my own understanding of a biblical pattern for church government, which is plural local elders governing a church, with the pastor or senior pastor being one of those elders. That seems to me to be the pattern in several verses of Scripture where we have indications about church government. James writes to all the churches in the Roman Empire at that time and he expects that there will be “elders” who will pray for the sick in every church (James 5:14). Paul appointed “elders” (plural) in “every church” (Acts 14:23), and he wants Titus to appoint “elders” in “every town” in Crete (Titus 1:5). There is a consistent pattern of plural elders governing every church.

Adrian
This Bible teacher went on to explain in his talk what he felt was the biblical model for the church – independent local congregations led by teams of elders who were appointed and helped by apostles. He argued we should have an identical structure today. Such a view separates the gift of Scripture writing and apostleship – after all, many of the original apostles didn’t write any Scripture at all, so if that was their only job they weren’t very efficient at it! I guess it could be argued that such a view does to apostles what you did to prophecy in your book – i.e. it removes their infallibility and instead makes them something that serves the local church and that, as per Ephesians 4, should be expected to persist until the church is perfect. What would your response be to such an argument?

Wayne
The whole issue is - What replaces the apostles? Everybody agrees that apostles were in charge of the churches at the time of the New Testament. The Roman Catholics say that the bishops and Pope have replaced the apostles. But the Protestant position has generally been that the writings of the apostles – that is, the New Testament Scriptures that were written or authorized by apostles – have replaced living apostles in the church.

There is no record of the apostles appointing successor “apostles” to fill in for them when they were gone. Peter sends not a replacement apostle, but an epistle to the churches of Asia Minor, telling them he is doing this so that “after my departure you may be able at any time to recall these things” (2 Peter 1:15). Paul tells the Ephesian elders that “after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock,” but he does not tell them to be subject to some new apostles whom he will send, but tells them to look to Scripture: “And now I commend you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified” (Acts 20:32).

And I do think that the apostles had absolute authority to speak words of God and govern the churches as Christ’s direct representatives, a kind of authority that no human being has today. (I argue this in the chapter on church government in Systematic Theology).

But this does not mean that the apostles intended churches to be completely independent of one another. In fact, I don’t think there were any truly “independent” local churches in the New Testament, for they were all under the authority of the apostles. But if the apostles’ writings (in the New Testament) replace the apostles’ absolute authority over the churches, is there anything that is a modern counterpart to the personal oversight and connection that the early churches had?

Many denominations have thought that a wise modern counterpart for the apostolic oversight of local churches is some kind of denominational structure, and historically many denominations have had stronger or weaker denominational authority over individual local congregations. Honestly, I think the New Testament leaves us a fair bit of freedom in this regard, and various structures seem to work fairly well.

I have found it interesting to be in an “independent Bible church” - for the first time in my life - during the last five years. I love the church and think it does many things very well. But there is frequent talk of forming an “association” with other like-minded churches, or at least the other churches we have planted. And I do see some benefits that come from association with other churches in a denomination, benefits that my own church now does not share in because it is independent. So it seems to me that churches over time just seem to have a tendency to form networks or association with other like-minded churches, and these are the beginnings of denominations. I just think there is quite a bit of freedom in the Bible in this regard, and various systems seem to work very well.

However, I think I also argue in Systematic Theology that it is always wise to have a governing structure where the highest governing offices in the church and the highest positions of influence are open to lay people as well as ordained people. The denominations where only clergy have the highest of authority seem to be the ones that are never able to be brought back once they drift into liberalism because the ordinary lay people who have common sense and are reading their Bibles every day don’t have any way to regain control of a denomination that has gone astray if it has that kind of structure.

Adrian
This has turned into quite a long interview. Before I let you go, is there anything else you would like to say to my readers – perhaps one last reason why they should go and get the book?

Wayne
One last reason why they should go and get the book? I think the book, Evangelical Feminism: A New Path to Liberalism? will help readers to know the danger signs and the arguments to avoid when evangelical feminists try to take their churches down the path to liberalism.

And then for much fuller documentation and argument, readers may also want to buy the 856-page comprehensive reference book I published two years ago on this subject, Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth (Multnomah and IVP-UK). That book answers in some detail all of the 118 evangelical feminist arguments that I found in my research.

Finally, just in case someone thinks that an 856-page reference work is too long, Multnomah has published (just last month) a condensed version of that huge book that is a popular overview of the whole controversy. It’s called Countering the Claims of Evangelical Feminism. It’s just 320 pages - a quick read. So there you have three books on this topic, all in one interview. (And I hope I’ve finished writing on this topic for the rest of my life!)

Adrian
Thank you so much for taking the time out of your busy schedule to join us, Dr. Grudem!

Wayne
Thank you, Adrian, for your excellent ministry, and for allowing me the privilege of participating in this dialog.

This interview is being serialised over several days. So far I have published part one, which focused on personal issues, and part two, in which we discussed Systematic Theology. In part three, we explored Grudem's charge that feminism inevitably leads to a denial of Scripture's authority. Part four honed in on the "trajectory" arguments used on both sides of this debate. In part five, we looked at the issue of women addressing church congregations. Part six examined John Piper's accusation of Steve Chalke over the atonement. In part seven, Dr. Grudem discussed two areas where we perhaps can agree to disagree - the charismatic and baptism. In today's segment, we will be focusing on Dr Grudem's predictions concerning the future of the Church. The interview is summarised in my post Dr Wayne Grudem Interview - Highlights and Reflections.

Adrian
Do you see any signs that the feminist issue will also similarly be resolved eventually? How do you think churches and denominations can best handle it practically going forward? It seems impractical to expect denominations to allow churches holding both positions to remain together in the same group of churches – Do you agree?

Wayne
I wrote in an earlier book, Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth (Multnomah and IVP-UK, 2004) that I think churches will have to come to one position or another on this issue. Either you have some women elders (in which case the egalitarian position has won and will continue to expand its influence) or you don’t have women elders (in which case the complementarian position has won). It is impossible to have it both ways.

Yes, I have great confidence that this issue will eventually be resolved, and that the vast majority of God’s people who take the Bible as the Word of God will adopt and practice a complementarian position, and will put it in their statements of faith. I am thankful that out of this controversy has come a greater appreciation for women’s gifts and wisdom, and a greater openness to many more ministries for women, but the church will still, by and large, be complementarian until Christ returns. Jesus Christ has not given up on His church, and He has not abandoned it. He is still building His church, and He is purifying it, “so that He might present the church to Himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish” (Ephesians 5:27).

There have been many doctrinal controversies in the history of the church, and God in His providence always eventually guides the vast majority of the people who sincerely believe the Bible to the right conclusion. Then those who hold the wrong position eventually are marginalized, their churches lose God’s blessing, and they then decline or even close. It will be that way in this controversy as well, although it may take some time, and before it is resolved many churches will adopt a feminist position, to the detriment of many marriages and ministries along the way. (I was just told last week of a complementarian church in a major American city that hired an egalitarian pastor; [they] gave in to his demands that all church offices be open to women, and he took the church from 2500 people on Sunday to under 400 today. I think we will see that more and more, though there will be temporary exceptions from time to time.)

Adrian
Given your perspective as being involved in all of these debates, do you feel hopeful or cynical about the future of evangelical Gospel-believing churches? What do you think the Gospel-believing church movements will look like in, say, thirty years' time?

Wayne
I’m very hopeful. I see indications that God is bringing renewal and revival (as well as exposing sin and “cleaning house”) in many churches around the world. I am hoping that God will yet bring a great world-wide revival in our lifetimes, with many millions of people suddenly turning to Christ in genuine faith. I don’t know this for sure, but I am hopeful. I was speaking of this with Terry Virgo in Brighton in July. I am hopeful for both the United States and for the United Kingdom in this regard.

Continued in part nine . . .

My interview with Dr. Grudem has been serialised on this blog for some while now. Several days ago I asked Dr. Grudem about whether he agreed with Dr. Piper's use of the word "blasphemy" in connection with Steve Chalke. I posted his answer here.

After some time for personal reflection on what was, of course, just one question in a rather long interview, Dr. Grudem posted me the following email this morning with a request that I publish it here:

Adrian,

After considering some of the discussion on your blog, and after reflecting on this for two or three days, I have had second thoughts about agreeing to the term "blasphemy" to describe Steve Chalke's statements implying that the penal substitutionary view of the atonement is "divine child abuse," for this reason:

As a general rule, I try to be cautious about using terms that seem to be inflammatory (such as "heresy" and "heretic"), and "blaspheme" seems to me to be a term like that. The term may carry unnecessary baggage with it.

It is interesting to me that your question was not what I thought about Chalke's view, but whether I agreed with somebody else's assessment of Chalke's view (namely, John Piper's assessment, and John is a close friend with whom I agree about the danger of Chalke's view). But the word "blasphemy" was not a word I had previously used of Chalke, and in the interview you were asking me if I agreed with that word to apply to his view. My response was "yes," but I don't think, in my quick response, that I gave enough consideration to what I mention above about that word.

Therefore on reconsideration, I would like (if I could!) to retract my comment about Chalke's statements being "blasphemy," and I would rather say that when Chalke implies that the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement is "cosmic child abuse," he uses language that I think to be deeply dishonoring to God and to God's reputation, and deeply dishonoring to the Bible's teaching on the heart of the atonement and the heart of the Christian Gospel. To say what he says brings reproach on God's name whenever the true Gospel of Christ's atoning work is proclaimed. What Chalke says is very serious indeed. And people will have to decide for themselves whether they use the term "blasphemy" to apply to that. But I have not used this term in the past to refer to people who hold Chalke's view, and I don't think I will use that term in the future either.

Let me also affirm that I am also very thankful for John Piper's courageous stand on this, and I do not differ with him at all in my deep dismay at the serious doctrinal error that I think Chalke is making. I am not trying to criticize John's use of the word, but just saying that I myself do not choose to use it in this case.

Wayne Grudem

Continue interview in part eight . . .

This interview is being serialised over several days. So far I have published part one, which focused on personal issues, and part two, in which we discussed Systematic Theology. In part three, we explored Grudem's charge that feminism inevitably leads to a denial of Scripture's authority. Part four honed in on the "trajectory" arguments used on both sides of this debate. In part five, we looked at the issue of women addressing church congregations. Part six examined John Piper's accusation of Steve Chalke over the atonement. Today we continue the interview with a look at two areas over which we can perhaps agree to disagree - the charismatic issue and baptism. The interview is summarised in my post Dr Wayne Grudem Interview - Highlights and Reflections.

Adrian

As an observer, it appears to me that there are certain issues that are fast becoming less "hot" theologically. This seemed to happen to eschatology decades ago – no one seems to be that bothered about it anymore, and it seems to be generally accepted that godly Bible-fearing believers can hold different views. More recently baptism and the charismata seem to be going the same way. Do you think that they will go the way of eschatology and become issues that are broadly accepted as secondary, or do you predict that the evangelical church will come to an understanding on both or either issues that the majority will accept?

Wayne

The issue of the charismatic movement and miraculous gifts is somewhat different in the United States, since there are still some denominations and educational institutions which officially support a “cessationist” position, or at least look with great scepticism and suspicion on the idea that miraculous gifts continue today. And, frankly, I think that American television has more examples than British television of “charismatic” figures who make many Christians distinctly uncomfortable. (I’m not speaking of all of them, because I have much respect for a number of them as well.) But there certainly exist abuses among people who claim that miraculous gifts continue today, and I have written at length to try to argue for wise and Biblically faithful use of these gifts, and to avoid abuses. The more demonstrative and unusual things still tend to get a lot of visibility on American television, and I think that is unhelpful.

On the other hand, it seems to me that the vast majority of younger seminary students and recent seminary graduates today, while they may not call themselves charismatic or Pentecostal, will generally say, “Well I’m certainly not a cessationist because I can’t see proof for that view in Scripture. But I haven’t seen many good examples of how these things actually work either.” So they often fall in what I would call an “open but cautious” category – some more open and some more cautious! And I do think that people who are strongly committed to a cessationist view are in a much smaller minority today than they were twenty or thirty years ago, at least in the academic world and among younger seminary students and pastors.

It is very hard to get around 1 Corinthians 13:10: “When the perfect comes, the partial will pass away.” People read that in context and nearly always conclude (rightly, I think) that “when the perfect comes” refers to the time of Christ’s return, and “the partial” refers to the miraculous gifts that Paul has been discussing in verses 8-9, such as prophecy and speaking in tongues. So I think most younger pastors and seminary students who think about this topic read that verse and conclude that Paul is saying, “When Christ returns, prophecy and speaking in tongues (and by implication, other spiritual gifts) will pass away.” That means that these gifts are still with us today, and our only question is how to encourage them and use them rightly, seeking always to be subject to Scripture.

The baptism issue is a little different. It’s very hard to have it both ways because when an infant is born in a church, you either baptize the infant, or you don’t. So it’s much more difficult to say, “Let’s just all get along on this.” Well, fine, we all get along. But do we baptize this new baby or not? A church can’t have it both ways. When I wrote my book, Systematic Theology, I was more hopeful that a compromise might be possible in which churches would allow individual pastors and individual families to make this decision for themselves. That is what the Evangelical Free Church of America has done, and it is a strong, healthy denomination in the United States that holds fully to the inerrancy of Scripture. But after many decades, no other denomination, to my knowledge, seems willing to follow them in this position.

The problem is what such a “compromise” implies about the views of baptism of the people who adopt it. For people who hold to infant baptism, they have to be able to say that it’s OK for believing parents not to baptize their infant children, which seems to them to be disobeying a command of Scripture as they understand it. How can they really say this?

On the other side, those who hold to believer’s baptism (as I do) have to be willing to admit into church membership people who have been baptized as infants, and who did not, of course, make any profession of faith at the time they were baptized. But these people (such as myself) who think that genuine baptism has to follow a personal profession of faith are then put in position of saying that infant baptism is also a valid form of baptism. And that contradicts what they believe about the essential nature of baptism – that it is an outward sign of an inward spiritual change, so that the apostle Paul could say, “As many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” (Galatians 3:27)

I don’t think I realized this difficulty when I wrote my Systematic Theology. I had been in an Evangelical Free Church for about four years and it seemed to me to work well enough. But now I’m beginning to realize that admitting to church membership someone who has not been baptized upon profession of faith, and telling the person that he or she never has to be baptized as a believer, is really giving up one’s view on the proper nature of baptism, what it really is. It is saying that infant baptism really is valid baptism! If we didn’t think it was valid baptism, we should be telling people who were baptized as infants that their “baptism” was not valid baptism and they should be baptized now, after their personal profession of faith. They would need to do this in obedience to Christ’s command.

So I have been re-thinking my position on this issue, and I have been considering sending a change to the publishers of my Systematic Theology book, at least explaining that there are more difficulties to my “compromise” view than I had initially realized.

In short, I don’t think the baptism issue is going to go away any time soon.

Finally, I’m thankful that believers who differ on the issue of baptism can still have wonderful fellowship with one another across denominational lines, and can have respect for each other’s sincerely held views. I certainly do not put the question of baptism in the same category as the denial of penal substitutionary atonement which you mentioned [yesterday] because that seems to me to be a denial of the heart of the Gospel. And, as I mentioned, it seems to me that evangelical feminism involves, implicitly at least, a denial of the authority of the Bible. But differing views on baptism or the millennium do not have serious consequences of that type.

Continued in part eight . . . . See also supplementary post, "Wayne Grudem Retracts His Agreement With the Use of the Word "Blasphemy" in Regard to Steve Chalke."

This interview is being serialised over several days. So far I have published part one, which focused on personal issues, and part two, in which we discussed Systematic Theology. In part three we explored Grudem's charge that feminism inevitably leads to a denial of Scripture's authority. Part four honed in on the "trajectory" arguments used on both sides of this debate. In part five we looked at the issue of women addressing church congregations. We now continue the interview with a look at a thorny issue in the church today - the Atonement.  The interview is summarised in my post Dr Wayne Grudem Interview - Highlights and Reflections.

Adrian

John Piper - like you - is better known as a theological bridge-builder rather than a theological warrior. But he has gone into battle over at least two issues – the openness of God – where he stood out strongly against individuals who teach that God doesn’t know the future – and more recently in defence of penal substitution.

Personally, I was quite surprised by the level of passion he expressed in his recent talk at the DGM conference. He quoted a now infamous passage from Steve Chalke - a very well-known and influential member of the UK's Evangelical Alliance - which claims that a traditional evangelical view of penal substitution is nothing more than "cosmic child abuse." Do you agree with Piper's choice of these two issues as ones to stand up for vigorously? Do you also think he was fair to then boldly declare that he believed that Chalke's words were blasphemy? Do you agree with that assessment?

Wayne

(1) Yes. (2) Yes. (3) Yes. Chalke is denying the heart of the Gospel. (Ed: Grudem has since retracted his agreement to the use of the word blasphemy of Chalke but not his strong criticism of Chalke's views)

Evangelicals in the academic world battled against liberals in scholarly writings about this issue fifty years ago, and I think that evangelicals like Leon Morris won the argument and won the theological battle. Now Chalke is giving away the hard-won victory. He is giving away the heart of the Gospel. I would never agree to give my approval to anyone who denies penal substitutionary atonement to be an elder at a church I attended, or to be a pastor or Bible teacher, or to teach at a theological seminary where I had influence on the appointment.

Adrian

It seems to me that each generation has specific theological arguments that define it. Do you agree with that? If so, what theological arguments do you see breaking in the future that maybe are not that prominent yet?

Wayne

I don’t claim to be a prophet, so I really don’t know. But one way to predict trends in the church is to watch the culture. Sadly, too many churches give in to pressures to conform to the culture in every generation. And two issues that come to mind, where the Bible differs clearly with the culture, are universalism (the idea that everybody will be saved whether they believe in Christ or not) and homosexuality. A third issue is moral relativism, which is counter to the entire moral fabric of the Bible and the fact that God wants people to live in conformity with His moral laws.

---

I have kept this portion of the interview short due to the vital importance of the subject we were discussing. I plan a major post sharing a recent talk I gave on the subject of the Atonement sometime in the New Year - probably as part of my plans to revive and complete my series on the Together for the Gospel Statement.

For now, let me share with you some links to pages from this and other websites on this vital subject, and feel free to comment away. I should tell you that I am in the middle of writing a more strict blog comment policy, and one of the points (which is in operation as of now) is that I want to keep comments on topic. Thus, this is a post about competing theories of the Atonement and nothing else.

To have Wayne Grudem and John Piper both agree that one of the UK's leading evangelicals was committing blasphemy is about as serious a position as I can imagine us to be in, and one worthy of a bit of careful discussion, but first here is the passage in John Piper's talk at DG06 that speaks of Steve Chalke, and which I asked Wayne Grudem about.

"The Son of God, Jesus Christ, came into the world, lived a perfect life, died to bear the penalty for our sins, absorbed the wrath of God that hung over us, rose from the dead triumphant over death and Satan and all evil, so that all who receive Jesus as the Savior, Lord, and Treasure of their lives would be forgiven for Christ’s sake, counted righteous in Christ, and fitted to know and enjoy God forever.

Oh, how I wish that at least here, at the center of the Gospel, there would be common ground among those who claim to be followers of Jesus today. But that’s not the case, and one of the reasons is that the postmodern mind, inside and outside of the church, has no place for the biblical truth of the wrath of God. And, therefore, it has no place for a wrath-bearing Savior who endures God’s curse that we might go free. One of the most infamous and tragic paragraphs written by a church leader in the last several years heaps scorn on one of the most precious truths of the atonement: Christ’s bearing our guilt and God’s wrath.

The fact is that the cross isn’t a form of cosmic child abuse—a vengeful Father, punishing his Son for an offense he has not even committed. Understandably, both people inside and outside of the Church have found this twisted version of events morally dubious and a huge barrier to faith. Deeper than that, however, is that such a concept stands in total contradiction to the statement "God is love”. If the cross is a personal act of violence perpetrated by God towards humankind, but borne by his Son, then it makes a mockery of Jesus’ own teaching to love your enemies and to refuse to repay evil with evil. (Steve Chalke and Alan Mann, The Lost Message of Jesus [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003], pp. 182-183.)

With one cynical stroke of the pen, the triumph of God’s love over God’s wrath in the death of his beloved Son is blasphemed, while other church leaders write glowing blurbs on the flaps of his book. But God is not mocked. His Word stands firm and clear and merciful to those who will embrace it:

We esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all. . . . It was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief. (Isaiah 53:4-6, 10)

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree.” (Galatians 3:13)

For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh. (Romans 8:3)

Whose sin? My sin. Whose flesh? Jesus’ flesh. Whose condemnation? God’s condemnation.

In our present fallen, rebellious condition, nothing — I say it again carefully — nothing is more crucial for humanity than escaping the omnipotent wrath of God. That is not the ultimate goal of the cross. It is just infinitely necessary—and valuable beyond words.

The ultimate goal of the cross, the ultimate good of the Gospel, is the everlasting enjoyment of God. The glorious work of Christ in bearing our sins and removing God’s wrath and providing our righteousness is aimed finally at this: “Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God” (1 Peter 3:18). Jesus died for us so that we might say with the psalmist, “I will go to the altar of God, to God my exceeding joy” (Psalm 43:4). (John Piper)

Before I share some more links with you, let me share a quote from Calvin which goes some way to alleviating some of the concerns that critics of penal substitution have. For what they say is: "How could God be displeased with Christ on the cross?" My answer is that God was both displeased with the sin that Jesus had become, but remained pleased with Jesus' infinite goodness which in some way swallowed up sin, thereby destroying it. Calvin puts it this way:

"We do not, however, insinuate that God was ever hostile to him or angry with him. How could he be angry with the beloved Son, with whom his soul was well pleased? Or how could he have appeased the Father by his intercession for others if He were hostile to himself? But this we say, that he bore the weight of the divine anger, that, smitten and afflicted, he experienced all the signs of an angry and avenging God."

(Calvin, J., & Beveridge, H. (1997). Institutes of the Christian Religion. Translation of: Institutio Christianae Religionis; Reprint, with new introd. Originally published: Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1845-1846. (II, xvi, 11). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.)

More Links on the Atonement on My Blog

• Steve Chalke and Cosmic Child Abuse
  
  
• Attacking the Atonement From the Other Side?
  
  
• L - Limited Atonement - In this post, I begin talking about Limited Atonement by asking first what atonement is and addressing Chalke's viewpoint.
  
  
• Arguing About the Atonement - Here I address the concerns some have about how the Trinity can reject itself.
  
  
• Mark Driscoll on the Atonement
  
  
• What Must I Believe to be Saved?
  
  
• Did God Kill Jesus?

Other Sites

• The Atonement Debate - Hosted by the UK's Evangelical Alliance.
  
  
• Steve Chalke Explains Himself
  
  
• Penal Substitutionary Atonement at Monergism.com
  
  
• The Nature Of The Atonement - By Phil Johnson
  
  
• No Punishment Required? - By Phil Johnson
  
  
• Spurgeon on the Atonement - The Prince of Preachers is at his best and most relevant to today here.
  
  
• Daniel Strange on the Atonement
  
  
• Martyn Lloyd-Jones on the Atonement
  

Continued in part seven . . .

This interview is being serialised over several days. So far I have published part one, which focused on personal issues, and part two, in which we discussed Systematic Theology. In part three, we explored Grudem's charge that feminism inevitably leads to a denial of Scripture's authority. Part four honed in on the "trajectory" arguments used on both sides of this debate. Today, we look at the issue of women addressing church congregations. The interview is summarised in my post Dr Wayne Grudem Interview - Highlights and Reflections.

Adrian

You seem to reserve some of your firmest comments for people who argue that it is all right for a woman to teach if she has the permission of her pastor. I guess it does seem a bit ironic that some pastors today want to permit the precise thing that Paul says he doesn’t.

What would you say, however, to those who claim that there is, if you like, two ways to address a congregation – authoritative teaching and non-authoritative instruction, or perhaps exhortation. Would you be happier with a church that had clear male leadership and reserved the regular preaching ministry for men, but, for example, from time to time had a woman share some thoughts that God had impressed upon her or perhaps a word of encouragement?

Wayne

The question to keep in mind whenever we are applying the Bible to life is, “What was the original setting which the biblical author had in mind?” In this case, a number of factors in the context of 1 Timothy 2 argue that Paul was talking about what should happen when the church comes together as a group. The “teaching” done in that context is the Bible teaching that is given to the assembled church. Paul says he does not permit a woman to do that.

But there were many other speech activities approved for women, such as giving prophecies aloud in the congregation (1 Corinthians 11:5), or praying aloud in the congregation (1 Corinthians 11:5), and this probably implies that many other speech activities were allowed as well. (I think 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 prohibits a woman from speaking up and passing judgments on prophecies that were given in the church, as I explained in my book.)

Therefore, I would be completely happy with women giving personal testimonies or sharing some things that God had brought to their minds (what I would call prophecy), or almost anything else that didn’t involve Bible teaching to the whole congregation.

But I want to be careful. I don’t think Paul says, “I don’t permit a woman to give authoritative teaching, but she can give non-authoritative Bible teaching to the church”! I don’t even know what non-authoritative Bible teaching would be! The point is we should just follow what Paul says, and in that context “teach” means to teach the Bible. That is what women should not do for Paul restricts it to men. But other speech activities are fine and should be encouraged.

And, no, I don’t think a pastor can give a woman “permission” to do Bible teaching before the church, because the Bible says not to do that. Would we say a pastor, or a board of elders, could give a woman “permission” to violate the command, “You should not steal”, or to violate any other command of Scripture? No pastor or elder board has authority to give permission to anyone to disobey the Bible. It’s God’s Word and we need to obey it.

Adrian

There is no doubt in my mind about the level of passion and conviction you feel about this whole issue. You are clearly very worried about the effects that compromise on this issue will have on the church. Would you go so far as to say that feminism is the biggest issue facing the church today? What, if any, other dangers of a similar nature do you feel we face?

Wayne

I’m reluctant to say what are the biggest issues facing the church today. Different churches may face different issues in different areas. I know that this is a very large issue, however.

Adrian

It seems, to me at least, that a lot of these issues hang together. People who are concerned about the direction of evangelical feminism also seem to be concerned about getting an essentially literal Bible translation that is as close to the meaning of each of the actual words of the original languages as possible. Conversely, those who are happier with more readable translations also seem to have a tendency to feel differently about the role of women, and for that matter many other issues that we see arising in the church today. Do you feel there is a definite connection there?

Wayne

Well, I happen to think that the ESV is both highly “readable” and “essentially literal” at the same time! (Just try reading it aloud.)

But, yes, I think there is a connection between evangelical feminism and the push for “gender-neutral” Bible translations. One early mark of a church moving to endorse evangelical feminism is to deny that there are any uniquely masculine characteristics (apart from obvious physical differences). Part of that trend has been seen in the strong push for “gender neutral language” in our culture. Bibles such as the TNIV, the New Living Translation, and the New Revised Standard Version remove thousands of examples of the male-oriented words “man,” “father,” “son,” “brother,” and “he/him/his,” and change them to the gender-neutral terms “person,” “parent,” “child,” “friend,” and “they,” in places where the original Hebrew or Greek referred to a specific male human being or used a masculine singular pronoun (equivalent to the English “he”) to state a general truth. These versions have “muted the masculinity” of many passages of Scripture, and in doing so have contributed to the feminist goal of denying anything uniquely masculine.

The TNIV in particular has changed the translation of many of the key passages regarding women in the church, and I would find it almost impossible to teach a Biblical “complementarian” view of the role of women in the church from the TNIV. It has gone further in supporting an evangelical feminist position than any other translation, as far as I know (see page 260 in Evangelical Feminism: A New Path to Liberalism? for more details). Of course, it is no surprise than that the TNIV has been very popular among egalitarian groups such as the Willow Creek Association.

To take one example: in 1 Timothy 2:12 the TNIV adopts a highly suspect and novel translation that gives the egalitarian side everything they have wanted for years in a Bible translation. It reads, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man” (italics added). If churches adopt this translation, the debate over women's roles in the church will be over, because women pastors and elders can just say, “I’m not assuming authority on my own initiative; it was given to me by the other pastors and elders.” Therefore any woman could be a pastor or elder so long as she does not take it upon herself to “assume authority.” Then in the footnotes to 1 Timothy 2:12 the TNIV also introduces so many alternative translations that the verse will just seem confusing and impossible to understand. So it is no surprise that egalitarian churches are eager to adopt the TNIV.

Continued in part six . . .

Well, Dr Grudem seems to have created quite a stir - most of it can be found in my comment section, but in appreciation for all those who have been linking, I figured I would rustle up a good old-fashioned blogspotting post. Just my way of saying "thank you," and giving a shout out to some of these poeple . . . The interview returns soon - just thought I would give a bit more of a pause for people to finish digesting last week's installments. (OK, truth be told, I want this to run most of the week as I don't have much more to say myself before the Christmas break!)

• If you haven't time to read all of Suzanne's prolific comments here (and I WELCOME long comments here, unlike some places), she has posted what seems to be her main objections - at least those that remain standing after Grudem's reply to her here on my blog - at her group blog. Those remaining objections will not be answered here by Grudem because they refer to original research carried out by Dan Wallace and Michael Burer, who I sadly suspect do not read this blog, so they perhaps can't jump in to defend themselves!


• Worthy of some note of celebration, the interview got me my first link for a very long time from Joe Carter of Evangelical Outpost in his CPR Report (v.10)


• Henry Neufeld in Textual Criticism on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 thinks the details of the Greek arguments will be of more interest to his readers than the theology and asks, Does Gordon Fee Discard Part of the Bible?


• Andrew Jackson posted a link to the interview.


• scooterpastor did the same.


• Bret Capranica likes Grudem's Systematic Theology and links to the interview.


• drew@jonah doesn't like the idea of so-called False Prophecies in the Bible.


• KP also links to the interview.


• Glenn in Dr. Grudem Attacked - Again deplores the fact that Grudem is getting attacked on my blog - I think he has defended himself admirably though!


• Not strictly a blogspotting for my blog, Husker links to the Wayne Grudem - Recommended Reading List.


• W. W. Duncan discusses the way his views changed over time about Women in Ministry and Evangelical Feminism.


• Rick links to the interview.


• Dave Warnock has two posts so far - Responding to Provocation, and Starting to Understand Connections.


• Travis linked to Tim Challies' previous interview with Wayne Grudem in a post entitled On Continuationism.

Meanwhile in other blogspotting news . . .

• Rick in more on spiritual gifts likes my choice of resources on the charismatic issue.


• Whilst Peter Smythe does not like The Seven-fold Test of Tichonius,


• Drew wishes himself a Happy 1st Birthday, and thanks those who have sent traffic his way,


• And Eddie recommends my blog, but says that I deal with more "traditional church settings" and oddly (to me at least) includes newfrontiers in that category!

UPDATE

Suzanne has expressed disappointment that Wayne doesn't intend to continue the debate here in the comments section of my blog. I thought that I would share a few reasons why I think it is a good idea for Dr. Grudem to move on to other matters.

1. He is a man who is incredibly busy, with lots of demands on his time.

2. Many people are interacting with the summary of his arguments, whereas, in fact, his entire 856-page book, Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth, is online at www.efbt100.com. There you can find, for example, much more detail about his view of Junia and 1 Corinthians 14 (the passage Gordon Fee claims should not be part of the Bible).

3. Even though these things are interesting, the doctrines of the role of women do not hinge around our view of Junia, nor our view of 1 Corinthians 14. Taking Junia, for example, even if we are not persuaded by Grudem (and I - at least at the moment - am persuaded) that Junia need not be male and that the construction should mean that he/she is well known to the Apostles, there are a number of explanations that would allow consistencey with the rest of Scripture:

(a) The word here simply means messenger, as it has sometimes elsewhere.

(b) The word was loosely used of them as a husband and wife team like Priscilla and Aquila, and that Andronicus was the actual apostle with authority - if apostle means someone sent out as a messenger, it might have been not unreasonable to describe the two of them as apostles fully knowing only one had the authority as they traveled together.

(c) That they were well known as false apostles, and that Paul was not approving of their status as apostles, but rather reporting something that is an embarrassment to him given their relationship to him and asking the Romans to be kind to them anyway.

(d) That whatever else the word apostle meant here, it did NOT mean teaching or having authority over men.

Thus, in some ways this is a ridiculous argument as nothing stands or falls by this one verse. It is the height of folly to use obscure verses to attempt to neutralise other clear ones.

As I am sure my readers can appreciate, Dr. Grudem is an incredibly busy man. He has given up significant amounts of his time to be interviewed on this blog. So far I have published parts one, two, three, and four.  The interview is summarised in my post Dr Wayne Grudem Interview - Highlights and Reflections.

Given Dr. Grudem's kindness in joining us, I must confess to being rather disappointed to see the tone of a few of the comments that have appeared here. It feels as if some people are trying to test the limits of my comment policy, which is basically this — critiques of people's character are off-limits, but not of their teaching. Some of these comments have certainly implied some not-very-nice things about Dr. Grudem.

One of the comments in particular accused Dr. Grudem of having made specific errors in Greek, which I am not qualified to address. As a result, I decided to let him know about that comment. He has graciously asked me if he could make use of my blog in order to reply in detail. He did want me to let you know, however, that sadly he does not anticipate being able to reply to any future comments, nor to engage Suzanne herself further following this post. He was glad of the opportunity to reply publicly on this occasion, however. Maybe I have misinterpreted the tone of Suzanne's comment, but it struck me as though its goal was to discredit Dr. Grudem's scholarship credentials.

It is ironic that some people who describe themselves as egalitarian appear — at least to me — to attempt to win arguments by making it sound as if they have superior knowledge to world-class experts, meanwhile simultaneously dismissing the rest of us as not being qualified to comment on theological matters, nor to discern the truth of the Scriptures.


Wayne Grudem's Reply

Adrian,

In Suzanne McCarthy's criticism of my book, Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth, which she posted on your blog, she is incorrect in the following points:

1. The text in question mentioned in the Burer and Wallace article is not Psalms of Solomon 6:2 (as she says) but 2:6. It says:

"the sons and the daughters in painful captivity, their neck in a seal, in (a place) visible among the Gentiles" (Brenton translation). "Visible" renders the Greek word episemos, which is the word at issue since in Romans 16:7 it is translated "notable" or "well-known."

(Psalms of Solomon is a Greek work from the 1st century B.C., included in the Apocrypha, but not in the Roman Catholic canon.)

2. Burer and Wallace do not misquote Psalms of Solomon 2:6 in their article which I cite (from New Testament Studies 47 (2001), pp. 86-87). Here is the evidence: interested readers can see the Greek text in Alfred Rahlfs, Septuaginta (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschart, 1979), vol. 2, p. 472. People who have Bible Works software, for example, can find it by first going to Romans 16:7, then clicking on episemoi, then "search lemma" and the examples from the Apocrypha will come up on the list.

3. It is not true that Burer and Wallace "mistook a noun for an adjective." What McCarthy should have said is that according to the spelling of the word in Psalms of Solomon 2:6, it could be either a dative noun (dative of episemon, "mark, seal") or a dative adjective (dative of episemos, "conspicuous, visible") and the translator has to make a judgment on which it is.

In cases like this, it seems to me decidedly unhelpful to a discussion for someone like McCarthy to make absolute pronouncements like, "It is now well-known that Wallace and Burer misquoted Psalm of Solomon in their article. They actually mistook a noun for an adjective. In fact, Dr. Grudem's entire section on Junia is riddled with factual errors."

That sounds so confident and assured, but 99 per cent of readers of your blog (I would guess) have no ability to check out the facts in question in this Greek text from literature outside the Bible in order to know that McCarthy's claim is incorrect.

Burer and Wallace did not misquote, for their quote is exactly what the Greek says. I think McCarthy is implying that they should have included a longer quote, including the preposition en before episemos, but that is a judgment call on how much to include in a quote and not a "misquote." (The construction is somewhat strange, but en does not decide the question of whether it should be taken as a noun or adjective in any case. For example, Psalms of Solomon 17:30 provides a close parallel where en episemo means "in (a place) visible ...")

Nor does my section on Junia in Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth have any "factual errors" known to me (it has been out now for two years). I try to be extremely careful in all my citations of fact in what I publish and it seems to me inappropriate for McCarthy to make an unsupported blanket accusation that my work is "riddled with factual errors." This is intemperate, polemical language rather than argument, and I consider it a false accusation.

4. Bible Works parses episemos in Psalms of Solomon 2:6 as an adjective, which makes most sense in the context. This gives Burer and Wallace's meaning, that the Jewish captives were "a spectacle visible among the gentiles." This argues that McCarthy is wrong to say "they mistook a noun for an adjective." Did Bible Works also mistake a noun for an adjective?

5. The Brenton English translation of the Septuagint from 1844/1851 (which comes up in Bible Works as LXE) translates as an adjective, saying the Jewish sons and daughters among the captives were "in (a place) visible among the gentiles." This supports Burer and Wallace's claim because the place was not a gentile, but it was "visible" or "well-known" to the gentiles. This is very similar to Romans 16:7, where Junia was "well known to the apostles" but was not herself an apostle. This again argues that McCarthy is wrong to say "they mistook a noun for an adjective." Did Lancelot Brenton also mistake a noun for an adjective? One begins to wonder who has made the mistake.

6. The more recent translation of Psalms of Solomon by R. B. Wright in J. H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (London: Darton, Longman, and Todd: 1985), vol. 2, p. 652, translates the passage more freely, but in a way clearly supportive of Burer and Wallace's view: "The sons and daughters (were) in harsh captivity, their neck in a seal, a spectacle among the gentiles." Again, the sons and daughters were not gentiles, but were well-known to the gentiles. This also lends support to rendering Romans 16:7 in a similar way, saying that Junia was "well-known to the apostles" (but was not herself an apostle). [He doesn't translate it as episemon, a noun, "mark, seal," which would give the sense, "a branding-mark among the gentiles."]

One translation does take it as a noun — R. H. Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913), vol. 2, p. 632: “Sealed (?) (was) their neck, branded (?) (was it) among the nations.” But Charles embeds two question marks and two parenthetical explanatory expressions in this line, indicating he is unsure of the translation, and in the footnote he says, “But another meaning is possible” and gives “in the sight of” as an alternative translation. Thus he also shows that taking the word as the adjective episemos is a legitimate translation, not a “simple grammar mistake” as McCarthy claims.

7. In light of this, it seems to me that the following statement by McCarthy is also ill-considered and incorrect: "It is very painful for me to constantly have to watch people make simple grammar mistakes, as well as not look in the lexicons, as Dr. Grudem admits."

When she says, "It is painful for me" to "have to watch people make simple grammar mistakes" she implies that she has superior knowledge of Greek, apparently superior to Dallas Seminary professor Dan Wallace, one of the world's leading Greek grammarians and author of the most widely-used second-year Greek grammar in the world; and superior to the editors of New Testament Studies, the most prestigious scholarly New Testament journal in the world (who accepted Wallace's article for publication); and superior to Professor C. F. D. Moule of Cambridge (my own Ph.D. supervisor), who is the world-renowned author of An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek (Cambridge Univiversity Press), whose correspondence and agreement Wallace quotes on page 90 of his article; and superior to Septuagint translator, Lancelot Brenton, whose translation of the entire Septuagint has now stayed in print for over 150 years; and superior to the expertise of the Greek parsing team that programmed and corrected Bible Works; and superior to the expertise of R. B. Wright, who was chosen to translate Psalms of Solomon for the now-standard Charlesworth edition of the Greek pseudepigrapha.

Is her knowledge of Greek so great that she can confidently pronounce that all these experts who took episemos as an adjective are making "simple grammar mistakes" in translating Psalms of Solomon 2:6? I don't think so. There is no grammar mistake here.

8. When she says, "as well as not look in the lexicons, as Dr. Grudem admits," this seems to me to be another false accusation. I don't think I have ever admitted to "not looking in the lexicons"! I have no idea what she means here, but it seems designed simply to denigrate my scholarly reputation. My articles are full of citations from relevant lexicons, and, yes, I actually do look at them! (Lexicons are dictionaries of Greek words.)

9. She has misrepresented, by taking out of context, my use of the term "wimps" on page 43 and my statement about men and women becoming unattractive to one another on page 56 of Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth. I stand by what I said there, and if any readers look at those statements in context, I think they will find that they are not offensive or inappropriate to what I am saying.

10. From what she has written here, I would not be able to say that Suzanne McCarthy should be considered a reliable source of information for understanding Greek or for quoting other authors (like myself) fairly and with attention to context.

This interview is being serialised over several days. So far I have published part one, which focused on personal issues, and part two, in which we discussed Systematic Theology. In part three, we explored Grudem's charge that feminism inevitably leads to a denial of Scripture's authority. Today we hone in on the "trajectory" arguments used on both sides of this debate. The interview is summarised in my post Dr Wayne Grudem Interview - Highlights and Reflections.

Adrian

One of the other egalitarian arguments that you address in your book is the claim that the Bible aims to set us on an ethical trajectory that takes us from where the culture of Bible times was to where God wants us to be ultimately. I have heard very similar arguments made about why the Church was right to reject slavery even though the Bible doesn’t at first glance seem to. How do you respond to the way some people connect the slavery issue and feminism?

Wayne

As I explain in my book (and at www.efbt100.com) the question of slavery is much different from the question of men’s and women’s roles in the home and in the church. God created marriage and God created the church, but slavery was a human institution not created by God. I know that there were some Christians who tried to use the Bible to support slavery in the 18th and 19th centuries in England and the United States. But they were wrong in their arguments, and other Christians looked at the Bible and disagreed with them and argued back. The people who tried to support slavery from the Bible eventually lost those debates, and the proof is that if you look around churches today, there is no denomination that supports slavery! The people who use the Bible to argue against slavery won the argument, and I think they had the best interpretation of Scripture.

One prominent American opponent of slavery was named Theodore Weld. He argued against American slavery from the Ten Commandments. He said, essentially, that when the Bible says, “Thou shalt not steal,” it prohibits taking even one penny from another human being against his will. But slavery robs another man of his entire life! He used other arguments like this to find his opposition to slavery from the Bible itself.

I think the ESV rightly translates 1 Timothy 1:10, which lists “enslavers” among evildoers, because the word there (Greek andrapodistes) means people who capture people or sell them into slavery.

Another point to remember is that the word “slave” is probably not the best translation of the Greek word doulos. The ESV has a footnote at this verse when it occurs in the New Testament, and the footnote says, “Greek bondservant.” That shows that it was an institution far different from the horrible abuses of slavery in the 18th and 19th century in North America, in the Caribbean, and in Latin America. A “bondservant” in the first century could normally earn his freedom by age 30, was protected by an extensive set of Roman laws, and owned private property. These “bondservants” often had significant responsibility as teachers, lawyers, physicians, managers, shopkeepers, and so forth. In the parable of the talents that Jesus tells, the master entrusts one “bondservant” with one talent, another with two, and another with five, which in modern equivalent terms would be equal to $400,000, $800,000, and $2,000,000 in U.S. currency today (or £210,000, £420,000, and £1,050,000). Then the master went away for a long time and these “bondservants” were left with the responsibility to manage the resources well. Such “bondservants” were in a much better situation than the day laborers who had to go into the market square and look for work each day (see Matthew 20:1-7).

However, bondservants could not quit their jobs and go to work for someone else until the period of the bondservice was up, or until they bought their freedom. I think the closest modern parallel (at least in the United States) would be military service, in which, once you get in, you can’t get out for a certain number of years, and there is a separate set of laws to which you are subject.

Now today, what worries me about these “trajectory hermeneutic” advocates is that they seem unaware of this entire history of biblical arguments against slavery, and they wrongly assume that the Bible actually supports slavery of the kind seen in the horrible abuses in America in the 18th and 19th centuries. This is preposterous. To say that the Bible supports such evils would be to say that the Bible, at the time of the New Testament, supported things that were morally evil, and I am simply not willing to do that.

Then these “trajectory hermeneutic” advocates say that we have to go beyond the moral teachings of the New Testament to find an “ultimate ethic” that is superior to that found in the words of New Testament. This is the position of William Webb, for example, at Heritage Theological Seminary, and it is also the position of R. T. France in the United Kingdom. These scholars look for our ethical standards at some point of development after the New Testament was written. And, of course, that is so highly subjective. People can imagine all sorts of developments that might have come “after” the New Testament, and it means that our authority is no longer the words of Scripture but some scholar’s imagination about where Scripture might have lead if the authors had been allowed to ponder a bit longer. This is directly undermining the authority of Scripture and it leads directly to liberalism.

Adrian
You also take up this idea of a trajectory further and claim that evangelical liberalism sets us on a journey that will end in three more consecutive steps:

The denial of anything uniquely masculine.

The acceptance of God as our Mother.

The gradual approval of homosexuality.

How do moderate evangelical feminists who claim to believe in the inerrancy of the Bible respond when you describe that evolution to them?

Wayne
Well, many of them are already advocating the first of those two points! I document this extensively in my book. The website of Christians for Biblical Equality, and their current executive director, Mimi Hadad, are already advocating the view that we should call God our Mother in heaven. And I show in my book how a number of evangelical authors or groups are now edging toward a gradual approval of homosexuality. This includes Jack and Judith Balswick at Fuller Seminary in their book, Authentic Human Sexuality, and it also includes some of the developments at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan, the college of the Christian Reformed Church. I believe we will see other examples of this trend as well.

One recent tragic example that I mention in the book is that of Roy Clements, who was pastor of Eden Baptist Church in Cambridge when we were there on sabbatical for one year. A few years ago Roy tragically left his wife for a homosexual relationship with another man. He now has a website in which he defends his actions using arguments from the Bible. I think it’s significant that he says that the very same arguments that are used to support evangelical feminism work just as well to support his view that committed homosexual relationships are acceptable for Christians. I document extensively in my book that this is not a danger which “might” happen sometime in the future. It is something that is happening right now, before our very eyes. The arguments of evangelical feminism are leading people to deny the authority of Scripture and to move to theological liberalism, including the approval of homosexuality.

Continued in Wayne Grudem Replies to a Critic, and in part five . . .

This interview is being serialised over several days. So far I have published part one, which focused on personal issues, and part two, in which we discussed Systematic Theology. At the end of yesterday's post we began to talk about his new book, Evangelical Feminism: A New Path to Liberalism. Today we explore Grudem's charge that feminism inevitably leads to a denial of Scripture's authority. The interview is summarised in my post Dr Wayne Grudem Interview - Highlights and Reflections.

Adrian
I was impressed by your compassion and fairness in the introduction of your new book expressed towards your egalitarian colleagues who you mention by name. Have any of them responded to you yet - in particular concerning your challenge to publically object to feminist arguments that undermine the truthfulness of the Bible and lead towards liberalism?

Wayne
I have received a very kind and thoughtful letter from one of the men I name, but I have not seen any public response yet.

Adrian
The bulk of your book is to catalogue and explain fifteen claims that directly deny the authority of Scripture and ten claims that indirectly deny or undercut the authority of Scripture.

You say in your book that people should beware that "if you give way at one point you may provide a huge opening for the enemy to flood in." When it comes to evangelical feminists, is it true that many of them are just ceding one point to a more liberal approach – perhaps a very different point to another egalitarian in the next town – or do most of them hold to all of the points you mention in your book? Is it only when you put a patchwork quilt together of a number of people's "one points" that you end up with the rather depressing picture of general compromise with the truth of the Bible that emerges in your book?

Wayne
I think that any one of these mistakes that I name can start a church or denomination down the road toward liberalism. And what troubles me is that influential egalitarian groups such as Christians for Biblical Equality promote a large number of these mistakes.

Of course, nobody holds all of these erroneous views because some of them are mutually exclusive. For example, some people say that Paul did not prohibit women from being pastors or elders even in his day, and they try to argue that from the text. Others say he did prohibit women from being pastors or elders in his day, but those commands are no longer for our modern age. These viewpoints are mutually exclusive because they have different positions on what Paul meant for the age in which he wrote.

What troubles me is the willingness on the part of a number of groups to use very little discernment and just to adopt what seems to me like any argument they can find as long as it supports their evangelical feminist views.

Adrian
It seems to me that the core of your argument is that it simply isn't possible to hold to the accuracy and clarity of the Bible whilst believing in evangelical feminism.

Wayne
Well, some people do hold to both evangelical feminism and the inerrancy of the Bible, but my point is that they are inconsistent and that those who come after them will be more consistent with the logic that undermines the authority of the Bible, and we see that already in many denominations. So, yes, those who adopt these principles can use them to prove most anything else from the Scripture as well, at least in a number of cases.

Adrian
One of the most shocking, but perhaps also most enticing, errors you mention is to remove parts of the Bible from consideration, either by saying they are clearly not in the original text (with no textual justification) or by saying that the verses are too "difficult" for us to benefit from considering. Do you think that the influential and well-known people you mention who hold to these positions really understand the significance of us putting ourselves in the position of judging the validity of biblical verses for us today?

Wayne
I doubt that people understand the full implications of a move like Gordon Fee’s in his commentary on 1 Corinthians when he basically says that 1 Corinthians 14:33–35 is too hard to reconcile with 1 Corinthians 11, and that is his main reason for saying those verses are not part of the Bible. (Ed. See footnote 15 on the NET translation of 1 Corinthians 14.) But we can’t just erase passages that are hard to reconcile with other passages! Just imagine what will happen if we start to take that approach with the Gospels or other passages that are hard to understand!

When the psalmist says, “The sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures forever,” I think he means that it is all consistent, not contradictory. So if we think there is a contradiction we should keep studying the passage, and praying for God’s wisdom, until we do understand it.

As far as the other evangelical feminist approach you mentioned, namely, refusing to deal with the “difficult” or “disputed” passages - that has the same effect in an argument as taking those passages out of the Bible because no one can appeal to them any more. If I come to a pastor who is wanting to put women on the elder board, or to ordain women as pastors, and I say, “1 Timothy 2:11–14 prohibits that,” and he just says, “I don’t want to hear about that verse because it’s disputed,” then he has really decided that he won’t let that verse speak to the controversy. But that is the most central passage in the whole dispute, the one that speaks most directly to the issue! If we refuse to be subject to passages that speak most directly to an issue, then we are almost guaranteed to come to the wrong decision. I’m not sure if I can think of a better way to come to a wrong decision than excluding from the discussion the verses that speak most directly to an issue.

Yet this is essentially the approach taken by the position paper of the Assemblies of God on women in ministry, for example, or by the paper written by Rich Nathan, pastor of the Columbus, Ohio Vineyard, which the Association of Vineyard Churches now distributes to explain why they are allowing all their churches to ordain women as elders and pastors if they wish. Rich Nathan (who is my friend) sadly writes that there are so many positions on these verses that no one can really reach a decision.

Do we really think God gave us a Bible in which we would be unable to understand what He wants us to know about leadership in marriage and in the church? Didn’t He intend it, in the midst of an unbelieving culture, to be “a lamp shining in a dark place” (2 Peter 1:19)?

When people just decide to dismiss the “disputed passages” on men and women, I don’t think they fully realize the fact that in every major doctrine of the faith, those who disagree with the doctrine actually turn the key passages into “disputed” passages. Try arguing about justification by faith alone with an educated Roman Catholic person, for example, and you’ll find that every passage is “disputed.” Or try arguing about the deity of Christ with a Jehovah’s Witness, and you’ll see how every passage is “disputed.” The same goes for the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture – people who deny it will dispute and argue and bring scholarly reasons to bear showing why they don’t have to believe in inerrancy.

It was the same in Jesus’ day where the religious leaders that opposed Jesus tried arguing with him at many points. I am thankful that the people who follow Jesus didn’t say, “Jesus and the religious leaders have disagreements about many passages in the Bible, and who are we to decide? I guess both positions must be right.” No, Jesus expected even ordinary people to be able to listen to him, and then to listen to the Pharisees, and then to decide who was faithfully teaching the Word of God. So I hope it will be that way today on this issue as well.

Continued in part four . . .

This interview is being serialized over several days. So far I have published part one. Today we continue with a discussion about the role of a theologian, his book Systematic Theology, and begin to move on to his most recent book. Towards the end of today's portion of the interview, Grudem introduces us to his charge that feminism inevitably leads to liberalism. The interview is summarized in my post Dr Wayne Grudem Interview - Highlights and Reflections.

Adrian

Perhaps I should let my readers know how I first heard of you. It was a number of years ago at a charismatic Bible week in the UK. I am not at all sure that you knew it would happen, but at that event Terry Virgo strongly en-dorsed and recommended your then brand-new Systematic Theology (which I have pre-viously reviewed). I was one of hundreds of UK charismatics who bought the book that week, and I read it avidly from cover-to-cover. I believe that the publisher sent someone down that week to the newfrontiers Stoneleigh Bible Week to figure out why so many of us wacky charismatics were buying your book! How soon did you get to hear of newfrontiers and how keen we all were on your Systematic Theology, and did it surprise you?

Wayne
I can't honestly remember how I heard of newfrontiers, but I did eventually hear about this mass purchase of books, and I was thankful to God. As you probably know, on two occasions now, Terry Virgo has invited me to address his leaders’ conferences in Brighton (including July of 2006), and Margaret and I have loved the fellowship and worship times during those weeks. We are so thankful to God for the ministry of newfrontiers, and particularly of Terry Virgo, whom I think of as a godly, wise man who faithfully teaches and follows God’s Word. This year we also got to meet Stuart Townend, whose music I have appreciated so much.

Adrian
Were you surprised at just how successful that book was generally? For some reason I got the impression that early-on most people thought it would just sell to theological students.

Wayne
I am surprised, and thankful to God for the way the book seems to continue to be a blessing to people – and not just to pastors and seminary students, but lots of other Christians from all walks of life. As you know, I believe that God intended His Word to be understood, not just by specialists, but also by ordinary Christians. The “blessed man” in Psalm 1 is held up as an example for all of us: “His delight is in the law of the LORD, and on his law he meditates day and night.” (Psalm 1:2)

Adrian

Well, I want to thank you for saving me from having to read some of the other more turgid volumes of systematic theology my older Christian friends tell me about. Should I feel guilty for not having wrestled with one of them? Is there a single Systematic Theology, old or new, other than yours, that you would most recommend us to read?

Wayne

There are several excellent ones. I think first on my list would be John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion (the two-volume Battles translation is best, and I strongly recommend that people read it in the unabridged form, not a condensation, which seems to me to rob the “life” from Calvin). The volumes by Louis Berkhof and by Charles Hodge (three volumes) are also outstanding Reformed treatments of systematic theology, and there are many others as well. (I list and cross-reference many of them in the back of each chapter of Systematic Theology).

Adrian

One of the things I most liked about your Systematic Theology was the way it brought together two strands – the Reformed and the Charismatic. I get the feeling that this combination is rare in the USA. It seems, though, that biblically humble people from both reformed and charismatic camps find your Systematic Theology attractive – was that part of your purpose in writing the book - to bring the church together?

Wayne

I honestly can’t remember if that had any part in my decision to write the book. My primary purpose was just to teach what the Bible teaches about many theological topics, and to do it clearly and faithfully, as best I could understand the teaching of the whole Bible about these different topics. I’m thankful, of course, that people from several different kinds of backgrounds have found the book helpful.

Adrian

Although your Systematic Theology was seen as a great unifying force, your recent works on complement-arianism have created quite a stir! I am sure that this new book - Evangelical Feminism: A New Path to Liberal-ism? - will add even more fuel to this fire. Do you think this twin task of being a unifying figure and at times being one who brings a clarity that actually leads to a division on certain issues is part and parcel of being a good systematic theologian?

Wayne

I suppose it is. Again, I just want to teach faithfully what the Bible teaches about men and women, and that includes both that we are equal in the image of God (Genesis 1:27) and that God has given us different roles in marriage (Ephesians 5:22-33) and in the church (1 Timothy 2:11-15).

Adrian

That being so, how do you decide which issues you are going to be more strident about and which you are going to build consensus around?

Wayne

Well, I don’t think of myself as being “strident” about anything. I hold some convictions firmly and I write to persuade others about them, giving evidence and reasons to explain why I hold a certain viewpoint, and attempting to give evidence and reasons showing why I disagree with others. In all this, I’m actually trying to build consensus in the church on these matters, rather than the confusion and misunderstanding that is found many places.

Adrian

What has led you to the conclusion that evangelical feminism is so dangerous to biblical Christianity? What precisely is it about the whole issue that is so important to the church today? I suppose that your latest book is all about answering that question – how would you summarise the message of that book for my readers?

Wayne

This new book, Evangelical Feminism: A New Path to Liberalism? (Crossway, 2006) documents at least 25 different arguments that are widely used by evangelical feminists today, and that deny or undermine the authority of Scripture. My point is not that every evangelical feminist follows the underlying logic of these arguments today (some don’t), but rather that the younger generation of leaders takes the logic of those arguments further and it leads directly to undermining the authority of the Word of God, and therefore to liberalism.

Continued in part three . . .

It is a great pleasure to welcome to my site one of my living heroes, Dr. Wayne Grudem. Dr. Grudem is well known as the author of Systematic Theology and The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today. He has also published several books on the issue of complementarianism. The latest of these is Evangelical Feminism: A New Path to Liberalism? A number of Wayne Grudem's articles are also available online.