The Problem of Unbelief - No Basis for Knowledge at All.

The greatest proof of Christianity is that without it, one can prove nothing at all.  Statements like this have lead me to love and embrace the presuppositional apologetic of Cornelius Van Til.  Though others have communicated the method more clearly (i.e. Bahnsen, Frame and others), I have found reading Van Til himself very beneficial.

I just finished his Christian Theory of Knowledge.  I must say that while I learned a ton, there were parts that left me scratching my head.  Allow me to share with you a comment that he made concerning the unbeliever's epistemology - that is, the theory of knowledge that answers questions like, "What is knowledge?",  "How is knowledge acquired?" and "How do we know what we know?"  Van Til writes:

If one does not make human knowledge wholly dependent upon the original self-knowledge and consequent revelation of God to man, then man will have to seek knowledge within himself as the final reference point.  Then he will have to seek an exhaustive understanding of reality.  Then he will have to hold that if he cannot attain to such an exhaustive understanding of reality, he has no true knowledge of anything at all.  Either man must then know everything or he knows nothing.  This is the dilemma that confronts every form of non-Christian epistemology...The only way by which this dilemma can be indicated clearly is by making plain that the final reference point in predication is God as the self-sufficient One.


This quote deserves much reflection both in its meaning, consequences, and outworking.  It simply states that in order for an unbeliever to know anything, he/she must know everything.  Everything is impossible to know, therefore they have no basis for knowing anything at all.  Another Van Til statement that I come back to often goes something like this, "without God there is no basis for predication whatsoever."

These things may sound a bit academic.  I would propose otherwise.  Embracing and understanding the presuppositional apologetic has given so much to my faith as well as fueling the evangelical flame in my heart.  While commonly accused of being unbelievingly narrow; it has only served to broaden my love for God and others.

Free Kindle Book - Our God by Octavius Winslow

Here is a free book offered by Monergism.com.  The book title is "Our God" by Octavius Winslow.  I have not read this book but have put it on my reading list due to Beeke's endorsement:

"Do you yearn to know God better?  Read this book thoughtfully and prayerfully.  "Out God" may well be Octavius Winslow's very best book, for what better subject can a believer desire to meditate on than the character of the triune God whom he loves, worships and fears?  And who is better suited to expound the grandeur and to stammer about the infinity of such a subject than this author who always seems to write profoundly and winsomely about the most sacred themes with remarkable reverence and a commanding flow of language?  This warmly experimental treatment of the attributes of God engages the mind and heart as no other that I have read on this glorious subject.  Here is angel's food."  - Joel R. Beeke


Enjoy the free book.  Here is another link for other ebook formats.

Getting the Reformation Wrong (A Review)

I just finished James R Payton's book, Getting the Reformation Wrong.  Being an historian, Payton offers a condensed, but thorough summary of Medieval, Reformation, and post-Reformation history.  Some of the writing is a bit difficult to follow and must be approached in an "Inception-like" way - that is, there are a lot of facts given that provide a necessary basis for understanding the facts that follow.

In the first chapter, "The Medieval Call for Reform," Payton shows how this period set the stage for Reformation.  In short, these were grim times that stripped everything from the people.  Instead of getting answers and aid from the Church, they stood waiting, receiving little to no help at all.  

Payton comments, "The devastating problems...regarding weather, agricultural productivity and disease - all compounded by wars, peasant rebellions and the uncertainties involved in the emergence of national states in Western Europe - were not "secular" concerns, unrelated to the church...people expected that the teaching and practice of Christianity should provide solutions...[but] The Church's inability or failure to do this only exacerbated the frustration people felt toward the church and its leaders and prepared the way for other Christian leaders, in the sixteenth century, to receive a welcome hearing."

While the government of the church was marked by schism, corruption, and immorality (during the Avignon Papacy), the teaching of the church, following Aristotelian methodology, entered the age of scholasticism.  This section is for those who love both history and philosophy.  We learn here about Aquinas, who was a Dominican scholastic, and those who apposed his believe in the primacy of reason - namely, the Franciscans (primacy of will) and followers of Occham (primacy of [blind] faith).

Because of this rise of scholasticism, writings tended to focus on answering theological questions like, religious authority, justification, sacraments, divine predestination, and so on.  This, you see, was quite frustrating to the people.  The lay person was unable to follow the complex arguments of most of the scholastic writing.  Payton adds, "And the common people wanted and needed an approach to Christian truth that would make clear what the Christian faith taught and bring it to bear on the lives they lived."

Another chapter I really enjoyed was "Renaissance: Friend or Foe?"  In summary, Payton attempts to show that the history of history is fairly young.  Before the Renaissance history was recorded rather achronistically, as it focused less on the horizontal movements and more on the vertical.  History up to this point was recorded and assessed on a scale of moral rectitude - an unchanging standard applicable in all times and places.  History, in other words, was more concerned with moral teaching than recording chronological events from an unbiased perspective.

This lead to the rise of humanism (which is not the same as modern humanism as we understand it).  The humanists were not concerned with promoting a philosophical agenda; but more on grammar, poetry, rhetoric and history.  Because of the corruption of the medieval period, the Renaissance looked back to the ancients of Greece and Rome for guidance.  They studied the Scriptures and early church fathers with diligence and with the intent on preparing students for full lives spent in service of their communities.

An understanding of humanists and their agenda is critical for not getting the Reformation wrong.  Luther was a scholastic; but by the Diet of Augsburg in 1530, all but one of the more than thirty Protestant religious leaders in the Lutheran camp had been trained in northern Christian humanism.

This goal of this review is simply to give you a taste of the chapters that follow.  Chapters like, "What the Reformers Meant by Sola Fide" and "What the Reformers Meant by Sola Scriptura."  These chapters  serve to disarm many misunderstandings.

Sola Scriptura, according to Payton, did not mean that Scripture was the only authority, but that it was the only unquestionable authority.  The Reformers were well learned in patristics, treated them in high regard, and were hesitant to stray from their teachings.  The key point to understand, however, is that they were fallible and thus questionable, whereas the Scriptures were not.

Sola Fide, according to Payon and as understood/taught by the Reformers, is well represented in the following "creedal" statement: Faith alone saves, but faith that saves is never alone.

I would suggest this book to anyone looking to gain a deeper understanding of the history, teaching, teachers, opposition and aftermath of the Protestant Reformation.  It was a good read.

The Deep Breath We Don't Take When Hearing, "God So Loved..."

John 3:16 has become the verse everyone knows.  For most, it is probably the first verse they memorized as a child, or new believer.  While this is a great thing, it can also be a not so good thing.  Common things in life often become invisible things.  We have built into our human anatomy an "inhibitory response" that makes us forget common things.  Take the shirt you have on right now for example.  You forgot about it didn't you.  Give thanks to the inhibitory response for that.  Otherwise, the cloth hitting your skin every second would drive you crazy.

This is what has happened with John 3:16.  A statement that should cause us all to take the deep breath of astonishment, does little more than remind us of a WWF wrestler, or something that Tim Tebow advertised on the little black strip under his eye.

The reality is, however, this verse is scandalous.   It is exactly what we need to hear in our day.  The "inhibitory response" that has dragged this verse into our mental cobwebs, has also dragged us into a lifestyle of moralistic selfishness.  Because this verse doesn't carry a punch anymore, neither do we.

I now have a mental picture in my head of a medic trying to revive a person who is in cardiac arrest.  Conventional CPR just isn't working.  The medic has now resorted to violently pounding the person's chest to get their heart beating again.  This is what we need.  And this is also what we need to be doing for others.

This is what Jesus did as he was speaking to Nicodemus in John chapter 3.  Nicodemus was a Pharisee and a ruler of the Jews.  He was a religious guy who had it all together.  He came to Jesus one night and spoke with him.  In short, the conversation goes back and forth about the nature of salvation.  Nicodemus is convinced that his own reasoning abilities have shown him and his buddies that Jesus is a teacher from God.  Jesus responds by saying, "Your reasoning abilities are squat.  You need more than a sign.  You need to be born again or else you cannot even see the Kingdom of God."

Nicodemus thought his religious knowledge would provide him acceptance before the Almighty.  After all, he was very different from sinful Gentiles.  He followed the rules.  He did everything right.  Jesus showed him otherwise.

Jesus takes the next few moments to lump Nicodemus into a category he would have never lumped himself into.  It is a category called the "world."  This word in this context does not mean "every single human being on the planet."  It carries with it the categorical connotation of "the world" - both Jews and Gentiles.  But I would take it even further to mean "the world" - the sinful, jacked up, rebellious, dark "world" (cf. 1:5, 9-11; 3:19).  While Nicodemus thought the problem with the "world" was Gentile sinners; Jesus told him the problem with the world was Nicodemus himself!

If we are not careful, we too, will exclude ourselves from the "world." To guard ourselves from this we must define the word properly.  Allow me to give a 21st century definition:

World [wurld] -noun
1.  the guy you look up on the sex offender website to make sure he does not live in your neighborhood
2.  the kid who punches your kid in the mouth, that you now detest to the point you want him expelled
3.  the lady who killed her children by drowning each of them in the bathtub
4.  the guys wearing hoods, standing behind an innocent missionary, who then proceed to decapitate the missionary, along with his family, with a steak knife
5.  the lazy guy, who has no job, lives off of the government, and rides around town in a $40,000 car
6.  the girl at school who is known for her "history" with just about every guy in town
7.  the people who own the porn shops next to my church
8.  the 70-year-old guy who was trying to get into one of the porn shops one Sunday morning at 9am
9.  the doctor that considers it his life's mission to abort little babies
10.  the person who's picture is on your license
11.  the guy who posted this blog

That's the world God loved so much that Jesus, the Son of God bled.  When we look down upon people because they are so "lost", we must understand that those are the ones He came to save. If we do not consider ourselves as part of the categorical "world" in the Jn 3:16 sense of the term; if we do not consider ourselves "lost", then we must conclude that Jesus didn't come for us (Luke 19:10).

Why are We Burning Babies?

I will never forget the first time I read about the horrible things that happened during the reign of Manasseh.  The text hit me as disturbingly descriptive, "And he burned his sons as an offering in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom..." (2 Chronicles 33:6).  This man killed his children.  But all the while, he was conducting all of his practices as a worshiper of God.

In our nation today, the reality of abortion - the killing of babies - is unmistakable and, without argument, one of the most wicked practices our world has ever seen.  The practice is wrong.  It is irrational.  It is also an occasion for us, as Christians, to pray for the justice of God to prevail in our day.

While our efforts to have the practice abolished are both necessary and justified, if they remain targeted simply at the practice, they are doomed to fail.  We may succeed in stopping abortion, but I fear that we will fail at killing its cause.  There is a root to the wickedness.  If we merely prune the shoot, it may grow back as a tree.  Pruning abortion will only result in strengthening what succeeds it.

As Christians, the best way to get to the root is to ask the question, "Why?"  This is the question that distinguishes us from all other moral societies.  By merely addressing the "what" (namely, abortion), we are one with the Muslim and other religious cultures.  However, by addressing the "why," we are one with Christ alone.

As we read the text of 2 Chronicles 33, the answer to the "Why?" is clear.  Manasseh burned his sons "as an offering" (v.6).  He erected altars to the Baals, and made Asherahs, and worshiped all the host of heaven and served them (v.4).  Manasseh was an idolator (v.7).  He was following the commandments of another.

We must understand that when we see sinful behavior, it is not enough to say, "I can't believe he/she is doing that!" Or, "You better stop doing that!"  Rather, we have to stop and ask why they are doing it.  I have written about this before, but I feel that I must say it again.

When you see the commandments of God being broken, what you are really seeing is the commandments of another (namely, an idol) being followed.  (For example: when your child snatches a toy away from another child, he/she is loving the toy more than the child).

As Christians, who bear the Sword of the Spirit, we trace the "Why?" back to the idol, and we apply the death blow there.  With our Sword, we cut its throat.  If we simply say, "Stop snatching that toy!" we may succeed at stoping the behavior; but we fail at stopping the idolatry.

Killing idols is a bloody practice.  This is also dangerous territory where we might get cut ourselves.  Thats why our tendency is to sit back and avoid asking "Why?".  We like to make judgments about what is right and wrong.  We even like to preach, teach, and write about it in our blogs.  But answering the question "Why?" demands that we enter into the "octagon", as it were, to fight.  Idols don't play nice.  And they often won't go down until the last round.

We'd rather not see the idol - for, in seeing, we know our duty is to have it out.  The only way is redemption - deliverance at a price.  We don't want know why b/c our conscience will drive us crazy.  So, in our moralistic activity, we walk by rather ugly homes saying, "Man! I wish they would clean the outside of their house!  It's making our neighborhood look bad!"

So, we walk by (quickly) and retreat back to our tidy homes.  All the while, the people inside remain dead.  Our Lord, however, demands that we knock, or perhaps even break the door down.  He demands that we bring the light of the Gospel in to confront the darkness.  This might require spending the night there.  We might even need to bring the inhabitants home with us.

Why did the girl on MTV decide to have an abortion?  Why did she change her mind about the nature of her baby - finally calling her aborted child "nothing but a little ball of cells"?  And how could she justify this by saying it was ultimately for the benefit of the child?  The answer is certain. Idolatry.

This young lady is forsaking the Sovereign Lord and following the commandment of another.  What was that commandment?  Thou shalt be comfortable at all costs.  Her actual statement was, "I chose this path and I think about how stressing things would have been if I haven't made the one I made."  She murdered a child so that she wouldn't have to stress.

This girl needs the gospel.  She needs to know that God is the giver and sustainer of all of life.  She needs to know that, by placing her faith in Christ, she would lack no essential thing.  He alone is faithful to provide.  He never lies like idols do!

She needs to understand that the idol that promised to give her a life without stress, has given her a life without her baby.  In promising her comfort, it gave her distress - and unless repentance comes quickly, she will be forced to embrace the wrath of the Lamb, who will vindicate the life she took.

We must bring the gospel to the world.  We must share the news of forgiveness - the penalty deserved is paid by Another.  This is the gospel of Christ Jesus the Lord.

Let us join in our efforts to have abortion abolished.  But let us also join in a deeper, more significant task; namely, taking the gospel (that is, your life and message in Christ) to the millions of girls (and women), who watched that episode of 16 and Pregnant, and, who are now seriously considering whether or not it is right to view an unborn child as merely "a little ball of cells."

Question 6: Who Determined What Books Would Be Included in the Bible?

We are continuing our overview of Plummer's 40 Questions About Interpreting the Bible.  It is my intention to get through this book in 2011, with hopes of writing, at least, every week.  One of my resolutions is to finish what I begin - so here goes.

This week's question is "Who Determined What Books Would Be Included in the Bible?"  Most people take the Bible for granted, giving little thought, study and reflection about the process of how the Book became our "only authoritative rule [canon] of faith and practice."

Plummer approaches the subject from a Protestant point of view.  It is a view that I too, presuppose and value greatly.  From the Protestant perspective, it is important to understand that the canon is not an authorized collection of writings (in that the church conferred its authority or approval upon a list of books).  Rather, the canon is a collection of authoritative writings.  Plummer adds, "The biblical writings have an inherent authority as works uniquely inspired by God.  Canonization is the process of recognizing that inherent authority, not bestowing it from an outside source."

It is often not until one is confronted with a differing view (like that of the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox canon), that certain questions are asked.  Who determined that 39 books would be in the Old Testament, and that 27 would be in the New?  Why did they choose these books and not others?  What am I supposed to do about certain "gospels" that I hear about on the Discovery Channel? Is the canon closed?

Old Testament Canon.  To summarize the canonization of the OT, Plummer quotes Kaiser: [There was a] progressive recognition of certain books as being canonical right from their inception by readers and listeners who were contemporaries with the writers and who are thereby in the best position to determine the claims of the writers."  Plummer continues, "It seems clear that by the time of Jesus, most Jews were in agreement as to their own canon - a list that matches our current OT in content."

New Testament Canon.  About the New Testament, Plummer writes, "Compared to the OT canon, we know much more about the formal recognition of the books of the New Testament."  He then lists the criterion by which the early church recognized the New Testament books.  They had to be: 1) Apostolic.  That is, they had to be written by or tied closely to an apostle (an authorized eyewitness of Jesus); 2) Catholic, in that they were widely, if not universally (hence the term "catholic"), recognized by the churches; and 3) Orthodox, or, not in contradiction to any recognized apostolic book or doctrine.

The first 27-book list that matches what we have today, is the list by Athanasius in his Easter letter (letter 39) of A.D. 367.  Further, there were two early church councils (Hippo Regius, A.D. 393, and Carthage, A.D. 397) that confirmed the 27-book list.

Though much more can be said about the formation and recognition of the NT canon, I will cite two quotations that I found very helpful.  First, on the process of recognition.  T.C. Hammond describes the historical process in four points: 1) The NT books were written during the period A.D. 45-100; 2) They were collected and read in the churches A.D. 100-200; 3) They were carefully examined and compared with spurious writings A.D. 200-300; and 4) Complete agreement was obtained A.D. 300-400.

Second, on the agreement of recognition.  Barker, Lane and Michaels observe: "The fact that substantially the whole church came to recognize the same 27 books as canonical is remarkable when it is remembered that the result was not contrived.  All that thee several churches throughout the Empire could do was to witness to their own experience with the documents and share whatever knowledge they might have about their origin and character.  When consideration is given to the diversity in cultural backgrounds and in orientation to the essential of the Christian faith within the churches, their common agreement about which books belonged to the NT serves to suggest that this final decision did not originate solely at the human level."

To learn more about the Apocrypha, I would suggest reading getting a copy of the book and reading.  I would also recommend Carson's work on the subject titled, Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books: An Evangelical View.

Is the Canon Closed?  Plummer ends the chapter by answering this very significant question.  He writes, "According to the early church's categories for canonicity (apostolic, catholic, orthodox), it would be impossible to have any additions to the canon.  For example, even if a genuine and orthodox letter of the apostle Paul were discovered, that letter would not have had widespread usage in the early church (that is, it could never claim catholicity).  The canon of Scripture is closed."

This chapter does a great job of informing us on a very large and significant subject.  This is a great introduction for any Christian who desires to know their Bible better.  And it serves as a good beginning to any student for further study.

How Do I Parent My Children Through Christmas?

We didn't have a lot growing up.  Getting something nice was reserved for special times of the year, like Christmas or our birthday.  In many ways giving was sacrificial.  It was special.  There was a surprise factor involved because, even though we asked for things, we were not completely certain we would get them.  All of this made Christmas a day that my year revolved around.  I anticipated it.  I longed for it.

But I don't anymore.

Things have changed in our day.  With prosperity, credit cards and overwhelming availability, gifts have become commonplace.  Buying a toy here and a toy there is no big deal.  When our kids say they want something, we just go get it.  Its that simple.

I don't especially like waiting either.  My Kindle is a perfect example.  I ordered it in October as an "early Christmas present".  As a child I had to wait.  These days, however, rather than adding what I want to my Christmas list, I add them to my Amazon Cart.  Instead of checking the days off on the calendar, I click the "Order Now" button (with the express shipping option, of course!).  I used to wait months, now I can barely wait 2 days.

I will get to the point.  The way my children experience Christmas and the way I did are very different.  As a kid, Christmas was all about presents.  Why?  Because presents were very rare.  I only got them two days a year.  But what happens when presents become commonplace?  Christmas looses its luster.  It becomes, for all practical purposes, just another day.

How do we rescue Christmas?  Well, the answer is obvious.  We make Christmas less about presents and more about Christ.  But how do we do this when our kids are getting, literally, dozens of presents!  And I'm not sure that Christ is the center when the presents supposedly come from Santa (that's another post altogether!).  And I just haven't figured out how to keep my little one's from the danger of idolatry when they are literally overwhelmed with barbies and cameras and cars and whatever else they got.

This year I am hoping to lead in a way that makes next year's Christmas (Lord willing) more special.  I know I personally did not set my eyes on Christ like I should have.  I'd like to share some of my ideas.  I would also love to hear yours.

First, I'd like to get rid of "early Christmas presents."  Too many presents throughout the year rob Christmas of its joy.  I think there is something good about waiting.  There is something godly about anticipating a future "Day."  I also think there is something ungodly about trying to drag that "Day" closer.  Early Christmas presents (being a prime example) are one way to have Christmas gifts in our own time.  But Christ came "at the right time" (Rom 5).  Also, when we wait, we realize better that we are not in control.  Time is often a great teacher of God's sovereignty.  Time is also necessary component for understanding true biblical hope.

Second, I'd like to think hard about the presents we give.  Do I want my family to have a ton of superficial "things"; or, do I want them to have a few meaningful gifts.  I have no idea how to do this; but I think that a true gift is one that promotes gratitude, community, and Christ-centered worship.  I'd like to take this year, with Katie, and prepare a gift for our kids that will "keep them from idolatry" (1Jn 5:21) and that will lead them to Christ.  There has to be a gift that, when given, will help them receive Christ better - one that will teach us all about true biblical faith.

Third, I'd like to get the whole family involved in giving gifts to others.  If it is truly better to give than to receive (Acts 20:35), then why do we, the parents (and grandparents), get to have all the fun on Christmas?!  Could it be that we don't really believe that it's better to give?  I cannot help but think that if we give in such a way that promotes faith (receiving the greatest Gift) and hope (an understanding that we now have that Gift, but anticipate it's full consummation), then we will all overflow with a true biblical love - we will long for others to have the same Gift we have.

Finally, I'd love to hear your thoughts on how we can make Christmas better.   I am writing this post as a flawed (and new) father.  My oldest is 5 now.  I am also writing as a new pastor who is trying to help keep my family and flock in "the race".  I am concerned that Christmas may be more of a hinderance to that than a help.  I covet your comments, concerns, corrections and advice.

Peace to you all and a happy new year!