Escondido Theology Chapter 5

Chapter 5 I am just going to briefly touch because I will admit I have never read Meredith Kline's Kingdom Prologue. This is easily the most scholarly chapter as Frame shows a great deal of respect for Kline. Frame also views Kline as the fountain head of the Escondido Theology.

Interestingly despite a great deal of respect for Kline, Frame believes the Absolutizing (rejecting other views as Reformed) even comes from Kline. He explains that Kline's reaction to the Shepherd Controversy and opposing the Theonomy of Greg Banshen. This is the beginning of the problem for Frame. Kline goes to Escondido, and the faculty ends up preferring Kline's view of things to Frame and the acceptance of divergent views that was characteristic of Philadelphia.

One can see the influence of Kline in Escondido. The acceptance of Framework hypothesis for example. Frame argues that the Two Kingdoms owes a lot to Kline, and maybe so, but even Frame admits it was around with Luther, so Kline is hardly a lynch pin in that equation. Kline held to a post-fall split between Cult and Culture (cult being worship). Culture was a common activity for both the believer and the unbeliever, cult was only for the follower of Christ. This is how Kline ties into the Two Kingdoms, and Frame rejects it claiming "We can find no passage (or biblical principle) that suggests that our cultural labors are anything other than an offering, a living sacrifice, to the glory of God." (pg.171).

Frame rejects Kline's reading of Genesis 9. Kline does not believe Genesis 9 reinstates the Cultural Mandate. Frame, of course, disagrees. Frame's argument really has two prongs. One is that he believes it is simply the natural reading to see Genesis 9 linked to Genesis 1. The main part of the argument (at least here) is that holiness is a matter of degrees. This is a concept I had not really thought of before. Frame uses the illustration of the temple. There was the Most Holy Place where the Ark was kept. And in relation to that everything else is profane. However, the room next to it was known as the Holy Place, and there the was altar of incense and the showbread. And of course the temple itself was seen as a holy place as a whole. He points out that holy ground occurs where God makes an appearance like the burning bush. Thus, for Frame holiness is a matter of degree. This goes against Kline who sees a strict difference between sacred and profane, cult and culture. Frame uses it to claim that everything must be done for God's glory, and everything is in some sense then a holy activity. This really seems to be the underlying point of much of Frame's chapter. The sharp distinction is rejected in favor of degrees of holiness and spirituality.

Again, this chapter is probably better if you had read Kline's work, but I am not planning on doing that so you have to just bear with me. This chapter makes the most effort to interact in a scholarly way. And it is done with a pleasant tone with the obvious exception of the Appendix. This could be seen as a funny joke, but considering the rest of the book, it comes off more as mocking. It is a chart to help you come up with your own Klinian Terms. Just mash any two terms together and viola! Apparently Kline must have been big on this. It adds nothing, and I would have thought a decent editor would have taken this out.

For me (remembering my limitations) the chapter hinges on the discussion about holiness as degrees. And while I am ready to concede that Judaism has degrees of holiness, I am not sure that it is right. The temple may indeed have a Most Holy Place and the Holy Place, but the temple itself is a type pointing to Christ. The question becomes whether or not there is any holiness outside of Christ? And then whether or not that means our service in daily jobs is a degree of holiness simply because the temple had holy places? Frame pushes the idea often of a strict and broad definition of worship with the broad definition being basically equal to service. That way by definition all of life can be said to be worship. This sort of requires a view of degrees of holiness because that statement is only true if we take the broad definition of worship. It also requires a rejection of 2K and Kline's theology because with the broad definition of worship there can be no separation of anything in worship. But if we just agreed to use a different term for the broad worship category (like maybe service), would this rejection still be so mandatory? I feel a little like his terms lead him into certain conclusions.
And just as importantly if the Heidelberg Catechism says even my best works are stained with sin in this life, can they rightly be considered sort of holy? Would we not be able to look at one another say, "I am more holy than you"? Because holiness is a matter of degree and thus the statement is completely possible.

I will say this that Frame has given me something to think about in this chapter. And again, if you have read Kingdom Prologue you will probably benefit more from the discussion.

Escondido Theology Chapter 4

This chapter Frame examines David VanDrunen's A Biblical Defense of Natural Law. This chapter does not quite contain as many clearly choppy responses, and I think it reflects the fact that Frame does not quite have the problem with VanDrunen he has with some of the others. In fact, Frame admits up front that he agrees with VanDrunen's view that Natural Law exists. He also seems to agree with the traditional interpretation of Romans 2, and thus agrees with VanDrunen on that point as well. Frame has some quibbles about VanDrunen's discussion of the image of God in Adam, but nothing really major. Primarily the disagreement lies in the application of Natural Law, namely in the Two Kingdoms and how Scripture fits into Natural Law.

VanDrunen seems to argue that Natural Law is governing of the civil or secular kingdom, and the Special Revelation is the governing of the spiritual kingdom or the church in particular. At least that is how Frame sees it and Frame disagrees with this point. I am not quite sure that is a fair representation of VanDrunen, but it is the representation he gets in the book. In the end, Frame just does not see a biblical distinction of Two Kingdoms. Dividing the religious and the civil (or secular) is rejected by Frame. He argues that even political matters have spiritual aspects. He gives an example of a political ruler who is evil and tyrannical. That ruler idolizes the state and is out for his own gain and pride. Thus, he is committing spiritual sins. Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom are listed and their false worship a reason for their evil. Thus, Frame believes that there are not two realms, but rather only one. Although I think it is debatable whether VanDrunen is speaking of realms or rather rule. VanDrunen never denies that unbelievers are guilty for rejecting Christ and asserting themselves. In my understanding VanDrunen argues rather for things that are common or simply human, which includes then a natural law from the image of God, and by the way from God, and then another set that is distinctively Christian. And in world that includes both believers and unbelievers the distinctively Christian cannot be imposed on activities that are simply human. One can expect your plumber to live by Natural Law, but not fix your sink to the glory of God. I am over simplifying but that seems to me to be part of the argument.

Frame runs into problems on page 135 in my opinion. He states, "It either comes from the wisdom of God or the wisdom of the world, and these are antagonistic to one another (I Cor. 1:20-21)." This is the sharp distinction that Transformationalists posit in their rejection of Two Kingdoms. The wisdom of the world is wrong and must be replaced by the wisdom of God. But Frame on the same page backtracks when he examines the line of Cain. "That is not to say that everything in Cainite culture was bad. . . . Music and Metalworking are certainly good activities. But these activities should have been done to the glory of God, within the family of God." Here is part of the problem I think Two Kingdoms avoids. If it is of the wisdom of the world it is bad. Cain's line includes many things that then should be rejected as bad. Metalwork and music among them. In VanDrunen's model metalwork and music are simply human activities and so can be learned even from unbelievers.

Frame briefly touches on the main exegetical debate, in my opinion, the covenant with Noah. VanDrunen argues here is a covenant with all mankind. Noah's covenant is not religious or for the church only such as the covenant with Abraham. Rather this one includes a sign common to all man (the rainbow), blessings for all mankind (no more flood), and rules for social behavior and justice (capital punishment for murder). Frame counters that the only family alive was Noah's and thus it is not with humans in general, but with the church. He points out the sacrifice made by Noah and how that was a specifically religious act. And while the blessings are for the world in general, Frame argues this is true with all the covenants of the Bible. Thus, it is of the same nature as Abraham's covenant. Although Frame does not account for the presence of at least one clear unbeliever in Ham. One's understanding of Genesis 9 seems rather foundational for the difference between the Transformationalist and the Two Kingdom-ist (if I can make up a word).

Frame's problem is not with Natural Law, but with two kingdoms. Frame admits a distinction between Church and State, but not one between Christ and Culture (pg.146). Frame does point out that VanDrunen should have dealt more with the suppression of truth in unrighteousness of Romans 1, which is a fair point. VanDrunen did mention it, but never really goes into detail. In light of Frame's main objection being to the Two Kingdoms it would have been more helpful if Frame and critiqued Living in God's Two Kingdoms rather than the defense of Natural Law. But the publication date of both books made that impossible. Still this chapter made the debate appear to be one of application of an agreed upon Biblical principle of Natural Law. Hardly the cause of such division as we see across the Reformed world today.

Escondido Theology Chapter 3

Frame moves on to R. Scott Clark's book, Recovering the Reformed Confessions. Again the tone is quite upset, and one can easily see the complaint about the Absolutizing nature of Escondido theology rather easily in this book. In fact, it is a much more effective criticism here than with Horton who walked back the title of the book in the first few pages. Clark's book revolves around the Quest of Illegitimate Certainty or Experience, and there is no walking it back or toning it down.

Interestingly, Frame often makes the claim that the Escondido Theology is done by historians rather than theologians. This critique seems unfair, but again with Clark's book, it might actually be true.

Clark attempts to hold forth the Confessions as the only legitimate ground for the church. Where they are silent, so too should we be silent, and where they speak, we must speak. Sounds good in theory. However, I agree with Frame that Clark fails at his own system and really falls down into a subjectivism and then makes it the absolute model for being "reformed". For example, Clark believes it is illegitimate for churches to require a certain belief on the days of creation despite the fact that the Westminster does say "in the space of six days". But Clark then goes on to state that churches ought to have two services every Sunday despite it never showing up in any confession, and they ought to sing only the words of Scripture despite that never showing up in a Confession. Clark does try to argue that it is a legitimate inference from the Regulative Principle of Worship, which does show up in Confessions, but then could we not also argue Six Day Creation is a legitimate inference from every confessions' discussion about creation and then also the 4th commandment? Of course we could. Frame does not use these exact examples, but does point out the inconsistent application of Clark's own view. It ends up being nothing more than the absolutizing of Clark's subjective take on things. Frame tends to focus in on things like Clark's rejection of Transformationalism, which is not explicitly mentioned in the Confessions, neither is the Two Kingdoms view (which Clark never directly argues for, but Frame believes is assumed in the book). Rather than viewing this as a place of liberty and any attempt to demand one over another as a Quest for Illegitimate Certainty, Clark views Transformationalism as part of the problem in the reformed churches today.

Frame spends most of the time defending himself, as Clark does quote Frame occasionally and basically labels him as unreformed. Most of it revolves around Epistemology, and the discussion in this section is interesting. I do think Frame has placed his finger on a troubling aspect of Clark's thought. Clark believes that there is a "degree of falsehood in human speech about God" (pg. 130 in Clark's Confessions and pg. 98 in Frame's Escondido). Here I side more with frame, that while human speech can never full exhaust God nor explain it in the way God knows things, I do not think that implies "a degree of falsehood". We can truly know, I believe. And if there is always falsehood in our speech about God such as "God created the heavens and the earth" then we cannot truly know what is true and what is false. I may not know exactly how God accomplished it or fully understand the power behind such a magnificent act, I do not think that makes the statement even slightly false.

I don't always agree with Frame in his critique. Clark I believe is right in the beauty and joy of strict Confessional subscription. Frame here worries that it limits too much, but I disagree and side more with Clark. Why Clark would then go on and advocate a new Confession to be written is beyond me. If the old Confessions are not wrong, and it is so wonderful to adhere to, I see no need for a new one. Still, Frame here tends to lump strict subscription into the dangerous Absolutizing tendency of Escondido theology, but I don't think they are the same thing.

In the overall scheme of things, Clark's book does not address a large portion of the Escondido Theology. It revolves around the main point of Absolutizing a certain tradition, mainly the 16th and 17th century (and only portions of that!). Discussing anything outside of that tradition is not Reformed or illegitimate. This makes people like Jonathan Edwards and Martin Lloyd Jones unreformed. Clark's book is narrow in its focus, but I think Frame does a descent job in criticizing it.

An Excursus on the Bayly Bros

I am still composing the next chapter review. Frame is getting into serious reviewing now, so it take a little longer. But, I read something on a blog that was sort of related and kind of upsetting at the same time. So might as well blog about it.

The Bayly Bros blog is a Transformationalist blog. They have a post comparing Ron Paul and R2K Theology in a rather disparaging way. It is this sort of thing that is rather hard to understand. Why the venom? Why the vitriol? And where is the proof?

The point of their post is that R2K people are sissy-boys just like Ron Paul. Ron Paul won't condemn homosexual marriage with federal legislation, so according to the Bayly Bros he is running from a fight. Same thing about abortion. I can understand that these are issues that the Bayly Bros want to fight about. And they want that fight on a federal nation wide level. Fine. I can respect that. But does that mean Paul and his libertarian friends (describe by them as silly girls) really not want any fights? Or does it simply mean that Paul is fighting his fight, a fight to make the federal government less important. It is simply just not the same fight the Bayly's want to have. I am sure Paul feels just as strongly about his fight. It is matter of what is important. And the groups disagree, but I think that hardly makes one a fighter and one a sissy. Is Ron Paul probably unrealistic about the government today? Absolutely. Is he fighting a fight he will not win? Yes. Is he wrong? That is a separate issue. After all the success rate on Gay Marriage and Abortion is much better on the state level. Maybe if the Bayly's really wanted to win they would aid Paul, and then they would win some battles. Maybe.

The blog almost makes the R2K point for them. Here is the Transformationalists Bayly Bros calling everyone else names. If you don't fall into lock step with them, then you are a coward who doesn't want to stand up for Jesus by fighting abortion and gay marriage. Because we all know that Jesus would much rather support the Marriage amendment to the Constitution than argue governments should not have anything to do with marriages at all. The Bayly Bros at least give the impression that Christianity is defined by a political position. Manly Christianity is not possible without politics. Just preaching from the pulpit not enough anymore. The ballot box as a means of grace. The Kingdom of God advanced through Christians in the White House, except that the Bayly Bros just called the only remaining Christian, confessionally speaking, a sissy and not deserving of their votes. Details, details.

The other thing that really bothers me is that the Baylys will call R2K men feminized Christianity and then give a hat tip to Doug Wilson. Really? Those guys writing about justification by faith are bad, but the guy teaching justification by works is a good guy. Come on!

I may end up agreeing with Transformationalism, but I can promise you it won't look like the Bayly's view of Transformationalism.

Escondido Theology Chapter 2

The meat of Frame's critique starts with a look at Michael Horton's Christless Christianity. Horton has a response out, but Horton is reviewed three different times.

Frame immediately takes umbrage with the title. Frame sees the Christless as part of the absolutizing tendency he finds so bad at Escondido. This is all in spite of the fact that Horton immediately states that the title is an overstatement and it is more of a direction rather than a current condition in the evangelical church. Frame notes the clarification, but it does little to lessen the criticism.

Frame takes a few things in Horton's book differently than I did. Horton not wanting to "translate" the gospel is something that Frame finds repugnant. I took this to mean that Horton was against trying to be hip and trendyin how we deal with Scripture and our attempts to make the gospel pleasing by hiding the bitter and unpleasant truths, not as a refusal to apply it or make it understandable or even in modern languages. Perhaps here Frame has legitimate gripe about Horton not being clear enough in defining terms, but as Horton points out in the response, Frame makes a large complaint out of something that Horton does not really believe.

I think a lot of the differences between Frame and Horton can best be illustrated with Joel Osteen, who is a frequent target in Horton's book. Ask yourself, do you believe that Osteen and his teachings are beyond the pale of Chrsitianity? Are they Christless? Frame's answer in this book is a clear no, Osteen is within the pale of Christianity. Horton's is a pretty emphatic yes, Osteen is beyond the pale (or at least trending that way fast). I agree with Horton on this one. And so does the Library of Congress for the record since they place Osteen's book in the Self Help section not the Christianity section. But let me illustrate further with some of Frame's discussion.

On Pg. 45 Frame quotes Horton claiming Osteen is "law-lite" and an "upbeat moralism" with "no justification". Frame likens this emphasis of Horton on using the Law to condemn with the Lutheran controversy about whether or not the law should ever be preached to believers. He accuses Horton of not using the Third use of the law for believers and a lack of teaching on sanctification. But more than that Frame defends Osteen even further stating that Scripture does tell us how to be happy in this world referencing the blessings promised and particularly Josh 1:8. Not directly stated, but implied is that Osteen's preaching One's Best Life Now is therefore a biblical concept and not outside the pale of Christianity. Perhaps even something Frame thinks Horton could learn a little from it.

This ties into Frame's major problem with Horton (in my opinion) and it comes from this statement made in Horton's Christless Christianity:
The central message of Christianity is not a worldview, a way of life, or a program for personal and societal change , it is a gospel (pg.105).
This is Horton's main point. Preaching then should primarily be the announcement of Christ and the retelling of His gospel. After all it is the central message. Horton does not deny Scripture speaks on finances and marriage and other things, but it is not the main point. This accounts for Horton's view of Two Kingdoms, worship, and preaching all of which Frame critiques in this chapter. Frame rather responds:
"the Bible presents a a worldview that is utterly unique among all the religions and philosophies of the world . . . And if the gospel is to be presented to them [unbelievers] clearly, they must understand that it presupposes a way of thinking about the world that is unique in the history of thought. (pg. 51).
Thus, the debate. Is the worldview contained in the Bible central to being able to understand the gospel and present it rightly? And is that worldview a complete and all encompassing worldview? Frame unashamedly asserts that the gospel then is a program of personal and societal change (same page). I wish Frame had spent all of the chapter discussing this one central point. Upon it all seems to hinge. Rather, he goes for the laundry list approach. This discussion was far too short.

Frame's great weakness in this chapter is related to what I described about the title. Frame constantly points out Horton backing off of generalizations. Frame wants to argue that all the difference is a matter of emphasis, and it is hard to condemn an emphasis. Frame says Horton is too much on justification, although Horton speaks on sanctification, which is read as Horton backing off and only an emphasis. Horton speaks of the centrality of the gospel, but admits Scripture teaches about finances, thus, it is just a difference of emphasis. It seems a little to me like Frame fails to grasp two things in relation to this. One, is that this is popular writing. Horton is not trying to enumerate every possible exception or be scholastic in his treatment of stuff. Some leeway must be given in this type of writing. Two, a persons emphasis can be unhealthy and easily lead to heresy. In fact, a case can be made that Christlessness does indeed begin with a misplaced emphasis in many cases. Emphasis on "do this and do that" can indeed be interpreted by many as works righteousness, and indeed might be. Emphasis on "do this for earthly blessings" can similarly be understood as self centered and works righteousness. It may be a matter of emphasis, but unhealthy emphases can be rightly condemned.

Oddly enough Andrew Sandlin breaks into the book here with an addendum. It is rather jarring, and frankly of little use. Sandlin restates what we just read and by so doing gives the impression Frame was too wordy and needs him to organize it. He quotes some OT examples in favor of Frame, and that is about it. Not needed. Any time you have quotations from your own book only a few pages from the actual occurrence of the quote, something has gone wrong.

Overall, I found Frame helpful in setting the question as whether or not the worldview of the Bible has to be presupposed to understand the gospel, but I wished the question discussed at greater length. I also tend to agree with Horton about the state of modern evangelicism and in that emphasis can be condemned as leading down a Christless path.

Escondido Theology Chapter 1

The opening chapter is entitled The Escondido Theology, which one would expect. Frame is going to lay out the theology of those whom he will be criticizing and then showing us where he thinks it goes wrong in the rest of the chapters. Well, not exactly. Frame does make it a full three paragraphs before slipping into all out attack mode. And the book suffers quite a bit from this sort of thing. One gets the distinct impression that Frame is building a straw man and then burning him to the ground. Without stating his opponents views positively first, the reader has little familiarity to understand the level of antagonism shown in this opening (and following) chapter. Establishing that he understands it, can state it in its best light, and interact fairly with it would have gone a long way to making the chapter more convincing. But we must push past this methodology and search for substance in spite of the tone.

It is about the 4th paragraph where Frame calls the Escondido bunch Lutherans for their law/gospel emphasis. In fact, it appears a lot of what Frame wishes to decry is what I think he would characterize as a Lutheranizing of the Reformed Tradition, and then the absolutizing of that tendency. Frame points out the Law/Gospel emphasis and the Two kingdoms theology as two Lutheran aspects that are prominent in Escondido. This leads to a few more of his criticisms: the Rule and Blessings over all of life (or lack thereof) and church centered piety. To this is added what Frame believes to be a reading out of all other views as non-reformed. He cites a few examples, but a later chapter deals in great detail about that subject. But it is clear that Frame believes that the Escondido theologians have tried to make their view of the Reformation the only acceptable view of the reformation. This not only reads Frame out of the Reformed camp, but goes against a lot of what Frame stands for in theological investigation.

Interestingly enough Frame provides support to my thesis that a lot of the difference in Transformationalism and Two Kingdoms has to do with one's view of End Times. Frame critics the Escondido Theology as "amillennialism on steroids". In this I tend to agree with Frame, but I think I would put it more as Consistent Amillennialism. The question then becomes whether or not Amillennialism is biblical. But then again, why cannot these two both exist as confessional? No reformed confession I know of forces one to take a stand on Millennialism. But Frame focuses that section instead on the preference of a lot of Escondido authors to prefer the "pilgrim" language of the Bible. This section is a bit unfair and seems unnecessary if you are not going go into depth about the End Times. Frame probably should have left it out.

At one point Frame also tracks the Westminster Philadelphia thought and where it splits off into Escondido Thought. This is probably the most helpful section of first chapter. He links the Escondido thought to Merideth Kline. He points out the influence Kline had over the others, cites some disagreements from Frame's time as professor, and how the new hires filled out the roster of WSC as univocal in favor of Kline's arguments. On the other hand he speaks of WTS as descending from Abraham Kuyper through Cornelius Van Til. With the influence of Van TIl, he then goes to the next generation. This is where Frame makes me a bit nervous. He cites positively the development of Theonomy and R.J.Rushdooney and then onto Greg Bashen. In a later chapter Frame adds Norman Shepherd to that list all in a positive light. Kline apparently opposed all those developments. So do I, although that does not mean I agree with Kline, but does give us insight in the reviewer. It also brings to mind the statements Van Drunen makes in Living In God's Two Kingdoms where he comments twice that if you have a Protestant doctrine of Justification by faith, you will prefer the Two Kingdoms theology. Frame seems to accidentally support that thesis in linking WTS to Shepherd and Theonomy.

In the end, it is a little unfair to pick at Frame in the first chapter. Almost everything he sets out here will be brought up again and dealt with in more detail. So the lack of detail and the broad generalizations made in this chapter are going to be fleshed out in later chapters. This is the hook, and Frame means for us to follow him down into the war zone. So down we must go.

John Frame's The Escondido Theology - part 1

Okay, so my curiosity got the better of me, and I purchased The Escondido Theology by John Frame. Since I am sort of publicly working through the 2 Kingdoms idea and trying to figure out why 2 Kingdoms and Transformationalists seem to hate each other so much, I might as well review Frame's book as I go.

The book as a whole is set up as reviews of several books by men from Westminster Seminary California. All professors except one which is a review of former student, now blogger, Jason Stellman. You may have noticed reviews of Frame's book popping up such as this official rejection by WSC and this unofficial one by D.G. Hart Expect more. It is that kind of book.

To show how serious this fight is this book has an introduction by George Grant, a foreword by Gary DeMar, a "review" (second foreword by Andrew Sandlin, a publisher's preface and an author's preface. This book in short is a declaration of war. Frame's tone is usually rather hostile, as is Sandlin's who adds an addendum in a chapter as well as the foreword. Grant stays more positive, but this book hits hard against the Two Kingdom view. It is quite clear that Frame and the others he gathers around him do not view Two Kingdoms as something confessionally allowable as I do, and clearly not something that is Reformed or even Biblical. It is nothing more than failing to apply the Bible to life, and a stubborn refusal to develop a biblical worldview against the Bible's own pleas.

You are going to want to read this book (or at least my review) because Frame comes out swinging. While I don't always agree with Frame's criticism, it is sort of like a car wreck. You just cannot look away because you want to see what happens next. And sometimes Frame puts his finger on some very good questions and points.

Next time chapter 1!

Princeton - 200 years later

In case anyone missed it, Princeton Seminary was founded in 1812 - or 200 years ago. Expect a lot of stuff coming up all year about Princeton. And there are lots of things to praise about Princeton. A century of excellence and a legacy of fighting the good fight for orthodoxy. If you want to join in on some celebrating and learning, check out Greenville Theological Seminary's Conference dedicated to Princeton. Blogs are in on the action as well. Expect more remembrances all year long. Even the Young Restless and Reformed Gang at the Gospel Coalition is in on it all year. And so you should expect more rebuttals about that too.

But the question remains, did Princeton get it right? Is it the model we should be following? I expect to get yelled at, but let me venture the answer. No. They didn't. Everyone always points out that no seminary was orthodox longer than Princeton. Most are lucky to make it 50 years, much less 100. And its direct descendant Westminster has made it quite some time as well (with less success). But the fact remains. Princeton went bad. In fact most seminaries go bad. That is just a fact that cannot really be denied. Whether they are church supported like Calvin Seminary or more independent like Knox. They go bad.

Let me just remind everyone that Andover Theological Seminary and Princeton Seminary are two of the first in the nation. Before that people learned in the homes of pastors. Or they stayed extra at Yale or a place like that reading theology before going to take an exam. Princeton was a fundamental shift in how theological education was done. It became modeled after school. Education was done by the professional scholar not the everyday pastor. This is, I believe, Princeton's fundamental flaw. Every seminary today is based on this model mostly because of Princeton (in the Reformed World at least).

Princeton turned out great scholars, and they battled liberalism in print more than anyone else. The Princeton Review was influential and the world renown of the scholars is nothing to sneeze at. But did they win the battle in the pews? Hard to say, but maybe not. Take a look at their most famous students.
Charles Hodge - never pastored a church but went on to a great career training pastors.
Joseph Addison Alexander - never pastored a church, but taught at Princeton.
B.B. Warfield - was a stated supply at a couple of place, but spent the majority of his life as a professor.
Geerhardus Vos - never pastored a church but was the founder of modern Biblical theology at Princeton.
Casper Wistar Hodge Jr. - never pastored a church and was ordained after he became a professor at Princeton.
J. Gresham Machen - never pastored a church, but did serve in the Great War for which he was ordained. Professor most of his life.
Robert Dick Wilson - never pastored and was a professor that went to Westminster
O.T. Allis - never pastored a church, and was a professor that went to Westminster.

Now many professors did pastor. AA Hodge pastored, as did J.A. Alexander, and his brother J.W. Alexander (who actually quit being a professor to go back to pastoring). But with all of these great professors who did not ever serve in the pulpit, one has to wonder how good were they at applying their truths to the daily ministry? Lest you think I am making this up here is a quote from David Calhoun's wonderful history of Princeton:
"Practical theology was Princeton's weakest area. It was difficult to find the scholar-pastor-preacher combination to fill the need, and there was apparently some reluctance on the part of the faculty to develop this department fully, fearing that it would detract from the more academic work." Vol. 2 pg. 216
The students actually complained in 1909, but the faculty viewed that as a just plain lack of intellectual prowess in the students. However, I think that the end shows that perhaps the faculty misunderstood the fundamental nature of preaching and pastoral work.

Now a student studying with a pastor would not get the access to so many brilliant minds in one place. But he does get a heavy does of pastoral reality, a good handle on the practical nature of theology, preaching, and church shepherding. The question becomes is it better for the church as a whole if many get a rigorous academic training for the ministry to become scholar-pastors, or if an entire army is equipped to be preaching-pastors. I at least think the answer to that is up in the air, and that as we celebrate Princeton we be willing to throw out their model altogether.

A new book on Two Kingdoms

I just found a new book that might give me some insight for those Transformationalists against the Two Kingdoms. As much as I hate giving money to John Frame, I am going to have to get this
book.

Can you be a Reformed Baptist?

I will get back to the review of Culture Making soon enough. However, this has been on my mind a little bit, and I ran across some old posts and Alpha and Omega Ministries arguing this point. James White seems to have been upset and a little offended by R. Scott Clark not taking the time to notice the difference between covenantal and non-covenantal credobaptists. It seems to have involved Radon Thoughts where you can read some interaction with Clark, and then White has a short follow up. Again this seems to have been two years ago, and Dr. Clark's blog has since been taken down, so I could not read what he wrote originally.

Since I could not read the original blog do not take this as a whole sale defense of R. Scott Clark. That being said, he is right. You cannot be a Credo-Baptist and Reformed. And I think that applies even if I grant everything that James White says. Even if I agree with his take on Acts 2:39 (and he has a point about not quoting the whole verse, although I think quoting the whole thing strengthens the infant baptism position). Even if I agree that a Credo-Baptist can be covenantal in his approach, I don't think that they can be considered Reformed. Why? Because the Reformation defined itself. In the creeds.

Find me one Reformed Creed that allows Credo Baptism only. You can't. You can't because it does not exist. Even the creeds designed to bring people together like the Heidelberg Catechism requires infant baptism. Even the very accepting city of Strassborg penned the Tetrapolitian Confession of 1530 and it requires infant baptism. Radon Thoughts tries to defined Reformed as being covenantal and adherence to the Five Solas, but that is not how the Reformation defined itself. When they drew the boundary lines, they always drew them to exclude Credo Only Baptism. Some the creeds are even what we would consider weak or open on Predestination, but not on infant baptism. It was considered a fundamental to being Reformed.

Randon Thoughts also brings up the 1689 London Confession that is basically the Westminster Confession with a Credo Baptist section on Baptism. But the Reformation is over by this point. The latest date one can place on the Reformation is 1649 when the Peace of Westphalia made the Reformed Faith legal in the German Empire. So this does not count as a Reformational Creed.

James White does claim that such a position as mine is a position of tradition, and thus he would be more in line with the spirit of the Reformation by reconsidering the doctrines according to the Word, and throwing out that which does not fit. However, many have done just that. Arminius believed he did it, and he threw out predestination. Wesley did the same thing. As did George Fox. There have been numerous movements that examined what the Reformation believed and in their opinion it was wrong, so they changed it. But those are all rightly known by other names. The Arminians or Remonstrants, the Methodists, and the Quakers. Why are they not called Reformed? Because they examined the Reformed beliefs, and changed them. Thus they are not Reformed any more! This is what the Baptists did when they made the London Baptist Confession of 1689. They changed it, and today we call them Baptists. Not Reformed Baptists, just Baptists. If you examine a set of beliefs and change some of them because you believe they are wrong, then you don't get to take the name of the set of beliefs you just left behind. It is just how life works.

A Two Kingdoms moment

I will get back to my review of Culture Making, but I had to write about this. The Christianity Today arrived the other day, and it contained an article that lays bare some of what VanDrunen is complaining about. The article by Chuck Colson was the particular offender, although for the first time I remember Colson had a co-author.

The article was about Public Education and how we as Christians have a duty to support it and fix it. Now this is meddling in areas that VanDrunen would claim a liberty of conscious on for sure, but the imperative nature of the article is what was particularly galling. The term "justice" was used. It was actually claimed that lack of educational opportunities was an injustice that Christians had to address. I just cannot see access to education as a matter of justice. Justice is about breaking the law and getting what you deserve. Education has no place in a discussion about justice. The support for such a claim about education? Well, it was not biblical. It was a piece of information about how well rich kids do in school, a quote from Benjamin Rush, and an appeal to history of church support of schooling. Oh yeah, the Waiting on Superman movie was mentioned.

This was a clear Transformationalist article. An attempt to require Christians to fix public education as if it was somehow a gospel duty. Confusing political action about schooling with the Justice of God is not healthy. It is misleading, and it is wrong. Articles like this one make me want to be a Two Kingdoms guy.

Transformationalism - Culture Making

So, as I continue to try and digest this Two Kingdom vs. Transformationalism debate, I need to read more than just Dr. Zylstra. It is not really fair to read full books about Two Kingdom Theology and then read only articles about transformationalism. Although finding books directly about Transformationalism is harder than I thought it would be. It is often assumed, but not defended. I know lots of people who are transformationalists, but they don't write directly about it. Those who have are best avoided such as Doug Wilson, Peter Leithart, N.T. Wright, and others. Avoided not because I couldn't learn from them, but because it fits too nicely into VanDrunene's thesis that Transformationalism leads to unorthodox thinking with regards to Justification by faith.

So, I tried to find an orthodox source. I settled on Andy Crouch's book: Culture Making. He has a blog by the same name, but I won't be talking about anything on the blog, just the book.

Crouch's first section is actually very good. Crouch begins by just laying the ground work before getting into the Bible and such. So he has a rather good discussion about culture and its nature. Crouch defines culture as making something out of the world. Now that is a little bit different than VanDrunen's rather broad definition. Thus, a comparison might be difficult because of differing views of what culture actually is. For instance, VanDrunen clearly believes marriage part of culture, but does that fit into Crouch's definition? I am not sure. That is a problem for later.

What is so great about Crouch's opening is that he argues rather well that culture has to be made or replaced by something new, rather than simply criticized. He actually criticizes Schaeffer and newer writers such as Nancy Pearcy for simply intellectually taking on culture. He uses an example of Tuesday night Chili night at his house. His boys can whine, complain, critique, and even argue against it; however, none of that will change Tuesday chili night. But if the boys were to make their own food and serve it to the parents every Tuesday before the Chili could be made, that would be well received and would change Chili night. He goes a lot deeper than that, but often uses easy to understand examples. He criticizes other methods of engaging culture including boycotts and sub-cultures and it is really very well done. Crouch is a good writer and a pretty easy read.

It takes a couple of chapters of this introductory stuff before Crouch switches over to Scripture. But he leaves you with the sense that culture is being made, and it cannot be stopped. People must do culture. it is part of being human. He has laid the groundwork for his argument. In the next post I will get into his biblical overview of Christians and Culture.

Zylstra Review - Part 3 - Bible texts

Dr. Zylstra only mentions four bible verses in support of his Transformationalist position and his critique of Dr. Van Drunen's Two Kingdom view. Let's just look at each one.

John 3:17 is one he mentions. I can only assume that Dr. Zylstra is referencing the idea that Jesus came to save the world, and by the world Zylstra is taking it to mean culture or the physical stuff in the world. if this verse means those two things then it would attack VanDrunen's idea of this world ending and the things of this ending. It is a central point of the Two Kingdom argument. However, it is hard to read John 3:17 that way. "World" appears here to mean "the people of the nations" or "gentiles" as in addition to Jews. This is how most of the commentators take it. I checked Calvin and Hendrickson, and both read "world" as "gentiles and people of all nations." Context would seem to support Calvin and Hendrickson and is against Zylstra.

Colossians 1:17 is his next verse. Here Zylstra is clearly pointing to the idea that "all things consist". Other translations might have the idea of "carry on" which is what Zylstra wants us to see. That and in the fact that "all" things continue "in Christ". However, again it seems a bit of stretch. VanDrunen never denies the Providential hand of Christ, and that is how Calvin and Hendrickson took it. Zylstra needs this verse to say that things of this culture will continue on in Christ Jesus not just in this world, but into the next. I am not sure all of that meaning can be forced into that passage. The idea of all things being in Christ might could be used by Zylstra, but VanDrunen was adamant that a Christian must do all things as a Christian, so again, I think that this verse falls short.

I Corinthians 15:58 gets closer to supporting Zylstra. Here Zylstra is pointing out that our labor is not in vain. With the obvious implication that a Two Kingdom idea that sees no eternal value in cultural labor would be definition make cultural labor "vain". But does a Two Kingdom idea does not necessitate that it would be in vain. God is still glorified. So this verse does not argue for a transformationalist perspective. However, I do believe that I can agree with Zylstra here that it might have been nice for VanDrunen to have explained how it fits in a 2K perspective.

Zechariah 14:20-21 really stands as his best verse. Here Zylstra argues that God is calling us to make all things Holy to the Lord even the bells on horses, and not just the things of the priests. This actually argues for a Transformationalist understanding in opposition to a Two Kingdoms view. If Zylstra is correct then all of life must be Holy to the Lord, or distinctively Christian, not just subjectively but objectively. Yet, again differing interpretations can be found here. Zechariah 14 can be taken as a description of what the New Heavens and New Earth will be like. There all things will be Holy to the Lord as the entire place will be temple and distinctively Christian. In this view then Zechariah is giving a prophecy of the Day of the Lord and His victory and not giving a command of what we ourselves are to achieve or strive to bring about here on this earth. Zylstra's reading is possible, but not the one I personally take of Zechariah. Which brings up a bigger question . . .

Does Transformationalism go hand in hand with a Post Millennial view point. Does Two Kingdoms go only with an Amillennial view point? This seems to fit with the differing ways of reading Zechariah 14. A Post Mil reading would be that this Day of the Lord would be the ultimate triumph of the church, and the church then makes all things Holy to the Lord. The Amil reading would tend more to a description of the Final Day of the Lord where Christ himself finally returns with the New heavens and new earth. I believe it is an interesting discussion that requires further discussion.

Two Kingdoms - Zylstra Second Article Review

Zylstra's second article in September was worse. This time Zylstra was reviewing Living In God's Two Kingdoms. Zylstra starts off by pointing that VanDrunen believes it is the Two Kingdoms way or the highway (pg.43). While I think that this is overstating it a bit, especially since he works along side transformationalists at Westminster Seminary, he is correct that VanDrunen believe the Two Kingdoms part of a broader frame work. Yet, Zylstra chose to pick on the line about Transformationlism being "not true to Scripture" (pg.13 of Two Kingdoms), and not the more serious claim of NeoCalivinism/Transformationalism not being consistent with justification by faith (made twice pg. 21 and 58). The first I see as simply saying the Bible does not speak the way the Neo Calvinists say it does, and the second I see as a claim of leading to heresy.
Zylstra again attacks VanDrunen for the football thing in the previous book, but then goes on to claim that VanDrunen supports a wing of the Reformed who think Christian schools as "optional quirkiness at best and un-American separatims at worst" (pg.43). He then immediately admits VanDrunen does no such thing by stating openly VanDrunen does not believe it to be anti-patriotic, and then state on pg.44 that VanDrunen would disagree with this characterization and goes on to admit that VanDrunen has no problem with Christian schooling at all, just a problem with requiring it as the only Christian way to educate. So what is the point of making such odd claims in a paragraph earlier? The only options seem to be incompetence or an attempt to poison the well. I do not believe Dr. Zylstra to be incompetent. The next sentences however are vital and I will quote them in full.

"However, Dr. VanDrunen misses (or dismisses) the point that has driven generations of parents to establish and maintain Christian day schools. The point of these dedicated Christian communities is their conviction that Christian perspective on all of life simply is never optional. Educating a child to look at the world through anything less than scripturally shaped lenses is considered a violation of the parents' responsibility to their child, to the Christian community to whom the child belongds, and to the Kingdom of the Christ in whose name the child was baptized. They have always believed that any pedagogical deficiencies in the school should be corrected and any academic lapses should be made up as the child continues to grow. But to disobey the biblical command to train up a child in the way he or she should go simply never entered their Reformed minds. (44)"

Zylstra here claims that anything less than sending your child to a Christian school is a violation of Ephesians 6 and Proverbs. This means that all people who go to public school are sinning. It means that all people who homeschool, like myself, are sinning. He has to be saying that. VanDrunen never states that it would be okay for a Christian parent to raise their child as a pagan or anything less than the fear and admonition of the Lord. Again he says over and over Christians must always act Christianly, including in parenting. The disagreement comes in how that is practically played out. Can a child raise their child up in the way he should go and still send the child to public school? VanDrunen says plainly on page 183 it is a matter of "Christian liberty". I believe that Zylstra has said here that it is not. This is the disagreement. One that I will come back to along with the three scriptures referenced by Zylstra in this article in a later post.
I find this requirement to send ones kids to Christian schools a little ironic since the problem Dort College had in getting started as a Junior College from the CRC. The CRC wished to require people to come to Calvin and would not allow for even a Junior College to be founded. No monetary relief was allowed and people required to contribute to Calvin. This went on for decades before Dordt was able to get established. Now it is Dordt making the requirement argument. Ironic.
One thing left needs to be said about this second article. Zylstra claims that VanDrunen is poisoning the well by using as his examples for Neo-Calvinism NT Wright and the Emergent church, two "bogeymen" as Zylstra calls them (44). While I can share Zylstra's frustration as it would have been nice and easier for me if he interacted more with orthodox Reformed men, the book is intended for a wider audience than the Reformed world. Andy Crouch has written on Transformationalism, but has any one ever heard of Andy Crouch? Not many. When NT Wright and Scot McKnight, and Brian McLaren write books they are on CNN and the Morning Shows and they get articles about them in Christianity Today. That is why those two groups were chosen. I also could not help but wonder at Zylstra's choice of words "bogeyman". Traditionally "bogeymen" were make-believe bad guys, not actual bad guys. NT Wright and the Emergent Church are actual heretics. I wonder if Zylstra agrees. After all he had a man on staff who was a big fan of Wright. Currently that professor is on sabbatical, but he is not being fired for such beliefs.
This is a debate that is important and needs to be had. However, this is not having a debate. This is pure rhetorical punching with no real substance. Perhaps a magazine is just not the format for such thing. But I believe a better attempt at interaction could easily be made. VanDrunen's books are very well argued, even if you disagree with him. And for the most part, fairly neutral in tone. I do wish VanDrunen would write another book where he fleshes out the connection between Transformationalism and denial of Justification by faith alone. But even those claims are so small that most critics miss them. Zylstra did. They are indeed bombshells, but they are not often quoted.

Two Kingdoms - Zylstra Article Review

Okay, so part of my trying to read more and stay up to date has involved the Two Kingdoms debate. I am still trying to work through it, and so I thought I would do so here on my blog. Interaction would be appreciated. This will be a series of blogs.

I have to admit that I was a late comer to this Two Kingdoms debate that seems to rage so hot. And I confess, I am not sure why it is so hot. To me both Neo Calvinist Transformationalism and the Two Kingdoms doctrines are both allowable in at least the Three Forms of Unity bounds, so I don't understand the heat. I understand that their are outliers at both ends that probably do fall outside of confessional bounds, but one cannot define the position through the outliers. So, I will start with the couple of articles critiquing Dr. David VanDrunen in the Pro Rege magazine of Dordt College. Both are by Dr. Carl Zylstra, one from one from June and the other from September.

To be fair, I have met both men. And while I am not sure I fit into a Two Kingdoms mold completely, maybe I am closer to that position. Like I said, I am a late comer to this. It should also be noted for fairness sake that the RCUS has recently defunded Dordt College. That vote has come up I believe 7 times since I have been a member at Synod. I have voted 5 times to continue funding and 2 times to defund. So there you go. Now onto the critique.

Dr. Zylstra's first article sets the tone with the title "Serious Education for Serious Christians". Not exactly a friendly title since the implication is that everyone else is a non-serious Christian. The article is motivated by a reference to Dordt in Dr. VanDrunen's book Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms. This reference is about Dordt College's football program and an attempt to justify it as part of a Biblical Transformationalist Worldview. It also comes in a footnote, but Dr. Zylstra leaves that part out. What is sad is that Dr. Zylstra really seems to miss the point of the book so bad it makes one wonder if he read it. Zylstra states on page 40:

"And indeed the burden of the book in which he makes his critique of Dordt College is to defend his contention that those of us who believe that every occupation in life and every social activity in which we engage should be governed by explicity biblical principles are ourselves the oddballs who really shouldn't claim to be Reformed at all."

Now that is not actually correct. The goal of the book is to chart the doctrine of Two Kingdoms through church history and along with it the use of Natural Law. VanDrunen states in many of his writings that Christians are Christians all the times and thus are always governed by biblical principles in every area of life. Zylstra's quote leaves the impression that VanDrunen would think it okay for Christians to cheat at football (since that is what started this whole article). Not so. In fact, that is not the point of the Two Kingdoms doctrine as I understand it. I believe VanDrunen would say that Christians ought to participate in football, but realize that it does not advance Christ's kingdom when they take a knee and pray after a touchdown, or when play without holding the defensive line. In fact, historically, the Transformationalists have been the ones who avoided football, which is why it was so controversial when Dordt added the program. Some activites Transformationalist have always said could not be redeemed and thus were to be avoided. Football was one of them. Dancing another less we forget Abraham Kuyper's own words. Dordt allows both now.

Zylstra next does something that I find just boarderline insulting. He inserts a paragraph on page 40 that tries to imply VanDrunen supports slavery. The paragraph not only really interrupts the flow of Zylstra's own argument, it reeks of poisoning the well. Yes, VanDrunen covers the Southern Presbyterians in his book. Yes, the Southern Presbyterians believed in the Spirituality of the Church and the Two Kingdoms. Lest we forget they separated into their own denomination when the Gardner Spring resolution made a requirement for Church membership a loyalty oath to the United States. But remember the point of this book was a historical overview. No where does VanDrunen endorse slavery. No where. Slavery is not really even the the content of much the Southern Presbyterian chapter. Also, Zylstra is just wrong when he claims that the Southerns held to a Two Kingdoms view so they could hold slaves without feeling guilty. Contrary to Zylstra they did feel it could be biblically justified. Go read R.L. Dabney's Defense of Virginia and the South if you don't believe me. Such actions on Zylstra's part are just plain sophistry and not worthy of real debate.

Zylstra makes his first biblical defense of Dordt on page 41 by quoting Zechariah 14:20. Zylstra uses that to claim that not only priests wear bells inscribed Holy to the Lord, but also the farm horses and the draft horses. Everyday activies he claims are now to be considered holy to the Lord. It is a goal. This is the best part of his article by far, and gets to the heart of the disagreement I believe. So, I will speak more of this in another post dealing with the Bible quotes specifically.

This article did not do a good job of anything. I do not feel he showed VanDrunen wrong anywhere, nor did he lay a foundation of Serious Education. He did not really even provide a defense for Dordt as a Christian institution. It also seems he should have waited for the next book by VanDrunen because a historical overview book is just not a good one to interact with. And if you do it should be limited to disagreements about the history, charges of misrepresentation, or other similar things. The next post will look at Zylstra's second article which does aim at the Living in God's Two Kingdoms book.

Happy Birthday Belgic Confession

Today, November 1, is the 450th Birthday of the Belgic Confession. This is the day recognized as the day Guido De Bres threw copies of the Belgic Confession over the walls of Doornik in the night while he was fleeing for his life. This is important to remember as you read the Belgic Confession. It is De Bres's defense about why he is Reformed. It is his letter to the rulers who were pushing the Spanish Inquisition as to what they were persecuting.

But the Confession is also a call to all who were still in the Roman Catholic Church. Especially Article 29 about the True and False Church. It is a call that persecution is no reason to remain in a church that denies the gospel. Yes, life would have been easier for De Bres if he had just sat in a pew and not believed the bread was turned into the Body of Christ, but it would have been a sin. Read his call to people in the Roman Church:

As for the false Church, it ascribes more power and authority to itself and its ordinances than to the Word of God, and will not submit itself to the yoke of Christ. Neither does it administer the sacraments as appointed by Christ in His Word, but adds to and takes from them, as it thinks proper; it relies more upon men than upon Christ; and persecutes those who live holily according to the Word of God and rebuke it for its errors, covetousness, and idolatry.

These two Churches are easily known and distinguished from each other.

The two churches are easily known. There was no excuse. All godly men knew the Inquisition was wrong. De Bres just made it plain for all the world to see in the Belgic.

Of course in 1567, Guido De Bres was caught and died for his faith. The Belgic Confession is his testament.

Book Review: Heaven is for Real

As I said earlier, I am trying to stay more up to date with what is going on and with what others are reading. To that I have read a lot of good little philosophy books that teach philosophy using modern culture. The Philosophy of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Philosophy of the Matrix, of Lost, of Star Trek and of Star Wars. It is a great series that I recommend if you are brushing up on Philosophy. Someone ought to do something similar with theology . . .

But the real reason I am writing is to discuss the popular book Heaven is for Real. If you are unfamiliar with it, it is a book that tells the story of Colton Burpo, a 4 year old (I am not going to double check his age, it is young) who claims to have gone to heaven. Now, it is not a near death experience. He never died or stopped breathing or anything like that. But he was in the hospital after having appendicitis, which burst and poisoned him for 5 days. His father is a pastor in Imperial, NE and writes the book from the view point of he and his wife discovering what Colton experienced through their questioning of him off and on for the next year and a half or so.

The book is well written and anyone with a child will be emotional pulled in as the parent pray for God to spare the life of their child. Seriously that part will make you think about your own kids. Rev. Burpo tries very hard to make Colton's story seem like it would line up with Scripture, and reminds us that there is no way a 4 year old would know this even one who attends Sunday School. At times this will make you think Rev. Burpo should find better Sunday School material, but the point is well taken. At first the claims of Colton do seem to line up with Scripture. But by the end of the book, you can't even pretend that anymore.

Which leads me to a real critique. . . Colton ought to be considered a prophet if you believe everything he says. He speaks to Jesus and the Spirit (who is blue in heaven according to Colton). This book brings up all sorts of canon is closed issues that Rev. Burpo never addresses.

Another point is that Colton says he was in heaven for 3 minutes, but he did a lot of stuff like meet his long dead grandpa, speak with Jesus, learn stuff, pet Jesus's horse, and watch the end of the world battle. He also seems to have some sort of run in with Satan, but maybe that was part of the end of the world battle. Colton always clammed up when they asked him about Satan. Rev. Burpo tries to quote Scripture to make us think that time works differently in heaven, but it is a stretch.

Yet another problem is that a lot of this stuff is extra Scriptural. The dead saints have wings of differing sizes. Colton had them too although Colton was not dead. The final battle included monsters and people, not Jesus coming and winning as Revelation would have it. There are animals in heaven too.

Again, logical problems pop up that Rev. Burpo ignores. Colton says he watched the final battle and it included his father fighting on the side of Christ while women and children watch. My first thought was did Colton see himself fighting on the side of Christ? If not why not? Does Colton dies as a child and therefore has to sit and watch? Well, it is never addressed.

We are supposed to believe Colton's story because he knew things he could not know. He knew that his father was praying and his mom was on the phone while in the operating room. Guessable. But he also knew the dead grandpa, who he rightly identified when he saw a young picture of grandpa. Yes, we all look young in heaven with no glasses. And he also knew about the sister who died in utero before Colton was conceived. He met her in heaven. She did not have a name because the parents never named her. They could not agree on a name.

All of the evidence is emotional, and so is the whole book. I kept coming back to the verses about Lazarus and the rich man in my head. They have Moses and the Prophets, they won't believe a person coming back from the dead. This book will captivate a lot evangelicals, but it will not do a thing for an unbeliever.

Heaven is for real, but don't take Colton's word for it, take God's.

Not the Bartholomew's Day Massacre, but another

I didn't post anything about the Saint Bartholomew's Day Massacre this year, but I thought I would post other massacre's of protestants by Romanists. Perhaps they were inspired by the French, after all the Pope struck a medal for that event.

This is the Magdeburg Massacre or sometimes called the Sack of Magdeburg. This was during the 30 Years' War. Magdeburg was a primarily Protestant city and the Count Tilly brought his army against it and laid siege. The city bravely held out for 7 months, but this was during the part of the war where Protestant resistance was almost non-existent. The Danish had for the most part been handled and it was before Gustavous brought in Sweeden. So no relief ever came for the Protestants of Magdeburg.

The trouble was not the siege, but what happened after. The city of Magdeburg was either 24,000 or 25,000 depending on where you read the stats. The Romanists went through the city and looted it. After it had been thoroughly looted the army wiped out everyone else. Now some of the city was already burning from the attack, but the Romanist then went about destroying what was left. Women, children, men, it did not matter. They killed them all. 20,000 people were killed leaving only 4 or 5,000 people. The city was in ruins and the surrounding area had been pillaged during the siege. The people of Magdeburg continued to die long after the troops left. Apparently it dipped as low as 450 people. It took the Roman army 14 days to haul all the bodies into the river.

Some say that this massacre helped bring Gustavus into the war, but that probably is a bit of an over reach on how religious Gustavus really was. Still, the massacre was immense and today barely makes the history books.

Kingdom of God Conference

October 14-15
Saint John's Reformed Church
Lincoln, NE

Speaker Dr. David VanDrunen Professor at Westminster Seminary California.


This is an important topic that is much discussed these days. Come, hear, and learn.
Meal will be provided on the 15th.

Suggested donation - $10

For Contact information
402-477-7289

Rob Bell, Blogging, and Responsibility

I thought I owed everyone a reason the blogging has been almost non-existent. While there are always several factors, one major one sticks out for me. And yes it does involve Rob Bell. I have been absent from blogging to try and catch up on the trends in the culture so I am better prepared to pastor the church. For me, it meant less blog time. I am just not one of those guys who can do both.

Rob Bell is the perfect example. Now everyone should know that I believe in hell, and Rob Bell is clearly a heretic for denying it. When his book came out the blogosphere erupted in criticism, as it should have. But it should have done it 6 years ago or more when Bell admitted "hell was full of forgiven people" in his book Velvet Elvis. Or when he said the "gospel is you" in his Nooma Video series. But instead we waited until he was a huge mega pastor being invited on CNN to discuss his denial of hell that sparked Newsweek, Time, and the Washington Post to declare hell was dead. It is good he was soundly condemned, but it should have happened much earlier. How does this affect me?

Well, it started back in Herreid, SD. I heard of Rob Bell then. No kidding. A town of 488, and I heard about Rob Bell. Someone asked me about him, and I had never really heard of him. I found out he was associated with the Emergent stuff, and I gave the rejection of that. But the people in Herreid are unfamiliar with terms like Emergent, as I bet most are. But they are familiar with names like Rob Bell. I should have known if someone was known in Herreid, I should know about it. Then I came to Lincoln, NE. Here every youth in the high school class already knew of Rob Bell and asked to use his video series in class. Now I knew I had to do something. A pastor in Sutton had the series and a let me see it. Now, I was ready to talk to the people about it. But this is far too late. I need to be on top of things more. The youth also wanted to see more about Francis Chan, and we had to deal with that as well.

It was somewhere in here that I realized I was behind the curve. The people were exposed before I could get on top of new theological trends. I was reactive, not proactive. I have since trying to be more proactive.

My wife aided in this when she told me, "You need to read this." It was a book that was selling thousands of copies without any push from any publishing house. They were selling because her blog was a success. The blog and book is by Ann Voskamp. The book is called 1,000 Gifts. My wife said that all her "mommy bloggers" are reading it and referencing it. Since then Voskamp has been mentioned twice in World Magazine, and has even written a one page article for it. Voskamp is an emotional writer who will bother linear thinkers. She is emotional more than logical. She does not say anything awful, but her teaching comes more from experience with Scripture backing it up than Scripture informing her experience. She is going to display this way of thinking and living life for many. Anyway the point is that I am ahead of the curve rather than behind.

So, this has meant a lot more reading and a lot more discussions with people. I have been trying to catch up, and blogging is what got the ax. Hopefully I can be a little more active on the blog now, but I hope you will all understand the necessity of what I was doing and forgive the absence.