Fighting where the battle rages

"Wherever the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved and to be steady on all the battlefield besides is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that one point.”                   (Martin Luther, 1483-1546). 

Virtually the whole gamut of biblical revelation has been under attack at one time or another. In the first four centuries of church history the doctrines of God as Trinity and the Person of Christ took a mighty battering. The medieval period might be characterised as a titanic struggle between Augustine's doctrine of grace and the Pelagian error of salvation by works. The stresses and strains of this conflict eventually rent the church asunder at the time of the Reformation. The Reformers stood with Augustine, while Rome championed Semi-Pelagianism. The battle raged fiercely over justification by faith alone or justification by faith plus meritorious good works. It rages still. During and after the time of the Enlightenment, the fight was against rationalistic liberalism. Liberal theology offered a Christianity that was shorn of the supernatural, leaving us with a depersonalised 'ground of all being' in place of the living God, and a merely human Jesus. 

Where is the battle raging today? I suggest that we are guilty of flight and disgrace if we flinch on the following points: 

1) We must fight for the Godness of God. He is the triune Lord of the gospel, both compassionate and commanding. He is Creator we are his creatures, subject to his sovereign rule. We need to resist Open Theism and any other form of theology that renders void the Creator/creature distinction.

2) We must fight for the truth of God. In the face of postmodern scepticism concerning truth claims, we believe that God has revealed himself to us and is therefore knowable. Although our knowledge of him can never be exhaustive, we can nevertheless truly know the Father through the Son by the enlightening work of the Spirit. As revealed truth, Holy Scripture is God's Word, totally reliable and without error.  

3) We must fight for the salvation of God. Against pluralism and syncretism, we are called to boldly proclaim that salvation is  received by the sinner trusting in Jesus Christ as the only Saviour of the world. He is the way, the truth, and the life. Apart from faith in Christ the wicked will die in their sins and face the eternal, conscious punishment that is their due for rebelling against their infinitely glorious Creator.  

Edward Taylor against the heretics

I'm trying to read a poem a day by Edward Taylor, the New England Puritan. I don't always get what he's trying to say as the language is sometimes quite obscure. What's 'inckt' supposed to mean? And I thought that a mall is a shopping centre, but Taylor envisages a 'mall of steel' splitting heretics' brains away. The mind boggles. 

However, this morning's poem was full of interest. It is a meditation on Colossians 1:15, entitled, 'The First Born of Every Creature'. The text is often cited by Arians, Socinians and Jehovah's Witnesses to prove that as the 'firstborn over all creation', Christ was not the eternal Son of God. Edward Taylor is having none of it. In his poem he asserts the full deity of Christ and threatens heretics with a grisly fate.

First Born of e'ry Being: hence a Son
      Begot o'th'First: Gods onely Son begot.
Hence Deity all ore. Gods nature run
      Into a Filiall Mould: Eternal knot.
      A Father then, and a Son: persons distinct.
      Though them Sabellians contrar'ly inckt.

This mall of Steel falls hard upon thy foes
      Of truth, who make the Holy Trinity
Into One Person: Arians too and those
      Socinians calld, who do Christs Deity
      Bark out against, But Will they, nill they, they
      Shall finde this Mall to split their brains away.

Nice.

As Taylor recognises, using Colossians 1:15 to deny the full deity of Christ is to misinterpret the text. That Jesus is the “firstborn of creation” does not mean the Son was the first creature that God made. Arians and their theological heirs and successors deny the eternal pre-existence of Jesus, saying that there was a time when the Son was not. Over and against Arian error the church confessed that the Son was “begotten not created” at the Council of Nicea in 325AD. Arians have badly misunderstood what Paul is saying here. They make him contradict what he says later on in the passage. If the Son was created, then how does Colossians 1:16 make sense, let alone Colossians 1:17?

So, the apostle was no Arian. For Paul Jesus was very much included in the divine identity, Romans 9:5. But what does he mean when he calls Jesus the “firstborn over all creation”. In the immediately previous verses Paul has described salvation as a new exodus, Colossians 1:12-14. And the exodus event also provides the key to Paul’s meaning here. In Exodus 4:22 God describes Israel as 'my son, my firstborn'. Firstborn sons had special inheritance rights. Pharaoh was to let Israel go so that God's firstborn could claim his inheritance,  Exodus 4:23, 6:8 The firstborn in Egypt were killed at Passover, but the Passover lamb was substituted for the firstborn children of Israel. They were redeemed by blood, Exodus 12:12-13. Israel's firstborn therefore belonged to the Lord, Exodus 13:2 & 15. The firstborn had a special prominence and importance, Psalm 89:27. To conclude, in Old Testament revelation the 'firstborn' were associated with a cluster of ideas: preeminence, ownership, inheritance and redemption.

So, when Paul describes Jesus as the 'firstborn over all creation' he is not suggesting that Jesus was the first thing God made. As Taylor said, the Son is fully God, 'Deity all ore'. Paul's point is that as the 'firstborn' Jesus belongs to God. He is God's “own Son” Romans 8:32, “the Son of his love” Colossians 1:13, John 3:16. Also as the firstborn son, Jesus has the right of inheritance, Romans 8:17. But although God spared the firstborn children of Israel by substituting the Passover lamb, he did not spare his own Son, Colossians Colossians 1:14, 1 Corinthians 5:7. As the 'firstborn over all creation', Christ is creation's 'kinsman redeemer' who liberates the world from the tyrannical grip of sin. This is a thought that Paul will take up at greater length in Colossians 1:20.

There is more to redemption than personal salvation. Christ's work has cosmic dimensions, Romans 8:21. This is how big our Jesus is. He has acted to redeem creation from all the terrible effects of the fall. This is the Jesus we must preach. This is the Jesus we worship. He is the 'firstborn over all creation'. He’s got the whole world in his nail pierced hands.

Taylor concludes his poem with a prayer,

Make mee thy Babe, and him my Elder Brother

     A Right Lord grant me in his Birth Right high.

His Grace, my Treasure make above all other:

      His Life my Sampler: My Life his joy.

      I'le hang my love then on his heart, and sing

      New Psalms of Davids Harpe to thee and him.

(The Poems of Edward Taylor, University of North Carolina Press, 1989, p. 84-85) 

Herman Bavinck on the essence of error

In the light of reading Alister McGrath's book on Heresy (see my review), I was interested to come across this thought from Herman Bavinck,

Now in the confession of the Trinity we hear the heartbeat of the Christian religion: every error results from, or upon deeper reflection is traceable to, a departure in the doctrine of the Trinity. (Reformed Dogmatics Volume 2: God and Creation , Baker Academic, p. 288, 2006

According to Luther, "The cross tests everything".  But the cross only functions as the definitive revelation of God and an act of redeeming grace in the context of the doctrine of the Trinity. If Christ was not God the Son, his sacrificial death did not disclose the fullness of God's love for the world. If Christ was not God the Son, his sacrificial death would not have been sufficient to atone for the sins of the world.

As the New Testament bears witness, Calvary involved the whole Trinity. Christ the Son offered himself to God the Father through the eternal Spirit (Hebrews 9:14). As such the cross tests everything. 

What we believe concerning God and ourselves must be assessed in the light of the saving work of the triune God at the cross. Arguing from resolution to plight, that it took the death of the Son of God in his humanity to save us demonstrates how how seriously God takes sin. Arguing from plight to resolution, that for us to be saved the Son of God had to take a human nature and die demonstrates that we could never hope save ourselves. God commends his love to us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us and God's love is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit whom he has given us, Romans 5:8, 5. 

Heresy distorts the doctrine of God and devastates the doctrine of salvation. A low view of Christ will lead to a light view of sin and a light view of sin will lead to a low view of Christ. As John Owen once wrote, "A Socinan Christ for a Pelagian man". We believe in nothing less than a Nicean Christ for an Augustinian man. 

Heresy: A History of Defending the Truth by Alister McGrath

Heresy: A History of Defending the Truth,

by Alister McGrath, SPCK, 2009, 282pp

Somehow the notion has gotten around that ideas condemned by the church as heretical are a lot more interesting and attractive than stodgy old orthodoxy. In fact some scholars to try to suggest that what are now regarded as heretical versions of the faith were in fact more authentically Christian than orthodox teaching. To make things worse, it is claimed that orthodox Christians were the big bullies of church history. They were not above using the dark arts of political manipulation to impose their will on the church at the expense of poor, downtrodden heretics. On a popular level Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code perpetuates the idea that the development of orthodox Christian faith was little better than a grand theo-political conspiracy. 

Some years ago the fashion world proclaimed, 'brown is the new black'. Now it seems that the history of Christian doctrine is being rewritten to say that, 'heresy is the new orthodoxy'. Indeed, given postmodern suspicion of truth claims, the great heresy is to say that there is such a thing as heresy in the first place.

It is very much with this  revisionist context in mind that Alister McGrath gives attention to the subject of heresy, which he defines as "an inadequate, distorting, or damaging conceptualisation of faith" (p. 80). The writer charts the development of Christian orthodoxy and discusses the origins of the idea of heresy. He describes early heresies, Ebonitism (Jesus was simply a great prophet), Doceticism (Jesus only seemed to have a human body) and Valentinism (early Gnosticism), showing why they were dismissed as inadequate and misleading representations of the Christian faith. In the second century AD when the above heresies arose, the church was a persecuted body within the Roman Empire with no support from officialdom when it came to policing false teaching. The aforementioned errors lost the battle of ideas simply because they failed to do justice to the gospel as disclosed in the New Testament.

When it came to combating later classic heresies like Arianism, Donatism and Pelagianism, the political situation had changed somewhat. The Christian church had received official recognition from the Roman Emperor, Constantine. The Emperor had a vested interest in having divisions between Christians healed for the sake of the harmony of his domains. It was Constantine who called the Council of Nicea in 325 AD in an attempt to resolve the dispute over Arianism. However, he left it to the church leaders to determine the outcome of the council, which declared that Jesus as the Son of God is homoousios [of the same essence] with the Father. Arianism was thus declared a heresy. It seems that if anything, Constantine's sympathies were with Arius, giving the lie to the oft- repeated claim that Nicea was a political stitch up. 

A later Emperor had the decision of Nicea overturned. The orthodox belief that Jesus is fully God was declared a heresy. Athanasius, champion of the deity of Christ was banished and Arians rose to positions of power in the church. But despite political interference, the orthodox stuck to their guns. At stake was whether Jesus was the final revelation of God and the Saviour of the World. Only if Christ was fully God and fully man could he reveal God and save us from our sins. Arianism was not the victim of dodgy theo-politics, it simply wasn't an adequate conceptualisation of Jesus as he is described in the New Testament.

Again, while the errors of Donatism and Pelagianism awakened the interest of the secular authorities, the primary interest of the church was not power politics, but right belief. Donatism was a separatist movement that took a hard line with regard to Christians who had capitulated during times of persecution. The Donatists held that the right administration of the sacraments was dependent on the holiness of the Minister. Augustine rightly saw that this approach failed to appreciate the frailty of man in sin and the reality of God's restoring grace. 

The issue of sin and grace was also to the fore in the Pelagian controversy. Augustine emphasised man's total need of grace in salvation. This was summed up in his payer, "Lord, command what you will and give what you command." Pelagius on the other hand taught that human beings are able to obey the law of God and merit salvation for themselves. Augustine argued that Pelagianism did not take into account that sin had so affected human nature that only the sovereign grace of God can save us. Pelagius' views were rightly condemned as heretical.

McGrath defends the notion that certain beliefs should be regarded as heretical because they undermine the gospel and distort the Christian message beyond recognition. But he also recognises that "heresy" can sometimes be used as a lazy term of abuse to be hurled at one's theological opponents. A case in point is the Roman Catholic denunciation of Protestants as "heretics" at the time of the Reformation. Mainline Protestants held to orthodox beliefs on the Trinity, the person of Christ and salvation by grace. But they questioned certain Roman Catholic teachings in the light of what they found in the Bible. Roman Catholic distinctives such as the Mass, purgatory and papal authority were not the subject of Ecumenical Councils. Disagreement with them hardly constituted heresy. Indeed, it might even be argued that the doctrine of transubstantiation is heretical in its implications. The claim that the body of Christ is present whenever and wherever the Mass is celebrated, is a denial of Chalcedonian orthodoxy, as it involves a property of Christ's divine nature (omnipresence) being attributed to his human nature.  

Protestants held that the Bible is the supreme authority in the church. For McGrath this meant that Protestants had some difficulty in coping with newly minted erroneous beliefs that developed within the Reformed fold. They stood with historic orthodoxy when it came to ancient heresies. Protestants responded effectively to old heresies in new guises, such as Socinianism (a kind of 17th century  Arianism). But what of novelties that sprang up within Protestantism, such as Arminianism? After all, false teachers quote the Bible as well as the orthodox, and unlike the Ecumenical Councils, no Protestant grouping can claim to speak for the whole church. According to McGrath, all the Reformed could do in response to the challenge of Arminianism was to call the Synod of Dort and attempt resolve the issue by putting it to the vote.

There are a couple of problems with McGrath's account of the Reformed Churches' response to Arminianism. First, while the teaching of Arminius and the Remonstrants who followed in his wake threw up some new challenges, it was in some ways an old error. In effect Arminianism was Semi-Pelagianism in 17th century clothing. Second, in their Canons, the Synod of Dort produced a well thought-out biblical and theological rebuttal of Arminian error (the so-called Five Points of Calvinism). The Synod appealed to Scripture rather than attempting to resolve the controversy simply by counting heads. 

The issue of biblical authority in relation to heresy is not unique to Protestants. Athanasius battled with Arius over the meaning of the Bible's witness to Christ. The Council of Nicea aimed at setting forth the church's understanding of Scripture. It did not seek to supplant or augment the authority of the Bible. The Reformed insistence on the supreme authority of Scripture is of a piece with the historic position of the Christian church. A similar approach may be found in church fathers such as Augustine. No one is arguing that the fathers' attitude to biblical authority hampered them in dealing firmly with heresy.

It could even be posited  that the principle of sola scriptura is a positive strength when it comes to combating error. It enables Protestants to respond creatively to new forms of false teaching rather than virtually being imprisoned by older creedal formulae. The medieval Roman Catholic Church failed to subject its doctrine to proper biblical authority. As a result sub-biblical dogmas such as the Mass and purgatory were allowed to develop almost unchallenged. It is essential that the church constantly reviews her teaching in the light of the Bible.

New errors demand that the church reflects afresh on the witness of Holy Scripture. Innovative ways of expressing and safeguarding old truths may be called for. In the face of the Arian threat, Nicea used the improvisatory formula that the Son is homoousios with the Father to uphold what the church had always confessed concerning the Lord Jesus Christ. A strong emphasis on biblical authority gives the church the ability to respond innovatively to fresh challenges to the orthodox Christian faith. The Synod of Dort's crystallisation of Reformed teaching in the face of Arminian error is an example of this kind of thing. 

McGrath has certainly nailed the myth that heretical teachings were more interesting and authentic versions of the Christian faith than classic orthodoxy. The fact is that heresies were and are failed attempts at exploring and explaining the gospel. They fall short of true wonder of the truth as it is in Jesus. Orthodox belief was not imposed on the church at the whim of civil and ecclesiastical politicians. Rather, orthodoxy prevailed because it offered a faithful definition and defence of the core teachings of the New Testament concerning God as Trinity, the incarnation of Christ and salvation by grace.

The writer also has some fascinating things to say on cultural and intellectual motivations for heresy. In a chapter on Heresy and the Islamic View of Christianity, he shows that criticism of Christian teaching in the Koran is often based on heretical versions of the faith rather than orthodox belief.

Today as much as ever the church is called to contend for the faith once delivered to the saints. The New Testament repeatedly emphasises that false teaching must be taken seriously, Matthew 7:15-20, Galatians 1:6-8, 2 Peter 2, 3 John 9-11. If anything McGrath could have been a little more strident in warning of the dangers of gospel-denying error. However, his book is a timely reminder that truth matters and heresy isn’t as attractive at it is sometimes cracked up to be. It is the task of the churches to demonstrate just how wonderfully compelling and life-transforming is the orthodox Christian faith. The truth and nothing but the truth will set you free (John 8:32).

The Jesus You Can't Ignore by John MacArthur

The Jesus You Can't Ignore: What you must learn from the bold confrontations of Christ,

by John MacArthur, Thomas Nelson, 2008, 219pp.

John MacArthur’s main thesis in this book is this: In order to placate postmodern dislike of dispute over truth claims, contemporary Evangelicalism has largely stopped contending for the faith. The writer does not want a return to pugnacious Fundamentalism that fights tooth and nail over the minutiae of theology. He is aware of what the Bible says on correcting error with patience and grace. But he seeks to shock Evangelicalism out of its wishy-washy approach towards false teaching. The author does this by setting before the reader Christ the controversialist.

Jesus did not shy away from confronting error head on. Indeed he often went out of his way to provoke false teachers. He publicly denounced their errors and excoriated them for their vile hypocrisy. Appeasement and accommodation were not options for Jesus. MacArthur walks the reader through Christ’s key confrontations with the Scribes and Pharisees and encourages us to follow in the footsteps of the Master in exposing error and warning of its dangers.

The book is well written in a clear, punchy and engaging style. The biblical materials are handled skilfully, placing the reader in the heat of the controversy between Jesus and the Jewish religious leaders. MacArthur offers a decidedly “old perspective” reading of the teaching of Jesus’ first century Jewish opponents. The work is none the poorer for that. His premillenial predilections intrude only occasionally and so don’t detract from the value of this volume amongst those who, like me don’t share MacArthur’s eschatological views.

As MacArthur points out in an epilogue, taking their cue from the Lord Jesus the apostles also defended the faith and confronted the false teachers who infiltrated the fledgling Christian Church. Gospel-denying error simply cannot be tolerated amongst the people of God. The letters to the seven Churches recorded in Revelation 2-3 reveal that the risen Christ is still concerned to root out false teaching and ungodly conduct among his people. The battle for truth isn’t over yet. This is no time to place the sword of the Spirit in its scabbard. The Jesus You Can't Ignore is a timely reminder of the constant need to contend earnestly for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. Soldiers of Christ arise and put your armour on!

Thanks to Forrester McGowan for a complimentary review copy of this book. Order from PTS Christian Bookshop.

Risking the Truth by Martin Downes

Risking the Truth: Handling Error in the Church,
a series of interviews edited by Martin Downes, Christian Focus, 2009, 247pp

You emerge from the darkness, eyes blinking. Before you there are two chairs, black leather. A fierce spotlight illuminates the scene. Seated on one chair is the Interrogator. His job is to question the “guests”. One by one they file in to face the man who wants to get at the truth at all costs. You get to watch and listen from the shadows. You take it all in. The Interrogator fires a question. The man sitting opposite him carefully ponders his answer before speaking. He knows what’s at stake. This is Risking the Truth. The question master is Martin Downes and his “guests” are a wide range of theologians, church historians and pastors. Some hail from the UK, others from the States and one from Africa. They share a common commitment to Reformed theology, but each is his own man with his own way of putting things, his own insights and experiences.

In reading this book you get to eavesdrop on a series of conversations ranging around the theme of handling error in the church. You don’t think that’s important? Think again. Error kills. Heresy, defined as ‘teaching that contradicts saving biblical truth’ has the capacity to damn people to hell. Am I being alarmist? Yes, in the same way that the Old Testament prophets raised an alarm against the false prophets who cried, “Peace, peace!” where there was no peace. Also the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ warned the churches about false teachers who would pervert the gospel and lead many from the truth.

But how are we to deal with error when it rears its ugly head? This is the big question that drives Downes as he quizzes his top notch interviewees. Taking their turns in the hot seat are Carl R. Trueman, Derek Thomas, Iain D. Campbell, Conrad Mbewe, Joel Beeke, Michael Ovey and others. The answers elicited from the contributors evidence a clear grasp of Reformed theology, sound biblical wisdom, and real life experience of handling people who have been in danger of drifting from the gospel.

Special attention is given to some specific erroneous teachings. Opposition to penal substitution is clearly refuted in the light of Scripture. The ‘New Perspective on Paul’ and ‘Federal Vision’ are weighed in the balance and found wanting. Biblical inerrancy is robustly defended by Greg Beale. In a sobering chapter, Robert Peterson argues against annihilationism in favour of the eternal punishment of the wicked. The errors of Roman Catholicism are indexed and rejected. But this is no ‘Horrible Book of Heresies’ where false teaching is sensationalised and set forth in the most lurid colours as a perverse form of entertainment. There is a seriousness and thoughtfulness about these conversations that is welcome and appropriate. If you are looking for pat answers, you won’t find them here. Neither will you find misguided expressions of heresy hunting zeal. Heresy isn’t something “out there” that we can safely keep at arms length. The best of us is liable to fall prey to false teaching if we are not careful. A common theme in the interviews is the need for each of us to keep a close watch on ourselves and our teaching. This applies especially to pastors. A question that recurs again and again is, ‘What are the signs of spiritual and theological decline in a minister?’ The varied answers prompt watchfulness and self-examination. For instance, Sean Michael Lucas responds by saying, ‘the root of ministerial decline is the loss of genuine communion with the Triune God that is rooted in Scripture.’

The pastoral orientation of these interviews is especially helpful. Calvin is cited to the effect that the minister has two voices, one for teaching the sheep and another for warding off wolves. Advice is sought on how pastors may best keep the flock from error. Familiarity with heresy and the orthodox response to false teaching has value. However, we must not become professional controversialists. The best way to guard ourselves against heresy is not to obsess over errors old and new, but to be steeped in the truth of Scripture. We will be able to spot false doctrine a mile off when we are thoroughly familiar with the true biblical teaching. For that reason, pastors should major on the positive exposition and application of Scripture in the life of the church. The historic creeds and Reformed confessions are also an important safeguard against error. We neglect our confessional heritage at our peril.

Pastoral wisdom is needed to distinguish between a wrongheaded believer whose doctrine is a bit confused and those who deliberately teach heresy. People in the first category need to be patiently corrected and brought to a better understanding of the truth. Those in the second camp must be dealt with more firmly. We must speak the truth in love, but if false teachers persist in their views, they must be subject to church discipline, lest their errors spread like a cancer.

Contending for the faith once delivered to the saints is a matter that concerns every believer. But pastors will find it especially profitable to lurk in the shadows as the Interrogator questions his “guests”. The conversational format of the book adds to its value. “As iron sharpens iron so a man sharpens the countenance of his friend”. (Proverbs 27:17). Each interview is distinctive and fresh. While some questions recur in each conversation, others are specially addressed to the subject’s area of expertise. The interviewees are not identikit Calvinistic clones. They are individuals who bring their own styles and personal experiences to bear in their responses. There is something of a Presbyterian bias amongst the contributors, but a few Baptists and an Anglican are also given a say. The book began life as a series of interviews on Martin Downes’ blog ‘Against Heresies’. Some of the contributors, notably Carl Trueman warn that blogging has its dangers. That may be so. But this set of edifying conversations shows that at its best theology blogging may be of benefit to the church.

As Downes acknowledges, being against heresies is not enough. Jesus rebuked the doctrinally discerning church at Ephesus for losing her first love and called her to repent and do the first works (Revelation 2:1-7). Cold orthodoxy is not the antidote to heresy. May our hearts burn with love for Christ as we arise to defend his truth.

Highly recommended. Well, what are you waiting for? Don't risk the truth. Go and buy a copy now.

* As seen on Ref21. An edited version of this review will appear in the next edition of Protestant Truth.

Order 'Risking the Truth':

Amazon.com

Amazon.co.uk

Christian Focus Publications

Protestant Truth Society Bookshop

Risking the Truth: an interview with Martin Downes

GD: Hello Martin Downes and welcome to Exiled Preacher. You have just brought out a book, Risking the Truth, Christian Focus Publications, 247pp. Summarise the contents of the book in a ten word blurb.

MD: Pastorally driven interviews on handling truth and error in the church.

GD: That was eleven words. Now, why the preoccupation with false teaching in the interviews?

MD: Actually they are not preoccupied with false teaching, even though the interviews are about that issue. They are really preoccupied with Christ, the gospel, the welfare of the church, the cure of souls, and therefore deal with how to handle false teachers and their ideas that obscure Christ and harm people.

On a personal level for eleven years now I have had an interest in heresy. I picked up, in a “health and wealth gospel” bookshop would you believe, The Cruelty of Heresy by C. FitzSimons Allison. That book opened up the moral and pastoral dimensions of heresy and helped me to see the subject in a new way. Heresy offers us something that we want, and offers it on terms that we find conducive. But heresies dishonour God, pander to our sinfulness, and are bad for our souls. Heresies are the narcotics of the theological world. Not all errors are heresies. Heresies are errors that are so bad they are soul destroying. I have a general interest in systematic and historical theology, and a particular focus on the concept of heresy. I want to explore these areas, think them through, and hopefully do some work that will be of benefit to churches.

There are three other concerns that drive me.

Firstly there is danger of not treating Jesus' warnings about false teachers seriously. That bothers me. His teaching on this should not be treated lightly.

Secondly too many Christians are naïve about false teaching because they fail to see that it dresses itself up as truth. False teaching gains acceptance because it hides under the use of biblical words and phrases but changes their meaning. It always appears to be plausible. We need to understand what the Bible says about the nature, effects, causes, remedies for, and antidotes to false teaching.

Thirdly, dealing with error is a pervasive biblical theme. Scan through the gospels, Acts, the epistles and Revelation, and you realise that this is a serious issue facing churches and Christians. I would even say that we are most likely to be confronted with demonic influences in the form of false teachers and teaching (see 2 Corinthians 11:3-5, 13-15; Ephesians 4:14 and 6:11; 1 Timothy 4:1; 2 Timothy 2:25-26; 1 John 4:1-3; Revelation 13:11). In the words of the Emperor in Star Wars “never underestimate the power of the darkside.”

GD: Have you ever felt drawn to erroneous doctrine? If so how did the Lord keep you from drifting from the truth?

MD: There was a time when my understanding of the grace of God in the accomplishment and application of the gospel was wrong and inadequate. But reading Ephesians 2:1-10, in the quietness of my room as a second year undergraduate, was an unforgettably humbling experience.

I was confronted with the truth that I owed my regeneration to God alone. He made me alive even when I was dead in sin. The grace of God in salvation was bigger than I had ever knew before and I had more to thank God for in saving me than I had previously understood. I also knew that I had to submit to this teaching from God's Word and not replace it with my own thoughts. So I escaped from an incomplete and erroneous view that at the time seemed reasonable to me. I came to agree with Jonathan Edwards' sentiment “absolute sovereignty is what I love to ascribe to God. But my first conviction was not so.”

Beyond that I often pray, as Charles Hodge did, “teach me that I may teach others also,” and with John Owen, ask that the Lord would, in his infinite mercy, continually lay an awe upon my heart and keep me in captivity to the simplicity and mystery of the gospel.

GD: The book has a stellar list of contributors; Carl Trueman, Derek Thomas, Michael Horton, Joel Beeke etc. How did you persuade them to take part, did you send round a member of the Taffia to "make them an offer they couldn't refuse?"

MD: I started with men that I already knew (Geoff Thomas, Derek Thomas, Carl Trueman, and Scott Clark) and they helpfully suggested others. That was invaluable. Further down the line maybe it helped others to know who was already on board with the interviews. I should also add that all the contributors were generous with their time. With some of the subject specific interviews I had definite ideas about who should address them. Thankfully they all said yes.

GD: No doubt the Taffia heavies helped things along a bit. The book began as a series of interviews on your blog, Against Heresies. Did you have a view to publishing the conversations in book form when they were originally posted?

MD: Not at all. My original intention was just to post all the interviews online. Geoff Thomas, one of the early contributors, suggested the idea of putting the interviews into a more permanent form. I had for a long time appreciated the work and ethos of Christian Focus and have enjoyed working with them on this project.

GD: In his interview, Carl Trueman made some salient points on the dangers of theology blogging. What are the strengths and weaknesses of blogging as a medium for theological reflection?

MD: I can only speak from a personal perspective. I had already published several articles and contributed to a book before starting a blog. It helps to keep me writing, it is useful for finding an outlet for my specialist interest, and it is an easy way to develop material that hopefully will find an outlet elsewhere. So I use it as an extra medium for the kind of writing and theological reflection that I am already doing. I think it is possible to use the medium to inform and edify others, just as it can be abused by selfish motives. I always write as a public person. I never want to bring shame on my family and my church by misusing a blog. If you blog about theology always review your aims.

GD: What is the advantage of confronting the issue of false teaching in the form of a series of interviews?

MD: I think that it is a good and legitimate way to combine biblical reflection, theological insight, historical awareness and, crucially, personal involvement. That is why the book is about “handling” truth and error, you get a marriage of knowledge and experience. I have tried to set a pastoral agenda throughout.

GD: The overwhelming majority of interviewees are Presbyterian. Why the Presby bias, do so few Baptists and Anglicans have opinions on stuff?

MD: Well that wasn't intentional. I could give you a list of Baptists and Anglicans who were too busy to contribute to the book. Perhaps Presbyterians have too much time on their hands.

GD: A question you return to again and again is this: "Calvin said that ministers have two voices. One is for the sheep and one is for warding off wolves. How have you struck the right balance in this regard in your pulpit ministry?" Well, how about you?

MD: Guy there are three strands to my thinking on this subject.

1. I am committed to consecutive expository preaching, always striving to teach the text. I hope this reigns me in from riding hobby horses in the pulpit. So I deal with false teaching as it arises in the text (and as I have preached through Titus, 2 Timothy and Colossians on Sunday evenings the subject has come up a fair bit).

2. I am convinced that a thorough knowledge of, and delight in, the truth is far better for my people than filling their heads with a variety of errors and contemporary trends. I take it that Paul's approach in Colossians, where the supremacy and sufficiency of Christ is shown in widescreen, really is the best way to safeguard congregations. What believer will want to go after novelties when they have such a soul satisfying view of Christ?

I've also learned from the Westminster Directory of Public Worship to be cautious about “raising old heresies from the grave” and mentioning “blasphemous opinions unnecessarily.” I love to see the effects of sound teaching, taught from the Word and applied by the Spirit. By way of contrast it distresses me to see the effects and the spread of error. There have been occasions where I have spoken publicly and privately about particular issues. It is important to ask if an error is a clear and present danger to your people.

3. My reading and study is more comprehensive than my spoken public ministry. Pastors ought to read beyond and above the level we are teaching at, and have a grasp of the anatomy of theology and doctrinal diseases. When I started out in pastoral ministry I was given a helpful piece of advice. As a rule I should give five days a week to the local church and one day a week to the universal church. In that way there is an outlet for broader research and writing that hopefully will benefit others.

GD: A strong theme running through most of the interviews is the importance of creeds and confessions of faith for confirming believers in the truth and guarding against heresy. Presbyterians seem to be especially hot on this issue. How can we encourage Baptist churches to be more self-consciously confessional?

MD: I think it is a case of use it or lose it. Go back and read the 1689 Confession or the Abstract of Principles. Find practical ways to reintroduce them into the life of the church. Take 5-10 minutes during the morning service to explain an article, or a catechism question (state it, explain it, illustrate it, apply it). Start a class, recommend some good books on it, get kids learning it (get the Sunday school to make an audio CD for the church). Find ways to show its importance and relevance to prayer, worship, evangelism, Christian living etc. Every church should know where it stands theologically and should have that in a written form.

And don't forget the Heidelberg Catechism. Every Christian should learn at least the first question and answer. When you are lying in a hospital bed that's the truth you want to have stored in your memory.

GD: Martin Luther said that when it comes to contending for the faith we should fight for the truth that is most under attack at any given time. Where is the battle raging most fiercely today?

MD: We don't have the luxury of fighting only on one front. We must know the essential articles of the faith thoroughly, we must preach them constantly, and as Luther said about justification, beat them into our heads continually. All the major doctrines are continually being sniped at from somewhere, but in the current evangelical scene there is an untying of the bonds that connect us to the Reformation. The doctrine of God, Scripture, the atonement, justification by faith alone, final judgement, to name but a few are under considerable attack.

GD: John Newton advised a young minister that, "we find but few writers of controversy who have not been manifestly hurt by it." How can we faithfully contend for the truth without becoming contentious bores?

MD: It is all too easy to forget that not only is the gospel about the grace of God but our reception of it is also by his grace. I have to keep on coming back to 2 Timothy 2:22-25, “The Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone...correcting his opponents with gentleness.” God requires this kind of orthopraxy in his servants. Timothy must cultivate and display these attitudes and graces. But the key is what follows. The only hope for a change in these opponents is if God grants them repentance so that they come to a knowledge of the truth and escape the snare of the devil. If I keep this text in mind as I contend for the truth it will make me thankful, subdue my pride, and lead me to pray for my opponents. A passage like this is like having a behind the scenes DVD. There is a real spiritual battle going on.

GD: Do you regret not asking proper questions like, "If time travel were possible, who would you like to meet?" or "Care to share your top three tunes?" (Like in the famous 'Blogging in the name of the Lord' interviews - see MD's contribution here).

MD: Of course. Perhaps the next project is a sound track, Risking the Truth: Tunes to bash heretics by. Doubtless there would be some Wagner, Led Zeppelin and U2 (“Stuck in a moment”) on there.

GD: Put me down for one of those. What are the main lessons that you learned regarding handling error in the church as a result of doing these interviews?

MD: I particularly valued Iain D. Campbell's reference to John Kennedy's assessment of the ministers of his generation, “each one of them would have been distinguished as a Christian, though he had never been a minister,” and Iain D's comment about how it is possible “to preach orthodox doctrine with passion, and yet be cold in our love for God and his people.” I found that the answers that dealt with the pastor's role and responsibility spoke to my soul, challenged me, and spurred me on.

If I am to deal with error I must always seek to have an living, growing relationship with the triune God. For example, I can see justification by faith taught in the text, but I must know the reality of it in my approach to God, I must know that peace that it gives, I must watch that my heart does not seek after works righteousness and so open me up to forms of teaching that offer them to me as a way of acceptance with God.

GD: Why is being against heresies not enough?

MD: Because there is the danger of it being purely academic, an outlet for an argumentative personality, a way of showcasing the extent of our knowledge. It is all too easy not to be motivated by a deep love for God and his people, to be trigger happy, and not to be compassionate. Francis Schaeffer wisely said that we should “beware the habits we pick up in controversy.”

GD: Is a sample interview available on the internet for those who would like to get a flavour of the book?

MD: You can read Carl R. Trueman's very helpful interview at the Westminster Bookstore site by clicking on this link.

GD: Your conversation with Trueman was one of the best of the bunch. Well worthwhile checking out. But I guess that just about wraps things up for now, Martin. Thanks for dropping by for this little chat. Oh, and watch this space for my reivew of RTT, where I tell you what I really think of Downsie's new book.

Order Risking the Truth:

Amazon.com
Amazon.co.uk
Christian Focus Publications
Protestant Truth Society Bookshop

Worst Heretic Poll

Which heretic has done the most damage to the gospel?

Marcion for driving a wedge between the Old and New Testament revelation of God?

Cerinthius for his doceticism which denied the true humanity of Christ?

Arius for denying the full deity of the Son of God?

Pelagius for holding that it is is possible to be saved by works rather than by grace alone?

Schleiermacher, the father of Liberal theology who taught that Christianity is the product of human consciousness rather than divine revelation?

The Pope, meaning the institution of the papacy that tries to usurp Christ's primacy over the world-wide church of God, claiming infallibility and promulgating doctrinal novelties like the immaculate conception and assumption of Mary?

Vote in the poll and leave a comment to explain your decision.