Geoff Thomas is against heresies

Martin Downes of Against Heresies has interviewed Geoff Thomas on The Christian Ministry and dealing with error. Geoff has some wise things to say on the subject. The interview comes in two parts:

Part 1 here

Part 2 here

Paul Helm on propositions and speech acts

Helm's Deep

The Prof continues his Analysis series (here) with a discussion of the role of propositions and speech acts in theology (here). Theologians draw on speech-act theory to emphasise the importance of what God does with his words. He does not merely speak. By speaking God does something, like make a promise or enter into a covenant. These are God's illocutions - his speech-acts. By the Spirit, these speech-acts are made effective as the Word is understood, promises believed, commands obeyed. This is the perlocutionary effect of God's speech-acts.

Kevin Vanhoozer draws on speech-act theory in his The Drama of Doctrine (WJK, 2005 - my review series here). He does this to show that God incorporates his people into the drama of redemption by his communicative action in Scripture. Paul Helm, although sometimes critical of Vanhoozer's approach (here), acknowledges that speech-acts have a role in Biblical revelation.

"the whole of divine revelation in Scripture is confessed by the Christian church to be God’s speech. We might think of the whole of Scripture as being enclosed within speech marks, with other sets of speech marks occurring within Scripture".

The Prof helpfully points out that Calvin understood speech-act theory before it was formally proposed by J. L. Austen in the 1960's. But Helm's concern is that theologians may emphasise speech-acts over the propositional content on Scripture. He quotes Luther's dictum, 'Take away assertions, and you take away Christianity’. This is certainly true. Revealed religion is propositional, "God is", "Christ died for our sins", "Jesus is risen". Without such propositions the heart would be ripped out of the Christian faith.

But does it follow that the task of theology is to abstract the Biblical proportions from the drama of redemption? This, perhaps is what Charles Hodge and Louis Berkhof tend to do in their approach to theology. Charles Hodge defined the task of systematic theology thus: "the exhibition of the facts of Scripture in their proper order and relation". John Frame is critical of this proposal, saying, "Hodge didn't have a very clear idea of why we need theology." For him, "Theology is the application of the Word by persons to the world and to all areas of human life." (See here). When used properly, speech-act theory helps us to consider what God is doing with his Word. This is not at the expense of propositions, but Biblical propositions must not be abstracted from the drama of redemption.

Paul Helm makes reference to my post, Dedramatising Omnipresence? (here). In that post, I criticise Berkhof's handling of omnipresence in his Systematic Theology. Berkhof gives a perfectly good definition of omnipresence, but his discussion of the subject is pretty abstract in tone. Psalm 139 is listed as a proof text, but the communicative action intended by the Psalm is missing. Yes God's omnipresence is,

"That perfection of the Divine Being by which he transcends all spatial limitations, and yet is present in every point of space with his whole Being".

It is right that systematic theology offers a definition omnipresence in such terms. But is that all it should do? Theology should try to capture something of what God was communicating through Psalm 139: that his presence is inescapable and that he holds us in his hand. What I am arguing for is an approach to systematic theology that safeguards the crucial importance of propositions and is sensitive to the communicative action of Scripture. It is not that the Hodge/Berkhof method is fundamentally wrong or misconceived, but is it sufficient?

Vanhoozer's theo-dramatic approach embraces the propositional content of Scripture. He quotes Colin Gunton with approval that to deny the propositional aspect of theology "is an attack on revealed religion." (Drama of Doctrine p. 91). Every speech-act includes a proposition whether that be a promise, a question or even a joke. But when propositions are removed from the communicative action of Scripture, they are dedramatised. The task of theology is to enable the people of God to participate fittingly in the drama of redemption, not simply to exhibit the facts of Scripture in an orderly way.

Paul Helm's article on propositions and speech-acts shows the danger of polarisation. If speech-act theory is used to undermine the propositional content of Scripture, then effect will be to "fuzzy" the gospel. But when used properly in theology, an emphasis on speech-acts may help to remind us of what God is doing with and by his written Word.

Why I'm a Baptist

Charles Haddon Spurgeon began his Christian life as a Congregationalist who believed in infant baptism. But soon after his conversion, he embraced Baptist views. His Congregationalist parents were a little disappointed in Charles’ decision to seek baptism. But they gave him permission to follow his conscience. His mother wrote,

“Ah, Charles, I often prayed to the Lord to make you a Christian, but I never asked that
you might become a Baptist”.

The dutiful son replied with a note of typical Spurgeonic wit,

“Ah, Mother, the Lord has answered your prayer with his usual bounty, and has given you exceedingly abundantly above all you asked or thought”.

I began my Christian life as a rather charismatic Congregationalist. I quickly became disillusioned with charismatic experiences as it became obvious to me that my “speaking in tongues” was just me blurting out incomprehensible nonsense. I needed something that would give my new Christian life depth and stability and I found this in the riches of Reformed theology. In Puritan and Reformed teaching, I discovered a convincingly Biblical theology that was married to an emphasis on true experiential Christianity. Here I found head and heart united to glorify God and enjoy him forever.

The transition from Charismatic to Calvinist was accomplished in a brief period of time. But it took some years for me to change from being a paedobaptist Congregationalist to a Baptist. As a young Christian I learned that the great Congregationalist divines like John Owen and Thomas Goodwin were infant-baptists, as were the Reformers and the early Church Fathers. Their argument seemed pretty convincing; baptism has replaced circumcision as the sign and seal of the covenant. As (male) children were circumcised under the old covenant, so children of believers should be baptised under the new. This view was based on a semblance of Biblical theology and backed up by many of my theological heroes. How could it be wrong? Besides, I was just a little fed up with Baptist friends telling me that I needed to be baptised. As far as I was concerned I was baptised – as an infant and that was that.

But the more I thought about the matter, it became clear to me that infant baptism is neither implied by the Old Testament nor taught in the New. Reformed Baptists are committed to applying the principle of Sola Scriptura to the matter of baptism. Put quite simply, the practice of infant baptism is not found in the Bible, so we don't believe in it. It won't do to suggest that it can be deduced from Scripture by just and necessary consequence either. If paedobaptism is entirely absent from Scripture, then no amount of deductive reasoning will make it valid. We honour the Reformers and Puritans, but, on this issue, they were mistaken. This reminds us that our heroes have feet of clay. Tradition is to be valued, but the Bible alone is our authority. "Repent, and let every one of you be baptised" (Acts 2:38), "when they believed Philip as he preached the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were baptised." (Acts 8:12). In the New Testament, water baptism always follows repentance and faith.

There is a danger when a person changes his views that he sets himself against those with whom he formerly agreed. But I still hold to Congregationalist views of Church government and have deep respect for infant-baptist Christians. There are aspects of the Reformed Baptist tradition that I am not entirely happy with. The movement has sometimes veered away from Evangelical Calvinism into Hyper-Calvinism and even antinomianism. Some Reformed Baptist Churches will not allow infant-baptist Christians to join them at the Lord’s Table. To me that is uncharitable and sectarian. But, I think that the Reformed Baptist position, as set forth in the 1689 Baptist Confession is essentially Biblical Christianity.

My Top Ten Classical Music

Anne-Sophie Mutter

1. Brahms Violin Concerto
2. Sibelius Symphony No. 5
3. Elgar Cello Concerto
4. Beethoven Symphony No. 3
5. Shostakovitch Symphony No. 5
6. Bruckner Symphony No. 7
7. Rachmaninoff Piano Concerto No. 2
8. Mahler Symphony No. 4
9. Nielsen Symphony No. 4
10. Haydn Cello Concerto No. 1

John Murray on the task of Systematic Theology 3

Systematic & Historical Theology

Systematic theology is not itself revelation. Dogmatic theology developed as the church reflected on the manifold revelation of God in Scripture. The motivation for this task was an attempt to systematically apply the teaching of the Bible to the thinking and conduct of the people of God. Individual theologians like Athanasius, Augustine and Calvin exerted huge influence on the development of Christian dogma. But the church's growing understanding of the revelation of God is above all, a result of the work of the Holy Spirit.

"[The Spirit] has been present in the church in all generations of the church's history, endowing the church in its organic unity as the body of Christ with gifts of understanding and expression. It is this ceaseless activity of the Holy Spirit development throughout the centuries of what we call Christian doctrine. Individual theologians are but the spokesmen of this accumulated understanding which the Spirit of truth has been granting to the church. Christ as Head of the church must not be thought of apart from the Spirit nor the Spirit apart from Christ". (p. 6)

This does not mean progress in understanding has been uniform. There have been decadent periods of church history when vital truths were overlooked and neglected. In those times, there was little in the way of advance. But there have also been periods of epochal contribution to the church's theological task. Heresy has often had the effect of forcing the church to look afresh at Biblical doctrine and to state her understanding of that teaching with greater force and clarity. The Arian controversy of the fourth century is a case in point. In the light of that disputation, the church declared that the Son is homoousion (same essence) with the Father. In doing so, the church safeguarded her witness to the full deity of Christ. As Murray puts it,

"The church's confession had been in the balance but the Head of the church guarded the interests of his honour." (p. 7)

For Murray, the Reformation was the golden age of creedal precision and formulation. He has Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion particularly in mind. The Protestant teaching of that period built on the earlier creeds of the church and expressed with great clarity the Biblical teaching on salvation. Murray's writings on John Calvin and the Westminster Confession of Faith bear eloquent testimony to his esteem for the theological wisdom of the Reformation and Puritan periods. (See Collected Writings 4: Studies in Theology for Murray's work in historical theology).

Systematic theology must be contemporary, but not at the expense of the dogmatic advances of the past. Turning our backs upon the great doctrinal achievements of the church in order to reinvent the the theological wheel in every generation,

"dishonours the Holy Spirit by whose endowments and grace epochal strides in understanding and precision have been taken." (p. 7)

Murray's emphasis on the value of historical and creedal theology is welcome. He gives due recognition to the role of the Holy Spirit in leading the church to understand the revelation of God in Scripture. The theological traditions of the church encapsulated in the historic creeds and confessions help the people of God in all generations to understand and apply the Biblical teaching. At a time when creedal statements are often regarded as outmoded, we need to be reminded that the theological task is no momentary, individualistic affair. We need all the wisdom and insight of the people of God in past generations to enable us to grasp the riches of the gospel. This is part and parcel of the communion of the saints. But tradition is not to be elevated to the level of Scripture. Our theology must always be open to revision in the light of God's Word.

John Murray's account of the relationship between systematic and historical theology avoids the nihilism of the anti-traditional stance of fundamentalism. Also, in clearly distinguishing between Biblical revelation and dogmatics, he refuses to accord magisterial authority to tradition. For Protestants there can be no Roman Catholic style Magesterium that stands alongside or suppliments Scripture.

Kevin Vanhoozer puts this in typically theodramatic terms,

"The Spirit thus brings about a mutual indwelling of canonical script and performing community, incorporating us not only into the drama of redemption but into the actor who stands at its very heart. As a work of the Spirit, tradition plays the role of the moon to the Scripture's sun: what light, and authority, tradition bears, it does so by virtue of reflecting the light of the Son that shines forth from the canon." (The Drama of Doctrine, WJK, 2005, p. 210)

Page references are to Collected Writings of John Murray Volume 4: Studies in Theology, Banner of Truth Trust, 1982.

Banner Minister's Conference Report 1

Discussion panel with (L to R) John MacArthur, Ian Hamilton, Stuart Olyott (hidden) and Iain Murray

Someone once said that it is better to travel than to arrive. I suppose that depends on where you are going. Be that as it may, the journey to the Banner Conference with some neighbouring pastors was a good time of fellowship in itself, even though we sometimes got so caught up in conversation that we took a wrong turn and ended up getting lost in the Cotswolds.

The Conference started with a sermon by Gerrard Hemmings on "God is love" (1 John 4:8). The preacher probed the trinitarian aspect of God's love and then focused on John 3:16 for a reflection on on wonders of God's self-giving love for a fallen world. This was a wonderful way to begin the conference. Gerrard's message was aptly illustrated and well applied. It was a reminder that we carry out our ministries against the background of a God who so loved the world.

Sinclair Ferguson spoke in the evening on Christ the Conqueror. He began by saying that his text was the whole Bible. Then he conducted a little Bible Quiz. 1. Why did the Son of God appear? 2. What did Christ do to the principalities and powers at the cross? 3. Why did Christ partake of flesh and blood? (Answers found in 1 John 3:8, Colossians 2:15 & Hebrews 2:14). Ferguson argued that the triumph of Christ is at the epicentre of the gospel. This is what motivated the early church to take the Christian massage to the nations. If the preacher fastened onto one particular text, it was Genesis 3:15. Ferguson proceeded to trace the theme of the "seed of the woman" triumphing over the "seed of the serpent" throughout the whole Bible. This was a thrilling exercise in panoramic redemptive-historical preaching. Fresh light was shed on Old Testament history from Cain and Abel to the book of Esther as the epic conflict developed.

With the coming of Christ, the Seed of the woman, the war became all the more intense. Christ confronted and defeated Satan in the temptations in the wilderness (Luke 4). Jesus bound the strong man and spoiled his goods by casting out demons. "Why" asked Ferguson "do we find unprecedented demonic activity in the gospels? Why was Jesus confronted by a man possessed by a legion of demons?" The answer is that in the Gospels we have the account of the last battle in the age-old conflict between Christ and the devil. Satan tried to deflect Christ from the cross (Matthew 16). When that strategy failed, the devil schemed to have Jesus crucified in such a demoralising way that it would crush him. Satan entered Judas who betrayed his Master. The devil stirred up the leaders Jesus' own people to cry out for his blood. But Christ triumphed over Satan by his death and resurrection. He is Christus Victor. But we cannot have Christus Victor without Christus Propitiator. Jesus triumphed over the devil by bearing our sins to silence the accuser of the brethren.

With this sweeping "biblical theology on fire" in mind, Ferguson urged us to fulfill the Great Commission. We must evangelise because Christ is triumphant. He will conquer and save. This also has a pastoral application. Nothing can separate us from the love of God in Christ. His redeeming love will conquer all. "If God is for us, who can be against us?"

Banner Minister's Conference Report 2

On Tuesday, united prayer was followed by a 15 minute "short" by Chad Van Dixhoorn on Seven Marks of a Puritan Pulpit Ministry. They were: 1. That Minister's should by called of God and ordained to preach the Word. 2. That Ministers should be educated and trained to preach. 3. That preachers should be godly men. 4. That Christians should be hearers of God's word. 5. That preaching is God's ordinary means of grace. 6. That we must preach Christ in all his fullness. 7. That preacher need to rely on the Holy Spirit. The Wednesday "short" was led by Martin Holdt, who spoke very helpfully on Jesus as a man of prayer.

John MacArthur preached three times (Tues, Wed & Thur) on The Shameful Cross, 1 Cor 1:18-2:5. MacArthur spoke on the contemporary context where evangelicalism seems to be trying to remove the shameful aspects of the cross in order to make the truth acceptable to the world. He urged us not to be ashamed of the gospel (Romans 1:16). The preacher helped us to see just how shameful the cross was in the shame-based culture of the first century. He explored this theme under six headings:

1. The Shameful Sentence

The cross teaches us that sinners are perishing and under the judgement of God. Only grace can save us. This principle was illustrated vividly with a helpful exposition of the parable of the prodigal son. How shameful was the younger brother's behaviour. How shameful of the father to run and embrace his errant son rather than punish him.

2. The Shameful Stigma

The only hope for perishing sinners is that God died on a cross. This seems to be an idiotic message. Sheer foolishness. The cross was an offence to cultured Greeks and a stumbling block to the Jews. Crucifixion was a common death for common criminals. To the Jews it was a sign that the condemned person was under God's curse. Here is no seeker friendly message with a built-in feel good factor. What we have to offer is a crucified Messiah.

3. Shameful Simplicity

This message does not flatter the human intellect. It was foolishness to the Greeks. In fact, we cannot understand the cross apart from the work of the Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:14). The simplicity of the cross offends our intellectual pride and humbles us to the dust.

4. Shameful Singularity

This is the only message that can save sinners. It is the power of God unto salvation. The exclusivity of the gospel offends postmodern people. But we have nothing else to declare but Jesus Christ and him crucified.

5. The Shameful Society

In 1 Corinthians 1:26ff, Paul points out that God has not chosen many glamorous or noble people, but the nothings of this world to form the community of the cross. The gospel does not advance by cultural influence. We have the treasure of the Word in clay pots. God uses weak, vulnerable, broken, suffering people to proclaim the message of salvation. This the undercuts evangelical obsession with celebrity-based evangelism and witness.

6. The Shameful Sovereignty

1 Corinthians 1:27 & 27 tells us that God has chosen his people, not because of anything in themselves, but for his glory (1:30). MacArthur gave us some quotes from writers who hated this Calvinistic emphasis. But we must preach God's sovereignty so that he is given all the praise for saving us.

In the light of this, we must not adulterate the message of the cross, but preach it in the power of the Holy Spirit. The preacher's addresses were shot through with discerning comments about the contemporary scene, wise application, telling illustrations, anecdotes and humour. Having never heard McArthur before, I was very much helped, challenged and encouraged by his ministry.

Banner Minister's Conference Report 3

On Tuesday morning, Alan McNabb spoke on Leaving us an Example- Jesus Christ. He based his message (rather loosely) on 1 Peter 2:21. We are follow Christ in our battle against temptation and in suffering the undiscerning. Christ is our example as a preacher. He was confrontational, gentle and simple. Like his, our preaching should be bold, gracious and interesting. Above all, Christ is our example in holy living. We were reminded of M'Cheyne's words, "My people's greatest need is my own personal holiness." On Wednesday Alan preached on Leaving us an Example - The Apostles, with special emphasis on their prayer in Acts 4. Our private and public prayers should be modelled on this example of God-centred, expectant and answered prayer. McNabb urged upon us the special importance of the prayer meeting in the life of the church. Both these addresses were very challenging and practical for pastors.

On Tuesday evening, Iain Murray spoke on John Newton 1725-1807. He retold the thrilling story of Newton's life, conversion and ministry and set before us his example of godly and wise pastoral counsel. Murray's address was a wonderful example of the value of Christian biographical study. It was clear, warm, engaging and well applied. Wednesday evening's session was led by Ian Hamilton, who spoke on the subject, What the Church Really Needs. His address was based on Paul's prayer in Ephesians 1:15ff. What we need is a fresh revelation of the infinities and immensities of God. The Conference concluded with Steven Curry preaching very helpfully on Psalm 22.

For me, Conference highlights were the messages by Sinclair Ferguson and John MacArthur. I also enjoyed the discussion session on Wednesday evening (see photo). This was full of insight and humour as the panel responded to questions from Conference members. It was good to see some old friends and meet some new people from the UK and overseas. Stephen Holland and I represented the Protestant Truth Society at the Conference, chatting to people about our work and handing out freebie literature. On Wednesday evening, Iain Murray and Geoff Thomas were the special guests at a fellowship meeting of (mostly) Welsh ministers. The conversation was good as we discussed the problems that face us in the contemporary world and Iain Murray reminisced about Arnold Dallimore and Lloyd-Jones. This years' Banner was an excellent time on ministry and fellowship. We managed to get a bit lost on the way home too!

I met the following bloggers: Gary Brady, Martin Downes, Danny Foulkes, Paul Levy and Geoff Thomas.

You can order tapes or CD's of the Conference from the Banner of Truth Trust (here).

Banner Conference Important Announcement

Readers will want to know the result of the Banner Football Match. On Wednesday afternoon, an England XI played a Rest of the World XI. It was an epic game of skill and passion, as ageing legs were forced to engage in almost unprecedented physical activity. The haughty, imperialistic English were no match for the mostly Celtic, plucky opposition. Modesty forbids me to tell of my role in defence, where I confused the life out of strikers by running at them and occasionally falling over. But, I have kept you in suspense for too long The result? England 3 - Rest 5.

I will hopefully post a report of the Conference tomorrow.

Bye for now

I'm off to the Banner Minister's Conference shortly (scroll down a few posts for the details). I'll do a report when I get back. Meanwhile, David Sky has informed me that he has just written his first blog poem. It's a corker. Click here and be very amazed. Is there no beginning to that monkey's talents?