Vincent Cheung .com » 2005

Real Spiritual Revival

The following is adapted from a message that I sent to a friend a long time ago. I am posting it here because of its relevance to two previous blog entries: Real Spiritual Power and Pentecostalism and Cessationism.

— /// —

In connection with our discussion on revival, here are several relevant passages from the Bible:

2 Kings 22:11–23:3
When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law, he tore his robes. He gave these orders to Hilkiah the priest, Ahikam son of Shaphan, Acbor son of Micaiah, Shaphan the secretary and Asaiah the king’s attendant: "Go and inquire of the LORD for me and for the people and for all Judah about what is written in this book that has been found. Great is the LORD’s anger that burns against us because our fathers have not obeyed the words of this book; they have not acted in accordance with all that is written there concerning us."

Hilkiah the priest, Ahikam, Acbor, Shaphan and Asaiah went to speak to the prophetess Huldah, who was the wife of Shallum son of Tikvah, the son of Harhas, keeper of the wardrobe. She lived in Jerusalem, in the Second District.

She said to them, "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: Tell the man who sent you to me, ‘This is what the LORD says: I am going to bring disaster on this place and its people, according to everything written in the book the king of Judah has read. Because they have forsaken me and burned incense to other gods and provoked me to anger by all the idols their hands have made, my anger will burn against this place and will not be quenched.’

Tell the king of Judah, who sent you to inquire of the LORD, ‘This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says concerning the words you heard: Because your heart was responsive and you humbled yourself before the LORD when you heard what I have spoken against this place and its people, that they would become accursed and laid waste, and because you tore your robes and wept in my presence, I have heard you, declares the LORD. Therefore I will gather you to your fathers, and you will be buried in peace. Your eyes will not see all the disaster I am going to bring on this place.’"

So they took her answer back to the king.

Then the king called together all the elders of Judah and Jerusalem. He went up to the temple of the LORD with the men of Judah, the people of Jerusalem, the priests and the prophets — all the people from the least to the greatest. He read in their hearing all the words of the Book of the Covenant, which had been found in the temple of the LORD. The king stood by the pillar and renewed the covenant in the presence of the LORD — to follow the LORD and keep his commands, regulations and decrees with all his heart and all his soul, thus confirming the words of the covenant written in this book. Then all the people pledged themselves to the covenant.

Nehemiah 8:8-9, 13, 9:3
They read from the Book of the Law of God, making it clear and giving the meaning so that the people could understand what was being read. Then Nehemiah the governor, Ezra the priest and scribe, and the Levites who were instructing the people said to them all, "This day is sacred to the LORD your God. Do not mourn or weep." For all the people had been weeping as they listened to the words of the Law.

On the second day of the month, the heads of all the families, along with the priests and the Levites, gathered around Ezra the scribe to give attention to the words of the Law.

They stood where they were and read from the Book of the Law of the LORD their God for a quarter of the day, and spent another quarter in confession and in worshiping the LORD their God.

These passages describe the spiritual revivals under the leadership of Josiah and Nehemiah. They demonstrate that true revival involves a revival of a book, namely, the Bible. True revival entails a renewed interest in the Bible and a renewed obedience to its teachings. It can, as in the above two cases, occur without a manifestation of charismata, although it can certainly be accompanied with it. But a revival of charismata without a revival of "the book," then, cannot be considered a true revival, since that which we are "revived" about would remained undefined. We might feel "revived," but would not know what we are so revived about. In reality, it is only a revival of the flesh.

So, if in a "revival," the people involved do not have renewed interest in reading, understanding, and obeying the Bible, then it cannot be a true or long-lasting revival. It may mean that God is generous with spiritual gifts, but the people’s hearts have not really turned back to him. One cannot turn back to God without turning back to "the book," since even the meaning of turning back to God is defined by "the book." No revival can even say that it emphasizes repentance but not doctrine, since repentance is a doctrine (Hebrews 6:1, etc.), and it, again, remains undefined unless you turn back to "the book."

Thus the power of God is not unleashed in or by stomping, yelling, barking, crying, falling, or foaming at the mouth, but it is released as the mighty hammer of God even as a minister calmly reads the Scriptures to the people, "making it clear and giving the meaning," and providing the occasion and the means by which the Spirit of God performs all that he pleases. And when the people will stand "for a quarter of the day" to hear the Word of the Lord, and "another quarter" in confession and in worship, then we shall know that the true revival we have longed for has already started.

The Imprecatory Psalms (6)

Here is perfect hatred expressed against the enemies of God. It is the hatred each of us should have to properly honor our holy God. You need to ask yourself right now, "Are Christ’s enemies my enemies?" If they are not, you do not love the Lord as you should! (111)

God’s army in every place needs the war psalms of the Prince of Peace. The Christian church has lost its military vision because the pulpit has been ashamed of the battle cries from the Psalms. (77)

We must be candid enough to acknowledge that to pray for the extension of God’s kingdom is to solicit the destruction of all other kingdoms. This is the unique prayer life of the disciples of Christ. When we pray as Jesus taught us, we cry out to God for His blessings upon His church and for His curses upon the kingdom of the evil one. As Harry Mennega succinctly stated, "Advance and victory for the Church means retreat and defeat for the kingdom of darkness." (52)

Prayer and preaching are the powerful weapons that overcome the world! We pray for the destruction of the evil empire, and through these prayers God brings down the very gates of hell in the name of Jesus Christ. Where do we learn to pray like this? From these very prayers that have been cast off as "out-of-date," "devilish," and "inferior" — the imprecatory psalms. That’s why we must faithfully preach from these psalms and pray them in the Lord Jesus Christ. (89)

And God will hear our prayer in Jesus’ name. He can be trusted to bring perfect justice in His own time. We have the privilege of teaching God’s people to trust the God who will not be mocked. (79)

James E. Adams, War Psalms of the Prince of Peace
Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1991.

This will be the final post on the imprecatory psalms.

I encourage you to gain an understanding of the proper place of imprecatory prayers, and then make them an integral part of your spiritual life.

I will again credit War Psalms of the Prince of Peace by James E. Adams for this series of blog entries. One reason why I borrowed so much from this book is to advertise it to you by showing you some of the choice quotes from this book.

Looking at the quotes aren’t enough, since there is a biblical basis for the use of these psalms, and this is what you really need to understand and teach others. The quotes that I have shown you do not at all cover this, but it is competently expounded throughout the book.

Recommended:

The Imprecatory Psalms (1)

The Imprecatory Psalms (2)

The Imprecatory Psalms (3)

The Imprecatory Psalms (4)

The Imprecatory Psalms (5)

Legalism and Antinomianism

We need to avoid two extremes in obeying God’s commandments, however. One is legalism, which adds man-made requirements to God’s commandments. The other is antinomianism, which denies the authority of the law as a rule of life for Christians. Today, our greatest problem is antinomianism. We will not be ruled by God. we fancy that our own instincts are so sanctified that we can safely follow where they lead. This thinking can lead us into swift current of worldliness. As soon as a believer rests his oars in his battle to keep God’s commandments, he yields to the world and is swept downstream. He is then overcome by the world rather than overcoming the world in Christ.

Joel R. Beeke, Overcoming the World
(P & R Publishing, 2005), p. 31.

Recommended:

Joel Beeke, Overcoming the World

Vincent Cheung, The Sermon on the Mount

Ernest Reisinger, The Law and the Gospel

Determinism, Fatalism, and Pantheism

~ Taken from Vincent Cheung, The Author of Sin. Footnotes excluded. ~

Sometimes people ask me about fatalism. Most of these are polite and teachable individuals who would like to know what determinism and fatalism are, how they differ from each other, and how my position differs from fatalism. And then, there are some who outright accuse me of teaching fatalism. The following will suffice as my response to both groups of people.

By some definitions, the terms "determinism" and "fatalism" are similar. Some English dictionaries would define these terms in ways that fail to make a clear distinction between them. Merriam-Webster is too ambiguous for our purpose, and Webster's New World Thesaurus considers the two synonymous. Certainly, even those who affirm "soft" determinism and accuse me of teaching fatalism would not want to accept these ambiguous definitions, since then they would become "soft fatalists" at best. The definitions in theological and philosophical literature might be more precise.

By "fatalism," I refer to the teaching that all events are predetermined (1) by impersonal forces and (2) effected regardless of means, so that no matter what a person does, the same outcome will result.

By "determinism," I specially refer to theological or divine determinism. It is the teaching that the personal God of the Bible has intelligently and immutably predetermined all events, including all human thoughts, decisions, and actions, and that by predetermining both the ends and the means to those ends.

These are not my private definitions, but they are consistent with the common usage in theological and philosophical literature.

For example, Dr. Alan Cairns is a respected Presbyterian pastor and theologian, whose orthodoxy is generally unquestioned, and who is a "soft" determinist himself. He defines "fatalism" as follows: "The theory of inevitable necessity; the heathen oriental philosophy that all things are predetermined by blind, irrational forces and that therefore there is no point in human effort to change anything."

Now, before the sight of God, who dares accuse me of teaching that "all things are predetermined by blind, irrational forces"? To do so would be to commit the sin of slander, and some have indeed committed this sin against me by their false accusations. Rather, I affirm that it is the personal and rational God who has predetermined all things.

And who dares accuse me of teaching that all things occur as predetermined regardless of means? I affirm that God determines all things by immutably foreordaining and directly controlling both the ends and the means. Therefore, it is not that there is "no point in human effort," but that it is God who also controls human efforts as well as the effects of these efforts to produce the predetermined results.

It is dangerous to speak of things that you do not understand, and it appears that those who accuse me of teaching fatalism are ignorant of what fatalism really means.

Just as some Arminians falsely accuse the Calvinists of teaching fatalism, these Calvinists who affirm "soft" determinism turn around and accuse me of teaching fatalism, but neither the Arminians nor the Calvinists have any idea what fatalism means. These people do not have the courtesy to even look up the word in a theological dictionary to make sure that the accusation applies. And they certainly don't have the minimal theological background to understand what fatalism means without looking it up.

As for those of you who are attentive and teachable – unlike those who make ignorant and slanderous accusations, pretending to be scholars when they are not – I do not blame you for asking about this, since there is much false information being circulated.

Rest assured that what I teach, although it is a stronger version of determinism than the one that you are accustomed to hearing, it is very different from fatalism. In fact, it is as different from fatalism as theism is different from paganism and atheism, since I affirm that all things are determined by the personal and sovereign God, and not by "blind, irrational forces."

Therefore, do not let ignorant people confuse or deceive you.

Then, I will also point out something that is commonly misunderstood, namely, some people assume that one has more freedom under "determinism" and that things are more comprehensively determined in "fatalism." But this is false.

The fact is that things are more determined in divine determinism than in any other scheme. Under "fatalism" (as properly defined above), an event is predetermined in such a way that the same outcome will result "no matter what you do," that is, regardless of means. But under divine determinism, although it "matters" what you do, "what you do" is also immutably predetermined in the first place. And it "matters" because there is a definite relationship between "what you do" and the outcome, although even this relationship is determined and controlled by God.

Thus, I affirm divine determinism and not fatalism, but not for the reason that people sometimes shun fatalism. I affirm divine determinism not because things are less controlled in this scheme – they are more controlled – but I affirm it because it is the revealed and rational truth.

While I am at it, there are those who charge that my determinism and occasionalism amount to pantheism. But this is also stupid and ignorant. If pantheism affirms that "all is God," then it means that when God acts on any object, he is always acting only on himself. But this is far from what I affirm. Rather, I affirm that God has created spiritual and material entities that are other than himself, but that he nevertheless completely sustains and controls. To say that God completely controls X is very different from saying that God is X.

In fact, for my opponents to charge me with pantheism because I affirm God's direct and total control over all things implies that they believe, under theism, God cannot have direct and total control over anything that is not himself. But then, since the created universe is not God, by implication they must affirm that God has no direct and total control over anything in the created universe.

That is, by their accusation against me, they imply that God is identified with anything over which he has direct and total control. Then, since they deny my teaching that God has direct and total control over all things, and since they at the same time deny that God is identified with the universe, it follows that they believe God has no direct and total control over anything in the universe. And if this is what they believe, then they are not even Christians.

This is the implication of what they believe from their accusation against me. Of course, I am not actually accusing them of believing this, but it is the logical implication, and the charitable conclusion is that they are at least inconsistent.

In any case, as with the charge of fatalism, these people have no idea what pantheism means, and to accuse me of explicitly or implicitly teaching pantheism is nothing but slander.

In other words, the objection betrays the assumption that God is (identified with) whatever he completely controls. And because Vincent Cheung teaches that God completely controls everything, including all human thoughts and decisions, and including all corporeal and incorporeal objects and the relationships and interactions between them (so that one moving object has no inherent power to move another object when the former strikes the latter, but that it is God who actively and directly controls them both, and that a "secondary cause" can at best be a relative term that cannot attribute any inherent causative power to any created object, etc.), then Vincent Cheung must be teaching pantheism.

Now, after pointing out the unjustified assumption (that God is whatever he completely controls), and after pointing out that I reject this assumption, it remains that this is their assumption, on the basis of which they formed their accusation against me. It is at this point that the objection backfires. Because their assumption is that God is identified with whatever he completely controls, this means that if they believe that God completely controls anything at all, then God must be identified with that object, and this makes them at least modified or partial pantheists. Holding constant their assumption, the only logical alternative is for them to deny that God completely controls anything in his creation, but then they are not even theists anymore.

Therefore, logically speaking, those who use this objection affirm either partial pantheism or finite godism, neither of which allows them to consistently call themselves Christians. On the other hand, I affirm that God completely controls everything about everything that is anything, and that this does not imply that he is identified with those things that he controls; rather, his creation is something other than himself, but it is nevertheless something that he completely controls.

"Soft" Determinism

~ Taken from Vincent Cheung, The Author of Sin. Footnotes excluded. ~

Let me make an observation about the term "soft determinism." Although I do not completely oppose its use, it does seem to be loaded language, and allows its adherents to appear better than they really should.

Now, "soft" determinism is used in contrast with "hard" determinism. Using these terms, the popular Reformed/Calvinistic position, which is compatibilism, would be called "soft" determinism, whereas my position would be called "hard" determinism.

The former is "softer" in quality and/or in quantity regarding the level and/or amount of control (determinism) that God exercises over his creation, whereas "hard" determinism is absolute, affirming that God exercises complete (in level or quality) and comprehensive (in amount or quantity) control over everything.

But this means that "soft" determinism is really partial determinism – that is, partial (not full) either in quality or in quantity, or both. And if what God does not absolutely determine can still actually happen, then this means that there is another (one or more) determining power in the universe. When we are speaking of God's relation to man, attributing only partial determinism to God necessarily implies attributing partial determinism to man also. So this becomes a version of dualism.

In other words, one who believes that God absolutely determines everything is a full determinist, since he believes that God fully determines everything, in terms of both quality and quantity, and in terms of both the level (extent) and the amount of control exercised. To believe anything less than this is not full; therefore, it is partial.

Also, since "soft" determinism really means partial determinism, this also necessarily means that it is partial indeterminism (that is, partial non-determinism). Granted, since Calvinists usually (claim to) affirm greater determining power to God than man, this indeterminism is a very "soft" indeterminism, but it is still partial indeterminism.

It becomes just a matter of emphasis as to which term one wishes to use. So the term "soft" determinism is at least a little misleading, making its adherents look better than they really should. To some, it has the effect of sounding "softer," kinder, and less extreme. But if we don't let the language deceive us, we see that it is really partial determinism, weak determinism, incomplete determinism, or "soft" indeterminism. And, at least by implication, dualism.

On the other hand, since we who affirm "hard" determinism in fact affirm just "determinism," there is no need to qualify it if not for a contrast or a challenge from a partial version. I do not need to constantly say that I am a full human unless I am in a discussion involving partial humans – I am just human. And in the context of a contrast, what we affirm is really full determinism, not "hard." Also, when we flip it around, we can confidently say that we affirm non-indeterminism (zero indeterminism) when it comes to the level and amount of control that God exercises over his creation.

Of course, the above does not directly argue about the merits of the two views, but it is an observation about the loaded language often used.

Joel Beeke on Sanctification

I am sorry to say this, but most books on sanctification (Christian living, holiness, prayer, etc.) are very poor, and full of unbiblical nonsense.

Christian books on sanctification are characteristically sloppy, imprecise, unbiblical, and often somewhat anti-intellectualistic and mystical….In general, my advice is that you should always read something on sanctification by a competent systematic theologian rather than one who is famous only for writing "devotional" literature.

Joel Beeke is perhaps one of the better writers on the subject, and it is more than just a coincidence that he is a professor of systematic theology. Here I will discuss his recently published Overcoming the World .

The book is divided into four parts (twenty-one chapters):

Part 1: Overcoming the World by Faith

Part 2: Overcoming the World through Piety (Calvin’s Answer to Worldliness)

Part 3: Overcoming the World through Holiness

Part 4: Overcoming the World in the Ministry

The book is not technical, but still substantive, fairly comprehensive, and useful for review.

The book has its problems. In what follows, I will list some of the false or questionable statements that I’ve found in the book. Some of them might seem trivial to you, but they are not trivial, since many of them reinforce common errors that distort the theological understanding and the spiritual growth of Christian readers.

Since I will be making a number of short quotes from the book, instead of indenting each quote, I will just color each quote in blue. Then, I will comment on each quote in black. Note that since I am listing more than a few quotes from the book, I can give only very brief comments for each.

Also, since I cannot give a detailed critique of each quote, I will try to be very generous in my comments. In some cases, I must simply state my disagreement or ask a relevant question, and then move on, but in almost all of the cases below, I have provided my own positions and arguments for those positions in my own books, listed in the recommended reading at the end.

Some of these errors are not dangerous (althought some are), but they are nevertheless listed here because it is best to be aware of all fallacious statements as you read, and make a conscious effort not to swallow them or be influenced by them.

— /// —

1. In spiritual life, in interpersonal relations, in all of our work, this principle holds true: the path to gain is through pain. (13)

This is an unbiblical generalization.

2. In their book In His Image, Paul Brand and Philip Yancey show how pain is a necessary ingredient to growth. That’s why we speak of growing pains and repeat the saying "No pain, no gain." (13)

This is an unbiblical generalization, and it is never necessary and often counterproductive to use a non-biblical saying to teach a biblical truth. It is inappropriate to apply "No pain, no gain" to biblical sanctification.

3. Calvin’s piety is biblical, with an emphasis on the heart more than the mind. Head and heart must work together, but the heart is more important. (42)

Now this is the type of unbiblical nonsense that I am talking about.

Note that the first sentence contrasts the "heart" with the "mind," and the second contrasts the "heart" with the "head." Thus, as in the usage of many others, the "head" refers to the "mind" — but then, what in the world is the "heart"? If it is not the mind, then is it non-mental? If it is non-mental, then what is non-mental piety? And how can non-mental piety interact with Scripture?

But if they (the heart and the mind) are both mental, then why speak of them as if they are different parts of the human being?

Where is the biblical justification for making this distinction between the heart and the mind?

And why is the "mind" referred to as the "head" in the first place?

In Scripture, the "mind" and the "heart" are never considered as two separate parts of the human being. The above is an example of using unbiblical language to make an unbiblical distinction, and much of the anti-intellectualistic teachings on sanctification are founded precisely on this false distinction. We must throw out this teaching completely and permanently.

As Gordon Clark writes, "Therefore when someone in the pews hears the preacher contrasting the head and the heart, he will realize that the preacher either does not know or does not believe what the Bible says. That the gospel may be proclaimed in its purity and power, the churches should eliminate their Freudianism and other forms of contemporary psychology and return to God's Word…" (The Biblical Doctrines of Man; Trinity Foundation, p. 87–88).

4. In the sacraments God accomodates Himself to our weakness. When we hear the Word indiscriminately proclaimed, we may wonder: "Is it truly for me? Does it really reach me?" However, in the sacraments God reaches out and touches us individually, and says, "Yes, it’s for you. The promise extends to you." (56)

Really? Can a person who doubts the Word of God like this really come to a correct understanding of the promises of God through the sacraments? Where is this taught in Scripture? Can one not doubt the sacraments (or their applicability to him) just as easily as the Word, if not easier?

The rich man wanted to be raised from the dead to specifically warn his own brothers about damnation, but if they would not hear the Word, neither would they hear one who is raised from the dead. So, if having a dead relative raised from the dead for you doesn’t work to bring the promise home, then the sacraments will?

But if the thinking is that the Spirit works through the sacraments, then he can just as easily work through the Word.

5. While self-denial focuses on inward conformity to Christ, cross-bearing centers on outward Christlikeness. (69)

I am not saying that he is wrong, but I would like some biblical evidence for this distinction, which Beeke does not supply.

6. "Theology is the doctrine or teaching of living to God," wrote William Ames…. (77)

I disagree with this definition.

7. But as Robert Bruce put it, "While we do not get a better Christ in the sacraments than we do in the Word, there are times when we get Christ better." (88)

Really? What kind of Christians get Christ better through the sacraments than the Word? Also, where is the biblical support for this?

8. Holiness and prayer have much in common….Both are learned by experience and through spiritual battles. (90)

NO! They are learned through the Word of God.

(See my Prayer and Revelation)

9. These two things, fighting against sin and lack of success, appear contradictory but are not. (91)

No, these two things do not even appear contradictory, since there is nothing in either that even apparently makes the other impossible. "Fighting against sin" does not automatically guarantee or even imply success, and vice versa.

10. Holy living influences and impresses as nothing else can; no argument can match it. (98)

This is a common error, and another stubborn belief of anti-intellectualistic spirituality. It is unbiblical. A biblical argument (the very Word of God) can "match" holy living any day.

(See my The Light of Mind, chapter 2: "By Word and Deed")

11. (Referring to the church at Ephesus…) Her head was correct in doctrine, her hands were busy in service, but her heart had become cold in affection. (117)

Here is the unbiblical distinction between "head" and "heart" again. A biblical way to put this would be to say, "Her mind was correct in doctrine, her hands were busy in service, but her mind (this same mind that was correct in doctrine) had become cold in affection." It is also acceptable to use "heart" in both places where "mind" is used in this sentence.

12. As Spurgeon wrote: "…All our libraries and studies are mere emptiness compared with our closets…" (126)

This is Spurgeon, not Beeke, and Spurgeon is wrong.

Why are people compelled to put down intellectual studies when they discuss sanctification? It is unbiblical, and there is no reason for it.

And unless "all our libraries and studies" are completely without Bibles and Christian books, then what he says belittles the Bible itself, at least by implication.

It is more simple and accurate to just say, "You must both study and pray." Yes, put more fluff into it and make it sound nice and pious if you want, but don’t belittle either one to exalt the other.

And if you don’t study, your "closet" is going to be pretty empty.

(See my Prayer and Revelation)

13. Triumph is reflected in some of the Psalms, but nearly half of them describe the pain, sorrow, frustration, and loneliness of Christian experience…. As Luther said, "If you can’t find your life in the Psalms, you have never become a child of God." (129)

Tell that to someone who just got converted one minute ago. Yes, yes, I know what Luther meant, but it is technically incorrect, and it is an unnecessary mistake because he didn’t have to say it, at least not this way.

So I am not saying that all of these examples are examples of heresy — by no means — but many of them are unbiblical, or at least sloppy. And even if these are not enough to reject a book altogether, you should at least be aware of them as you read, and not let these fallacious statements sink into your mind, as if by osmosis.

14. Because [Paul] knew what anxiety was, he could teach believers how not to be anxious. Because he had personally battled fear and sin and disappointment, he could preach on those matters to other believers (2 Cor. 1:3–7). (129)

This is a common mistake patterned after secular thinking. The biblical thing to do is to base our qualifications on knowledge of the Word (and in Paul’s case, also on divine inspiration) rather than experience.

Look up 2 Cor. 1:3–7. It does not teach what is being asserted here. What is shared is God’s resources, not insight from experience.

15. Remember, you are known more for your reactions than your actions (Prov. 16:32). (146)

Really? How about serial murderers, or Hitler? Personally, I remember the actions of serial murderers rather than their reactions to anything, or Hitler’s actions rather than his reaction to anything. But maybe this is just me.

This seems to be a misapplication of Proverbs 16:32 (look it up!), and it sounds rather like something that comes from a secular leadership seminar or a self-help book. If it is really a biblical teaching, he will have to use another verse.

16. (When it comes to handling criticisms…) If your conscience is clear, a simple, straightforward explanation may be helpful in certain cases, though respectful silence is often more appropriate and effective (Mark 14:61). (147)

This is a misapplication of Mark 14:61, which has a specific and different context and background.

Look up the verse, and if needed, get some help from a reliable commentary. It is not mainly about how to handle criticisms, such as what you would receive because of your Christian ministry or witness.

17. At all costs, don’t strive to justify yourself; your friends don’t need that, and your enemies probably won’t believe you anyhow. (147)

Even if he is right, he needs to give some biblical support for this, and to reconcile it with how Jesus, Paul, and the prophets reacted to criticisms, since they did strike back in certain contexts.

Otherwise, I think that this is just another false generalization.

18. If one of Jesus’ handpicked apostles betrayed Him for a paltry sum, and another swore that he did not know Him out of fear of a servant maid, why should we expect to carry on our ministries without ever being betrayed or deserted? (149–150)

Peter might be applicable, but Judas at least needs some qualification or explanation. It was not as if Christ was surprised by his treachery; rather, he knew that Judas was a "devil from the beginning," foreordained to betray Christ, so that the Scriptures could be fulfilled.

19. Pray with your critic. If he visits you, always begin with prayer, and ask him to close in prayer… (152)

This type of suggestions sound pious enough, but I am not sure if they are always wise. Is there biblical support for this? Any biblical examples? In the life of Christ, Paul, Peter, others?

20. The Lord delivered Job from his hard feelings toward his judgmental friends when he prayed for them. (152)

Does Scripture say that Job had "hard feelings" toward his friends, and does it say that God delivered Job from those feelings when he prayed? If not, this is just pure speculation without any biblical justification. The danger is that the reader might think that he is receiving sound advice based on biblical examples when this is not the case at all.

— /// —

I will stop here, but there are many other examples from the book. We do not have to throw out the book because of the above errors. Christian books are almost always too sloppy and imprecise. Beeke’s book is already one of the best of its kind. Most of the other ones can go straight to the trash.

Recommended:

Vincent Cheung, Prayer and Revelation

Vincent Cheung, The Light of Mind, ch. 2

Real Spiritual Power

The following is taken from my Commentary on Ephesians. I am posting this excerpt from the book because of its relevance to the previous blog entry.

— /// —

Therefore, "the eyes of your heart" is just another way of saying, "the understanding of your mind." Paul is thus praying for his readers to receive an intellectual understanding about spiritual things, especially the doctrines that he mentions in this same letter. As Psalm 119:18 states, "Open my eyes that I may see wonderful things in your law." Likewise, O'Brien agrees that Paul is emphasizing a person's "thinking."

This point has tremendous implications for Christian life and development. As long as some Christians think that real spiritual wisdom depends on something "beyond" the intellectual understanding of spiritual things, they will keep on trying to grasp biblical truths with this non-mental part of their person. The problem is that this non-mental part does not exist, so that they will always be striving to accomplish something that cannot be done, with a part of their person that does not exist.

Instead of chasing after mystical fantasies, we should embrace the simplicity of the biblical model, that spiritual progress is founded on the mind – on the intellectual – and it comes from a genuine understanding of and a sincere agreement to what God has revealed in Scripture, and then a faithful obedience to what one has learned. To say it again, the biblical way consists of intellectual understanding, sincere agreement, and faithful obedience, not some nonsense about transferring knowledge from the head to the heart.

Another implication of Paul's prayer is that true spiritual enlightenment and progress depends on petitioning the personal God, and using the means that this God has ordained; it does not come from harnessing one's own abilities or manipulating impersonal or even demonic forces. In fact, Scripture rejects the idea that we have any inherent abilities to attain true spiritual enlightenment, and of course, to cooperate with impersonal or even demonic forces would only lead to spiritual disaster and bondage.

The biblical way to spiritual growth opposes all deistic ideas and tendencies, and all mystical and occult means. In other words, although God has ordained various means to help us gain spiritual knowledge and moral progress, and although all of these means are founded on an intellectual understanding of revealed propositions, this does not at all exclude the necessity of God's direct participation to render these means effective. Rejecting mysticism and anti-intellectualism does not result in deism; rather, biblical intellectualism depends on God's immanence – his grace and power at work in our lives and our minds. Therefore, while we diligently take advantage of all the means that God has provided for our spiritual progress, we also earnestly petition him for spiritual enlightenment.

Biblical intellectualism is also against the occult and counterfeit spiritual teachings and practices. Instead of practicing a type of "meditation" in which one empties his mind, repeats a mantra, or focuses on the self or the world, biblical meditation is not a practice of passive non-thinking, but it is a practice of rigorous active theological thinking, disciplining the mind to focus on God's word. The purpose is not to deify the self or to identify with God, but to abase the self and to glorify our God.

In light of these crucial differences, non-Christian attempts at spiritual enlightenment are not only absurd and ineffective, but dangerous and destructive.

One young man sought to improve his intellect and attain spiritual power through a studious lifestyle of occult study and meditation. Instead of gaining what he desired, this so crippled his mind that he at times had difficulty performing even regular mental functions.

But then, God sovereignly and suddenly converted him, and inwardly moved him to read through the New Testament from Matthew to Revelation. Although he could not understand all that he read, by the time he finished reading Revelation, his mind was completely cured, and made better than before. Since then, God has continued to grant him greater spiritual wisdom by means of his word.

The process was not mystical or spectacular, but it appeared rather intellectual and ordinary, and yet it was by this seemingly mundane practice that true spiritual power was finally unleashed in this man's life. The God-ordained means of Bible reading provided the occasion for divine power to work within, resulting in a great deliverance and true spiritual enlightenment. The damage that had accumulated over many years through intense participation in the occult was wiped out in a matter of days by just "reading a book." This is true spiritual power.

Most Charismatics and many Evangelicals have exchanged true spiritual power with counterfeit spiritual power, and true wisdom with mystical nonsense. Instead of wielding intellectual weapons inspired and energized by "divine power to demolish strongholds" (2 Corinthians 10:4), they have exchanged them for mystical practices inspired and energized by their own flesh. Scripture teaches that the strongholds we must demolish consist of intellectual "arguments" (v. 5). But some have altogether missed the nature of this spiritual conflict – that we are to "take captive every thought" – and so they spend their time screaming prayers and rebukes at demons in the sky.

In the light of Paul's prayer, we ought to examine our own priorities in prayer and in life, to see whether they are consistent with the apostle's thinking. What are our priorities in prayer? What do we emphasize in life? Where do we invest our money? How do we spend our time?

Many people are most concerned with wealth, health, comfort, popularity, and achievements that build up their pride. What about when we are praying for our friends, relatives, and children? Do we mainly focus on their jobs and prospects, and that the children may do well in sports? But whereas "the pagans run after all these things" (Matthew 6:32), we as believers must turn our attention to higher things. Like animals and infants, non-Christians primarily react to and are driven by their felt needs. Christians, on the other hand, must primarily react to and be driven by the precepts of God.

When it comes to spiritual progress, how do we pray? Do we pray for strange feelings and spectacular experiences? Do we ask for mystical divine encounters? Do we yearn to transcend our minds altogether, rather than to build it up by the teachings of Christ? Paul prays for spiritual wisdom and understanding. In addition, he expects God to answer such a prayer in conjunction with divinely ordained means, that is, the teachings of Scripture. So he is unlike those who, while they do pray for spiritual enlightenment from God, think that it will come apart from the means that God himself has ordained. Instead, they imagine that after praying for spiritual insight, just about any idea that they can come up with must be correct and biblical. This is a false conception of charismata.

We must have a proper attitude toward the means of grace, and a proper view concerning the relationship between divine power and human instruments, and the understanding that even the human instruments depend on divine power to function. That is, although it is true that God enlightens the minds of his chosen ones while human ministers preach to them, even these preachers preach only because they have been sovereignly sent (Romans 10:15). Therefore, we do not just pray "open my eyes," but we pray, "Open my eyes that I may see wonderful things in your law" (Psalm 119:18).

Recommended:

Vincent Cheung, Commentary on Ephesians

Pentecostalism and Cessationism

(The following is an edited email correspondence.)

Have you already written something about Pentecostalism?

I have not yet written anything detailed about Pentecostalism, or a direct evaluation of the Charismatic Movement or Charismatic Theology. The most relevant and publicly available work that I have produced so far is Biblical Healing.

I am quite familiar with the theology and the personalities involved in Charismatic circles. From my perspective, many but not all of the Reformed and Evangelical criticisms regarding the doctrines and practices of the Charismatics are accurate.

However, when it comes to a positive statement concerning spiritual gifts, their own doctrine leaves much to be desired, even though they have also made valuable contributions on the subject, compensating for the errors of the Charismatics.

I am not an absolute cessationist. There are different senses and degrees of "cessationism." Many cessationists affirm that God indeed still performs the extraordinary, only that he no longer performs these feats through "spiritual gifts" or special endowments granted to individual believers. By "absolute" cessationism, I refer to the position that God has altogether stopped performing the extraordinary. This position claims that all the reasons for which he performed the extraordinary during biblical times are now gone and inapplicable, since the Scripture has been completed and the canon closed.

One of the several reasons that I reject absolute cessationism is that there are biblically supported reasons other than those cited by the absolute cessationists for God to perform the extraordinary. In other words, God performs the extraordinary not only to authenticate his messengers, confirm his revelation, etc., but there are other reasons for which he performs the extraordinary. Therefore, even though the reasons connected with the formation of the canon are no longer applicable, this does not eliminate the possibility that God still performs the extraordinary today.

I believe that God still does whatever he wants, and sometimes he might want to do things that are out of the ordinary, including healing and other "miracles," often in answer to prayer. This is only a consistent application of the doctrine of divine sovereignty.

And this is consistent with mainstream and historic Reformed thinking in principle. I say "in principle" because many Reformed people who say the same thing as I do here then preach and behave as if God now absolutely refuses to do anything out of the ordinary. But there is no biblical evidence for this.

Or, they say that God can still do whatever he wants, but that he no longer wants to do extraordinary things. But neither is there biblical evidence for this, although many forced and invalid inferences are sometimes presented as evidence.

In fact, some people preach and behave as if this has become a deistic world after the apostles and the close of the canon. In some cases, this might be an overreaction to charismatic excesses, but whatever the reason, it is unbiblical and unnecessary. A practical deist is not really better than a charismatic fanatic — both are wrong, and both are ignorant of true spiritual power.

Instead, we should affirm that God is free to do whatever he wants today as in the past, including extraordinary things. How often he chooses to do these extraordinary things is another question, but I would not say that he never does them anymore.

In fact, we should affirm that God’s power is very active in this world, that God does whatever he pleases for his own glory and for the good of the elect. Although Christians have no right to demand God to do anything, or to do something in a particular way, neither do they have the right to say that God has absolutely ceased doing extraordinary things, or doing things in extraordinary ways, especially when there is no real biblical evidence for such a stance.

This is my basic position, as least when it comes to cessationism.

The normal Christian life should be characterized by real and active spiritual POWER. Charismatics make a lot of noise but know nothing of it, but most Reformed and Evangelical Christians are also ignorant in this regard.

Paul writes that he doesn’t want us to be ignorant of spiritual things (1 Cor. 12:1). Nevertheless, when the Charismatics get done with 1 Cor. 12–14, they come away with a false spiritual power, a fanatical imitation of the real thing, but when most Reformed and Evangelical Christians get done with the biblical passage, they come away with NOTHING, since they see to it that everything described in there has passed away. Both groups end up still ignorant of spiritual things, and destitute of spiritual power.

Perhaps I will write something about Charismatic Theology in the future, including tongues, baptism in the Spirit, and other related topics.

Recommended:

Ministry Spending and Favoritism

Copeland Deifies Man

Vincent Cheung, Biblical Healing

D. A. Carson, Showing the Spirit

D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Joy Unspeakable: The Baptism and Gifts of the Holy Spirit

John MacArthur, Charismatic Chaos

John Stackhouse and "Humble" Apologetics

The following is taken from my Presuppositional Confrontations.

— /// —

On the final page of his book, Humble Apologetics, John G. Stackhouse, Jr. writes:

We Christians do believe that God has given us the privilege of hearing and embracing the good news, of receiving adoption into his family, and of joining the Church. We do believe that we know some things that other people don't, and those things are good for them to hear. Above all, we believe that we have met Jesus Christ.

This is fine, but what follows is horrible:

For all we know, we might be wrong about any or all of this. And we will honestly own up to that possibility. Thus whatever we do or say, we must do or say it humbly.

What he says here is unbiblical and outrageous. He has just stated what represent some of the central claims of the biblical gospel message, and that he affirms these claims as true, so when he says that "we might be wrong about any or all of this," he necessarily implies that Scripture itself might be wrong about any or all of this. However, since the Bible itself does not admit that it "might be wrong about any or all of this," when Stackhouse says that he "might be wrong about any or all of this," he is no longer defending the Bible.

Of course, his emphasis is that he himself might be wrong that the Bible is the revelation of God, but this still returns to the point that if this is what he means, then he is no longer defending the Bible. He is saying that he might be wrong when he says that the Bible is right, which translates into him saying that the Bible might be wrong. Because he is saying that he might be wrong when he affirms that the Bible is true, so that the Bible might in fact be false after all, he is no longer doing biblical apologetics.

The Bible itself says that we can know with certainty that what we believe is true when we affirm what it teaches:

Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. (Luke 1:3-4)

I have revealed you to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word. Now they know that everything you have given me comes from you. For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them. They knew with certainty that I came from you, and they believed that you sent me. (John 17:6-8)

Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see….And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him. (Hebrews 11:1, 6)

If the Bible itself claims to be the revelation of God and therefore completely true, then by what standard of humility does Stackhouse call his less than certain approach to apologetics "humble"? Since the Bible is the ultimate standard of ethics, it also defines humility; therefore, when Stackhouse implies that the Bible itself might be wrong, he is not being humble, but arrogant — so arrogant that he says he might be wrong if he affirms what God reveals. According to biblical standard, it is not humble to say that you might be wrong when you affirm what the Bible affirms; instead, you are arrogant if you say that the Bible might be wrong.

For Stackhouse to assume the identity of a Christian and then say that his religion might be wrong is to say that Christianity might be wrong; therefore, instead of doing apologetics — humble or not — he is in fact attacking Christianity. If the Bible is the word of God, then to say that we might be wrong about it being the word of God is not humility, but blasphemy. If Stackhouse admits that he himself does not have certainty, then we may perhaps still accept him as a weaker brother, but when he says that we should not ever claim certainty, then he has made himself an enemy of Christ.

Rather than saying that we must "own up to that possibility" that we might be wrong, we must insist on the impossibility that we are wrong when we are affirming what the Bible teaches. When we affirm what the Bible affirms, it is impossible that we are wrong. If Stackhouse is so "humble," he must also confess that he might be wrong when he says that he might be wrong about Christianity, for how can he be so sure there is "that possibility" that Christians can be wrong who affirm the Bible? Is he fallible when he affirms the Bible, but infallible when it comes to "that possibility"? How arrogant!

Stackhouse’s position is unbiblical and irrational; therefore, let us reject such pretended humility, unfaithful spirituality, and asinine pseudo-scholarship in exchange for an approach to apologetics that is biblical, which is one that says, "We are right, and we are sure that we are right. You are wrong, and we are sure that you are wrong." If this biblical position brings the world’s reproach, then so be it; let the unbelievers try to defeat us in argumentation. On the other hand, if you who claim to be a Christian are so drunk with "tolerance" that you prefer to adopt Stackhouse’s anti-biblical stance, then why not go all the way and stop calling yourself a Christian?

The point is that your approach to defending the Bible must be consistent with the Bible itself. If you contradict biblical claims in your very approach to defending biblical claims, then you are really no longer defending biblical claims. When arguing about religion, why must Christians pretend to be non-Christians, and then from there argue to the truth of Christianity, when the atheists, agnostics, the Muslims, and the Buddhists never pretend to be Christians, and from there argue to their respective beliefs? Many Christians have been tricked.

The basic stance of the Christian in apologetics and evangelism, then, is one of extreme opposition to all non-Christian thought. Now, I never said that we must be hostile in our mannerisms, although some will doubtless misunderstand me this way. Rather, we can be very polite, or act in such a manner as wisdom dictates. However, we must never yield an inch of intellectual ground — not an inch. This is the biblical attitude.

— /// —

Someone emailed me last year and said, "I took an apologetics class from John Stackhouse — you are right on the money with your assessment of his teaching."

Recommended:

Vincent Cheung, Presuppositional Confrontations

Vincent Cheung, Ultimate Questions

Vincent Cheung, Apologetics in Conversation

Vincent Cheung, "A Moron by Any Other Name"

Vincent Cheung, "Power Apologetics"

Freely You have Received, Freely Give

(The following is an edited email correspondence.)

Mr. Cheung,

Why do you think that it is "Christian" (if this is not how you would put it, please say so) to make your works available to the public free of charge?

I indeed consider it a Christianity duty to offer my teaching materials free of charge. Let me explain.

One reason that I have been successful at my studies is because God has granted me intellectual capabilities that can handle the subjects that I must deal with. No, I do not claim that I am a genius, but I will affirm that my mind "delivers" — it performs well, at least well enough to competently learn, process, and teach the relevant materials.

(What do we have that we have not received? A sound mind can be one of the gifts that God endows upon his ministers, given for the purpose of serving him and his people. It is sustained and developed through the means of grace, such as prayer, reading, and biblical meditation, by which the Spirit of God enhances a person’s mental capabilities. See Daniel 1:17–20, Psalm 119:97–100, Ephesians 1:17–18, and James 1:5.)

But another reason that I have been successful at my studies is because, in his providence, God has provided me with the means and the opportunities to acquire an abundance of intellectual resources. This is more relevant to our focus.

My home library includes over 300 systematic theologies (excluding works that treat specific theological topics but are not complete systems), the complete or almost complete works of Calvin, Owen, Edwards, Clark, Van Til, Schaeffer, Warfield, Spurgeon, and a number of other theologians and preachers, almost all the prominent classic and contemporary biblical commentaries, the complete works of Plato, Aristotle, and other major classic and contemporary philosophical works, the works of the early church fathers, several sets of encyclopedias, many obscure books, and many other classic and contemporary works.

All of this adds up to almost 15,000 volumes. This does not include all the materials that I have in electronic format, or theological journals, or audio lectures and sermons. Some people probably have even more than I do, but I doubt that most people’s private libraries even approach one tenth of the above.

Of course, one still has to read the books and use them well, and most people’s reading comprehension is dismal, so giving them more books will not proportionately increase their theological aptitude. Possessing a mind that can perform means that I am able to get more out of the same books than many other people, and at times to go beyond the works of other scholars to form my own improved conclusions. In other words, it is not enough to have access to information, but you must also have a capable mind to work with the information.

In any case, right now the point that I wish to emphasize is that it does make a difference to have more books, or to have greater access to scholarly writings. But this also means that, at least from this perspective, the poorer you are, the more limited you are in your theological growth. To the extent that this is due to the failure of Christian ministers and scholars to freely distribute their teaching materials, I find this very disturbing.

Moreover, pastors who have been to seminaries are taught to hide academic and technical information from their congregations in their sermons. The members are almost never exposed to all that the pastor received in seminary. As I have stated in my Preach the Word, this is the wrong approach. Even if they do not make their sermons as rich in content as seminary lectures, pastors should hold classes in their churches that offer at least the essential materials taught in seminaries. (These classes should be opened to every church member — men, women, and even children — and they should be given free of charge.) In fact, I believe that churches should provide adequate instructions to their own members so that they don’t even need to attend seminaries before taking on an office in the church. In a sense, seminaries are needed only because churches have failed in their teaching ministries.

With the above in mind, I have determined long ago that I will do my part to help by always making all of my works available for free in at least one readily accessible format. God willing, as the resources of this ministry increase, I will be publishing materials produced by other people also, so that together we can cover more topics, including those that I lack interest or ability to write about. Most of these people will probably be trained by myself, or at least heavily influenced by this ministry’s materials, so that all the materials published by this ministry will be consistent in content. In any case, no matter how gifted a person may be, if he refuses to let me distribute his materials for free, then I have no use for him. He is a disgrace to the kingdom of God, and I will tell him to GET OUT!

Jesus says, "Freely you have received, freely give" (Matthew 10:8). Now, I do not believe that a minister should never ask for money, since Paul says, "If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you?" (1 Corinthians 9:11; see also 1 Corinthians 9:13–14 and 1 Timothy 5:17–18). In fact, I believe that all faithful Christian ministers should be paid well, and that most Christians are free loaders who are practically robbing their ministers. They should be harshly rebuked. But this is different from saying that we should always charge money for our books and sermons without providing a free option; rather, we must arrange it so that those who are poor but are eager to learn may still advance in knowledge.

I would not consider it necessarily wrong to charge something for a sermon tape to defray the cost (although my policy has always been to give them out without charge), or even to make a profit for the ministry, so that the ministry can grow; however, I would always make a way for people to get it for free, so that the relatively poor will still have some way to access it. And if there must be a charge for the product (such as my paperback books, since their sales are handled by a book printing company), I would forgo all royalties, or find some way to minimize the cost.

In other words, I understand that Christian publishing is a business, and to survive and grow, the company must make a profit. However, if it is really Christian publishing that they are doing, then they should make some way for the poor to obtain the same materials for free, even if it has to be in a less convenient format. This is very easy to do in today’s world. For example, they could charge money for their paperback books, but offer the same materials in electronic format.

On a related note, ministers should never enforce their copyrights on their books and sermons (Philippians 1:18), unless these materials are somehow being abused by unbelievers to oppose the Christian cause. From a biblical perspective, a minister must allow people to make unlimited copies of their materials and distribute them.

This is why I will never consider signing an exclusive agreement with a publisher for my materials — that is, one in which I give up control over my own materials, that prevents me from freely offering them to people in the formats that I choose, and that prevents people from freely making unlimited copies.

This issue is also related to why I am so ambitious about eventually getting certain things published, such as materials comprehensive enough to cover the entire Christian worldview, and perhaps even homeschooling texts up to the 12th grade level — all for free in at least one format. God willing, we will get at least some of this done.

As I have mentioned to you in a previous message, one of my regrets is not having the time and the talent to write songs that I can let other people use for free in their private and public worship. Perhaps God will send someone who can do this for us in the future.

By the way, I am aware of at least two instances in which my orthodoxy has been questioned precisely because I offer my materials for free. In both instances, the reasoning was that since heretics and cults would do anything to spread their teachings, the fact that I offer my books and recordings for free should immediately cause suspicion.

What does this say about the usual practice of Christian ministries? (It also betrays the stupidity of these Christians, since this process of reasoning is fallacious, and there are more than a few other legitimate ministries and churches that also offer their materials for free.)

According to them, real Christians would not so eagerly spread their teachings, and real Christians — if they are really orthodox in their theology — would charge money for their books. If you are a real Christian, or if your teachings are sound and biblical, then you would certainly try to make a profit instead of trying to maximize distribution and to help the poor. If you don’t charge anything, then you are probably a heretic. Charging money makes your work legitimate! This is how twisted things have become.

(The following an edited response taken from a separate email correspondence. The topic has to do with a pastor who stubbornly refuses to freely distribute his sermons.)

…This is a very strange situation. I have never even heard of such coveting. Am I stepping out of line by asking for a reason why he will not allow this? How should I approach this man? He is a very gifted teacher…

As you know, I insist that sermons should be available for free — we should emphasize distribution, not profit.

Keeping in mind that I still have very little information about this man and your relationship with him, I will give the following broad advice.

If you are in a position to pursue the Matthew 18 church discipline procedure with him, then you may choose to do so.

If I were the head of his ministry, and he is under my authority, or if I were one of the elders, I would certainly side against him, and if he does not repent, vote to remove him, and treat him as one would regard Balaam. I think the situation is this severe. If upon examination, I discover that he is really doing this because of covetousness, and not because of some misguided but comparatively innocent motive (he cannot be completely innocent), then I would deal very harshly with him.

Nevertheless, legally speaking, he has a right to restrict the distribution of his materials, so unless you can pursue church discipline with him, there is not much else that you can do, especially since it seems that you have already registered your disagreement with his policy by writing him a letter.

A minister must be sound in both doctrine and character, and if he is as you say he is, then it is no great loss to the church that he limits the distribution of his materials. We don’t need him — even if he is as gifted as you say, just as God could raise up children of Abraham from stones, he can raise up another like him or better. In this sense, any one of us is easily replaceable, no matter how gifted we are; therefore, let us flee pride and covetousness, but serve with gratitude and generosity, with fear and trembling.

Recommended:

Vincent Cheung, Preach the Word

Vincent Cheung, Commentary on Philippians (ch. 2)

Vincent Cheung, Godliness with Contentment (ch. 2)

Augustine and Compatibilism

~ Taken from Vincent Cheung, The Author of Sin. Footnotes excluded. ~

Although the quotation below on which our discussion is based comes from an introductory guide to Augustine and his philosophy, our main focus here is in fact compatibilism and not Augustine.

(1) Augustine's later reliance on the concepts of grace and original sin turn him into a determinist of the theological variety. Theological determinists hold that everything we do is caused by antecedent conditions, ultimately traceable to God. Although the later Augustine is clearly a theological determinist, it is more accurate to attribute to him the "soft" version of determinism known as compatibilism. Compatibilism is the view that, although all human actions are caused by antecedent conditions, it is still appropriate to call some of them "free."

(2) Compatibilists want to distinguish actions that are internally caused from actions that are externally caused. Consider, once again, the case of our patient suddenly kicking her leg. Suppose that what caused her to do this was that her physician tapped her reflex. This would mean that the action was externally caused, and hence should not be considered free. Suppose, on the other hand, that what caused her to kick her leg was a desire for attention. According to the compatibilist, this would still be an antecedent condition that made it impossible for her to refrain from kicking her leg. So, she was not free in the libertarian sense. Nevertheless, the compatibilist would call the action "free" in so far as it was internally caused. Someone else did not cause the patient to kick her leg; she did it of her own accord.

(3) Compatibilists make this distinction because they want to hold human beings morally responsible only for their "free" (i.e. internally caused) actions. If something outside of the patient caused her to kick her leg, then she cannot take the blame for it; if something inside her caused this, then she must take responsibility for it, even though she could not do otherwise.

(4) Augustine is most charitably interpreted as a compatibilist. He, like most compatibilists, retains the language of free will because he knows that it is impossible to explain the human condition without it. Nevertheless, he commandeers this language to his own deterministic purposes. He wants to maintain that human beings cannot take credit for being good. The reason is that all good actions are caused by God's grace, an external cause. At the same time, he wants to maintain that human beings must take credit for being bad. The reason is that all bad actions are caused by our own wills. Since the will is an internal cause, we are responsible, even though we cannot do otherwise.

(5) In his latest works, Augustine devotes himself to disparaging the alleged human dignity of free will and criticizing anyone who takes pride in it. He writes that human beings are "enslaved to sin," and that the best thing that can happen to us is to receive grace and thereby become "enslaved to God" instead.

(6) Augustine's theodicy therefore makes a dubious contribution to the history of philosophy. On the one hand, it provides us with a personal yet intellectual confrontation with the problem of evil. On the other hand, it introduces the concept of free will, only to generate another set of concepts, grace and original sin, which cancel out any meaningful application of the concept of free will. In this way, Augustine reflects and reinforces the profound ambivalence toward human freedom that is endemic to Western thought.

Some of the above statements are questionable or at least imprecise, and what Augustine "knows" is sometimes just his opinion.

For example, I disagree with the statement, "He, like most compatibilists, retains the language of free will because he knows that it is impossible to explain the human condition without it." Sure, Augustine might have thought that he needed to assign some kind of freedom to man, but that does not mean he was correct. In fact, I affirm the opposite position, that to retain ("the language of") human free will in any meaningful sense would make it impossible to explain the human condition, and not only that, but it would also make the doctrine of man inconsistent with the doctrine of God.

Nevertheless, the above explanation of compatibilism is still a generally good demonstration of how the tension (self-contradiction) in compatibilism is rather obvious to those who are not biased in favor of it.

I will offer some comments on each paragraph. Please remember that each numbered portion below corresponds to a paragraph with the same number in the above section:

(1)

Theological determinists hold that everything we do is caused by antecedent conditions, ultimately traceable to God.

This is true of most theological determinists, but it is also finally incoherent. I would change this to say that all conditions are "immediately traceable to God."

I affirm the meaningfulness of so-called "second causes" only in the sense that these are the means by which God executes his immutable decrees; however, these second causes are not themselves self-existent, self-determined, self-caused, or self-powered. Rather, all so-called "secondary causes" are themselves immediately caused and controlled by God, and the objects on which these secondary causes supposedly act upon react in ways that are also immediately caused and controlled by God.

This is the only coherent and defensible position. When pressed, theological determinists who differ from this must rather quickly retreat into mystery and paradox.

Compatibilism is the view that, although all human actions are caused by antecedent conditions, it is still appropriate to call some of them "free."

Why is the word "free" in quotations here and in other places? It is probably because the writers realize, as I do, that it is a stretch to call compatibilist freedom "free."

Compatibilist freedom is "free" only in a private sense. The word "free" is inserted and used by force – it is not a natural description of compatibilism, especially when discussed in the context of divine determinism. You can call anything "free," but is it?

(2)

Note that freedom is relative – you are free from something. The compatibilist wants to affirm that we are not free from God, but at the same time he wants to make freedom applicable to our action in some sense, so he sets the standard by which freedom is measured down from God to man. That is, instead of measuring freedom by whether our thoughts and actions are free from God, now we are "free" as long as we are free relative to other created things, and then we build moral responsibility on that. They just changed the reference point.

But this is narrow and arbitrary. I can just as well change the standard or the reference point to whether we are free from a particular particle of dust on Neptune. If that particle of Neptune dust does not determine my thoughts and actions – if I am "free" from it – then in this sense I have "free will," and therefore I am morally responsible. Hooray!

The compatibilist may answer, "The point is that the cause for an action is within me, so that I am not forced, and therefore I am free and responsible." But this use of "forced" and "free" is misleading, since if God is the cause of the cause of this action (as I affirm, and as many Calvinists admit), if he completely determines every detail of our very thoughts, desires, motives, and willingness…or to use the expressions in our quotation, if God is the external cause of the internal cause of our actions, so that the internal cause itself is not free even in the compatibilist sense, then the action is more than forced. It is so determined, caused, and controlled that it cannot even be described as forced, since to be "forced" at least leaves room for an internal conscious reluctance to perform the action that one is externally caused against his will to perform. But God has such a comprehensive control over all of our thoughts and actions that "forced" would be too weak to describe it.

Thus, of course our actions are not "forced," because the word suggests that the one doing the forcing lacks complete control over the one being forced, so that there remains some resistance in the one being forced against the one doing the forcing, only that the one doing the forcing exerts greater power. Since "forced" implies such a scenario or relationship, it is far too weak to describe God's control over us; therefore, our actions are not "forced" even though we are not free. In fact, God's control over us is so exhaustive that the compatibilist seems oblivious to it, so he thinks that he is free because he does not feel forced, when the truth is that he is much less free than if he were forced.

The compatibilist says that we are not free if our actions are externally caused, but that we are free if our actions are internally caused. However, the truth is that all our internal "causes" are themselves externally caused. All our thoughts and actions are in fact externally caused by God, so that our so-called internal causes are merely externally caused effects that lead to other effects (such as our actions).

Therefore, in this sense, none of our thoughts and actions are free even from the compatibilist perspective, that is, unless they change the reference point to start after God has already externally caused our internal causes. But this is arbitrary – it is cheating – if we are going to permit this, then there is no point in arguing, since it would be clear that the compatibilist is just changing the reference point until he can use the word "free" in some sense.

It is misleading and dishonest to just change the reference point so that we can affirm some sense of freedom; instead, we should consistently define freedom relative to the broadest metaphysical principle, which is God, since he is the only relevant reference point when we are discussing divine determinism. If we are not free from God in any sense, then we have no "free will" or "freedom" in any sense, that is, in the context of discussing divine determinism.

(3)

Note that "free" is illegitimately defined as "internally caused," even if everything about everything that is internal is in fact externally caused and controlled by God. We have just addressed this, so we will move on.

Again, a main concern is the foundation for moral responsibility; meanwhile, no one seems to notice that the premise "responsibility presupposes freedom" has never been rationally established. But if we will place moral responsibility back on where it belongs – that is, on God's sovereign decree to judge all of mankind – then human freedom becomes irrelevant, and there would be no problem in discarding it altogether.

(4)

Note the twisting and turning needed to even explain compatibilism, let alone to defend it.

Compatibilists say that good is attributed to God's grace and power because sinful man has no ability within himself for any spiritual good, but evil is attributed to man because he is already sinful and to do evil would be to act according to his nature. But then you ask them how that evil nature got there in the first place, and how Adam could have performed evil if he was created positively good, and they again retreat into mystery and paradox, or repeat some sort of argument based on free will, which begs the question.

On the other hand, I can say, "The Sovereign God causes all things, and he is good and righteous in all that he does. Blessed be the name of the Lord." No objection can touch this.

(5)

Again, the question is how man came to be "enslaved to sin" in the first place if he was created positively good. Also, I would say that whereas man has become "enslaved to sin," sin itself has always been "enslaved to God." To say that sin is in any sense free from God would be to affirm dualism.

If unsaved men are "enslaved to sin," and sin itself is "enslaved to God," and if redeemed man are "enslaved to God" in righteousness, this means that both unsaved and redeemed men are in fact "enslaved to God" – the unsaved through sin, and the redeemed through righteousness.

(6)

Note the remarkable restraint that these writers show toward compatibilism. They have everything set up fairly well, enough so that they could blast it to smithereens, but they want to play nice. So they settle for saying that Augustine's is a "dubious contribution," and that the deterministic aspects of his philosophy "cancel out any meaningful application of the concept of free will."

More clearly, this means that if a compatibilist truly affirms divine determinism, then what he says about human "freedom" or "free will" is meaningless – it is nonsense. These writers see this – most Calvinists refuse to see it.

Summary

Here is the way to avoid nonsense:

Affirm absolute divine determinism.
Deny all human freedom.
Base moral responsibility on God's sovereign decree to judge mankind.
Answer almost all related objections just by doing the following:

a. Affirm that God is just and righteous by definition.
b. Deny the unjustified premise, "responsibility presupposes freedom."

There is no twisting and turning, no philosophical gymnastics, and no need to redefine this and qualify that. God is sovereign, man is not free – and there is no problem. This is biblical, coherent, simple, and defensible.

There are no inherent problems with the above, so the above cannot be directly attacked as incoherent. If any of the above points is individually challenged as false, then depending on the angle of the objection, the debate moves to a presuppositional or exegetical level, which should be just about the same thing for the Christian. Then, to prepare for this, the Christian should study the relevant biblical passages and learn how to apply them, which is his spiritual duty in the first place.

Additional Comments

Here I will also briefly address the compatibilist's claim that Scripture itself teaches compatibilism.

One of the favorite verses used to support compatibilism is Genesis 50:20, in which Joseph says to his brothers, who sold him to Egypt, "You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives."

Now, for this verse to support compatibilism, it must convey the idea that the brothers' action was in some sense "free"; however, the verse tells us only about their intention – it says nothing about whether or not they were free, or whether or not the intention was free.

Since the verse also tells us about God's intention, and since this intention differs from the brothers' intention, the compatibilist claims that this explains how God could immutably decree a human action, and yet the decreed action (in this case, the brothers' decision and action to sell Joseph) is still "freely" performed by the human person or people involved.

However, the verse does not even remotely imply this – it is a forced inference. The verse tells us what the humans intended, and it tells us what God intended, but it does not give us the piece of information that is needed to either establish or refute compatibilism, namely, the relationship between the men's intention and God's intention in this event (of selling Joseph).

As it is, the verse neither establishes nor refutes compatibilism. To understand how this verse applies to compatibilism, one must first discover the relationship between man's will and God's will from the many other verses in Scripture that clearly address this.

Now, as I have established in my books and articles, many biblical passages teach that it is God's will that directly determines man's will, whether for good or for evil. Therefore, when we apply Genesis 50:20 to our topic, we could paraphrase it to say, "God intended good for your evil intention," or "God caused you to have this evil intention, and he intended good when he did it," or "God intended good (the saving of many lives) when he caused you to intend this evil (the selling of Joseph)."

To repeat, the verse itself does not state or imply that the brothers "freely" intended evil – it just says that they intended evil. Then, it says that God intended good concerning this same (evil) decision/action performed by the brothers. Adding to this the premise (established by other biblical verses) that God exercises constant and complete control over all human thoughts and actions (whether good or evil), it follows that God intended good when he caused these brothers to intend evil.

In this manner, God was righteous and the brothers were morally culpable. God was righteous since all that he does is righteous by definition, and it was a good decree that caused the evil intention in the brothers. The brothers were morally culpable since they indeed violated God's moral laws, as caused by God do to so. In all of this, there is no logical entry point for human freedom to come into the discussion at all, although it is often forced into the discussion.

Apply a similar basic analysis to all the verses used by compatibilists, and you will see that none of them really support compatibilism. It appears that compatibilists are already so convinced of their position apart from Scripture that they easily "see" it taught in these verses even when they do not address the topic at all.

It is self-defeating to embrace a tradition that really has been a burden to Calvinism rather than a support, making it incoherent and hard to defend, and making its adherents look like fools when they unnecessarily retreat into mystery and paradox.

Granted, a bold and consistent Calvinism is even more offensive than a half-baked and inconsistent Calvinism, but it is also biblical, coherent, and irrefutable.

The Imprecatory Psalms (5)

In a similar way today we need to challenge Christendom which has itself as the prime focus of existence. Can we not recognize the error of having our prayers revolve around our feelings, wants, and comforts? Have our prayers become so man-centered that we actually cringe to utter prayers that have God’s glory as their final end? This is indeed the fearful condition of the church today. We need a Copernican revolution in our prayers! What a difference we would see if the church began to perceive that God’s absolute glory is truly the center. May the centrality of God, and God alone, be the goal of our learning!

Let this be the prayer of our hearts: "O Christ, come in power and show forth the glory of God. Bring judgment to the wicked that they may seek you…and if not, O God, destroy all who won’t bow to you. Let them know that only you, whose name is the Lord, are the Most High over all the earth."

Lord, teach us to pray: "If anyone does not love the Lord, a curse be on him. Come, O Lord!" (1 Cor. 16:22).

James E. Adams, War Psalms of the Prince of Peace
(Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1991), p. 63.

Father, we pray that you will glorify your name in this nation, and in all the nations of this world. We pray that you will turn back the homosexual movement, the abortion movement, and all the anti-Christian movements, and to cripple their operations and their influences. We pray that you will destroy Mormonism, Islam, Catholicism, Buddhism, Atheism, and all other religious and humanistic philosophies that are of the anti-Christ.

But Father, we know that you will show grace and mercy toward your own. Thus we also pray and believe that you will strengthen your church and your people, so that they will boldy proclaim your word to this evil generation, and to summon your chosen ones out of these groups that are doomed to destruction. Your Son promised us that the gates of hell will not prevail against us, and we know that we are invincible and indestructible in him; therefore we rejoice in the Lord, and we shall do exploits in his name and for your glory.

We thank you, Father, that you hear us through Jesus Christ — for yours is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever and ever. Amen.

Recommended:

The Imprecatory Psalms (1)

The Imprecatory Psalms (2)

The Imprecatory Psalms (3)

The Imprecatory Psalms (4)

The Imprecatory Psalams (6)

"Minor Persecution"

Dr. Peter Hammond, whom I met in South Africa, told me that every time he preaches in Sudan, he expects to be arrested and persecuted. When pressed for details on how he was persecuted, Dr. Hammond said he had experienced "minor persecution," such as having his head submerged in a pail of urine until he was forced to drink it, or having a bag tied around his head at the neck until he fainted from lack of oxygen. "That’s nothing compared to what our Lord experienced," he quickly added. "We Christians must count it all joy when we are persecuted for Christ’s sake."

Joel R. Beeke, Overcoming the World
(P & R Publishing, 2005), p. 19.

Recommended:

Vincent Cheung, Godliness with Contentment (see ch. 1)

Vincent Cheung, "Kingdom First"

Kittel and Little Kittel

(The following is an edited email correspondence.)

I have been eyeing the one-volume greek theological dictionary (originaly published in ten volumes, by Geoffrey Bromiley). If you have this I am interested in knowing if you find it to be useful?

I have both the ten-volume edition and the one-volume edition. The "Little Kittel," as it is called, is sometimes more useful than the 10 volumes — it depends on your need and purpose.

Often there comes a point after which getting additional information just will not change how you understand the word too much. Sometimes I want to look up a very simple piece of information, or to confirm something about a word. With the 10 volumes, I sometimes have to skim through pages of information before finding what I need.

The one-volume is smaller, easier to handle, quicker to reference, and simpler — with transliteration and references to Strong's numbers. Of course it will not be enough for a New Testament specialist/scholar, but if that is not your need or purpose, then the one-volume is enough, or at least look through the ten-volume edition to make sure you need it before buying it, since it costs much more.

Sometimes my need is so simple that I just use Thayer.

Recommended:

Joseph Thayer, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament

Gerhard Kittel, ed., Geoffrey Bromiley, trans., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (10 volumes, or abridged in 1 volume)

Colin Brown, ed., New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (4 volumes)

Horst Balz, Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament (3 volumes)

Ceslas Spicq, Theological Lexicon of the New Testament (3 volumes)

Kenneth Wuest, Word Studies in the Greek New Testament (4 volumes)

A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (6 volumes, or abridged in 1 volume)

Martin Vincent, Vincent’s New Testament Word Studies (4 volumes)

W. Robertson Nicoll, Expositor’s Greek New Testament (5 volumes)

Books for Introductory Apologetics

(The following is an edited email correspondence.)

There is a young man I know that was saved off the streets. He has a very hard past, but is totally transformed. He has asked that I recommend a few books on apologetics.

He is already well aware of your writings.

I have recommended: Bahnsen’s Always Ready, and the one by Richard L. Pratt (I forgot the name of his popular book on apologetics, but I am sure you know which one I mean), Gordon H. Clark’s A Christian View of Men and Things, and God’s Hammer.

Also, I made sure that he picked up Robert L. Reymond Systematic Theology, and IVP’s New Bible Commentary.

If there are other books that you think will be of great assistence to him, please let me know.

Pratt’s book is Every Thought Captive — but I dislike it.

Bahnsen’s Always Ready is fine, although I find it repetitive and sometimes boring — but this is just being picky and would not stop me from recommending it. Also, it is not his fault, since it is a compilation of his articles, so some repetition is to be expected.

As you know, I recommend all of Clark’s books. But for introductory apologetics, I would add the following to those that you have mentioned:

An Introduction to Christian Philosophy
Three Types of Religious Philosophy

These two books are now available in Christian Philosophy, which also includes his Religion, Reason, and Revelation.

I also recommend Carl Henry’s Toward the Recovery of Christian Belief, although this one might be hard to find.

As for my own works, have him read Ultimate Questions and Presuppositional Confrontations.

« Previous entries

Next entries »

Archive May 2005