Author Archive: John D. Chitty

Tombstoned Misadventures

By John D. Chitty on | 4 Comments

Here’s a brilliant piece of artwork by talented, believing caricaturist, Angel Contreras, whose website is Art4Clowns and his on-again, off-again blog (as mine has been lately), Torched By An Angel. Angel’s art frequently encapsulates the exploits of Reformed Baptist apologist extraordinaire, James R. White of Alpha & Omega Ministries. I recommend you scroll through White’s pages for more of Angel’s art and, of course, White’s apologetics. James White took a mere seventeen days to write and refute the recent “Misadventure of Jim & Sim.”
Another of White’s recent publications is his debate with Dave Hunt, Debating Calvinism.

Posted in: Theological Issues, Thinking About Church History

C. H. Dodd Turns 123!

By John D. Chitty on | 4 Comments

Birth of C. H. Dodd, English clergyman and Bible scholar. Dodd became the most influential British New Testament scholar of the mid-20th century, and penned over a dozen books, including “The Parables of the Kingdom” (1934).

I have a copy of a lecture given by D. A. Carson on (I think) Justification by Faith in Luther’s Verse, Romans 1:17. It was very educational and even entertaining. Dr. Carson has that kind of intimidating edge when he lectures that makes you fear ever having to debate him, but sometimes that kind of edge is also a great source of humor. One of my favorite humorous asides Carson shared in this lecture was a limerick someone wrote to poke fun of our subject, Dr. C. H. Dodd:

There was a professor called Dodd,

Whose name was exceedingly odd;

He spelled, if you please,

His name with three “D’s,”

When one was sufficient for God.

Carson’s commentary on this limerick was that it wasn’t any sort of theological critique, but it did a great deal of good at the time. Examine this Wikipedia article on C. H. Dodd to learn for what issues he may have deserved such treatment.
Posted in: Saluting Real Captains Headknowledge, Thinking About Church History

Heartknowledge vs. Headknowledge and Youth Ministry

By John D. Chitty on | 5 Comments

The White Horse Inn dealt with the topic of “Biblical Ignorance” on Sunday, April 1, 2007. Michael Horton brought up the well-worn cliché about “heartknowledge,” and the hosts had a little back and forth about it, ending with Dad Rod’s d’ruthers about Youth Ministry.

Horton: One of the justifications for laziness is often to say, “I want heart knowledge, not head knowledge.” “Oh, I don’t want to know about Jesus, I want to know Jesus.” Why is that a cop out?

Riddlebarger: Well, it’s a cop out because Jesus reveals himself to us in his Word, which requires understanding subjects, verbs and objects. It requires reading and studying. And this whole experiential thing is just a Gnostic shortcut to truth and information.

Jones: And I think it’s a false dichotomy. When we talk about the gospel message, we talk about the whole person. Redemption is the redemption of our total being. It includes emotions, but the problem is, our emotions are not just free to go hither and thither, they are governed by the Word of God. I love what Paul says in 2 Corinthians 10: “ . . . bringing every thought into captivity, and casting down every high thing and vain thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God and bringing every thought into captivity and into the obedience to Christ.” And so, therefore, even my emotions are governed by the Spirit, and that’s part of Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians, you can’t just go your own way and label that “the Spirit,” because he’s the Spirit of order as well.

Horton: I can’t say, “I have this wonderful emotional experience with my wife but I’ve studiously avoided knowing anything about her. If you claim to have a personal relationship with someone, about whom you don’t invest time to learn, then you can’t really pass off to many people in the room your interest in that person.

Jones: Isn’t that what Jesus illustrates in the parable of the talents? The servant that had so many talents, he says, “Knowing that you were this, that or the other, I did nothing with the talents.” But the master comes back and says, “If you had known me, you would have put my talents to use.” So, you thought you knew Me. And when Jesus comes back and many will say, “We did this in your name,” and Jesus will say, “Depart from me, I never knew you.” Or the Samaritan woman, “You worship what you do not know.”

Riddlebarger: Mike, you may remember this category, we had it growing up in fundamentalism, where we would kind of belittle the mainliners because they would go to church to become better people. So when you asked them questions about Christianity, their default setting was always, “Well, it’ll make me a better person.” Or, “I’ll learn to get along with others better.” The kind of answer that kid gave us is a modern version of that same thing: “I just go to experience God—I’m not beholden to anybody, I don’t have to do anything, it’s that cop out answer that basically lets him off the hook and doesn’t say a darn thing.

Rosenblatt: I think there are a lot of youth leaders that desperately need firing. Now, I know the parents aren’t doing their part behind it, but I’d start by firing the youth leaders. In other words, you want somebody who’s going to, because of his talents, he can do some of this, to instill the content of the Faith, slowly, methodically, however he does it, into the kids during the time he has them. I don’t mean that it turns into a monestary, I mean that’s part of what he himself sees as part of his calling. I remember when Francis Schaeffer was almost an unknown, there was a youth leaders thing at Mission Bay, and I went, and if I remember nothing else from that conference, I remember Schaeffer looking out over all these youth leaders from all over America, and saying, “I plead with you, I plead with you, when you present the gospel, present it first of all as true, not as helpful.”

My own church has been going through a bit of a transition over the past couple of months with regard to our own youth ministry. Some things that have developed I find have potential. We were told by the previous youth minister who asked local seminaries to help them find a student who is hireable by a medium-sized to small, traditional Southern Baptist Church. He was told by the man to whom he spoke that if the church is traditional, it’s going to have a hard time hiring from the current crop of seminary students, because they all want to be involved in the big, contemporary, mega-church type of youth ministry. He said we’d be better off finding someone in the congregation with a real desire to commit to working with the youth.
This is what we did. The parents met and discussed and planned and volunteered and we finally decided to have the volunteer who would lead the youth to serve primarily as Sunday School teacher, while the parents would remain closely involved in much of the activities, both teaching and social. I think this is a positive sign. Since nowadays it’s so difficult to lead a congregation to regularly spend time with their kids and teens at home as a family, reading the Bible, being instructed in the doctrines of the faith, worshiping and praying, having this kind of close parental involvement in not only helping to run the kids around from paint ball game to Christian rock concert, but actively involved on Sunday nights and Wednesday nights actually teaching the kids ourselves. Together everyone accomplishes more, especially when their teens know their parents are interested and involved.
The bottom line is to make sure that when we teach our teens, let’s teach them the content of the faith, center it all explicitly on the gospel of the death, burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, and then after all of that ground work is laid, then and only then, apply it to them so that they learn how to live for the Lord of the Bible, rather than the Lord of their feeble imagination borne of biblical ignorance. Remember, Christianity should never be about knowing versus knowing about, it’s not feeling versus studying, it’s not living versus learning, it’s learning Christ-centered doctrine as the basis for a life that truly glorifies God.
Posted in: Baptist, Current Evangelical Trends, Toward a Modern Reformation

Remain Stedfast and Unmoveable Even When Others Don’t

By John D. Chitty on | 11 Comments

In case you haven’t noticed yet, one of the things I like about the “Today in Christian History” enewsletter that I receive, is all the quotes that it provides from heroes of the faith. For example, the one I received yesterday quotes Francis Schaeffer on a topic that hits home with me. Here’s the quote: “‘You must not lose confidence in God because you lost confidence in your pastor. If our confidence in God had to depend upon our confidence in any human person, we would be on shifting sand.” This hits home because of an experience my father had many years ago. My father doesn’t go to church. But he is among the many who certainly do watch plenty of “Christian television.” When I was a kid I remember watching Oral Roberts and Jimmy Swaggart with my dad on Sunday mornings before Mom took my sister and I to church. My mother’s opinion then was that it seemed to work, for a while, to soften my dad to the idea of going to church. But then it happened. Swaggart was arrested for doing you know what with you know who. And it was back to square one for my dad.

In the aftermath of the Swaggart scandal, as well as Bakker’s, I heard lots of talk from the pulpit along the lines of Schaeffer’s quote of the day. It helped me steel my resolve that the behavior of Christians was not going to affect my faithfulness to God. It comes in handy nowadays when faves of mine like Hank Hannegraaff are accused of less than honorable behavior regarding his ministry’s money and R. C. Sproul’s recent problems swirling around his son (whatever those problems are–I haven’t followed it very closely for obvious reasons). Both of these men have been tremendous influences in my life, but fortunately for them and me, I’m not God, so for now, I judge them for the benefit to me they’ve been over the years and don’t throw it all away because they’re less than entirely sanctified. They may be sinners–it only takes one, but hey, so am I.

Now, I’m not a Pollyanna, but, you know, if they robbed a bank or something extreme, maybe I’d start looking for greener pastures or pray that their ministries are led by men with better testimonies, but I’ll always owe a debt of gratitude to those men and others like them for the contribution they’ve made to my theological and spiritual development over the years.

Posted in: Captain Headknowledge: The Early Years, Current Evangelical Trends

“The Baptist Version of Sola Scriptura” Revisited

By John D. Chitty on | 8 Comments

A few months ago, I blogged on “The Baptist Version of Sola Scriptura,” in which I tried to show that the Baptist tradition in general seems to embrace an anti-tradition, individualistic version of the Reformation doctrine of Sola Scriptura. I called it “The Baptist Version,” back then, because at that time I had forgotten that there was already an established nickname for the tendency, of which Baptists are among the more more moderate practitioners. To call it “The Baptist Version of Sola Scriptura” definitely overstates the matter, for those who truly embrace the full-fledged doctrine of “Solo Scriptura,” I believe, had a subtle, yet very identifiable influence on the development of the Baptist tradition. The Anabaptists were the home of full-fledged “Solo Scriptura,” in my view, and I think Mathison demonstrates this well in his article, “Sola Scriptura/Solo Scriptura: The Difference a Vowel Makes”, in the March/April 2007 issue of Modern Reformation Magazine.

Following are a few excerpts which will give you an idea of Mathison’s treatment of the subject of Solo Scriptura:

“The twentieth century could, with some accuracy, be called a century of theological anarchy. Liberals and sectarians have long rejected outright many of the fundmanetal tenets of Christian orthodoxy. But more recently professing evangelical scholars have advocated revisionary versions of numerous doctrines. A revisionary doctrine of God has been advocated by proponents of “openness theology.” A revisionary doctrine of eschatology has been advocated by proponents of full-preterism. Revisionary doctrines of justification sola fide have been advocated by proponents of various “new perspectives” on Paul. Often the revisionists will claim to be restating a more classical view. Critics, however, have usually been quick to point out that the revisions are actually distortions.

Ironically, a similarly revisionist doctrine of sola Scriptura has arisen within Protestantism, but unlike the revisionist doctrine of sola fide, the revisionist doctrine of sola Scriptura has caused very little controversy among the heirs of the Reformation. One of the reasons there has been much less controversy over the revisionist doctrine of sola Scriptura is that this doctrine has been gradually supplanting the Reformation doctrine for centuries. In fact, in many segments of the evangelical world, the revisionist doctrine is by far the predominant view now. Many claim that this revisionist doctrine is the Reformation doctrine. However, like the revisionist doctrines of sola fide, the revisionist doctrine of sola Scriptura is actually a distortion of the Reformation doctrine.”

“Part of the difficulty in understanding the Reformation doctrine of sola Scriptura is due to the fact that the historical debate is often framed simplistically in terms of “Scripture versus tradition.” Protestants are said to teach “Scripture alone,” while Roman Catholics are said to teach “Scripture plus tradition.” This, however, is not an accurate picture of the historical reality. The debate should actually be understood in terms of competing concepts of the relationship between Scripture and tradition, and there are more than two such concepts in the history of the church. In order to understand the Reformation doctrine of sola Scriptura we must understand the historical context more accurately.”

Here Mathison begins to summarize three views on the relationship between Scripture and tradition, borrowing clever labels from Heiko Oberman:

Tradition 1: “In the first three to four centuries of the church, the church fathers had taught a fairly consistent view of authority. The sole source of divine revelation and the authoritative doctrinal norm was understood to be the Old Testmanet together with the Apostolic doctrine, which itself had been put into writing in the New Testament. The Scripture was to be interpreted in and by the church within the context of the regula fidei (“rule of faith”), yet neighter the church nor the regula fidei were considered second supplementary sources of revelation. The church was the interpreter of the divine revelation in Scripture, and the regula fidei was the hermeneutical context, but only Scripture was the Word of God.”

Tradition 2: “The first hints of a two-source concept of tradition, a concept in which tradition is understood to be a second source of revelation that supplements biblical revelation, appeared in the fourth century in the writings of Basil and Augustine. . . It is not absolutely certain that either Basil or Augustine actually taught the two-source view, but the fact that it is hinted at in their writings ensured that it would eventually find a foothold in the Middle Ages. This would take time, however, for throughout most of the Middle Ages, the dominant view was Tradition1, the position of the early church. The beginnings of a strong movement toward Tradition 2 did not begin in earnest until the twelfth century.” Willaim of Ockham was one of the first medieval theologians to officially adopt this two-source view of revelation in the fourteenth century.

Mathison shows how the Reformation, in part, was a move back to “Tradition 1,” the view that Scripture was the sole source of divine revelation, to be interpreted by the church within the context of the regula fidei, the hermeneutical tradition, if you will.

“To summarize the Reformation doctrine of sola Scriptura, or the Reformation doctrine of the relation between Scripture and tradition, we may say that Scripture is to be understood as the sole source of divine revelation; it is the only inspired, infallible, final and authoritative norm of faith and practice. It is to be interpreted in and by the church; and it is to be interpreted within the hermeneutical context of the rule of faith.”

I, myself, wrote on the Reformation of Tradition 2 once.

Now here’s where the trouble starts in relation to misunderstanding the idea of Sola Scriptura:

Tradition 0?: “At the same time the magisterial reformers were advocating a return to Tradition 1 (sola Scriptura), several radical reformers were calling for the rejection of both Tradition 1 and Tradition 2 and the adoption of a completely new understanding of Scripture and tradition. They argued that Scripture was not merely the only infallible authority but that it was the only authority altogether. The true but subordinate authority of the church and the regula fidei were rejected altogether. According to this view, there is no real sense in which tradition has any authority. Instead, the individual believer requires nothing more than the Holy Spirit and the Bible.”

Is this beginning to sound familiar? I thought so.

Now, back to my own opinion, and application of these historical matters. It was the 1644 edition of the London Baptist Confession of Faith that complains that their movement is “commonly (though falsely) called Anabaptists.” Having adopted fully Reformed theology, including the doctrine of paedobaptism, when I compare how the Baptist tradition from its very inception, so completely embraced Reformed theology with the full scope of understanding of these doctrines in accord with “Tradition 1,” the ancient view that Scripture alone is divine revelation, to be interpreted within the traditional hermeneutic of the regula fidei. But then, when one examines the teaching of these otherwise Reformed Christians on baptism, hints of tendency toward “Tradition 0,” the Anabaptist view of the relationship between Scripture and tradition, begin to emerge.

This is what I meant by “The Baptist Version of Sola Scriptura.” I don’t “falsely” claim that Baptists are Anabaptists, I just think they took baby steps away from Reformation and toward Anabaptism on baptism (and maybe congregationalism?). That’s all. But rank and file Baptists, like many otherwise evangelical paedobaptists, have moved with the spirit of the age to embrace the modern revisionist tendency toward “Solo Scriptura.” And I think that’s a problem. Work must be, and is being, done to correct this problem here and there. That’s why I like to publicize the Cambridge Declaration of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals.

Posted in: Baptist, Current Evangelical Trends, Theological Issues, Thinking About Church History, Toward a Modern Reformation

Ordinary Means of Illumination

By John D. Chitty on | 3 Comments

March 29, 1523—German reformer Martin Luther wrote in a letter: ‘There has never been a great revelation of God’s Word unless God has first prepared the way by the rise and the flourishing of languages and learning, as though these were forerunners, a sort of John the Baptist.’

Advocates of Solo Scriptura (if only we could link to the article on Solo Scriptura, you’d see what I’m talking about!), when referring to the Holy Spirit’s work of illuminating the Word of God to the believer, seem to assume that his work is primarily supernatural. However, Luther’s comments fly in the face of this assumption. God uses means. Granted, he does at his appointed times and for his own reasons, can and does work supernaturally, but as it has played out providentially in the world, his supernatural work is the exception, rather than the rule. The rule is that God works by his providence through ordinary means. Academics like “languages and learning,” are among those ordinary means the Holy Spirit utilizes to illuminate the truth of God’s Word, centered in the Person and Work of Jesus Christ, to the heart/mind of the believer.
Posted in: Martin Luther, Saluting Real Captains Headknowledge, Thinking About Church History

No Retreat

By John D. Chitty on | 10 Comments

I’m attempting to tackle John Owen’s masterpiece of writing on sanctification, Of the Mortification of Sin in Believers. This volume is not light reading. It’s a chore. It’s one of those elephants you have to eat one little bite at a time. As I chew on Owen’s words, part of my aid to digestion will entail jotting down a summary of his words in my own, as I consider the Scriptures he expounds and the instruction he gives. In chapter two, Owen transitions from a point teaching how “Indwelling sin always abides whilst we are in this world,” to his next point which adds the further truth that “Sin doth not only still abide in us, but is still acting, still laboring to bring forth the deeds of the flesh.”

In this passage, Owen writes, “Now, it being our duty to mortify, to be killing of sin whilst it is in us, we must be at work. He that is appointed to kill an enemy, if he leave striking before the other ceases living, doth but half his work. These are words that “struck” me.

Galatians. 6:9 “And let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up.”

Hebrews 12:1 “Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us . . . “

2 Corinthians 7:1 “Since we have these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit, bringing holiness to completion in the fear of God.”

This text from 2 Corinthians is especially helpful when considered in its context. Paul here encourages the Corinthians to purify themselves and perfect holiness out of reverence for God. But what indicatives form the basis for these imperatives? To what gospel promises does Paul appeal in order to motivate such a response? At the end of chapter six, Paul stated several of God’s promises from the Old Testament which speak of his gospel intention to enjoy the company of his Redeemed.”What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, ‘I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them and I will be their God, and they shall be my people’ (cf. Leviticus 26:11-12; Jeremiah 32:38; Ezekiel 37:27). Therefore go out from their midst, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch no unclean thing; then I will welcome you” (Isaiah 52:11; Ezekiel 20:34, 41).

What are God’s gospel intentions which call us to remain separate from, leave untouched, and, indeed, kill, sin? By the gracious redemption purchased by Christ in his victorious life of active obedience to God and utter defeat of sin in his death and resurrection for sinners, God’s intention is to “make (his) dwelling with them.” Think about that: if you are redeemed, it is because God is pleased to live with you! “. . . And walk among them . . . ” As the company of the redeemed, we ought not gather to have a good time with each other, or to impress each other with our outward displays of godliness, but we are called to gather and walk together because God is pleased to walk among the company of those redeemed by Christ from their bondage to sin! How easily we forget this as we walk ever so thoughtlessly in our sinful, defiling lusts. “I will be their God.” Our God? He redeemed us, so he could be our God? Who are we that he is mindful of us? We are nobodies in and of ourselves! But God was graciously pleased to place sinners such as us into his beloved Son in whom he is well pleased (Matthew 17:5). ” . . . ‘And I will be a father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to me,’ says the Lord Almighty” (v. 18).

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, with Grandma and the Indians . . .

Owen continues:
“2. Sin doth not only still abide in us, but is still acting, still laboring to bring forth the deeds of the flesh. When sin lets us alone we may let sin alone; but as sin is never less quiet than when it seems to be most quiet, and its waters are for the most part deep when they are still, so ought our contrivances against it to be vigorous at all times and in all conditions, even where there is least suspicion.” This resembles those scenes in the old war movies where the general is unnerved by the enemy’s silence: “It’s quiet–too quiet!” Believers must remain on guard even when they aren’t conscious of temptation–your inner enemy, sin, is merely reloading and plotting your downfall.

Here are some of the Scriptures Owen cites in support of the above statements:

Sin doth not only abide in us, but “the law of the members is still rebelling against the law of the mind,” (Romans 7:23);

and “the spirit that dwells in us lusteth to envy” (James 4:5)

It is always in continual work; “the flesh lusteth against the Spirit” (Galatians 5:17)

Lust is still tempting and conceiving sin (James 1:14)

The Holy Spirit who indwells the believer has desires for his behavior which contradict the desires that his indwelling sin nature has for him. The flesh (sinful desire) seeks on an ongoing basis to entice the believer to sin and the Holy Spirit is calling him to rely on him out of love for the Son of God to do what he desires him to do. Believer, hear the Spirit’s call and heed it, while, like Russel Crowe’s character in the movie, A Beautiful Mind, resisting, ignoring, neglecting and marginalizing the flesh’s regular attempts to lure you into sin.

Here are my concluding thoughts which were spurred by Owen’s words:

Since sin will dwell in the justified believer for his entire life, and is constantly engaged with him in a fight to the death, the justified believer must likewise engage in an offensive to the death against sin, relying not on his own moral strength, but on the power of the sanctifying Holy Spirit in the Word of God (the Law and the Gospel–1 Peter 1:25) as it is carefully heard, prudently applied and diligently obeyed (James 1:19-25). How a professing believer responds to the onslaughts of his own indwelling sin has eternal consequences (1 Timothy 4:7-8).

If the believer refuses up front, or surrenders to a life of unrepentant sin before his own death (Matthew 21:28-32), he stands liable to the judgment of God as a false believer who allowed sin to kill him, finding that he was never a justified believer to begin with (Matthew 7:23). But if the believer perseveres in the fight to the death with sin, then, when he dies, he will be found finally as a justified believer who has spent his life being sanctified by the Holy Spirit, and now stands to be glorified (1 Corinthians 15:50-58) to live forever in his flesh, finally victorious over sin in Christ, who himself defeated sin for us (Matthew 4:1-11) in order to defeat sin in us as we gratefully return our love to him by our obedient resistance to temptation, and disciplined pursuit of godliness and righteousness (Matthew 5:6; 6:33).

“Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation” (Matthew 26:41).

Onward, Christian soldiers,
marching as to war,
With the cross of Jesus
going on before.

Christ, the royal Master,
leads against the foe;
Forward into battle
see His banners go!

Onward, Christian soldiers,
marching as to war,
With the cross of Jesus
going on before.

At the sign of triumph
Satan’s host doth flee;
On then, Christian soldiers,
on to victory!

Hell’s foundations quiver
at the shout of praise;
Brothers lift your voices,
loud your anthems raise.

Onward, Christian soldiers
marching as to war,
with the cross of Jesus
going on before.

Like a mighty army
moves the church of God;
Brothers, we are treading
where the saints have trod.

We are not divided,
all one body we,
One in hope and doctrine,
one in charity.

Onward, Christian soldiers
marching as to war,
with the cross of Jesus
going on before.

What the saints established
that I hold for true.
What the saints believèd,
that I believe too.

Long as earth endureth,
men the faith will hold,
Kingdoms, nations, empires,
in destruction rolled.

Onward, Christian soldiers,
marching as to war,
with the cross of Jesus
going on before.

Crowns and thrones may perish,
kingdoms rise and wane,
But the church of Jesus
constant will remain.

Gates of hell can never
‘gainst that church prevail;
We have Christ’s own promise,
and that cannot fail.

Onward, Christian soldiers,
marching as to war,
with the cross of Jesus
going on before.

Onward then, ye people,
join our happy throng,
Blend with ours your voices
in the triumph song.

Glory, laud and honor
unto Christ the King,
This through countless ages
men and angels sing.

Onward, Christian soldiers,
marching as to war,
with the cross of Jesus
going on before.

Posted in: Music for Mind and Heart, Theological Issues, Thinking About Church History

Christian Headknowledge and Historical Claims

By John D. Chitty on | 3 Comments

This prediction can be made on the basis of recent history alone. The upcoming documentary, The Lost Tomb of Jesus (Sunday, March 4, Discovery Channel), and book, The Jesus Family Tomb (HarperCollins Publishers), will be another case of sensational claims based on highly debatable evidence, at the expense of the traditional view of Jesus of Nazareth. In the name of getting at the “historical Jesus,” we’ve had over the past decade plus, the Jesus Seminar claiming to determine that Jesus only said about 18% of what the New Testament attributes to him, the James Ossuary, the owner of which who is now on trial for fraud, the “Gospel” of Judas which we’d known about since AD180 anyway, we just didn’t know what it said, The Da Vinci Code, the novelization of theories about second and third century gnostics and the Knights Templar combined with some bad history about Constantine and the Council of Nicea. Now, they are trying to make us think they’ve found some of Jesus’ bones (if only fragments), and confirmatory evidence of the marriage of Jesus and Mary Magdalene.
One friend of mine was puzzled about why people want to do this? My answer was “Money.” To the book, TV and movie industry, it doesn’t really matter if the claims are true. It matters how much money you can make off of the hype when the claims are made in these various media before the claims are disproven.
I always say if you don’t know where you came from, you don’t know where you are, and you can’t see where you’re going. I know that most of my readers already believe the Word of God. Bolster that faith with supplementary evidence.
Both Anselm and Augustine are attributed affirming, “Believe in order to understand.” You already believe the Word of God. Add to your faith in the Word the confirmation of that inerrant Word with facts drawn from the world around you. Learn church history. Learn basic apologetics. Gain a working knowledge of the physical sciences, etc. Isaac Watts wrote in his book, Logic, (not an exact quote), “Learn everything you can learn. The more you learn, the more you realize how little you know.” The more you learn the facts available from natural revelation, the broader and deeper your understanding will be of the things you have already learned from the special revelation in Scripture. Skeptics insist on understanding before they are willing to believe. This is not what Christian “head knowledge” is about. It’s about believing in order to understand. Once you receive his revelation by faith, God will confirm it to you by what you see and learn around you.
“For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love. For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. For whoever lacks these qualities is so nearsighted that he is blind, having forgotten that he was cleansed from his former sins”( 2 Peter 1:5-9).
Everyone readily affirms that we need to add to our faith virtue, self-control, steadfastness, godliness, brotherly affection and love. It’s a no-brainer that to have these in abundance makes us effective and fruitful. How easily we forget that these are not all that make believers effective and fruitful, helping you live in the light of your cleansing from sin in the Lord Jesus Christ. Abundant knowledge is also a key ingredient, according to the apostle Peter. When many believers hear the claims of skeptics about the “historical Jesus,” they already know not to believe the false claims. But they may not already know why. Knowing why is just as important as knowing what side to take. You will be more effective in helping others around you to know what side to take if you know why it’s the right side and can communicate it to them. It will not only undergird yours and your brothers’ faith, it may help current unbelievers begin thinking in the right direction–and, with prayer, time, and evangelism, may, can and will extend the Kingdom of God through the clensing of sins in Christ, one person at a time through you.
Posted in: Theological Issues, Thinking About Church History

Another Easter Season, Another Skeptical Claim

By John D. Chitty on | Leave a comment

Pulpit Magazine has a good list of links which respond to the most recent in the modern annual tradition of casting doubt on the historicity of traditional Christianity in the middle of one of its most holy seasons.
Time Magazine ran a piece describing James Cameron’s and Simchi Jacobovici’s press conference during which they announced their upcoming documentary and book, The Jesus Family Tomb.

for your edification, from the English Standard Version of the Holy Bible . . .

1 Corinthians 15:1-28
The Resurrection of Christ
15:1 Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, 2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.

3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that

Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,
4 that he was buried,
that he was raised on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures,
5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time,
most of whom are still alive,
though some have fallen asleep.
7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.
8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.
9 For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me. 11 Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

The Resurrection of the Dead
12 Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. 15 We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.

20 But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead,

the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.
21 For as by a man came death,
by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead.
22 For as in Adam all die,
so also in Christ shall all be made alive.
23 But each in his own order:
Christ the firstfruits,
then at his coming those who belong to Christ.
24 Then comes the end,
when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father
after destroying every rule and every authority and power.
25 For he must reign
until he has put all his enemies under his feet.

26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For “God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “all things are put in subjection,” it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him. 28 When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.
Christ is risen–He is risen indeed!
Posted in: Theological Issues, Thinking About Church History

Premature Reports of The Planned Catholic-Anglican Reunion

By John D. Chitty on | Leave a comment

Here is an excerpt from the official response to a Times of London report (to which I linked you yesterday) about the effort to which those engaged in the effort object.

“Growing Together in Unity and Mission has not yet been officially published. It is unfortunate that its contents have been prematurely reported in a way which misrepresents its intentions and sensationalises its conclusions.”

“Both the heading of the article (‘Churches back plan to unite under Pope’) and its opening sentence, which speaks of ‘radical proposals to reunite Anglicans with the Roman Catholic Church under the leadership of the Pope’ need to be put into proper perspective. For 35 years this dialogue has addressed questions of authority, including the papacy. The so-called ‘radical proposals’ found in Growing Together in Unity and Mission are the same proposals which ARCIC has been putting forward over the past 35 years. What this document says about the Petrine Ministry is not new, but a synthesis of what is said in ARCIC’s documents on authority (Authority in the Church I, 1976; Authority in the Church II, 1981; The Gift of Authority, 1999). While it is encouraging that a document of this kind can be produced and that practical day to day cooperation between Catholics and Anglicans can be strengthened, talk of plans to reunite the two communions is, sadly, much exaggerated.”

“The Times article speculates about the Catholic Church’s response to a possible schism within the Anglican Communion. It should be pointed out that the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity has consistently spoken of the value of the Anglican Communion remaining a communion, rooted in the Apostolic faith, as indicated in this statement from 2004: “It is our overwhelming desire that the Anglican Communion stays together, rooted in the historic faith which our dialogue and relations over four decades have led us to believe that we share to a large degree.” During the visit of the Archbishop of Canterbury to Pope Benedict in November, 2006, the Holy Father noted: ‘It is our fervent hope that the Anglican Communion will remain grounded in the Gospels and the Apostolic Tradition which form our common patrimony and are the basis of our common aspiration to work for full visible unity.'”
So it’s not like it’s going to happen next week, but they’ve been working on it since about 1966, are currently working on it, and intend to accomplish it one day. In other words, “Rome’s leaving the porch light on for the Anglican Communion.” That being the case, my previous “sensationalised” comments stand.
Posted in: Theological Issues, Thinking About Church History

The Romans Road — Anglican Edition

By John D. Chitty on | 7 Comments

After 35 years of dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Church of England, the groundwork is being laid for re-uniting both religious bodies under the pope. Yes, you read that correctly. The original and largest expression of the historic Reformation in England is undoing the work that had been done. Since the theology of the Reformation was largely abandoned by the Anglican Church up to at least a hundred years ago, it only makes sense that Romanism would rush back in to fill the void. After all, what’s the point of remaining separate from the apostate Roman Catholic Church if you’ve already apostatized from the biblical “Apostolic Succession” which is maintained by “continuing stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine” (Acts 2:42)?

Read, “Anglicans, Catholics Discuss Unity,” from CNN.com.

And then read “Update on Relations with the Anglican Communion” for more information from the Roman Catholic side.

And here is what the Anglicans have to say for themselves . . . “Statement from the Co-chairs of the International Anglican – Roman Catholic Commission for Unity and Mission, on Anglican – Roman Catholic relations”

Posted in: Theological Issues, Thinking About Church History

Dear Bloggers, You’ve Got a “Llove” Letter!

By John D. Chitty on | Leave a comment

Check out my pastor’s new website! www.lloveletters.com. Notice that he’s got a book for sale, too!

Blogging under the identity of “Christian West,” my pastor will be regularly attempting to encourage believers who read his blog to “excercise the Disciplines of Llove.” Click here to read his first post on his blog. . .Failure Is Underrated.

Posted in: Baptist, Books, Current Evangelical Trends, Personal, Practical Application

From Rasict Ruckmanism to Reformed Theology

By John D. Chitty on | 9 Comments

 

I just saw a great Day of Discovery program on television. The month of February is Black History Month. This month was selected because it contains the birthdays of both Frederick Douglass and Abraham Lincoln. I’ve been noticing that Day of Discovery has been observing this by airing several of their programs which feature the contributions of great Christian African-Americans in American history, many of which I’ve seen in the past. This weekend, however, they kicked off a three-part series called Africa & the Bible. I got really excited about the first one, The Myth of a Cursed Race (at this link, you can watch the video online!). Part of the introduction of this video on the Radio Bible Class website reads, “Are all races created equal in God’s eyes? Down through the ages, some people have viewed those with darker skin as somehow less human—using skin color as an excuse to enslave and marginalize people.”
The reason I found this program so exciting was the fact that, in the past, during my sojourn in the worldview of “Ruckmanism,” I was taught this view that is among the historic blemishes that tarnishes the reputation of Christianity, along with such low points as the Crusades, Inquisition, and the Salem Witch Trials. The view espoused by Europeans and Americans to justify the forced slavery of generations of Africans did not originate in the turmoil which led to the American Civil War, but is centuries old, and is ingrained in the thinking of many in some form or other, to this day.
There are three books by Peter Ruckman in which he perpetuates this harmful interpretation of Genesis 9:20-28, which has been used to subjugate and generally look down on the African race. Their titles are, Segregation or Integration, Discrimination: The Key to Sanity, and Genesis: The Bible Believer’s Commentary Series. Not that I recommend your buying these books, but for your information, these titles may be found at Peter Ruckman’s PDF bookstore catalog.
Segregation or Integration is found on page 15 of the 16 page PDF file; Discrimination: The Key to Sanity is listed on page 9; and Genesis: The Bible Believer’s Commentary Series is on page 1. These writings by Peter Ruckman persuade many of his readers to adopt a racist worldview in relation to the African race. I was persuaded to believe it for a while. I was persuaded to believe it, not because I have any animosity toward black people from my own experience, I was persuaded to believe it because I wanted to believe that Peter Ruckman was a great Bible teacher. Many of his readers adopt this racist view out of a similar motivation. They’re not bad people. They are misled people.
I am thankful that before I adopted the extreme views of Ruckman, I had had enough exposure to the greater evangelical world and its way of thinking that as I forced myself to subscribe to Ruckman’s bankrupt views, I was always aware of the evangelical views, or at least attitudes, which highlighted to various degrees, the holes in his teachings. Luther once wrote that “reason is a whore,” being able to serve whatever purpose you want. For a period of a few long years, I prostituted my mind to this tragic worldview called “Ruckmanism.”
But my mind had a prior commitment to learning the truth. In my late teen years, back when I was considering the claims of charismatic theology, I determined that before I run off willy-nilly from the Independent, Fundamental Baptist tradition in which I was raised, I would first learn exactly what it is that the IFB tradition teaches, and only if they are in error, will I ever leave the tradition in which God had me raised. As I read and thought, I came to the conclusion that the strain of teaching I need to follow is whatever is the most conservative Baptist teaching that I can find. So as I began my journey toward the “right,” eventually I found myself dangling by my fingernails from the lunatic fringe clutching the writings of Peter Ruckman under my other arm. Because I considered Ruckman one of the most “conservative” writers I’d ever read, I figured his were the views I needed to adopt. So, I began the process of assimilation.
I sincerely thought I was learning the truth. I sincerely wanted to believe that I was learning the truth. But even though I wanted to believe the views of this “most conservative” of Baptist teachers, the much more reasonable views of the greater evangelical world always haunted me–the kind that respected the King James Version, but had more confidence in the modern, critical, eclectic text of Scripture; the kind who confessed (whether in a creedal, or non-creedal way) “one holy catholic (universal) church,” as opposed to my “local church only” theology; the kind who thought Martin Luther King, Jr., was a genuine American hero, rather than merely an adulterous, communist-sympathizer who wanted to unleash a dangerous “jungle culture” on this Christian nation.
By God’s grace, as time progressed, and I continued to search for the truth, the holes in Ruckman’s teachings grew and grew, until one day I had to admit to myself, “You know, if I were honest, I’d half to admit that I simply don’t believe this stuff anymore.” In fact, I can tell you the exact spot where I stood when I was finally willing to have this thought. I was mixing ink at the Reformation Station (my nickname for the print shop at which I used to work with my friend, Gage Browning, but this was before he was hired), listening to R. C. Sproul on my Walkman teaching about the inspiration, inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture. This was the moment when enough light had pierced the dark views of Ruckmanism that I began the process of genuine Reformation.
This is the reason I found Day of Discovery’s program, Africa & the Bible, part one: The Myth of A Cursed Race such an exciting and enlightening program. I highly recommend it. In fact, I’m about to go back to RBC’s website and offer my “gift of any amount” to their ministry, so that they can thank me for my support of their ministry with the gift of this three part series. I’m sure someday in the future I will be able to share it with others in my future teaching ministry at church. And then at or around February 23, I’m going to the theater to view Amazing Grace, the film about William Wilberforce’s successful efforts to abolish slavery in England two hundred years ago.
Posted in: Captain Headknowledge: The Early Years, Church History, Evangelicalism, Fundamentalism, King James Version, Peter Ruckman, Reformed Theology, Theological Issues

Observing the Passing of a Scholar at the Top of the Textual Critical Food Chain

By John D. Chitty on | 3 Comments

I just noticed on another blog that Bruce Metzger recently died. I’ve seen his face on a few of D. James Kennedy’s videos defending the historicity of the Bible, but have yet to read his works for myself. I have posted the Wikipedia article on him which has been updated with the date of his death five days ago. As you read, you will see, not surprisingly perhaps, that Metzger may not have toed the line of the conscientious evangelical on things like inerrancy and perhaps a few other theological matters not mentioned in the article below, but his contribution to the modern text of Scripture demands respect, even from evangelicals. So, in honor of the passing of a true “Captain Headknowledge,” I give you Wikipedia’s summary of Bruce Metzger’s life work. Those of you familiar with his work, please share you observations, impressions and what impact his work may have had on your views of the history or text of the Holy Scripture.

Bruce Metzger
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bruce Metzger pictured on the cover of his autobiography Reminiscences of an Octogenarian

Bruce Manning Metzger (9 February 1914, Middletown, Pennsylvania – 13 February 2007, Princeton, New Jersey) was a professor emeritus at Princeton Theological Seminary and Bible editor who served on the board of the American Bible Society. He was a scholar of Greek, New Testament and Old Testament Bible, and wrote prolifically on these subjects.
Metzger earned his BA at Lebanon Valley College in 1935, and then entered Princeton Theological Seminary to gain his ThB in 1938. He stayed at Princeton as Teaching Fellow in New Testament Greek. The following year, he was ordained in the United Presbyterian Church. In 1940, he earned his MA and changed post to be Instructor in New Testament. Two years later, Metzger produced his PhD. In 1944, Metzger married Isobel Elizabeth Mackay, daughter of the third president of the Seminary, Alexander Mackay. That same year, he was promoted to Assistant Professor. In 1948, he became Associate Professor, and full Professor in 1954. In 1964, Metzger’s chair was named George L. Collord Professor of New Testament Language and Literature. In 1971, he was elected president of both the Studiorum Novi Testimenti Societas and the International Society of Biblical Literature. The following year, he became the first president of the North American Patristic Society. Metzger was visiting fellow at Clare Hall, Cambridge in 1974 and Wolfson College, Oxford in 1979. He retired at the age of seventy in 1984 as Professor Emeritus. In 1994, Bruce Metzger was honoured with the Burkitt Medal for Biblical Studies by the British Academy. He was awarded honorary doctorates from Lebanon Valley College, Findlay College, University of St Andrews, the University of Münster and Potchefstroom University.

Metzger edited and provided commentary for many Bible translations and wrote dozens of books. He was a contributor to the Apocrypha of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, editor of the Reader’s Digest Bible (a condensed version of the RSV) and general editor of the New Revised Standard Version. He was also one of the editors of the United Bible Societies‘ standard Greek New Testament, the starting point for nearly all translations of the New Testament in recent decades.

Metzger’s commentaries often utilize historical criticism and higher criticism, which attempt to explain the literary and historical origins of the Bible and the biblical canon. For instance, Metzger argues that the early church which assembled the New Testament did not consider divine inspiration to be a sufficient criterion for a book to be canonized. Metzger says that for the early church, it was very important that a work describing Jesus‘ life be written by a follower of or an eyewitness to Jesus, and in fact considered other works such as The Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistles of Clement to be inspired but not canonical. Because of such views, he was criticized by some Christian fundamentalists (but not most evangelicals) who believed Metzger’s views contradict the idea that the Bible is inerrant in its original manuscripts.[1]
Metzger was survived by his wife Isobel and their two sons John Mackay Metzger and James Bruce Metzger.

Books and commentaries
The Text Of The New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, And Restoration (2005, with Bart D. Ehrman)
New Testament: Its Background, Growth and Content (2003)
The Oxford Essential Guide to Ideas and Issues of the Bible (2002 with Michael D. Coogan)
The Oxford Guide to People & Places of the Bible (2001 with Michael D. Coogan)
Greek New Testament (2000 with by B. Aland)
Breaking the Code: Understanding the Book of Revelation : Leader’s Guide (1999)
Revelation 6-16 (Word Biblical Commentary 52b) (1998, with David E. Aune)
Reminiscences of an Octogenarian (1997) ISBN 1-56563-264-8
The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (1997)
Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (1994)
The Oxford Companion to the Bible (1993)
The Reader’s Bible (1983)
Lexical Aids for Students of New Testament Greek (1969)
List of Words Occuring Frequently in the Coptic New Testament (Sahidic Dialect) (1961) – note: “occuring” is misspelled in the published title
Introduction to the Apocrypha (1957)
The Oxford Concise Concordance to the Revised Standard Version of the Holy Bible (with Isobel M. Metzger)

Translations
The NRSV Bible with the Apocrypha, Compact Edition (2003)
New Revised Standard Version (1989)
Oxford Annotated Apocrypha: Revised Standard Version (1977)
The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha, Revised Standard Version, Expanded Edition (1977 with Herbert G. May)
Oxford Annotated Apocrypha: The Apocrypha of the Old Testament (1977)

References
One rather vitriolic example is Editors of the UBS Greek New Testament, by David W. Cloud, Way of Life Literature 2001, in which Metzger is labelled “an unbeliever”, “a false teacher”, “apostate” and “a heretic”.
Retrieved from “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Metzger“

Posted in: Saluting Real Captains Headknowledge

When Bad Church Government is Combined with Bad Church Leaders

By John D. Chitty on | 12 Comments

My friend, Gage Browning, frequently repeats to me what he heard from an experienced man of God, whose name currently slips my mind. If I were to guess, it was probably a professor at Dallas Theological Seminary under whom his father, Dr. Thomas R. Browning, studied. But that’s just a guess. The quote goes something like this: “Bad church government run by good people is better than good church government run by bad people.”

Anyway, I tell you this to introduce to you what happens when bad government is combined with bad people. It can cause some serious damage. Take a look at Dr. Kim Ribblebarger’s weblog, The Riddleblog to find out the gory details, and the prescription for Reform.

Posted in: Current Evangelical Trends, Theological Issues