Casting Crowns – Set Me Free

~ Bob Hayton ~ 6 Comments

I enjoyed my first Christian concert in a large venue last night. I saw Casting Crowns with Tenth Avenue North and Caleb Chapman at the Excel Energy Center in St. Paul. I really enjoyed the concert as Casting Crowns has amassed quite a list of really good, rock solid, God-centered songs over the last several years. Plus I was with some friends from church.

I thought I’d just post a video of my favorite Casting Crowns song, which unfortunately they didn’t do last night. I don’t post video clips often, and its good to have a change of pace every once in a while. Let me know if you like the song. The song is from the perspective of the demonaic of Gadeira in Mark 5. May this song move you like it has me.

Imperialist Influence on the Rise of KJV Onlyism?

~ Bob Hayton ~ 3 Comments

Erik over at Fundamentally Changed recently raised the question of the possibility that KJV-onlyism is rooted in an imperialist mindset. Many people who prefer the KJV have a high view of the importance of America and Britain in world history. They believe that God chose English as a special language that he knew would become universal, and so God codified His Word in that language.

Many have claimed in the comments at Sharper Iron’s filing post on this, as well as on Erik’s original post, that they’ve seen no evidence of such imperialism as an argument in KJV Only literature. I beg to differ.

Benjamin Wilkinson’s book Our Authorized Bible Vindicated (1930) was certainly influential in the rise of the modern KJV Only position. His work was leaned on heavily (some would say plaegarized) in J.J. Ray’s God Only Wrote One Bible (1955). And Wilkinson’s work was quoted (with some revisions and deletions) in David Otis Fuller’s book Which Bible? (1970). Those two books were very instrumental in the rise of the modern KJV Only movement. Ray’s work influenced Peter Ruckman and Fuller, and Fuller’s work influenced leaders of the other wing of KJV-onlyism. Doug Kutilek documents this in a post on the rise of the KJV-only movement here.

Before providing this quote, some of which is reproduced in a 1999 work by Jack Moorman published by The Dean Burgon Society called Forever Settled, I should stress that Wilkinson’s work is certainly only one influence among many for the birth of KJV-onlyism. And the imperialist claims are just one idea among many that he trumpeted. KJV-onlyism probably does have ties to Burgon’s and others argument against the RV in the late 1800s. And it also probably has some connection with older Reformation-era views of the perfect-ness of the printed Greek and Hebrew texts the church had in their possession. But many observors of KJV onlyism have seen that in fundamentalist circles, the older leaders were not KJV-only, men like John R. Rice. And the leaders in the generation after them were converted to KJV onlyism later in their ministries, men like Jack Hyles. Several influential KJV authors also were converted later in their ministries to KJV Onlyism, men like David Cloud and D.A. Waite.

Now, enough about this. Let me provide the quotes from Wilkinson which I shared on Erik’s post. I think it proves at the least an imperialist influence on the rise of KJV-onlyism. The following comes from Wilkinson’s work published in 1930, available online here.

God who foresaw the coming greatness of the English-speaking world, prepared in advance the agent who early would give direction to the course of its thinking. One man stands out silhouetted against the horizon above all others, as having stamped his genius upon English thought and upon the English language. That man was William Tyndale. (pg. 33)

The hour had arrived, and from the human point of view, conditions were perfect, for God to bring forth a translation of the Bible which would sum up in itself the best of the ages. The heavenly Father foresaw the opportunity of giving His Word to the inhabitants of earth by the coming of the British Empire with its dominions scattered throughout the world, and by the great American Republic, both speaking the English language. Not only was the English language by 1611 in a more opportune condition than it had ever been before or ever would be again, but the Hebrew and the Greek likewise had been brought up with the accumulated treasures of their materials to a splendid working point. The age was not distracted by the rush of mechanical and industrial achievements. Moreover linguistic scholarship was at its peak. Men of giant minds, supported by excellent physical health, had possessed in a splendid state of perfection a knowledge of the languages and literature necessary for the ripest Biblical scholarship. (pg. 42)

The birth of the King James Bible was a death stroke to the supremacy of Roman Catholicism. The translators little foresaw the wide extent of circulation and the tremendous influence to be won by their book. They little dreamed that for three hundred years it would form the bond of English Protestantism in all parts of the world. One of the brilliant minds of the last generation, Faber, who as a clergyman in the Church of England, labored to Romanize that body, and finally abandoned it for the Church of Rome, cried out, “” “Who will say that the uncommon beauty and marvelous English of the Protestant Bible is not one of the great strongholds of heresy in this country?”

Yes, more, it has not only been the stronghold of Protestantism in Great Britain, but it has built a gigantic wall as a barrier against the spread of Romanism.

“The printing of the English Bible has proved to be by far the mightiest barrier ever reared to repel the advance of Popery, and to damage all the resources of the Papacy.”

Small wonder then that for three hundred years incessant warfare has been waged upon this instrument created by God to mold all constitutions and laws of the British Empire, and of the great American Republic, while at the same time comforting, blessing, and instructing the lives of the millions who inhabit these territories. Behold what it has given to the world! The machinery of the Catholic Church can never begin to compare with the splendid machinery of Protestantism. The Sabbath School, the Bible printing houses, the foreign missionary societies, the Y.M.C.A., the Y.W.C.A., the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, the Protestant denominational organizations, “” these all were the offspring of Protestantism. Their benefits have gone to all lands and been adopted by practically all nations. Shall we throw away the Bible from which such splendid organizations have sprung? (51-52)

— cross posted at my team KJV Only blog.

Why T4G Should Not Fall Apart Over John Piper’s Connection with Rick Warren

~ Bob Hayton ~ 25 Comments

Background

As I’ve noted previously, John Piper is going to have Rick Warren speak at the Desiring God National Conference this year. And many conservative Bible-believing Christians are very concerned about this. They feel that Rick Warren preaches a watered-down Gospel and that Piper has sold-out on the Gospel by endorsing Warren in this way.

I’ve had blogging friends of mine express deep concern over this decision of my former pastor. I’m aware of at least one pastor who has publicly “separated” from Piper and removed all of his books from their church bookstore in response to this matter. Some fundamentalist bloggers are noting this as yet another example of a lack of discernment on Piper’s part and are encouraging pastors and fundamentalist leaders to not recommend Piper’s works to their congregations.

Now, some are even openly speculating about next week’s Together For the Gospel Conference, and wondering what kind of an impact this will have on the conference. Lou Martuneac a fundamentalist blogger can be quoted on this point:

The revelation of John Piper’s invitation of Rick Warren to his Desiring God (DG) conference could not have been welcome news for Together for the Gospel (T4G)1 organizers and its key note speakers on the eve of their event. The Piper/Warren issue is sure to be the buzz of the conference. I do not expect anything on the Rick Warren invitation from the platform speakers unless it comes from Piper, which he may feel compelled to address in an attempt to quell the buzz.

The true irony of this year’s T4G is the theme, which is, “The (Unadjusted) Gospel.” Rick Warren is among the high priests of a watered down, non-saving message….

I half-suspect Piper may take the platform at the outset to address the Warren invite. Why? For the purpose of getting it on the table, hashed out and hopefully quelled so that it is not a major lingering distraction during the conference. Nevertheless, there will undoubtedly be a huge buzz on the floor of T4G and in small groups settings throughout the conference….

What will be the reaction of the T4G men: MacArthur, Dever, Sproul, et. al.? I suspect some private attempts to admonish Piper have already taken place. All indications are he (Piper) will reject any admonishment from his brothers. Will there be some public negative reaction from the other T4G men? Will, for the sake of T4G/TGC fellowships, all be forgotten. At T4G will all embrace one another as if nothing is amiss?

Meanwhile, influential bloggers Tim Challies and Justin Taylor have tried to model reserve and charity in this whole debate. Taylor had to shut down comments on his blog due to how bitter and caustic many were. Challies has disagreed with Piper’s decision but also made the following points.

But before I continue, let me offer one more word. John Piper inviting Rick Warren to speak at the conference is not that big of a deal. It matters, to be sure, but not enough to get too riled up. It’s important that we put it in its proper context. Piper did not invite Robert Schuller or the Dalai Lama, someone who outright denies the Gospel. Warren professes faith in Christ and professes an evangelical understanding of that faith. Furthermore, this conference is Piper’s gig and he is free to invite whomever he wants (or whomever he is permitted within whatever structure there is inside of Desiring God). His house, his rules….

…let’s heed Piper’s warning not to fall into an error of secondary separation. There is no need for us to separate from Piper over such a decision. We have plenty of latitude to disagree with him; let’s do so with respect for him and for his long and faithful history of ministry to the church. The sky is not falling, the world will go on.

Doug Wilson has also explained how he thinks about all of this. He has a “wait and see” approach and thinks, we don’t need to “blow into a paper bag” over this. Phil Johnson, while strongly disagreeing with the decision is also concerned over how negative the reactions are to this. He thinks we should not approach this as a cause to separate from Piper in an all-or-nothing sort of way. Johnson was interviewed Tues. and Wed. on Iron Sharpens Iron radio, and the mp3s are available for free download from sharpens.org. [UPDATE: Phil just posted his official response to this on his blog. He has some good things to say which I largely agree with.]

Isn’t this a Big Deal?

Why is it that these leaders and many other less influential theology bloggers (like me) think such an action by Piper is not a big deal? Isn’t supporting someone like Warren a contradiction of the Gospel?

Here are some of the reasons given for thinking this is a big deal:

  • Warren pleases people and adapts his message to suit the audience he’s at. He doesn’t strongly teach or write about repentance – this constitutes a watered-down Gospel.
  • Warren has had Obama come to his church, and has accepted the likes of Robert Schuler. He has given wishy-washy answers on public interviews to questions related to the Gospel.
  • Scripture calls for us to mark and avoid, and separate from those who do not uphold the Gospel. See the following summary of this idea of separation by David Cloud, fundamentalist leader:

We believe that the Bible requires separation from all forms of heresy and ecclesiastical apostasy (Rom. 16:17; 2 Cor. 6:14-18; 1 Thess. 3:6; 1 Tim. 6:3-5; 2 Tim. 3:5; Titus 3:10-11; 2 John 10-11; Rev. 18:4). We are commanded to try them, mark them, rebuke them, have no fellowship with them, withdraw ourselves, receive them not, have no company with them, reject them, and separate ourselves from them. The Bible teaches that the course of the church age is characterized by increasing apostasy (2 Timothy 3:1 – 4:6).

When put this way, such a reaction by Piper makes him a disobedient brother who should be separated from. This is the way most who practice secondary separation would think. It’s not that we separate because he chooses not to separate from people we would (as Piper phrased “secondary separation” in his video defense of this decision). Rather, they think Piper’s refusal to separate is disobedience, and 2 Thess. 3:6, 13-15 would urge us to separate from disobedient brothers.

But what about the Gospel?

I contend that the Gospel is a big enough matter to unify around. In fact the separation texts mentioned above particularly apply to a wholesale rejection of the Gospel. It is true “enemies of the cross of Christ” who preach “another gospel” who are to be so rejected. The withdrawal from brothers in Christ, happens primarily in a context of a local church with church discipline. Even then the erring ones are to be “admonished as brothers” not treated like outsiders.

Warren’s pragmatic approach to ministry may be foolhardy. His answers to Gospel-questions given on the spur of the moment in the context of media interviews, may not be as good as we would like. His books are aimed to less well-read readers, those that abound in today’s world. He connects with them, and appeals to a wide range of people. He aims to win them to Christ after he’s disarmed their defensive reaction to Christianity, but from our perspective he may be going too far in a 1 Cor. 9 be “all things to all” policy. His message may not be as theologically precise as we prefer. But he does not deny the Gospel. He affirms it. He preaches it, and he aims to live it out.

Meanwhile, John Piper is very clear about the Gospel and his books promote a Gospel-centered philosophy and world-view. The fellow speakers at T4G (Mark Dever, C.J. Mahaney, Albert Mohler, J. Ligon Duncan, R.C. Sproul, John MacArthur and Thabiti Anyabwile) have many traits which could divide them. Varying positions on the charismatic gifts, the nature of baptism, eschatology, church government, music, and even who they “hang out with” (to use Piper’s expression). Some are very suspicious and careful with Mark Driscoll’s ministry style, others have befriended him. Some have chosen not to sign the Manhattan Declaration for important reasons, others see it as a means to encourage the defense of family values in today’s world and have signed it.

All of these differences matter, and these men don’t see eye-to-eye on a host of other concerns. But the speakers at T4G see the Gospel as being so important, that since they all joyfully affirm a rich, robust, Biblical Gospel message, they can allow this union to define them. Rather than being defined by what they are against, or more minor theological differences, they define themselves as being Gospel-driven.

When we separate over every little thing. When we allow personality differences, or just plain differences of opinion spur us on to cast judgment on fellow believers, we have crossed a Biblical line ourselves. More than that, we allow ourselves to be defined by these lesser things, and in so doing minimize the importance of the Gospel.

In closing, let me ask you to ponder the ramifications of the following texts to the current debate:

Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand…. Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God. (Rom. 14:4, 10)

May the God of endurance and encouragement grant you to live in such harmony with one another, in accord with Christ Jesus, that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore welcome one another as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God. (Rom. 15:5-7)

I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit””just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call”” one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. But grace was given to each one of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift. (Eph. 4:1-7)

And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love. (Eph. 4:11-16)

Notice the stress on love, humility and gentleness, and the assumption that those differing with us are not enemies but brothers. They shouldn’t be judged, but may need teaching. We should strive for a sincere and edifying unity. This is the measure of the fullness of Christ. May this be our aim and may we all learn some important lessons as we think Biblically about this controversy and aim to react in a Christ-like and gracious way.

Get Your Book News Here

~ Bob Hayton

Just a quick shout out to my group book related blog. My pal Shaun Tabatt and I are posting book reviews, book news, new releases, author interviews and more over at CrossFocusedReviews.Com. If you see less news about books on this site, it’s because I’m sharing that kind of information over there. Please bookmark the site, and subscribe.

As we get closer to an official launch of the site, we plan on arranging some book giveaways for our readers.

The Christological Shape of the Old Testament

~ Bob Hayton ~ 9 Comments

I just finished part one of John H. Sailhamer’s The Meaning of the Pentateuch: Revelation, Composition and Interpretation (IVP, 2009). I have been riveted by what I’ve read so far, and just have to share this much with you all.

First a little background. Sailhamer aims to bring back an emphasis on authorial intent to the study of the Old Testament. He holds to a Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, but argues for a later prophetic retrofit or, in modern lingo, a Pentateuch 2.0. I’ll let Sailhamer explain:

For the most part, the new edition replicates the original Mosaic Pentateuch, but it has a wider screen. Rather than reading the Pentateuch from the viewpoint of the beginning of Israel’s history, as no doubt was intended in the original Pentateuch, the new edition looks at the Pentateuch from the perspective of the end of Israel’s history and God’s continuing work with Israel and the nations. (pg. 204)

Along with a prophetic retouch of the Pentateuch, Sailhamer argues that the entire Tanak (Hebrew Bible or the Christian Old Testament) was shaped by perhaps a single author. It was presented to us in a particular order for a reason. You are likely aware of Jesus’ approval of this basic shape of the OT. He referred to the OT as “the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms” (Luke 24:44). He also spoke of the blood of the martyrs from Abel to Zechariah (Luke 11:51), which likely points to the Tanak ending with Chronicles even in Jesus’ day.

So to Sailhamer, the very shape– the order of the books, and their current literary shape– of the OT is important. We aren’t primarily concerned with the history it witnesses to, but rather our job is to listen to the inspired writings themselves and try to discern what the authors intended to communicate through their completed books. The shape matters. And when you look closely at that shape, a Christological or messianic focus comes into view. The following chart may help:

The three parts of the OT again, are the Torah or Law, which we call the Pentateuch (Genesis – Deuteronomy); the Nevi’im or Prophets (Joshua, Judges, 1 Samuel-2 Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel & the minor prophets); and the Ketuvim or Writings (Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, and 1-2 Chronicles). Imagine these three parts of the OT stitched together at the intersections of the book of Deuteronomy & Joshua, and Malachi & Psalms. These are the two seams that hold the Tanak together. [Tanak comes from the first letters of the words: Torah, Nevi’im, and Ketuvim.]

Each of these seams is very similar. Deut. 34 declares that the expected “prophet like me (Moses)” never appeared. This implies that this section of Deuteronomy was written quite late. Sailhamer writes, “The fact that the prophet “never came” is intended to spur the reader on to further trust in the hope of his coming. In other words, this last bit of commentary on Deuteronomy 18 in Deuteronomy 34 guides us in understanding Moses’ words not as a reference to the coming office of the prophet, but as a historically unfulfilled prophecy of the coming of an individual future prophet.” (pg. 18).

Meanwhile, Malachi ends with an expectation of a coming messenger preparing the way for the coming of the LORD. A prophet like Elijah will arise at a future time. This expectation of a coming future prophet is then followed by a call to meditate on the Law as a means to find prosperity and success. Josh. 1:8 and Ps. 1:2 both link success with meditating on the Law.

This all fits together when we realize the Tanak was crafted specifically to draw emphasis to these parallels. Sailhammer explains further:

Both Joshua 1 and Psalm 1 speak of “meditating on the law of God” as the means of becoming wise and prosperous. The two canonical links (Josh 1:8; Ps 1:3) appear to be read as cross-citations, each citing the other…. The verbal identity of these two texts suggests an intentional strategy…. In these two canonical seams the law becomes an object of meditation and the primary source of wisdom.

These two seams, or “redactional glue,” Joshua 1:8 and Psalm 1:2, contrast the role of law as wisdom in the present and as prophecy in the future. In doing so they raise a further question: “How does one live in the present while waiting for God’s new work in the future? These seams refocus the reader’s attention from the present to the future arrival of a great prophet like Moses (Deut 34:10), whose way is prepared by another great prophet, Elijah (Mal 4:5 [3:23 MT]).

A final theme is embedded in these canonical seams. It is the role of Scripture in the lives of those who are called to wait for God’s future work. By meditating “day and night” on Scripture (Josh 1:8; Ps 1:3), one finds wisdom and prosperity. Prophecy is a thing of the past. It has ceased and has been replaced, for the moment at least, by Scripture. The Scriptures, as God’s prophetic Word, have been given for those who wait for the return of prophecy…. (217-218)

An additional element of the shape of the Tanak also adds to this messianic focus. The last book, Chronicles, ends with Cyrus’ edict to return to Jerusalem, but it cuts off the edict mid-sentence (compare 2 Chron. 36:22-23 with Ezra 1:1-5). This is an intentional strategy, to emphasize that the fulfillment of Jeremiah’s 70 years is to be seen in Daniel’s 70 weeks which are yet future. The return was not the end of Israel’s prophetic future. Again, I’ll allow Sailhamer to explain further:

In the version of the Tanak that ends with Chronicles, the next biblical events are to be the coming of the Messiah (Dan 9:25), the death of the Messiah (Dan 9:26) and the destruction of the temple (Dan 9:26b). These events, all taken from Daniel 9, are projected on to the screen of the future by 2 Chronicles 36 at the close of the Tanak…. the ending of the OT is fixed by its reference to Daniel 9, the last great prophetic word recorded in the Tanak….

The countdown begins with “the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem” (Dan 9:25). It is that decree of Cyrus that brings the OT to its proper conclusion. At the same time, that conclusion also signals an important new beginning. It is the beginning of the countdown to the coming of the biblical Messiah….

By marking the effective end of the Tanak with Daniel 9, the framers of the OT canon were making a statement that the next great event in Israel’s history was the advent of the Messiah (Dan 9:25). There was little left to do but wait for that event. All else, biblically as well as historically, was put on hold.

…OT textual strategies, both compositional and canonical, appear poised to move directly and intentionally into the theological world of the NT. Such textual strategies suggest that the NT is a true descendant of the OT. It also suggests that some of the framers of the OT Tanak had ties to early “pre-Christian” believers like those in the early parts of the Gospels and included men and women of the likes of John the Baptist, Simeon, Zacharias and Anna (Lk 1-2). The historical faith that lies behind the shape of the OT canon anticipates the faith of the early Christian communities. (214-215)

In its very shape, the Tanak points to Christ. The prophetic retrofit of the Pentateuch, and the composition and shaping of the Tanak was crafted so as to highlight a future-oriented hope in the coming Prophet-Messiah. As such, the OT hints at the need for additional prophecy and revelation to complete it’s story. Jesus the Messiah prophesied in Daniel 9 and elsewhere, did come. And His coming fulfills the message embodied in the content as well as the shape of the Hebrew Scriptures.

More could be said on all of this, but you’ll have to get the book!