Tag: authority

Book Briefs: “Still Protesting: Why the Reformation Matters” by D. G. Hart

~ Bob Hayton ~ Leave a comment

500 years ago the Reformation was transforming Europe. Politics and nation-states would be affected, but the relationship of the average Christian to the Church was forever altered. Protestant Evangelical Christians look back on the Reformation with gratitude. The Reformation recovered the Christian Gospel of grace after all. But the contemporary Church has wandered far from the faith of its fathers, and more than ever before calls for denominational unity and even ecumenical togetherness with Rome are hitting home. Secularism is a threat to Catholic and confessing Protestant alike, so why not band together? How big, after all, are the points that separate us? Didn’t the Roman Catholic Church reform in the wake of the Reformation too?

It is these questions and this concern that D. G. Hart addresses head on in his recent book Still Protesting: Why the Reformation Matters (Reformation Heritage, 2018). Hart expertly unfolds the history of the Reformation and evaluates key evangelical truths (including the important “5 Solas”) as compared to the historical Roman Catholicism of that day. He goes on to examine whether the Roman Catholic Church has truly changed in its stance on these points over time. In his case against Rome, Hart also finds liberal Protestantism and lackadaisical evangelicalism at fault as well. He argues that the Reformation is still needed and a return to the faith of our fathers may well help American Christianity as it faces its own cross-roads.

An intriguing feature of the book is his examination of conservative political theory in America in relation to “anti-Catholic” sentiment. Historically, Protestants looked at the “golden age” of America as an advance in the history of the West (almost a postmillennial viewpoint) and lauded the rise of democracy and liberty. However “Roman Catholics saw those same developments negatively, as declension from an ideal time when church, government, society, and culture coexisted harmoniously under the sacred canopy of Christian influence” (p. 152). As progressive politics moved on to promote social change and “progress” in general – Catholicism’s opposition to unfettered equality and freedom became more in-step with conservatism’s resistance to progressive politics. For those who have wanted to “dissent from the logic and momentum of progressive politics” more help is found “for political conservatism in Roman Catholic sources” (p. 159). This leads to the pain-point that Hart is addressing: many political conservatives today claim that to be a true conservative, you must become a Roman Catholic. In response, Hart points to Abraham Kuyper (an evangelical leader and Prime Minister of The Netherlands) and J. Gresham Machen (founder of Westminster Theological Seminary) as examples of Protestant contributions to conservatism.

What sparked my interest in that section of the book was his point that American Protestantism had developed a “form of patriotism that unhealthily equated the faith with democracy and liberty” (p. 159). Protestantism’s fight against Catholicism mirrored democracy’s fight against the Monarchy. The founders of our country very much fit in with this patriotic version of faith. Indeed, this patriotism must have enabled the onset of the “social gospel.” Today’s patriotic, “God and Country” version of evangelical “faith,” which is “unhealthy” and unbiblical, has a long history indeed.

Those well-versed in the Reformation are sure to find new insights and connections in the pages of this book. Readers less familiar with the Reformation will also be helped. Anyone interested in what really separates Protestants from Catholics will find this book useful. I highly recommend it.

Pick up a copy of this book at any of the following online retailers:
Westminster Bookstore, Amazon, ChristianBook.com, or direct from Reformation Heritage.

Disclaimer: This book was provided by the publisher. The reviewer was under no obligation to offer a positive review.

About Book Briefs: Book Briefs are book notes, or short-form book reviews. They are my informed evaluation of a book, but stop short of being a full-length book review.

R. Albert Mohler & C. John Collins Debate: Does Scripture Speak Definitively on the Age of the Universe?

~ Bob Hayton ~ Leave a comment

I came across a recent debate that R. Albert Mohler and C. John Collins had at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School on the topic: “Does Scripture Speak Definitively on the Age of the Universe?” Here is a link to the video of the debate.

The 2 hour long debate is worth watching, particularly the contributions of C. John “Jack” Collins, OT professor at Covenant Theological Seminary (St. Louis, MO). Skip the first 10 minutes of the video, which is just preliminary info about the debate programs at TEDS).  Collins’ presentation starts at 47:43 on the video.

Listening to the whole thing, I thought that Mohler’s presentation argued more from a theological standpoint — staying in the tradition of Christian thought down through the ages, and alarmed at the potential slippery slope that allowing for an old earth presents. He marshals Scriptural arguments but not in a cogent and forceful manner. Most of the observations Jack Collins gives are agreed to in principal by Mohler but then they are just not enough to push him out of a literal 24 hour day/young earth view.

Collins is no friend of evolutionary creationism (or Biologos). He comes off every bit the conservative churchman he is, as a subscriber to the Westminster Confession of Faith. Yet Collins takes pains to read the text in a way the Text wants to be read. He doesn’t twist the meaning of “day” but sees the days as an analogy and thus not meant to be taken literally. He argues compellingly that the Scripture does not aim to speak definitively on the age of the universe or the age of the earth.  I found his presentation winsome and very carefully laid out. The debate bogged down at the end with Mohler taking most of the time and some important points being skipped for lack of time.

Collins’ emphasis on precision of language and his overall thoughts about the science and faith debate refreshing. Here is a faithful scholar who is thinking deeply on this matter and offering some helpful thoughts. This debate spurred me to pick up my copy of his Did Adam and Eve Really Exist?: Who They Were and Why You Should Care. The book is excellent and I hope to search out other materials Dr. Collins has written on this overall topic.

Further Reading on Old Earth Creationism

~ Bob Hayton ~ 7 Comments

Redeeming Science by Vern PoythressMy recent post in response to Justin Taylor’s article explaining Biblical reasons for viewing the six days of creation as not 24-hour periods has received a lot of attention. My Facebook profile doesn’t normally light up so much! And I engaged in some endless blog debates at Sharper Iron, and another site.

I’ve read a lot more on old earth creationism lately, and see the need to continue my studies in this area personally. Justin Taylor recommended a few sources for additional reading, and I wanted to share those here with a couple additions of my own, for the benefit of my readers.

For a simple explanation from a Christian geologist of the evidence for an old earth, this post (and his series, linked at the bottom) are helpful.

My primary reason for holding to an old-earth position is detailed in this article – God speaks through creation and He doesn’t deceive. For additional explanation of how the Bible allows for an old earth, see this post.

For two free e-books from a Reformed persuasion, which model a helpful and careful consideration of this debate, see:

Redeeming Science: A God-Centered Approach by Vern Poythres – ebook (free – PDF) / paperback (Westminster Bookstore)

A Reformed Approach to Science and Scripture by Keith Mathison – ebook (free) / not available in paperback

Justin Taylor also recommends the Presbyterian Church in America’s “Report of the Creation Study Committee”.

A brief booklet by Vern Poythress is also available free in pdf: Christian Interpretations of Genesis 1.

Rejecting Geocentrism: What’s the Real Motivation?

~ Bob Hayton ~ 9 Comments

I feel that the question of the age of the earth has become much more caustic in recent years. This debate has been increasingly polarized with each camp thinking the absolute worst of the other. But how important is such a debate anyway? I would contend that the earth’s age is not all that important as Christians who firmly reject natural evolution are to be found on both sides of that question.

Recently this debate was again brought to our attention through a pair of high profile blog posts. Justin Taylor (Senior VP and Publisher at Crossway), whose blog is hosted by The Gospel Coalition, shared the following post: “Biblical Reasons to Doubt the Creation Days Were 24-Hour Periods.” This post was not well accepted by young earth creationists such as Ken Ham. Ham came out with a strongly worded response: “Rejecting Six Literal Days — What’s the Real Motivation?” Now, never mind that just a couple days prior, Taylor had shared “5 Scientific Problems with Current Theories of Biological and Chemical Evoluion.” Poor guy, he is getting flak from both sides of the creation science debate!

As I read Ham’s title and then his blog post, I first bristled at his willingness to read Taylor’s motives. Is not grappling with the text important, whether or not modern science pulls us one way or another? Here is a sampling of Ham’s reasoning:

I have found over and over again that because of the outside influence from the secular world in regard to an old earth/universe… many… will try to reinterpret the days of creation, or somehow allow for long ages somewhere in Genesis 1… to justify meshing Genesis with what is claimed to be “science.” Of course, when the word science is used in relation to the age of the earth/universe, we are dealing with historical science (beliefs based on fallible assumptions) not observational science (the kind of science that builds technology).

I am prepared to go out on a limb, on the basis of my experience in the biblical creation apologetics ministry and of all I’ve read over the past 40+ years, to say this. When Christian leaders today are rejecting a dogmatic stand on six literal, 24-hour days of creation and a young earth, if you search their writings or question them, you will find that ultimately their thinking is being controlled by the belief in an old earth/universe (billions of years)…. You simply do not get the idea of millions or billions of years from Scripture—it comes from outside of Scripture….

And thus I am saying the age of the earth/universe comes down to an authority issue.

On second thought, Ham might be right. At the root of attempts to re-examine Genesis stands the scientific discovery that the earth is unimaginably old. But ultimatley, we must ask, is it wrong to examine afresh our interpretation of Scripture in light of science? I would argue no, and I believe Ham himself is guilty of the same thing.

I’m talking about geocentrism – the idea that the earth is at the center of the universe. This was the Christian interpretation of the world prior to Copernicus’ revolution. Even the early Reformers did not countenance a rejection of this view. I just shared a review of a Christian scholar from the 1960s who still held to a preference for geocentrism even then. And some conservative Christian professors today still argue for such a view.

Science is clear, and the observations shows that the earth is not the center of the universe, and looking at Scripture in a fresh light, the church came to agree that phenomenological language does not constitute an assertion that the earth actually has 4 corners, and is fixed on pillars, with the sun going on a journey around the immobile earth each day.

Ham tries to quibble over the science behind an old earth by claiming that such science is not observational – but this is to turn science on its head. Much of the science that gives us techonology is not strictly observational, but based on observations which reinforce interpretations based on an examination of the evidence. And there are scientific tests done with carbon-14 and a host of other elements, that all agree. Blind tests with controls. Ham and many dispute the validity of such tests but have yet to come up with alternative tests that consistently (with similar controls) demonstrate a young age for the earth. These tests done by modern science converge with astronomical observations and learnings from astrophysics. At the very least many creation scientists would claim that the earth has an appearance of age. Doesn’t Answers in Genesis spend a lot of time grappling over the question of distant starlight?

Rejecting a young earth is not necessarily a matter of authority. The Scripture has authority, we all agree. The question is what does the text actually say. To go back to Taylor’s post, this really is an interpretational issue. There are clues in the text that today’s widespread Christian interpretation about the age of the earth may be in error. This would be similar to the widespread views of Christians in the 1600s being wrong about the position of the earth. Is it wrong to look anew at our interpretations and the Ancient Near Eastern evidence of Genesis 1-3 being of a particular genre. Could not some of the arguments Taylor offers be an honest grappling with the text in light of the influence of science and history.

Bending on our interpretation, reexamining the evidence — these actions do not prove one is abandoning biblical authority and embracing natural evolutionary science. Taylor himself gives us 5 reasons to doubt the current state of evolutionary theory. Instead these actions are incumbent on faithful Christian leaders. We need to make sure our interpretation is firmly grounded in the text. A lot is at stake in getting this right. Let’s make sure we die on the proper hill.

Some have examined the evidence afresh and have come away with a stronger position for a young earth. Don’t look at those who disagree with you and criticize them for examining the evidence too. We all are trying to grapple with science and our interpretation of Scripture. Where we disagree, lets do so charitably and with recognition that this isn’t an authority issue. Both sides uphold the authority of the text. We are all trying to make sure our interpretation is sound.

J. Frank Norris on Loyalty & Pastoral Leadership

~ Bob Hayton ~ 3 Comments

Here is an excerpt from The Shooting Salvationist by David R. Stokes, a detailed account of J. Frank Norris’ murder trial. My review of the book is forthcoming. This excerpt reveals how the fundamentalist leader thought in terms of how to run his “business”, i.e. his church. How many fundamentalist pastors and leaders have followed his lead in this regard, I wonder? And all of them to the disregard of 1 Pet. 5:2-3. How sad.

________________________________________

Norris fascinated students at Southwestern Baptist Seminary across town from his church. Though they were discouraged from associating with the preacher because of his antagonism toward the denomination, some found a way to see the controversial clergyman in action. And when one of them had the courage to try to visit Norris at his office, risking the wrath of seminary officials, J. Frank was gleefully accommodating.

Roy Kemp was one such gutsy guy. When he decided to pay a call on Norris, the ever-present secretary-gatekeeper, Miss Jane Hartwell, ushered him immediately into the preacher’s office on the second floor of the church’s Sunday school building.

“Roy, I take it you have come up to find out how I run my business,” Norris said, looking fiercely at Kemp.

“Yes, sir.”

The preacher then pointed to a portrait on his wall — one of a locomotive — and told his visitor that he was like that powerful lead car on a train forcing all in its way off the tracks. He pointed to another picture on another wall — Napoleon Bonaparte — and said:

Roy, do you know that man’s philosophy? One: he believed — and said so — that no man ever served another man except for personal gain. Two: Or, out of fear. He would never have a man around him for long who had his first allegiance to any other man or woman. Full and unconditional allegiance had to be to him and him personally. That’s the way I run my business!