Speaking of the visible church as our “mother,” Calvin writes this in his Institutes:

There is no other way to enter into life unless this mother conceive us in her womb, give us birth, nourish us at her breast, and lastly, unless she keep us under her care and guidance…. Our weakness does not allow us to be dismissed from her school until we have been pupils all our lives. Furthermore, away from her bosom one cannot hope for any forgiveness of sins or any salvation…. God’s fatherly favor and the especial witness of spiritual life are limited to his flock, so that it is always disastrous to leave the church.

One thing that is highly evident from Calvin’s remarks here is that he was not an American. With our rugged individualism and tendency to treat the church like an optional part of Christian life, we would do well to move back towards a Calvin’s high ecclesiology. If he is right, then our eternal salvation is at stake!

In his Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin devotes a very significant amount of space to the Church. In Book 4, Chapter 3, Section 9, Calvin discusses deacons and divides them into two functional groups:

• those who “serve the church in administering the affairs of the poor”
• those who serve the church “in caring for the poor themselves”

It is to this second group that Calvin insists Paul places the widows he mentions in 1 Timothy 5:9-10:

No widow should be placed on the official support list unless she is at least 60 years old, has been the wife of one husband, and is well known for good works —that is, if she has brought up children, shown hospitality, washed the saints’ feet, helped the afflicted, and devoted herself to every good work.

Calvin insists that women could fill the public office of deacon in the second group. That is, women could be deacons–in Calvin’s mind–only if they served in caring for the poor. Calvin was by no means a women’s rights activist. In fact he makes it clear that this is the only public office a woman can hold.

However, he does make this allowance for female deacons. So even in the Reformed tradition women were allowed to be deacons.

So when the Central Carolina Presbytery of the PCA overtured General Assembly this year to prohibit women deacons, I have to wonder if they’ve ever read this section in Calvin’s Institutes.

Found this at the Stuff Fundies Like Facebook page. It was too funny not to share:

1. Q: What is the chief end of each individual Christian?
A: Each individual Christian’s chief end is to get saved. This is the first and great commandment.

2. Q: And what is the second great commandment?
A: The second, which is like unto it, is to get as many others saved as he can.

3. Q: What one work is required of thee for thy salvation?
A: It is required of me for my salvation that I make a Decision for Christ, which meaneth to accept Him into my heart to be my personal lord and saviour

4. Q: At what time must thou perform this work?
A: I must perform this work at such time as I have reached the Age of Accountability.

5. Q: At what time wilt thou have reached this Age?
A: That is a trick question. In order to determine this time, my mind must needs be sharper than any two-edged sword, able to pierce even to the division of bone and marrow; for, alas, the Age of Accountability is different for each individual, and is thus unknowable.

6. Q: By what means is a Decision for Christ made?
A: A Decision for Christ is made, not according to His own purpose and grace which was given to me in Christ Jesus before the world began, but according to the exercise of my own Free Will in saying the Sinner’s Prayer in my own words.

7. Q: If it be true then that man is responsible for this Decision, how then can God be sovereign?
A: He cannot be. God sovereignly chose not to be sovereign, and is therefore dependent upon me to come to Him for salvation. He standeth outside the door of my heart, forlornly knocking, until such time as I Decide to let Him in.

8. Q: How then can we make such a Decision, seeing that the Scripture saith, we are dead in our trespasses and sins?
A: By this the Scripture meaneth, not that we are dead, but only that we are sick or injured in them.

9. Q: What is the assurance of thy salvation?
A: The assurance of thy salvation is, that I know the date on which I prayed the Sinner’s Prayer, and have duly written this date on an official Decision card.

10. Q: What is thy story? What is thy song?
A: Praising my Savior all the day long.

11. Q: You ask me how I know he lives?
A: He lives within my heart.

12. Q: And what else hast thou got in thine heart?
A: I’ve got the joy, joy, joy, joy down in my heart.

13. Q: Where??
A: Down in my heart!

14. Q: Where???
A: Down in my heart!!

15. Q: What witness aid hath been given us as a technique by which we may win souls?
A: The tract known commonly as the Four Spiritual Laws, is the chief aid whereby we may win souls.

16. Q: What doth this tract principally teach?
A: The Four Spiritual Laws principally teach, that God’s entire plan for history and the universe centereth on me, and that I am powerful enough to thwart His divine purpose if I refuse to let Him pursue His Wonderful Plan for my life.

17. Q: What supplementary technique is given by which we may win souls?
A: The technique of giving our own Personal Testimony, in the which we must always be ready to give an answer concerning the years we spent in vanity and pride, and the wretched vices in which we wallowed all our lives until the day we got saved.

18. Q: I’m so happy, what’s the reason why?
A: Jesus took my burden all away!

19. Q: What are the means given whereby we may large crowds of souls in a spectacular manner?
A: Such a spectacle is accomplished by means of well-publicized Crusades and Revivals which (in order that none may be loath to attend) are best conducted anywhere else but in a Church.

20. Q: Am I a soldier of the Cross?
A: I am a soldier of the Cross if I join Campus Crusade, Boys’ Brigade, the Salvation Army, or the Wheaton Crusaders; of if I put on the helmet of Dispensationalism, the breastplate of Pietism, the shield of Tribulationism, and the sword of Zionism, having my feet shod with the gospel of Arminianism.

21. Q: Who is your boss?
A: My boss is a Jewish carpenter.

22. Q: Hath God predestined vessels of wrath to Hell?
A: God hath never performed such an omnipotent act, for any such thing would not reflect His primary attribute, which is Niceness.

23. Q: What is sanctification?
A: Sanctification is the work of my free Will, whereby I am renewed by having my Daily Quiet Time.

24. Q: What rule hath God for our direction in prayer?
A: The rule that we must bow our hands, close our heads, and fold our eyes.

25. Q: What doth the Lord’s Prayer teach us?
A: The Lord’s Prayer teacheth us that we must never memorize a prayer, or use one that hath been written down.

26. Q: What’s the book for thee?
A: The B-I-B-L-E.

27. Q: Which are among the first books which a Christian should read to his soul’s health?
A: Among the first books which a Christian should read are the books of Daniel and Revelation, and The Late Great Planet Earth.

28. Q: Who is on the Lord’s side?
A: He who doth support whatsoever is done by the nation of Israel, and who doth renounce the world, the flesh, and the Catholic Church.

29. Q: What are the seven deadly sins?
A: The seven deadly sins are smoking, drinking, dancing, card-playing, movie-going, baptizing babies, and having any creed but Christ.

30. Q: What is a sacrament?
A: A sacrament is an insidious invention devised by the Catholic Church whereby men are drawn into idolatry.

31. Q: What is the Lord’s Supper?
A: The Lord’s Supper is a dispensing of saltines and grape juice, in the which we remember Christ’s command to pretend that they are His body and
blood.

32. Q: What is baptism?
A: Baptism is the act whereby, by the performance of something that seems quite silly in front of everyone, I prove that I really, really mean it.

33. Q: What is the Church?
A: The Church is the tiny minority of individuals living at this time who have Jesus in their hearts, and who come together once a week for a sermon, fellowship and donuts.

34. Q: What is the office of the keys?
A: The office of the keys is that office held by the custodian.

35. Q: What meaneth “The Priesthood Of All Believers”?
A: The Priesthood Of All Believers meaneth that there exists no authority in the Church, as that falsely thought to be held by elders, presbyters, deacons, and bishops, but that each individual Christian acts as his own authority in all matters pertaining to the faith.

36. Q: Who is the Holy Spirit?
A: The Holy Spirit is a gentleman Who would never barge in.

37. Q: How long hath the Holy Spirit been at work?
A: The Holy Spirit hath been at work for more than a century: expressly, since the nineteenth-century Revitalization brought about by traveling Evangelists carrying tents across America.

38. Q: When will be the “Last Days” of which the Bible speaketh?
A: The “Last Days” are these days in which we are now living, in which the Antichrist, the Beast, and the Thief in the Night shall most certainly appear.

39. Q: What is the name of the event by which Christians will escape these dreadful entities?
A: The event commonly known as the Rapture, in the which it is our Blessed Hope that all cars driven by Christians will suddenly have no drivers.

40. Q: When is Jesus coming again?
A: Maybe morning, maybe noon, maybe evening, and maybe soon.

41. Q: When the roll, roll, roll, is called up yonder, where will you be?
A: There.

42. Q: Hallelu, hallelu, hallelu, hallelujah!
A: Praise ye the Lord!

43. Q: Praise ye the Lord!
A: Hallelujah!

44. Q: Where will we meet again?
A: Here, there, or in the air.

45. Q: What can a pastor say while all heads are bowed?
A. Yes, I see that hand.

46. Q. How is a person saved?
A. If you walk this aisle…”

47. Q. And what requirement is there if you should fall into sin?
A. You just need to rededicate your life to God.

48. Q: Can I hear an Ay-men?
A: Ay-men.

HT: Chuck Huckaby

10. A woman already crossed. We don’t follow women.

9. We don’t believe the road is safe. It wasn’t built between 1500-1700 A.D.

8. We believe that “road crossing” ceased with the death of the last Apostle or the completion of the New Testament.

7. The crossing guard was only helping people cross from one side to the other, so we are suspicious. Is this a denial of double pre-destination?

6. Neither Romans 9 or John 6 say anything about crossing roads. Therefore, it is unbiblical.

5. The “Walk” sign was gender neutral. It made us mad.

4. John Wesley said that God’s prevenient grace would pave the way, but we have to take the steps ourselves. What a load!

3. We were not elected to cross before the foundation of the road.

2. Piper said that God is most glorified when we are most satisfied on our side of the road.

1. The pub is on this side of the road.

This is the last in a series of seven posts in seven days. For the last time, here’s the list:

1. My first post
2. The post I enjoyed writing the most
3. A post which had a great discussion
4. A post on someone else’s blog that I wish I’d written
5. My most helpful post
6. A post with a title that I am proud of
7. A post that I wish more people had read

“The Rhetoric of Christian Cultural Engagement” one is not so much a post I wish more people had read as much as watched. I did an interview with two brilliant rhetorical scholars at the end of 2009. We discussed how the Church’s rhetoric is helping and hindering its efforts at engaging culture.

Dr. Camille Lewis and Dr. Mark Steiner are both PCA folk and both incredibly great thinkers and communicators. If you didn’t watch the interview or listen to it, please do so now! I put it up in four parts, and you can download the audio as well if you like.

Also I’ve linked to many of the books and other resources they reference during the interview.

This is the sixth in a series of seven posts in seven days. Once again, here they are:

1. My first post
2. The post I enjoyed writing the most
3. A post which had a great discussion
4. A post on someone else’s blog that I wish I’d written
5. My most helpful post
6. A post with a title that I am proud of
7. A post that I wish more people had read

There are lots of ideas about writing titles for blog posts. You can write catchy titles that are almost guaranteed to get people to click on them, but then they’re often left feeling like they’ve been swindled when the content isn’t what they expected.

You can write boring titles that accurately communicate the content, but then nobody really wants to read those.

Or you can try to write engaging titles that also communicate well what the post is about. As much as I try to do this third option, I could give you far too many examples of the first two from my own blog!

Anyway, the challenge today was to find a post with a title that I’m proud of. In my mind that means the title:

• Entices people to click on it and actually read the content
• Accurately communicates the content
• Doesn’t feel like a bait and switch once people read the content

I think this one meets those criteria: “Why Bruce Waltke’s Resignation Signals the End of Creationism.”

I think this title is effective because:

• It invokes a famous name, Bruce Waltke. That name was all the more famous at the time because of the controversy surrounding his comments at the BioLogos website.
• It appeals to something highly controversial, the creation/evolution debate
• It sounds an appropriate note of alarmism
• It accurately reflects what I talk about in the post.

Robert Jimenez is starting a series to discuss whether “inerrancy” has outlived its usefulness. This will be a fabulous discussion and one that is long overdue.

As you can see inerrancy has many meanings. This is one of the major problems with this position, too many definitions. The term inerrancy has been hijacked to mean whatever a particular group wants it to mean. I believe these various meanings have resulted as an effort to preserve the term in order to remain “evangelical”. One can say “I affirm inerrancy”, but if you do not ask them to clarify what they mean, you may not be affirming the same thing.

Read the whole thing here.

This is the fifth in a series of seven posts in seven days. Here they are:

1. My first post
2. The post I enjoyed writing the most
3. A post which had a great discussion
4. A post on someone else’s blog that I wish I’d written
5. My most helpful post
6. A post with a title that I am proud of
7. A post that I wish more people had read

It’s tough to find a post to classify as “my most helpful post.” For one, I don’t know what’s helped other people and what hasn’t. Plus, it’s hard to evaluate what’s been “helpful” since that term itself needs to be defined.

So I’ve taken this approach: Which post has helped me the most? I’ve decided on one with a crazy title, “The Baptist Presbyterian Hermeneutical Baptism Spiral,” because it was the post where I was able to articulate and clarify in my own mind some thoughts about baptism in a way that was immensely helpful…to me. I’m coming to some conclusions about baptism that I had not reached when I wrote the post, but this post definitely helped me clarify where I was heading.

The “hermeneutical spiral” is the idea that we approach Scripture with a set of presuppositions that colors the way we understand the text. Then as we understand the text better our presuppositions are shaped and molded. And so we approach the text again with slightly tweaked (or perhaps completely revolutionized) presuppositions. We find that our understanding of the text has changed in some ways and so have, therefore, our presuppositions.

It’s a never-ending spiral, and it is discussed at length in Grant Osborne’s book, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation.

In this post I apply that concept to baptism in some ways that helped me understand some things better.

This is the fourth in a series of seven posts in seven days. I’ll give you the list again:

1. My first post
2. The post I enjoyed writing the most
3. A post which had a great discussion
4. A post on someone else’s blog that I wish I’d written
5. My most helpful post
6. A post with a title that I am proud of
7. A post that I wish more people had read

One of the things that really bugs me, especially given my fundamentalist background, is the ridiculous way that we Christians divide over stuff. It’s not enough for us to declare even the “fundamentals” of Christianity. We have to argue over what those fundamentals are. And even in some cases where we agree on many (most? all?) of the fundamentals, we still draw our boundary lines even tighter in order to exclude other Christians.

Quite frankly, it angers me. So with that being said, I wish I had written this post.

This is the second in a series of seven posts in seven days. I’ll give you the list again:

1. My first post
2. The post I enjoyed writing the most
3. A post which had a great discussion
4. A post on someone else’s blog that I wish I’d written
5. My most helpful post
6. A post with a title that I am proud of
7. A post that I wish more people had read

Today’s post is one that I enjoyed writing the most. It’s a satire of sorts that I wrote during the whole brouhaha over Bruce Waltke’s resignation from RTS. I had a lot of fun, and I thought it was pretty clever. Here it is: Copernicus’ Heliocentricity a Dangerous Threat to Inerrancy.

This was a hard decision, so here’s the runner up in this category: John Piper and Justin Taylor Are Stealing My Content. You need to see this one just for the picture of Piper and Taylor!

There are two excellent posts seeking to deal with this question. The first is at Daniel Kirk’s blog here. The second is at Andrew Perriman’s blog here.

Kirk wrestles with the question of why the Church seems to be behind the rest of the world in actually making a difference in people’s lives. He examines some areas we have lagged behind and then shows three areas where we are leading the way. Kirk concludes:

Theologically, Protestants have been hindered from changing the world for the better because we have been so focused on an inward piety that we don’t see any connection between that world out there and the new life God is given us. We need to cultivate our theological imaginations with the realization that salvation is not merely about new creatures, but about new creation.

It’s only when we realize that God’s saving hand extends to the whole earth, and is not simply a set of metaphors for our “spiritual” state, that we will begin to realize the gospel-imperative to extend the saving, redeeming hand of God to every sphere of human life.

Perriman tweaks the question a bit, claiming that “there is a deeper theological anxiety that needs to be brought to the surface: How is the God we worship, whose ancient story we tell, to be justified?”

Given the intellectual and social collapse of Christianity in the West, given the modern church’s often small-minded and reactionary response to scientific and cultural change, give its self-serving institutionalism, its complacent dogmatism, its preoccupation? with private spirituality and ultimate destinies, given the catalogue of prominent moral failures, given the rampant factionalism and divisiveness, given the failure of the church to dissociate itself from the worship of the golden calves of consumerism, we surely have to ask what it will take for the Creator God, who called a people for himself in Abraham and redeemed them in Jesus, to be justified, to be shown to be true and righteous, a cogent and relevant object of belief.

Of course the church globally is doing some good in the world. But before we get too carried away with the self-justifying potential of our good works, perhaps we should first sit alongside the Jews whom Paul harangued inRomans 2:17-24.

We call ourselves Christians, we rely on the Word of God, we claim to know his will because we have listened to countless repetitive sermons over the years; we imagine ourselves to be a guide to the blind, a light to those in darkness, instructors of the foolish scientists and moralists and politicians, teachers of children, and so on…. But shouldn’t we who presume to teach others first teach ourselves? We preach against stealing, but we happily collude with the economic injustices of modern life. We preach against adultery and homosexuality and pornography while we desperately struggle to keep the darkness and distortions of our own hearts from public scrutiny. We claim to worship one God, but we are as much in the thrall of aspirational consumerism as anyone else. We boast in the salvation of God, but we dishonour God by the moral mediocrity of our lives. Wouldn’t it be fair to say, then, that ‘The name of God is blasphemed among the nations because of us’?

Read both articles and join the conversation!

In his book, The Meaning and Mode of Baptism, Jay Adams points out something I had never noticed before. In Hebrews 9:9-10, the author of Hebrews refers to “various washings” required by the Torah. Here’s the text:

This is a symbol for the present time, during which gifts and sacrifices are offered that cannot perfect the worshiper’s conscience. They are physical regulations and only deal with food, drink, and various washings imposed until the time of restoration.

The term “washings” is the word baptismois, or baptisms. So according to the author of Hebrews, the Torah required various baptisms. Now, having grown up in die-hard Baptist churches, I remember very clearly being taught that the word “baptize” means “to immerse.” There’s no way around it. That’s just what the word means.

Well let’s put that theory to the test, shall we? If the Greek word “baptizo” means lexically, “to dip” or “to dunk” or “to immerse,” then we should find in the Torah various commands to immerse things or people or animals. Yet what we find is not only that there are not “various” commands to immerse things, but that there are NO commands to immerse things. (If I’m missing something here, please let me know!) What we do see are “various” types of sprinklings in the Torah.

In fact, the author of Hebrews goes on in chapter 9 to talk about these various washings. Here’s what he says:

For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who are defiled, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, how much more will the blood of the Messiah, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse our consciences from dead works to serve the living God? (Heb. 9:13-14)

For when every commandment had been proclaimed by Moses to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and goats, along with water, scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll itself and all the people, saying, This is the blood of the covenant that God has commanded for you. In the same way, he sprinkled the tabernacle and all the vessels of worship with blood. According to the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. (Heb. 9:19-22)

I’m not trying to settle the baptism debate with this observation, but I do want to point out that it is an untenable position to claim that the word “baptizo” has as its basic meaning “to immerse.” While certainly it may have that meaning--and perhaps even may frequently have that meaning--we cannot assert that this is its basic meaning. Nor can we assert that this is its contextual meaning in the NT ritual of baptism.

We must be willing to understand that the word has a much broader semantic range. Once we are honest about the breadth of the word’s meaning, then we can have a discussion about the significance of the ritual’s theology.

Now, purely for your entertainment:

Why Baptism by Immersion Is a Bad Idea

www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPwo_MB0s6w

It’s true. John Piper and Justin Taylor are content thieves!

Case #1

In September of last year I wrote about Seeds Family Worship, a great musical resource for helping your kids memorize Scripture. I just recently posted some info about them again on my Facebook profile.

Well wouldn’t you know, just at the beginning of this month, Justin Taylor blogged about Seeds Family Worship.

Case #2

Last month I wrote a blog post called, “The Sin of Sodom May Not Be What You Think It Is.” Imagine my surprise, then, when this morning I saw this on the Desiring God Blog: “The Sin of Sodom.” Granted, John Piper himself didn’t write this post, but it’s on his blog, so I give him credit for it. Plus would you have read this post if the title said, “Tyler Kenney Is Reading My Blog”?

The Explanation

So here’s what I think happened. All of sudden, fairly recently, someone in the Justin Taylor/John Piper circles found my blog and said, “Wow! There’s some amazing content here.” They picked one that was fairly old–the Seeds article–and suggested Justin write a post about it. But of course, since he’s a big-name blogger, he went a step further and secured discounted pricing on some of their music. I mean, he is Justin Taylor…he can’t just write an article. Any little guy like me can do that!

Then Justin told his friend John about this incredibly awesome blog he found (ahem…mine!), and John told his folks to steal some of my content. Tyler Kenney, though, wasn’t nearly as judicious as Justin was, so he just stole something very recent. Did he think I wouldn’t notice?

Why They Didn’t HT Me

In blogging world, as I’m sure you’re aware, you always credit your source with a hat tip, as in, “HT: New Leaven.” So why didn’t Piper’s folks and Justin Taylor’s folks credit me? I think maybe they found some other posts on my blog that made them say, “Oh dear, we can’t have anything to do with this guy! He’s a flaming liberal!”

I’m sure some of the posts they came across that led them to that conclusion were these:

• Help Celebrate the End of Christian America
• Bruce Waltke and the Creation Debate
• My Series Critiquing Calvinistic Theology (which I actually hold to, by the way)
• Virtually anything I’ve written about N.T. Wright

And don’t forget, I’ve bashed the ESV too many times to ever be on Piper or Taylor’s nice list! Like this:

• Behold! Does This Sound Like You?
• HCSB and ESV on Philippians 2:6-7
• How “Essentially Literal” Is the ESV Really?

So Justin Taylor and John Piper, feel free to use my content. I just request that you put this notice on it: “We stole this from a little, no-name blogger and used it as our own content because we’re big-name bloggers…and we can just to that…for the glory of God.”

And yes, of course this entire post is tongue-in-cheek…mostly.

This is from a panel discussion at the Wheaton Conference Wright spoke at recently. Wright is speaking about eschatological language and the misunderstanding that ensues when one assumes eschatological genres are literal genres:

I love John Barton’s line that when we read an Old Testament text which says, “The sun will be turned into darkness and the moon into blood and the stars will be falling from heaven,” we ought to know as a matter of literary genre that the next line is not going to be that the rest of the country will have scattered showers and sunny intervals.

Daniel Kirk asks, “Ever get the sense that Christians are apologetic about the fact that Jesus was a human?” Good question. We put a lot of emphasis on the fact that Jesus is God, and rightly so. But sometimes it seems his humanity gets lost. Or at least the significance of his humanity gets lost.

In an excellent article, Kirk explains why “Jesus is Lord” is just as important as “Jesus is God.”

What if God’s commitment to the cosmos he created is more foundational than God’s desire to see the Law maintained? What if there is a more basic fabric of creation being unraveled and God doesn’t simply want to punish the person who pulled the thread that caused it to come apart but wants to see that fabric remade? And what if the remaking itself is as much the mission of Jesus as the punishment of the offender?

This is the ancient idea of “recapitulation”, though it needs to be reworked through a better understanding of “image of God” than Irenaeus had at his disposal. The point is that God creates humanity for one magnificent purpose: that people should rule the world on God’s behalf (Gen 1)–and Jesus comes to reestablish that rule, God’s primal purpose for people.

Why “human”? Because humanity was created to rule the world on God’s behalf; because humanity ceded that calling and lives in rebellion against God; because the dominion of humanity has gone the way of its ruler–and because God has determined that he is not going to give up on this creation but, instead, restore it. God will be victorious over this rebellion.

Read the rest here.

In case you haven’t seen it yet, here’s the video from ABC News on the Waltke situation:

I’ve recently discovered this blog post from an ancient Church blog. I present it to you with my tongue planted firmly in my cheek!

————-

A wolf in sheep’s clothing, that “noted scientist,” Copernicus, has recently defended the belief that the sun is the center of the universe. Worse yet, he claims that so-called “scientific” discoveries have led him to believe that the Earth actually moves around the sun.

Yet he has made a very fatal mistake. He has begun with the follies of science and not with the inerrant Word of God. He is insisting that we submit Scripture to science when it should be the other way around.

Scripture clearly states:

• “The world is firmly established; it cannot be shaken.” (1 Chron. 16:30)
• “[The LORD] established the earth on its foundations; it will never be shaken. (Ps. 104:5)
• “The sun rises and the sun sets; panting, it returns to its place where it rises.” (Eccl. 1:5)

Thankfully, that great theologian, Martin Luther, has rebuked this ridiculous sun-centered idea soundly:

There is talk of a new astrologer who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must needs invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth.

Even John Calvin has refuted this dangerous heresy:

Those who assert that ‘the earth moves and turns’…[are] motivated by ‘a spirit of bitterness, contradiction, and faultfinding;’ possessed by the devil, they aimed ‘to pervert the order of nature.

Copernicus and his ilk, while claiming to be Christian, have failed to present their findings as a result of biblical reflection. They see a need to “reconcile” science and the Bible, but so far, it seems that only the Bible is getting changed in this reconciliation.

It should be clear that no consensus of human scientists can be presumed to have a greater knowledge than the omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent Creator. Yet, these men who wish to be both Christian and Scientist have placed themselves above the great Creator of the great Earth.

Finally, what do these men think they are doing? If we allow science to twist Scripture in this area, what will science make of the virgin birth, the miracles of Jesus, and the resurrection?

When will Copernican “scientists” take their rightful place under the authority and inerrancy of Scripture?

Bruce Waltke conducted a survey in 2009 about hindrances people have to accepting evolution as a God-ordained and God-guided process of creation. Again, just to be clear, I’m not advocating a particular view of creation or evolution here; I’m just providing this information to further the discussion on the heels of Waltke’s recent resignation from RTS over this issue.

You can download the full PDF of Waltke’s paper here.

Whenever the creation/evolution issue comes up, one of the guaranteed arguments most literalists (i.e., “6, 24-hour day” creationists) give is this: If we can’t trust Genesis 1-3, then how can we trust anything else the Bible says? This is how Ken Ham’s organization, Answers In Genesis, puts it:

If we trust the Bible for our salvation, we must trust everything it says. Otherwise, we are picking and choosing only what we want to believe.

Well, Ken, you’re partly right. The problem is that we take a very superficial view of what it means to “trust the Bible.” In this strictly literalistic–and even modernistic–view of the Bible, we think of it as a science or history answer book. That is, when David takes a census of the people in 2 Samuel 24, and we read that “there were 800,000 fighting men from Israel and 500,000 men from Judah,” then there definitely could not have been 800,137 men from Israel and 496,218 men from Judah. Goodness…that would mean we can’t trust the Bible!

Similarly, we think that Genesis 1-3 was given to us to be a scientific, historical description of actual events, thereby missing the entire purpose of the story. Now don’t get me wrong; it may well be that a 6, 24-hour day view of creation is true. But even if it’s not, the point of the story remains. Read Waltke’s Old Testament Theology for more info on this.

“But,” some will object, “if there is no literal creation or literal Adam, then how can we believe in a literal Jesus or a literal resurrection?” Well, that’s not a bad question actually. Here’s my answer:

1. The genre of Genesis 1-3 and the genre of the gospels are not the same. Genesis 1-3 is a story; years of oral tradition written down to show Israel that their God is the true God, the creator God. The gospels are eye-witness accounts of the person and life and work of Jesus of Nazareth. We must take into account genres, audiences, times of writing, etc. God did not give us a history/science textbook. That’s not what the Bible is meant to be. In the words of Richard Pratt (who used to teach OT at RTS in Orlando and now teaches at Knox Seminary…where Waltke’s going), He Gave Us Stories.
2. Paul presents the person and work of Jesus, particularly his resurrection, as an absolutely necessary historical fact (1 Cor. 15:17). Without that reality, our faith is indeed worthless. He never does that with details of creation.
3. The way the Bible presents the events of Jesus and the resurrection is very different from the way it presents the events of creation. In 1 Cor. 15:1-8, Paul goes to great lengths to prove by way of witnesses that Jesus actually rose from the dead. He’s not merely telling a story to make a point. According to Paul, Jesus as a metaphor or resurrection as a metaphor simply won’t do.

So in a nutshell, I think it’s very easy to understand what’s important in the mind of the biblical authors. For the author of Genesis 1-3, the important thing is that God is the creator. For the author of 1 Corinthians 15, the important thing is that Jesus actually physically rose from the dead.

I don’t have to treat everything in the Bible the same way. The parts that demand a literal understanding for the sake of the gospel, I have no problem with because the text makes it clear. The parts of the story that have a bigger point to make than timing or historical/scientific accuracy, I have no problem with either because they are tangential to the gospel.

We need to take the Bible seriously. Treating the whole thing, cover to cover, as if it is some science or history textbook is to show disrespect to the record that God gave us.

This letter is from Dr. Waltke’s Facebook page:

Holy week and the Monday through Wednesday of this week have been a uniquely hectic experience in my 79 years, to say the least. So hectic, I did not even follow the New York Yankees in the New York Times, my team for more than 70 years! I knew the issue of Genesis 1-3 and evolution was emotionally charged, but not this charged. Worse yet, I unwittingly involved the RTS community, especially Ric, in the brouhaha. I sincerely apologize to you and especially to Ric for not handling the matter more discretely.

Ric’s acceptance of my resignation has only added to the emotional turmoil; I have received letters from many quarters condemning RTS for his action. In fact, I was asked to be interviewed about my resignation on ABC News with Diane Sawyer! Of course, I refused because I am certain it would have been spun to reflect negatively on RTS and the church.

I am writing to assure you that I find no fault with the RTS administration; in fact, I think they did the right thing. Let me explain.

As noted, I did not have a chance to vet the video. How would I have edited it?

1. I would have entitled it “why the church should accept creation by the process of evolution,” not “why the church must accept evolution.” Also I would have emphasized in writing that the introductory “If” is a big “if,” because I am not a scientist. Having familiarized myself with reconciliations of religion and science by: Institute of Creation Research (Henry Morris, young earth, no evolution), Reason to Believe (Hugh Ross, old earth, no evolution), Intelligent Design (Philip Johnson, no view on age of earth, but no evolution), BioLogos (intelligent design [lower case] and evolution) and Framework hypothesis (non-committal to any of these views), I consider that of BioLogos the best.
2. I would have deleted my position as a professor at RTS. This was the real problem. I was speaking as an individual, not as a representative of RTS. It may well be that I am the only one on the faculty holding the view of creation by the process of evolution as understood by mainline science, apart from its normal atheistic philosophy. As it stands, I dragged the whole community in the misunderstandings.
3. I would have clarified in writing that by evolution I mean theistic evolution, not naturalistic evolution. And I would have defined theistic evolution as I do in my Old Testament Theology
4. I would have called attention to literature such as Henri Blocher, In the Beginning, and Francis S. Collins, The Language of God that present the case for evolution. (I read Blocher, a brilliant French Reformed Baptist theologian 25 years ago.)
5. I would have also called attention to my An Old Testament Theology and W.R.L. Moberly, The Theology of Genesis, explaining why I think Genesis can accommodate creation by the process of evolution.
6. I would have called attention to older classic dogmatic theologies such as Shedd and Strong who also held to theistic evolution. I am told that B.B. Warfield held this view but I have been unable thus far to document that.
7. I would have suggested to Ric that he call attention to others in the PCA who also held this view.

All “would haves” due to the poor way in which the video was handled by BioLogos and me.

Regarding the future I hope and pray:

1. this fiasco will not hinder RTS from being open to theistic evolution as I have defined it.
2. I will not be identified by the idiosyncrasy of being “a theistic evolutionist,” like a “cripple,” “a mute,” etc. This topic is neither my field of expertise nor my hobby-horse, I want to get off it as quickly as I can.
3. RTS’ reputation will not be tarnished. I will do all I can to that end, such as writing this letter.
4. our love for one another will increase more and more

Our community is based on the rock-solid foundation that our Triune God’s sovereignty over all things is informed by sublimities that surpass our imagination and our ability to praise them.

Tuesday evening I received the call from the dean of another seminary to teach there. He, the executives of the seminary and I are praying about this with thanksgiving.

Your brother in Christ.