Archive for January, 2010
1st Dialogue
My original plan was to call these posts meditations, following in the spirit of Rene Descartes. Rob Bell refers to the chapters in Velvet Elvis as movements, which to my mind has a sort of classical music association going on. The idea of calling them “discussions” also seemed appropriate, and I tinkered with looking up debating terms. Then the ideal term hit me: dialogue. A conversational discussion between two or more people. With a rich history of use in theology, dialogue allows us to place these discussions in a context which I’m comfortable with, whilst still allowing me to take that leap out into those areas outside of the usual considered bounds.
With that out of the way, let’s dialogue with the first two sections of [i]Movement One[/i] of [i]Velvet Elvis[/i]. I’ll be dividing sections in the same manner that the “Movements” in Bell’s Velvet Elvis are divided.
Jump
Everyone is a believer in something. Arguments are not against those who have belief and those who don’t, but between those who disagree with each other’s beliefs. As Rob Bell puts it,
Everybody is following somebody. Everybody has faith in something and somebody. We are all believers
Bell argues that we are all influenced by someone – our parents, our teachers, our peers. We take the ideas we like and make them our own – We follow these people. Even if we claim to only follow ourselves, we all follow somebody.
Way
Following on from the observation that we are all following someone, Bell states that we are all following a way, and that the Christian follows the way of Jesus. Now this is where Bell makes an interesting claim;
Over time, when you purposefully try to live the way of Jesus…you begin realizing the reason this is the best way to live is that it is rooted in profound truths about how the world is. YOu find yourself more and more in tune with the ultimate reality. You are more and more in synch with the universe at its deepest levels.
Jesus’ intention was, and is, to call people to live in tune with reality.
God is the ultimate reality. There is nothing beyond God.
Jesus exposes us to reality at its rawest.
So the way of Jesus is not about religion; it’s about reality.
Perhaps a better question than who’s right, is who’s living rightly?
Quite so. But here’s the thing: was Jesus’ intention really to “call people to live in tune with reality?” In John 3:16John 3:16
English: Good News Bible (UK) - GNB-UK
16 For God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not die but have eternal life.
WP-Bible plugin, Jesus tells us that he was sent that all who believe shall not perish but live for eternity. Then again, in John 8:31-38John 8:31-38
English: Good News Bible (UK) - GNB-UK
The Truth will Set you Free
31 So Jesus said to those who believed in him, “If you obey my teaching, you are really my disciples;
32 you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
33 “We are the descendants of Abraham,” they answered, “and we have never been anybody's slaves. What do you mean, then, by saying, ‘You will be free’?” : ;
34 Jesus said to them, “I am telling you the truth: everyone who sins is a slave of sin.
35 A slave does not belong to a family permanently, but a son belongs there for ever.
36 If the Son sets you free, then you will be really free.
37 I know you are Abraham's descendants. Yet you are trying to kill me, because you will not accept my teaching.
38 I talk about what my Father has shown me, but you do what your father has told you.”
WP-Bible plugin we see that true disciples will be made free by the truth, and by the son of man. In John 8:12John 8:12
English: Good News Bible (UK) - GNB-UK
Jesus the Light of the World
12 Jesus spoke to the Pharisees again. “I am the light of the world,” he said. “Whoever follows me will have the light of life and will never walk in darkness.” : ;
WP-Bible plugin we see that Jesus is the light of the world, and His followers shall never walk in the darkness. John 14:1-4John 14:1-4
English: Good News Bible (UK) - GNB-UK
Jesus the Way to the Father
14
1 “Do not be worried and upset,” Jesus told them. “Believe Believe; or You believe. in God and believe also in me.
2 There are many rooms in my Father's house, and I am going to prepare a place for you. I would not tell you this if it were not so. There are...were not so; or There are many rooms in my Father's house; if it were not so, would I tell you that I am going to prepare a place for you?
3 And after I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to myself, so that you will be where I am.
4 You know the way that leads to the place where I am going.”
WP-Bible plugin tells us that Christ is the way to the Father.
So the argument from scripture does seem to be on Bell’s side here – Christ does indeed point us to God, to the right way to live, and so on. The thing is, I don’t see any mention of eternal life, no comments about not perishing, and no pointing out that by following Christ we shall be set free. Indeed, whilst Bell tells us that he follows Jesus, and insists that he believes in compassion and listening to the wisdom of others and peace and generosity, he doesn’t seem to give any mention to what is to me the cornerstone of my faith: that I am a filthy sinner, deserving of God’s wrath yet saved through my faith in Him purely by His grace and mercy. That “living right” is something that I am incapable of without His influence on me, and that despite any efforts I make I continually fail again and again to live up to the example Christ set for us.
It seems to me that in this situation, Rob Bell is not wrong, but he’s not right either. Whilst Christ does point us towards the true reality that is God, he does so much more than that. Through his death and resurrection, a corrupt world is offered redemption and an undeserved righteousness. Bell’s description of oneness with reality and with God through correct living seems almost more like an all-is-one Buddhist philosophy than the traditional view of the faith.
The question that needs to be asked is, to what extent if any are the two mutually incompatible? In the next dialogue, Bell’s interesting and somewhat controversial take on doctrine, when examined in light of this question, may give the answer.
Contributing to the Discussion
I admit I’m not a fan of Rob Bell. This will come as no surprise to anyone who’s talked to me about him. I feel the Nooma series of short films is nothing short of dangerous – presenting poor postmodern theology in a manner which is easy to miss, resulting in faulty views of important issues.
One of Bell’s most well-known books is, of course, Velvet Elvis. Recently I managed to get a cheap copy at a Wesley Owen closing-down sale, and felt I should read it, if only because it does come up in conversation occasionally.
I like it. I may not agree with anything in it, but surprisingly I do like it. I like the way it’s written, I like the way it presents itself as thoughts on a subject. It appeals to the philosopher in me. The last three lines of the description on the back cover intrigue me;
Just because I’m a Christian and I’m trying to articulate a Christian worldview doesn’t mean I’ve got it nailed. I’m contributing to the discussion. God has spoken, and the rest is commentary, right?
Maybe. I want to run with that idea. I want to contribute to the discussion. I’m going to take Bell’s ideas as a starting point and see where it leads, following a rationalist viewpoint. And I’d like to invite you to join me in this discussion. After all, seeking wisdom is always the right path, correct?
Fun with apologetics
Ok, so let me get this right. You say that the bible is the word of God, right?
Yep, that’s the idea.
Right. So how do you know that?
Well it says in 2 Timothy 3:162 Timothy 3:16
English: Good News Bible (UK) - GNB-UK
16 All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful; or Every scripture inspired by God is also useful. for teaching the truth, rebuking error, correcting faults, and giving instruction for right living,
WP-Bible plugin that all scripture is God-breathed.
So you say that the bible is the word of God because it says so, and it’s the word of God? That’s circular reasoning.
Actually, no. It’s just axiomatic.
It’s what now?
Axiomatic. It’s based on principles that we accept to be true without needing proof.
So you know it’s the word of God because you take it for granted that God wrote it?
Don’t be silly. I just take it for granted that God exists. If we take that for an assumption, we can then ascertain that the bible must be the word of God.
Go on…
Ok, so if we assume that there is a god, whether it be the God of the bible or some other deity, then we can take it that he or she will want to be able to contact their creation, right?
Well, no. Maybe God wants nothing to do with creation, or just exists within all of us
True, but we can assume that a personal god would want to communicate.
Is this another axiom?
To an extent. We’re not taking it for granted that God is a personal god, but we are saying that if He is, He’s going to want to be personal.
Ok, I’m with you thus far.
Ok, so then the bible claims to be the word of God, the way through which He communicates with His creation. So, if there really is a personal God, and if He really does communicate with us through His word, and if His word really is the bible, then we can assume that all its claims are true, including that it is the direct word of God.
Well yes, but you have no proof of that
I have evidence. Look, if you go and find ten people from the same sort of background, roughly the same finances, same politics, same language, and ask them their opinion on a controversial issue, do you think they’ll all say the same thing?
They’re likely to have differing opinions.
Right. Now, the bible contains sixty-six books, written by forty different authors from all walks of life, from fisherman to monarchs. It was written over about one and a half thousand years, in three different languages and on three different continents. They write on one of the most controversial subjects imaginable, yet they all agree completely with one another as if they came from the same source. Further, we know that it’s managed to remain unchanged since then, not lost in translation – we have more ancient manuscripts than any other work of literature in the world. We have over two thousand copies of the new testament dating back to as early as thirty-five years after the death of the authors…
Fascinating, but hang on. Death of the authors? So it was written by men, not by God!
Oh, absolutely it was written by men. But the words came from God. When you write a letter, you use a pen right? Well when God writes something down he uses men as the tool to do it.
Big claim.
Very much so. But then when we look at the harmony of the bible, the prophecies which where made in the Old Testament times and fulfilled in Christ, in the detail things are written, things that would go against the culture of its day, it’s a hard case to make. I mean, if even one of those prophecies was wrong then obviously it would be a load of rubbish, right?
Ok, but what about all your stuff that doesn’t apply for today?
Such as?
Well, there’s support for slavery, sexism, condemnation of homosexuals, you can’t really expect me to believe that a loving God would say that.
Well the slavery issue is Old Testament law to be honest, and thanks to Jesus that no longer applies to us. The New Testament does give advise about how slaves should be treated by their masters and the like, sure, but this was in a time when folk kept slaves. Nowhere does it actually say that in general taking slaves is a good thing. Actually the NT teaching does put slaves as being treated very well, if nothing else. As for sexism, there’s a huge debate about that, believe me. Suffice to say that the argument that God has something against women isn’t very biblical when looked at in context.
And homosexuals?
They’re sinners.
Oh yeah, condemn folk for their sexuality. That’s loving
Look, I don’t necessarily like the idea, but the New Testament is very clear the homosexual activity is perversion, and it’s not to be practiced.
That only applies to then, surely. Like slaves
Then why does it present it as a universal fact?
But that’s appalling! Surely love is the thing the bible emphasises. I like that part of it, I must say.
If the bible says it’s bad, then the bible says it’s bad. That’s where inerrancy comes in.
Again with the big words!
Yeah, well. Basically, inerrancy means the bible has no mistakes. Everything has to be taken as correct, regardless of whether it makes us comfortable or not.
So you can’t just ignore the bits that paint God in ways you don’t like?
Bingo. In fact, if the bible is not inerrant then we suddenly have a problem.
We do?
We do. It changes the very nature of God.
It does?
It does. If God’s word contains mistakes then God makes mistakes. If God makes mistakes then God isn’t perfect.
And that’s a big problem?
Well yeah, if God isn’t perfect then there must be a higher standard that is perfection. Which means that by setting God in its place we’ve made an idol. We’re in the wrong. And worse, it makes all our beliefs totally worthless.
In what way?
In every way! If God is not perfect then Christ was not the perfect sacrifice! We can’t be offered salvation for our sins and we’re doomed to hell regardless! It’s all been a waste of time!
Ok, so what if there is no god?
That’s a different axiom. We’ll discuss that another time.
Ok, sure. So if I get this right, you say the bible is the word of God because you assume that God will have a perfect way of communicating with us, and the bible seems to be so?
Yeah, that’s pretty much it. The bible claims to be the word of God, and unlike many other books claiming to be so I can’t find fault in that argument. By the very nature of its being the word of God, and by what that implies based on the nature of God, I take it to be inerrant and it’s from there that I can safely use it as a basis of belief.
Great. Well, thanks for clearing that up.
Any time.
On Baptism
I’m rather hesitant writing this, being that it’s bringing up controversy where there really need not be any. However, someone on a forum I visit made another comment about child baptism being a bad “Catholic doctrine” and something has snapped. So, let’s talk baptism.
On the one hand, it’s a very simple argument: Baptists say that true baptism can only be performed on adults who have made a profession of faith, that baptism by immersion is the only true baptism, and that baptism is fundamentally about being buried and rising again with Christ. Meanwhile, presbyterians disagree, with John Calvin summarising those who disagree with the baptism of children as “furious madmen [who] cease not to assail this holy ordinance of God”. Evidently then one side must be correct and the other wrong. Or is it? In his Systematic theology, Wayne Grudem mentions the Evangelical Free Church of America (EFCA), which allows ordination of pastors holding to both stances. Interestingly, where in 1994 Dr Grudem saw this as a good thing, in the 2007 reprinting he seems to have watered down his view, stating now that the two hold incompatibilities. Grudem’s argument goes that pedobaptists cannot accept the non-baptising of a child without believing they are directly disobeying God, whilst those holding to so-called believer’s baptism cannot rightly allow somebody to be a member without being rebaptised. The fact that most pedobaptists would in fact not have this problem, being accepting of both forms of baptism so long as nobody is baptised twice, is something which has evidently missed his attention.
Grudem does, however, still hold that the issue of baptism need not be one which divides the church, a point which most would agree with. The fact that many do not, and the fact that the majority who do so appear to be those who are thouroughly against the baptism of infants, should surely be one of a lack of understanding.
According to Simmons, “Infant baptism is left without any authority or ground in the Scripture. Faith
as a prerequisite of baptism is indicated, implied, or demanded by every
passage of Scripture that touches the question.” Why is this faith so important? Because
If the faith demanded as a prerequisite of baptism is saving faith, then only
saved people are to be baptized. That this faith is saving faith is made
evident by the fact that salvation is conditioned on faith and the believer is
said to possess eternal life. See Acts 16:31Acts 16:31
English: Good News Bible (UK) - GNB-UK
31 They answered, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved — you and your family.”
WP-Bible plugin; Eph. 2:8-10Eph. 2:8-10
English: Good News Bible (UK) - GNB-UK
8-9 For it is by God's grace that you have been saved through faith. It is not the result of your own efforts, but God's gift, so that no one can boast about it. 10 God has made us what we are, and in our union with Christ Jesus he has created us for a life of good deeds, which he has already prepared for us to do.
WP-Bible plugin; John 5:24John 5:24
English: Good News Bible (UK) - GNB-UK
24 “I am telling you the truth: those who hear my words and believe in him who sent me have eternal life. They will not be judged, but have already passed from death to life.
WP-Bible plugin. We are
not to baptize people in order to save them, nor because they want to be
saved, but only because they are already saved.
In other words, faith is a requirement of baptism for the reason that faith is a requirement of salvation and only those who are saved must be baptised. Simmons further qualifies this when he later comments on the position taken as to the symbolism of baptism, and in doing so argues that baptism must be by full immersion;
The Scripture alludes to baptism as a burial (Rom. 5:4Rom. 5:4
English: Good News Bible (UK) - GNB-UK
4 endurance brings God's approval, and his approval creates hope.
WP-Bible plugin; Col. 2:12Col. 2:12
English: Good News Bible (UK) - GNB-UK
12 For when you were baptized, you were buried with Christ, and in baptism you were also raised with Christ through your faith in the active power of God, who raised him from death. :
WP-Bible plugin). A burial
requires Immersion. The objection that these passages do not allude to water
baptism, but to Spirit baptism or to conversion in a figurative sense, is
groundless, and gives clear evidence of having been born of prejudice rather
than of a fair and impartial consideration of the passages.
However, it should be understood that this is not the symbolism that baptism is supposed to entail. In summarising this point of view, Berkhoff makes the following observation;
They base their opinion on Mark 10:38,39Mark 10:38,39
English: Good News Bible (UK) - GNB-UK
38 Jesus said to them, “You don't know what you are asking for. Can you drink the cup of suffering that I must drink? Can you be baptized in the way I must be baptized?” : 39 “We can,” they answered. Jesus said to them, “You will indeed drink the cup I must drink and be baptized in the way I must be baptized.
WP-Bible plugin; Luke 12:50Luke 12:50
English: Good News Bible (UK) - GNB-UK
50 I have a baptism to receive, and how distressed I am until it is over! :
WP-Bible plugin; Rom. 6:3,4Rom. 6:3,4
English: Good News Bible (UK) - GNB-UK
3 For surely you know that when we were baptized into union with Christ Jesus, we were baptized into union with his death. 4 By our baptism, then, we were buried with him and shared his death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from death by the glorious power of the Father, so also we might live a new life. :
WP-Bible plugin; Col. 2:12Col. 2:12
English: Good News Bible (UK) - GNB-UK
12 For when you were baptized, you were buried with Christ, and in baptism you were also raised with Christ through your faith in the active power of God, who raised him from death. :
WP-Bible plugin. But the first two passages merely express the idea that Christ would be overwhelmed by His coming sufferings, and do not speak of the sacrament of baptism at all. The last two are the only ones that really have any bearing on the matter, and even these are not to the point, for they do not speak directly of any baptism with water at all, but of the spiritual baptism thereby represented. They represent regeneration under the figure of a dying and a rising again. It is certainly perfectly obvious that they do not make mention of baptism as an emblem of Christ’s death and resurrection. If baptism were represented here at all as an emblem, it would be as an emblem of the believer’s dying and rising again. And since this is only a figurative way of representing his regeneration, it would make baptism a figure of a figure.
So what is the important symbolism of baptism? According to the Heidelberg Confession, “Christ has appointed the outward washing with water and added the promise that I am washed with His blood and Spirit from the pollution of my soul, that is, from all my sins, as certainly as I am washed outwardly with water, by which the filthiness of the body is commonly washed away.” In the baptism of John, and in ceremonies of washing in the Old Testament, we see that purification is the most important issue (Ps. 51:7Ps. 51:7
English: Good News Bible (UK) - GNB-UK
7 Remove my sin, and I will be clean;
wash me, and I will be whiter than snow.
WP-Bible plugin; Ezek. 36:25Ezek. 36:25
English: Good News Bible (UK) - GNB-UK
25 I will sprinkle clean water on you and make you clean from all your idols and everything else that has defiled you.
WP-Bible plugin; John 3:25,26John 3:25,26
English: Good News Bible (UK) - GNB-UK
25 Some of John's disciples began arguing with a Jew a Jew; some manuscripts have some Jews. about the matter of ritual washing.
26 So they went to John and said, “Teacher, you remember the man who was with you on the east side of the Jordan, the one you spoke about? Well, he is baptizing now, and everyone is going to him!”
WP-Bible plugin), and so we can rightfully assume that had Christ meant the baptism he gives to be of a different meaning, he would have stated as much. In fact we may go so far as to say that the rituals of purification under the Old Covenant may have been set as an example pointing to the one true baptism that comes from Christ, through His spirit. Further, as both Calvin and Berkhoff emphasise, the act of immersion is neither set up as important nor anywhere definitely qualified as happening within the scriptures. The actual means of baptism, whether by sprinkling or by immersion, is not an issue which holds any importance: both are valid. The qualities of water as a substance which provides cleaning are the issue.
On the issue of who should administer baptism, to the best of my knowledge it is agreed by most Christian denominations that baptism should be administered only by those who are authorised by the church to do so, in the same way that Christ gave the command to baptise not to the entire church but specifically to the apostles. Calvin further argues that while baptism performed by a Roman Catholic priest should be considered valid, baptism performed by a layperson or, more controversially, a woman should not be accepted under any circumstances.
Finally onto the issue of the baptism of infants from a reformed point of view. I apologise for the long and winding detours taken in getting to this point. Baptism is, in essence, a sign of cleansing and a mark of a spiritual covenant between God and His people. An extension of the covenant with Abraham, in the same way that Abraham’s covenant extended to the children of the covenant people so also does the covenant of grace extend to the children of believers. The sacrament of baptism is a symbol of the sealing of that covenant, an analogy to the circumcision of the old testament. In the same way that in the Old Testament both the children of members of the nation of Israel, and persons who as adults wished to become a part of the nation of Israel alike would be circumcised as a sign of the covenant, and where expected to follow God’s laws, so under the new covenant we baptise both new believers and the children of believers, understanding that if they fail to keep to what God asks of them, that is they must exhibit saving faith, then they are covenant-breakers and have no place in the Church of God. The alternative, to deny our children baptism is to treat them as unbelievers, thus denying them the rights of fellowship in the church.
A common argument against child baptism is that there is no explicit example of infant baptism in the New Testament, which Berkoff addresses thusly;
The absence of all definite references to infant baptism finds its explanation, at least to a large extent, in the fact that Scripture gives us a historical record of the missionary work of the apostles, but no such record of the work that was carried on in the organized churches. And here, too, the tables may be easily turned on the Baptist. Will he show us an example of the baptism of an adult who had been born and reared in a Christian home? There is no danger that he ever will.
Finally, in addressing the issue that, according to those who would deny baptism to infants, faith is a requirement of baptism and an infant cannot express active faith, Berkoff argues thusly;
But in that way these words might also be construed into an argument against infant salvation, since they not only imply but explicitly state that faith (active faith) is the condition for salvation. To be consistent the Baptist would thus find himself burdened with the following syllogism: Faith is the conditio sine qua non of salvation. Children cannot yet exercise faith. Therefore children cannot be saved. But this is a conclusion from which the Baptist himself would shrink back.
If this is so, then how can an argument against child baptism really be considered to be so definite?
While there is much more I could comment on, such as the deeper meaning of baptism and its exact significance, I have a police against using so many words that the reader gets bored and stops reading. Maybe I’ll make a later post discussing it. Maybe I won’t. What I hope I have achieved, however, is showing that the arguments against the baptism of infants are not neccesarily arguments which can be defined as biblical any more than the arguments for, and indeed the definition of baptism held by the baptists is arguably somewhat at fault in its interpretation. Even if I have not convinced you that agreement infant baptism is the only biblical option, I do hope that there is now a point that it can be seen that it is not so dividing as to cause a need for insult-hurling: indeed the two interpretations of the meaning of baptism are so different as to not require mutual-exclusivity at all, where it not attempted to be enforced by persons such as Grudem.
I’ve included a list of references used in this post below, allowing the reader to check up on further reading themself on the issues discussed.
Incidently, if anyone would be interested in making a guest post giving further discussionf rom a different point of view, do let me know 
-Stephen Whitehead
1 January 2010
References
Louis Berkhoff, Summary of Christian Doctrine, chapter 26: Christian Baptism
John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion tr Henry Beveridge, chapter 16:PAEDOBAPTISM. ITS ACCORDANCE WITH THE INSTITUTION OF CHRIST, AND THE NATURE OF THE SIGN.
Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, Chapter 49
Thomas Simmons, Systematic Study of Bible Doctrine