Sharia Courts Opening in Britain

According to a news report in the Telegraph, five sharia courts are now operating in Britain. Such trends are disturbing for many Englishmen and raise a host of legal questions concerning the rule of British law in the British state.

But, what is also disturbing, perhaps more so, are the recent calls by the Archbishop of Canterbury for the implementing of Sharia law in Britain. Regrettably, it looks like the Archbishop may have gotten his wish.

However, as Al Mohler has written, when leaders of the church set themselves as advocates for Sharia law a key watershed has been crossed.

Such actions not only illustrate how Europe is in the process of abandoning its Christian heritage but they also serve to illustrate the urgent need of the Western church to recover the priority of the Gospel as its central, defining message.

Is Inerrancy Unbiblical?

Martin Downes at Against Heresies has been writing some excellent posts critiquing Dr. Andrew McGowan newest book entitled, The Divine Spiration of Scripture: Challenging Evangelical Perspectives.

Dr. McGowan is the Principal of Highland Theological College. He also teaches Systematic Theology at HTC and is a Church of Scotland minister.

In his posts, Martin points out how Dr. McGowan argues that inerrancy is unbiblical, rationalistic and presumptuous.

McGowan’s proposals stir up memories of my Barthian and Bultmannian college professors who taught that the Bible is full of myths (albeit they have a great moral lesson, so they would say!), the predominance of Jesus’ words were not authentic, Paul didn’t write his letters, etc…

“If the words of Scripture are not authentic and trustworthy, then the Gospel itself is called into question.”

In reality, Dr. McGowan’s “challenge” is not unlike the challenges Evangelicals have faced in the past in regards to the issue of the authenticity and trustworthiness of the Bible (I heard them all at both a Methodist and Southern Baptist College!).

The issue of inerrancy has far reaching implications for the Christian faith. For example, if the words of Scripture are not authentic and trustworthy, then the Gospel itself is called into question. How can one be absolutely assured of the conclusiveness of the Good News?

J.I. Packer, in his book, God Has Spoken, demonstrates how the rejection of the authority of the Scriptures is also a rejection of the authority of Christ, for Christ Himself commended the Old Testament as possessing His Father’s authority.

Packer writes,

“The Bible is not only man’s word, but God’s also; not merely a record of revelation, but a written revelation in its own right, God’s own witness to Himself in the form of human witness to Him. Accordingly, the authority of the Scriptures rests, not simply on their worth as an historical source, a testament of religion, and a means of uplift, real though this is, but primarily and essentially on the fact that they come to us from the mouth of God. Therefore the real task for reason in this connection is not to try to censure and correct the Scriptures, but rather, with God’s help, to try to understand and apply them, so that God may effectively censure and correct us.

But, it is objected, does not the Christian stand directly under the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ, and is not Jesus Christ Lord also of the Scriptures? And if so, how can the Christian be said to be bound to the authority of the Bible? The answer is very simple. The antithesis is a false one. Jesus Christ is Lord of the Scriptures in the same sense in which any absolute monarch is Lord of the laws and proclamations which he sees fit to issue for the government of his subjects. The ruler’s laws carry his personal authority, and the measure of one’s loyalty to him is the consistency of one’s observance of them. But Holy Scripture, ‘the sceptre of God’, as Calvin calls it, is Christ’s instrument of government: it comes to us, so to speak, from His hand and with His seal upon it, for He Himself commended the Old Testament to us as having His Father’s authority, and He Himself authorized and empowered the apostles to speak in His name, by His Spirit and with His own authority. So the way to bow to the authority of Jesus Christ is precisely by bowing to the authority of the inspired Scriptures,” (pp. 103-104).

In brief, the rejection of inerrancy means the rejection of Christ’s own witness to Scripture. And, if one cannot trust Christ’s understanding of Scripture, how can one trust His proclamation of “Good News?” “Good News” with a thousand qualifications is hardly “Good News.”

Such a rejection, according to John Murray, ultimately challenges “the very integrity of our Lord’s witness,” which is the “crucial issue in this battle of the faith,” (The Infallible Word, p. 40).

Many thanks to Martin for these great posts!

For further reading, below are a couple of books on the issue of inerrancy and the authority of Scripture that I recommend:

Inerrancy, edited by Norman Geisler

Scripture and Truth, edited by D.A. Carson and John Woodbridge

The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, Benjamin B. Warfield

God Has Spoken, J.I. Packer

The Infallible Word, A Symposium by The Members of the Faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary

(See also The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy)

Black Theology and the Gospel

The recent controversy surrounding Barack Obama’s former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, has raised public interest in Black Theology.

What is Black Theology? Are Christ and the Gospel its center? Is it Gospel-centered and driven? Or, does Black Theology preach a different gospel?

H. Wayne House has written a very helpful essay on Black Theology: An Investigation of Black Liberation Theology (Bibliotheca Sacra, Vol. 139, No. 554 (April 82):159.)

Dr. House points out how Black liberation theology has made valuable contributions, both positive and negative, to theological discussion today. However, his main critique concerns the fact that Black Theology lacks a proper center for its theological emphasis (i.e., theme of oppression rather than Jesus Christ, the principal theme and personality of Scripture).

Dr. House concludes his essay by stating, “Black theologians need to ask the all-important question, Who is Christ? From their answer to that question they may begin to answer whether they have a truly Christian theology.” Dr. House’s point is not only an important reminder for Black Theology but for all of us.

James Hog, one of the Marrow Men (my heroes!) wrote, “Christ is the Marrow of the Word, the Substance of all that’s revealed in it, whether Doctrines, Types, Prophecies, or Promises.”

When we come to read and study the Scriptures, we must come with the express design of finding Christ. “Whoever,” John Calvin writes, “shall turn aside from this object, though he may weary himself throughout his whole life in learning, will never attain the knowledge of the truth…,” (Commentary on the Gospel According to John, p. 218).

For additional reading on this issue see, What the Bible is all About.

When, Why & Where To Draw Boundaries

Here is a helpful article by Wayne Grudem concerning doctrinal boundaries, When, Why & Where To Draw Doctrinal Boundaries.

HT: 9Marks

Gospel Candour

I was reading the letters of John Newton last night and came across one concerning the relationship between candour and the Gospel in the Christian life (Letter XXXII, On Candour.).

Newton’s letter was an instructive, balanced, helpful and challenging reminder.

Newton writes that a truly candid person will seek to “keep in view the distinction between those things which are fundamental and essential to the Christian life, and those concerning which a difference of sentiment may and often has obtained among true believers,” (pp. 357-358).

Newton points out the difference between true and false candour. The most important doctrines of the Gospel must be held central, without compromise or hypocrisy lest we be guilty of false candour.

Such false candour Newton writes,

…springs from an indifference to the truth, and is governed by the fear of men and the love of praise. This pretended candour depreciates the most important doctrines of the Gospel, and treats them as points of speculation and opinion. It is a temporizing expedient to stand fair with the world, and to avoid that odium which is the unavoidable consequence of a stedfast, open, and hearty adherence to the truth as it is in Jesus.

It aims to establish an intercommunity between light and darkness, Christ and Belial; and, under a pretence of avoiding harsh and uncharitable judgments, it introduces a mutual connivance in principles and practices which are already expressly condemned by clear decisions of Scripture…such a lukewarm temper, in those who would be thought friends of the Gospel, is treason against God, and treachery to the souls of men,” (pp. 358-359).

Yet, at the same time, Newton writes that we are to exercise gospel candour in those areas of doctrine in which “a difference of sentiment may and often has obtained among true believers.”

One can list numerous examples here: Calvinists vs. Arminians, Cessationists vs. Non-Cessationists, Worship wars, Credo vs. Paedobaptism, Young Earth vs. Old Earth, Eschatological views, Classical, Presuppositional or Evidential method of apologetics, and the list could go on.

Here is a portion of Newton’s letter,

Dear Sir,

I am, with you, an admirer of candour; but let us beware of counterfeits. True candour is a Christian grace, and will grow in no soil but a believing heart. It is an eminent and amiable property of that love which beareth, believeth, hopeth, and endureth all things. It forms the most favourable judgment of persons and characters, and puts the kindest construction upon the conduct of others that it possibly can, consistent with the love of truth.

It makes due allowances for the infirmities of human nature, will not listen with pleasure to what is said to the disadvantage of any, nor repeat it without a justifiable cause. It will not be confined within the walls of a party, nor restrain the actings of benevolence to those whom it fully approves; but prompts the mind to an imitation of Him who is kind to the unthankful and the evil, and has taught us to consider every person we see as our neighbour.

Such is the candour which I wish to derive from the Gospel; and I am persuaded they who have imbibed most of this spirit, will acknowledge that they are still defective in it. There is an unhappy propensity, even in good men, to a selfish, narrow, censorious turn of mind; and the best are more under the power of prejudice than they are aware.

A want of candour among the professors of the same Gospel, is too visible in the present day…Were there more candour among those who profess to love the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity, the emotions of anger or scorn would not be so often felt or excited by pronouncing or hearing the words Churchman, or Dissenter, or Calvinist, or even Arminian.

Let us my friend, be candid: let us remember how totally ignorant we ourselves once were; how often we have changed our sentiments in one particular or other, since we first engaged in the search of truth; how often we have been imposed upon by appearances; and to how many different persons and occurrences we have been indebted, under God, for the knowledge which we have already attained.

Let us likewise consider what treatment we like to meet with from others; and do unto them as we would they should do unto us. These considerations will make the exercise of candour habitual and easy… (The Works of the Rev. John Newton, vol. 1, pp. 357-358).

Sharia Law in Great Britain?

Just more proof of why Westerners need the Gospel: Sharia Law in Great Britain?

HT: Already but Not Yet

Helpful Excerpts from Robert Traill

Martin Downes at Against Heresies has posted two helpful excerpts from Robert Traill’s great book, The Doctrine of Justification Vindicated from the Charge of Antinomianism (1692). I highly recommend Traill’s work (if you can locate a copy, I recommend the 2 vol. set, hardback edition published by The Banner of Truth Trust, 1975).

Just too good to be true?

How to respond to controversies over justification by faith alone

Is Hell Separation from God?

The doctrine of hell/eternal punishment is not a popular message in our pluralistic age today. Hell/eternal punishment is quite frankly culturally unacceptable. Regrettably, eternal punishment is not often preached, taught or discussed in the church today.

Universalism and subtle shades of it have become increasingly popular in certain segments of the church. Annihilationism (fire then nothing) has also been gaining ground in more conservative, evangelical segments of the church in our time. Some evangelical theologians have even held the possibility of postmortem conversions (i.e., future chances for salvation after death).

Nonetheless, those who claim to be evangelical (i.e., those who are wholly concerned with the evangel [i.e., the Good News] and its free offer), must also be concerned to understand, teach and confess the doctrine of hell. There really is both very bad news and very good news.

Jesus certainly didn’t evade the reality of hell. Any cursory reading of the four Gospels reveals that Jesus devoted a great deal of His teaching to the reality of eternal punishment and the cruciality of avoiding it (cf., Mk. 9:43-47).

To be sure, the reality of hell is not a pleasant, “Our Daily Bread,” kind of devotional thought for the day. The Lord, the Scriptures tell us, takes “no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked turn from his way and live…,” (Ezek. 18:23; 33:11).

Yet, the Scriptures set forth unequivocally that hell is a real place and will be occupied with real people who are eternally separated from God because they refused the Gospel (cf., 2 Thess. 1:7-10).

But, the question remains, in what sense will people be separated from God? How is hell separation from God if God is omnipresent? Is hell really separation from God?

Martin, over at Against Heresies has written a very helpful piece on this very issue: Separation From God’s Presence. Be sure to check it out.

Michael Horton’s Review of Joel O’steen’s Newest Book

Michael Horton has just completed a review of Joel Osteen’s newest book, Becoming a Better You: 7 Keys to Improving Your Life Every Day:

Become a Better You: Reflections on Joel Osteen’s Latest Book

Roman Catholics and Justification

What do Roman Catholics believe? Is the Reformation over? Have Roman Catholics and Protestants moved beyond the polemics of the Reformation and found common confessional ground, at least in regard to the doctrine of justification? Should the Reformation’s conflict with Rome continue?

Are the differences that continue to divide Roman Catholics and Protestants mere “petty quarreling” as Chuck Colson has publicly stated [cf., Keith Fournier, Evangelical Catholics (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1990), p. iv]. Does justification still matter?

This week, on the White Horse Inn, Michael Horton talks with Robert Sungenis, president of Catholic Apologetics International about the Roman Catholic view of justification in order to contrast it with the classical Protestant position.

(Note: Sungenis is the author of three books which are self-revealing, at least from a Roman Catholic viewpoint: Not by Faith Alone: A Biblical Study of the Catholic Doctrine of Justification; Not By Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura; Not By Bread Alone: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for the Eucharistic Sacrifice).

Be sure to listen to the program: Roman Catholics and Justification