Spicy Q&A With Macarthur, Sproul, And Lawson

I have to confess that I have become a bit of a Q&A tragic in recent years. I just love it when the theological heavyweights get together and speak frankly about hot button issues. And I, for one, am thrilled that this session from the recent Ligonier Conference with RC Sproul, John Macarthur, and Steve Lawson was captured on video and made available for public viewing. This session is loaded with good stuff. They answer questions ranging from the salvation of ethnic Israel to the importance of an historical Adam and a heap of stuff in between. It opens with a question on how they stand together considering the areas where they differ.

Another Successful Reformation Resurrection Conference

Our annual Reformation Resurrection conference concluded just last week and what a joy it always is for Scandinavian believers to come in from the Reformation wasteland and drink from a fire hydrant for a week. Many of us were disappointed at the late withdrawal of Phil Johnson as our keynote speaker due to serious health issues.

To make matters worse, I was notified of this jolting news at the Master's Seminary while waiting to enter the classroom for my final Hebrew exam. Ancient Hebrew is challenging at the best of times but it was even more difficult to focus during the two hour exam as my mind was flooded with the thoughts of how to break the news to the brothers in Denmark and how to find a replacement at such short notice.

Nonetheless Henrik Mortensen, an elder at Kristuskirken in Denmark, put out some feelers in the UK for a replacement. Now I have to admit that I generally find English preachers to be a bit too polite and conciliatory when it comes to contending for the truth. However my exposure to the teaching of Carl Trueman has softened my resolve on this front and given me a new optimism for combative Gospel warriors being raised up in the "mother land".

Henrik was able to gain the recommendation and, more importantly, the services of one Jeremy Walker from Maidenbower [Reformed] Baptist Church.

Jeremy, it turns out, is a passionate and uncompromising young preacher who's influence and respect is very much on the rise. Though these accolades are of little interest to Jeremy, they are nonetheless encouraging to see in a land that often suffers from believers who tend to err on the side of cowardice. His two books, "The Broken Hearted Evangelist" and "A Portrait of Paul" carry endorsements by people like John Macarthur, Steve Lawson, Paul Washer, and Conrad Mbewe. And he has endeared himself to me by the fact that Pastor Walker also happens to be an open air preacher following in the footsteps of his predecessors Whitefield and Wesley.

We, the conference organizers, were very pleased to see that, in spite of Phil Johnson's absence, we enjoyed a record attendance and genuine enthusiasm for the teaching on offer. Reformation Resurrection 2012 has been the most diverse in attendance thus far with strong representation from Norway, Sweden, and Germany as well as a smattering from other surrounding countries. 

Aside from Jeremy Walker as our keynote speaker, Henrik Mortensen, Rene Vester, Mikael Thomsen, and myself filled the remainder of the preaching roster. This challenge of making so many adjustments at such short notice really helped to bring out the best in all the preaching. We soon hope to have most, if not all, of this online in the coming weeks. It was especially helpful to hear Jeremy expound the Scriptures on a biblical understanding of "working out our salvation" and the correct relationship between faith and works. This issue is something that causes major confusion among many church goers and it is also something that the Catholics have been getting wrong since they invented purgatory. I hope many others will take advantage of the teaching once it becomes available on the world wide web. Also, of great interest to many of us was Jeremy's controversial teaching on "The New Calvinism". If you enjoy a spicy theological read then this will not disappoint and it can be viewed here on Jeremy's blog.   

It is also tremendously encouraging to see the growing conviction among Scandinavian believers of the need to abandon apostate churches and support biblical churches. This provides me with great hope of a growing collective voice for the Gospel and biblical authority in these "post-Christian" lands.

I am also pleased to announce that Voddie Baucham will be our our keynote speaker at Reformation Resurrection 2013 from July 23 to 26, 2013 in Denmark. Stay tuned for more information. Space will be limited so email Carsten (carstenstampe@yahoo.com) if you want to book early.

Dumb And Dumber 2 Starring Ed Young Jr.

My old rugby league coach used to call an act of inexplicable stupidity on the sporting field a "brain explosion". I think he would have to ratchet that phrase up several notches to describe the recent "rant" by Ed Young Jr. against Calvinism. This may well be dumber than anything I have ever heard Jesse Duplantis say. "Not possible" I hear you say? Your skepticism is entirely understandable but wrong nonetheless . . .





Calvinism is clearly in the firing line right now. But why would any Arminian need an enemy when you have someone as unqualified and incompetent as Ed Young fighting for your cause?

In all fairness to "Pastor Ed", when your schedule is packed with providing fashion tips for pastors, producing bad rap music for sensitive seekers, scouring the world for superficial novelties to amuse undiscerning church goers, and polishing your private jet; it is entirely understandable why he cannot find the time to make an appointment with a Bible. And having such "creative flair" would certainly seem to eliminate the need for such an old book.

But it is hard to hide your stupidity when you get something wrong on so many levels. This is full of so many errors, straw men, delusions of grandeur, and false accusations I just don't know where to begin. Reformed theology is about digging wells in Africa? Phariseticalism? Calvinists have built in election detectors? Calvinism is sexy and cool? Has RC Sproul been getting around in skinny jeans? Well at least Ed can speak with a great deal of authority about "deformed ecclesiology" as he is certainly an expert in that field. I do have James White's phone number - why don't you give him a call Ed so you can straighten him out on all that Hebrew and Greek stuff you know so much about? Nonetheless there is one question that does intrigue me concerning this whole Ed Young brain explosion on steroids. As the Calvinist debate takes front and center stage in the Southern Baptist Convention and since Ed Young Jr. is a part of that convention - will he be disciplined by the SBC for using the pulpit for lying and slandering? Just wondering . . .

PS In a desperate attempt to defend the ridiculous claims he made, Ed Young Jr. has just submitted what he calls "Exhibit A"

John Macarthur's Journey Through The Calvin Arminian Divide

John Macarthur is categorized as a Calvinist but prefers to call himself a biblicist. Here are some wise words from Dr. Macarthur during a Q&A session:

One of the benefits that I had, is I grew up in an environment where my dad was the preacher and it was basically a Baptist kind of environment. And what I learned growing up was sort of a middle ground. In my upbringing, we didn’t like the Calvinists and we didn’t like the Arminians; we sort of had that Baptist middle ground. That’s probably what a lot of you…you grew in the same kind of environment. You didn’t talk about predestination or election--that was kind of a frightening thing and that was for dead Presbyterians, and there were only about 30 of them in the whole city of Los Angeles--at the time, and they were over in a room somewhere contemplating their navel and reading John Calvin. You know, it was very introspective and they were thrilled with their theology, but they were a small little group and we weren’t into that.

I went away to college and essentially I went to two colleges, the roots of which were both Methodist. So, they were steeped in Arminian theology. One was sort of a Revivalist environment, and the other was a more traditional Wesleyan environment, where we read Wiley and Miley and all of that, and we had to imbibe all of this Arminian theology. I got out of that; I went to a seminary that had Presbyterian influences. So, I went from the Arminian kind of side to the Reformed side, and there I was in the middle of this mix and I just decided I’d go to the Bible and find out what the Bible said. I think, in a sense, all of that experience sort of canceled each other out, which was good for me, and I went back to the Word of God and in the Word of God, without all the presuppositions cast in stone, I was able to let the Bible speak. Through the years, the Bible I believe speaks very clearly about what the truth is.

But, I think if people could divest themselves of their presuppositions and if they could be willing to eat a little humble pie and say, “It’s possible that I might be wrong,” and take another hard look at the Word of God, they would come to the right answers. It’s a very simple point to make, and it is this: if two people take two opposing views of something, they cannot both be right. Somebody is wrong. And it’s not us, right? Well, I mean, I don’t say that in a proud way. I just believe that we are where we are because we believe this is true.

As many of us immerse ourselves in this debate, we would do well to immerse ourselves in Scripture and abandon the turbulant sea of subjective emotionalism of taking a side based on studying the behavior of advocates from either side. I was once rebuked by someone I found to be obnoxious - and with good reason. By the grace of God I managed to evaluate his rebuke in the light of Scripture rather than his behavior. Good thing too - because he was right!

When Not To Be Divisive

There's a lot of heat out there in the evangelical world right now over the centuries old debate between Calvinism and Arminianism. So much could be said about this and how foolish would I be to think that I could resolve the conflict. If you want to hear a strong case for each side of the debate then I recommend Robert Shanks's book Life In The Son for the Arminian case and John Macarthur's teaching series The Doctrines Of Grace for an overview of Calvinistic theology.

My post today is intended to be of a more conciliatory nature. The assaults on the Gospel in this present day demand that true believers don't end up shooting at the wrong targets. Consider the following conversation (paraphrased by John Piper) that occurred in the 18th century between Calvinist Charles Simeon and Arminian John Wesley. The conversation is instructive about how we should deal with people we disagree with, and about how sometimes moderates from both sides of a theological debate are closer than we realise.

Charles Simeon - Sir, I understand that you are called an Arminian; and I have been sometimes called a Calvinist; and therefore I suppose we are to draw daggers. But before I consent to begin the combat, with your permission I will ask you a few questions. Pray, Sir, do you feel yourself a depraved creature, so depraved that you would never have thought of turning to God, if God had not first put it into your heart?

John Wesley - Yes, I do indeed.

Charles Simeon - And do you utterly despair of recommending yourself to God by anything you can do; and look for salvation solely through the blood and righteousness of Christ?

John Wesley - Yes, solely through Christ.

Charles Simeon - But, Sir, supposing you were at first saved by Christ, are you not somehow or other to save yourself afterwards by your own works?

John Wesley - No, I must be saved by Christ from first to last.

Charles Simeon - Allowing, then, that you were first turned by the grace of God, are you not in some way or other to keep yourself by your own power?

John Wesley - No.

Charles Simeon - What then, are you to be upheld every hour and every moment by God, as much as an infant in its mother’s arms?

John Wesley - Yes, altogether.

Charles Simeon - And is all your hope in the grace and mercy of God to preserve you unto His heavenly kingdom?

John Wesley - Yes, I have no hope but in Him.

Charles Simeon - Then, Sir, with your leave I will put up my dagger again; for this is all my Calvinism; this is my election, my justification by faith, my final perseverance: it is in substance all that I hold, and as I hold it; and therefore, if you please, instead of searching out terms and phrases to be a ground of contention between us, we will cordially unite in those things wherein we agree.

Now this conciliatory approach in no way suggests compromising the Gospel. The Gospel is the good news of Jesus Christ. The good news is that the Holy Just, Righteous, and Loving God created man. Man rebelled and all of humanity has the sin nature. People are radically depraved and exceedingly sinful. They hate God and are deserving of His wrath and eternal condemnation. God's character demands that he must judge and punish all sin to meet the requirements of His justice. But to demonstrate His great love He sent His Son, fully God/fully man to fulfill the requirements of His law and then die under the punishment of God's Holy Wrath in the place of sinners. That the sins of the sinner would be imputed to Christ's account, and the rightoeusness of Christ would be imputed to the sinner's account. God now calls on all men everywhere to repent from sin and put their trust in Christ that they might be saved from the wrath to come. This is the major theme woven throughout the whole of Scripture - God's plan of redemption and being glorified by saving sinners. Many Arminians and Calvinists would preach this Gospel side by side.

I have been mailed by the odd angry Arminian and the odd hyper Calvinist only to hear them rail about the twisting of Scripture in the "opposing camp". But church history is littered with genuine Christian scholars who practised sound hermeneutical principles and yet arrived at different conclusions on difficult points of theology. Good theology involves harmonizing all of God's Word and that has proven difficult throughout church history on the issue of Calvinism v Arminianism. God speaks of predestining every soul and knows all the names written in the Lamb's book of life, yet He takes no delight in the destruction of the wicked desiring that he would repent. Repentance is a gift from God and yet God holds all men accountable to repent of their wickedness. These truths coexist in Scripture. We should be comforted in the knowledge that God can resolve what is beyond our grasp. All who are saved see the scarlet thread of redemption woven through the entirity of Scripture, but to scale the heights of God's election and man's responsibility is to search out the unsearchable - we all look into this glass darkly. There are tensions in Scripture that are beyond human understanding and different scholars throughout church history have developed theology that attempts to reconcile these tensions. We need to have the grace to recognize that no two people agree on every single point of doctrine and that we can live and serve God within that tension.

There are doctrines that are so important salvation depends on them (these are life and death and must be fought at all costs).

There are doctrines that cause us to fellowship at different local churches but we still extend the hand of fellowship to our genuinely born again brothers who differ on these doctrines.

There are also doctrines which we can differ on but still attend the same fellowship and sit down and lovingly reason from the Scriptures.

Please be big enough to do that for the sake of Christ's great Name and the furtherance of His glorious Gospel.

Southern Baptists And Pelagians Together

A key question as to how we understand the Gospel concerns our doctrine of man. Are we sinners because we sin or do we sin because we are sinners. Think carefully about this. Is it our sinful actions that make us a sinner or is it our sinful nature that causes us to sin. The former requires a gospel that persuades bad men to change their behavior. The latter requires a gospel that is about resurrecting men who are dead in sin. The former sounds very much like Charles Finney's heretical view of humanity:

Moral depravity cannot consist in any attribute of nature or constitution, nor in any lapsed or fallen state of nature. . . . Moral depravity, as I use the term, does not consist in, nor imply a sinful nature, in the sense that the human soul is sinful in itself. It is not a constitutional sinfulness [Finney's Systematic Theology, 245].

Finney's view echoes that put forward by Pelagius in the fourth century AD:

Pelagius was a monk from Britain, whose reputation and theology came into prominence after he went to Rome sometime in the 380's A.D. The historic Pelagian theological controversy involved the nature of man and the doctrine of original sin.

Pelagius believed that the consequences of Adam and Eve’s sin (the Fall) were restricted to themselves only; and thereby denied the belief that original sin was passed on (or transferred) to the children of Adam and thus to the human race. Adam's sin merely "set a bad example" for his progeny and Jesus "set a good example" for mankind (thus counteracting Adam's bad example). Pelagianism teaches that human beings are born in a state of innocence with a nature that is as pure as that which Adam was given at his creation.

As a result of his basic assumption, Pelagius taught that man has an unimpaired moral ability to choose that which is spiritually good and possesses the free will, ability, and capacity to do that which is spiritually good. This resulted in a gospel of salvation based on human works. Man could choose to follow the precepts of God and then follow those precepts because he had the power within himself to do so.

The controversy came to a head when Pelagian teaching came into contact with Augustine. Augustine did not deny that man had a will and that he could make choices. But, Augustine recognized that man did not have a free will in moral issues related to God, asserting that the effects original sin were passed to the children of Adam and Eve and that mankind’s nature was thereby corrupted. Man could choose what he desired, but those desires were influenced by his sinful nature and he was unable to refrain from sinning. (courtesy of Theopedia)

The strongest repudiation of Pelagian theology is reserved for the clear teaching of Scripture itself:

Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous. (Romans 5:18-19)

Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. (Psalm 51:5)

With this Pelagian view of man considered it is interesting to see that this heresy, defeated by Augustine many centuries ago, still lives on in a variety of forms. I have been reluctant to bring to light the surprising emergence of this doctrine from an unexpected place. I was hopeful it would be internally resolved by the many capable theologians in the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). However, it has now been broadcast far and wide so I wanted to take this opportunity to weigh in and comment on a recent document called A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation which had high profile signatories including Paige Patterson (President of Southwestern Seminary and a key figure in driving liberalism out of the SBC) and Jerry Vines (former SBC President and fellow hero of the "conservative resurgence"). Their aim, as staunch Arminians, in this document was to make a critical response to the rise of Calvinism within the SBC. Unfortunately, in their efforts to distance themselves from Calvinism they veered in to the land of Pelagianism. Though I am a Calvinist and disagree with much of what is on this document, I can respectfully disagree and understand why they arrive at some of the conclusions they do. But one conclusion in particular has caused the ire of many, myself included. That there are Calvinists and Arminians alike who are making the same objection to this document, should be cause enough for performing major surgery on such a significant statement. This key contention with the SBC statement on salvation is with article two. Article two, in its entirety, reads:

We affirm that, because of the fall of Adam, every person inherits a nature and environment inclined toward sin and that every person who is capable of moral action will sin. Each person’s sin alone brings the wrath of a holy God, broken fellowship with Him, ever-worsening selfishness and destructiveness, death, and condemnation to an eternity in hell.

We deny that Adam’s sin resulted in the incapacitation of any person’s free will or rendered any person guilty before he has personally sinned. While no sinner is remotely capable of achieving salvation through his own effort, we deny that any sinner is saved apart from a free response to the Holy Spirit’s drawing through the Gospel.

Even Roger Olsen, who is an unabashed high profile Arminian apologist has said:

Leaving the statement as it stands, without a clear affirmation of the bondage of the will to sin apart from supernatural grace, inevitably hands the Calvinists ammunition to use against non-Calvinist Baptists. It doesn’t matter what “most Baptists” believe or what is the “traditional Southern Baptist understanding.” For a long time I’ve been stating that most American Christians, including most Baptists, are semi-Pelagian, not Arminian and not merely non-Calvinist. Calvinists and Arminians stand together, with Scripture, against semi-Pelagianism. (Romans 3:11 and 1 Corinthians 4:7 to name just two passages.) (online source)

Both Vines and Patterson have a legacy of destroying liberalism within the SBC for which I owe a deep level of gratitude. Calvinists like Al Mohler would not have taken the Presidency at their flagship seminary (Southern baptist Theological Seminary) without their years of dedication to the cause of conservative biblical Christianity. This makes their latest labor all the more surprising because those who signed this document are either Pelagian (or some might say semi-Pelagian) or ignorant of what they signed. Both possibilities are disturbing and I sincerely hope that such a large and significant Christian movement will move rapidly to rectify errors of this caliber.

Sorry For Taking So Long To Post

I must apologize to the readers of this blog for my radio silence over the last week. Since my family travelled to Denmark more than a week ago, we have been bunkered down in a remote and undisclosed location with no internet!!!! Yes, you heard me rightly – no internet!!!! While you all marvel at my survival in such a hazardous environment I have now had a slew of happenings that demand response. Since these are all very public discussions I fully intend to weigh in on the “traditional Southern Baptist view of salvation” document and Ed Young Jr.’s anti-Calvinist rant which set new standards in stupidity from the pulpit. Due to recent happenings in Denmark it is also necessary to say more about the homosexual agenda and responding in a biblically informed way.

 It has also been drawn to my attention that a lot of scandalous remarks are being posted in social media outlets regarding the recent arrest of Word Faith heretic Creflo Dollar.



Nothing would make me more pleased than to see Dollar and his outrageous gospel of greed forever banished from pulpits (perhaps if he became a real Christian and started preaching the true Gospel I would be more pleased). 

Nonetheless, brothers and sisters, may this latest scandal be a reminder to us that we are people first and foremost of God’s Word. It can be tempting to slam Creflo Dollar because of the allegations made against him by his daughter. Clearly, all is not well in the Dollar household. Even so, our opposition to false teachers must always be biblically driven rather than based on speculation. Creflo Dollar may well be found innocent of the charges made against him, and as I don’t know all the facts surrounding this legal case I refuse to be drawn in on the opportunity to take some shots based on hearsay. The avalanche of biblical evidence stands in condemning opposition to the heretical preaching of Dollar and we would all do well to keep our criticism within this realm. Pay particular attention to the following video from 2:30 onwards . . .



May this criticism also be more motivated by a love for Christ and His truth than a desire to hunt for heretics. I need to go now and spend some time with my own children.

Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. (Jude 1:3-4)

Genesis Is Not A Poem

This recent offering from the "scientists" made major headlines in the UK's Guardian newspaper. The article goes on to say:

It may not rank as the most compelling reason to curb greenhouse gases, but reducing our emissions might just save humanity from a pre-emptive alien attack, scientists claim. Watching from afar, extraterrestrial beings might view changes in Earth's atmosphere as symptomatic of a civilisation growing out of control – and take drastic action to keep us from becoming a more serious threat, the researchers explain. This highly speculative scenario is one of several described by a Nasa-affiliated scientist and colleagues at Pennsylvania State University that, while considered unlikely, they say could play out were humans and alien life to make contact at some point in the future.

Ian Sample, The Guardian’s science correspondent continued on his article to say that:

"Green" aliens might object to the environmental damage humans have caused on Earth and wipe us out to save the planet. "These scenarios give us reason to limit our growth and reduce our impact on global ecosystems. It would be particularly important for us to limit our emissions of greenhouse gases, since atmospheric composition can be observed from other planets," the researchers write.

Applying the grammatical-historical approach to this article I came up with the following interpretation:


Hi, I’m a scientist. You can tell because I wear a long white coat with a pocket protector. I have the highly trained ability to impress you with big words. I also have a wildly speculative imagination, which is a tremendous asset to scientists who are unable to track down any empirical evidence or factual information. When I use my wildly speculative imagination I prefer to call it “research”. Governments give me money to do this “research” and if I entertain them enough with my research they give me even more money to do even more research.

It would seem that the general public is generally satisfied with the explanation “scientists say”. Furthermore, it would seem that many theologians in the world of academia are not only satisfied with the “scientists say” mantra, they also feel the need to capitulate to their “imposing research”.

In all fairness, there is a such thing as empirical science where tests are made, data is compiled, and conclusions are drawn. The law of gravity is derived from true empirical science hence it is called a law. It is testable, measurable, repeatable, and observable. On the other hand, Darwinian evolutionary theory and Big Bang cosmology are not empirically proven facts. They are not testable, measurable, repeatable, or observable. Yet the majority of “Christian academia” feel enormous pressure to accommodate these theories into the very first chapter of the Bible.

The first chapter of Genesis is a very straightforward read for the average man in the average pew. God gives a chronological account of the six days He took to create the world (and the universe). This literary style or genre is called narrative (the other genres being poetry, parables, prophecy, and epistles). Biblical narrative refers to the portions of Scripture that give an account of historic events. It is the most common genre in the entire Bible comprising more than 40 percent of the Old Testament and nearly 60 percent of the New Testament. Theologians desirous of accommodating the prevailing “scientific” views on origins into Scripture are faced with the options of either rejecting the first eleven chapters of Genesis altogether or changing the genre from narrative to something else.

While the first eleven chapters of Genesis provide no major hermeneutical challenges to any Bible interpreter, they do provide major problems for those who want to wear the “Christian label” without being laughed at by their friends in the long white coats with pocket protectors. The most popular default among “conservative scholars” has been to reclassify the creation account as poetry rather than narrative. These scholars will readily admit their belief that Genesis switches back to the narrative genre later on though they have not been forthcoming with where exactly that is and how they determined that particular line of demarcation.

Tragically, many of these scholars do not realize that their efforts to win over the scientific establishment have come at the cost of losing the gospel. Denying Adam as a literal historical figure, denying the fall and curse as a literal historical event, and allowing for death to occur prior to Adam all do severe violence to the exclusive biblical gospel. A gospel that requires a fall to introduce sin, sin to introduce a curse, a curse to introduce death, and a second Adam to defeat death.

The fact that the entire book of Genesis is a narrative would be a “no brainer” were it not for the external interpretive pressures coming from outside of the Bible itself. Every biblical instance of yom (the Hebrew word for day) with a numerical prefix refers to a literal day – hence six literal days of creation as the first chapter of the Bible clearly states. The common features of Hebrew poetry such as figurative language and parallelisms are also absent from the first eleven chapters of Genesis. Professor John Currid states:

There is no indication of figurative language in Genesis 1. If the narrative is to be considered imagery, one would expect to encounter many of the essentials of figurative language (eg. schema, metaphor, and other tropes), but there are none.

Professor Doug Kelly provides even more compelling evidence concerning the narrative genre of Genesis:

A further confirmation of the non-poetic, historical nature of the Genesis account of creation is found in the way the New Testament uses these early chapters. Certainly for those who take the New Testament seriously, and are committed to the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ as truth itself, the New Testament approach to Genesis will be of highest consequence. No amount of exegetical straining can find the slightest poetic view of Genesis 1-11 in the books of the New Testament. One can disagree with the new Testament’s literal, historical usage of Genesis 1-11, but one cannot honestly find in its pages anything less than a straightforward reading of these chapters as literal, relevant facts (Douglas F. Kelly, Creation and Change Page 39).

Although the primary purpose of this lesson is to highlight principles for interpreting biblical narrative, the battle for Genesis highlights the importance of this issue and brings some of these interpretive principles to the surface. Some of the major principles of interpreting biblical narrative include:

1. God alone is the hero of every story – biblical narratives contain stories about people who lived during biblical times, but they are primarily about the God Who works in, through, for, and against these people. Adherence to this principle is a great remedy for the modern propensity of preachers to moralize biblical narratives.

2. Narratives are descriptive and not prescriptive – while it may be tempting to try and interpret a narrative as an example, or advice, for how Christians should live, we need to remember that narratives do not attempt to show us how we should live but merely describe events as they happened.

3. Narrative must be interpreted in the light of its broader literary context – all biblical passages of narrative must be located within their larger theological framework. For example, when reading the books that chronicle the lives of the kings of Israel and Judah, the reader is expected to be familiar with the Pentateuch in order to grasp the laws and customs dealt with in these books.

4. Narrative must be interpreted in the light of the book in which it is found – the interpreter must consider the purpose and themes of the book in which the narrative is located and consider how this narrative contributes to the greater purpose of the book.

5. The interpreter should immerse himself in the historical and cultural setting of the narrative – repeatedly reading the narrative will bring the interpreter more and more into the world of the author and audience.

6. The pinnacle of interpreting biblical narrative is to determine the theological purpose of the passage – narrative may be historical but its purpose is theological. In uncovering the theological purpose the interpreter must pay close attention to four features of the narrative: the selection of material; the use of repetition, the use of editorial comments, and the use of summary statements.

These principles provide an excellent framework for the interpretation of biblical narrative. It is to our peril when our efforts to find something between the lines negate what is clearly written on the lines. When God delivered the Ten Commandments to Moses He engraved these words in stone as a perpetual reminder as to why He commanded Israel to observe the Sabbath: “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day” (Exodus 20:11a). Somehow I doubt God would engrave a poem in stone and call it a commandment!

Phil Johnson Hangs Up The Gloves

The blogosphere is going to miss Phil Johnson's sharp and satirical theological brain. For those of you who are unaware, Phil, the main writer for Pyromaniacs which is (in my estimation) the best Christian blog on the web, has announced his official retirement from blogging. Whether a lucrative career as a blogging commentator now awaits remains to be seen. Due to some major health issues and the immediate need to drop his stress levels, Phil has taken the urgent decision to cut all extra activities outside of his direct responsibilities as a Pastor at Grace Community Church and editor for John Macarthur's books.

This has directly affected me in more ways than one. Not only will I have to find a literary dietary replacement for my evangelical insights, it also means that Phil is no longer our keynote speaker for the Reformation resurrection conference in Denmark this July. Though we are all saddened by Phil's coming absence, we commend him for the sudden re-prioritization he has done. We are also making the necessary adjustments for the conference and have secured another excellent keynote speaker (who also happens to be a Pyromaniacs regular reader).

Something that has distinguished Phil in recent years has been his willingness to give frank, candid, and biblical answers to the multitude of paranormal happenings on the evangelical landscape. Only Phil Johnson could sum up the many issues facing the Gospel Coalition with the question what is more important - the Gospel or the Coalition? Phil was the man who was able to decipher Mark Driscoll's disturbing "visions" with the article Pornographic Divination. It was also Phil who was one of the few people to give a much needed response to the bizarre interview between John Piper and Rick Warren. And then there is Phil's unique way with words:



A hearty thanks to you Phil from all of us who learnt so much through your internet writing while living in far flung apostate wastelands. We will miss your insights but are thankful for the literary legacy that you have left on the world wide web. We look forward to enjoying more of your editorial skills with each new Macarthur book and tapping into your teaching ministry at Grace Community Church. And we know that we are not the only ones who will miss you:

Salvation Is Impossible

You may have attended a church for many years. You may have heard a lot of sermons. You may have seen a lot of people "come forward" to the evangelist's call. You may have prayed the prayer. But do you really understand what conversion is?



Salvation is not "accepting Jesus into your heart". He doesn't need your acceptance. We need His acceptance!

Salvation is not "making Jesus Lord of your life". He is Lord of your life and everything else in the universe whether you like it or not. And the day is coming when everyone will bow their knee and confess this fact either as a repentant sinner or a damned rebel.

Salvation is when the God of all creation raises someone from the dead. It is a miracle. It is when someone who is dead in sin is resurrected by the God Who raised Jesus from the dead. And God can only do this without violating His righteous justice because of the righteous substitute Who died in the place of sinners.

The hand of the Lord was upon me, and he brought me out in the Spirit of the Lord and set me down in the middle of the valley; it was full of bones. And he led me around among them, and behold, there were very many on the surface of the valley, and behold, they were very dry. And he said to me, “Son of man, can these bones live?” And I answered, “O LordGod, you know.” Then he said to me, “Prophesy over these bones, and say to them, O dry bones, hear the word of the Lord. Thus says the Lord God to these bones: Behold, I will cause breath to enter you, and you shall live. And I will lay sinews upon you, and will cause flesh to come upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and you shall live,and you shall know that I am the Lord.” So I prophesied as I was commanded. And as I prophesied, there was a sound, and behold,a rattling, and the bones came together, bone to its bone. And I looked, and behold, there were sinews on them, and flesh had come upon them, and skin had covered them. But there was no breath in them. Then he said to me, “Prophesy to the breath; prophesy, son of man, and say to the breath, Thus says the Lord God: Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe on these slain, that they may live.” So I prophesied as he commanded me, andthe breath came into them, and they lived and stood on their feet, an exceedingly great army. (Ezekiel 37:1-10)

I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules. (Ezekiel 36:25-27)

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. (2 Corinthians 5:17-21)


Are you a new creature?