Notes from Dr. George Martin's "Biblical Basis of Christian Missions" class: Inerrancy

[Notice, these are NOT from the outline that Dr. Martin gave to the class, but are only an outline based on the lecture as I heard it.]

I. Definition:
A. "The Scriptures, in their original autographs, do not affirm anything that is contrary to fact."
B. "All Scripture is totally true and trustworthy" (BF&M 2000).
C. "Inerrancy" takes into account figures of speech, such as phenomenological language.
D. "Inerrancy" does not apply to grammatical errors.
E. "Inerrancy" does not indicate scientific precision (i.e., numbers might be rounded, information may be presented topically rather than chronologically, etc.).
F. "Inerrancy" does not preclude free citation (quotes from other texts may be summarized or restated).
G. "TRUE science and the Bible will not contradict one another."

II. Problems with denying inerrancy:
A. If the Bible is not inerrant, then what is our authority?
B. A denial of inerrancy exalts Man's opinions over God's revelation.
C. Error in minor details radically distorts the overall message of Scripture.

Notes from Dr. George Martin's "Biblical Basis of Christian Missions" class: Special Revelation

[Notice, these are NOT from the outline that Dr. Martin gave to the class, but are only an outline based on the lecture as I heard it.]

I. Definition
A. "God's particular communication of Himself to particular persons at particular times."
B. "Special revelation equals Scripture."

II. Necessity of special revelation
A. Special revelation is necessary for obtaining spiritual life.
1. Special revelation is necessary FOR US:
a. God was under no external obligation to grant us special revelation.
b. We have been given special revelation by grace.
2. Sin makes special revelation necessary for us if God's purpose in saving a people for Himself is to be fulfilled.
3. Knowledge of the gospel does not come through general revelation (nature nor conscience), but only through special revelation.
B. Special revelation is necessary for sustaining or maintaining spiritual life.

III. Forms of special revelation:
A. Historical events as recorded in Scripture
B. Divine speech
C. Covenants
D. Divinely revealed names of God

IV. Progression of special revelation
A. "From the beginning God has taught all truth [though not exhaustively- AJL], and nothing but truth."
B. "God was the first contextualizer."
C. "Later revelation builds upon earlier revelation."

John Calvin's Refutation of Seven Arguments

Introduction

You will often hear theology students debating whether John Calvin himself was a "5 Point Calvinist" (that is, whether Calvin held to each of the doctrines of "TULIP"- Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, and Perseverance of the saints). The debate over Calvin's "Calvinism" is well-known in historical theological circles. Much less well-known is the fact that John Calvin certainly considered himself to be a two-point Lutheran.

In 1543, John Calvin wrote Bondage and Liberation of the Will to answer attacks by Roman Catholic apologist Albert Pighius against the theology of the Protestant Reformers (who were, at that time, all referred to as "Lutherans" by the Roman Catholics). John Calvin wrote that he and all the Reformers agreed with Martin Luther's writings concerning two essential points that were denied by the Roman Catholic theologians: 1) all things occur according to absolute necessity (that is, God is sovereign over everything that happens), and 2) 'free-will' after the fall of humankind into sin (as recorded in Genesis 3) is an empty term, existing in name only.

In Book II of Bondage and Liberation of the Will John Calvin answered seven objections to the two-point Lutheranism mentioned above. The reader is encouraged to research Calvin's arguments for his- or herself and to compare these arguments to Scripture, but I offer an outline of Calvin's defense below:

Objection 1: If God is in [absolute] control, why bother [with doing anything]?

A: God's providence works through us. Proverbs 16:9- "The mind of man plans his way, but the LORD directs his steps" [all Bible quotes in this outline are from the NASB].

Objection 2: Why punish crimes if they are committed of necessity?

A: Necessity does not exclude evil will [on the part of the criminal]. "Woe to Assyria, the rod of my anger, and the staff in whose hands is my indignation" (Isaiah 10:5). [In Isaiah 10, Assyria arrogantly intends to subjugate other nations, and so Assyria is worthy of God's condemnation, even though God is ultimately in control of the fact that the other wicked nations will be defeated by Assyria.]

Objection 3: Necessity undermines law and order. [Laws and government are seen as unnecessary if God is in absolute control.]

A: God works through secondary causes in ruling His creation. ["Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God, and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves" (Romans 13:1-2).]

Objection 4: Necessity undermines religion. [If God is in absolute control of all things, why would one attend to one's religious duties?]

A: The doctrine of God's providence "trains a person only to be humble, to fear God, to place his trust in God, and to ascribe glory to God, which are the chief components of true religion."

Objection 5: The doctrine of providence [God's absolute control over all things] makes God the author of evil deeds.

A: God uses human sinful actions without being the author of sin. "He is a wonderfully expert craftsman who can use even bad tools well. We shall be compelled to admire His justice, which not only finds a way through iniquity but also employs that very iniquity to a good end."

Objection 6: Original sin implies that nature itself is evil.

A: "Nature" is biblically defined "in two ways: first as it was established by God, which we declare to have been pure and perfect, and second as, corrupted through Man's fall, it lost its perfection. Calvin quotes from Augustine: "Human beings are the work of God insofar as they are human, but they are under control of the devil insofar as they are sinners, unless they are rescued from there through Christ" [Against Two Letters of the Pelagians].

Objection 7: The doctrine of radical depravity [that sin affects all human faculties, including the heart and thus the will] exposes God to ridicule. [Presumably, because God gives commands which no one obeys.]

A: Command does not indicate ability, for the role of the law is not to teach us what things we can do to bring ourselves into a right relationship with God. Rather, the Law exposes the guilt and the moral inability of the sinner, by which he is brought into a state of humiliation and driven to cry out for the mercy of Christ.

Notes from Dr. George Martin's "Biblical Basis of Christian Missions" class: The Nature and Character of Scripture

[Notice, these are NOT from the outline that Dr. Martin gave to the class, but are only an outline based on the lecture as I heard it.]

I. There is a distinction between Systematic Theology and Biblical Theology (BT as a discipline)

II. There is a progressive nature to God's revelation

III. Scripture as God's "Self-Revelation"
A. Purpose of the Old Testament
Q: "Why has God given to us this material?"
A: "That people might know God"/"to make Himself known" through WORDS and DEEDS
1. The WORDS of Scripture are God's words (ex. Hos 1:1,2,4; 2:1; Joel 1:1; Amos 1:1-3,6,9,11,13, etc.)
2. "This is a God who ACTS in history" (Gen 1:1; Exod 3)
3. Words and deeds are especially focused into COVENANTS with His people
4. God reveals Himself by telling His people His NAMES, as recorded in Scripture
B. Knowledge of God
1. knowledge=experience;relationship (see Gen 3:22; 4:1, in which word "to know" is used)
2. knowledge of God affects knowledge of all else:
a. knowledge of the Divine
b. knowledge of self
c. knowledge of society

IV. Inspiration of Scripture
A. "In essence, what 'inspiration' means is that these are God's words."
B. God's words are recorded so that God may be known and obeyed.
1. Moses was specifically commanded to write down God's words.
2. The prophets were specifically instructed to write down God's words.
C. God's words are, by definition, true; therefore, Scripture is inerrant.

That To Understand Psalm 150 As Indicating a Multiplicity of Instruments in Worship Does Not Contradict Other Biblical Texts

How many women visited the tomb of Jesus following the resurrection? John 20:1 only mentions Mary Magdalene. Matthew 28:1 says, "Mary Magdalene and the other Mary." Mark 16:1 records, "Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome." Luke 24:10- "Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them." Critics of the Bible point to these accounts as examples of contradictions between the Gospels, but in doing so they are committing a logical fallacy. Mary Magdalene is present in each account, with the various Gospel authors giving more or less detail as to who else was with her; if John had written that ONLY Mary Magdalene has visited the tomb or that Magdalene AND NO ONE ELSE visited the tomb, then there would be a basis for positing a contradiction, but these limiting phrases are absent from the text.

(An additional example: if I were to write about how I visited the Metropolitan Tabernacle on June 21, and were to later write about how my wife and I visited MetTab on that occasion, it would obviously be irrational to charge me with contradiction just because my wife's presence was left unmentioned in the first account.)

In his sermon on June 21 of this year, Dr. Masters was emphatic that the use of Psalm 150 to establish a multiplicity of instruments in worship directly results in implying that the Bible contradicts itself. Dr. Masters claims that the Bible only allows four instruments for the use of worshiping God, and since Psalm 150 mentions more than these four, the Psalm must not be referring to instruments used in worship, or else we have a contradiction. In his sermon Dr. Masters does not provide proof for his claim about four instruments in worship, but elsewhere he has cited various passages from 1 Chronicles (1 Chronicles 15:16, 28; 16:5, 6, 42; 25:1, 6). The reader will note that none of these passages that mention four types of instruments include limiting phrases: NONE of the passages say ONLY these instruments or these AND NO OTHERS. If there were not additional evidence we may conclude that only these four types of instruments were allowed, but as God-inspired authors of the Psalms mention other instruments in worship (in places such as Psalm 149 and Psalm 150) we may conclude that a multiplicity of instruments were allowed, and we may reach this conclusion without a hint of contradiction.

Dr. Peter Masters' False Separation of the Body from the Mind in Worship

We are told NEVER to be under the power of anything. This is an important principle, and this CONDEMNS most modern worship forms. The Apostle Paul makes this absolutely clear: "I will not be brought under the power of any"- not alcohol, not drugs, not rhythm, rhythm, rhythm, rhythm, thumping out multiple instrumentation. These are drug-friends, to get people into what they want- an altered state of consciousness for the time being- making an impact upon the body so that joy and excitement- it's sensational, it's bodily, it's fleshly- massive volumes of sound. Let alone the culture, the style, the very volume, and the rhythmic nature of it- that's what it's designed for, that's its clever intention, that's what people want- whether you do it with alcohol, or with drugs, or to get into the big pop concert and let it get right into you and feel it: a state of ecstasy, as it were. And that is being brought into worship; when your mind should be crystal clear, when you should embrace and understand- the mind is the palace of faith- wonderful sentiments, wonderful things about the Lord. No wonder (isn't it interesting) that contemporary Christian worship wants to simplify all the words of worship too and sing endless, repetitive, simple choruses, and so on. EVERYTHING is a dumbing down, because you've yielded yourself under the power of what the world does for pleasure, for sensual pleasure, and for impact on the body. WE lead with the mind- we love Him, we appreciate the doctrines, we direct our thoughts- worship is words. Worship is words- whether sung, whether said, whether thought- and we've permitted music, simply used, to keep us together, and to suggest, if you like, the mood of the words, and to wind those words heavenward. WE get our principles from the Scripture; THEY DO NOT. Many of them are good Christian people who've been fooled into adopting all this. We're never to be friends of the world, never to be under the power of anything of this sort. (Dr. Peter Masters, Morning Teaching Service, 21 June 2009)

As clear from his above statements Dr. Peter Masters believes that the use of rhythm and volume in music is a sin. What command can he point to back his position? The only biblical proof that he can offer is a citation of 1 Corinthians 6:12- "I will not be brought under the power of any" ("brought under the power of" is better translated "mastered by" or "enslaved by," as in the NASB, ESV, and NIV). But does the use of any rhythm necessarily lead to enslavement? Dr. Masters allows for the use of music "to suggest... the mood of the words." If the "mood of the words" is celebration over the resurrection or if the words are about 'dancing before the Lord,' as some biblical texts mention, then might not rhythm and volume be appropriate? The answer is, 'yes,' as demonstrated below.

Dr. Masters' critique seems to be less based on any Scripture and more based on some kind of wrong-headed philosophy in which anything to do with the body is viewed with suspicion. Dr. Masters literally sneers at music that has an "impact on the body." (Upon hearing the sermon I've quoted from above, my wife wondered if Dr. Masters would be upset if a person was moved to tears over a classic Christian hymn- I suspect that he would not, but her question is legitimate if one takes his words at face value.) Though much of Reformed worship has separated mind and body- the worshipers stand very still, with eyes turned down to a page, singing joyous truths in somber tones- worship in the Bible is different. For example: Psalm 63:4 and Psalm 134:2 teach that we should raise our hands in song; Psalm 47:1 and Psalm 97:8 teach that we should clap [quoted from HERE]; Psalm 149:3 speaks of dancing and playing percussive instruments (!) in worship; and, of course, there is Psalm 150, which will be examined in posts later this week.

Is it true that some contemporary worship music is 'dumbed down,' using rhythm and volume to make up for lack of content? Certainly. But the Reformed ministers criticized by Dr. Masters in his earlier article are aware of this problem, and are actively engaged in combat against it.

As C.J. Mahaney writes in The Cross Centered Life:

Not all worship songs are created equal. Many today are man centered, not cross centered. They focus more on what we need, or what we want God to do, than on what Jesus has already done.

Mahaney continues:

I have to admit I'm spoiled when it comes to great cross centered worship songs. Some of my friends are very gifted songwriters who create incredible, contemporary worship songs that are filled with the gospel. (You can find out more about these songs and albums at www.sovereigngraceministries.org.)

Whereas the Sovereign Grace churches have benefited and continue to benefit from the classic hymns preferred by Dr. Masters, Dr. Masters has done himself a great disservice by snubbing contemporary gospel centered hymnology simply because the music accompanying these hymns employs rhythm.

Dr. Peter Masters' False Identification of "Worldliness" with a Multiplicity of Instruments

Should we worship with bands and instruments and rhythm and loud, many decibels, modern songs, modern style of praise? Or should we worship in the historic, reverent manner with a distinctive style of song and praise and thoughtfulness and reverence? What is right: that we should cover the platform with instruments and put on a performance for God, or that we should worship Him with words, from our hearts? (Dr. Peter Masters, Morning Teaching Service, 21 June 2009)

With the above rhetoric, Dr. Masters condemns everything from Handel's Messiah to Sovereign Grace Music as inherently "worldly." Dr. Masters gives a false identification of a multiplicity of instruments with worldliness, and a false dichotomy: should we worship God with many instruments, or should we "worship Him with words, from our hearts"? Many Christians would affirm, "both."

Elsewhere in his sermon, Dr. Masters asserts that only four instruments are biblically mandated in worshiping God [although he should say four types of instruments and it should be noted that none of the biblically-mentioned instruments are used at Metropolitan Tabernacle: they only use an organ in their Sunday service], and he asserts that the instruments used in worship in the Old Testament would be barely audible. Both of these assertions, as well as his identification of a multiplicity of instruments with worldliness, are contradicted by Scripture. In 1 Chronicles 25, David establishes 24 orders of musicians for the service of the temple; should the reader imagine that this number of musicians was barely audible? That many instruments were used in temple worship seems inescapable from an examination of Old Testament texts.

In this regard, Psalm 150, which mentions many different kinds of instruments, is also relevant. Later in the sermon quoted from above, Dr. Masters seeks to avoid the relevance of this text (he charges those who think Psalm 150 relevant to this matter as being biblically ignorant), but the way that he seeks to avoid Psalm 150 is quite unacceptable- leading him to posit contradictions in the Scripture that aren't there and to take up an allegorical mode of interpretation- as will be seen in subsequent posts.