You be the judge: Contradictory presentations concerning "The Man on the Island" by Dr. Nelson Price and Dr. Russell Moore

Recently Dr. Nelson Price spoke at First Baptist Church Woodstock, Georgia on the subject of those who never hear the Gospel, specifically those who live in countries with no access to the Gospel message. For some time now, I have had an article concerning the same subject by Dr. Russell Moore, Dean of the School of Theology at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, on the sidebar of my blog.

As I listened to Dr. Price's presentation, it occurred to me that there were at least a couple of specific points in which what he said was directly contradictory to what Dean Moore has written. For example, Dr. Price asserts that people are not judged by God on the basis of their sins, but only on the basis of whether or not they have accepted Jesus, whereas Dean Moore asserts, "The sinner will be judged at the holy tribunal of God, not based merely on the absence of faith, but based on the “deeds done in the body” (2 Cor. 5:10), namely his own refusal to abide by the law etched inextricably on his heart." Dr. Price asserts that unevangelized people sometimes "send up affirmative signals" to God that they want to know Him, which signals God must respond to as a matter of obligation, whereas Dean Moore asserts, "The man on the island, just like all sinners, does not want there to be a God to whom he will be held accountable. And so he “suppresses the truth in unrighteousness” (Rom 1:18 NASB), convincing himself all along that “there is no God” (Ps 53:1)."


When we hear contradictory presentations such as these, we can be certain that at least one presentation is not biblical. So I encourage anyone reading this blog to listen to Dr. Price's presentation and to read Dr. Moore's article and judge for yourself: Which of these is a more careful treatment of the biblical text, and which of these seems to be dependent on extra-biblical philosophy?
[Please do NOT comment on this post unless you take the time to both listen to Dr. Price's presentation and read Dr. Moore's article.]

The immediate contexts of the individual statements made by the early apologists concerning free will

[Please see the Introduction to the Early Church Apologists’ Teachings on 'Free-will' below for the context of this post.]

In regards to the immediate context of the writings of the Apologists concerning the freedom of the will, there must be an examination of the documents in which this issue is addressed. As an example of a statement from an Apologist regarding free will, consider the following assertion from Tertullian:

It was proper that he who is the image and likeness of God should be formed with a free will, and a mastery of himself, so that this very thing, namely freedom of will and self-command, might be reckoned as the image and likeness of God in him.

Looking more closely at our example above, it should be noted that when he wrote against the Marcionite heresy Tertullian was combating the erroneous ideas that the God of the Old Testament is a different being from the Father revealed in the New Testament and that all of the troubles in the world are basically due to the failings of the Old Testament God. Tertullian proclaimed that there is one God– the Creator who is also the Father of Jesus. God created everything good, and he also created Man with free will, that he might serve God or reject Him. Evil enters into God's all-good creation due to the free decision of Man to reject God.

It is crucial to note that Tertullian's statements concerning Man's free will were focused upon the created condition before the Fall into sin. That Man had free will before sin entered into human experience has been the nearly universal consensus of the Church throughout history. Any controversies over free will have historically been centered on the condition of Man’s will after the Fall. That Man’s will was originally created free to choose good or evil is easily deduced from the declaration of Genesis 1:31 that everything as created by God was good, and yet in Genesis 3, Man made an evil choice to sin against the Creator.

The activity Tertullian ascribed to Man's free will must also be noted. Did the author introduce the free will of Man to be glorified in choosing God? On the contrary, the idea of free will was given so that we may see that it is Man the creature, and not God the Creator, who is to blame for the sin in the world. As Tertullian concluded:

[T]he goodness of God, then fully considered from the beginning of His works, will be enough to convince us that nothing evil could possibly have come forth from God; and the liberty of man will, after a second thought, show us that it alone is chargeable with the fault which itself committed.

That God never commits evil acts and is not to be blamed for the evil in the world has also never historically been a major source of contention in any controversy over free will, although theologians who have asserted that Man’s will is limited after the Fall have always been accused of making God directly to blame for evil. That Scripture prevents us from blaming God for evil is evident from Bible passages such as the following, quoted from James:

When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death. Don't be deceived, my dear brothers. Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows. (James 1:13-17 NIV)

Likewise, the Apostle Paul prohibited any accusation against God’s character when he wrote:

One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?'" (Romans 9:19-20 NIV)

When other statements from the Apologists are considered in regards to free will, material similar to that found in the above quotes from Tertullian is present in the immediate context. And it is an examination of this similar material surrounding statements concerning free will from the various Apologists that prompts consideration of the larger historical context of these writings, which consideration will be the focus of my next post on this subject.

Thankful for knowing the King (and, even more, that He knows me).

[I didn't get the chance to blog yesterday, but I didn't want to let the opportunity to express thankfulness completely pass me by.]

As my wife and I don't have TV for anything except movies (that is, we don't have cable and we keep our antenna unplugged most of the time), I find myself listening to a lot of broadcasts, podcasts, and webcasts over the Internet. One of my very favorite things to listen to is The Way of the Master Radio. Now, listening to a talk radio show like this on a consistent basis gives a person a certain sense that they know the host personally. And I know that this phenomenon can occur with other encounters through mass media as well. That is, sports fans who see their favorite player every day on ESPN can get to feel that they know him, or people who read US or People magazine can begin to talk as if they know some of the Hollywood stars that they see on TV. But it is sad to realize that knowledge of such personalities is merely an illusion. That is, I may feel that I know Todd Friel (the host of The Way of the Master Radio) I may even get the chance to briefly shake his hand or something at the Way of the Master Transformed conference I'm going to on December 2, but I don't really know him, and he certainly doesn't know me. In other words, the feeling of friendship sometimes given through mass media is nothing more than an illusion.

As I was thinking about this the other day, I was suddenly made aware of a great privilege we have as Christians. Every day Christians all over the world read their Bibles and (if we are reading with the right attitude) by this experience we come to feel as if we know God. But in this case, by faith, we know that this feeling is not an illusion, but a reality. And the more impressive reality is that as much as we feel we know God, He knows us infinitely better. Realization that God knows us completely should bring about a certain feeling of fear as we realize His holy hatred for sin and the fact that we so often go against His will for us, but when we come to know that Christ has paid for our sins through His death on the Cross and that He has risen from the dead to be our advocate before God, then God's loving knowledge of us becomes a great comfort.

So, in conclusion, I encourage anyone reading this to lay aside false feelings of knowing any celebrity or media personality and instead make sure that through faith in Christ You know the ultimate Personalty- the King of Kings- God Himself. Then, through knowing God, you may be truly thankful.

Introduction to the Early Church Apologists’ Teachings on 'Free-will'

[As I promised (or threatened, depending on how interesting or boring readers find these posts) in a previous post, I will be posting a few articles on the Early Church Apologists' teachings on 'free-will.']

The group of theologians commonly referred to as the Early Church Fathers, from just a few generations after the apostles until the time of Aurelius Augustine, taught a position concerning humankind that included the belief that Man has free will– the ability to choose between good and evil. This is particularly evident in the writings of the Apologists– those Church Fathers especially noted for defending the Christian faith from other religions and heresies– of whom Church historian J.N.D. Kelly observed, “they are unanimous that man is endowed with free-will” (J.N.D. Kelly. Early Christian Doctrines. New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1958. 166). But (at least) three questions must be considered in regard to the Apologists’ teaching on the freedom of the will: 1. What were the immediate contexts of the individual statements made concerning free will? 2. What were the specific errors the Apologists were trying to correct with their statements concerning free will? 3. What extra-biblical influences were displayed in the Apologists’ statements concerning free will? In my next few posts, I will seek to give a brief examination into the answers to each of these questions in turn, and I will briefly outline what I believe to be a biblical response to each of the answers discovered.

Hebrews 1:5 as Fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant

Recently, the guys at Fide-O have posted a very helpful brief outline of the development of the Davidic Covenant throughout the Bible.

I would highly recommend that anyone reading this post who happened to read my recent thoughts concerning Hebrews 1:5a/Psalm 2:7 also study the Fide-O post linked above. As Scripture’s main purpose is soteriological- that is, through Scripture alone sinners have a right knowledge of God and our means of a right relationship with Him- and as God has established the covenants, which are all fulfilled in Christ, as the way for sinners to be restored to blessed fellowship with Him- it is absolutely crucial that verses such as Hebrews 1:5a/Psalm 2:7 be understood in their covenantal context. I would like to especially direct readers' attention to the place of Hebrews 1:5 in Fide-O's outline of the Davidic Covenant, which is under point 11, "The Davidic Covenant Fulfilled."

As an additional note: It has recently come to my attention that at least one blogger has grossly misunderstood my previously-posted thoughts concerning Hebrews 1:5a/Psalm 2:7. This may very well be due to a lack of clarity on my part, and if so I apologize. The blogger just mentioned wrote the following in response to my post:

[N]either the incarnation nor the resurrection constitutes the Sonship of Christ, but are simply manifestations of His Eternal Sonship.

A. H. Strong more appropriately expresses the essence of Psalms 2:7, which is the view most frequently found in orthodox theologians and commentators. Strong's work on systematic theology has an impressive presentation of the doctrine of the Trinity (Vol. I, part iv, chapter 2). On pages 340-343, he expounds the doctrine of the eternal Sonship of Christ. In this section, Strong says --

>>
That the Sonship of Christ is eternal, is intimated in Psalm 2:7. "This day have I begotten thee" is most naturally interpreted as the declaration of an eternal fact in the divine nature. Neither the incarnation, the baptism, the transfiguration, nor the resurrection marks the beginning of Christ's Sonship, or constitutes him Son of God. These are but recognitions or manifestations of a pre-existing Sonship, inseparable from his Godhood.
>>

Therefore, Psalms 2:7 can be said to be "related" to both the incarnation and the resurrection only in the sense of their being "declarations," "recognitions," or "manifestations" of the "pre-existing Sonship."

I would like to say that, on the whole, I agree with everything in the quote just given. It was never my intention to say that Lord became the Son of God with His resurrection or when He "sat down at the right hand of the majesty on high." My only point was to say that in its context the "manifestation" of Christ's "pre-existing Sonship" foretold in Psalm 2:7 and seen as fulfilled in Christ by passages such as Acts 13:33 and Hebrews 1:5 is, in these verses, specifically related to Christ's resurrection and enthronement at the right hand of God, rather than (again, within these specific contexts) His incarnation.

Just for the record, my views on the Trinity can be summarized by the following statement from Reformed Baptist apologist James White, author of The Forgotten Trinity, who once said, "Within the one being that is God, there exists eternally three co-equal and co-eternal Persons, namely, the Father the Son, and the Holy Spirit." A fuller statement of what I believe concerning the Trinity can be found in chapter 2 of the 1689 London Baptist Confession.

Reflections on Psalm 2 from the Clay-Pot blog

In my last post I mentioned I few reasons why I disagree with Pastor John MacArthur's understanding of Psalm 2:7, "I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to Me, 'You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.'" (NASB)

For a fuller treatment of how Psalm 2 should be understood, I would like to suggest anyone reading this check out the recent blogpost on this subject at Clay-Pot, the blog of Tim Brown, elder at Heritage Community Church in Gastonia, NC.

Pastor MacArthur on President Mohler's Radio Program: The Question on Incarnational Sonship

As I mentioned in my last post, Pastor John MacArthur of Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, CA preached last week at the chapel of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary on Reformation Day. On this same day (as I found out later), Pastor MacArthur was the guest on the radio program of Dr. R. Albert Mohler, president of SBTS.

During this program, Pastor MacArthur graciously took calls from listeners. One of these calls (starting at 31:29 in the program) concerned Pastor MacArthur's teaching on "incarnational sonship" as I mentioned at the end of my last post. Addressing this issue, Pastor MacArthur said the following:

Let me make it real simple. He is eternally God. Jesus Christ is and always will be the eternal God- a member of the Trinity. He is eternally One of Three. And I don't have any problem with calling Him the eternal Son therefore. But I do understand that there is a uniqueness to His incarnation in that the Scripture says, "This day have I begotten Thee." And that's related to His incarnation.

Now, I entirely agree with the above quote (as well as the rest of Pastor MacArthur's statements on this radio broadcast), except for the last two sentences of the quote.

But before I explain why I disagree with these sentences, I must mention that Pastor MacArthur, more than any other, is like a modern day John Calvin in terms of his careful exegesis of Scripture. Like Calvin, Pastor MacArthur has explained God's Word in such a way to provide spiritual nourishment for his congregation, truly engaging in pastoral ministry week after week, and like Calvin, MacArthur's pastoral ministry has yielded a set of commentaries on the Bible that have been beneficial to the Church as a whole. Pastor MacArthur truly deserves to be announced- as he was by President Mohler when he spoke at SBTS chapel last Thursday- as the expositor.

So, having said all that, to attempt to correct Pastor MacArthur's understanding of a verse of Scripture feels a bit like trying to show Lennox Lewis how he should throw a punch.

But, as they say, 'Biblical and Theological Studies students at Southern Seminary rush in where angels fear to tread.' So I'll go ahead and say that in this case I think Pastor MacArthur got it wrong.

The verse MacArthur mentioned was Hebrews 1:5 (the verse that, for him, started the original "incarnational sonship" controversy, as he points out in the article linked above), which is a quote from Psalm 2:7.

The question that must be answered about this verse is, "What day is 'Today'?" In other words, when the Scripture says, "TODAY I have begotten You," what day is in view. Now common sense informed by the basic story of Jesus would indicate that this refers to the incarnation. But common sense is no substitute for allowing Scripure to interpret Scripture. So, what day is Today according to the verses in the immediate context of "Today I have begotten You"?

When viewing these verses in context, these references to the Day that the Son is begotten do not seem to refer to the incarnation, but rather to the resurrection and the specifically the coronation (the time after His ascension when Jesus is crowned as the universal King, seated at the right hand of the Father).

1. In Acts 13:33, Psalm 2:7 is also quoted and it is clear that the day that the Son is begotten is related to the resurrection of Jesus, as is indicated by the immediate context, and even within this verse with the phrase, "raised up." Jesus is spoken of as being begotten "today" in terms of the resurrection in a similar way as He is referred to as the firstborn from the dead in Colossians 1:18.

2. We must remember that “begotten” can carry the sense of being “brought forth.” In this sense, Jesus was begotten as God's Son on the Day that He "sat down at the right hand of the majesty on high," for on this Day His glory was brought forth before all the heavenly hosts. Psalm 2:7 also uses the phrase “this Day I have begotten You” to refer to the coronation of the Son, as seen in the context of Psalm 2:6,

"But as for Me, I have installed My King Upon Zion, My holy mountain."

The coronation is also seen to be the Day in Hebrews 1:5, which flows from Hebrews 1:3b-4:

"When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than they."