My First Sermon in a Long Time

I had forgotten how much I enjoy preaching, how much I crave it. I'm definitely a pastor/teacher, and being able to preach today at our school chapel (I'm a teacher at Greenwood Christian Academy) was a wonderful privilege and blessing, as well as a responsibility. I recorded the message with my DVR/mp3 player device I have. The recording isn't the best quality, but if you listen closely, you can hear it. :)

If anyone is interested, you can get the file here. The sermon text was Philippians 2:12-13.

Some Down Time

In case anyone hasn't noticed (as I'm sure all of you out there who read this blog have), I haven't posted anything in a while. :) The reason is that school has started again, and since I'm a highschool teacher, I've been pretty busy getting my act together for the new semester.

That being the case, my blogging time will be pretty small for the next few weeks. I do hope to post some things from time to time, but they will be few and far between.

Just thought I'd offer an explanation. :)

SDG,
Dave

The Envoy Saga Concluded

To listen to this blog post, click here.

Well, it would appear that the envoy saga is over. Even after that last post I made, they refused to agree to the definition, arguing for another one because of their experience with it (at least one person did). That's not the whole story, but it is a lot of it, and I didn't want to continue there.

In any case, I also am trying something new here. Carla Rolfe had an EXCELLENT idea to record blog posts into mp3 format and give people the option of listening to them as well as reading them. I like many can read faster than I can listen, but it can be helpful in that some people don't, and that this way you can hear the inflections in my voice to understand some of my feelings as I write certain things. I plan to do this with the rest of my posts as well as all of the "Noteworthy Posts" I have over on the side, and anything else I link to over there to one of my posts.

I hope it proves useful to you!

Soli Deo Gloria!
David Hewitt

My Continued Posts over at Envoy

Over at Envoy Magazine (link in the previous post) there has been an ongoing discussion about the sufficiency of Scripture and it being the only infallible rule for faith and practice. In any case, the people over there were using an incorrect definition of the term Sola Scriptura (at least many of them) and because we weren't agreeing on a definition, the conversation wasn't going anywhere. With my post below, I think some of that changed.

________________________________________________________

Patti said:

Dear Shawn,
I do believe it might be wise to do a little honest examination of sola scriptura here, or at least your take on it. Does it really even exist? Do people really read only the Bible and take it alone as their rule of faith?
Did you take a Bible study course, whether formal or on your own? Did it contain material to help you understand the Bible, especially with difficult verses? Did it teach you that any and all tradition must be viewed with suspicion or rejected because it isn't the Bible?

Patti, you have underlined a major issue that is cutting the legs out from underneith this whole discussion. What you have described above is NOT what Sola Scriptura means! It's really not.

Do some people read only the Bible and nothing else and get the right answers and interpretations? Sure, some of them do, but this is not the meaning of the doctrine.

Have people such as myself (and Shawn I suspect) taken courses on the Bible, and read books to help us understand it better? Yes! Have I studied some Greek and read exegetical commentaries? YES! Have I studied grammar so that I can identify certain parts of speech and how words fit together so as better to capture the thoughts of the Scripture's writers? Absolutely!

Do I have my own traditions? You had better believe that I do!

However, any and all traditions that I may espouse and respect are to be submitted to Scripture, because Scripture, and only Scripture, is the infallible rule of faith. Confessions and traditions are only useful when they are based on the Scriptures in that they serve as a summary and explanation of what the Bible itself teaches. Where a confession or tradition fails to interpret the Bible correctly (in its textual, historical and cultural contexts according to the rules of grammar and language) then that tradition (at least at that point) must be rejected.

THAT is what Sola Scriptura means. THAT is why Protestants (such as Reformed Baptists like myself) and Roman Catholics have such a disagreement -- because of doctrines that the RC church holds like Papal Infallibility -- which flies in the face of the Scriptures being the sole infallible rule. The pope, being a man and not God, is capable of error (just like Paul and even Peter). Because of that, we must study intensely into the Scriptures, begging God to get our traditions and presuppositions out of the way when we come to the sacred text so that by His grace we can interpret it properly (of course not ignoring the fact that the Holy Spirit will work through knowledge of things like grammar and context).

If we cannot settle on this definition of Sola Scriptura then this discussion will go nowhere, because all people will be doing is attacking a doctrine and belief system that doesn't exist.

Statements like "James White doesn't believe in Sola Scriptura anyway" (at least I think that is how donnatoo put it) are unhelpful. Even if you don't think he's holding to the right definition of it, the one I provided in my last post, that is really irrelevant. The reason is this: it is the definition that he is using, and it is the definition that I am using. So then, that is what must be argued against. We say there are no other infallible rules. If you say there are (and I am 99.99% certain that you do) then that is our point of disagreement.

Agreeing on a definition is critical. As a Reformed (Calvinistic) Baptist, I have to fight against a lot of incorrect presuppositions that many people in my denomination have about what "Calvinists" believe. Many think, as a Calvinist, that I believe this or that which really isn't true, and isn't what it means to be a "Calvinist." I also recently worked to arrive at a common understanding about what someone thought was "free will" so that we could have a mutually agreed to definition to further the discussion. Without it, then we go no where. You will think that we are avoiding the issue, when it is not the issue we were trying to engage in the first place. :)

In any case, I hope this had clarified a few things.

For Jesus, My Lord and Savior,
David B. Hewitt

________________________________________________________

After that post, I think things finally started going the right direction, though I am unsure exactly. So, I responded to Patti again as well as a newcomer to the thread below.

________________________________________________________

Patti said:

Dear David,
So, too, is our Sacred Tradition measured, and it is also used to protect Scripture. That was how we established the New Testament canon used by Christians. I'm glad we have some common ground. Thank you for clearing up things.

Ah, but here lies the difference. I would say that any and every tradition must be measured by Scripture by the means I mentioned above. This included the so-called Sacred Tradition of the RCC. Jesus rebuked the Pharisees quite soundly when they allowed their traditions (which they considered sacred and authoritative) get in the way of the requirements of Scripture. So then, that is what protestants seek to do... at least, that is what they ought to be doing, though I'll readily admit most do not, which is why we have a lot of the problems we have in our churches, which I'll explain briefly below.

Just_Robbi said:

To me, the crux of the matter is that Sola Scriptura gives each reader to come to his own understanding of Scripture. Theres no need for bible classes - the Holy Spirit will guide you. If you go to bible classes the teacher then becomes your authority? No?

No. A lot of people think that, but it is not true, at least not all of it. For sure the Holy Spirit guides in interpretation; without the Spirit's guidance then we'll never get the full thrust of the Scripture and it will not impact us as it should.

That being said, the Holy Spirit, when He inspired the writers of Scripture to write, they did just that -- write. They used language. Therefore, the Holy Spirit communicates in Scripture through the language that the original writers used to write. This is why we must understand the rules of language in order to interpret it properly! We need to understand context and grammar, vocabulary and historical setting so that we can grasp the way that the original writers of the Holy Scriptures were used by the Spirit to write.

This is why we need Bible classes. The professor doesn't become the authority in those cases; rather, the authority is still the Scripture. This is true because the professor is going to communicate to us the things needed to understand the Scriptures properly, how to escape presuppositions and use grammar, context, etc.

Just_Robbi also said:

How do you know the teacher is instructing you correctly in those bible classes. Many protestant churches have differing doctrines, no?

If the teacher is training you how to use language/grammar and context properly, then he is doing a good job. Once we have those tools in our hands and are fully submitted to the Holy Spirit, we can be confident we are arriving at the correct interpretation of a passage. Of course, if we do NOT know the language as well as we ought (as most of us do not) then it would help us to seek out a person who knows more than we. Then, when that person gives an interpretation, question them as to how they have arrived at it. If that interpretation squares with the context (the MOST important interpretive principle, and arguably the one you can learn with the least amount of schooling), then it should be accepted.

Many protestant churches do have different doctrines, yes. The reason for this is threefold:

1. Failure to distance oneself from traditions and presuppositions before interpretation. When we come to the Scriptures we must beg the Holy Spirit to speak from His Word and that we would not do violence to the text as we interpret it. Traditions (ALL of them) must be subimitted to the rigorous scrutinization of the Scriptures.
2. Failure to user proper hermeneutical (interpretive) methods. This is first and foremost the context, but also includes other nuances of language (vocab/grammar/culture).
3. Sin. If we are unrepentant of our sin and are in rebellion against God, then even IF we arrive at a correct interpretation, we won't care. We'll reject it and then maintain our erroneous lifestyle and convictions.

One or more of these is always present when interpretations do not agree.

I hope this has been helpful!

SDG,
David Benjamin Hewitt

A Response to Some Roman Heresy

Ok, this is going to be a bit of an unusual post.

Recently, I have been reading some information over at www.envoymagazine.com in one of their forums, located here. They are a Roman Catholic apologetics organization (headed by Patrick Madrid I think) and the discussion has been pretty heated lately, with Dr. James White being mentioned in a particularly negative sense. By the way, anyone who thinks that the differences between Protestants and Roman Catholics have been resolved is out of touch with reality. :) The Roman church is just as rejecting of sound, biblical doctrine as ever it would seem, especially denying the five solas that I have printed on this blog over to the right.

In any case, there are several people over there who simply misunderstand important doctrines, and they are being good Roman Catholics it would seem and appealing to the authority of the Roman church for their interpretations rather than the exegesis of Scripture. I'll be posting several names in this article too, names you likely won't be familiar with, but they are just the usernames of people over at the forum, and I'm simply attributing to them the very words that they typed. Their usernames will be placed in bold when I come across them.

Dr. White has responded extensively over at his blog, here, and here (with another forthcoming), but I wanted to write something myself that I could put directly into the forum. They don't seem to like him very much (hmmm, maybe because he has successfully used Scripture against them?), and I figured perhaps they would read my post if I were to do something more than provide a link or a bunch of quotes. So, with that in mind, here I go. :) The text of this post will also be posted on the forum I linked to here, from this point forward.

____________________________________________________

Jerry-Jet said:

2 Timothy 3:16-17 is the LAMEST overused text that proves ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about sola scriptura.

Really? Well, nice of you to say so. :) However, in saying that, you have failed to provide a proper exegesis of the text at hand. Now, I know that you have made your opinions on words like "exegesis" known:

Notice folks--all you have to do is quote from the Bible and Jesus' own words and it strikes Satan so hard that he tries to trot out all the big time LIARS with MORE lies and even tries to dress them up as being THEOLOGIANS or EXEGETES or use big words and say that the plain words of Jesus and the Bible mean things OPPOOSITE (sic) of what they say.

Art Sippo has had no problem expressing himself on the matter too, referring to it as paganistic and eisegetical, I believe (I think he was referring to Dr. White's work at that point, but the issue remains). However, there is one thing that any rational person must agree to when interpreting ANY text, and that is the issue of CONTEXT.

It is simply not possible to understand anything spoken or written completely (or sometimes at all!) without it being in its proper context. The words, phrases, sentences, paragraphs, chapters, etc. (which I discuss in much more detail here) around it give it its meaning in the broader discussion. If we fail to do that, then we miss it (that is, the meaning).

I prefaced this particular post with a large introduction (the one that ended up at my blog). If I had not, those who were not readers of this thread on envoy would have had no idea why I was writing this to begin with if they were to drop by my blog. However, since I set it in its context, then it makes a lot more sense as to what was on my mind.

In the same way, the Bible has to be taken that way. Before I address 2 Timothy, I'd like to mention what is REALLY meant by Sola Scriptura in a nutshell. We (including James White) do NOT mean by it that we do not use any other confession or "tradition" at all for anything. Rather, it is the only infallible rule, the rule against which everything else must be tested. Dr. White explains it well:

Sola scriptura teaches that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church. The doctrine does not say that there are not other, fallible, rules of faith, or even traditions, that we can refer to and even embrace. It does say, however, that the only infallible rule of faith is Scripture. This means that all other rules, whether we call them traditions, confessions of faith, creeds, or anything else, are by nature inferior to and subject to correction by, the Scriptures. The Bible is an ultimate authority, allowing no equal, nor superior, in tradition or church. It is so because it is theopneustos, God-breathed, and hence embodies the very speaking of God, and must, of necessity therefore be of the highest authority. So as you can see, your definition does not correspond well to the actual doctrine.
From his website, specifically http://www.aomin.org/SS.html

So then, when donnatoo said:

I’m not sure why any of us would care what James White has to say on this subject. However, since you are here and I’m betting so are many of James’ fans, doing a bit of lurking. Is this being chatted about in #prosapologian? I thought that I’d point out that James doesn’t believe in sola scriptura either.

I was naturally confused. I thought she had her definition out of order, or that we were using different definitions and/or she was mistaken, and I said as much. She then said:

No I’m not mistaken. James believes in scripture as he interprets it.

I didn't really know what to say after that, but I still maintain, based on the definition above, that we are using different ones. :) James White has defined Sola Scriptura in the quote above. I concur with his definition (not because he's James White, but because that is the historical meaning of the doctrine and it is what I believe). Also, I have disagreed with Dr. White in the past, and will do so from time to time I am sure -- it's just not that frequent. :)

Now, with the definition of Sola Scriptura firmly in our grasp, let's go on to the text that Jerry-Jet raised in his first part of his post. All quotations will be from the ESV version of the Holy Bible.

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, (17) that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work. 2 Timothy 4:1 I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: (2) preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching.

Now, with the text of Scripture before us, we can begin to go forward. :) You'll notice that I included two extra verses, and the reason for that will become very clear in a bit.

First of all, the Apostle Paul indicates that the Scriptures are "breathed out by God" (verse 16). Then, he indicates that they are useful for several things, and then gives the purpose in verse 17 why the Scriptures are useful for these things -- "that (hina) the man of God may be competent (complete, perfect), equipped for every good work." When a clause is introduced with the word "hina" it is often a purpose statement, which it is here. Furthermore, when the subjunctive is used in conjunction (grin) with a hina clause, what is communicated is that this thing will indeed happen. It isn't meant to introduce the idea of uncertainty; it is merely the stylistic way Paul was writing (which occurs throughout the New Testament I might add). It is like me saying, "I turned on my computer in order that I might post a message to the forum." If I were to say, "I turned on the computer in order to post a message to the forum," I would be saying the same thing. There isn't an introduction of doubt here; there is the stated PURPOSE as to why I turned the computer on.

That is the idea that Paul is communicating here in verse 17.

Furthermore, the emphasis of this purpose is critical. Paul says (as I have emphasized above) that the Scriptures are profitable (useful), so that the man of God would be equipped for EVERY good work. This is not just some good works; this is every good work in the sight of God.

If the Bible is able to to equip us for every good work, then there is something important to put forward here -- it is infallible, or inerrant, as Jerry-Jet himself has said. Furthermore, it is then sufficient for every good work as well. Paul puts the statements in apposition to each other in verse 17:
** "so that the man of God may be"

• "competent" (complete, perfect - Greek, artios)
• "equipped for every good work."

Since the Scriptures make the man of God competent, then there is no need for anything else -- he is complete with what he has, which is further emphasized by Paul when he says they equip for EVERY good work.

This again is not to say that other "traditions" and "confessions" cannot exist (I personally like the 1689 LBCF). However, since these confessions are not the Scriptures, coupled with the fact that the canon is closed, all traditions/confessions/whatever must be scrutinized by the Scriptures to see if they are valid, and NEVER the other way around.

In the beginning two verses of the next chapter, Paul's exhortation to "preach the word" removes any speculation as to what he means about what is sufficient. The reason for that is that in 4:2 he gives verb forms of many of the same words he used in 3:16. So then, when the Apostle said "preach the word" he was saying "preach the Scriptures." And why does he say to preach the Scriptures? Because they are "God-breathed," and the result of which is "that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work." There is no room in this passage for an interpretation leading to Magesterium or Tradition, and according to this passage, nothing else would be needed anyway (not ignoring my comments about confessions of course).

Anyway, on to more comments by Jerry-Jet:

What happened until all the scriptures were written--was there NO authority? What kind of sense does that make? At EXACTLY what point did God say to the world--this right here is the exact scripture and it is all you need--have a nice day?!

Well, no, of course not. :) However, God has spoken differently in different times, as the Scriptures themselves tell us. Furthermore, some of the writings (jumping ahead to the New Testament) were available pretty quickly (such as some of Paul's writings), and of course they were a rule of faith. I'm confident that the Holy Spirit worked in such a way through those writings (and the others once they were written and assembled) which truly were inspired that His people were encouraged by them, even before there was an official canon. Nowadays, we are better off than they, simply because we have the entire canon before us.

Besides, the question doesn't really apply to our current situation very much, since all of us agree that we have the canon and that it is closed. So, at whatever point it happened is not as important as the fact that it has happened, and we have the Bible.

Jerry-Jet also said:

2 John 1:7 'For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.'

Mr. White and all the other Protestants in the world who reject that Jesus IS come in the FLESH in the Eucharist are simply ANTICHRIST--not because I say so but because God's INERRANT word says so!

You either believe Jesus IS come in the flesh or you don't--and for all you protestants who have Bibles that have been changed in wording because Satan wants the scriptures to lie read the King James Version--it uses IS COME in the flesh just like the Douay Rheims.

The only way that Jesus IS COME in the flesh in the PRESENT tense when 2 John 1:9 was written would be IN THE EUCHARIST! I really believe that once a Protestant has been taught the Catholic faith and continues to reject it that at that point they should be treated like a publican or a sinner because they don't accept the teachings of the disciples and if they don't accept the teachings of the disicples then they don't accept Christ because that's what Jesus SAID!

First of all, the King James Version, while it is a good translation, is not the best. It was written in 1611 (or at least put out then), so the translators didn't have the luxury of more modern discoveries (including more [and better] Greek Texts than the Textus Receptus and also the Dead Sea Scrolls from the Qumran community). All that said, what you wrote fails to take the context in which John was writing into account.

His whole point in making the statement had nothing to do with the Eucharist/Lord's Supper/Communion. Nothing at all. What John was doing was refuting a group of gnostics (called the docetists I believe)[1]. These people were denying a critical doctrine and reality -- that Jesus actually came in the flesh, the very thing John teaches in the Gospel account that bears his name.

Furthermore, using the author's own context, and understanding that he used the same phrase (though with a different tense) in 1 John, also addressing the heresy of the gnostics:

1 John 4:2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, (3) and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already.

Here we have "has come in the flesh," and the ESV renders 2 John 7 as "those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh." Both of these statements are consistent with John's theme in this epistle: the refutation of the gnostic heresy. To say otherwise is to divorce these texts from their contexts and arrive at erroneous interpretations.

I'll deal with one more quote from Jerry.

Jerry-Jet then said:

Read john chapter 6 if you are Protestant and then TRY to tell anyone that you don't believe the words of Jesus! Tell me that Protestants aren't like all those disciples of Jesus that fell away from him because He has given them "a hard teaching". Will you also go away to grape juice and crackers like they did in John 6:66 and reject the very FLESH and BLOOD that Jesus redeemed you with and also COMMANDED you to Eat?

Oh, I very, VERY much believe the words of my Lord and Savior in those verses. The problem is that Jesus isn't talking about the mass or the Eucharist at all. I am certain of this. How, you might ask? Context. Let's look at a few verses from that chapter (any emphasis added is mine):

John 6:32 Jesus then said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. (33) For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world." (34) They said to him, "Sir, give us this bread always." (35) Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. (36) But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe.
John 6:47 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. (48) I am the bread of life. (49) Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. (50) This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. (51) I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh."

Can you not see it? Jesus parallels believing with eating! He is using a metaphor, and a powerful one at that. He said that God gave the bread -- Himself, and that those who eat of it (believe in Him) will have eternal life (live forever). The context tells us exactly what Jesus was saying!

Besides, we can't say that every example Jesus gives ought to be taken literally. If we do, then we'll have a Jesus that has hinges, boards, maybe even a lock! Jesus often used metaphors to make a point, and the point here in John six is that we must believe in Him to have eternal life. Verse thirty six helps that as well, given that he was saying these things and people were still not believing in Him.

Context my friends, context. THAT is the means by which to understand ANY text, and since the Scriptures are inerrant, we can know that the writers assembled the context perfectly (unlike some of our [as humans] mindless ramblings).

May Jesus Be Glorified!
David Benjamin Hewitt

___________________________________________________

1. I got that information from one of Dr. White's blog posts, located here. Furthermore, if you read something here that looks similar to something there, then it is most likely because I consulted his posts strongly as sources.

Working on Another Long Post

Due to some recent discussions I've been having and monitoring over at a Roman Catholic discussion forum, I'm working on a lengthy, Scriptural response to much of what was said over there.

Expect it within the next couple of days, assuming I get my other work done. :)

On another note, Carla Rolfe has posted a great article on women in ministry over at her blog, and you can find it here. Some of my friends were curious about the role of women and headship in blogs and comments, and I think she and her first commenter answer the issue pretty well.

Soli Deo Gloria!
DBH

Phil Johnson on the "Emergent Conversation"

After the things I've seen over the last couple of days, seeing Phil Johnson's post about the emergent church stuff over at TeamPyro was refreshing. It was clear that the man didn't have a personal axe to grind in his brief review, and he pointed out some good things about Driscoll's differences with the predominant emergent culture.

In any case, it isn't very long, and is worth your read!

SDG,
DBH

**** UPDATE **** 10:30pm 8/5/2006

Phil Johnson updated his article at noon today (after I linked to it). It has much more information than before. So much for it not being long. :)

A Confession

I do hope this is the last time I refer to my post on Erwin McManus. As I have been thinking about it and talking about it with Andrew and Patrick a bit over the last few days, I have come to three conclusions, and they are as follows (with elaboration):

1.) There wasn't anything wrong with the facts that I stated -- that is, WHAT I said. Even though I surely could have had more information about McManus, that wasn't my goal. I reviewed a short interview, and I interacted with the statements he made within that interview. It was not meant as a comprehensive analysis of the man's ministry. Yes, I said in the article that it seemed that he has his priorities out of order with regard to doctrine, but it doesn't necessarily follow that his actual doctrines are in error from that. If I am wrong in my analysis of his attitude toward doctrine, I'd love to be shown to be in error. So far, that hasn't happened.

2.) It appears that I used a proper format in the critiqure -- that is, HOW I said it. I made much effort to be gentle, and even lauded Erwin in a few areas that were revealed in that interview that I thought were excellent. There were some criticisms, but I do feel that the way I handled it was in line with the Scriptures. Again, if someone can show me from the Scriptures how I've erred here, I'll repent publically.

3.)I wrote the review, in part, because of Patrick our youth minister, giving a book by Erwin to our students -- the reason WHY I did it. Here is where I made a BIG MISTAKE, and I want to repent of that publicly since the error was commited publicly. Patrick didn't say I had to do this; he was content to receive my repentance in private, but I wanted to bring this to the forefront.

When I wrote the post, I had received a link from a friend in #prosapologian with the information I reviewed. So then, I went to work reading through the article, and saw some things that were objectionable and decided I finally had something I could write about. My motivation was to raise a red flag, so that people who read this blog (some of our youth included) would see that and have some discernment when reading the books Patrick was giving out.

In the process, unwittingly (I know, total doofus that I was) I was in effect saying that Patrick had no discernment, and that he couldn't be trusted.

Patrick is the youth pastor at our church. Therefore, he is one of the elders of our church (though we don't call them that or give them the proper authority they should have). Furthermore, I am under his authority both as a member under an elder and the fact that I teach a youth Sunday School class. Beyond that, I asked him a while back to review content on my blog and hold me accountable to it, so that this blog would be a ministry of our church and thus under the authority of it (which I thought was appropriate). And here I am saying that he didn't know what he was talking about and was haphazardly recommending things for our students to read.

There is but one way to describe what I did in that regard -- I was wrong. I sinned; it is really that simple. God has placed him over the youth ministry, not me, and therefore I was out of line. I realize that now.

Anyway, there you have it. I do now hope the discussion of the post will end for all parties involved. :)

A Worm Redeemed by Christ,
David Benjamin Hewitt

A LONG Review of "Blue Like Jazz" by Donald Miller

Ah, Blue Like Jazz. This book has been very popular in discussions recently, partly because I think of its widespread impact on people of my generation. The moment I saw it I had reservations about it, some sort of an uncomfortable feeling you get when you are uneasy about something but don't really know why. Knowing, however, that I cannot trust my feelings, and that I didn't have a copy of the book at the time, I began to scour the internet in search of reviews of the book from people I could trust.

Another problem arose very quickly. I found about as many good reviews as I found bad. Some I found gave strong recommendations for the book, and others were positive though not quite as universal in their affirmations. Both of the people who reviewed this book in this light are people I love and respect very much.

On the other end of the spectrum, I went around the net and found this review by Tim Challies which left me with a cautious and somewhat negative impression. Furthermore, I dropped into 9marks, and read this review by a member of their staff. I referred a friend of mine to it, and his response was very negative toward the review, and in some way I can see why I think. He indicated that the reviewer over at 9marks got it wrong, not being true to what Miller was actually saying. Miller never intended to write a theology was the gist of his argument, I think (If he reads this and I'm wrong, please correct me; I couldn't find the quote).

I'll agree that Miller's intent wasn't to write some kind of Systematic Theology or something. In fact, the very subtitle of his book, "Non-religious thoughts on Christianity," conveys that entire idea. However, the reviewer over at 9marks made a point of identifying several theological implications in Millers book (though he didn't provide any quotes). Why did he do this?

I think that he did it because it was appropriate. The reason I say so is that no matter what we are saying our intentions are, when we begin to discuss the Christian life and God in any aspect, we are doing theology. When we express what we believe, even when we are telling it as part of our story (whatever it might be), we are explaining God as best as we understand Him. That being the case, Miller's theology *IS present in this book, though it is often embedded in his personal reflections and accounts of particular events.

So then, I read this book and decided to write a review of it -- a lengthy one at that. The other reviews I've read on it, both positive and negative, didn't analyze his statements directly (with a couple of exceptions). Most of the time, sweeping statements were made, summarizing what Miller had said, but didn't provide interaction with his statements on a point by point basis.

That last statement is my intention here. I must admit, I did find many things in this book that were good; however, I also found many that were not, and I think the latter outweighed the former.

I will go through the book chapter by chapter, making page references in each quote I identify. I won't do each chapter or review all of the items I made (thought this my original intent), simply it because it will take too long. I do hope that I will be able to provide a fairly accurate overview of much of the content from the chapters I do review.

With every citation I make, I will scrutinize each quote against the teaching of the Bible, often providing scripture passages and corresponding exgesis for each. This is likely be the longest post I've ever done, but I think it is necessary. Despite the good in the book, to give it a sweeping thumbs' up is, I believe, irresponsible, and I think that will come out clearly. So then, let's begin.

Chapter One -- Beginnings
My first note comes from Miller's retelling of an incident in his childhood relating to him not turning in homework:

"Where is your homework?" my teacher would ask.
"I lost it."
"You lost it yesterday. You lost it last week."
"I am terrible about losing things. I need to learn." (Always be self-deprecating.)
"What am I going to do with you, Donald?"
"I am grateful for your patience." (Always be grateful.)
"I should call your mother."
"She's deaf. Boating accident. Piranha." (Always be dramatic. Use hand gestures.)
page 5

This quote has absolutely no theological significance. :) It was merely amusing, and the truth is, we all need to laugh a little.

Chapter Two -- Problems

I believe the greatest truck of the devil is not to get us into some sort of evil but rather have us wasting time. This is why the devil tries so hard to get Christians to be religious. If he can sink a man's mind into habit, he will prevent his heart from engaging God. I was into habit. I grew up going to church, so I got used to hearing about God.
page 13

There is some good information in this quote. Simply going through the motions in some religious exercise is not true Christ-likeness. This quote can serve as a warning against such things.

"What you are really saying is that we have a sin nature, like the fundamentalist Christians say."
Tony took the pipe from his lips. "Pretty much, Don. It just explains a lot, you know."
"Actually," I told him reluctantly, "I have always agreed with the idea that we have a sin nature. I don't think it looks exactly like the fundamentalists say it does, 'cause I know so many people who do great things, but I do buy the idea that we are flawed, there there is something in us that is broken. I think it is easier to do bad things than good things. And there is something in that basic fact, some little clue to the meaning of the universe."
Page 17

I had a problem with this statement, and a big one. He says that we have a sin nature, but not like the "fundamentalists" say we do. Well, he didn't explain what that meant completely, but he did elude to it with his statement that he thinks that a lot of people do great things.
The problem here is the difference in man's way of looking at the "good" things people do over and against the way God sees it. The truth is, we are all sinners, rightly under the judgment of God because of Adam's sin. Not only that, how can he maintain the view he has in light of Scriptures that clearly indicate that NO ONE does good, such as this one, and that without faith we CANNOT please God? The Bible makes these things clear, and I've written about this on this blog before. There are serious implications from what Miller said here, and they are not good. On the other hand, this next quote was very good:

The genius of the American system is not freedom; the genius of the American system is checks and balances. Nobody gets all the power. Everybody is watching everybody else. It is as if the founding fathers knew, intrinsically, that the soul of man, unwatched, is perverse.
Page 18

Indeed, the founding fathers did know this. Many of them were Christians, with many of them coming from a biblical, Reformed perspective on man's nature, and that is a large reason why we do have our checks and balances. They saw how a system of government without such balances ended up in England, and didn't want it here.

I felt so far from me upbringing, from my narrow former self, the me who was taught the Republicans give a crap about the cause of Christ. I felt a long way from the pre-me, the pawn-Christian who was a Republican because my family was a Republican, not because I had prayed and asked God to elighten me about issues concerning the entire world rather than just America.
Page 19

...issues like what? Issues like bringing the Gospel to the nations so that they may know and worship the One True God, glorifying Jesus? Of course, this isn't the goal of either political party (sadly). However, I don't think this what Miller is referring to.

Given what else Miller talks about in this book, it would seem that he is meaning helping out the poor and taking care of the downtrodden. Apparently, the Republican party doesn't do this to his satisfaction. Of course, the Republicans and Democrats both are not perfect in this arena or any for that matter, but to make such a harsh statement and suggest that the Republicans don't care at all is unwarranted and not true. Are there some Republicans that don't? Well, probably, but I would contend that the party as a whole does not conform to Miller's negative portrayal (as I would contend that for the Democrats too). Miller over-generalizes here, and does so in a crass manner; not good.

With that said, it is good that he realized he needs to consult God in prayer for the right view of matters rather than just be a certain way because of the kind of family he was born into.


Chapter Three -- Magic

This quote bothered me a lot:

I associated much of Chrisitan doctrine with children's stories because I grew up in church. My Sunday school teachers had turned Bible narrative into children's fables. They talked about Noah and the ark because the story had animals in it. They failed to mention that thius was when God massacred all of humanity.
Page 30

Ok, granted his teachers could have done a better job explaining the narratives of the Bible, but what on earth is he trying to say with the term "massacred"? The modern definition of the word would suggest that Miller was saying that he thought God was being cruel or that He had committed an atrocity! That is pretty much tantamount to saying that God wasn't just in doing what he did. Of course, this might fits Miller's understanding of our sin nature that I referenced in a quote above. If this is not Miller's meaning here, he sure wasn't very careful to communicate the opposite. At the very least, and I say this out of concern for him and his readers, he was careless with his words.

Chapter Four -- Shifts

"Racism, not an issue?!" she questioned very sternly.
"Well, not that it's not an issue, only that it is a minor issue."
"How can you say that?" She sat back restlessly in her chair. "Don, it is an enormous problem."
I was doing a lot of backpedaling at first, but then I began to explain what I meant. "Yeah, I understand it is a terrible and painful problem, but in light of the whole picture, racism is a signal of something greater. There is a larger problem here than tension between ethnic groups."
"Unpack that statement," Laura said.
"I'm talking about self-absorption. If you think about it, the human race is pretty self-absorbed. Racism might be the symptom of a greater disease. What I mean is, as a human, I am flawed in that it is difficult for me to consider others before myself. It feels like I have to fight against this force, this current within me that, more often than not, wants to avoid serious issues and please myself, buy things for myself, feed myself, entertain myself, and all of that. All I'm saying is that if we, as a species, could fix our self-absoprtion, we could end a lot of pain in the world."
Pages 40-41

This was a very good statement. Our problem is definitely greater than any one sin, and the problem comes back to the major issue -- we are looking out for ourselves, and want to do things for ourselves, and apart from Christ, that is ultimately our goal. Without faith, we cannot please God, and we don't do anything for His glory apart from it. It takes an act of God to change that about us too; we as a species cannot change it. However, God, through His Gospel, does change people.

Next, he is recounting a story a friend of his told him, and I think it was part of her testimony. Anyway, part of it was very insightful as to how her friend, Nadine, talked about God:

"Nadine and I would sit for hours in her room," she began. "Mostly we would talk about boys or school, but always by the end of it, we talked about God. The think I loved about Nadine was that I never felt like she was selling anything. She would talk about God as if she knew Him, as if she had talked to Him on the phone that day. She was never ashamed, which is the thing with some Christians I had encountered. They felt like they had to seel God, as if He were soap or a vacuum cleaner, and it's like they really weren't listening to me; they didn't care, they just wanted me to buy their product."
Page 46

I found that VERY good and very insightful. Do we, when we share the Gospel, reduce God to a product? Do we have to force ourselves to do it?

I understand that at times, everyone has periods of dryness. I've been going through one lately, and I continue to pray and repent of my sins and attitudes in it. God is gracious and loving to me in the midst of it as well; He's never left me, and I am comforted greatly by that.

That said, however, it shouldn't be the general rule. We should desire to share Jesus because of His infinite worth out an an experience of some of that worth. have we experienced this awesome, holy, righteous, powerful God or not? Do our words we share with others, and the truths from Scripture we declare say the same thing as our lives? Oh, that we would know Jesus so well that we about couldn't help but talk about Him! Oh, that the discipline of evangelism would be just getting ourselves around lost people to talk to them rather than having to beat ourselves up all of the time just to convince ourselves we should be sharing Jesus.

Chapter Five -- Faith

"I don't either really," I told her. "But I believe in God, Laura. Theer is something inside of me that causes me to believe. And now I believe God is after you, that God wants you to believe too."
(skip a few paragraphs)
"I can't get there. I can't just say it without meaning it." She was getting very frustrated. "I can't do it. It would be like, say, trying to fall in love with somebody, or trying to convince yourself that your favorite food is pancakes. You don't decide those things, they just happen to you. If God is real, He needs to happen to me."
Page 53

This was a pretty good quote. Miller was witnessing to a friend of his, and he makes a good observation; indeed, there is something inside of him that causes him to believe -- the same "thing" that caused him to believe when he trusted Jesus. The Holy Spirit of God indeed did that, and still causes true believers to continue to believe! Thanks be to God for that, or I would never have believed, and if He didn't sustain me, I would have fallen away a long time ago.

I had no explanation for Laura. I don't think there is an explanation. My belief in Jesus did not seem rational or scientific, and yet there was nothing I coudl do to separate myself from this belief. I think Laura was looking for something rational because she believed that all things that were true were rational. But that isn't the case. Love, for example, is a true emotion, but it is not rational. What I mean is, people actually feel it. I have been in love, plenty of people have been in love, yet love cannot be proved scientifically. Neither can beauty. Light cannot be proved scientifically, and yet we all believe in light and by light see all things. There are plenty of things that are true that don't make any sense. I think one of the problems Laura was having was that she wanted God to make sense. He doesn't. He will make no more sense to me than I will make sense to an ant.
Page 54, emphasis mine

There are a few problems with this statement. Miller's topic sentence for this paragraph is at the end, and I have emphasized it. However, the analogy isn't complete. We're a lot more intelligent than an ant, but at the same time, proportionately, we'll know less about God than an ant will about us.

The reason is that the ant and I are both finite creatures. So then, since both are finite, there can be some standard of measurement between them. However, when you compare anything to God, the comparison immediately breaks apart, for He in infinite. There is no comparison, and since I am finite, God is infinitely greater than I am, while I am "XYZ" amount greater than the ant.

With that said, everything about God is not hidden, and there are certainly rational elements to faith, things we can surely understand. Who would argue that Paul knew a great deal about God compared to about anyone else who has lived since him? Inspired by God, Paul wrote a large portion of the New Testament. Surely these things (not to mention the rest of the Bible) are written for us to understand and to obey! James says as much in the first chapter of his letter. We have to understand the Word in order to obey it. Further, Paul made this powerful exclamation in his prayer for the Ephesian Christians:

Ephesians 1:16 I do not cease to give thanks for you, remembering you in my prayers, 17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him,
18 having the eyes of your hearts enlightened, that you may know what is the hope to which he has called you, what are the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, 19 and what is the immeasurable greatness of his power toward us who believe, according to the working of his great might 20 that he worked in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places,

At the same time, we need to strike a balance here. Even though Paul dripped with intelligence and understanding of God, an understanding far beyond mine, he said in probably his most important letter:

Romans 11:33 Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!

No matter how much we know about God we'll never know it all. However, while we are in this life, we should seek to know and understand Him as much as possible, for His glory will be increased when we do; understanding more of Him will lead to greater worship. If somehow it doesn't, than we haven't truly understood more.

The whole emergent/post-modern idea that we can't have true knowledge about what the Bible says or about God is really nonsense. We can know things about God and also can know what the Bible really means. We can know these two things for one simple reason: the Bible tells us we can. In that sense, there is nothing irrational about it. :)

And with that, I think I'll end my citations.

I have found that I agree with Tim Challies in the end. I'll let him say it, as he said it in his review of the book on his site I linked to at the beginning of this post:

While I can say that I did receive some benefit from reading it, I would be hesitant to recommend it to others. There is some value to be found, but one has to dig deep beneath layers of rambling untruth and poor theology to find them. There are many other books that contain far more treasure than this.

So then, I do not think I can recommend the book. Clearly there are many good things in this book -- but there are many bad things as well. Far too much bad theology is present that is only too easy to accept since there are some good things mixed in with it. Though I am sure Miller's intention was NEVER to deceive, this book has great potential to do just that, especially in a generation and a culture that is getting increasingly biblically illiterate and less comprehending of what is truly sound doctrine.


For God's Glory!

Rules for Engagement

There are a few things that I'd like to put forward here as rules for commenting. Really, the comments that people have put here have never been bad to my knowledge. Part of the reason I'm doing this is because of some things that I've encountered recently in regards to correcting theology here and there that I've witnessed on other blogs, and should I post a few things here, I wanted to clarify a few things. Be assured however, these rules apply for any post I write. :)

1.) I usually write about the things that I am dealing with right now. That is, I'll post on theological issues that I am currently thinking about. If you're curious what brings on my thoughts, well, there you go. :)

2.) I welcome correction. That is, if I am wrong about something I want to know, and if I publicly say something in error and am shown to be in error, I'll repent publicly. However, there are rules for correcting me (or anyone who comments here), and I fully expect ANY disagreement to be done with the full control of how Scripture says we ought to rebuke each other. If you want to object to something I'm saying, do NOT violate these premises. Read the article I just linked to, all of it, and be aware that if you do NOT post in accordance with the gentleness the Scriptures require you'll likely have your post deleted. You've been warned! :) In addition, if you are going to say more in a post than "Nice post" or a simple short comment and want to bring something to the discussion (disagreement or otherwise) please read the ENTIRE post before commenting. If you say something in a comment that was addressed in the post directly and it doesn't seem like you paid attention to what has already been written, I'll probably just point you back to the original post. :) So, quoting the part (using quotes, italics, bold, etc.) you wish to discuss is probably a good idea.

3.) Any argument you have against a position I or someone else takes needs to be supported with the teaching of Scripture in its proper context. Of course, you can post one or two verses and have it support your argument, but you need to make sure the context of those verses supports the interpretation you are giving them. If you are not a Christian and coming here, you probably shouldn't respond much except to ask questions. :)

4.) No cussing or profanity whatsoever. That should be pretty straightforward.

5.) I expect everyone who posts here to be open to correction just as I stated in section 1 for myself.

6.) No attacking people, period. If you disagree with someone, either here or abroad, then say so, and do so with the Christian charity I've already mentioned. Under no circumstances will insults be tolerated against anyone (stupid, moron, negative remarks about a person's intelligence or character, etc.). If something a person says is not biblical, then attack what they said (BIBLICALLY), and if a person is set in an unscriptural habit/practice/belief, then pray for that person. Not even Michael insulted Satan, and since he's (Satan) worse than any of us, I expect that people will treat each other with respect.

7.) Do NOT get defensive. If and when someone disagrees with you, keep your cool. When you're defensive, you're just probably airing your own sinful desire to save face, thinking "how DARE he say this/that about me/what I believe!" To help, try to keep this perspective: the very fact that you were able to think, read, breathe, and whatever else you needed to do to understand the comments that upset you -- those things were God's grace toward you. You deserve much worse than that person said, and such should be the motivation for praise and thanksgiving to God for His mercy. Respond with that in mind, please.

8.) "So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God." -- 1 Corinthians 10:31

9.) Personal preference here, but when you site Bible verses, if you don't link to them, please include an abbreviation for the translation you are using, (ie, ESV, NASB, NIV, NLT, CEV, ASV, etc.) Unless otherwise noted, for myself, I'll be using the English Standard Version (ESV) for everything.

Thanks you for dropping by, and I look forward to how God will encourage us through each other!

For the Glory of Jesus,
David Benjamin Hewitt

Grammatical Exegesis

This post over at StrangeBaptistFire is an absolutely stellar example of grammatical exegesis, probably the best I've ever seen.

It is a long read, but it is worth your time for sure!

SDG,
DBH

The "Recommended Links"

These are here because I have found their content useful and uplifting. Like the blogs, I don't agree 100% with everything there necessarily, but again, the high 90's are the norm. Check them out; I'm sure you'll be blessed!

Furthermore, if you haven't downloaded E-sword yet, you are missing out on a wonderful FREE blessing. Get to it!

Also, if you haven't dropped into Alpha and Omega Ministries Chat, you should come by. Be well aware of the rules though before you do!

SDG,
DBH

My "Recommended Books"

Every one of the books over here I have read and can recommend to you for their content. I truly believe each of them to be biblically orthodox in their theology, and they are immensely helpful for your Christian walk. If you would like me to give you more information about any of them, shoot me an email!

For the Glory of Jesus,
David B. Hewitt

The "BlogRoll"

All of the blogs I have over here I have on my RSS feed and read them regularly. I can recommend each of them to you for reading. I cannot guarantee that I'll agree with everything all of them say, but they are over there fore a reason. :) I will agree with most of them, and I expect it to be in the high 90%'s all of the time.

If you don't know what RSS is and want to set it up, let me know. It is a VERY helpful way to keep track of a lot of blogs quickly. I personally recommend SAGE for use with FireFox.

May God bless you as you are encouraged with what you read here and in those other blogs!

David B. Hewitt