JimCassidy's Xanga

Barth Conference 2008 - II

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 22:43:29 GMT

Above you see Paul Nimmo on the left and Bill Werpehowski on the right during the plenary discussion

On day two of the Barth Conference we were treated to two fine lectures and responses. The first lecture of the day was given by William Werpehowski of Villanova University and was on just war theory. A self-professed "Catholic Barthian," Professor Werpehowski set forth Barth's doctrine of just war. He notes how it appears to some that Barth has fallen away from the pacifistic trend of his theology. Barth does allow for just war under certain circumstances, which resonates with some Catholic ethicists. The second lecture was by David Haddorff of St. John’s University, and spoke about Barth's views on democracy. He makes clear that Barth believed in democracy as it falls best in line with biblical teaching. In this way then the church may serve, by its doctrine of justification, as a witness to the freedom we ought to have politically in democracy. The respondent, Todd Cioffi, made an interesting point. He argues that Barth says that democracy is to be preferred and pushed for by the church because it allows the church the freedom to declare the doctrine of justification freely, not that the doctrine itself leads to a democratic state.

But the highlight of the whole conference came on Wednesday morning with the lecture of Paul Nimmo. Finally, this was theological ethics through and through. The lecture was on the ontology of ethics in the theology of Karl Barth. Nimmo set forth how the being of God in action sets the theological ontology for a Christian ethic. While I disagree with Nimmo on core theological issues, this was Barthian theology done well. It was faithful to Barth, rich in theological content, and intellectually stimulating. I think that in Dr. Nimmo we have an up and coming premiere Barth theologian. He is young, sharp, eloquent, and obviously a good mind. He may be the next T.F. Torrance. And the fact that he teaches at New College makes that possibility all the more attractive. Folks, look for anything and everything this guys writes - and read it! He will set many Barthian theological trends to come.

OK, so what about the conference as a whole? Well, for what they're worth, here are some of my thoughts.

As I mentioned in my previous post, I remain unconvinced that many of the discussions we had were really even warranted. Is it really the call of Christian theologians to attempt to propose new forms of politics, economics, etc? I'm not persuaded that it is.

This was, after all, supposed to be a conference on ethics. Certainly there is an ethical dimension to politics and economics, but notice what was missing. There were no lectures, really, on personal ethics. Nothing on death and dying issues, nothing on sexual ethics, nothing on marriage, and nothing on keeping the Sabbath day holy. Those topics would have been much more useful than utopian economic proposals.

Speaking of which, also taking place that week was George Hunsinger's special political work, the National Religious Campaign Against Torture. This at times caused some problems. For one, there was a lecturer scheduled at Nassau Presbyterian Church for the NRCAT at the same as one for the Barth conference. Hunsinger, also, I suppose was so busy with the NRCAT conference that he was unable to attend the discussion groups for the Barth Conference. He was in my group, so I was disappointed not to have that time to interact with him.

Also, rather than having respondents, I would have preferred more lectures. This conference was not as full as last years. Thus, in my opinion, it was not nearly as good.

Next year's conference is on Barth and Religion and the Religions. This sounds, already, like a great event. I look forward to being there again!

Barth Conference 2008

Mon, 23 Jun 2008 22:42:13 GMT

Today was the first full day of the 2008 Barth Conference at Princeton Seminary. The topic this year is Theological Ethics.

So far it is all that it is cracked up to be, and more. Nigel Biggar, of Trinity College in Dublin, opened the day with a lecture on Barth's theological ethic. Drawing from his work on Barth's ethic, The Hastening That Waits, Biggar emphasized that "prayer precedes ethics." He asks what is the ultimate good, and concludes that it is what makes humanity to flourish. This, however, needs to be developed in Barth. Notable was his critique of Barth that the Basel professor overplayed the theological sciences in his ethic and all but ignored non-theological disciplines and human experience. After all, we do not need to acknowledge God in order to know what makes humanity to flourish. My take on this was that Biggar was, perhaps, conceding too much to natural law and theology.

Next, we heard from Kathryn Tanner on the relationship between Barth's theology and a Christian economic theory. Tanner set forth a vision for a noncompetitive economy, taking her stand from a socialist state. She argued that the self-giving of God in the incarnation undergirds an economic which resists starting from private property and competition.

And lastly we heard from Timothy Corringe. This lecture was, in my opinion, the most stimulating one as of yet. Dr. Corringe argued, on the basis of Barth's doctrine of atonement, for a nonviolent view of justice. He sets forth a restorative justice system in place of a retributive form of justice. This means, basically, rather than punishing people for crimes, having offender and offended sit down and reconcile. As God in Christ was the judge being judged for us, we also must be those who forgive and judge not. Corringe accented redemption over retribution. To this, Princeton Professor of Ethics Nancy Duff responded with an impassioned rejection of Corringe's proposal.

While this last lecture was stimulating and provocative I couldn't help but to think that he continually pitted grace against wrath and redemption/forgiveness over retribution. However, given the biblical witness, these two things do not contradict, but "sweetly comply" on the cross. As it says in Hebrews 9, without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. What was perhaps more troubling to me other than Corringe's criminal justice program, was his view of the atonement upon which it was based. He was introducing dichotomies which are not there in the Scriptures.

My one question in reflection upon the conference thus far is this: are we seeing a Barthian version of Tranformationalism set forth here? I actually felt like I was sitting in a conference with a host of neo-Calvinist Kuyperians. Everything was about how we can develop a Christian economic, or a Christian justice system. And I guess my concern is not so much the answers offered (though I must admit those did concern me too!), but the fact that the questions are even being raised to begin with. What I mean is this: Is it the task of the Christian theologian to figure out a Christian economy, or Christian justice system, or Christian political theory, or Christian hiking, or Christian whatever? I mean, basically, so far we have the political left version of the kind of rhetoric we hear from the Christian political right. But both sides have the same fundamental assumption: Christian theology must be made relevant for worldly endeavors. Or, to put it another way, both the Christian political right, and the Barthian political left are conflating the two kingdoms. This is where I think that D. Hart's fine work A Secular Faith can be of great help to both evangelicals and Barthians (and dare we say theological liberals as well?).

But, so far so good. There is much food for thought here!

Pete Enns Doctrine of Scripture

Wed, 04 Jun 2008 22:32:40 GMT

In a recent post on his home blog, Pete Enns had this to say:

Frankly, I am bit perplexed, even concerned (theologically), about this criticism. If we understand the word “essential” to mean “a property without which something ceases being what it is,” Christ ceases being who he is if either element is subordinated. It is essential that Jesus of Nazareth, our Savior, be both divine and human. So, too, Scripture is not simply “contingently human”(precisely what that means is not clear to me at any rate) but essentially so, i.e., there is no Scripture apart from the human—Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek—words that the Spirit inspired biblical writers to write. To put it another way, we are not required to consider how to place one over the other, but to accept that they co-exist (if I may speak this way for sake of discussion) by God’s wise and gracious decree.

The trouble with this doctrine of Christ and Scripture is that it is thoroughly Barthian. That is to say, it is actualistic. The divine nature (of either Christ or Scripture) is dependent upon the human nature for its existence. Or, as Barth would say, God's being is in his act. The reason why the Reformed made the essential/contingent distinction is to protect the aseity of God. If you say that the two natures are equally ultimate, then God in some way becomes dependent upon the creature.

Here orthodox theology speaks about the relation between enhypostasis and anhypostasis. Anhypostasis means that the humanity of Christ had no personality of its own. Its not like Jesus was walking around as a perfectly normal human being and one day he is adopted by God to be the vehicle through which He will redeem the world (this was to protect against the heresy of adoptionism). Enhypostasis taught Jesus Christ received his personhood by virtue of the person of the eternal Logos. (for more on this see this excellent article by Dr. Lane G. Tipton). After all, remember the Chalcedonian formulation: he is two natures in one person. If you say that the human nature was a person and the divine nature was a person then you would have two persons (and that was the heresy known as Nestorianism). Therefore, the person of the union is provided for by the divine nature.

One caveat. Some ancient theologians supposedly argued that the person of Jesus Christ arose by virtue of the union of the two natures. But this is by far worse. It would then deny personhood to BOTH natures. And if you deny personhood to the Logos, then you are now guilty of a trinitarian heresy as well! Now we know why the Reformed scholastics were so meticulous. Screw up on doctrine, and you are bound to screw up many more.

So, this is why it is important to maintain the priority of the divine nature in the hypostatic union. And this is why we must maintain the priority of the divine authorship in our doctrine of Scripture. If you are going to draw an analogy between the incarnation and Scripture, you'd better be sure you have an orthodox doctrine of the incarnation to begin with.

Van Til for Today

Thu, 29 May 2008 23:02:31 GMT

Just finished reading the Van Til biography by John Muether. Not bad at all. At times I felt like there could have been more, especially color commentary on his everyday life. The story telling can be choppy at times and you don't always feel like you are in the life of the man. In this way Muether's biography stands far inferior to those of the great historians of our day such as David McCullough.

Nevertheless, the biography is worth reading - again and again. Get a copy and then buy two more to give to your pastor and/or your friend. The benefits of this book far outweigh any short falls in the style or method of story telling. And I'll tell you why.

What becomes clear from the biography is that Van Til had a gift for exposing unbelief - wherever it manifested itself. And despite his dense way of writing, to understand the essence of his critic is simple. When man moves away from God's revealed word, that much he has fallen into unbelief.

This makes apologetics very easy for today. Unbelief is at its heart the life and thinking of the would be autonomous man. It is the man who thinks that he is wiser than God. Unbelief in man occurs when he leans on his own understanding, and does not begin all his theologizing, philosophizing, or reasoning with the fear of Jehovah.

What is the problem with liberalism? What is the problem with Barthian theology, or postconservative evangelicalism, or atheism, or seeker sensitive worship, or postmodernism, or Roman Catholic theology, or neo-evangelicalism, or Arminianism, or the emergent church, or whatever? The problem is that they all seek their own understanding first rather than taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ. The plain Word of God rightly handled is not good enough for them. They can not believe what God says, but rather go with the instincts of their own fallen human reason. Human reason, human wants or desires, human methods, whatever - they all trump God's revelation. Spiritual problems arise in the life of the believer, in the church, in the academy whenever the self-contained triune God of Scripture is not presupposed and unquestionably submitted to.

And that is relevant for us all. And this is why Muether's fine work should be read by us all (annually!).

The Two Fold Benefit

Mon, 07 Apr 2008 15:15:27 GMT

“The problem with Christianity is Christians”. Have you ever heard that one before? Perhaps the number one reason I am given as to why skeptics don't believe in Christianity is because of things either done or said by Christians. “I have no problem with Jesus, its his followers that are the problem”. And so go the arguments.

Now, to be sure, when a skeptic makes such excuses for dismissing the claims of Christianity I myself become somewhat skeptical – skeptical of the skeptics. It leads me to believe that there is something deeper doing one here in the mind and heart of the unbeliever. And, to be sure, there is. After all, as Paul tells us in Romans 1, all men know God because God has made himself clearly known to them. In fact, says Paul, so clearly has God made himself know that unbelievers are rendered without excuse for their unbelief.

Yet, we must still admit, there's something not quite right when Christians act nasty, mean, or commit terrible public sins. How many Christians have hurt the cause of the gospel because of their scandalous sin, or because of a rude word to an unbeliever?

That said, however, such things should not surprise. After all, the church – it has been rightly stated – is not a hotel for saints, but a hospital for sinners. To site Martin Luther's famous maxim, the Christian is simuli justus et peccator: at the same time justified and a sinner. And this is the amzing thing about grace, about the doctrine of Justification by faith alone. As Paul says, God came to justify the ungodly (Romans 4:5). And that just it, isn't it. He didn't come to justify godly people. After all, godly people don't need justifying. He didn't wait for us to get our act together to justify us. No, he entered into our lives when we were sinners, “but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us”. (Romans 5:8). So, in this way then be do not have to become sanctified before be become justified. Which is a great relief, isn't it? If we had to wait until we became actually righteous before be could be justified, we'd be waiting an awful long time! In fact, we'd be waiting for ever.

So, how then can it be that we can be justified without actually be righteous? Well, the answer is quite simple: imputation. Christ's righteous is imputed to us. Christ was confronted with the Law of God, he was place under the original covenant of works under which Adam was place and which Adam failed. But Jesus, as the second and last Adam, obeyed the covenant perfectly. He humbled himself and was obedient; obedient unto death, even the death of a cross (Philippians 2:2-8). And so, that perfect obedience is imputed to us, it is transfer over to us by faith alone. We we believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and are saved, we are saved because Christ's righteousness has become my righteousness. Although it always remains an alien righteousness, a righteousness that is not of me or in me. It is never my own inherent righteousness; but always and only Christ's righteousness which saves me. In and of myself I still remain a sinner. Yes, I have a new, regenerated heart and an illuminated mind by the power of the Holy Spirit. But I still have indwelling sin, and still carry around with me the old man, the old nature; what Paul called this body of death (Romans 7:24). Therefore, even after being regenerated, there is nothing in me which may merit or deserve justification. Being declared righteous in the sight of God remains always and exclusively on the basis of Christ's merit and righteousness imputed to me by faith alone apart from my own works of the Law.

Potential Pitfall of Justification by Faith Alone

This doctrine make Rome extremely uneasy as it was being developed by the early Reformers. Then again, that is nothing new. The doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone has always made people with a legalistic bent nervous. Even in Paul's day he had to defend against misunderstanding among his Judiazing opponents. In two places, in Romans 6 and in Galatians 3 and then again in 5, Paul anticipates the nervous objections of his theological opponents. He says, “so, does this doctrine of justification by faith alone apart from works of the law mean that we can go on living a sinful life and in any way we please”?

In fact, I would say that this nervous reaction is a good sign that what you are preaching is the true gospel. The true gospel, the true good news that God justifies the ungodly, ought to solicit this kind of response from unbelievers. This is how you know you've preached the right gospel. There ought to be kind of outcry. Where ever the doctrine of free grace has been preached, legalists have responded – often times angrily – that this means it doesn't matter how we live our lives. Rome used to call this Protestant doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone “Legal Fiction”. The idea being communicated was that righteousness was something that amounted to an exchange which to place “over our heads”, as it were, which never touched us in the here and now of our lives. They charges Protestants with anti-nomianism saying that they didn't care how Christians lived here on earth.

The Solutions to the Potential Pitfalls

So, Luther's maxim, as true as it was and is, didn't go far enough to satisfy the Catholic theologians. Rome wanted something real, substantial, a real righteousness they could see and touch and experience. Otherwise, they would just continue to level the charge of “legal fiction” at Protestants. And, unfortunately, some Protestants gave the Catholics what they wanted. For instance, a Lutheran theologian by the name of Osiander, taught a real participation in the righteousness of Christ. He said that when believers are saved they are so united to Christ that they actually share in the righteousness which he had in his divine nature. That is to say, the believer's righteousness was actually God's divine righteous nature being infused into them. This conveniently did away with the idea of imputation – and, unfortunately, with that the who idea of Reformation.

The spirit of Osiander, however, did not die with the man. To day you can find similar formulation in even Reformed churches. Former PCA pastor, Rick Lusk (a self professed Federal Visionist) teaches that in union with Christ we are so joined to Christ that we literally one with him such that imputation of his righteousness to me is not needed. His righteousness is not imputed to me, because I have come to partake in his righteous nature. In other circles, a theologian by the name of Thomas Torrance self consciously rejects the idea of imputation as something that transfers “above and outside of us” and insists that the way we just Christ's righteousness is by becoming one with him in the incarnation in which we are taken up in to the life of God.

What all these views have in come is what is called the doctrine of “theosis” or divinization. That is, the process in which God's nature is poured in our nature. Where the creator and creature become confused and the clear line of division is obliterated.

This is where Calvin comes in so helpfully. For he answered Rome's accusations of a legal fiction, on the one hand, and Osiander's mixing of the human and divine on the other. And he did so with his doctrine of union with Christ and the two fold benefit of that union. In other words, to put it simply, by our union with Christ which comes by faith and through the work of the Holy Spirit, we receive both justification and sanctification. We get justification because by faith Christ's righteousness is imputed to us (not infused). This avoided the confusion of mixture of human and divine natures. But we also get sanctification as well. We get Christ's ongoing grace and strength which he gives to his people through his Spirit. So, one a sinner become justified in Christ, so he will also become sanctified as well. This answered Rome's objection of a “legal fiction” and anti-nomianism.

So, this why when Paul answers the objections that say “well, since we are justified by faith alone apart from works of the law, does that mean that we can go on sinning”, he does so with such vehemence. He say “may it never be!”, “certainly not!”, “God forbid!” This is because Paul knows full well that that Jesus Christ is not only our righteousness, but our holiness as well (1 Cor. 1:30). He knows that if we are united to Christ by faith, we have at least two benefits from this union. One the one hand we have the righteousness of Christ which is imputed to us and on that basis alone are be declared just; and on the other we have the grace of Christ's spirit working in our hearts so that we may daily die to sin and live to holiness. So, there is no such thing as a Christian who is justified but not also sanctified. If you claim to be in Christ, if you claim to be saved, but you live like the devil then there is something not right here.

Now, that is not to say that you won't slip up from time to time. That is not to say that on occasion you will say or do the wrong thing at the wrong time. And in the process offend your unbelieving friend, neighbor, or co-worker. But it does mean that when you do do wrong, you will experience the conviction of the Holy Spirit in your hearts. You will shout in anguish with Paul, “I don't do what I want to do, I do what I don't want to do, what a wretched man that I am!”

But, you will also have the comfort of the apostle Paul as well. That while you know full well you are peccator, you are driven time and again as you recognize and now your sin, that you are also justus. As Paul shouts “what a wretched man that I am, who will deliver me from this body of death”, he also yells in jubulant chorus, “praise be to God, through Jesus Christ my Lord! For now there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus!”

Enns' "Faith"

Mon, 31 Mar 2008 16:29:42 GMT

It has been suggested in a comment to my previous post on Pete Enns that he and those who support him do not contend against the Reformed doctrine of Scripture; including its inspiration, infallibility, and inerrancy.

I'm not convinced, however, that Enns himself duly upholds the doctrine of inerrancy. Let's take, for instance, his article “Faith” in the IVP Dictionary of the Old Testament: Historical Books. There he states that “Faith” in the OT does not refer to “saving faith” or “faith in God”. He says that that notion is far too abstract. But what is even more disturbing is the way he dismisses the NT's interpretation of faith in the OT. For instance, Enns writes:

“The fact that in the NT both Hebrews and James cite Rahab's act as an example of faith does not settle the issue of how the story functions in its original literary and historical context . . . Appeal cannot be made to these NT text to settle the issue of faith in the historical books”

I could be wrong, and perhaps I have been asleep in all the reading I've done in Reformed theology, but this doesn't seem to me to be a Reformed understanding of the NT's interpretation of the OT. I was under the impression that Scripture is its own interpreter, and how one passage of the Bible interprets another is authoritative for the believer. But Enns, and other profs at WTS, have made a great deal of their popularity on teaching us not to interpret the OT according to the NT. However, if God is one, and he has inspired all of the Scriptures, and if all of Scripture is inerrant, then why is Enns encouraging us here to NOT interpret OT faith in light of how the NT defines it? This hermeneutic may be many things, but it is not Reformed and does not reflect a traditional understanding of inerrancy.

Second, Enns also states this disturbing teaching:

“Here Nehemiah certainly appeals to Abraham as an example not of 'believing' in God, but of obeying God; his covenant faithfulness to God is contrasted to the sinfulness of Israel's confession of sin. . . “

Enns cites this in support of his earlier claim that “faith” does not so much mean belief, but “faithfulness” and “obedience”. Faith is, for Enns, not a matter of conversion but of a disposition of the heart.

Wow! This not only denies the doctrine of “faith” according to the Westminster Standards, but it explicitly introduces a contradiction in the text of Scripture. According to the NT Abraham's faith was belief in God, and because of that belief God credited Abraham with righteousness. But, according to Enns, when the text of Genesis says that Abraham believed in God, what it means is that he was obedient to God and was faithful to the covenant.

Well, to be sure, Abraham was faithful to the covenant. But that is not how that verse is cited by Paul, for instance, in Romans. So, which is it? Who is right here about faith? Paul says that Abraham's faith was a trust that came apart from works of obedience, Pete says that the OT teaches that Abraham's faith WAS works of the law!

Enns' error here is two fold. First, he has just confused faith and works in a way that denies the gospel. But second, he allows a contradiction in the teaching of Scripture. Last I checked, inerrancy teaches that there cannot be any contradictions in God's revelation.

So, is it a fundy move, is it being anti-intellectual, to presuppose that the self-contained ontological Trinity has consistently revealed himself in his Word, in both OT and NT? Higher criticism has always maintained that we may not come to the Bible presupposing the inerrancy of Scripture, and that we must not accent the divine nature of Scripture. If we do that then we are being unscientific. And we are being arrogant to assume that the Bible is inerrant.

What, then, really is the difference between this and what Enns is saying? To be sure, he is a careful theologian. He does not explicitly deny inerrancy. But he also doesn't explicitly affirm it either. And the way he handles Scripture certainly doesn't reflect that commitment. But that is what happens when you place the accent on the humanity of Scripture rather than its divinity.

One last thing, this does not mean that we may shirk the hard questions. To accent the divinity of Scripture MAY and it CAN be used as an excuse easily dismiss the hard questions. But not necessarily so. Robert Dick Wilson, Geerhardus Vos, E.J. Young all faced the hard questions. And they answered them. They did not shrink back from facing them. But they never once lost their grounding in the Bible as the divine Word, and accenting that.

Its in this connection that we must set forth a truly biblical incarnational theology. Historically, remember, in the two natures of Christ the accent was never on his humanity. While Chalcedon affirmed that Jesus was both fully God and fully man, it also affirmed that the humanity of Jesus did not have personal existence in itself (this is what they called “anhypostasis”). But Jesus received his personality by virtue of the assumption if the humanity by the divine Logos (this is what they called “enhypostasis”). Jesus is fully God and fully man, but both natures are not equally ultimate.

And perhaps this is what is so disturbing about Enns' model. Its not so much his doctrine of Scripture as it is the Christology which is reflected in it. It is adoptionistic at best, Ebionite at worse. And for a seminary committed to traditional orthodox and Reformed theology, there is no place for that.

Professor Enns Suspended at Westminster Theological Seminary

Fri, 28 Mar 2008 08:53:00 GMT

Most folks have read about this already on other blogs. But most blogs have not commented much on the situation. So, let me do that now. You can find the official seminary notice below.

Professor Enns ("Pete" - that is what he insists all his students call him), was perhaps the most stimulating teachers I ever had the pleasure to sit under. He has a way of putting things that is interesting, challenging, and provocative. He gets you thinking. Not to mention, Pete is one of the most personable and kindly gentlemen you'll ever meet. Well, besides being a Yankee fan! He and I would go back and forth on this issue because I am a Mets fan, and their is no greater rivalry in sports than that between the Mets and Yankees. Not to mention that he is a North Jersey boy, like me. So, that automatically gives him a great deal of coolness to begin with! ;)

I'm saddened, in many ways, about what has happened here. I pray for Pete and for his family, and I have been through all this. This must be a terribly hard and stressful time for them all.

Of course, this was not just a stressful time for Pete and his family, but it was for those on the other side of this issue also. The men who opposed Pete's view of the Bible, I think, did what they did out of a very difficult sense of duty and conviction. And, no doubt, when the board made that vote they did with heavy hearts. But here's the thing from which we must not waver: they did the right thing.

And they did the right thing not because Pete's book was crumby or terribly useless. Not in the least. The book was actually quite helpful and well done in many respects. He very nicely lays out the issues and areas where skeptics of the Bible see a "problem". This is helpful because as Christians we need to be aware of these "problem" passages and issues (thus, the book was very helpful to me). So, the opposition to Enns' book is not because he raises the problems. No, Westminster Seminary and those of us in the OPC and PCA don't believe in hiding from the hard questions. Our history is a history of giving an answer for the hard questions. Yet, I get the impression that those who have backed Enns think that the reason for the opposition is because we want to shirk the hard questions. Not at all, may it never be! That is not the Old Princeton and Old Westminster way!

Around the turn of the 20th century people were asking the hard questions. Both Warfield and Briggs were asking the hard questions. The issue between Warfield and Briggs was not: to ask or not ask the hard questions. No, rather, the issue was: how do we answer the hard questions. Briggs answered the questions by saying that we must accent the humanity of Scripture and deny inerrancy. Warfield's answer was completely different. He wanted to rigorously answer those "problems" but all the while accenting the divinity of Scripture and maintaining inerrancy. It was a through and through believing answer given to the hard questions, whereas Briggs answer was unbelieving through and through. He gave up the accent on divine agency in Scripture and the Reformed doctrine of the Bible's inerrancy.

The issue with Pete's work is not that he is not shirking the hard questions. It is good that he wants to address the "problems"! The issue is with how he answered them. To put the accent of the humanity of Scripture (this is Pete's way of putting his position, not mine. See his article in CJT, 2007) and it's erroneous "messiness", and to make the cultural context determinative for interpretation of the text, are just the tip of the iceberg of the non-Reformed way in which he seeks to "solve" the "problems". Other issues are the way in which he understands the New Testament's use of the Old Testament. Reading what he says in I&I, I was left with the impression that the Old Testament meant one thing (that is, something not about Jesus Christ and his death and resurrection), and what the New Testament authors did was radically reinterpret the OT by reading into the OT text their experience of Jesus. I was told more than one, for instance, in my OT classes that what Isaiah was speaking about when he prophesied about the virgin who conceives was not Jesus, but the birth of a king right there and then in Isaiah's day. Thus, when the New Testament quotes from Isaiah 7, the NT author - in a way not different from his 2nd Temple interpretive milieu - is reading his community's Messiah figure into the OT text. But that eisegesis is OK, because, after all, everyone's doing it.

But, you see - and call me an ignorant backwoods fundy if you like - I believe that Isaiah actually was speaking about Jesus, at least ultimately. This is how John says it:

^{John 12:41} Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory and spoke of him.

Granted, in this text, John says this after quoting twice from Isaiah's prophecy, although not from chapter 7. Nevertheless, John is not saying Isaiah saw the glory of Jesus and spoke about Jesus only in the aforementioned verses, but he saw the glory of Jesus and spoke of him everywhere! Yes, I believe that Isaiah received special and direct revelation from God about Jesus of Nazareth. And, by the way, so did Abraham:

^{John 8:56} Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad.

Or, do we not actually believe what the New Testament says about the Old Testament anymore? Is it not the inerrant Word of God, given through human form, interpreting for us the text of the OT - as Scripture interprets Scripture?

See, the Bible alone is sufficient for answering it's own "problems". We don't go somewhere outside the Bible to speak for the Bible. No, we go to the Bible itself. It alone is the norm for faith and practice. That is how the Reformed have asked and answered the hard questions. But Dr. Enns did not answer them in this way. He answered them in a way that Briggs did over a hundred years ago. And this is why it was necessary to suspend him. This is why it is necessary to terminate his position at the seminary. And this is why those who have supported him ought likewise to leave the seminary.

Of course, I pray that won't be necessary. We need to pray, above all, for repentance and humility (both our own repentance and humility and for that of Enns and his supporters). That these men, who really are kind and likeable men, will submit their minds and their hearts to the inspired, infallible, and inerrant Scriptures.

Here is the notice that was sent out; for those who haven't seen it yet:

March 27, 2008

Thank you very much for your prayers for the special meeting of the Board of Trustees that was held on March 26 to address the disunity of the faculty regarding the theological issues related to Dr. Peter Enns’ book, Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament. After a full day of deliberation, the Board of Trustees took the following action by decisive vote:

“That for the good of the Seminary (Faculty Manual II.4.C.4) Professor Peter Enns be suspended at the close of this school year, that is May 23, 2008 (Constitution Article III, Section 15), and that the Institutional Personnel Committee (IPC) recommend the appropriate process for the Board to consider whether Professor Enns should be terminated from his employment at the Seminary. Further that the IPC present their recommendations to the Board at its meeting in May 2008.”

In order to provide the entire Westminster community with a more complete understanding of the Board’s decision and to offer an opportunity for questions and dialogue, the Chairman and Secretary of the Board will join the President on campus for a special chapel on Tuesday, April 1 at 10:30 am. Students and staff are encouraged to attend and participate. Following that special chapel, they will hold a separate meeting with the faculty.

Our concern is to honor the Lord Jesus Christ and assure a faithful witness for Westminster for years to come. To that end, please pray for everyone involved during the next two months.

Jack White

Chairman of the Board

Advance His Glory

Thu, 20 Mar 2008 20:53:52 GMT

The 20^th century theologian, Karl Barth, once said that there is not higher desire in the will of God than to be gracious.^¹ What do you make of that quote? Is that sound, biblical, theology? There is no greater, there is no higher desire in the will of God than to be gracious toward humanity.

Well, certainly, that sounds nice, doesn't it? I mean, it makes God out to be a kindly, gentle old grandfather. The kind of grandfather that has only one passion in like, spoiling his grandchildren. And to be sure, such a grandfather is an ideal grandfather for us. To be sure, a grandfather that all grandfathers ought to emulate!

But such a doctrine of God terrible misfires and does so in significant ways. In ways that are not only relevant to our understanding of the nature and the will of God, but also – more practically now – in ways that are relevant to how we live our lives as Christians.

According to John Calvin and Jonathan Edwards (and every Reformed theologian in between) the highest desire in the will of God is not to be gracious to us (although, no doubt, God does desire to be gracious!). But, rather, God's highest desire in his will is that He (he, not us) be glorified. So that as God decrees his will from all eternity, and as he carries out his will providentially today, his number one concern is that he be glorified, that his glory be manifested all throughout the earth. So,

WLC 12 God's decrees are the wise, free, and holy acts of the counsel of his will, whereby, from all eternity, he hath, for his own glory, unchangeably foreordained whatsoever comes to pass in time, especially concerning angels and men.

So, given this fact – that God's highest desire is that he be glorified – how do we then live as those who are Christians? John Calvin, in chapter 7 of book III of the Institutes, speaks about what he calls “The Sum of the Christian Life”, which for him is “denial of ourselves”. In other words, since God's highest desire is for his own glory, therefore the Christian must “seek not the things that are ours but those which are of the Lord's will and will serve to advance his glory” (Battles, 690-1). The Christian must so much desire the Glory of God above all that there is no place in the heart of the Christian for pride, arrogance, or self-love. And here Calvin quotes for us several helpful Bible texts:

Matthew 16:24-25 ²⁴ Then Jesus told his disciples, "If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. ²⁵ For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

2 Timothy 3:1 But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. ² For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, ³ heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, ⁴ treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, ⁵ having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people.

Matthew 6:2-16 ² "Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. . . . ⁵ "And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. . . . ¹⁶ "And when you fast, do not look gloomy like the hypocrites, for they disfigure their faces that their fasting may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward.

From these verses Calvin is able to conclude, “you can find no other remedy than in denying yourself and giving up concern for yourself, and in turning your mind wholly to seek after those things which the Lord requires of you, and to seek them only because they are pleasing to him” (Battles, 692).

Now, that last part should not be lost upon us, for it form s for us the motivation for giving all Glory to God and renouncing ourselves. We are to do it, and we are to do all we do, “because it is pleasing to him”.

You see, we are so accustomed to asking ourselves “Hmmm, would I like to do that?”, or telling ourselves “I don't think I would like to do that”. And that is where Jesus' call for his disciples to deny themselves comes in. Jesus says, deny yourself and follow him. Take up your cross. Now, don't misunderstand Jesus' words here. His cross is altogether unique. Only his cross atones for sins. No matter how many crosses you bear in your life for Jesus you can not even begin to satisfy for your sins. Only the cross of Christ can and does do that.

Nevertheless, as Christians we are called to deny what we want in life, reject self-glorification such that we do not let our left hand know what our right hand is doing, and we bear the burden Christ has called us to bear to advance the glory and the Kingdom of God, not our own Kingdom. Calvin warns us wisely when he writes, “Thus, each individual, by flattering himself, bears a kind of kingdom in his breast” (694). Meaning, we tend to make ourselves, our desires, our wants our own king and kingdom. We, by nature, tend to think better of ourselves than we ought. This is where the self-esteem movement in churches – to say nothing of the health and wealth gospel – runs contrary to what Christ demands of us. What these theologies all have in common is the belief that what Jesus wants us to do is to deny the cross, and take up ourselves. But that mentality does nothing but feed the sinful monster of pride and self-importance. Yet, Paul says in Philippians 2:3 “Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves”. Yet, as Calvin says again, “But there is no one who does not cherish within himself some opinion of his own pre-eminence” (694).

So, to deny ourselves, take up the cross and follow Jesus, and to advance the Glory of God means first and foremost humility. Humility before God in such a way that we are willing at all times and in all places “Not my will be done, but yours, O Father”. But this humility towards God will also translate into humility before others. For we must regard others better than ourselves. In other words, there is no room for self-righteous judging. Notice that I did not say righteous evaluation or discernment! The Christ must, by the grace of God, always be discerning what is good and what is not. We must evaluate a man's doctrine against the standard to Scripture and evaluate his teaching on that basis as being either true doctrine or false doctrine. Further, if a brother sins, we must see that, recognize it, and bring the brother's sin to him calling him to repent. However, that is far different from self-righteous condemnation. That is, to condemn another person in such a way that you are exalting yourself: “well, he did only x, but I did x, y, or z”. Or, “so-and-so did this, well, I've never done that”.

1 Corinthians 4:7 ⁷ For who sees anything different in you? What do you have that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if you did not receive it?

1 Corinthians 13:4-6 ⁴ Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant ⁵ or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; ⁶ it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth.

This latter verse, especially, has been terribly misused in our day. It is often the staple text for a wedding. Usually a wedding between two unbelievers. But this text is not speaking about, first and foremost, romantic love between a husband and a wife. Although, it does contain principles which ought to be used between a husband and a wife! But its talking about the church and how Christians are to live in the church with one another. We are not to be boastful about ourselves (and not just act humble on the outside, but to be truly humble on the inside). Love, humble love, to one another is always gracious and charitable toward others. To evaluate others, in their doctrine and their life, with charity, assuming the best of others until proven otherwise.

No Triumphalism

Calvin, after speaking about love – humble love – toward our neighbor goes on to speak again about Matt 16:24 and what it means to bear the cross. And we are told that we “ought to prepare [ourselves] for a hard, toilsome, and unquiet life . . . it is the Heavenly Father's will thus to exercise [us] so as to put his own children to a definite test”. In this way, by way of trials and tribulations, God conforms to Christ (Romans 8:29). After all tribulations produce patience and character (Romans 5:3-4). Through trials God gives us practice in bearing the cross as Jesus has called us to do (704). But, through it all, God promises to be with you, his people:

2 Corinthians 1:3-5 ³ Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, ⁴ who comforts us in all our affliction, so that we may be able to comfort those who are in any affliction, with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God. ⁵ For as we share abundantly in Christ's sufferings, so through Christ we share abundantly in comfort too.

Now, suffering, trials, and tribulations are not untied to the issue of denying self and living to advance the glory of God. No, for Calvin, suffering is for “you to be cleansed of your blind love of self that you may be made more nearly aware of your incapacity”, that you may “distrust yourself that you may transfer your trust to God”. So, afflictions in the Christian life ought not to be seen as necessarily being a bad thing, or being a sign of God's anger or judgment on us. No, as we talked about it last week, for the Christian suffering is never God's act of judgment, but of fatherly care. He does it to “test our patience and to instruct [us] in obedience” (704). This is because, “if everything went according to our own liking, [we] would not know what it is to follow God” (705). So, 1 Peter 1:6-7:

1 Peter 1:6-7 ⁶ In this you rejoice, though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been grieved by various trials, ⁷ so that the tested genuineness of your faith- more precious than gold that perishes though it is tested by fire- may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ.

This is God's fatherly hand restraining us from the evil we would perform. “He yet leaves no one free and untouched, because he knows that all, to a man, are diseased” (706). This is the purpose of suffering for the Christian. It is never in vain. It is always with purpose. Even so called “righteous suffering”. What happens when a believer is cast into prison in Eritrea for his faith? Is that God pouring out his wrath on that Christian? No, not at all! But it is a test and trial for the believer through which that believer's faith will be refined and bolstered. What of a Christian who suffers from cancer because of no fault of their own? Again, this is a way of God drawing that believer closer to him, that the believer would trust less in his own strength and the things of this world, and more so on their heavenly Father.

This is what God has promised for his church. A cross. By the cross he has justified them, and by a cross he will sanctify them. Any notion that the church is destined for earthly and worldly victory is contrary to the teaching of Scripture. To say that the church and that Christians are called to free from worldly concerns and ills is fundamentally wrongheaded. To teach that the church is called to dominate and take over geo-political institutions so that Christians my prosper in this present evil age is spiritually insidious.

Some Application

I think it may be wise at this point exhort us all, don't wait for God to get your attention and put you through times of affliction. Start now. Draw closer to him. Trust less (not at all) on yourself or the things of this world, and more upon him. Which means, in short, daily die to yourself and live more unto Christ. Deny yourself, take up your cross, and follow him. Not just externally, but in your heart as well. And in so doing, seek his glory. Seek to give glory to God. Seek to advance his glory, for the good the honor, and the glory of his praise.

The world's mantra is “live well”. The Christian's mantra is slightly less marketing savvy. It is “suffer well”. It is “die well”. That in our suffering and in our dieing we may there and then advance the glory of God. How will you suffer? How will you die? That is a very practical question – for both old and young alike. It is something we must all ask ourselves. It is something we must all prepare for. And not just when trials and tribulations come at the end our lives, but even before the end. When trials come at work, in your family, between husband and wife, in the church. How will you deal with them? How will you receive them? As judgments from God for which you will curse him, or as of the hand of loving heaven father?

1Quoted in McCormack, Karl Barth's Critical Realism, 460.

Satisfaction Guaranteed!

Sun, 16 Mar 2008 21:57:05 GMT

Satisfaction! How we all desire to be satisfied. Contented, we all want to “feel” content. We want our bellies full, our thirst quench, our pockets full, our homes stuffed with stuff. And when we can't get those things we say were are dis-satisfied, or – put simply – we can't get no satisfaction.

But the word “satisfaction” was not always used in this ego-centric sense. At one time in the church it referred to a payment made by a person to God for their sins. Satisfaction was an act of “penance” which one did to satisfy God's dis-satisfaction with his or her sin.

This idea of satisfaction is still seen in the Roman Church today. When I was a boy growing up, I would go to confession and tell the priest my sins (usually not all of my sins!), and he would then say that I was forgiven of sins, BUT there was one more thing I should do. I should go and say so many “Our Fathers” and so many “Hail Mary's”. And that was my penance, it was an act of satisfaction on my part to pay for my sins. And then, and only then, would I be truly forgiven. Another form of satisfaction which Rome holds to, is the idea of divine judgment that comes on the repentant person. For instance, if I sinned and repented of it, that was no good enough. God would satisfy his wrath for my sin through bring a calamity upon me. So, let's say I sinned a terrible sin, went to confession, and then walked out the door of the church only to get hit by a bus and laid up in the hospital with a broken bones for 2 weeks. That would God satisfying his divine justice upon me for my sin. It wasn't good enough that I repented and sought forgiveness. God's wrath for my sin also had to be satisfied by me.

Well, you may ask, where in the world do they get that doctrine in the Bible? Is it a doctrine they just made up, out of thin air? Well, actually, no – they do have Bible passages which they claim support this doctrine of satisfaction.

They go to, for instance, the following texts (among many others)^¹:

2 Samuel 12:13-14 ¹³ David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the LORD." And Nathan said to David, "The LORD also has put away your sin; you shall not die. ¹⁴ Nevertheless, because by this deed you have utterly scorned the LORD, the child who is born to you shall die."

Daniel 4:27 ²⁷ Therefore, O king, let my counsel be acceptable to you: break off your sins by practicing righteousness, and your iniquities by showing mercy to the oppressed, that there may perhaps be a lengthening of your prosperity."

You see, they say that it wasn't good enough that David repented here. God's wrath was not fully satisfied. God's wrath also had to be poured out upon David for his sin through the death of his son.

Do they have a point from the text?

Its at this point that Calvin, in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, provides for us a very helpful way of understanding what is happening when God brings calamity upon repentant believers for their sins. And here Calvin speaks about “two kinds of divine judgment”: 1. vengeance and 2. chastisement.^²

Now, by the judgment of vengeance, what Calvin has in view is God's punishment of his enemies (unrepentant unbelievers) with full indignation. For example, let's say an unbeliever goes out and gets drunk and he drives home drunk only to meet with an unfortunate run-in with a telephone pole. That event is no brute fact. That event is no coincidence. And it is no stale, impersonal, mechanical cause and effect event. It is an act of God's anger and vengeance upon the unrepentant unbelieving sinner. And as such – assuming the sinner in question walked away alive from the collision – serves as a temporal warning and foretaste of God's never-ending wrath which is to come. Calvin puts it this way:

For all the afflictions that the impious bear in the present life depict for us, as it were, a sort of entry way of hell, from which they already see afar off their eternal damnation.^³

But this act of the judgment of vengeance is altogether (180 degrees!) different than God's judgment of chastisement which which is an act of love which corrects and admonishes his children. So, let's say a believer, weak in faith and surrounded by strong temptation, goes to bar and gets drunk. This is a sin for him no less than it was a sin for the unbeliever. So, then the person in question leaves the bar to drive home and he also meets up with a telephone pole. What has happened here? Is this an act of divine vengeance upon this believer by which God's wrath against sin is being satisfied? No, such vengeance, says Calvin, is always withheld from believers. But this is an act of God's fatherly chastisement upon the believer and is a blessing and witnessed to God's love for him.^⁴ And here we might consider several Bible passages:

Job 5:17 ¹⁷ "Behold, blessed is the one whom God reproves; therefore despise not the discipline of the Almighty.

Hebrews 12:5-6 ⁵ And have you forgotten the exhortation that addresses you as sons? "My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord, nor be weary when reproved by him. ⁶ For the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives."

Nevertheless, God is truly displease with us when we sin, even as believers. It is real anger he has for our sin

Isaiah 12:1 You will say in that day:"I will give thanks to you, O LORD, for though you were angry with me, your anger turned away, that you might comfort me.

And sometimes he chastises his saints slightly and sometimes more severely. Sometimes, in his sovereignty, he doesn't chastise us at all! Why? We don't know for sure, but we do know he has a purpose. But one thing we know for sure, as Calvin says, “Although the Lord teaches that chastisements serve to cleanse his people, he adds that he tempers those chastisements so as not to wear down his people unduly.”^⁵

At this point, Calvin introduces a second distinction; that between punishment and improvement. When the unbeliever is afflicted, this is the beginning of his eternal judgment and punishment. However, when a believer is afflicted by the hand of God, it is NOT for satisfaction but to aid us in our sanctification. Calvin quotes John Chrysostom, an ancient church pastor, who once said, “he imposes a penalty upon us-not to punish us for past sins, but to correct us against future ones”. Or, in words of Augustine, “What you suffer . . . is your medicine, not your penalty; your chastisment, not your condemnation.”^⁶ And this distinction we see no where more clearly than in the lives of two Israelite Kings. When God took Saul's kingdom from him (1 Sam 15:23) it was for punishment, but when he took the life of David's son from him, it was for rebuking for amendment and sanctification. As far as I can tell, that was the last David ever committed murder or adultery!

The point being, of course, when these things come upon believers it is not for vengeance, but for improvement, as a father disciplines his child. And so 1 Cor. 11:32, “But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world.” So it is, then, that when we are receive afflictions it is not as a payment toward the guilt of our sin. The medieval monks, including Martin Luther, believed this was the case such that they took this punishment into their own hands. They would scourge themselves, thinking that by so doing they are paying off the debt of their sins. They thought they were making satisfaction.

But Calvin reminds us, and this is the point towards which we are driving, that the satisfaction for our sins can not be performed by us. If, in fact, we were to satisfy for our sins, it would not be something we could do in this life. In fact, sin against an eternal God would require an eternal satisfaction. And that is what is hell is all about. There God's wrath, vengeance, and punishment are being satisfied upon unrepentant sinners. For it is only in hell that man may make satisfaction for his sins.

But for the believer, for the Christian, there is no satisfaction to be made. The reason why is because Jesus has already made perfect satisfaction. Calvin puts it like this, “if we are delivered from guilt through Christ, the penalties that arise from it must cease”.^⁷ Therefore, we never think that our sufferings, our service, our prayers, our offerings are ever a way to try to satisfy or deflect God's divine wrath. Because the full, unmitigated wrath of God has already fallen upon Jesus for us^⁸. And if we think that there is anything we can do to add to that finished work upon the cross, what we are really doing is subtracting from it. Here subtraction comes by addition.

So, there are at least three lessons to be learned here. First, when afflictions come our way which are direct result of our sin (I have not here addressed the issue of what happens when afflictions come our way which are not a direct result of our sin. That's a whole other Sunday School lesson), we must receive this affliction humbly from our heavenly Father. We must accept it, repent of the sin, and resolve to not sin in that way anymore – by the grace of God. Second, we must always be looking to the cross. The cross is the great leveler, the great humbler of us in our pride. It reminds us that nothing in our hands can we bring, but only to the cross can be cling. We dare not boast in ourselves, in our gifts, in our sanctification, in our knowledge of the truth, in our theology, in our church. He who boast must boast in the Lord. And lastly, when calamity comes upon the unbeliever our response must also be that humility and not arrogant “I told you so”isms. When the unbeliever is hit with calamity, we are reminded that were it not for the grace of God, there go we. Yet, we should not shy from the fact that such calamity is indeed divine punishment and does foreshadow eternal damnation to all who do not repent. So, such incidences give us opportunity for ministry. To share with the unbeliever the fact that Jesus was died and fully satisfied God's wrath so that he too, with us, may escape the wrath to some. The wrath which makes current afflictions look like a mere scratch. And thus, to call them to faith and repentance in the Savior.

1See those listed in Calvin, Institutes III.IV.31. Calvin also lists, Prov 16:6, Prov 10:12, 1 Peter 4:8, Luke 7:47.

2Ibid.

3III.IV.32, p. 660.

4Ibid.

5Ibid., p. 661.

6III.IV.33, 662.

7III.IV.30, 658.

8See WCF 11.3 and WLC 70 and 71.

Sound Doctrine and Pastoral Ministry

Tue, 26 Feb 2008 21:12:45 GMT

Do words matter? Narrative or propositions, does it matter? Do propositions matter? Does it matter how they are phrased?

There seems to be a "loosey-goosiness" in many ministries today. As if its not what we say but how we say it. What matters is communication skills and building relationships. The pastor must first of all be personable, a regular guy that people can identify with. What about narrative? We told today that we ought no to communicate in propositions anymore. After all, we are told, God's revelation is written not in abstract proof-texty propositions, but in the form of stories. So, preaching means telling stories above all.

To be sure, communication skills and building relationships are good things. So is narrative. We confess that much of the Bible is written in narrative.

But my question is this. What is preaching? Well, for Barth preaching is the church's talk about God in which the church witnesses to revelation. For the Reformed tradition, preaching is not an autonomous function by man. Preaching is regulated - by Scripture. Preaching, to be true preaching, is exposition of Scripture. Paul exhorts Timothy to "preach the Word". This is not a reference to the eternal Logos, the second person of the Trinity (although it is true that real preaching is preaching Christ!). But Paul has in mind here the Scriptures.

See, the Word of God is that which God promises to make effectual in teh hearts of his people. It is not man's word, but God's Yes, God uses human preachers as his messangers. But even for man, what he is to be about is the Word of God contained in Holy Scripture. So, whatever a minister of the Word says, he must say what God has already first said. That doesn't mean he only repeat the Word of Scripture, but he must explain it rightly - accurately. Otehrwise it will not be used of God.

That's right. We have no reason to believe that God will use any Words effectually in the hearts of his people. The Bible tells us that God promised to use HIS Word. So, what we say matters. If we do not choose our words wisely, that matters. Because heresy matters. Just as God's Word will save his people, so false teaching will mislead people.

Speaking the right words, stating the correct propsitions, is a matter of life or death.