First is Grudem’s book Politics According to the Bible. I’ve been going through it lately and wanted to share some brief thoughts. I’ll start with a few obvious criticisms:

(1) Poor editorial work for a generally good book (the recent Politics According to the Bible by Grudem). Did someone say, “spellcheck”?

• The “Untied States” (instead of United States):
• Page 73 … For example, a current issue in the UntiedStates concerns what ra…

• Page 93 … Untied States, the slavery (or “involuntary servitude”) that was allo…

• Page 441 …the document on which the existence of the Untied States is ba…

• The “Second Amednment” (instead of Second Amendment):
• Page 93 …people to keep and bear arms” (Second Amednment)…

(2) Sometimes questionable tone: “There are much fewer merry-go-rounds or teeter-totters or high slides or high swings. Because of the threat of bankrupting lawsuits (and the lack of laws that place commonsense limitations on liability and damages for injuries), everything is padded and “safe,” and children are growing fat and timid and lazy, and they have lost the excitement of that great adventure of testing your courage and strength and balance and endurance against the playground equipment and against everyone else playing on it. Because of our nation’s failure to have some commonsense legal reforms, our children have lost much of their freedom (and health!), and nobody seems to care.” (94-95) Grudem is usually more tactful than this, but I see what he’s saying.

Now for more brief impressions:

• Good general biblical summaries of the Christian worldview.
• Clear applications of Scripture to various aspects of politics and government.
• Informative section on the Supreme Court in the US (esp. for someone younger like me who hasn’t seen it unfold that much).
• Decent section on economics, and rightly points to inflation as a serious problem (but fails to point to the elephant in the room: the Federal Reserve!)
• Very fascinating section on environmentalism, with a lot of surprising statistics about deforestation, global warming, etc.
• Fair critique of Ron Paul’s anti-interventionism, but fails to address the main point: the US is broke, and has absolutely no real power (e.g., paid-for power) to help other nations.
• Grudem’s argument for the Iraq war as a “just war” according to over 5 major criteria was rather poor and simplistic.

Today I celebrate the gift of God having giving a quarter century of life. In some ways, I feel like I’ve already lived a full life, seeing people age, traveling to various continents, publishing works and making various friends, having different jobs and moving from place to place, ending, mending, and beginning relationships with people, employers, fellow Christians, etc. Of course, I know it will only get deeper in richer as time goes on, seeing my own children grow up (Lord willing), seeing family return to the dust, watching projects come to completion, and others failing to rise. In any case, there is so much to be thankful for that it truly overwhelms me. It certainly did as I stared at the stars in the sky tonight in an outdoor hotub overlooking the pines of the Black hills after having a wonderful birthday supper and sharing times with future in- laws. Life is truly a “puff of steam,” and I’m often left baffled in understanding why life at all. And why my life?

We know that a man was born 2,000 years ago, and that He is God in the flesh. His testimony is true, and his life is the very center of all history, and the essence of all purpose. He is King of Kings and Lord of Lords. He got the ball rolling, and he will bring it to a halt. History began, and history will come to a conclusion. The story is His, and it has the perfect ending. And it will become clear that the epic story of life has a meaning and purpose that far exceeds what we could ever know. But we are given some information until then – a little bit here and there of “rewards” in “heaven” and such. We are told we live not for ourselves, but for, indeed, something much greater that transcends our own consciousness. We must “trust and obey.”

Sigh. How confrontational revelation can be! But how marvelous, stirring the soul and lifting our eyes even further into the sky toward the Maker of all things.

Pray for this website and my life as many things are happening. A new job with a major US corporation, the completion of two book projects, another three essays, getting married, continuing to work on a life-time ministry project that only God can build if He wills, completing master’s thesis while beginning to enter doctoral studies, completing a preaching series on Colossians and a teaching series on the 1689 Confession, various other church issues, and upcoming debate with a leading Eastern Orthodox theologian on infant baptism, and on and on. The flame burns hot and the steam rises, but it’s easy to burn out without proper spiritual discipline and a mind that doesn’t tend to easily conform to the image of Christ. Helpless and anxious we are…without Christ.

(Update: Apparently I  confuse Michael Sudduth with Michael Butler. My apologies!). But anyway, most people these days know Sudduth from his recent book The Reformed Objection to Natural Theology. He’s converted to Hinduism. Read his own testimony here.

Events such as these remind us of a number of things. But three are worth pointing out:  (1) the self-destruction of today’s “Christian philosophy,” (2) the importance of prioritizing theology ahead of philosophy, (3) Eastern religions are alive and well in the West, and can easily have their impact on a variety of Christian circles. I’ll comment mainly on the first two.

What’s sad is not even that Sudduth left Christianity – but that so many Christians held up his approach to studying philosophy in the first place: the truncating of the “love of wisdom” (as the Trinity defines it) into generally impersonal analytic philosophy. Yes, as you’ve heard me assert many times before, “Christian philosophy” and “analytic philosophy done by a Christian” today are almost seen as synonymous, and that’s very unfortunate. From my gatherings of the scene, you’re just not cool if what you want to say about metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics can’t be put into a formula, and if you plan to get a degree in philosophy from a Christian institution, you’ll probably master the principles of logic and rules of inference before demonstrating a working knowledge of what God has said in His Word (ack!). Defining “love” and “wisdom” as God defines it is put on hold, or worse, never really sought after in the first place (and thus raises the good question as to whether theory and speculation is taking precedent over truth and theology in “Christian philosophy,” and if it is, why we call it “Christian philosophy” at all).

Thus, we see realities like: (1) Alvin Plantinga is considered the greatest Christian philosopher alive by many – a  libertarian freewillist Molinist whose primary/most popular work is the establishment that belief in God is properly basic. Big deal? Not if you ask me. But many believe so because Plantinga demonstrated that Christians can put up a challenge to secular philosophies (epistemologies). By challenging unbelievers on their own terms, “Christian philosophers” now have to be taken seriously and enter with confidence into the academic world (or so the argument goes)…(2) Bill Craig (another often considered “the greatest Christian philosopher” alive) can make such comments as “Van Til, for all his insights,was not a philosopher” (see Five Views) and people actually believe him, regardless of the facts. Van Til has written extensively on matters of epistemology etc. and has a PhD in Philosophy from Princeton University, etc. So what Craig and others of today’s “Christian philosophers” really mean is either one or both of the following: (a) Van Til’s work has far too much theology to be considered “philosophy,” or (b) Van Til’s work is not refined, analytical and formulaic enough to be considered “philosophy” (note that there exists efforts to bring Van Til up to speed, such as James Anderson who “has a longstanding concern to bring the Reformed theological tradition into greater dialogue with contemporary analytic philosophy.” RTS faculty bio – Anderson’s efforts aren’t inherently bad of course, I’m just noting them). Both assumptions are false, unless we assume that philosophy cannot be rigorously biblical, or cannot be anything but analytic philosophy. And that demonstrates the trend: analytic philosophy dominates, and our whole worldview may depend on it. As Craig himself said on one particular issue:

Unlike some other writers on the attributes of God, I am convinced that the best tool we have for really understanding what is meant by the affirmation that God is eternal is not poetry or piety, but analytic philosophy…unfortunately, today’s theologians generally have next to no training in philosophy and science and so are ill-equipped to address in a substantive way the complex issues raised by God’s eternity.

The problem, of course, is that while you can master modal logic and analytic philosophy as one evaluates “complex issues,” he remains so detached and aloft from the standard of Scripture and his personal worship of the Triune God that…well, there might not be much to prevent him from leaving Christianity. Hence Oliphint, Van Til Professor of Apologetics at Westminster (in responding to Craig):

Why should we agree with the author that the “best tool we have” for understanding God’s eternity is analytic philosophy? Does that mean, as it surely seems to, that the best tool we have for understanding God is analytic philosophy? If so, that would be quite a shock to the thousands upon thousands of theologians who, because untimely born, never had access to the pearls of wisdom offered by this twentieth-century philosophical oyster. Not only so, but, if true, this means that God’s own revelation of himself is, at best, secondary and, at worst, relatively useless in our pursuit to discover what God is like; analytic philosophy can accomplish that without any need of what God himself has told us about his character.

…It is the task of theology to deal with the most fundamental problems and issues of the universe. Theology’s task is to help us understand who God is, how he relates to us and to the world, what pleases him, who we are, and so on. Those questions, contra many modern-day philosophers, need to be answered within the context first of all of what God has said. (Reasons for Faith, 187-189)

So, yeah, it’s not terribly surprising that a “Christian philosopher” can jump ship and give his life to Lord Krishna, given how disconnected “Christian philosophy” is these days from the very foundations of Christianity: theology. Gabriel Fluhrer observed precisely what we would expect:

I had the privilege of participating in a PhD seminar devoted entirely to the study of Sudduth’s critically acclaimed work The Reformed Objection to Natural Theology. After I finished the book and the course, I concluded that Sudduth was a brilliant philosopher but an exceedingly poor theologian.

But, I really think it’s sad that this is even possible (if it is possible). How could a truly brilliant philosopher be a “poor theologian”? Again, I understand the thrust of what Gabriel is saying, but I think we are giving up too much by allowing philosophy to be somewhat autonomous and disconnected from its very roots: God and His Word. The fact is, there exists no true philosophy apart from true theology, as Bavinck, Van Til and others have asserted through and through. And so, whether we like it or not, there exists no true philosopher apart from a true theologian.

Sudduth, then, is a philosopher who said things that may be true and even helpful for the church to some degree. But I think it’s high time to stop redefining “philosophy” and “Christian philosophy” according to today’s norm, and define it as it should be: the love of wisdom – and that means the love of wisdom as God defines both love and wisdom.

What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up. If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God. Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged, and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. ³⁴ As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. Or was it from you that the word of God came? Or are you the only ones it has reached? If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord.  (1 Cor. 14:26-37, ESV)

When women are told to be “silent” and that they “are not permitted to speak,”[1] Paul is obviously not making an absolute blanket statement since, within the same letter, the Apostle plainly acknowledges women praying and prophesying in the church (11:5, 13). As John Frame cleverly puts it, “If [Paul] disapproved of [women] praying and prophesying as such, it would be like saying, ‘If you rob a bank, be sure to wear a coat and tie.’”[2]

But what does verse 34 mean? Many scholars conclude on the basis of the previous context that Paul is talking about weighing prophecies, not just women speaking at church in general.[3] Women were objecting to certain prophecies which was either inappropriate in and of itself, or inappropriate because women were just acting too disruptively in the uses of these exciting gifts of the Spirit.

This interpretation has merit, but it also creates problems. For example, verse 35 (“if they desire to learn”) indicates “that the women did not understand what was being said and that they were asking questions to learn, not that they were passing judgments on what they heard.”[4] Also, would Paul really compress the whole enterprise of “evaluating prophecies” into the single word “speaking”?[5] Would the Corinthians have even known that “speaking” meant “weighing prophecies”–especially since Paul does not avoid explicitly using the terms “weighing” and “testing” prophecies elsewhere (e.g., 1 Thess. 5:20-21; 1 Cor. 14:29)? It seems somewhat unreasonable, as perhaps the position is itself if Paul is mainly addressing tactfulness and maturity.[6]

Ciampa and Rosner provide a different conclusion given the historical background of Hellenistic tradition and women speaking. They reveal that nonevaluative questions asked of prophets, and not merely prophecy and the weighing of prophecy, was “the most common mode of engaging prophets in the Hellenistic world.”[7] Their study is one of the most scholarly and insightful on this subject, so it is worth quoting at length:

Witherington rightly sees that ‘it is very believable that these women assumed that Christian prophets or prophetesses functioned much like the oracle at Delphi, who only prophesied in response to questions, including questions about purely personal matters. Paul argues that Christian prophecy is different. Prophets and prophetesses speak in response to the prompting of the Holy Spirit, without any human priming of the pump.’ Perhaps some women were especially likely to treat their Christian prophets as they would other prophets in their world, by peppering them with questions such as “Will my child be a boy or a girl?” or “Should I employ this slave or that?” They may also be asking questions that are not part of the weighing of the prophecies but are motivated by a desire to understand the content of the prophecies or the way in which the prophetic ministry works.

We should assume that unless there was a clear reference in the Corinthians’ letter to Paul to a particular kind of women’s speech in worship that was creating a problem in the church, the Corinthians would have found Paul’s statement that women are not permitted “to speak in church” just as unclear as modern readers. Although it is stated without qualification, it clearly cannot be understood in any absolute manner.[8]

They go on to demonstrate through primary sources of first and second century literature that it was “considered scandalous for a married woman to carry on a conversation with another woman’s husband,” and that (for Plutarch), “a woman’s personal speech is as much an exposure of herself as nakedness.”[9]

Therefore, they conclude that the “speaking” in 1 Corinthians 14:34 refers to

nonliturgical forms of speech (i.e. they could speak as they participated in the use of gifts and in formal ways, but not in mundane, trivial, or merely ordinary conversation.) Even more likely is the suggestion that what was being prohibited was for women to approach and ask men in the congregation questions about things they were not understanding.[10]

How then is the text applied?

Paul’s suggestion that the women ask their own husbands at home reflects that cultural context where a man could be expected to be better informed/educated than his wife and was understood to be the proper channel of information to the wife. Here, at home contrasts with in the church at the end of the verse, highlighting the private rather than public venue for the questions, in keeping with much ancient Greek thinking about the place of women in society. In modern Western societies neither of those conditions normally hold. In many societies today women are no less prepared to ask appropriate questions than their husbands, and it is considered just as perfectly normal and appropriate for them to participate in public dialogues as it is for men. There is no longer any shame or disgrace associated with such engagement; rather, it would be considered shameful for a woman to be restricted from open participation in public conversations.  The principles underlying Paul’s counsel, that women (and men) not act disgracefully in public, or in ways which reflect a lack of respect for the dignity of their spouses, may well call for a different set of concrete behaviors in our churches than would have been expected in first-century Corinth [e.g., like headcoverings in 1 Cor. 11]…women should show respect for order and for others (especially their husbands) in the worship setting.[11]

Keener has a similar view in his Background Commentary:

Most likely the passage [1 Cor. 14] addresses disruptive questions in an environment where silence was expected of new learners–which most women were. It also addresses a broader social context in which women were expected not to speak much with men to whom they were not related, as a matter of propriety. Paul thus upholds church order and avoids appearances of social impropriety; he also supports learning before speaking. None of these principles prohibit women in very different cultural settings from speaking God’s word.[12]

This interpretation isn’t far off from complementarian perspectives on 1 Timothy 2.   Notice Köstenberger’s summary: “Paul obliges the women to learn in a quiet, low-key way, as opposed to assuming control with unsolicited remarks and arguments.”[13]

In this particular interpretation, it should be noted that Paul is remaining consistent with the instruction he gives in the general context: he is addressing the way that women are speaking in the church, and not providing an absolute, universal statement about any particular practice in general. Paul does not forbid women from prayer/prophesy in 1 Corinthians 14:26-33 (or in chapter 11 for that matter). Rather, he forbids the wrong manner in which these New Covenant believers were praying and prophesying. That’s the reason for the prohibition.

There is a third major view of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 that deserves attention. Given the variable translation of γυνή (woman/wife), Paul might not have even have been talking about generic women in the first place, but wives instead (similar to those who interpret 1 Tim. 2:12 as being “wife” and “husbands”). This was already alluded to by Ciampa and Rosner:

In Paul’s world (whether in Jewish, Greek, or Roman contexts), an unexplained reference to a woman’s submission would normally be understood to refer to her submission to the authority of her husband. The following verse’s statement that “they should ask their own husbands at home” also brings to mind a behavior inconsistent with this manner of respecting the husband…[14]

Garland combines this view with the previous on weighing prophecies:

The situation that best fits the adjective “shameful” is one in which wives defy convention by publicly embarrassing their husbands through their speaking. In the context, it is likely that Paul imagines a wife joining in the process of weighing what is being said during the congregational scrutiny of prophecy (14:29). They either raise questions or contradict their husbands or other senior male relatives.[15]

After several pages of thorough analysis, Garland concludes in a way similar to Ciampa and Rosner:

I conclude that Paul’s instructions are conditioned by the social realities of his age and a desire to prevent a serious breach in decorum. The negative effect that wives publicly interrupting or contradicting their husbands might have on outsiders (let alone the bruising it would cause to sensitive male egos) could not be far from his mind. Paul may fear that the Christian community would be “mistaken for one of the orgiastic, secret, oriental cults that undermined public order and decency” (Schüssler Fiorenza 1984: 232), in which women exercised more prominent roles.[16]

Any of these three major views (and their combinations) is possible. But what seems clear enough is that Paul is not expecting women “to remain silent at all times,” but “thinking of particular instances where different kinds of participants in the worship meeting should refrain from speaking.”[17]

The laws of logic have played a consistent role in Reformed apologetics in the past century. Figures such as Van Til and Bahnsen have often appealed to the nature of logical laws to form a transcendental argument for the existence of God. But there are still critical questions about the nature of these laws that remain unclear. Are logical laws created? Or are they a kind of “halfway point,” “intersection,” or “mediator” between God’s mind and the world?

Read more here.

Having a more dispensational past has left me quite “out of the loop” in regards to what “covenant theology” is and what it really means. The last few years of investigation have really allowed me to understand covenant theology. I have recently been working my way through Greg Nichols’ “Covenant Theology: A Reformed and Baptist Perspective on God’s Covenants”. While the work starts out slow by relating the history and relation of different covenants to different reformed confessions of faith. Nichols really starts to lay out the nature and details of the different covenants in the latter half of the book.

Part of my confusion over the issue of dispensationalism and covenant theology was related to the issue of the promised land. Any typical dispensational preaching talks about the place of Israel both now and in the future. How God promised the Israelites the land and how they will (continue) to inherit/occupy it. This leads to a major question. What is the status of the promised land in covenant theology and in what way (if any) does Israel still relate to it? This was one of my main questions and a source of much confusion. I scoured many different books looking for answers. While reading Nichols’ work I came across a very succinct answer to this very inquiry and wanted to share. Pages 191 and 192 lay it out as follows:

“One dimension of this impact calls for special attention. I refer to the perpetual possession of Canaan as a divine inheritance: ‘I will give unto thee and to they seed after thee the land of their sojournings, all the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God’ (Gen. 17:8) In light of this testimony of Scripture, the question arises: Is the land of Canaan the perpetual inheritance of God’s people? I offer five considerations in answer to this question.

First, God has already given to Hebrew Israel all the land that he promised to give them (1 Kings 4:21; Neh. 9:8).

Second, Hebrew Israel, as a society, is no longer God’s theocratic nation (Matt. 21:43). In Genesis 17:8, Scripture explicitly connects possessing Canaan with being God’s people. They possessed it as God’s people. Yet they are no longer the theocratic nation of God’s people. Possessing Canaan as divine inheritance lasted only as long as Hebrew Israel, as a society, remained God’s theocratic nation.

Third, the old covenant inheritance, Canaan, was inseparably joined to the book of the law (Lev. 25:10). Joshua allotted Canaan to Hebrew Israel by tribes. They were to retain their possession by genealogical records. The year of jubilee recognizes and perpetuates this allocation of Canaan (lev. 25:10). It is impossible to keep the year of Jubilee in Germany, or the United States, or in any other land. Canaan is the land of the book of the law. Conversely, the book fo the law is the law of the land of Canaan. Plainly, God’s people are no longer under the book of the law as their theocratic constitution. Therefore, the land of Canaan is no longer the divine inheritance of God’s people under the new covenant.

Fourth, God has already given his people the down payment of their better, new covenant inheritance (Eph. 1:13-14).

Fifth, its description as “everlasting” was also applied to other temporary instituions. The word translated “everlasting” in Genesis 17:8, literally means, “until the distant future.” Often it does signify forever and ever (Deut. 33:27; Ps. 90:2), but not always. Context must determine its duration. Scripture uses this very word to describe the duration of the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16:34) and of the Aaronic priesthood (Exod. 29:28, 40:15). Scripture indicates explicitly that these other old covenant institutions terminate with the coming of Messiah. His coming is their vanishing point, the end of the age. Similarly, in Genesis 17:8, [this Hebrew word] signifies “until the distant future, throughout the entire era of Hebrew Israel’s theocracy.” That era lasted a very long time, some fifteen-hundred years, until the promised Messiah came to institute the new covenant.

In conclusion, Scripture does not teach that the land of Canaan is the perpetual inheritance of God’s people. I neither assert nor deny the right of Hebrew Israel to possess Canaan today. If they retain any right to Canaan, that right does not rest on theocracy, since they are no longer God’s theocratic society. Rather, any such right would grow out of the general principles of justice that apply to all territorial disputes among nations.”

Nicely put! I hope this quick cogent snippet of Nichols’ work helps provide you with a few details about how covenant theology views the promised land.

Hey Real Apologetics crew,
I really really like your recommendation page, it’s a safe place for me to get resources I know will help me in my walk. I do have a question though on what you would recommend on the formulation of the Gospel in confronting this trend of people like NT Wright, McKnight and folks who seem to allude that the Calvinistic view of the Gospel is too soteriology focused? That there is more to the Gospel? I wondered if you had any good resources I can dig into, any help will be appreciated thanks

Yes there is always “more” to the gospel. That’s a hard situation in Christian theology in balancing the complexity and the simplicity of the gospel. We can say the gospel is “nothing more” than “the good news,” but when we define “good news,” where do we end? Forgiveness? Christ’s deity? Atonement? Propitiation? etc. etc. If we try to “cover it all,” the gospel is no longer as “simple” as we or others have claimed it to be. The best thing to do is to do what Scripture does: don’t define it in a reductionistic manner;  explain aspects of it for certain situations, and more thoroughly if time and energy is granted for the situation.
I don’t have many resources on your particular question as it is so multi-faceted. Milton Vincent’s “Gospel Primer” is good, but I’m not sure it would help you much. NT Wright has brought necessary attention to political and contextual dimensions of Jesus’ and Paul’s message, though I think it is often unbalanced at times (like Calvinists sometimes can be). Nevertheless, I think “Calvinism” is going to gain the most attention (and should) from the church simply because it more directly deals with what Christ has done, and faithfully seeks to exegete Scripture.

hope this helps,
ja