I Hate "Nuance"

Ob·fus·cate, tr.v. To make so confused or opaque as to be difficult to perceive or understand

I'm sure we all remember the furor cause over Franklin Graham's comment in 2001 that Islam is, "very evil and wicked." I remember how Evangelical leaders tripped all over themselves to distance themselves from Graham. The remark that particularly bothered me was when one minister acknowledged that technically Graham was correct, but that his statement, "lacked nuance." I hate nuance!

The past decade and a half of PC sensibility has turned us all into spineless cowards that are no longer able to speak their minds. That's why I hate "nuance." Nuance is just another way cloud one's meaning enough to avoid the inconvenience of stating what one actually believes. Instead of just stating that the Bible abominates homosexuality, our ministers hem and haw, they multiply their words and obfuscate their intentions so that no one can pin them down as "intolerant" or narrow-minded. When asked about Islam, Franklin's own father beat around the bush and started talking about friends and acquaintances who are Muslim. Can no one just speak the plain truth anymore?

I have sat through countless sermons where an obviously intentional effort was made to avoid saying anything emphatic or objective that might convict the listeners. I think of the era of the Fathers and Reformers: no ambiguity with them! I long for that again.

Here is the way preachers used to speak; no "nuance" here. At least we knew what they really meant.

"...a melon, which Marcion must have had in lieu of a heart!" - Tertullian, The Five Books Against Marcion, Bk 4, Ch. 40.

But there is another among these heretics, Marcus by name, who boasts himself as having improved upon his master. He is a perfect adept in magical impostures, and by this means drawing away a great number of men, and not a few women, he has induced them to join themselves to him, as to one who is possessed of the greatest knowledge and perfection, and who has received the highest power from the invisible and ineffable regions above. Thus it appears as if he really were the precursor of Antichrist. For, joining the buffooneries of Anaxilaus to the craftiness of the magi, as they are called, he is regarded by his senseless and cracked-brain followers as working miracles by these means. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Bk 1, Ch. 13

Lord, keep us in Thy Word and work,

Restrain the murderous Pope and Turk,

Who fain would tear from off Thy throne,

Christ Jesus, Thy beloved Son.

Martin Luther, Lord, Keep us in Thy Word and Work.

"We are all Papists; at least, I am sure, we are all Arminians by nature; and, therefore, it is no wonder so many natural men embrace that scheme." George Whitefield, The Lord Our Righteousness

"And what are the new Arminians but the varnished offspring of the old Pelagians, that makes the grace of God to lackey it at the foot, or rather, the will of man? that makes the sheep to keep the shepherd? that puts God into the same extremity with Darius, who would gladly have saved Daniel but could not (Dan 6:14)?" Christopher Ness, An Antidote Against Arminianism

The Deistic Undercurrent of Arminianism

Before I get accused of an anachronism is applying an anti-Pelagian argument to Arminianism, let me hasten to point out that I am not the first to do so. Not only am I following Reformed precedent of the highest pedigree, I am theologically justified in doing so. Arminian is nothing but Pelagianism with a few clever additions intended to mask its heretical nature.

Read carefully the following paragraph of B.B. Warfield and pay close attention to his logic. This is one of the most powerful anti-Arminian arguments I have ever read.

“Genetically speaking, Pelagianism was the daughter of legalism; but when it itself conceived, it brought forth an essential deism. It is not without significance that its originators were, ‘a certain sort of monks,” that is, laymen of ascetic life. From that point of view the Divine law appears as a collection of separate commandments, moral perfection as a mere complex of separate virtues, and a distinct value as a meritorious demand on Divine approbation is ascribed to each good work or attainment in the exercises of piety. It was because this was essentially his point of view that Pelagius could regard man’s powers as sufficient to the attainment of sanctity, and could even assert it to be possible for man to do more than is required of him. But, this is an essentially deistic conception of man’s relations to his Maker. God has endowed His creature with a capacity (possibilitas) or ability (posse) for action; and it is for him to use it. Man is thus a machine, which, just because it is made well, needs no Divine interference for its right working; and the Creator, having once framed him and endowed him with the posse, henceforth leaves the velle and the esse to him.” B.B. Warfield, Introductory Essay on Augustin and the Pelagian Controversy

Why do I think this is such a powerful blast at Arminianism? Think about what deism presupposes. It postulates a god who has created everything with built-in abilities and therefore it is inconsistent with his nature to intervene. For the god of deism to intervene, miraculously or any other way, is to admit a flaw in his creation that needs his attention. What does that have to do with soteriology? At this point Arminianism applies the same logic as deism. Arminians assert that man has the innate ability to use his will to “decide” or “accept” Christ savingly. Indeed they see no value in a salvation in which the recipient does not actively participate. What else is this but the deistic assumption that God does not need to intervene in His creation because He created it with innate capacities and abilities? Here’s the rub: No Arminian would ever hold to the deistic conception of God. Indeed, Arminians specialize in teaching God’s active participation and work in the world’s affair (though certainly not to the same extent as the Reformed doctrine of the Sovereignty of God), nevertheless, they unconsciously operate on deistic principles when dealing with the doctrine of salvation. 

Background Information Part 2

On April 3, I wrote a post about my family's situation. Obviously, some time has passed and more paperwork has been done and more hoops have been jumped through.

I am pleased to announce that earlier today I was able to book tickets for my wife and our two daughters. They will be arriving in the States on June 26.

It has been a very long road - 2 1/2 years to be exact. God is good and He has sustained us through all the difficulties that we have encountered as a family and as individuals during this period.

The picture above was taken before I left the Philippines. Our youngest daughter just turned 4. So that should give you an idea of what we've missed.

I am grateful for all the prayers and help we've received through this difficult stage.

Soli Deo Gloria

I Can't See Their Hearts

I have been irritated lately. I have heard a dozen or so comments from various people that have just really angered me. I’ve already tipped my hand by the title of this post. Yes, it’s about this lily-livered, spineless, relativistic, “who-am-I-to-judge-anyone” attitude that has infected, or should I say, infested much of so-called Christian thought. Much more could be said that I will say, but there are some huge flaws that this mindset betrays.

First of all, it is based on the assumption that truth is subjective. That idea in and of itself is absolutely idiotic. I don’t know of a nicer way to put it. It is so fashionable for people to say that what is right for one person may not be right for someone else. But this is sheer idiocy and hypocrisy. If a person, outside the Christian faith wants to believe such drivel, I say, let them. Paul said we didn’t judge those outside the Church. But, for a person who claims Christianity to hold to such a philosophy is unpardonable. Christianity means nothing if it doesn’t mean it absolutely.

The world has been turned on its head by this relativistic mindset. G.K. Chesterton, in his book Orthodoxy, remarks that we were meant to be sure of the truth and doubtful of ourselves, but we have reversed the order. It is considered arrogant to make exclusive truth claims. Classic Christianity is too “narrow” because it views all other religions as false and holds that no one who does not believe in Christ is or will be saved. Period! Somehow it has been portrayed as humble to be doubtful or, at least, to not be insistent about the exclusive claims of Christianity about salvation and sin. What kills me though is that the same people who are so “modest” and “humble” as to doubt God’s Word, are the same ones who are unspeakably confident in themselves. The only reason that the subversive Emergents reject the exclusivist claims of Christianity, is because they place their own minds above God’s. Chesterton quipped that we are well on our way to producing a race of men too modest to believe in the multiplication table!

But it gets uglier. As my title suggests, I’m particularly irritated by the Osteen-esque refusal to pin oneself down theologically by appealing to this wimpy, “I Can’t See Their Hearts,” copout. Say what you like, but this is nothing other than a denial of sin. It is based on the false, anti-Christian belief that all men are essential good. It is assumed that regardless of how a person lives or believes, as long as he has a “good heart” then nothing else matters. But there’s the rub. Scripture claims that NO ONE has a good heart. Outside of Christ, everyone is vile, corrupt, wicked and perverse. The noblest unbeliever is on a greased slide to hell.

Here’s a short sample of what God says, and incidentally, He can see the heart.

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? Jer. 17:9

And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. Gen 6:5

I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth. Gen. 8:21

Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one. Job 14:4

Behold I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. Ps. 51:5

Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good that are accustomed to do evil. Jer. 13:23

Peter tells us that the spurious believer is "in the gall of bitterness and the bond of iniquity." Acts 8:23

"The carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." Rom. 8:7

All men are by nature children of wrath.... and dead in trespasses and sins. Eph. 2:1, 3

Spurgeon on False Doctrine

"I have not much patience with a certain class of Christians nowadays who will hear anybody preach so long as they can say, ‘He is very clever, a fine preacher, a man of genius, a born orator.’ Is cleverness to make false doctrine palatable? Why, sirs, to me the ability of a man who preaches error is my sorrow rather than my admiration.

“I cannot endure false doctrine, however neatly it may be put before me. Would you have me eat poisoned meat because the dish is of the choicest ware? It makes me indignant when I hear another gospel put before the people with enticing words, by men who would fain make merchandise of souls; and I marvel at those who have soft words for such deceivers.

“‘That is your bigotry,’ says one. Call it so if you like, but it is the bigotry of the loving John who wrote—‘If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: for he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.’

“I would to God we had all more of such decision, for the lack of it is depriving our religious life of its backbone and substituting for honest manliness a mass of the tremulous jelly of mutual flattery.

“He who does not hate the false does not love the true; and he to whom it is all the same whether it be God's word or man's, is himself unrenewed at heart. Oh, if some of you were like your fathers you would not have tolerated in this age the wagon loads of trash under which the gospel has been of late buried by ministers of your own choosing. You would have hurled out of your pulpits the men who are enemies to the fundamental doctrines of your churches, and yet are crafty enough to become your pastors and undermine the faith of a fickle and superficial generation." —C. H. Spurgeon (1834-1892)