We have received an inquiry which is very important for us to answer. In our ongoing evaluation of what is wrong with modern evangelicalism, we have frequently stated that the problem is one of a man-centered gospel, an error which we believe brings a host of other errors with it. This has led at least one reader to ask if we believe "Arminians" to be Christians at all. Obviously our answer should be as plain as our statements which brought on the question.
All of our editors were brought to Christ by means of "Arminians," and all of us were nurtured and established in our faith by "Arminians." As a consequence, all of us know "Arminians" whose wisdom in godliness place them as our betters, to state it bluntly. We want to imitate the attitude of Whitefield, who was once asked by an over-zealous supporter if Whitefield thought that he would see Wesley in heaven. Whitefield replied, No, to the initial approval of the questioner. But then Whitefield went on to say that he thought Wesley would be far too close to the throne of grace for Whitefield to get a glimpse of him.
So why then do we print the things we do? Simply, it is because we believe them to be true. Moreover, we believe they are the only truths capable of rousing the modern evangelical church, which is slumbering under siege. So we would echo Whitefield again, this time in a letter to Wesley on the subject of election. "Dear, dear Sir, O be not offended! For Christ's sake do not be rash! Give yourself to reading. Study the covenant of grace. Down with your carnal reasoning. Be a little child . . ."
And we will seek to do the same.
From You:
Dear Editor:
. . . I have never before been able to double a ministry's bank account, so I'm going to take this opportunity and send you $19.35.
LaVaune Duncan
Boise, Idaho
Dear Editor:
. . . Thank you very much. We appreciate the various pieces. The point Doug Wilson made on churches voting by households was excellent. Did you know that some RCUS churches still vote that way? I am in the OPC and would like to see this issue dealt with.
S. Allison
Carson, North Dakota
Dear Editor:
. . . [I]n response to Chris Schlect's article entitled "Doctrinal Reason" [Vol. 5, No. 5], Mr Schlect says in his article that "2 Peter 3:9 is another verse taken out of context as a proof text for a universal atonement . . . .The use of `all' in the emphasized clause allegedly confounds a particularist view of the atonement. But like 2 Cor. 5:14, we are to understand the term `all' according to its context. Here its scope is set by the remark `longsuffering toward us.' Thus, here the term `all' means `all of us Christians.'"
1. Haven't "all of us Christians" already come to repentance? 2. To which "broader context" is Mr. Schlect specifically referring to? I think Mr. Schlect is mishandling this text.
John B. Barry
Boone, South Carolina
Chris Schlect replies: In response to your two questions, consider the following: (1) All Christians, as you say, have undergone a foundational repentance (cf.Heb. 6:1), but Christians who stumble must repent and be restored as, for example, the Corinthians are reported to have done in 2 Cor. 7:9 (cf. Rev. 2:5, 16: 3:3,19). So Christians do repent in this sense. Others, holding same view I defended, have also argued that Peter has the elect in mind, not all of whom had yet repented or been regenerated at his writing. (2) The "broader" context I referred to supports both of the above answers. The immediate context speaks of the Lord's longsuffering toward us (3:9). The broad context provides the antecedent to the first person plural hemas that is appropriately translated with the pronoun "us": Peter, the writer, and those he addresses -- who have obtained precious faith (1:1), referred to as "beloved" (3:1,8,14,17), who look for and hasten the coming day of God and the new heavens and new earth (3:11-12). They are thus clearly Christians (if you prefer the critical text's humas, a third-person plural, the point still stands.
Dear Editor,
. . . [In regard to the short story "Pouring Forth Speech" by Douglas Jones, Vol. 5, No. 6] please explain why you now feel it is proper to include profanity in your magazine. I have been a regular financial contributor to the magazine, and feel it has been outstanding (the best I've read). However, all your good work is seriously hampered by this. . . . All the intellectualizing and serious study of literary issues can't cloud the fact that you are using unwholesome speech in direct violation of Ephesians 4:29. . . . Didn't Wes Callihan in his article "Damned Nonsense" argue that "Obscenity and profanity are not necessary in stories to make them believable . . ." (Even though he used profanity to make that point?) What is going on here?
I am very sad at the moment . . . . I could see someone else's version of a "Cave of Adullam" write up: "Holy Profanity: In a recent issue of Credenda/Agenda, a magazine touting the virtues of Christianity, a story appeared with the following lines: `Damn you, damn you, damn you membranes! Damn you ribosomes!' Yet in the same issue they tell IVP to repent for publishing a book that doesn't use a presuppositional approach to science. . . ."
Doug Traversa
Grand Forks AFB, ND
Douglas Jones replies: I think that you and I actually agree more than we disagree. I wholeheartedly share your opposition to using profanity contrary to Scripture, and since your letter includes more "profanity" than my story (since you cite both my and Wes Callihan's words), we also appear to agree that one can cite or mention another's "profanity" without endorsing it and without violating Eph. 4:29. Moreover, my character didn't use "profanity" for cheap, realistic effect but for didactic purposes. This character, in his maddening rebellion against the clear divine testimony (Ps. 19:1,2) in his own biological research, attempted to play his own god, condemning (damning) that which so clearly revealed the true God. And one can seriously condemn (Gal. 1:8) without using profanity.
Dear Editor:
[In regard to Vol. 5, No. 6] Bob Callihan's "Honest Money," are wages/salary an "increase" or simply a trade/barter arrangement? For example, I'll give you X amount of so-called "dollars" for a trade of forty of your hours. Where's the increase?
Perry Coghlan
Warsaw, OH
Bob Callihan replies: Good question. If I bartered my forty hours for x dollars, at the end of the forty hours, my little pile of worldly possessions would have x more dollars than at the start. These dollars are my increase, right? If I was productive in your factory for that forty hours, you realized an increase too. So, we both get an increase. But if I didn't barter, and instead simply sat at home, my little pile of worldly possessions would be larger by forty more hours, right? This is not some sort of theological-physical equation for interconversion of matter and energy or time and space. The question raises several issues that are much more significant, however. One such issue should be seen in, and addressed by, our answers to the questions: Who owns "my" time (Ps. 118:24)? Is the increase "mine" to receive, or "yours" to give (cf. Hag. 2:8)? May the Lord give you increase more and more (Ps. 115:14).
The following is a selection from the responses to Douglas Wilson's criticisms of Exclusive Psalmody (Vol. 5/#6). We have spread the responses over Doug's four points.
Challenge and Response to Point #1
I believe there is contextual evidence with these verses that demands a narrow focus on the words, "psalms and hymns and spiritual songs." First, the Spirit through the Apostle commands us to let the Word of Christ dwell in us by means of these compositions. Without getting into grammatical terms with which some readers may be unfamiliar, I think that a word study will show that the phrase "word of Christ" means "word originating from Christ," not "word about Christ." What hymn can claim this? There is not one.
Second, the word translated "spiritual" in both verses, pneumatikais, means coming from the Spirit, or in this context, inspired. The words translated, "psalms and hymns and spiritual songs" are strongly tied together in a kai construction such as we find in Matt. 28:19 in the baptismal formula. The adjective pneumatikais, "spiritual," is distributed over the three plural nouns, describing them as all spiritual, or being given by the Holy Spirit. Now, what psalms and hymns and songs since the time of the Apostolic era can claim this attribute? I know of none. Thus we have contextual reasons to narrow the meaning to the psalms and hymns and songs contained within the Book of Psalms, or at least inspired praise. Quod erat demonstrandum, in my opinion.
Philip Pockras
Belle Center, OH
Douglas Wilson responds: The phrase "word of Christ" is ho logos tou Christou, with the word Christ in the genitive case. There is no grammatical requirement in this which necessitates the rendering you suggest. The genitive case is very broad, and while it may have the use you suggest, it also may have many others.
I also believe it is not grammatically possible to apply the adjective spiritual to psalms and hymns. The word is feminine and modifies songs which is also feminine. The nouns translated psalms and hymns are masculine. But further, even if your grammatical point were granted, on what basis can we say that this context requires that spiritual means inspired? We would certainly agree that when Paul wanted the Corinthians to be spiritual and not carnal (1 Cor. 3:1), he was simply urging them to godliness. What is the contextual reason for saying spiritual songs need to be inspired?
Challenge and Response to Point #2
I hold you and your magazine in high regard. Thank you for standing for Biblical truth. However, I must respectfully disagree with your comments against exclusive psalmody . . . You state Hezekiah "writes a wonderful song which is not contained in Psalms." However, God no more tells us in His word that this is a song than that Cyrus wrote a "wonderful song" proclaiming the exiles could return to Israel (Ezra 1:1) -- both are writings (miktawb). Since we do not have any songs Hezekiah wrote in God's word I'll stick with those spiritual psalms, hymns and songs which God clearly provided.
Edwin Blackwood
Evansville, IN
Douglas Wilson responds: I was unable to find the word miktawb in Isaiah 38:20. In the passage, Hezekiah promises to sing his negiynah (which means song), and to do so with stringed instruments, and in the house of the Lord. These songs were not just writings, and they are not among the 150 psalms we have. Therefore, we do have a record of biblical, musical worship in the house of the Lord which is not limited to the book of Psalms.
Challenge and Response to Points #3 & 4
As for point three, are you convinced that the song the 144,000 sing in heaven before God's throne is uninspired? If, for some reason, you are -- has God commanded us to follow this example? We don't restrict ourselves to the book of Psalms; God has so restricted us in that He has not directed us to sing anything else to Him in worship.
Translation into any language from Hebrew and Greek presents challenges. This is no less true from translation into the "language" of metered English. This does not make Psalter translations paraphrases, though some translations be better than others. What the psalmodist sings is inspired, in the usual meaning of the word.
Catherine McCarthy
Lansing, MI
Douglas Wilson responds: The inspiration of thte song of the 144,000 is not really the issue. The issue is whether the song was from the book of Psalms or not. I wholeheartedly agree that the Christian church is obligated to sing the truth, and in order for this to happen the songs must be closely tied to Scripture. But inspired song and psalm are not synonyms.
On the question of translation and singing portions of psalms, see my comments below on the regulative principle. It is certainly true that Jesus never sang Fanny Crosby's songs. But neither did He sing just the first seven verses of a psalm in badly rhymed couplets. Does the regulative principle apply with both examples, one or the other, or neither?
All Purpose Response
You apparently do not hold to the Regulative Principle, for it seems if you did you would feel the need to fault the deduction or modify the principle. Instead you ignore it. Your argument may hold some sway with others, but it will mean nothing to anyone who holds to Exclusive Psalmody, because he does so on the basis of the Regulative Principle which nullifies all of your argument.
Harvey Bluedorn
New Boston, IL
Douglas Wilson responds: First, I do hold to the regulative principle, which is, what is not commanded of us in worship is forbidden. But we must not understand the principle as springing from a difference between our worship and the rest of our lives -- where "that which is not forbidden is allowed." I believe a category mistake is commonly made here; the division is really between commands stated positively and commands stated negatively. The command to honor parents, for example, is positive. The prohibition of stealing is negative. The commands to worship God are positive in nature, with some important negatives (i.e. no images).
To illustrate, all parents understand the difference between "Do not jump on the couch," and "Go to your room." They are very different requirements. Disobedience to a negative command is very easy to identify. Disobedience to positive commands requires far more sanctified wisdom to identify. Consequently, any detailed applications of the regulative principle to brothers who differ on this must recognize this distinction. If all of us are not careful, we could find ourselves climbing on an ethical squirrel-cage run for a brisk trot.
And finally, let me reiterate how much we love singing the psalms! We at Credenda want to promote psalm singing far more than we want to argue with exclusive psalmodists. Together we should sing praises to the Lord, who dwells in Zion! We want nothing more than to declare His deeds among the people (Ps. 9:11).
