My friend Chris asked me last night whether I was a 7 point Calvinist. I had never heard the term before, but apparently John Piper is one. Read the article for a brief summary of his two extra points – “double predestination” and “the best of all worlds”.

Double predestination is probably an unhelpful name for what is a logical outworking of predestination. If God has chosen some, then it follows that he has not chosen others – he would hardly be unaware of the consequences of his own choices. However, as the default action for a just God is to punish sin, is it really necessary to speak of God as specifically choosing people for damnation?

An analogy may help. If I walk through a subway in London and I see five homeless people, and I give £10 to one of them, I have chosen to show kindness to that one person. But have I chosen to reject the other four? In one sense yes, but I would not describe the incident by in those terms – e.g. “I saw five homeless people today and decided not to give anything to four of them”. The choice was to deviate from the default action of simply walking on by. Similarly I would not say “I saw five homeless people today and decided not to offer a room to any of them”. The best description of the incident is the choice I made, not the countless choices I could have made but didn’t.

Point 7 – “the best of all worlds” (sounds like what these people who claim to believe in both Calvinism and Arminianism are trying to achieve) seems a reasonable thesis to hold, but how exactly we could be sure of this I don’t know. It fits well with Piper’s assertion that maximising his own glory is God’s priority (see Wink’s post at Parableman for some critical reflection on this idea). It makes the “best” world the one that best achieves this end, rather than judging what is “best” by standards that would more naturally come to mind – (e.g. least suffering, most beauty).

I suppose in one sense I agree with Piper on both points. But I don’t feel the need to elevate them to join the 5 points of Calvinism. In fact, I would argue that not all the five points of Calvinism are as fundamental as each other. Once you have accepted unconditional election as a given, perseverance of the saints, irresistible calling and limited atonement are simply logical deductions (limited atonement also presupposes a particular theory of the atonement). Total depravity just explains to us why the election had to be unconditional for any to be saved.

But as I discussed with Harun last night, perhaps some are predestined to be Arminians, while others choose to be Calvinists.

Recently, Sven and Richard have made some very insightful comments on my post Am I still a Restorationist?, so I want to continue my look at the ongoing relevance of Restorationist thinking. This post has got a bit long, and isn’t quite as polished as I would like, but it might spark off a bit more debate among those working out where they stand on these issues.

One of the favourite themes of the Restorationism is getting back to the New Testament pattern of early church life. This notion often comes under fire from those from other church backgrounds as being both theologically and historically naïve.

First, it is questioned whether we indeed want to be like the early church. Was it really all that great? The church in Corinth was riddled with problems, the seven churches of Revelation were in a sorry state, the church of 3 John had an out of control leader, the church of Galatians were in danger of losing the gospel altogether, while the church of Acts had full-blown apostolic confrontations. Add to that the repeated pattern of heretical splinter groups arising during the first centuries of Christianity (some early enough to warrant opposition in the Pauline epistles), and it begins to look like the Restorationist vision of the early church is romantically viewed through rose-tinted spectacles.

Second, churches that have their stated aim to be like the early church are quite at ease with a number of features of modern church life that were unheard of in those early days. Worship leaders playing their guitars with a full band behind them and computerised words projected onto a big screen are assumed to be an obvious implication of being a New Testament church. Youth ministers, Kidz Klubs, worship CDs, What Would Jesus Do bracelets and teaching tapes are standard fare though the first apostles had not even heard of such things. Who gets to decide what parts of early church life we go back to? And how do we know what it was really like anyway?

Of course, most Christians in most denominations have simply not read up on their church history. The little they know is from deductions from the New Testament and biographical accounts of various believers. So the Pentecostals know about the healing evangelists of the early 1900s, and the Reformed Evangelicals know about Calvin and Luther. Others know a bit about various saints, missionaries and communes. But the fact is, when it comes to the early church, most of us know very little. And those who have done their reading of ancient history are wont to point out the many differences between a Jewish 1st century church and a western charismatic megachurch.

But much of the criticism of the Restorationist “New Testament church” tends to miss the point, probably thanks to careless rhetoric by Restorationists. What is being advocated is not a recreation of “early church practise” which was undoubtedly a mixture of good and bad, but the belief that there was an “New Testament pattern”, which the early church was in touch with in a way that has been lost somewhat. In other words, the basic principles of church government, community and worship were there right from the start. It makes New Testament the standard, and has no interest in embracing ecclesiastical structures or liturgical traditions that developed later.

Now to many evangelicals, this is not overly controversial. But the contention of Restorationists is that certain things have been lost over the years, that were part of this “New Testament pattern”. These include the charismatic gifts, the role of apostle, and a bigger vision of the “kingdom” that calls for a radical discipleship affecting every area of life. The established churches were seen to have jettisoned these dynamics of church life, resulting in a compromised and powerless church. This stands in stark contrast with the church in Acts in which the Holy Spirit was powerfully moving. But not everyone is convinced. Non-charismatic evangelicals do not take such a dim view of the post-apostolic early church, and see the reduction in supernatural Holy Spirit activity as a natural “salvation-history” progression, and the apostolic office as becoming redundant.

Where you stand on this debate will depend on your hermeneutics, theology, church background, and knowledge of church history. But I think there are lessons to be learned on both sides of the argument. Let me offer a few – first to the Restorationists (and evangelical charismatics, who tend to think along much the same lines):

• There is a need to be continually willing to evaluate all we do in the light of Scripture. For example, in the area of worship, there is a danger of becoming performance oriented, experience centred and commercially driven, while treating “joy” and “freedom” as though they were the only Biblical essentials of worship.
• It would help to have a better understanding of the ‘early’ years of church history (pre 1600s if you are reformed, pre 1900s if you are Pentecostal), and to take a slightly more respectful attitude to those who have gone before us. We may have theological differences with them, but the Holy Spirit has not been on one long holiday since Pentecost, and there is much to be learned from, without the need for uncritical acceptance.
• Exegesis is becoming a lost art in the charismatic movement with less and less expository preaching. If we are serious about following a New Testament pattern, then we should be serious about understanding what it is really saying.

But let me also offer Challenges to the critics of Restorationism:

• Just because you doubt that the Restorationists have rightly understood what the New Testament pattern is, doesn’t mean that there isn’t anything that needs to be restored. Too often the arguments of the Restorationists have been dismissed by appealing to their inconsistencies, without asking what the New Testament does teach in these areas.
• Similarly, there is no point continuing to knock down a straw man that argues for a Restoration of the faults and heresies of early church life.
• The point that Acts was not explicitly designed as a manual of church life does not mean that it can teach us nothing. A level-headed hermeneutic will still be able to deduce facts about many important aspects of mission, church government, priorities, community life, which give us a window onto how the apostles themselves saw fit to organise church life.
• The phrase “salvation history” is not sufficient to explain away any hint of the experiential or supernatural dimensions of the Spirit’s ministry in the New Testament.

Here are some miscellaneous sites I’ve come across, and places I’ve been in the last few weeks.

• Jeremy Pierce has posted another in his series of reviews of commentaries on specific biblical books – this time Ephesians
• He also gets a mention in the latest Biblical Studies Bulletin from Ridley Hall, Cambridge, which this month sees the return of the Comments on Commentaries -this month it is an update on Mark.
• Church of Christ the King, Brighton sermons are finally back online. John Hosier is always worth listening to.
• Biblical Training is a promising site offering the chance to listen to some lecture series by various evangelical scholars for free.
• I H Marshall weighs in to the debate on “penal substitution” showing the weight of biblical evidence for the concept, particularly in response to Alan Mann’s writings (along with Steve Chalke) on the atonement. It was the first thing I have read by this highly respected evangelical scholar, (although his Arminian views creep in at one point!) and I was quite impressed. The paper comes from a joint Evangelical Alliance/London School of Theology Symposium on the Atonement.
• I went to hear John Arnott speak in New Life Centre, Emsworth on Monday night. The worship was very contemporary complete with smoke machine and dancers. The talk was on healing, and he made some interesting points, although there were some things I was unsure of (giving the devil a ‘legal right’ to make you sick, getting people to ‘forgive themselves’ for injuries). By the end I was one of the few people still standing, which meant I had to do a lot of catching falling people. A number of the people I went with met with God in a powerful way, and I pray that it will result in lasting fruit in their lives.
• Sonar 5 has been announced

I have just returned from a week’s visit to Scotland, which gave me the opportunity to read a couple of books I bought at New Wine this year (reviews to follow shortly). The first was one I had read before but wanted to re-read in light of having joined a New Frontiers church since. “Restoring the Kingdom”, by Andrew Walker, tracks the history of Restorationism.

Note: if you have not heard of Restorationism before, please note that it has been used to describe a wide variety of teachings. I am referring to the British house-church movement of the 80s epitomised by the teachings of Arthur Wallis

The book is of great interest to me, as I was brought up in an independent Baptist church that was extremely Restorationist (at the time – it is nothing of the sort now). The pastor Stanley Jebb had previously worked with Denis Clarke, and Ern Baxter provided what was known as “covering” for the church and regularly visited. The church itself became known as a centre of restoration and many leading restorationists would come to speak. We even ran a Bible week called “Anglia Bible Week” for four years, which ran along similar lines to the Dales and Downs Bible Weeks.

At the present time I am in a New Frontiers church, which is one of the few strands of Restorationism that is still alive and well, although some of the emphases have changed and the name “Restorationist” is almost never used. My pastor, Martyn Dunsford is even listed on the first page of the book as being one of Andrew Walker’s sources, and his own background includes working with Bryn Jones. Again though, most people in our church probably don’t know what being “restorationist” is, even though many of the core values are still alive and well.

Reading the book has got me thinking about the whole Restorationist vision. So many of the original values are ones that I still hold dearly myself. It is true that many leaders lost that vision, and even those who have continued have modified it somewhat. Andrew Walker viewed the Dales Bible Weeks as crucial in passing the vision over to the people (and indeed recruiting new adherents), but with the closure of Stoneleigh Bible week, do church members even know what the vision is any more? Are we content to simply find a church whose worship and sermons are to our taste, or are we driven by a vision of what the bride of Christ could and should be?

It would seem that even the concept of there being a “New Testament model” of church life is decidedly out of fashion these days. It is viewed as arrogant, and out of touch with church history. And perhaps too much has been deduced from shaky exegetical foundations. But I am convinced that in the Scriptures we have the blueprints for something altogether more glorious than many have realised.

Finally this month, I completed my desire to buy an intermediate / advanced level commentary on each New Testament book. On the whole I think I have selected the most appropriate one, although there are still a few others I would like to get. My friend Graeme asked me if I would list them on my blog, so here they are, along with my ideas of what I might supplement the collection with. Visit my commentaries page if you want Amazon and publisher’s links for these books.

Matthew – D A Carson (Expositors Bible Commentary), R T France (New International Commentary), Leon Morris (Pillar New Testament Commentary).
Mark– James Edwards (PNTC), R T France (New International Greek Testament Commentary).
Luke – Robert Stein (New American Commentary), Darrell Bock (Baker Exegetical Commentary).
John – D A Carson (PNTC), Andreas Kostenberger (BEC).
Acts – F F Bruce (NICNT), Darrell Bock (BEC)
Romans – Douglas Moo (NICNT), Tom Schreiner (BEC).
1 Corinthians – Gordon Fee (NICNT). I intend to supplement this with Rosner and Ciampa in the PNTC.
2 Corinthians – Ralph Martin (Word Biblical Commentary), Murray Harris (NIGTC).
Galatians – Richard Longenecker (WBC). I hope to add Tom Schreiner’s ZEC volume to this soon
Ephesians – Peter O’Brien (PNTC). I intend to add either Clinton Arnold (ZEC) or Frank Theilman (BEC).
Philippians – Gordon Fee (NICNT), Moises Silva (BEC).
Colossians & Philemon – Peter O’Brien (WBC), Douglas Moo (PNTC)
1 & 2 Thessalonians – Gene Green (PNTC), Gordon Fee (NICNT)
Pastorals – W Mounce (WBC), Philip Towner (NICNT).
Hebrews – W Lane (WBC), Peter O’Brien (PNTC)
James – Douglas Moo (PNTC), Craig Blomberg & Mariam Kammel (ZEC)
1 Peter – Thomas Schreiner (NAC), Karen Jobes (BEC)
2 Peter & Jude – Thomas Schreiner (NAC), Peter Davids (PNTC)
1-3 John – Colin Kruse (PNTC). Possibly I’ll add Robert Yarbrough (BEC).
Revelation – Grant Osborne (BEC), G K Beale (NIGTC)

The ESV is becoming increasingly popular among evangelicals, and has been receiving lots of praise on various blogs recently (especially Adrian Warnock’s). I have been reading through it this year, and on the whole have been impressed, but I still think there is room for improvement. (see my comments on this post by Parableman for an example).

Earlier this week I read 2 Chronicles 9, and it highlighted one of my areas of concern. The commitment to literal translation is so strong, that unfamiliar idioms are used even when minor modifications would make the text immediately understandable to a much broader spectrum of readers.

For example, in 2 Chronicles 9:4, we are told that when the Queen of Sheba saw the wisdom and riches of Solomon, “there was no more breath in her”. This is a very awkward phrase, never used in conversational English, but there is actually a perfectly common idiom that expresses exactly the same sentiment – “it took her breath away”. I really can’t understand why the translators do not make this type of change, even if it moves from the strictly literal into the dynamic equivalence realm.

Interestingly, the NIV doesn’t go for this option either, preferring to say “she was overwhelmed”. I’m surprised that they have made this choice, as a number of paraphrases and literal translations have opted for “she was breathless” (NLT, CEV and NASB). HCSB and the Message are the only ones I came across that use what I consider to be the best option – “it took her breath away”.

The same chapter has a second example. In verse 31, it is said that Solomon “slept with his fathers”, meaning of course that he died. Sleeping with someone is a euphemism in English, but it does not mean dying. The NIV’s “rested with his fathers” keeps close to the Hebrew idiom while losing the unhelpful connotations. The commonly found “rest in peace” on gravestones testifies to our association of ‘resting’ with death.

I’m not suggesting that anyone will fail to understand the meaning of these two verses, but I don’t see why the principle of literal translation must be so rigidly adhered to in cases such as these, where similar idioms or euphemisms can be used. As Wink says, it is preferable to “emphasize readability over “literalness”.

In Kingsway’s latest brochure “Equipping the church”, the following book is advertised:

Your best life now, by Joel Osteen

The blurb says the following:

What do you believe? According to Pastor Joel Osteen, we will become what we believe. Our beliefs will prove either a barrier or vehicle as we strive to go higher, rise above our obstacles, and to live in health, abundance and victory. As he says “I am what I am today because of what I believed about myself yesterday. And I will be tomorrow what I’m believing about myself right now”

Seriously, I cannot believe that this is considered a Christian book. I can only hope that the synopsis grossly misrepresents Osteen’s message, because it certainly misrepresents the gospel.

Paul had a saying a bit like Osteen’s one – “I am what I am today…”, apart from it ended somewhat differently. Check out 1 Cor 15:10 if you don’t already know the answer.

The Bible strongly warns Christians against the sins of pride (e.g. Ps 101:5; Prov 16:5; Isa 2:12; Rom 12:16; James 4:6) and envy (e.g. Mark 7:22; Prov 14:30; 1 Cor 13:4; Gal 5:21; James 3:14; 1 Pet 2:1). We detect these sins easily enough in others, but how can we examine our own hearts? Particularly when it comes to our service in the body of Christ, it is possible for these sins to sneak in subtly under false pretences. Although they are rarely listed together in Scripture, I think there is a good deal of overlap between them, and they can be detected if we consider the attitudes we have when we compare other people’s gifting and ministries with our own.

Pride will affect the way we think about others who we consider to have less gifting or are less spiritual than ourselves. Envy will affect the way we think about those who have more recognition, success or status in our own area of gifting.

Pride and envy stop us receiving from other people who minister to us. We won’t be taught or served by them, as we know better (pride), or resent not being in their shoes (envy).

Pride and envy stop us rejoicing with other people as they are used by God in ministry. We don’t want to share the limelight with someone else (pride), or we resent them having opportunity that we would like ourselves (envy).

Pride and envy stop us recognising the gifting other people have for ministry. We begrudge them praise and opportunity because it detracts from the our own status (pride), or we have a critical attitude because we are bitter that they are doing what we want to do while we are not (envy).

What’s the remedy for these obnoxious attitudes? Humility. May the Holy Spirit help us to search our hearts and repent of any pride and envy we find there.

All of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, because, “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.” (1 Peter 5:5)