It has been a blessing to gain insight into who these men were and their contribution to the Christian faith. Reading about Cornelius Van Til has been no less insightful and beneficial. Reading the book Cornelius Van Til: Reformed Apologist and Churchman (American Reformed Biographies) has given me a deep appreciation for Van Til’s place in the history of the Christian faith.

“Muether does a masterful job of tracing the personal history of this ‘father of presuppositionalism.’ I could not put this book down.” – K. Scott Oliphint, Professor of Chruch History at Westminster Theological Seminary and editor of the book The Defense of the Faith (Cornelius Van Til)

In Cornelius Van Til: Reformed Apologist and Churchman (American Reformed Biographies) we read:

In 1944, at the suggestion of former student H. Evan Runner, Van Til wrote the widely distributed pamphlet Why I Believe in God … In this dialogue with an imaginary skeptic, Van Til admitted that God was for him the “all-conditioner,” who thoroughly shaped his belief in God. He then demanded that the unbeliever make a similar acknowledgment. “If you want to say that belief was poured down my throat, I shall retort that unbelief was poured down your throat.

Religious neutrality, in other words, was impossible. If one is not for God one is against God, and to be without bias is simply to have a particular kind of bias.

The full text of the article BRAININESS: GOOD BUT NOT SUFFICIENT follows with some comments at the end. Emphasis in italics mine.

“Modern Reformation” is a bimonthly magazine published by the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals. Its editor is Michael Horton, and among its advisors and contributors are W. Robert Godfrey, Ron Rosenbladt, R. C. Sproul, Timothy George, Douglas Groothuis, Carl F. H. Henry, and John Warwick Montgomery. If you read the more scholarly Evangelical journals, you will recognize some of those names.

Once upon a time, “Christianity Today” was the intellectual center of Evangelicalism, but CT long ago ceased to devote its pages to serious writing. Today it represents Evangelicalism Lite–not a liberal version of Evangelicalism but an intellectually lightweight version. “Modern Reformation,” which is a dozen years old, has filled much of the gap.

A recent issue was devoted to the theme “We Believe in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.” And these Evangelicals do, but it is one thing to believe in something and another thing to locate it. I admire the seriousness that infuses the articles in this special issue, and I wince in sympathy at the lack of success in finding that one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

In his contribution, Michael Horton tries to define what is meant when one says the Christian Church is “catholic.” “At one end of the spectrum are Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and specific Protestant bodies that often claim simply to be the catholic church without remainder.” This won’t do, he says, because the real Church is not mainly a visible body, and these churches are all visible.

“On the other end are most evangelical and pentecostal groups that, in their ‘nondenominational’ denominationalism, understand the church as simply the sum total of individuals who are truly born again.” That won’t do either.

The answer is to be found among the “churches of the Reformation,” Horton says. They “reflect a somewhat mediating position.” They have visible elements, such as “faithful preaching and right administration,” but they also take into account that the true Church is present wherever the gospel is preached. These Reformed (Calvinist) churches thus are one step up from the atomism of nondenominationalism but one step down from the rigor of the pre-Reformation churches of the East and West.

As I said, I wince when I read such arguments. I wince because the arguments are so unconvincing, as splitting-the-difference arguments usually are. I don’t want to pick on Michael Horton. Those writing in “Modern Reformation” on the three other marks of the Church are in the same predicament.

Paul C. H. Lim, for instance, laments that a friend has left Evangelicalism for Rome, but this only encourages Lim “to take a journey of his own to discover what true unity means and why, as a Protestant, he can assent to being part of ‘one, holy, catholic, and apostolic’ church.”

Well, Mr. Lim can assent to that, but he is not assenting to a fact, because the church he belongs to does not in fact have those four marks. Wishing does not make it so, and, reading between the lines and taking into account the evident intelligence and sincerity of the writers, I am led to think that they know–either consciously or subconsciously–that their position is not tenable.

Some Catholics think that Protestantism, being a truncated form of Christianity, must appeal only to people of restricted intelligence. Sure, there are many fine people in Protestantism, but those with brains move elsewhere. It’s not as simple as that. I know many highly intelligent Protestants, including several of the men whose names are listed above, and their remaining Protestant is not a matter of a lack of brains.

Why do they seem convinced by arguments such as those in this issue of “Modern Reformation,” when I and others think the arguments are so weak that, in a way, they prove the opposite of what they were intended to prove–that is, that they prove the necessity of joining the real Catholic Church (I mean the one headed by the Pope)?

Why are these intelligent people happy with arguments that others find flawed–and not just flawed on the periphery but flawed in their core? I have no answer for that. The situation may be something like that famous line drawing of a vase. Squint your eyes just so, and the image becomes two faces. Squint again, and it’s back to a vase. So near, yet so far.

Mr. Keating in saying the following presumes we trust he understands and is part of the one true church, that being the Roman Catholic church.

I wince in sympathy at the lack of success in finding that one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church…. I wince because the arguments are so unconvincing.

Keating argues that the Reformed understanding of the church is unconvincing yet offers no defense of his own position on the definition of the church.

Keating goes on to say, speaking of those in the Reformed camp:

I am led to think that they know–either consciously or subconsciously–that their position is not tenable…. Why do they seem convinced by arguments such as those in this issue of “Modern Reformation,” when I and others think the arguments are so weak that, in a way, they prove the opposite of what they were intended to prove–that is, that they prove the necessity of joining the real Catholic Church (I mean the one headed by the Pope)? Why are these intelligent people happy with arguments that others find flawed–and not just flawed on the periphery but flawed in their core?

It’s interesting to me that Keating expects readers to move in his direction simply because he and others think the Reformed view of the church is weak. Keating is hardly convincing to me. Really, who does Mr. Keating think he is?

In the absence of Keating’s defense of his idea of ‘the church’ and his lack of reference to scripture, I will provide here a summarized explanation of the Reformed understanding of the church with scripture references.

systematic theology, chapter 44, the church: its nature, its marks, and its purposes — Wayne Grudem

The church is the community of all true believers for all time. This definition understands the church to be made of all those who are truly saved. Paul says, “Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” (Eph. 5:25). Here the term “the church” is used to apply to all those whom Christ died to redeem, all those who are saved by the death of Christ. But that must include all true believers for all time, both believers in the New Testament age and believers in the Old Testament age as well. So great is God’s plan for the church that he has exalted Christ to a position of highest authority [not a Pope] for the sake of the church: “He has put all things under his feet and has made him the head over all things for the church, which is his body, the fulness of him who fills all in all.” (Eph. 1:22-23).

Jesus Christ himself builds the church by calling his people to himself.

A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, chapter 20, the nature and foundation of the church

…. we can assert here that the church in Scripture is composed of all the redeemed in every age who are saved by grace through personal faith in the sacrificial work of Jesus Christ, “the seed of the woman” (Gen. 3:15) and suffering Messiah (Isa. 53:5-10).

The church is one by virtue of its union with Christ. All its members are baptized by one Spirit into one body having one Head and one Lord. There is one building with one foundation, one flock under one Shepherd. Dissensions and divisions among Christians obscure the oneness of the body of Christ. Hence, we have various appeals in the epistles for unity through patience and love [not through a Pope]. The church’s “oneness,” as both fact and ideal to be achieved, is taught particularly by Jesus and Paul. [John 10:14-16; John 17:20-23; Romans 15:5-6; Galatians 3:28; 1 Corinthians 1:10-13; 1 Corinthians 12:12-13; Ephesians 2:14-16; Ephesians 4:3-6; Philippians 2:2; Colossians 3:12-14]

To rap this up, I would just say there is an overwhelming body of biblical evidence to support the Reformed concept of ‘the church’ as being the body of Christ; those who are partakers of Christ and the blessings of salvation that are in Him.

Note: Consider supporting this blog by going to Monergism Books or Westminster Bookstore when looking for great deals on Christian books. — Shane Trammel

Consider how spot-on Mark is with his words in this quote.

I want you to try a thought exercise. Suppose a business school class on non-profit organizations assigns its students the task of building a successful church. And assume all the students are non-Christians. Could they succeed?

Sure they could! With the right poll-tested methods, just about anyone can draw a crowd. If ambience sells coffee, why not use it to sell Jesus? If music sells clothing, why not use it to market the church? The church might even win a “Most Innovative!” award.

Yet think about this: what does it say about God if we need to market his glory and gospel with the same tools we use to sell toothpaste and laundry detergent? Is he really that desperate?

God is so much more glorious. He has declared a mighty gospel and then backed up his words by changing a group of people. There’s the church’s appeal: The wisdom of God. The might of God. the love of God. On display in the lives of a changed people for all the world to see!

Is your church relying on natural appeal or supernatural? Whose glory does it display?

Books and other resources by featured author Mark Dever

Anyone interested in seeing a church become spiritually healthy must aim at seeing that body increasingly become everything that God’s Word calls a church to be. Mark Dever has helpfully defined a healthy church as one that “increasingly reflects God’s character as his character has been revealed in his Word.” The most important thing a local church can do is to fulfill its calling to be the church.

Read the complete post here.

Related link: Restoring Health to an Unhealthy Church: Why Attempt It?

Visit Westminster Books for great deals on Christian books.

What practical difference does this “Comp. vs. Ega.” thing make to a church member?

It makes all the difference in the world. When Jesus calls people to be His disciples, He?s not calling them as androgynous creatures. He calls them as male and female. A man’s role as a Christian husband is different than a woman’s role as a believing wife (Ephesians 5:21-33). A Christian husband will lead his family as Christ leads and “heads” His church, or else the husband is a disobedient disciple. A Christian wife will follow her husband’s leadership as the church follows Christ’s, or else she is a disobedient disciple. These two biblical principles alone have massive practical implications for the ordering of family life, for the raising of children, and for the continued health of marriages. Within the church, Complementarianism has enormous practical implications. It means that a church that wants to obey the Bible will only call qualified men to be pastors. It means that churches will be aiming to open up appropriate avenues of ministry for all of its members, including women. The practical outworking of Complementarianism is too large to list here. There?s just no getting around the fact that the gender question has massive implications for the life of the disciple in nearly every aspect of his life.

If you have ever pondered questions like this, then see the entire blog post by JBMW editor Denny Burk.

(HT:David Kotter — CBMW)

Catholic churches in the Netherlands should use the name Allah for God to ease tensions between Muslims and Christians, says a Dutch bishop.

Tiny Muskens, the bishop of Breda, told the Dutch TV program “Network” Monday night he believes God doesn’t mind what he is called, Radio Netherlands Worldwide reported.

The Almighty is above such “discussion and bickering,” he insisted.

Muskens points to Indonesia, where he served 30 years ago, as an example for Dutch churches. Christians in the Middle East also use the term Allah for God.

“Someone like me has prayed to Allah yang maha kuasa (Almighty God) for eight years in Indonesia and other priests for 20 or 30 years,” Muskens said. “In the heart of the Eucharist, God is called Allah over there, so why can’t we start doing that together?”

Muskens thinks it could take another 100 years, but eventually the name Allah will be used by Dutch churches, promoting rapprochement between the two religions, he said, according to Radio Netherlands.

However, a survey published today in the Netherlands’ largest newspaper, De Telegraaf, showed 92 percent of the more than 4,000 people polled oppose the bishop’s view, the Associated Press reported.

Some letters to the paper were filled with ridicule for the bishop.

“Sure. Lets call God Allah. Lets then call a church a mosque and pray five times a day. Ramadan sounds like fun,” wrote Welmoet Koppenhol.

The chairman of the Protestant Church in the Netherlands, Gerrit de Fijter, told the Dutch paper he welcomed any attempt to “create more dialogue,” according to the AP. But he said, “Calling God ‘Allah’ does no justice to Western identity. I see no benefit in it.”

A Muslim spokesman, for Amsterdam’s union of Moroccan mosques, said Muslims had not asked for such a gesture from Christians, the AP reported.

Tensions with the Netherlands’ 1-million-strong Muslim community have been high since the 2004 murder of filmmaker Theo Van Gogh by a Muslim avenging a film critical of Islam.

Last week, politician Geert Wilders talked about banning the Quran, shortly after the head of a group of former Muslims, Ehsan Jami, compared Islam’s prophet Muhammad with al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden.

Muskens made similar remarks several year ago about using the name of Allah, Radio Netherlands reported. He also suggested replacing the national Christian holiday Whit Monday – celebrated the day after Pentecost – with an Islamic religious day.

The bishop also has offended Muslims, saying in 2005 Islam was a religion without a future because it has too many violent aspects.

With Evangelical and Pentecostal representatives joining in at an 8-12 August consultation in Toulouse, the joint Vatican-World Council of Churches study process on religious conversion gets one step closer to its goal of a common code of conduct in seeking converts to Christianity.

Did you get that, … a common code of conduct in seeking converts … What on earth are they talking about, I had this strange notion that the bible was clear on how we should reach the lost. Why is this group wasting so much time, energy, and money on something that is already clearly addresses in scripture? (Shane Trammel)

Please share your thoughts on this topic with us.

You can read the complete post here.

Related Link:

Report from inter-religious consultation on “Conversion – assessing the reality”