Carolyn McCulley Says...

exactly what I have been saying all along. If any of you are familiar with my dialogue with Debbie Maken, you will know that my main argument was that God ordains the ends as well as the means. Hence, while there is nothing wrong with a man or woman who wants to be married going out and persuing a man or woman in whom they have an interest, they have to trust that, if they fail to find a spouse, God is still guiding them by his soverign hand. As you can see, the argument caused Debbie Maken no end of trouble, because I was able to hold both that people are supposed to go out and pursue marriage if they desire it, and yet still hold that God can reject their request at any time.

Now, Carolyn McCulley, who is associated with Joshua Harris and Soverign Grace Ministries, has come out with practically the same argument. Candace Watters, a well known Mandatory Marriage Advocate, wrote a piece called Misguided Compassion. In a rejoinder, Carolyn McCulley has come out with a piece found here. The interesting thing is [barring some of the courtship undertones], this is exactly the same thing I said to Debbie Maken.

However, while I applaud Carolyn for writing what she has, her views of the Mandatory Marriage Movement are naive to say the least. For instance, notice how she says:

But as this dialogue ensues in various corners of cyberspace, my biggest concern is the pitting of one concept (trusting God) against another (get out there and DO something!). Advocates of either position often paint the perspective of the other in broad strokes. So I'd like to express my appreciation to Candice for raising this topic and then amplify some points in a way I trust will be helpful to both sides.

The problem is that, while Carolyn is certainly right, she is not recognizing that this is not the way the folks from the mandatory marriage movement are thinking. For instance, in another article, Candace Watters writes:

Why is this book necessary? Because a generation of singles are at risk of believing they've all been given the "gift of singleness" quite apart from the biblical conditions for celibacy; because a generation of singles are stuffing their discontent and starting to believe that it's their discontent, and not their protracted singleness, that is their sin; because a generation of Christian singles are at risk of never marrying and having children, thwarting God's desire for a godly seed (Malachi 2:15).

Aside from not working through the multitude of issues of exegetical issues involved in Malachi 2:15, Candace Watters says that being in a protracted single state is, not just undesirable, but sinful! That is a far cry from someone who says, "Get out there and do something." It is more the sign of someone who says, "If you don't do what I say, you are engaging in sin."

The movement has, indeed, started splitting. You are finding some that are not as into it, and some, like the folks over at the gift of singleness blog, that are so irrationally involved in promoting the manditory marriage movement, that they, apparently, have not had any time to announce their engagements or weddings. And yet, notice an interesting admission from these folks today:

Having expressed some exasperation with Boundless before for the mixed messages they send out, and the confusing way in which they may write a valuable blog post and then let it get lost amidst a sea of contrary comments until the reader's brain is so scrambled that they are left more muddled than ever ... I am now delighted to eat humble pie -- and it tastes soooo goood!

They are saying, "We want to be the only ones talking. We don't want to have to answer criticisms from the other side. That just scrambles the brain and confuses people. Basically, just shut up, and believe whatever we tell you." This is the mark of a cult, not of someone who is honestly and faithfully proclaiming the word of God, because if you really believe you have the truth, then you shouldn't have to worry when it gets attacked by error. In fact, you should be willing to say that truth is most clearly seen against the backdrop of error. I am not afraid to have my beliefs challanged because I firmly believe that they are truth.

I can honestly say that, while I disagree with the folks over on the Boundless Blog on several issues, they are at least willing to allow the other side to be heard through articles from people of various perspectives, comments, and e-mail. The folks over on The Gift of Singleness Blog, however, clearly cannot do that. Hence, they just cannot understand why the Boundless Blog would ever allow for opposing comments. That is just one of the multitude of examples I could give you from the Gift of Singleness blog demonstrating how biased, and utterly irrational these folks are.

In fact, to show you just how radical these folks are, Ted Slater, who is the editor at Boundless, actually commended Carolyn McCulley's article. Also, the folks over at The Gift of Singleness blog have actually called Carolyn McCulley a false teacher!

As I said, I can only hope that we don't have the makings of a new cult...but this kind of post is not encouraging.

Absolutely Unbelievable

I just wanted to let people know about this article over at James White's website.

These guys are absolutely out of control. Does someone have that little assurance of their salvation that they must go around with a persecution complex all of the time? What is worse is that these folks are simply harrassing people. I heard Dr. White mention on his program, The Dividing Line, that these folks have been arrested before! What a sad, sad testamony to the gospel! While I certainly have no problems preaching the the law, and telling people that they are going to hell if they do not repent, I am absolutely up in arms over this hateful way of doing it. I can't imagine what it is going to be like to be in the courtroom when the charges are read. You will see an elderly lady in a wheelchair with oxygen roll into the courtroom, followed by a big, physically fit man, and the charges will be read as two counts of assult. Everyone is going to think with horror about how a man of that size would assult an elderly lady on oxygen in a wheelchair. Then, the lady in the wheelchair will take the defendant's position, and the entire courtroom will gasp!

I hope this thing gets thrown out of court. The whole thing appears to have been a wild circus. The sad thing is that this is not the first time these guys have been at it. Here is a clip from James' website that shows these guys in action:

">

As I said, these guys have no concept of preaching the truth in love.

Interesting Article Over At Boundless

While I don't agree with everything over at the boundlessline blog [obviously], but I do enjoy reading their blog, and today, I did have to admire one of their articles discussing what they are calling a "purity ball." Now, I still think calling their position "biblical dating" is extreme circular reasoning, but I do think that they are right that fathers need to be involved in the lives of their daughters. They are also correct in that fathers need to take a role in training their daughters in how to think with purity. This is all over the Bible: Numbers 30, Ephesians 6:4, Deuteronomy 6:7, etc...

I must say that I am touched at the love of these fathers for their daughters. I don't think, as many have said, that a purity pledge was necessary for these fathers to protect their daughters. I think that it is a public profession of these fathers' love for their daughters and their willingness to care about the way in which their daughters think and act. With many of the disagreements we have over issues of courtship and mandatory marriage, I think this is one issue, along with abortion, atheism, homosexuality, pornography, and several others upon which I can strongly support them. There is something just so sweet about a father's love for his daughter.

Fanmail from the Mandatory Marriage Movement

I keep on saying this time and time again. The mandatory marriage movement is the most nasty movement I have ever dealt with. I have dealt with King James Only advocates, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Jehovah's Witnesses, and many others, and I can honestly say this movement is the worst. For your parousal, here is an example of a message that one of their advocates posted for me on Anakin Niceguy's blog. Such a kind soul:

PC,

You really are amazing. for someone who whines constantly about name calling, you seem to have no problem calling people names yourself. Please wake up and stop acting like a child. Your ego is also not doing you any favors or do I need to write that in GREEK for you to understand it.

GH

As I said. This movement is becoming exactly like the childish men they think they are trying to refute.

Debbie Maken misrepresents John Piper

John Piper is an outstanding scholar. While I don't agree with everything he says, his work is definitely recognized in the scholarly world as sober. His book The Justification of God An Exegetical and Theological study of Romans 9:1-23 is one of the best exegetical studies ever written.

Compare this to the work of Debbie Maken and, well, there is no comparison. John Piper bends over backwards to answer every criticism against him in his work on Romans 9. However, when Debbie Maken was challanged on several issues in my discussion with her, she ignored most of them, and then ended up pretending to be able to figure out my motives. There really is no comparison between Debbie Maken and John Piper, and therefore, when I found Debbie Maken writing this on her blog, I just rolled my eyes:

This tension exists in the thinking of the general Christian culture, but it is reinforced in sermons like the one Piper gave. There, Piper disparagingly gives the example of an elderly family man “rocking in front of his lake house” handing down a “big fat inheritance” to his children to “confirm . . . . worldliness.” In his own words, Piper defines this as a “tragedy,” a life of “wasted middle class mediocrity.” In conveying these sentiments, Piper here comes perilously close to forbidding marriage without actually coming right out and saying to young people not to get married. He appears to mock the design that God has put in place for marriage, implying that is “selling-out” in some way, inferior, contrary to what God would really have wished for them. If any single took this message to heart, then “marriage and family” would be the last thing he would want to pursue, if he really wanted to serve God. One would think that God’s desire was not for godly children (despite Gen. 1:28; Jer. 29:6; Mal. 2:15), and that it is inferior to living a single life made up of service activities in the overall global cause. There is no way to mistake the hierarchy of values being advanced here—evangelism trumps the staid, “dead-end dream” of “middle class security and comfort.”Part of me wanted to call this blog entry, “Mediocre, Middle Class, and Proud of It!” My husband and I wear that badge with honor. I suppose we have been condemned to “meaningless, middle class, American prosperity.” We believe that what we build together will be handed down to our own legacy, as God intended (Gen. 27, 28, 49), and not to unknowns within the State or the Church. (See also Prov. 13:22: A good man leaves an inheritance to his children’s children). The entire concept of inheritance has always been built on blood/familial relations and the next generation following and honoring the last (see also Deut. 5:16), not with people who are merely joined together by common values. In fact, without having a direct object (i.e. children) for whom to work, the entire notion of creating an inheritance goes out the window, which would explain the "worldliness" and seeking of temporal pleasures of most singles.

Feel free to read the whole sermon, and see how it reading the whole thing together shows that Debbie Maken is not even coming close to representing John Piper accurately. Here is the portion to which Debbie Maken is referring:

The great tragedy is not mainly masturbation or fornication or acting like a peeping Tom (or curious Cathy) on the internet. The tragedy is that Satan uses the guilt of these failures to strip you of every radical dream you ever had, or might have, and in its place give you a happy, safe, secure, American life of superficial pleasures until you die in your lakeside rocking chair, wrinkled and useless, leaving a big fat inheritance to your middle-aged children to confirm them in their worldliness. That’s the main tragedy.
I have not come to Atlanta to waste your time or mine. I have come with a passion that you not waste your life. My aim is not mainly to cure you of sexual misconduct. I would like that to happen. O, God let it happen! But mainly I want to take out of the devil’s hand the weapon that exploits the sin of your life to destroy your valiant dreams, and make your whole life a wasted worldly success.

The misrepresentation of John Piper is obvious. What he is referring to is those people who live a life entrapped in the sin of lust, and do not go out and make a difference for Christ. What he is talking about is someone who may be married, but who refuses to go out and do work for Christ, and lives his entire life endulging in the worldly pleasures of sin and sexual immorality. What John Piper is saying is not that marriage and children are worldly, but that you can still waste your life by sexual immorality even though you are married, and live in middle class medocrity, and have a big fat inheretance to hand down to your children. And is he not right? Is Debbie Maken really suggesting that anyone who gets married cannot waste his life? That would be the only way this would make sense. Notice, also, the misuse of Proverbs 13:22. She appears to be saying that it means "If you leave your inheritance to your children's children, you are a good man," which is simply a logical fallacy. The converse of conditional statements may be true, but you cannot assume that they are true.

Worse than that, she quotes Jeremiah 29:6 as having some relevance to the discussion. It reads:

Jeremiah 29:6 'Take wives and become the fathers of sons and daughters, and take wives for your sons and give your daughters to husbands, that they may bear sons and daughters; and multiply there and do not decrease.

Of course, she forgot to read the text in context:

Jeremiah 29:3-10 The letter was sent by the hand of Elasah the son of Shaphan, and Gemariah the son of Hilkiah, whom Zedekiah king of Judah sent to Babylon to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, saying, 4 "Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, to all the exiles whom I have sent into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon, 5 'Build houses and live in them; and plant gardens and eat their produce. 6 'Take wives and become the fathers of sons and daughters, and take wives for your sons and give your daughters to husbands, that they may bear sons and daughters; and multiply there and do not decrease. 7 'Seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the LORD on its behalf; for in its welfare you will have welfare.' 8 "For thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, 'Do not let your prophets who are in your midst and your diviners deceive you, and do not listen to the dreams which they dream. 9 'For they prophesy falsely to you in My name; I have not sent them,' declares the LORD. 10 "For thus says the LORD, 'When seventy years have been completed for Babylon, I will visit you and fulfill My good word to you, to bring you back to this place.

The first and most obvious thing about this text is that it is addressed to the people of Judah as they are heading away into exile. God's concern is that there have been false prophets that have came, and tried to say that they should revolt against those who were taking them into exile [vrs. 8-10]. God is telling them that they are not to listen to these false prophets, and are to go into exile, and wait for the Lord to bring them back. Hence, there is a specific historical context. Why does Debbie Maken not mention that?

Second, this is a common feature of Hebrew literary structure known as a merism. It is "a poetic device that describes the whole by enumerating the parts, usually opposites. The parts listed often form a polarity" [Ross, Allen P. Introducing Biblical Hebrew p. 372]. This passage fits the definition to perfection. We have "building houses and planting gardens" [v.6] which would refer to ones personal life, and one's professional life. We have taking wives for yourself, and giving people in marriage. We have the seeking of the welfare of the city and the welfare of the people. Therefore, what he is telling these people is that they must continue their life as usual. They must not stop what they are doing, and try to revolt, because that is not God's will.

The fact that everyone was not commanded to get married should also be obvious in the fact that God was obviously not commanding all of them to be gardeners. He was also not commanding all of them to build houses [what if you had poor people that had to share a house?]. It gets even worse if you try to apply it to today. Would Debbie Maken really want to start a movement where she attacks the "delay of house-building," by stating that anyone who only purchases houses that have already been built is sinning? Does Debbie Maken want to start a movement in our modern society saying that it is a "duty" of all people to be gardeners today?

I think her misuse of this text shows the incompetence of Debbie Maken as an exegete in a much more radical way than her misuse of any other text. This is because it shows that she is not taking her views from the text, but reading them into the text. She has to read the section that helps her to get the idea that marriage is a "duty" in an entirely different way than how she reads the surrounding verses with the exact same language as verse 6. This kind of arbitary interpretation of a text is a sure fire indication that you are bringing your prejudices to the text, and reading the text through the lens of your prejudices, rather than deriving your beliefs from the word of God from the start.

What is worse is that she does this in the context of responding to a scholar on the academic level of John Piper, and misrepresents him in the process. The sad thing is that some single people will, and already do take what Debbie Maken says as gospel truth. Worse than that, there are a few singles that treat her like a Christian celebrity. Don't believe me? Take a look at this blog. It is sad. This, in turn, produces worse problems. I was looking at the comments section on Anakin Niceguy's blog, and, while Anakin's article straight to the point and deals with the issues, the entire discussion in the comments section has turned into single men and women just taking personal shots at one another.

While there are people from my side of the discussion who have done this, keep in mind that this is the kind of scholarship upon which these folks are wanting to shame single men. This is the kind of scholarship which they use to call us "overgrown children." In reality, the shame should be on anyone who would use this kind of unscholarly nonsense to shame anyone. Shame does need to exist. There are certainly people in the church who need to be shamed. However, we need to have good reason for doing so. Relying on this kind of unscholarly, irrational emotionalism to shame people is simply immoral and childish.

I remember Dr. James White saying one time that when you do the work of polemic theology, you have to be careful that you do not become like those you seek to refute. There are many men out there who are lazy, selfish, and self-centered. No question about it. However, in doing the work of seeking to push these men on to maturity, we need to do so in such a way that we do not become just as childish as they are. The mandatory marriage movement has not guarded themselves against this, and they have fallen in to the trap head first.

However, some people within the movement have not done this. There are some who, rather than just conclude from the start that marriage is a duty [as Debbie Maken does], are willing to open up the Bible and discuss it with you on an exegetical basis. These are the people in this movement who I can commend. Sadly, it is not the character of the movement as a whole. When you answer these criticisms, most of these people just get nasty, and try to intimdate you with their numbers and popularity. Anakin Niceguy has made up a silly, but sadly, true little picture that illustrates my point:

While we can all get a good laugh out of this picture it illustrates something important. The general character of this movement is not to use scripture to support their ideas but intimidation. I can only say that, as long as they are going to continue in this methodology, I am, first of all, not going to be intimidated, and second not going to be convinced that their position is right. Intimidation is no substitute for argument. In fact, it is dishonoring to God when we as Christians have to resort to it.

Open Theism

Another Religion?

One of the Pastors from the church I attend back in Ohio when I visit my parents for breaks pointed me to a discussion Pastor Gene Cook had with a man from a movement called Open Theism by the name of Bob Enyart. I don't know how much longer the Mp3's will be availible, but as of this afternoon, both Part I and Part II were still availible for listening/downloading.

From what I gather, this position comes out of the argument produced by A.N. Prior against arminianism. I always use it because it is such a devistating argument. The argument goes something like this. Knowledge, by definition, is justified belief. Because arminians believe the future is contingent, given the arminian system, no one could ever justify a belief about what will happen in the future. Therefore, not even God could have knowledge of future events.

In other words, if you say the future is still contingent, you are forced into saying that God's omnicience does not entail foreknowledge. I have never had an arminian agree with this argument, but it sure has been interesting to see them try to get around it. It is one of the most devistating arguments against arminianism I have ever seen.

However, Open Theists, rather than give up free will, have, instead, given up God's exhaustive foreknowledge of future events. This is sad. Why would someone love human autonomy so much that they would be willing to fashion God after themselves rather than vise versa? I have not studied this movement much [although I hope to do so in the future], but I will say that, from hearing Gene Cook's debate, and listening to his interview with Dr. Robert Morey found here, I presently believe that this system is not even Christian. I will do more study before I finally decide in fairness to those who believe in this, but, from what I heard from Gene's debate, we don't even worship the same God.

This is Sad

I just want to point everyone to a discussion on Phyllis Schlafly Live. It is with a college graduate in social work by the name of Emily Brooker. It is absolutely amazing what this girl went through. You can listen to the first half here, and the second half here. The absolute insanity of many on the left is brought out in this young girl's story. These silly teachers told her that she must separate her beliefs from her professional work. And yet, did these professors separate their belief that homosexuality is an acceptible lifestyle from their work? No. What they suggested is totally impossible. What you believe has implications for how you live your life, including how you do your work in the professional realm, and every other area of life.

These people always want to come across under the guise of neutrality, but in reality they are some of the most biased people on the planet. Greg Bahnsen once said, rightly:

Therefore, the Christian who strives after neutrality in his thought is found actually to be endeavoring to efface the fact that he is a Christian! By denying his distinctive religious commitment he is reduced to apostate thought patterns and absorbed into the world of unbelief. Attempting to find a compromise between the demands of worldly neutrality (agnosticism) and the doctrines of Christ's word results in the rejection of Christ's distinctive Lordship by obliterating the great gulf between the thinking of the old man and that of the new man [Always Ready Directions for Defending the Faith p.9].

It is one of the most deceptive tricks the political and social left will use, namely, the myth of neutrality. If we fall for it, we end up, as Greg Bahnsen said, being absorbed into the world of unbelief. That is why I am so thankful that this young woman had the courage to deny the neutrality myth, and to come out and win the case. I only wonder how many more students have had these injustices done to them, and the ending was not so happy.

Also, this program is availible in Mp3 format for about two weeks yet. Here is the first half, and here is the second half.

The Deadly Fruit of Abortion

If there is one evil I really, really hate it is abortion. How many children and parents have had their lives ruined by this wicked practice? How many people are deceived into thinking that it is acceptible to execute infants just for the sake of our own convienence? This, like all other things, is connected to the rejection of the idea that God is our king, and he gets to bind his law upon our contience. The natural man hates this truth, but a truth it is.

When we look at God's law, we find that it makes the killing of the unborn so henious, that even the accidental killing of the unborn is worthy of death:

Exodus 21:22-23 And when men struggle, and they injure a pregnant woman so that her child comes out, but no one is fatally harmed, he will surely pay according to that which the husband of the woman places upon him, and he will give [it] in the presence of judges. 23. But if it is a fatal wound, you will give a life for a life. [Translation mine]

Contrast that, for instance, to Deuteronomy 19:5:

And when a man goes into the forest to gather wood, and his hand is put on the axe to cut wood, and the axe head is drawn off from the wood, and it finds his companion, and he dies, let him flee to one of these cities, and live. [Translation mine]

So, God requires the death penalty for even the accidental killing of the unborn, but a person can live if they accidentally kill someone who is alive. Greg Bahnsen once pointed this out in one of his lectures, and as I have grown to think God's thoughts after him more and more, I have grown to hate the practice of abortion more and more. If the accidental death of an unborn child is to get the death penalty, how severly do you think God is going to judge those who purposefully murder their unborn children in cold blood?

However, again, this is a worldview issue. Aside from the fact that there are unbelievers who dispise this practice, we have to ask how anything can be wrong given the fact that they are willing to rebel against God, and murder their unborn children? What authority is their for morality once God is removed as the ultimate authority?

Worse than that, let us consider the pain that these children must go through. It makes me angry to think of a child crying out in pain as his brains get sucked out due to partial birth abortion. What a horrendous, and terribly depraved way to take someone's life. Think about dying by being burned by salts, or being torn to shreds by a machine. We would not do this to our worst enemy, and yet we would do this to our children??????

My good friend Jenna, who was one of my colleagues in Old Testament backgrounds class, has written an excellent poem that, I think, captures this point very well:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Month One

Mommy, I am only 8 inches longbut I have all my organs. I love the sound of your voice. Every time I hear it, I wave my arms and legs.The sound of your heart beatis my favorite lullaby.

Month Two

Mommy, today I learned how to suck my thumb. If you could see me, you could definitely tell that I am a baby. I'm not big enough to survive outside my home though. It is so nice and warm in here.

Month Three

You know what MommyI'm a boy!! I hope that makes you happy. I always want you to be happy. I don't like it when you cry. You sound so sad. It makes me sad too, and I cry with you even though you can't hear me.

Month Four

Mommy my hair is starting to grow. It is very short and fine, but I will have a lot of it. I spend a lot of my time exercising. I can turn my head and curl my fingers and toes, and stretch my arms and legs. I am becoming quite good at it too.

Month Five

You went to the doctor today. Mommy, he lied to you. He said that I'm not a baby. I am a baby Mommy, your baby. I think and feel. Mommy, what's abortion?

Month Six

I can hear that doctor again. I don't like him. He seems cold and heartless. Something is intruding my home. The doctor called it a needle. Mommy what is it? It burns! Please make him stop! I can't get away from it! Mommy! HELP me!

Month Seven

Mommy, I am okay.I am in Jesus's arms. He is holding me. He told me about abortion. Why didn't you want me Mommy?

Every Abortion Is Just . . .

One more heart that was stopped. Two more eyes that will never see. Two more hands that will never touch. Two more legs that will never run. One more mouth that will never speak.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Folks, this is not a philosophical game. These are issues of life and death. You don't play games with human life. Humans are created in the image of God, and to violate his law by taking someone's life in cold blood [born and expecially unborn] is something that is worthy of death itself according to God's law. I hope that, one day, Roe vs. Wade will be overturned. Until then, this kind of behavior needs to be challanged for the heinous murder that it is.

Absolutely Amazing

I recently had a dialogue with Debbie Maken over on the comments section of the Boundless Weblog, and I am truly amazed. I think the irrationality, not only of Debbie Maken, but also of people who just simply could not represent me properly came out very well. The worst, however, has to be the misrepresentation at the end. Someone asked me about why it was that Hanna was crying in the temple at the beginning of first Samuel. I wrote:

With regards to Hanna, it is more than likely that Hanna was weeping over not having a child mostly because, at that time, being barren was as bad as being a nerd in school. You were often the subject of immense ridicule and that may be what Hanna is upset about.

The response I got back from a man named Darren Allen to this was:


Adam,
Are you joking????
You are comparing being barren and childless to being a nerd??????????
She was upset being ridiculed????
I don't know what sort of la la land you live in but you have lost credibility in this debate.

Then Debbie Maken said:

On my blogspot Adam as Puritan Calvinist said that stewardship of our bodies meant that we should enjoy our maleness and femaleness by refusing to cross dress. Credibility is only one problems here.

This is absolutely amazing. What kind of irrational commitment to a system allows you to misread my words where I specifically say that I am referring to the time first Samuel happened and was written? Then, when told to go back and reread it, they persist in their misrepresentation. Not only that, I have had this same misrepresentation repeated on Anakin "Niceguy"'s blog just this week.

This is a woman who is speaking in London this week. It is bad enough that she has written that book when she has no training in Biblical studies, and has been invited on radio programs to discuss this topic... but now she is being invited to speak to be a guest speaker??????? That is sad.

Also, this woman always accuses her opponents of being childish. How can you accuse other people of being childish, when you say something like this?

We need to have more discernment in our Christian culture. There are many people I read and respect: James White, R.C. Sproul, John Gerstner, Greg Bahnsen, John Frame, and B.B. Warfield [among others]. Yet, I am not in univocal agreement with any of these men. In thinking through what you believe, it requires discernment to know what you should believe and what you should not. Reading other authors can help, but we must remember that we are ultimately responsible for what we believe. We cannot believe it just because it is what is popular or radical.

Also, the modern church is obsessed with counterculturalism. That is, the modern church is obsessed with anything that the Christian media promotes as countercultural. This is dangerious, because what it means is that people who are popular control the morality of the Christian community. In reality, Christian morality needs to be derived from careful exegesis of God's word. We need to test and challange these ideas we get from the popular media, and do the work necessary to rightly divide the word of truth. Are we to be under the authority of a local church? Yes. If someone is not the rule of a local church body, then they are definitely in sin. However, we also must realize that the church is fallible, and makes mistakes. When they do make mistakes, such as allowing someone untrained like Debbie Maken to write her book, they need to be accountable for the bad fruit they cause.

I am not saying that everyone out there in the mandatory marriage movement is like this. I am sure there are honest Christians out there who hold to this position. I can only hope that they will rightly call Debbie Maken to accountability for this kind of childish behavior.

Oh My!!!!!!!

Take a listen to this over at Calvinist Gadfly!:

http://www.calvinistgadfly.com/?p=372

Ummmm, wow, I mean, what can you say? "I could demand your love I owned you twice."?????

1. God HAS demanded is love from us. [What is the first and greatest commandment?]
2. Apparently, God not only accepts double payment, but triple payment!

That statement is a total joke. Of course, what do you expect from PCC? This is a KJV only school, and these folks have even supported the work of Dave Hunt. So, I mean, the scholarship taught in this school is embarrassing to say the least.

Debbie Maken, Descriptive, and Delay of Marriage

I have decided to take a break from my responses to the courtship movement to, again, address the "issue" of delay of marriage. As most of you probably know, Debbie Maken has come out with a book recently advocating the position of Candace Watters in a previous post. It is endorced by Albert Mohler, so, some people, will just blindly say that it is acceptable, just as they will with Candace Watters' article. I have obtained her book Getting Serious About Getting Married, Rethinking the Gift of Singleness, and am currently working on a review of the book in full. However, it seems that some developments have taken place with this book, as it has been criticized by folks such as Dr. Andreas Kostenberger who had a short blog "debate" with here. You can read his sections here, here, and here.

Of course, Mrs. Maken has not stopped there. She has posted an article on here blog here, which I will be reviewing on this post.

With most of the beginning post on Homosexuality I agree. I will begin the section on which we disagree here:

And in order for these component pieces to carry out the objectives of a biblical marriage, God through the prophet Malachi informs us that he seeks godly offspring and commands us to become one flesh with the spouse of our youth and maintain the marriage covenant faithfully. (Mal. 2:14-15). In fact, the phrase spouse “of your youth” is used five times in Scripture. For God to mention it once is enough, five times ought to get our attention.

Mrs. Maken is going after a somewhat obscure text to prove her point here. Note the differing translations here between the ESV and the NASB:

Malachi 2:14-15 But you say, "Why does he not?" Because the LORD was witness between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. 15 Did he not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union? And what was the one God seeking? Godly offspring. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and let none of you be faithless to the wife of your youth. [ESV]

Malachi 2:14-15 "Yet you say, 'For what reason?' Because the LORD has been a witness between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have dealt treacherously, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. 15 "But not one has done so who has a remnant of the Spirit. And what did that one do while he was seeking a godly offspring? Take heed then to your spirit, and let no one deal treacherously against the wife of your youth. [NASB]

Now, I will have to slow down a bit here and explain things. In Hebrew, adjectives can be uses substantively or predicatively. An example of the substantive use of the adjective would be "blessed are the meek." While the word "meek" is an adjective, it is here used as a noun meaning "the ones who are meek." An example of the predicative use of the adjective is "The girl is beautiful." Here, the adjective "beautiful" is describing the girl, but it follows the verb "is" which means it is predicative. This all very important in understanding this text.

In Malachi 2:15, you have the adjective ’ehād [one] (sorry for all the Hebrew majors out there. The fonts on blogger are not cooperating). The problem is knowing what the subject of the verb ‛āśâ [to do or make] is. Is it the yəhwâ [Lord] in verse 14? If this is the case, then it would yield to the translation of the ESV, of "did he [the Lord] not make [them] one?" In this case, the adjective "one" is being used predicativly. Also, this would mean that God is the subject of the next sentence, and hence, is the one seeking Godly offspring.

However, what if it is the substantival usage of the adjective "one" that is the subject of the verb ‛āśâ? In this case, it would agree with the NASB, and read something like "But not one has done [so]." In this case, the adjective "one" is functioning substantivly, and is the subject of the verb "to do."

Hence, the issue is what is the subject of verse 15. Is it "the one," or is it the Lord? Translations are clearly divided over this issue, and some do not even come close to either the NASB or the ESV, as they take other options. The point is that Debbie Maken is under obligation to prove that yəhwâ is the subject of ‛āśâ. She cannot just assume that. Of course, even if it is correct, she still has a whole host of other interpretations from other translations to deal with. However, Debbie Maken acts as if it is not even an issue, when here interpretation of "seeking Godly seed" is relying upon that specific interpretation.

Secondly, I don't know where this text in Malachi says that we are to "become one flesh." She says that "the prophet Malachi informs us that he seeks godly offspring and commands us to become one flesh with the spouse of our youth..." There is just no command in the text.

Debbie Maken writes:

And in order for these component pieces to carry out the objectives of a biblical marriage, God through the prophet Malachi informs us that he seeks godly offspring and commands us to become one flesh with the spouse of our youth and maintain the marriage covenant faithfully. (Mal. 2:14-15). In fact, the phrase spouse “of your youth” is used five times in Scripture. For God to mention it once is enough, five times ought to get our attention. Some of my critics have suggested that I draw too much from this phrase, and that it was meant to be “descriptive,” not prescriptive. Why stop there? What if the Bible is merely “descriptive” as to which sex to marry? What if the story of Adam and Eve was merely “descriptive”? Is there even a yardstick by which to judge what portion of Scripture is authoritative versus God’s “take it or leave it” opinion (if indeed there ever were such a section of Scripture)? The primeval story of Adam and Even forms the underlying narrative of all of our origins. If it was just “descriptive”—a nice story that tells us about them but not us, then we are left free to choose what we want to be in spite of the story of our first father and first mother. This approach is foreign to the Apostle Paul’s logic in I Timothy 2:13, where even the order of their creation in the beginning is the normative for how we live together as man and woman. Unfortunately, the “descriptive-prescriptive” chasm is a modern mechanism for marginalizing the parts of Scripture we do not want to take seriously.

Really? So, that must mean that because the Bible tells us in 1 Chronicles 26:2 that Meshelemiah had sons, that any couple that has only daughters is sinning? That must mean that because the Bible tells us that Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines, we must have 700 wives and 300 concubines or we are sinning. Apparently, if you deny these things, and use the "descriptive-prescriptive chasm," then you are, apparently, using "a modern mechanism for marginalizing the parts of Scripture we do not want to take seriously." You cannot read the scriptures the way Debbie Maken does and come up with any viable morality.

Let us go through and take the rest of this apart.

In fact, the phrase spouse “of your youth” is used five times in Scripture.

In error. I assume that, since she leaves the word "spouse" out of the quotes, she is referring to any word that could be taken as spouse such as ’iššâ, ba‛al, and ’allûp. If this is the case, then it is found six times: Proverbs 2:17, 5:18, Isaiah 54:6, Joel 1:8, Malachi 2:14, and 2:15.

Some of my critics have suggested that I draw too much from this phrase, and that it was meant to be “descriptive,” not prescriptive. Why stop there? What if the Bible is merely “descriptive” as to which sex to marry? What if the story of Adam and Eve was merely “descriptive”? Is there even a yardstick by which to judge what portion of Scripture is authoritative versus God’s “take it or leave it” opinion (if indeed there ever were such a section of Scripture)?

I would say that, since Debbie Maken has assumed that these phrases are prescriptive, she bears the burden of proof. Debbie Maken is correct in that someone cannot just claim that this phrase is descriptive, they must prove that these phrases are descriptive in character. However, she is also making a positive assertion, and that is that these passages are prescriptive.

However, I will take up the proof of the fact that these passages are descriptive. The standard must be the intent of the author. Did the author intend to make it prescriptive, or didn't he? In the case of the phrase spouse "of your youth," the answer is an obvious "no." The reason is because in each of these passages there is either a reference a specific person who has a wife of their youth [in which case, it is describing what they have], or a comparison to someone who has a wife of their youth [in which case, it is also descriptive because it is describing them in terms of something else]. In Proverbs 2:17 it is a reference to the adulterious woman from whom Solomon is trying to protect his "son" that has a husband of her youth. In Proverbs 5:18, it is Solomon's son who has a wife of his youth. In Malachi 2:14-15, it is the priests of 2:1.

In Joel 1:8, there is a comparison and a description being made. The people of Judah are to wail like a specific kind of virgin. They are to wail like a virgin girded with sackcloth for the wife of her youth. In other words, the phrase "girded with sackcloth for the wife of her youth" is discribing the virgin whom the people are to wail like. Here, it is very clearly "descriptive" in character.

In Isaiah 54:6, the phrase is simply describing the status of his people when he called them by comparing it to that of a wife of one's youth when they are forsaken.

So, in other words, in every instance of this phrase in the Old Testament, it is describing something- something the adulterious woman from whom Solomon is trying to protect his "son" has, something Solomon's "son" has, something the Priests of Malachi 2 have, something a virgin the people are to mourn like has, and the status of God's people when he found them. Hence, I think we can say that we have clearly established that this phrase is indeed descriptive in all of its usages, and not prescriptive.

Hence, Debbie Maken must show where my exegesis is wrong in saying that all of these usages are descriptive. If she believes they are prescriptive in character, then she bares the burden of proof to refute my exegesis, and to show that they are.

This approach is foreign to the Apostle Paul’s logic in I Timothy 2:13, where even the order of their creation in the beginning is the normative for how we live together as man and woman. Unfortunately, the “descriptive-prescriptive” chasm is a modern mechanism for marginalizing the parts of Scripture we do not want to take seriously.

Of course, Debbie Maken is engaging in the fallacy of hasty generalization, that is, assuming that one instance of a descriptive phrase being made norminative means that it is true that all descriptive phrases are to be made norminative. That means, of course, that the absurdities that we noted earlier of having only girls being a sin, and not having seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines being a sin are true. However, if Ms. Maken denies these things, then Ms. Maken now bears the burden of proof to tell us how she knows what descriptive phrases are norminative, and what descriptive phrases are not.

The answer is fairly simple. If the Bible specifically mentions that a particular descriptive phrase is norminative, then it is, indeed, norminative. If the Bible does not state that a particular descriptive phrase is norminative, then it is not norminative. However, you will look in vain to find where the phrase "spouse 'of your youth'" is norminalized in scripture. Such is simply pure eisegesis.

Ultimately, in order for Christians to execute the “be fruitful and multiply” command, and in order for men to have the helper needed to prosper, people have to marry in their youth for the above outlined purposes. That is the marital normative prescribed by Scripture, even if we as a people are uneasy with such norms.

Let us look at the context of this passage:

Genesis 1:28 God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

Notice two things about this text. First of all, the command is given to Adam and Eve, not to everyone. You have to deal with that, and show how it is that, even though these specific people are referred to, it happens by extension to all people. However, it is worse than that. Because there is a specific connection to this. That is we are told that this is to fill the earth and subdue it. Augustine wrote that:

This reason for creation and union of male and female, as well as this blessing, was not abrogated after the sin and banishment of man. It is by virtue of this blessing that the earth is now filled with human beings who subdue it. [On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis 9.3.5-6]

As a side note, I want to post some church fathers from here on in as Debbie Maken claims that "...virtually all of our Christian forefathers regarded perotracted singleness as unbiblical and believed that young adults were under a divine duty to marry without undue delay of marriage" [Getting Serious About Getting Married, Rethinking the Gift of Singleness p.16]. I hope to disprove this and answer her claims on her post at the same time.

Here Augustine does not agree with Debbie Maken, and others such as John Chrysostom and Clement of Alexandria also rejected her views. However, here we find Augustine saying that the blessing has already been fulfilled. Not only that, he doesn't call it a command, but a blessing. The reason why Debbie Maken's interpretation is spurious is because she is assuming a particular syntactical function of the imperative. She is assuming that the imperative is being used here to express commands. However, that is entirely questionable. W. Gesenius suggests the following sytactical function for Genesis 1:28:

(c) To express a distinct assurance (like our expression, thou shalt have it)2 or promise, e.g. Is 65:18 but be ye glad, &c. (i.e. ye will have continually occasion to be glad); and Is 37:30, y Ps 110:2; in a threat, Jer 2:19. So especially in commands, the fulfilment of which is altogether out of the power of the person addressed, e.g. Is 54:14 be far from anxiety (meaning, thou needst not fear any more); Gn 1:28, &c. (for other examples, such as 1 K 22:12, 2 K 5:13, see below, f). Most clearly in the case of the imperative NiphÇal with a passive meaning, e.g. Gn 42:16 Wrs.a†'he ~T,a;w> and ye shall be bound; Dt 32:50, Is 49:9 (Is 45:22, see below, f). [Hebrew Grammar §110c]

So, we we that the Hebrew imperative is slightly more flexable in nuance then Mrs. Maken would like to admit. In fact, Bruce Waltke and M. O'Connor in talking about this kind of an imperative write that:

The imperative, like the jussive, has uses in which its ordinary force is lost. The figure of heterosis involves the exchange of one grammatical form for another; with the imperative, heterosis creates a promise or prediction to be fulfilled in the future, made more emphatic and vivid than would be the case were the prefix conjugation used (## 18–20). [Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax §34.4c]

In other words, if Gesenius is correct, there is no foundation for saying that this is a command everyone must follow. Even John Gill noticed problems with this interpretation writing:

if this is not an express command, as the Jews understand it, for marriage and procreation of children, it seems to be more than a bare permission; at least it is a direction and an advice to what was proper and convenient for the increase of mankind, and for the filling of the earth with inhabitants, which was the end of its being made, (Isaiah 45:18) . This shows that marriage is an ordinance of God, instituted in paradise, and is honourable; and that procreation is a natural action, and might have been, and may be performed without sin, [from http://bible.heartlight.org/com/geb/view.cgi?book=ge&chapter=1&verse=28]

We begin to see that one of the weaknesses of Debbie Maken’s writings is her inability to do sound exegesis. To my knowledge, she has no training in Greek or Hebrew, and that is really dangerous. This is how legalistic movements that bind upon the hearts of God’s people commands not found in the Bible get their start. This is why we as people who study God’s word must me careful to rightly interpret it, because if we do not, we end up putting our own commands into God’s mouth instead of proclaiming the commands he has given us. This is why those of us who want to write books instructing young people should first get the study necessary to be able to handle the word of God with care.

Remains of the Apostle Paul May Have Been Found!

What an exciting day for archaeology if it is true! I almost wonder if the sarcophagus will contain any manuscripts of Paul's writings! That would depend upon the environment underneath the basilica, because papyrus cannot survive very long in a damp environment. Anyway, I figured it was worth posting about!

The Courtship Controversy

Part III

"Biblical Dating"

I promise I will get to my critique of the courtship movements' attempts to find scripture to support their idea that kissing and holding hands outside of marriage is wrong. However, I today I was informed of a new article by Scott Croft entitled "Biblical Dating." I would like to critique this article, because Mr. Croft is now using confusing language calling his position dating, and hence, many people might be led to think that he is actually promoting a "dating" position when he is not.

First of all, I think that Mr. Croft is confusing people by using the term “Biblical Dating.” What he means by “Biblical Dating” is really nothing more than a brand of courtship. I think that, if the words have been defined this way, it is confusing to then turn around and try to use them in a way that is not natural. Imagine if I say that I am a Christian, but I deny that Jesus even existed, am a naturalistic pantheist, and believe that the Bible contains many errors. Obviously, one would simply be confusing people if I called myself a Christian, and held to those beliefs. I don’t think it would help matters if, when challenged as to whether or not I am a Christian, I then say, as Mr. Croft similarly says in his response to his critics “In fact, I'm not much concerned with what you call the position we're describing, as long as we believe things that are true.” Such a comment misses the whole point, as these terms have come to have a specific meaning in our culture. As far as the general usage of terms, I want to make people aware that this is not an article about dating, as the term has come to be known. It is courtship through and through. I just ask that Mr. Croft to be honest about his presuppositions.

I think Mr. Croft misses the point when he argues that we cannot just say that the Bible doesn’t mention dating or courtship. Mr. Croft has not considered the idea that, perhaps, the Bible supports neither, and hence, simply regulates what people do in both dating and courtship. Interestingly enough, when Mr. Croft defines “Biblical dating,” he states the following:

That begins (maybe) with the man approaching and going through the woman's father or family;
that is conducted under the authority of the woman's father or family or church; and
that always has marriage (or at least a determination regarding marriage to a specific person) as its direct goal.

Notice how, in another article Mr. Croft wrote, he defines courtship as:

Let's begin by defining courtship. Courtship ordinarily begins when a single man approaches a single woman by going through the woman's father, and then conducts his relationship with the woman under the authority of her father, family, or church, whichever is most appropriate. Courtship always has marriage as its direct goal.

Of course, now Mr. Croft is calling this position “Biblical dating.” Again, when Mr. Croft goes on to define dating in that same article, he says:

What then is dating? Dating, a more modern approach, begins when either the man or the woman initiates a more- than-friends relationship with the other, and then they conduct that relationship outside of any oversight or authority. Dating may or may not have marriage as its goal.

Asside from the strawman that says that “dating may or may not have marriage as its goal,” and “they conduct the relationship outside of any oversight or authority,” notice that Mr. Croft has no problems defining the terms here as “courtship” and “dating” respectively. I think this will cause a whole lot of confusion, and it really hides where Mr. Croft is coming from.

Of course, when we get into the scripture passages, this is where I believe courtship is the weakest. The First text Mr. Croft brings up is:

I Thessalonians 4:1-8 (do not wrong or defraud one another in relationships — by implying a relationship or commitment by your words or conduct that does not actually exist)

Of course, the first problem is that the context has absolutely nothing to do with relationships, but with sin in regards to carnal, sexual relations. In fact, the Greek term porneia is clearly used in verse 3. Other terms such as ktao [to control] [v.1], pathos [passion] [v.5], and epithumia [lust] [v.5] also suggest that we are speaking here about sinning in ones carnal sexual relations. In fact, the text of verse 6 even says that the context has not changed by using the phrase “in the matter.” Hence, it is a total eisegetical assertion to read into this text some idea of relationships, when the text has absolutely, positively nothing to do with that, and defines the context as sinning with regards to sexual intercourse.

The next verse he brings up is:

Song of Solomon 2:7 ("do not awaken love before it pleases" — i.e. before the proper time, meaning marriage)

Of course, this is again, a misuse of the passage. “Awakening love before it pleases” has nothing whatsoever to do with “proper time.” There are plenty of Hebrew words and phrases to choose from Solomon had wanted to convey this meaning. The Hebrew phrase “bə+‛ēt+pronominal suffix” could be used [c.f. with Leviticus 26:4, Psalm 104:27, 145:15, Ecclesiastes 3:11, and Proverbs 15:23], and Solomon uses a word closely resembling that meaning in Ecclesiastes 3:1 [zəmān]. The reality is that the Hebrew verb həpaş has nothing whatsoever to do with time. Love is being spoken of here anthropomorphically, and it is saying that love is not to be stirred until it [love] desires. I think the best interpretation is to say that one cannot make to people fall in love. That is, others cannot arouse love in us, unless we truly desire to love that person.

Interestingly enough, the ASV, KJV, NASB, NASB update, and Brenton’s translation of the Greek Septuagint all translate the phrase “Do not awaken my love until it pleases.” This is because the article can function as a possessive pronoun [The Basics of Biblical Hebrew §5.11.4; Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax §13.5.1e]. The reason why these translations take this interpretation is because the entirety of the Song of Songs is about the love of these two people. Hence, it is rather awkward to say that, at these places [2:7, 3:5 and 8:4], the love which is being talked about is the love of the daughters of Jerusalem. This would strongly support my contention of the idea that love is not something that any human being can arouse in another person.

In the other passages Mr. Croft brings up, he simply engages in question begging. Here is what he says:

I Corinthians 6:9-7:19 (command to be pure, seriousness of sexual sin and instructions regarding marriage)
Proverbs 6:20-7:27 (warning to avoid sexual sin and foolish relationships)
James 1:13-15 (temptation is from Satan and to be taken very seriously)
Romans 13:8-14 (love others, work for their soul's good; don't look to please self)
Romans 14:1-15:7 (favor others, not self ... value what's good to their souls)
I Timothy 5:1-2 (treat single women as sisters in Christ, with absolute purity)
Titus 2:1-8 (young men and women should focus on self-control/godliness)
John 14:15 (if you love Christ, you will obey His commands — read: above your own desires — and live biblically)

Of course, Mr. Croft has not proven that “modern dating” [i.e., just plain ol’ dating] is impure, does not take sexual sins or the commands of marriage seriously, does not avoid sexual sin and foolish relationships, doesn’t take temptation seriously, doesn’t love others, doesn’t work for their soul’s good, is selfish, doesn’t favor others, doesn’t treat single women with absolute purity, doesn’t focus on self-control, obey Christ commands, and live Biblically. In other words, if he is wrong about dating not doing these things, then all of these passages are totally irrelevant to the issue. He bears the burden of proof for these things, and yet he just assumes them. If he is wrong about dating doing these things, then these passages are totally irrelevant.
Mr. Croft writes:

Now, the biblical support for the modern approach to dating ... (insert crickets, tumbleweeds, person whistling here).... That was it. There isn't any. The very idea of extended romantic or sexual involvement outside of marriage doesn't even appear in Scripture unless it is described as illicit (sinful).

Of course, as I mentioned before, the Bible doesn’t say anything about dating or courtship. It regulates the behavior in each system, so that there are boundaries in which people can grow closer to each other, and closer to Christ. As far as Biblical support for the “modern concept of dating” [again, just plain ol’ dating], it is rooted in the idea that we are to love one another in Christ, bear one another’s burdens, and so forth. Obviously, if this is someone you want to marry, you should want to do that to the highest degree. Also, Mr. Croft engages in ambiguous language, as “sexual involvement” could be taken in two ways. First, it could be taken as “sexual intercourse,” and second, it could be taken as just simple kissing, cuddling, holding hands, etc. If Mr. Croft means the latter, then he bears the burden of proof, not only to prove that this is sin, but also to prove that “romantic involvement” is sin.
Mr. Croft writes:

Furthermore, it doesn't even appear in any society, western or otherwise, in any systematic way until the 20th century! While the principles supporting biblical dating have their beginnings with the very structure of the family, modern dating has its origins with the sexual revolution of the 1960s. It is brand new, and yet, seemingly, it is all we know.

First of all, you will find dating principles long before the sexual revolution of the 1960’s. This is an early 20th century phenomenon. However, Mr. Croft’s position of courtship is not based in the Bible, but many of the principles are very similar to Gnosticism which had a strong influence on Christian theology around the time that courtship came about. However, leaving that aside for a second, does the fact that something came late mean that it is necessarily wrong? Granville Sharp published his work on the “article noun kai noun” construction in Greek in the 19th century. Of course, those of us who defend the deity of Christ are greatly indebted to his work, as it shows that Jesus was called God in Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1. Does that mean that we throw out Granville Sharp’s work, and say it was just a reaction against the theological liberalism of his time? In fact, there are beliefs that have been held far longer that courtship that Mr. Croft would reject outright. The Perpetual Virginity of Mary, for instance, can be found in the fourth century AD. Yet, I am sure that, Mr. Croft as a Protestant, would reject that teaching!

Now, what about the connections between courtship and Gnosticism? One is in their view of purity. Courtship teaches a concept called “direction of purity,” which teaches that physical bodies can actually cause you to sin. That is, if you kiss, cuddle, or hold hands, this can lead to sin. This is something Paul emphatically denies when he writes:

Colossians 2:20-23 If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, 21 "Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!" 22 (which all refer to things destined to perish with use)-- in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men? 23 These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence.

The whole letter of Colossians is written against proto-Gnosticism. The Gnostics had the idea that the physical matter was evil, and the immaterial world was good. Hence, they would avoid touching many things because of this, and their desire was to escape the physical realm, and hence, be free of all sin. Paul specifically says that this kind of behavior, that is, not touching things which God has not forbidden you to touch, will have the appearance of wisdom [as courtship certainly does], but that it is of no value against fleshly indulgence. In essence, by the courtship advocate thinking that he can avoid sexual sin by not kissing, holding hands, etc., he is in essence going right back to a form of Gnosticism which states that purity comes by avoidance of material objects!

James clears this up when he writes:

James 1:14 But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust.

The reason people do that which is evil is not because they were kissing, and they just couldn’t avoid it. There are already evil desires in them that desire to rebel against God. The touching has nothing whatsoever to do with it. We cannot blame kissing, and hence avoid it when the problem is with us ourselves. The only way sexual sin is to be avoided is by a change in heart, not a change in procedure.

Next, Mr. Croft goes through several statements, most of which are mere caricatures of the dating position. Here is an example of what I mean:

Modern dating philosophy assumes that there will be several intimate romantic relationships in a person's life before marriage. In fact, it advocates "playing the field" in order to determine "what one wants" in a mate. Biblical dating has as its goal to be emotionally and physically intimate with only one member of the opposite sex ... your spouse.

The first portion is a mere caricature of our position. We do not assume that there will be “several.” In fact, we would say that what is best is that a person finds the person they are going to marry early. We would say that every relationship must be worked out until it is impossible to work it out any longer. Secondly, Mr. Croft must first of all define what he means by “physically intimate,” [which is why calling this position “dating” makes it so confusing], and if he means kissing, holding hands, etc. he most show that this is forbidden in the Bible.

The next misrepresentation is found here:

Modern dating tends to be egalitarian (no differences between men and women in spiritual or emotional "wiring" or God-given roles). Biblical dating tends to be complimentarian (God has created men and women differently and has ordained each of these spiritual equals to play different and valuable roles in the church and in the family).

Which is, of course, another strawman. No one has ever said that.

He continues:

Modern dating tends to assume that you need to get to know a person more deeply than anyone else in the world to figure out whether you should be with him or her. The biblical approach suggests that real commitment to the other person should precede such a high level of intimacy.

Which, of course, clouds the issue, as Mr. Croft must defend the idea that the only kind of “real” commitment that exists is marital commitment. If there are other kinds of authentic commitments, then it is obvious that the commitment Mr. Croft needs is right there. Of course, he does not bother to defend the idea that the only “real commitment” is marriage, and ends up, again, assuming something he has yet to prove.

Modern dating tends to assume that a good relationship will "meet all my needs and desires," and a bad one won't — it's essentially a self-centered approach. Biblical dating approaches relationships from a completely different perspective — one of ministry and service and bringing glory to God.

Again, another strawman has been erected. I have met some pretty selfish courtship advocates, and the reality is that I have had to dodge many projectiles being thrown my way. Does that mean that courtship is inherently selfish? In fact, it seems odd that I just said in the last paragraph that people should do everything they can to make a relationship work. How is that in any way selfish?

Modern Dating assumes that what I do and who I date as an adult is entirely up to me and is private (my family or the church has no formal or practical authority). Biblical dating assumes a context of spiritual accountability, as is true in every other area of the Christian life.

Which, of course, is another strawman. I really have to wonder how many books by dating authors Mr. Croft has read. In fact, I would like to challenge him to get out Jeremy Clarke’s work, Cloud and Townsend’s work, or any work by a Christian author on dating, and show that they say that one must assume there are going to be several relationships before marriage, tell us to be egalitarian, be selfish wanting your needs met first, and avoid all authority. I have honestly never read any of that in any dating work. I would ask that Courtship advocates please stop these caricatures of our position!

Mr. Croft continues:

Modern dating tends to assume that there will be a high level of emotional involvement in a dating relationship, and some level of physical involvement as well. Biblical dating assumes NO physical intimacy, and more limited emotional intimacy outside of marriage.

The reason why I reject courtship is because I believe it is a challenge to the sufficiency and ultimate authority of scripture. Mr. Croft himself admits here that there is more “limited emotional intimacy.” As I pointed out in my review of one of his previous articles, this is where the departure from scripture, and hence the arbitrariness begins. The next question we have to ask is how one knows what is “limited emotional intimacy,” and what is too high a level of emotional intimacy. The Bible simply does not address this, and hence, whatever the answer, it is going to be totally arbitrary. This is what happens when the sufficiency of scripture is abandoned for a system that is then forced upon the text of scripture to make it appear that it is biblical. You end up being totally arbitrary. In fact, this is the other element of courtship that has Gnostic roots. Mr. Croft writes the following:

The Bible speaks to every area of our faith and life at some level. Some things it talks about explicitly, like salvation, or sanctification, or marriage, or elders. The Bible guides us in some areas by broader, more general principles and ideas we can build on as we strive to live the Christian life in practical ways. In either case, no area of life falls totally outside of the guidance and authority of god's word.

I would say that Mr. Croft’s position ends up undermining [although unintentionally] the sufficiency of scripture. Keep in mind that he is later going to talk about the fact that our viewpoint is “sinful,” and “illicit,” and here he states that his basis for saying that is just general principles! What ever happened to the perspicuity of scripture? Apparently, the Bible defines some sin clearly, and other sins are defined on the basis of a mere principles which then have to be applied. Of course, now we have to ask how and when those principles are going to be applied, and that gets us right back to the arbitrariness that I was referring to before. If there are general principles, then those principles must be applied, and hence, we need someone [namely, courtship advocates] to tell us how we are to apply them. Unless the scriptures state clearly and explicitly what is sin and what is not sin, this becomes nothing more than the same kind of attack on the perspicuity of scripture [though unintentional] waged by Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. I would argue that the scriptures are so clear that we do not need “general principles.” The scriptures define the limits of human behavior, and hence, if one cannot show that kissing, “emotional intimacy,” and holding hands are forbidden in scripture, then they are guilty of adding their commands to God’s word just like Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism are guilty of adding their traditions to God’s word. Interestingly enough, this principle is first found, not in Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy, but from Gnosticism. The Gnostics believed that they had some secret knowledge that one needed in order to understand the scriptures.

Most people do not realize how pious pagans were. Many rules were made up, and wisdom was sought after regularly. In fact, much of the problem of paganism is that they had the outward appearance of wisdom, but did not truly know the truth. I can only pray that courtship advocates will not fall into that trap.

The Courtship Controversy

Part II

Is Intimacy Inappropriate Before Marriage?

I will be reviewing another Boundless article found here. This is actually a section from a larger book called Sex and the Supremacy of Christ. This article addresses what courtship advocates believe is the heart of their position. Joshua Harris always responds this way when asked what the central thesis of his book I Kissed Dating Goodbye is. The article is by an attorney named Scott Croft who wrote and teaches a Dating-Courtship core seminar for Capital Hill Baptist Church where he is also an elder.

Mr. Croft begins his article by stating that there are many opinions on both dating and courtship, and that he takes the courtship route as outlined by Joshua Harris. Mr. Croft begins by giving his definition of Courtship:

Let's begin by defining courtship. Courtship ordinarily begins when a single man approaches a single woman by going through the woman's father, and then conducts his relationship with the woman under the authority of her father, family, or church, whichever is most appropriate. Courtship always has marriage as its direct goal.

Of course, we are going to see that there are a whole lot of things that Mr. Croft is not telling us in this definition that will become more apparent as we go through the article. However, where he falls down badly is when he tries to give a definition of dating:

What then is dating? Dating, a more modern approach, begins when either the man or the woman initiates a more- than-friends relationship with the other, and then they conduct that relationship outside of any oversight or authority. Dating may or may not have marriage as its goal.

Mr. Croft does not site any sources. He does not tell us which authors define dating in this way. In fact, I have been very suprised at how much dating advocates admonish young people to seek help from their parents and friends when they date. So, Mr. Croft is simply mistaken in his definition of dating, as he is erecting a strawman from the beginning. In the last sentence, when he says "Dating may or may not have marriage as its goal," he appears to be admitting that there is a form of dating that believes that you should only date people you are interested in marrying, and you should pursue that relationship all the way to marriage. I think what he means to say is that, for dating to be dating, it is not necessary to have marriage as its goal. However, we could also say that, since many courtship advocates are willing to throw me into the pits of hell because I am a dating advocate, "Courtship may not have the belief that we should treat Christians with opposing viewpoints on this issue as brothers in Christ as one of its essential beliefs." Does that somehow cast any doubt on Courtship? The problem is that just because someone does something wrong while executing a system does not mean that there is something inherintly wrong with the system.

Mr. Croft continues:

Modern dating, on the other hand, need not have marriage as a goal at all. Dating can be recreational. Not only is "dating for fun" acceptable, it is assumed that "practice" and learning by "trial and error" are necessary, even advisable, before finding the person that is just right for you. The fact that individuals will be emotionally and probably physically intimate with many people before settling down with the "right person" is just part of the deal. Yet where is the biblical support for such an approach to marriage? There is none. How many examples of "recreational dating" do we see among God's people in the Bible? Zero. The category of premarital intimacy does not exist, other than in the context of grievous sexual sin.

We note, again, the strawman argument that Mr. Croft has brought up. As far as "trial and error," that would depend upon what Mr. Croft means. First of all, we do need to recognize that there are many people today who jump from person to person and they do not care about the people they date. A person who is a true biblical dating advocate would never say that this is acceptible. You do everything you can to end up married to the person you are dating. However, if for some reason you are forced to break up, then there is not Biblical mandate against this, and I would challange Mr. Croft to find one.

Of course, Mr. Croft also needs to explain what he means when he uses the phrase "physically intimate." If he means that when people date, they are going to hold each other, kiss, and hold hands, then he needs to say so. However, the ambiguity here means that someone could easily read it to mean that dating advocates believe premarital sexual relations are acceptible, which we do not.

As far as the Biblical support, there is no support for dating or courtship. Both came along much later and much further down the line, and hence, neither have Biblical support. However, Mr. Croft is wrong to say that premarital [spiritual] intimacy does not exist in the Bible. What do we do with Jesus and the women at the cross? Why is it that Jesus is spending his last breath with these four women? At the time in your life when the people with whom you are the most intimate are supposed to be at your side, we find four women, one of whom was Jesus' mother, and the other three were women to whom Jesus was not married. Hence, if Mr. Croft wants to argue that premarital [spiritual] intimacy is sexual sin, he can give up the sinlessness of Christ.

Worse than that, the Bible does not speak of premarital [spiritual] intimacy as sexual sin. The idea that this is somehow sexual sin is something that courtship advocates have to read into the text rather than drawing it from the text.

The motive for dating or courting is marriage. The practical advice I give the singles at our church is, if you cannot happily see yourself as a married man (or woman) in less than one year, then you are not ready to date.

Wow, talk about something with absolutely, positively, no Biblical support. Notice, this position is starting to seem really arbitrary. Perhaps someone could say that one year is too long. Perhaps someone could say that you must be able to see yourself happily married 6 months? One Month? One week? One day? This is totally arbitrary, and it is left up to Mr. Croft to decide what is the appropriate time that makes dating have "a goal of marriage." I would say that the time does not matter. What matters is if you are growing both in your relationship to God, and in your relationship to the other person.

The second major difference between biblical courtship and modern dating is the mind-set couples have when interacting with one another. What do I mean by that? Modern dating is essentially a selfish endeavor. I do not mean maliciously selfish, as in "I'm going to try to hurt you for my benefit." I mean an oblivious self-centeredness that treats the whole process as ultimately about me. After all, what is the main question everyone asks about dating, falling in love, and getting married? "How do I know if I've found the one?" What is the unspoken ending to that question? "For me." Will this person make me happy? Will this relationship meet my needs? How does she look? What is the chemistry like? Have I done as well as I can do?

Here, Mr. Croft states that it is inherently wrong to say you have found the one, because there is an assumed "for me." However, is that true? What if we finish the statement "How do I know if I've found the one God has been pleased in his soverignty to give me for marriage?" Where is the selfishness in that statement? Far from being selfish, it depends upon the lordship of Christ to bring the woman into your life that he wants you to marry.

Second, Mr. Croft, assumes that if you desire something for yourself, then you are selfish. We are, as Christians, to desire purity. Does that make us selfish? We are to desire to know Christ more and more intimately. Does that somehow make us selfish? I might desire a new Tin Whistle, and tickets to go see the Cottars in concert. Does that make me selfish? I might also desire to have the complete works of B.B. Warfield. Does that make me selfish? It is simply an error to define wanting a list of things for yourself as selfish.

Now, indeed, if those were the only things you looked for in a relationship, then you would indeed be selfish. If what you want becomes ultimate, then you have, indeed, become selfish. However, we need to make a distinction between this, and the idea of desiring something in a relationship. We need to remember that, while we may have wants in a relationship, those wants are secondary to meeting the other persons needs, and loving them with all of our heart. If we cannot have the things Mr. Croft mentioned on his list, then we need to be willing to sacrifice them for the other person. In fact, God himself said that the attraction between man and woman was "very good" [Genesis 2:23 compared with 1:31]. So if Mr. Croft is saying that it is selfish to desire a woman to whom we are attracted, then he is saying that it is selfish to desire something God has called "very good."

Selfishness is not what drives a biblical marriage, and therefore should not be what drives a biblical courtship. Biblical courtship recognizes the general call to "do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves" (Phil. 2:3, NIV). It also recognizes the specific call that Ephesians 5:25 gives men in marriage, where our main role is sacrificial service. We are to love our wives as Christ loved the church, giving himself up for her. That means loving sacrificially every day. Biblical courtship means that a man does not look for a laundry list of characteristics that comprise his fantasy woman so that his every desire can be fulfilled, but he looks for a godly woman as Scripture defines her — a woman he can love and, yes, be attracted to, but a woman whom he can serve and love as a godly husband.

As we have seen, Mr. Croft does not know what selfishness is, so, he is simply repeating the previous error. However, can Mr. Croft show any Biblical passage that says that it is wrong to have a list of characteristics that would define someone ideal for you? The problem is if you look for the fulfillment of your desires as primary. That is, if you look at this list as a sine quon non of a person you want to marry. I think that, in the last sentence, Mr. Croft is at least admitting that having a list of desires, and desiring a woman to fill those desires is not wrong so long as it is not the primary thing for which you are looking.

In other words, modern dating asks, "How can I find the one for me?" while biblical courtship asks, "How can I be the one for her?"

Again, we have to wonder where Mr. Croft is getting his definition of dating. Modern dating says "how can I find the one God has ordained that I should marry, and how can I be the one for her." I again must assert that Mr. Croft does not know what dating is, and is simply erecting a strawman at this point.

Third, and most practically, modern dating and biblical courtship are different in their methods. And this is where the rubber really meets the road. In modern dating, intimacy precedes commitment. In biblical courtship, commitment precedes intimacy.

Now, I am going to have to define terms here. For the courtship advocate, when they speak of commitment, they mean marital commitment. What they are saying is that you cannot have intimacy without a marital commitment.

This, of course, would make nonsense out of our language. For instance, there would be something toutological in the statement "this is a commited marriage," and there would be something inherently incoherent about the statement "this is a commited boyfriend."

Also, for the courtship advocate, intimacy cannot occur outside of marriage. However, we must be careful to define terms. The Bible calls upon us to love the brothren, and hence, the must be intimacy before marriage. Courtship has a way of dealing with this, though. They make a distinction between appropriate and inappropriate intimacy. However, the astute student of philosophy will realize that this still has not answered the question as now we need to ask how we distinguish between appropriate and inappropriate intimacy. The Bible doesn't speak in this fashion. So, how are we going to define what is appropriate, and what is not appropriate intimacy? This becomes totally arbitrary. In essence the courtship advocate must engage in a long version of circular reasoning, begging the question. This comes out quite clearly in Mr. Croft's next statement:

According to the current school of thought, the best way to figure out whether you want to marry a particular person is to act as if you are married and see if you like it. Spend large amounts of time alone together. Become each other's primary emotional confidantes. Share your deepest secrets and desires. Get to know that person better than anyone else in your life. Grow your physical intimacy and intensity on the same track as your emotional intimacy. What you do and say together is private and is no one else's business, and since the relationship is private, you need not submit to anyone else's authority or be accountable. And if this pseudo-marriage works for both of you, then get married. But if one or both of you do not like how it is going, go ahead and break up even if it means going through something like an emotional and probably physical divorce.

Several things need to be said in response. First, as far as "growing" in "physical" intimacy, it is hard to know what Mr. Croft is saying. When it comes to the physical actions a man is not able to do outside of marriage, the Bible is perfectly clear, and no dating advocate denies that. Second, the idea that we do not submit to authority is a complete and total misrepresentation, and Mr. Croft needs to either cite a Christian author who says that, or remove it from his article.

Second, we also need to point out the inherent circularity of his position. Spending large amounts of time together, becoming each other's primary emotional confidants, sharing your deepest, darkest secrets, and desires, and getting to know that person better than anyone else in your life are all assumed to be inherently marital in character. However, Mr. Croft has not proven this. You won't find it in the Bible, and there is certainly no logical reason to assume that these are uniquely marital.

Such is the process of finding "the one," and this can happen with several different people before one finally marries. In the self-centered world of secular dating, we want as much information as possible to ensure that the right decision is being made. And if we can enjoy a little physical or emotional comfort along the way, great.
Clearly, this is not the biblical picture. The process just described is hurtful to the woman that the man purports to care about, not to mention to himself. And it clearly violates the command of 1 Thessalonians 4:6 not to wrong or defraud our sisters in Christ by implying a marriage-level commitment where one does not exist. It will have a damaging effect on the man's marriage and hers, whether they marry each other or not.

Again, we see total circularity on the part of courtship advocate who is despirately trying to support his position from scripture. He does not show how finding out deep information about someone is sinful before marriage. He does not show how it is hurtful, nor can he. He does not show how it has a damaging effect on each other's marriage, nor can he. Sin is an issue of the heart, not an issue of process, unless one can show that the process is wrong from the Bible.

When Mr. Croft tries to do that, he gives us a perfect example of how incredibly disconnected Courtship is from any meaningful exegesis of the Biblical text. Notice what he says:

And it clearly violates the command of 1 Thessalonians 4:6 not to wrong or defraud our sisters in Christ by implying a marriage-level commitment where one does not exist.

Let me post the entirety of this passage starting back at verse 1 and ending at verse 7:


1 Thessalonians 4:1-7 Finally then, brethren, we request and exhort you in the Lord Jesus, that as you received from us instruction as to how you ought to walk and please God (just as you actually do walk), that you excel still more. 2 For you know what commandments we gave you by the authority of the Lord Jesus. 3 For this is the will of God, your sanctification; that is, that you abstain from sexual immorality; 4 that each of you know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor, 5 not in lustful passion, like the Gentiles who do not know God; 6 and that no man transgress and defraud his brother in the matter because the Lord is the avenger in all these things, just as we also told you before and solemnly warned you. 7 For God has not called us for the purpose of impurity, but in sanctification.

We see then how utterly disconnected from the text any idea of "marriage level commitment." Aside from the question begging in saying that there is a commitment that is uniquely "marriage level," we also must point out that the text is talking about unlawful sexual intercourse. The specific Greek word porneia is used in verse 3, and "lustful passion" is specifically mentioned in verse 5. Not only that, but the specific defrauding that is forbidden in this passage has to do with "the matter [unlawful sexual intercourse]," and not commitment. From the opening of his article, Mr. Croft might want to argue that this falls under the category of sexual sin as described in this passage. If that is the case, then he bears the burden of proof to show that the Greek term porneia, and the other words used in this passage mean that when there is not a Greek lexicon on God's blue earth that gives that as a definition for any of these words. This is simply a desparate attempt to find some support for a position that is just not Biblical.

Not only that, but if there is nothing uniquely "marriage level" about the things Mr. Croft has listed, then his whole argument falls apart. Mr. Croft has merely assumed that these are "marriage level commitments," but has not proven so. In that case, even if the Bible does say defrauding someone is wrong [which it does in many places], Mr. Croft must first demonstrate from the Bible that these things are inherently "marriage level."

In Biblical relationship, commitment precedes intimacy. Within this model, the man should follow the admonition in 1 Timothy 5:1-2 to treat all young women to whom he is not married as sisters, with absolute purity. The man should show leadership and willingness to bear the risk of rejection by defining the nature and the pace of the relationship. He should do this before spending significant time alone with her in order to avoid hurting or confusing her.

Of course, Mr. Croft has not shown this from the Bible, he just keeps begging the question. Notice that, again, Mr. Croft just assumes that there is something inherently impure about intimacy before marriage. Where does he prove that?

He should also seek to ensure that a significant amount of time is spent with other couples or friends rather than alone. The topics, manner, and frequency of conversations should be characterized by the desire to become acquainted with each other more deeply, but not in a way that defrauds each other. There should be no physical intimacy outside the context of marriage, and the couple should seek accountability for the spiritual health and progress of the relationship, as well as for their physical and emotional intimacy.

Several assumptions here. Again, we see the unproven assertion that premarital intimacy somehow "defrauds" people, simply his own pontification. As far as physical intimacy, I would point out that it only gets worse when you try to defend the idea that one should not kiss or hold hands before marriage. The Bible nowhere teaches this, and all one needs to do is open up D.A. Carson's book on Exegetical Fallacies, and you will see many exegetical fallicies from those who have tried to find Biblical support. I will deal with this in my next article.

Within this model, both parties should seek to find out, before God, whether they should be married, and whether they can service and honor God better together than apart. The man should take care not to treat any woman like his wife who is not his wife. Of course he must get to know his courting partner well enough to make a decision on marriage. However, prior to the decision to marry, he should always engage with her emotionally in a way he would be happy for other men to engage with her.

Again, Mr. Croft has just given us more of his ipse dixit. He cannot defend the idea that being emotionally intimate with a woman is inherently maritial. He also tacks on the idea that we should not engage someone emotionally in a way he would not be happy for other men to engage her. Again, he simply fails to prove this.

As I said, the courtship argument is, at this point, nothing but one long circular argument. Once you say that there is such a thing as appropriate and inappropriate intimacy, you then have to have a statement of ethics so we know what is appropriate, and what is inappropriate intimacy. Since the scriptures do not address the issue, courtship advocates have to make it up themselves, and they are left with one long circular argument...It is just a longer version of a circular argument. They have to go through more steps before they end up begging the question, but beg the question they do. Greg Bahnsen once said that John Frame told him that if you make the circle big enough, you can deceive yourself into thinking it isn't a circle. But it is, and it is just as fallacious as the simple:

Emotional intimacy is wrong before marriage.
Therefore, emotional intimacy is wrong before marriage.

We do need to be careful of making hasty generalizations. Just because we have shown that it is not inherently wrong or marital to have emotional intimacy does not mean it is always right to have emotional intimacy. For instance, there is nothing wrong with eating a candy bar...unless that is the 57th candy bar you have eaten today. For instance, the Bible explicitly forbids this kind of close relationship with an unbeliever. It also makes it a rule that, if you are married, you are to have a special love for your spouse. However, in each instance, notice how we are finding Biblical support for what we say. However, to limit this kind of close spiritual relationship between a man and a woman is to add a command to the text of scripture that God has not given.

Keep in mind, I have not even began to critique Mr. Croft's position yet. I have simply pointed out how he cannot even state his own position without engaging in very serious question begging.

Here are some very serious problems with Mr. Crofts position. He first of all takes the idea that marriage must be so unique, that anything having the characteristics of marriage before marriage is inherently sinful. By that logic, courtship would be wrong since marriage is a relationship just as courtship is a relationship. Therefore, since courtship has something marriage does, therefore, courtship is wrong.

Remember what I said in my first article. My thesis is that courtship is inherently idolatrious. Not only do we see in Mr. Croft's position the attempt to make marriage totally unique is a strong parallel to the uniqueness of God himself, but we must also notice that the morality of marriage is defining the morality for everyone else. Marriage has become definitional of morality. Again, we see that courtship is making a strong parallel to God himself in marriage.

All of these things and more find us right back at another criticism I must make, and that is that courtship cannot defend its position from scripture. Anyone reading the text of scripture, and expecially the text Mr. Croft brings up without ever reading any books on this topic would never come to this conclusion. Courtship is extremely artificial from an exegetical perspective, and we will show that in our next article.