After last year’s marathon series on Dispensational Presuppositionalists, I discovered that there were additional items that could be added to that series including interviews. Here is one of several more interviews I want to have featured here on Veritas Domain. Today’s interview is with Fred Butler which some of you will know as the blogger behind the blog Hip and Thigh.

1.) Describe to us your ministry with Grace To You, the church, etc.
I’ve been given the privilege of overseeing the volunteer ministry of
Grace to You. Every month we offer a free resource to our supporters
and when they respond, it is my job to pull together the material they
requested and prepare it to be mailed. We have about 125 volunteers
who come twice a week, spread out between Tuesdays and Thursday. They
are mostly retired members of Grace Church who wanted to spend their
new found free time serving the Lord.
Additionally, they allow me to preach at them during our lunch break,
so that keeps me in the Word and my sermon prep. skills sharpened.
Typically, I do a 20-30 minute devotional style message. A lot of
those sermons/lectures have been recorded and are available for free
download at http://www.fredsbibletalk.com, a website a friend put together
for me. It also hosts a lot of my articles and essays on various
subjects.
At Grace, my wife and I are involved with Doulos, a fellowship group
aimed at young singles and married folks.
2.) How did you first become a Presuppositionalist?
I became a presuppositionalist in an unusual, round-about fashion.
God saved me the last week of my freshman year of college, so going
into the summer as a new believer was really exciting for me. I read
the NT through for the first time ever, I was introduced to solid
writers like A.W. Pink and John MacArthur, in fact, I was introduced
to John’s preaching ministry via cassette tape by a former member of
Grace Church who was then living in my college town in Arkansas.
When I returned to college in the fall for my sophomore year, I was
“on fire” for the Lord to say the least. I thought I could personally
take on all challengers to my faith. I was ready to scuffle with
Mormons, the JWs, and any other pseudo-Christian cult and I was cocky
enough to think I had the ability to convince them of their error and
covert them to Christ.
But God has his ways of sanctifying us. I became friends with a woman
who was a hard-core atheist. She was a non-traditional student, maybe
10 years older than most of her classmates, married and with a kid,
who had returned to school to finish up her degree. She was also the
first real atheist I had ever encountered. She was a lot like many of
the on-line atheists today, skeptical about everything. As we talked,
I would challenge her atheism with various Christian “evidences” I had
picked up in my reading or at my college youth group. Somehow I came
across a copy of Josh McDowell’s classic book, “Evidence that Demands
a Verdict.” I loaned it to her thinking she would be unable to refute
his material. She gave it back in a week. She told me she had read the
first three chapters or so and just couldn’t believe it. She then
offered up her spin on why McDowell was wrong and all the mistakes he
made.
The time I knew this woman really shook me. I didn’t have a “crisis of
faith” or anything like that where I doubted Christianity or thought I
had been lied to or whatnot which is often reported these days among
many apostate young people leaving church. It was more like God
helped me to realize that bringing people to Christ is more than
having the right arguments or the most compelling evidences. Also, as
I matured in my own personal faith and I came to be convinced of the
doctrines of Grace, or Calvinism, I began to see that man’s problem is
not intellectual, but moral. He is blinded in his sin and is
suppressing what truth he has in unrighteousness as Romans 1:18ff
tells us. I began to fit together the “presuppositional” pieces, as it
were, because I started to understand that we engage worldviews, not
just specific lines of evidence.
When I came to The Master Seminary, I was formally introduced to
presuppositionalism, along with the other various kinds of apologetic
theologies and that is when the light came on for me. What I was
learning about presuppositional apologetics was what I was already
formulating in my heart and now I had some anchors I could use to
shore up my thinking.
3.) Knowing that you work with Grace To You, do you know what is John
MacArthur’s perspective on apologetics?
Those who know John know he shuns the idea of labels. Primarily
because labels will often come with baggage. For instance, John
probably would hesitate calling himself a “Calvinist,” but I know he
holds to Calvinism because he has preached messages on the Doctrines
of Grace. He would point out that the title “Calvinism” comes with
superfluous baggage like infant baptism and Covenant Theology that
only gets in the way of any meaningful discussion about what the Bible
tells us regarding God’s grace and election, so he just avoids the
label.
That said, John would certainly consider himself a
presuppositoinalist, because the methodology reflects solid exegesis
and theology. He hasn’t, at least to my knowledge, preached
specifically on the subject of presuppositionalism, but he does model
the methodology in his preaching and various media interviews when he
is asked to give his opinion concerning some cultural issue.
For example, after 9/11 throughout the 2000s, John appeared
occasionally as a panelist on Larry King’s old CNN show. (You can
watch some of those interviews at GTY’s website here,
http://www.gty.org/video/Category/Interviews) From what I understand,
there were a few guys on King’s immediate personal staff who were
Christians and loved John. So when the opportunity came about back in
the fall of 2001 to address “Where was God on September 11th” those
guys suggested asking John to be a panelist. He agreed, and he was on
King’s show with some liberal Muslim guy, a Catholic priest, a Jewish
guy, Deep-pockets Chopra, and Kid Rock (I’m just kidding about the Kid
Rock part. LK always had oddball choices for these kinds of
discussions). Anyhow, during that show, John consistently brought his
convictions back to the Word of God. He challenged the other men who
claimed to speak for God yet misquoted the Bible and flat out spoke
lies.
In all of those interviews, John consistently brought everyone back to
the true foundation of our living Sovereign Creator and His written
Word. Surprisingly, Larry King liked John for it and got to where it
was he who wanted John to come back for these kind of “philosophical”
programs. That was because he knew what he would say and realized
John was the real deal, not some smarmy, wishy-washy celebrity
preacher who bounces around hard and difficult issues because he wants
to please a broad audience. Deep-pockets Chopra hated John for his
rock solid convictions and where as John would chat with the other
guys at the table during commercial breaks, Chopra refused to speak
with him, because John was a narrow-minded Bible thumper.
4.) Some see Presuppositional apologetics as being the apologetics
method of Covenantal theology only. Do you think Presuppositional
apologetics is compatible with Calvinistic Dispensationalism, and if
so, explain.
Before I answer, it may be helpful to provide other readers with a bit
of background to your question. There is a group of on-line bloggers
who are attempting to rename presuppositional apologetics as
“covenant” apologetics. They get this from K. Scott Oliphint who is
the professor of apologetics and systematic theology at Westminster
Theological Seminary. He has argued that presuppositionalism is too
broad a description for the overall apologetic system and so there is
a need to change the terminology for the purpose of bringing our
apologetics into line with fundamentals of Reformed theology.
He has a book coming called “Covenant Apologetics” that will explain
in more detail for his redefinition, but in short, he builds his case
for the name change upon the 7th chapter of the Westminister
Confession that goes into describing God’s covenants with men,
particularly the “covenant of works.” The covenant of works, argues
Oliphint, establishes a relationship between God and all men, and the
obligations of obedience do not cease even after man fell. So, when we
engage unbelievers with “apologetics” we are confronting the fact they
are covenant breakers who need to come into a right covenant
relationship with God through what Jesus Christ did on the cross to
reconcile covenant breakers with their Covenant Creator.
As much as I have benefited from Dr. Oliphint’s other material in the
past, I think his novel redefinition is problematic. Primarily
because he has to “presupposes” that Covenant Theology truly reflects
biblical Christianity and systematic theology. Even more problematic
is the whole notion of all men being “covenant breakers” and building
his premise upon the concept of a “covenant of works.” That is
because the idea of a “covenant of works” is contrived, being read
into the Scripture. I realize reformed guys point to Genesis 1 and 2
when God commanded Adam not to eat from the tree in the garden, but
there is no covenant language noted in God’s command there. This is
especially clear in light of certain passages where covenant language
is used, like in Genesis 9 with Noah and Genesis 12, 15, 17 with
Abraham and his descendants. Thus, any attempts to sharpen our
apologetic theology must be done along biblical grounds utilizing
clear, biblical terminology.
Now, some may be asking, “But isn’t it true men are obligated to obey
God, their Creator?” Why of course; but not because of some covenant
of works. Our obligation has to do with the fact we are God’s
creatures and what He, our sovereign, has demanded from us in return.
All men are obligated to worship and glorify Him in righteousness. But
of course, no man desires to obey God because all men are sinners.
The Gospel is the message of good news that God has dealt with sin and
made a way for men to obey God and be in a relationship with Him on
account of Jesus Christ.
As one who understands that God’s purposes in Redemption unfold
through a series of eras, or Dispensations throughout Scripture, that
are defined through various covenants that build upon themselves
culminating in the New Covenant, I am entirely aware of God’s
Sovereignty overall the earth as well as Christ’s Lordship. I am also
fully aware that humanity is in rebellion against God’s authority as
sovereign. It is that truth of God’s Sovereignty all men know and
suppress in unrighteousness that I use as a weapon when engaging in
the warfare against the strongholds men have created with their
arguments and exalted philosophy lifted up against their Creator (2
Cor.10:1-5).
5.) What would you caution and exhort to a young man interested in apologetics?
I think the primary thing I would remind folks is that our goal with
apologetics is not to merely win arguments, but to win souls. I see a
lot of young guys, bloggers in particular, in both classic
evidentialist camps, as well as presuppositional camps, approach
apologetics as a means to shut-up atheists and other skeptics.
Granted, there are times when such individuals need to have their
mouths stopped, but we must not lose our true focus, and that is
presenting the Gospel of salvation to a lost and dying world. When we
argue with cranks on the internet, we need to remember they are human
souls. I can be equally guilty with forgetting that objective, so it
is a mind-set I always wish to cultivate.
6.) Would there be any other Dispensationalists who are
Presuppositional that you recommend us to interview in the future?
I’d recommend Dan Phillips of Team Pyro fame as well as pastor of
Copperfield Bible Church in Houston, TX. Also Don Green who is
currently the pastor of Truth Community Fellowship Church. Michael
Vlach of TMS is a prof who teaches both Dispensationalism and
Apologetics at Master’s. I understand Dr. Jonathan Sarfati of
Creation Ministries is a presuppositionalist with Dispensational
leanings.
And since you originally asked me to supply any other questions that
may be useful, I’ll throw out one extra,
7) What are some good introductory resources to the subject of
presuppositional apologetics?
I’m glad you asked! There are a number of good works available, but
right now, the best book anyone can get that will provide a tremendous
overview of apologetic theology is Clifford McManis’s “Biblical
Apologetics: Advancing and Defending the Gospel of Christ.” I
reviewed the book here if anyone is interested,
http://hipandthigh.wordpress.com/2012/07/13/book-review-9/. Cliff’s
book has been getting panned among a few Reformed reviewers because
they are annoyed he is a non-Covenant Reformed, Dispensational
oriented Calvinists. They also don’t care for his occasional
criticisms of Van Til and Bahnsen. It is almost like those two are
untouchable and any mention of them must be uncritical reverence. If
folks can ignore those reviews and get the book anyways, they will
have a work that I believe will provide them with a solid theological
foundation in apologetics. If you start with any book, I’d start with
it.
I would also suggest Greg Bahnsen’s collection of articles under the
title “Always Ready.” It too is a solid read and one that will serve a
student well.
A third one I would recommend is John Byl’s “The Divine Challenge.” It
isn’t so much a “how to” apologetic book as it is an overview of
worldviews and how the top three worldviews in the world line-up with
telling us the truth to reality, particularly with how they explain
mind, math, matter, and meaning. It is a great philosophical read and
it’s lay friendly as well. That is always welcome in my book.
Lastly, both Bahnsen’s and John Frame’s biographies and analyses of
Van Til. Both men were students of Van Til and both men evaluate his
work from a slightly different perspective. Bahnsen’s analysis is
suppose to be the closest one that fairly represents Van Til’s life
work, and Frame’s as I understand it, deviates from what Van Til truly
taught, but I benefited from both of them greatly.
Then, seeing that I have this opportunity to plug my own work. Not
that I am a big shot like Bahnsen, Van Til, and even Oliphint, but I
have written on various facets of apologetic methodology and theology.
You can find past articles here:
http://hipandthigh.wordpress.com/2010/06/11/articles-on-apologetics-and-evangelism/
Read Full Post »
Book Review: The Epistles of St. John, The Greek Text with Notes by Brooke Foss Westcott
Posted in Book Review, Christianity, tagged Brooke Foss Westcott, Exegetical Critical Commentary, The Epistles St John on January 24, 2013| 5 Comments »
Westcott, Brooke Foss. The Epistles of St. John, The Greek Text with Notes. 3rd ed. 1892. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950 (reprint).
There have been many great books written on the epistles of the Apostle John, but Westcott’s is a classic.
After reading many of the important facets covered in this book, the crux or the heartbeat of the book is centered on the test of eternal life (1 John), truth, which is the ultimate basis of worship (2 John), and loyalty to the truth (3 John).
What makes the book fascinating is the author’s interaction with the exegetical insights, which results in accurate theology. You cannot have theology first then exegesis second. What I appreciate much about this critical commentary is that from the first pages of Scripture, is Westcott’s elevation of the role of exegesis. It was self-evident that the rest of the pages of this book would focus heavily on the exegesis of the text.
For the purpose of this book analysis, concerted efforts will not be focused on the summary of the content, but will involve brief critical interactions from the book in order to discover the weaknesses and strengths. It is my hope that by doing that, you will be encouraged to dig deeper in the areas you think you are lacking in; and also to encourage you with the wonderful resources documented and written by this fine author. I will not focus so much on the weaknesses because there are very few.
Since I mentioned that I would point out briefly concerning the weaknesses, I will bring out some of it to surface. I think it would be helpful if the author would emphasize more towards the reader of how this phrase, clause, statement, or verse, applies timeless truths. As great as the exegetical materials are, I think a commentary that draws out practical implications for the reader in how to apply the timeless principles would help tremendously. Timeless truths are king and are crucial to the sanctification of the reader. For example, even just posing a question such as, “How do we apply the revelation of God or what the revelation of God’s love do to us? would help.” To not emphasize or point out timeless truths may cause the reader to have a difficult time understanding or in how to apply the exegetical insights of the phrase, clause, statement, or verse to one’s life.
In regards to strengths, I appreciate how the author’s interaction was not limited only to the various use of verb tense in the epistles of John, but also his interaction with the other parts of speech. What I also appreciate is the author’s discussion of the Greek text manuscripts such as Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandra, Latin Vulgate and other Greek manuscripts. In regards to the different manuscripts, he also discusses the superiority of the ancient text, the titles in the MSS., the forms of the writing, authorship, date, place of writing, the destination the letter was sent to, the character of the letter, the object of the letters/epistles, the style and language of the letter, the relationship of the epistles to the Gospel of John, outline of the epistles, to name but a few. Another strength is the book’s discussion concerning the dangers of higher-criticism when embarking into the world of textual criticism.
When journeying into this book, there was also an appreciation of its appendix. The appendix is so significant that a separate paragraph needs to set aside for it. The appendixes were additional notes given after each chapter. The additional notes would focus on the fatherhood of God, the idea of Christ’s blood in the New Testament, the idea of sin in the epistle, the use of ἱλασμός (propitiation), John’s view of the state of man, the powers of evil, John’s teaching on creation (1 Jn1-5), antichrist, children of God, aspects of the incarnation, the titles of believers, John’s notion of love, the nature of man, the names of the Lord, the revelation of God, the use of the term μονογενής (begotten), the use of θεός and ὁ θεὸς, divine fellowship, the use of the term: “the Christ,” references to the facts of the Gospel, additional readings of 1 John 5:6-8, the concept of “sin unto death,” the concept of life, and the concept of the true God. And in 3 John, there is an additional note on the divine name.
The additional notes section of the book was one of the major components that provided many insightful details concerning critical terms in the epistles because it provided deeper notes that lead to clarity. Clarity is key because it allows one to interpret and explain the terms to others who do not understand them well. If one can understand the concept well, then evangelism and counseling will empowered because God’s Word is exposed correctly, purely, and clearly.
This book maybe a slow read for some because it is not a normal commentary. It is a critical commentary that deals heavily with the Greek text. For those who have not taken Koine Greek, you may have trouble with some of the terms. But overall, Westcott gets the message across. After reading over 200 pages of this book, I think I will go back and read the book again because there is much nuance and exegetical insights from the author.
CONCLUSION
The epistles of Apostle John is a critical book that all Christians need to read because it deals with the tests of assurance, truth, and the loyalty to truth. Since those three categories are essential, it is imperative that Christians, preachers, missionaries, and pastors have a good grasp on the epistles. Hence, I believe that Brooke Foss Westcott’s book on the Epistles of St. John will be extremely helpful. It is extremely helpful because he deals heavily with the Greek text. Many commentaries fail to deal carefully with the Greek text, but Westcott’s book is a classic. He deals verse by verse of the epistles exegetically and deals with various topics. What is amazing about this book is that Westcott deals with the minutest detail of the order, syntax, lexical meanings, and implications of each verse.
I believe that this is book is a must read for expositors of the Word of God. It will help them and assist them in accurately interpreting the text.
For a free digital copy of this classic and bona fide commentary, please go to this link: The Epistles of St. John.
Read Full Post »