Sage Advice

Last week Ken Keathley posted "When Writing about Those with Whom You Disagree."

He introduces his points by saying,

I know a little about dealing with controversial subjects. My last book, Salvation and Sovereignty, presented an alternative to five-point Calvinism, and my current project (with Mark Rooker) is a book about creation and evolution. Calvinism and creationism—two lightning rod topics if there ever were any! I’ve observed that advocates on either side of these two issues have produced an amazing amount of vitriolic polemics. Some of what’s available is well thought out and well written, while other material seems to be literary temper tantrums. All this has set me to thinking about what are the best ways to engage in a debate. With no claim of originality, I have come up with three rules of thumb:

I simply enumerate his three points, with which I fully agree and regularly admonish my students to follow.

• Describe your opponent’s position in such a way that he can recognize it.

• Know your opponent’s position well enough that you could argue it for him.

• Write as if your opponent and you were going to dinner together after you finish.

Keathley concludes, "Have I followed all three rules in all of my writings? I must confess that I have not. But I want to. And by God’s grace I hope to 'love my neighbor as myself' even when I’m disagreeing with him."

Great and Godly Advice for Young Unmarried Women

Guard Your Heart

Nancy Wilson

This article is directed to unmarried women, whether young and in their fathers’ households, older and on their own, or widows who would like to remarry. The principle is that you must guard your heart so that it does not become entangled emotionally without the protection of a covenant. Many of these exhortations that follow may seem a trifle negative, but believe me, the results will be positive.

When a woman leaves her heart unguarded and becomes attached to the wrong man, she exposes herself to great hurt or harm. Many women, anxious to be married, respond to the first man who comes along and even allow themselves to become physically involved when they “know better.” It is easy to have convictions as long as you are not called upon to stand up for them, especially if you must stand up to a man you have allowed yourself to fall in love with. Never assume you are “strong” and can “handle” being alone with a man that you are attracted to. Remember, whoever he is, if he is not your husband, you have no business submitting to him in any area, especially if he wants you to engage in a little physical affection when there is no fence of covenantal protection around the relationship. Virginity is a priceless inheritance you bring into marriage.

You must guard your imagination if you want to guard your heart. Don’t feed a lonely heart with cheesy romance novels or chick flicks and fantasize about the men or the relationships described. This can quickly become lust—lusting to be lusted after. Don’t allow yourself to imagine someone is interested in you when he is just being friendly. Don’t imagine that he had a tender look when he said hello to you, when he was really just giving you a polite greeting. In other words, do not develop wild crushes. If the man in question shows an interest elsewhere, you will be hurt, and depending on how much you indulged your imagination, you may be devastated. Be realistic about the men who show you attention. If you are too eager for a relationship, you can imagine he is godlier, funnier, sweeter, smarter, older, or taller than he really is. If you have to talk yourself into someone, you are not being realistic about this man. Don’t get desperate! Don’t allow yourself to get involved in an inappropriate relationship because you are lonely.

Don’t look for a man as a ticket out. You may want to move out or move on, but that is not a good reason to get married.

Just because a man shows an interest is no good reason to assume he is the one for you. There is no fire. Think about it. Get input from someone who knows you. Take your time. Don’t fling yourself in his arms as soon as he shows his hand. Women are sometimes in love with being in love, longing for a relationship more than they long to please God. Marriage is not an end in itself; it is a means of glorifying God. There is one thing worse than being single: being married to the wrong man.

Cultivating male group friendships is a healthy alternative to the world’s dating system, but we must not use these friendships to fill a void. Friendships can be sexually charged, and women are usually very ignorant about this. Friendships should not be intimate, but good-naturedly distant. Would you be able to maintain the friendship on an equal footing if you were married? If not, it is probably an inappropriate friendship. Women should have the kind of friendships with the brothers that are characterized by purity and propriety. If you have to alter your behavior after you are married, you have probably been behaving in an unwise or ungodly manner. This means you should not be spending one-on-one time with men (unless it is in the context of courtship), whether you are married or single. If you are going out for coffee and allowing men to pour out their troubles to you, this behavior will have to stop if you marry someone else. That tells me you should stop now.

Beware well-meaning friends. “He’s so good looking,” they say, but you know he is also so ungodly. Don’t encourage them by talking too much about your interests. Things have a funny way of getting back to the person. And if he isn’t interested, you will just feel foolish, and you may get hurt.

Finally, when in doubt, throw it out. Do not stay in a relationship that you have doubts about. It is very unwise to marry someone hoping for changes in him. If you have concerns about his godliness, his character, his theology, his relationship to his parents, his lifestyle, or anything else, back off, and maybe you should back out. Of course you have protection in the counsel and advice of your parents, but be careful not to marry someone simply to please your parents. Surely your parents have good intentions, but you must be honest with them about your hesitations. I cannot imagine parents (if they are loving and godly) pressuring a daughter to marry someone she did not want to marry!

Do cultivate a biblical view of marriage. Do cultivate godly group friendships. Women can learn a lot about how men think from being friends with men in groups. Do cultivate a godly character in yourself because marriage amplifies all you are. Look for likemindedness in a man: do you agree doctrinally? Are you similar culturally? Is he attractive to you? Be realistic, trust God, and be content.

Original source: Credenda Agenda: Femina

Which is More Secure, Election or Justification?

The previous entry reminds me of my oral examination for my Th.M. thesis. The Race Set Before Us had its early gestation when I wrote my Th.M. thesis, "The Perseverance of the Saints from the Life and Epistles of Paul."

During the oral exam, one of my readers asked, "How does your view of biblical warnings relate to Dr. Homer Kent, Jr.'s view that he presents in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews?" Dr. Kent had been one of my professors in a few courses. I explained the differences as well as I could at the time, probably not nearly as well as I should have done and not nearly as fully as I did here.

One of my readers posed another question that I have heard many times since from others. He asked, "How does your view differ from Robert Shank's view [Life in the Son] or from I. Howard Marshall's view [Kept by the Power of God]?" Both Shank, an Arminian, and Marshall, a Wesleyan, were prominent names in the discussion those days, so I had engaged both rather extensively in my master's thesis.

In the course of responding to the question as to how my view differs from that of Shank and of Marshall, my reader pressed me by asking, "But, it seems to me that you have mired yourself in contradiction. On the one hand, you insist that you believe in the final perseverance of all who are truly God's chosen people. Yet, on the other hand, you also insist that if believers do not obey the warnings and they fail to persevere to the end that they will perish eternally. How do you extricate yourself from this contradiction? Is it possible?" As you can tell from the way he framed the question, the professor who served as one of my readers did not raise a purely academic question. He posed a question that as far as he was concerned exposed my whole thesis as biblically and theologically unwarranted. Needless to say, I realized what was at stake. After all, in those days, at evangelical theological seminaries, it was not particularly wise to have any significant theological disagreement with one's major professors, especially with one of the readers of a master's thesis.

I responded by posing a rhetorical question with the intention of answering it. I asked, "Which is more secure God's electing us or God's justifying us?" The professor who was asking the questions responded before I could explain. He said, "Justification is more secure." He continued, "Once God justifies a believer, his verdict is irrevocable! We are secure in Christ." The unexpected interruption posed a dilemma. Not only did I have to answer my own rhetorical question, I also had to offer a correction to my professor. The situation was tense. I had to choose my words very carefully. I knew that what I intended to say in response to my own rhetorical question would come off as correcting my professor. I did not like the situation at all. I recognized that I was in a bind. I also knew that I had to proceed, but to proceed might jeopardize a year of work on an extensive thesis, which my wife, pregnant with our first son, had lovingly and cheerfully typed twice from a hand-written copy, the second time after the thesis had been stolen out of the office of one of my two readers. I had much to lose. I had to respond, but to respond well, I needed much wisdom, wisdom greater than I knew that I possessed.

I gathered my thoughts and began to respond, explaining to the two professors, "When we preach the gospel, we indiscriminately call upon all who hear to believe and we warn all that if they do not repent and believe in Jesus Christ, they will perish." I explained, "We do not quarrel with the truthfulness of such a warning, even though we have no concern that we warn the non-elect and the elect alike, indiscriminately. Why, then, should we object that warning believers that if they do not heed the gospel's warnings against apostasy that they will perish in eternal destruction?" Knowing how strongly convinced both of professorial readers believed in God's unconditional choosing whom he would save, I added a response to my professor's unexpected verbalized objection to my rhetorical question. "Indeed, God's justifying verdict is irrevocable. But is God's election of whom he will save any less irrevocable?" I offered. I continued, "Surely, that the New Testament teaches us indiscriminately to warn all who yet need to believe in Jesus Christ, whether non-elect or elect, that if they do not obey the gospel they will perish forever does not render God's electing grace tenuous. Does it? In the same way, the that the New Testament teaches us to warn all who believe in the Lord Jesus that if they fail to persevere in grace to the end they will perish does not render God's preserving grace tenuous. Does it? Are not warnings of the essence of the gospel's call? Are not warnings essential as the means through which God saves us by his grace?"

It was not extraordinary insight that prompted me to realize that the two professorial readers were not in agreement with my Th.M. thesis concerning the relationship of God's warnings and God's assurances. Nevertheless, they both recognized that their young Th.M. student was not behaving subversively. He denied neither the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, which they both taught, nor the doctrines of election and justification. Yet, both expressed puzzlement, even frustration.

As the oral examination came to a close, there was tension in the air. This was hardly the way that I had anticipated to close out work on a Th.M. Yet, it seemed to fit following the extra work that came to both my wife and me when the only copy of the first draft of the thesis had been stolen and never returned to us. It became evident that the two professors were rather stymied as they began to speak to one another, attempting to sort out their bewilderment. Their deliberation in my presence showed that they did not agree with me but that they also did not understand my thesis. It was as though they had no categories by which to assess my exegetical, biblical, and theological work. They recognized that I was neither an Arminian nor a Wesleyan. Yet, I did not fit their concept of a Calvinist. They expressed as much. Eventually they asked me to leave the room while they deliberated alone. In the end, they both signed my thesis and I graduated.

I do not know whether either of my two professors eventually came to understand my position or came to agree with me. I did gain their respect after that intensive Th.M. thesis examination, and I greatly appreciated this. Their disagreement did not prevent them from graduating me. They also never lost my respect. I learned so much from both of them.

One of my readers died much too prematurely several years ago. I occasionally see my other reader at professional conferences, though he has been retired from teaching for a few years. Whenever we have an opportunity to meet together, our meeting is always warm and cordial.