He catches the wise in their craftiness...

For it is written, “He is the One Who catches the wise in their craftiness"; and again, “the Lord knows the reasonings of the wise, that they are useless.” (1 Corinthians 3:19b-20)

Could it be that "myth" is the right category for the kind of stories we find in the ancient world, whether from the Egyptians, Mesopotamians, or even the Hebrews?

- Jack Collins, Professor of Old Testament, Covenant Theological Seminary

One liberal reviews another liberal's book and tells us the second liberal is going to get in trouble with his constituency when they figure out what he's selling. Several members of the second liberal's constituency read Baylyblog and write in to dismiss the first liberal's comments as sour grapes, and they tell the Baylys that they only need read Jack to see what a gift he is to the Church.

So why does the first liberal say the second liberal is too liberal for his constituents?

Well, you see, the first liberal's constituency group already wised up to him and fired him so he's blowing the whistle on the second liberal because misery loves company.

Then comes the cloying argument...

Consider that the second liberal is "a really, really nice guy. We've taken classes from him and we know his wife and children. He's likeable and funny and he worked with Wayne Grudem and Vern Poythress tweaking the Revised Standard Version into the English Standard Version."

Which is to say, "Bayly, what's wrong with you? Don't you know trademarks when you see them? Can't you recognize geese that lay golden eggs? You're off the reservation. When you have read Professor C. John (Jack) Collins's much-ballyhooed book, you'll understand what he's trying to do (and maybe even be thankful for his hard work in Eve and Adam's behalf). But until you've read him, shut up."

Look, men, the stuff Jack is selling is wicked. It's the same old long-in-the-tooth liberalism, only marketed to neophytes ready to pay money for it because they know Jack and he's likeable and he edits books with Wayne Grudem and got paid to work on the English Standard Version. In other words, he's one of us.

Uh...

No he's not. After reading him, I can say without fear of contradiction that Biblical believers who honor the Word of God will not hear Jack's voice; and further, that shepherds who guard those believers from the wolves who arise among us, from our own number, will thrash Jack with their rods and staffs until he runs off.

The stuff Jack is selling is wicked because it is devious and slick and mincing and twists the meaning of words so that his consumers (those who pay for his words by buying his books) will think they are getting historic Christian faith when Jack's sleight of hand hides his destruction of historic Christian faith.

They'll think they're being shown a new way of honoring the Word of God when they're being shown a very old way of dishonoring the Word of God.

Only guild members could be fooled by the crud Jack writes. It requires a degree past the high school diploma to render a man stupid enough to think Jack's doubletalk is profound and its author is erudite.

For the rest of us, we may rest easy remembering that in His great kindness God has innoculated the simple of this world against such "wisdom."

* * *

By the way, if you think I enjoy writing such posts, I don't. Just reading Jack's words makes me nauseous, and writing about them only more so. Then there's the related fact that many of our readers only visit us under cover of darkness.

On the other hand, who said guarding the good deposit would bring the world's baubles? My brother and I write to encourage and strengthen God's sheep and His faithful shepherds. We're not working for drinks in the club house or nominations for club membership. 

And at the end of the day, we're so grateful to God that he's provided us churches and fellow pastors and elders who spur us on and love us for this very work.

Have a blessed Lord's Day.

Comments

In God's providence you've supplied me with a wonderful quote to lift from this blog for my homily in a few hours. Thanks ever so much. Really and truly. It's always so much more effective (and safe!) to quote someone to a point than to present it resting solely, as it were, in one's own hand. Preaching has plenty of that already. This is why your points about Collins are so effectively validated by Enns' review of Collin's work!

The Revised Common Lectionary, which I follow for the Scripture readings in our Sunday worship (usually preaching from the gospel appointed for that Sunday), contains for the gospel lesson Mark's account of the Transfiguration (Mark 9:2-9). "And a cloud came and overshawdowed them, and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, 'This is My beloved Son. Hear Him!" This was said while James, Peter, and John could still behold the transfigured Jesus and Moses and Elijah as well. And, of course, these words were addressed to these three disciples. Surely, Moses and Elijah do not need any divine exhortation to hear Jesus!

The immediate point of the Father's exhortation to the disciples is to validate Jesus' authority in His understanding and application of the words of Moses and Elijah and, by obvious implication, the entirety of the Old Testament revelation. Jesus' words were not just one more rabbi's take on the the Law, Prophets, and Psalms. His was the ONLY word as to the latter's meaning. And, the Church's first murderous opponents were not the Romans, but the Jews, a kind of opposition that Christians today rarely encounter in our pluralistic, relativistic society.

Did Jesus believe Adam, the solitary male, was a person in history? Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? Was the flood something that happened? The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah? What did the Apostles believe about events and persons in the Old Testament? Whatever they believed, it came from Jesus, for they obeyed the Father's challenging exhortation on that mountain. That's why Peter says the prophetic word was confirmed by those words -- by the Father's express endorsement, what Jesus had told Hsi disciples about the Old Testament's prophecies of Him was the true and only meaning of those Old Testament prophecies.

The Apostles heard Jesus, including all Jesus said about the meaning of the Old Testament prophets and their writings.

Did Jesus believe what John Collins says about Adam? Pshaw!! Who does Collins, or Enns, or any other closeted-wolves listen to? It's certainly not to Jesus, for their exposition of the Old Testament is patently contradictory to Jesus' teaching. As well as the Apostles' teaching and preaching, who are -- as noted already -- listening to Jesus, as Collins and Enns are not. These wise men think we should look to the authors of the Gilgamesh Epic (not to Jesus for crying out loud!) in order to understand Genesis 1-12.

Jesus -- speaking face to face to the Pharisees -- told them flat out that they could not believe Him because they had already refused to believe Moses' writings (and "writings" is the word our Lord used there). It works the same for Collins and Enns, or for anyone else today -- no one can believe Jesus, or the Old Testament if they do not believe His words -- either about Himself or about the Old Testament prophets who spoke concerning Him.

Again, thanks for the quote. It'll appear in the climax of the homily, when I bring the point of Mark's passage to bear on the present.

Wow. I won't say I agree with 100 percent of what I read at bayly log.com, but I just gotta say I love y'all and your willingness to fight back against the darkness. God bless your ministry at large and this blog.
Bill

Baylyblog.com that is. I hope I get to meet y'all sometime in this life before the other side...

Dear Bill,

There's always the ClearNote Conference held every summer in Bloomington.

Love,

Yes, thanks for this brothers.

I heard that he preached on Gen. 3 recently in chapel at CTS, so I gave it a listen. It's an interesting sermon:

http://media.covenantseminary.edu/ChapelMsg/20120217_Collins.mp3

Add new comment