Welcome to the online home of Tim Challies, blogger, author and web designer. My first book, "The Discipline of Spiritual Discernment," is now available everywhere.

Read about the blog or about the author.

Friday March 31, 2006

Preparing For Da Vinci

A few months ago I signed up for Bob Ross’ email updates. I don’t know much about the guy, but I believe it was Phil Johnson who recommended his writings. Phil wrote, “He’s a prolific writer of passionate commentary on just about everything, ranging from serious theological aberrations to little things that just get under his skin. He’s a kind of fundamentalist Andy Rooney.” But rather than complaining about the ingredients in Girl Guide cookies, Bob Ross complains about James White. A lot. He also complains about just about anything else under the banner of Calvinism. It gets old pretty quickly. Still, he seems like a nice enough guy and I think that he and I would see eye-to-eye on most matters.

Today he sent out a little missive mocking, once again, James White.

I got a chuckle from James White’s blog today where he says the following;

Da Vinci Debunked in Tabletalk

This month’s Tabletalk magazine from Ligonier Ministries focuses on preparing believers to handle the release of The Da Vinci Code film this month. In order as they appear, the first feature article is by R.C. Sproul, “The Da Vinci Conspiracy.” Then my article appears, titled, “The Fool’s Folly Uncovered.” Then R. Albert Mohler Jr.’s article “Historical Propaganda,” followed by Peter R. Jones’ work, “The Pagan Agenda of the Code.” If you don’t subscribe to Tabletalk, you may still want to pick up this issue, or better yet, subscribe!

What sort of “believer” needs to be “prepared” for a movie tale relating to a Roman Catholic painting by a 15th - 16th century Roman Catholic painter which supposedly has a significant “code” in it?

Give me a good ole “Charlie Chan” black-and-white movie mystery any day over this! Or even an old Don Adams’ “Get Smart” TV program — or better still, a Three Stooges “Horse Collars” or “Restless Knights” movie short. If we need to be “prepared” for comedy, then at least let’s have something worthwhile in the field of comedy!

“Tabletalk” is Presbyterian pedobaptist R. C. Sproul’s magazine, and I can think of several things more significant for “preparing” believers than this movie — such as, for instance, Dr. Sproul’s Hybrid Calvinism theory which fantasizes that one is “born again before faith.” Also, the pedobaptist idea that the infants born to pedobaptists are “regenerated” either before, at, or shortly after baptism.

I think those erroneous teachings are much more important to believers than their being “prepared” for the Da Vinci code movie. If believers need that kind of preparation about a fictional tale, it may be a result of their having been told that they were “regenerated” as babies or “before” they believed on Christ for salvation. — Bob L. Ross

I have to assume that his final sentence is really meant to be a lighthearted slap at paedobaptists. Bob somehow wanders from White to Sproul and then to strange beliefs about paedobaptism. I suppose he is Rooney-like in that way. Anyways, Ross’ article got me a little hot under the collar because I happen to believe that Christians ought to be prepared for the Da Vinci Code movie. Here is why:

First, many who attend evangelical churches are woefully poorly taught when it comes to matters dealing with the believer’s confidence in the Scriptures. The Da Vinci Code is a direct, frontal attack on this confidence. While the book will be found in the fiction section of a bookstore, many people are only too willing to believe that it is built around a solid core of truth that calls into question the very fundamentals of the faith. I have met people who believe it all, and unlike Bob, they do not feel that it is a comedy. The author, Dan Brown, has been anything but forthcoming with what he feels is truth and what is merely the product of his imagination. He clearly believes that much of what lies behind the fictional story is true. And so this movie, like the book, will undoubtedly cause a lot of Christians, and a lot of people who consider themselves Christian, to doubt the authenticity of the Scriptural account of Jesus and the intentions of those who worked to define and protect the canon of Scripture.

Second, this film will have a very wide reach. While the book has sold millions of copies, far more people will watch the film than have read the book. Dan Brown’s outright lies will be presented to tens of millions of people in a whole new format. Teenagers who may not have cared to read the book will swarm to the theatres to see what promises to be an exciting, fast-paced movie.

In short, the lies of this film, which are presented as truth to a gullible culture, will spread far and wide.

What does this mean? It means that Christians must be prepared. They must have confidence in their understanding of Scripture so that they are not left grasping and stuttering when challenged by their friends, family members or co-workers who have embraced the lies. They must have confidence in the Bible and confidence in the biblical account of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection. They must know that there is far more proof for the biblical account of Jesus’ life than for anything Dan Brown has imagined.

Also, Christians should be prepared to challenge their friends with facts and questions. “What do you think is fact and what is fiction?” “Is there any evidence that Jesus was never crucified?” “How do we know that Jesus and Mary Magdalene had an affair?” “Is it true that Jesus’ followers did not understand Him to be God?” Just as when The Passion of the Christ was released, Jesus’ name will be everywhere in conversation and his face will be on the news and in magazines. Christians will have the opportunity to talk about Him and to challenge others with what is true and what is false.

It seems to me, then, that a little bit of preparation would be very helpful as Christians prepare to deal with a film that seeks to undermine our faith.

Comments (15) »


1. Andrew Moody
March 31, 2006
1:21 PM

I agree Tim,

I’ve only known Bob Ross for his PBS painting show, I didn’t know he also dabbled in Calvinist hating? And his speech regarding paedobaptism is ignorant at best, and pure slander at worst.

Last night, Westminster Theological Seminary President Peter Lillback made a stop in Amarillo, Texas. I was able to get a brief update as to the goings-on of the seminary, etc. However, he mentioned something you and your readers might find very interesting. They are putting a great deal of resources (financial and personal) into a website focused on combatting the Davinci Code movie. You can check it out here:
http://www.thetruthaboutdavinci.com/

I’m guessing the content will unveil closer to the movie’s release. However, given the way he talked about what they’re getting to unleas on that website, made me go home and look it up right away.

Peace, Andrew.


2. Tim Challies
March 31, 2006
1:32 PM

Should I have specified “Bob L. Ross”?


3. Ochuk
March 31, 2006
2:03 PM

:highfivesTimagain:

I hear ya man. I didn’t think this was such a big deal until I heard Craig Blomberg lecture on the book at the U of M(innesota). Its not that I think its arguments are effective or damaging to faith, but the OUTRIGHT ABSOLUTE falsehoods it is built on are so outrageous it is almost laughable.

Hearing demolition of the Da Vinci crap is almost as edifying as hearing a fine sermon.


4. Phil Johnson
March 31, 2006
2:17 PM

Just to be clear, a “recommendation” (in cases like this especially) is not the same as a wholesale endorsement of everything the man writes.

Bob Ross, by the way, has published more of Charles Spurgeon than any man alive. I’ve often wondered if he may even have surpassed Spurgeon’s original publishers, Passmore & Alabaster.

Though he frequently doesn’t sound like it at all, Bob is a Calvinist. He believes sinners are incapable of believing on their own, unaided by divine grace. He regards faith as a divine gift and believes that the operation of faith in the believer must always be preceded by God’s effectual call.

But he doesn’t equate the effectual call with “regeneration,” and he regards every hint that regeneration precedes or causes faith as an expression of hyper-Calvinism. If you want to set him off on one of his patented rants, just bring up the ordo salutis.

Bob does seem to have a particular fixation with (and an obvious contempt for)James White. I’m not quite sure why that is the case, but it has been evident in almost every mention Bob has made of James (and he mentions him a lot) for at least five years or longer. I think James himself is bemused by it and has bent over backward to be gracious in return.

Lately, Bob has inexplicably become something of an apologist for Joel Osteen. I’m not sure why THAT is the case, either, other than the fact that Bob is a book retailer, and owing to the geographical placement of his store, Osteen’s congregation constitute a large percentage of his customer base. Bob’s defense of Osteen so far seems to consist of denials that Osteen’s teaching is overtly and damnably heretical. I may be wrong about this, but I doubt Bob seriously thinks Osteen is to be commended. I can’t imagine that someone nurtured on Spurgeon could really be SATISFIED with the pap Osteen serves up.

Anyway, I think my comparison to Andy Roony works on several levels. Bob does an entertaining rant, even when you can’t quite make sense of what he is on about. His own declaration of appreciation for The Three Stooges also gives a revealing insight about Bob’s various points of view.


5. Tim Challies
March 31, 2006
2:35 PM

Phil - Funny that you mention this. Not two minutes after I read your post, I got another of Bob’s emails, this one ending with these words:

“I was baptized in the Methodist Church at any early myself, but I later heard the simple Gospel such as preached by Joel Osteen, and the Lord granted me repentance and faith in Christ. That simple Gosple works, and I am still rejoicing in it after nearly 53 years of professing it.

NOTE TO JOEL CRITICS: There’s no need sending me trash talk about Joel. I listen to him every Sunday, and until I hear something worthy of my changing my attitude about him, you can save your breath.

I AM PRO-JOEL.”

So he’s anti-White and pro-Osteen. Hmm…


6. James H
March 31, 2006
2:41 PM

2 Cor 10:3-5

“For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We DEMOLISH ARGUMENTS and EVERY PRETENSION that sets itself up against THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.”

Whether our brother, Mr. Ross, or anyone has a personal axe to grind, the discipline of aplogetics is our inheritance and duty before our Lord. (I would wonder if Mr. Ross ought to re-read the Proverbs posting of just a few days back on this site?)

Like it or not, there is going to be much anti-Christian talk and all done in ignorance. We ought to prepare to defend our position, and better yet—to take back the ground upon which the heathen stand. It’s Our Father’s world, after all.

“As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.”
James H


7. Jeri
March 31, 2006
4:31 PM

“First, many who attend evangelical churches are woefully poorly taught when it comes to matters dealing with the believer’s confidence in the Scriptures. The Da Vinci Code is a direct, frontal attack on this confidence.”

So true, Tim. I’ve seen the confusion this book can cause first hand.


8. Joel
March 31, 2006
4:34 PM

People love to get on hobby horses and now they’re trying to draw and quarter Calvinists. I think there are much larger dragons to slay. I wish those two would spend as much zeal attacking postmodernism and the EC as they do people who revere the Doctrines of Grace. If I wanted to stir the pot, I could ask “When does Arminianism become Pelagianism?” Some call it semi-Pelagianism.

When they tire of arguing for the ability to lose your salvation and go swimming for eternity in Lake Gehenna, they’ll probably join Gail Riplinger and argue KJV-Only. Those of us who prefer the NASB are closet New Agers, don’t you know?


9. Bibliomaniac
March 31, 2006
6:30 PM

In regard to Bob Ross’s publication of Spurgeon surpassing Passmore & Alabaster, I don’t believe Bob has published those myriad penny tracts P & A did. My guess is P & A is still well ahead of Bob.


10. Annette Harrison
April 1, 2006
6:33 AM

Tim, you are so on the mark here. I say that because I also have firsthand knowledge of how dangerously ignorant many Bible-believing, sincere commited Christians are and who have ALREADY been led to believe that (at least) some of this book is “truth.” And how many others of our unbelieving friends are waiting “excitedly” for the release of this movie.

I have a friend, definitely born again, who read the book and was totally blind to its lies. I was dumbfounded to listen to them “telling” me about all this “new information.” The ignorance of SO MANY of our fellow believers is much more far-reaching than I think many of us realize.

In addition, I have already been approached by non-Christians (because they know I am a Christian) to get my “take” on this book and its various premises.

Anyone who thinks there won’t be a conversation ongoing is just not awake to how great a discussion is already “swirling” in our communities, and within our own circle of friends and family, and how much more is going to be kicked up once the movie is released. To be ready to give an answer for the hope that is within us is CRITICAL.


11. TEX
April 1, 2006
10:55 AM

As far as the reason for Bob Ross always being “after” James White, I believe it all stems from a “slight” that James supposedly gave Bob over MacArthur and his non Eternal Sonship views way back when. I have noticed that Bob has the ability to really hang on to things for a long time. He still talks about the fact that James Dobson has not publicly apologized for some misinformation he gave about Spurgeon and his sons. It seems that no matter what focus on the family does (including removing those erroneous comments from the master tapes so that future copies no longer contain the errant info)…again, no matter what Focus does, if it does not include a public apology over the radio, Bob will never be pleased. The same seems to be the case with James White. Dr. White apparently “got onto” Bob about attacking John MacArthur for his views (way back when) about the eternal sonship of Christ. John MacArthur repented his errant views and publically apologized. Bob was pleased and says so often. But until James White apologizes to Bob (both about the J-Mac stuff and his “supposed” wrong views on regneration), both through his blog and probably on the Dividing line, nothing James says will be accepted. It is sad, in some ways. Bob can be quite the bulldog when it comes to some issues. I believe his “beef” with those who say regeneration precedes faith is definitional in nature. What most theologians call regeneration (in the narrow sense), Bob calls the quickening influences of the Spirit. What most theologians call conversion (the human response to the Spirit’s regeneration, aka faith and repentance), Bob links with the quickening influences of the Spirit and calls all of it (the quickening influences, plus faith and repentance) REGENERATION…(James P. Boyce says the same in his Abstract while still maintaining the narrow sense of regeneration too). Thus for Bob, regeneration = new birth. And the New Birth =quickening influences of the Spirit using the Word plus faith and repentance) Therefore, anyone who doesn’t say that regeneration includes all of that is heretical in his view. But the really sad thing is, that if he could just understand the way others are using terms he would see that they are saying the same thing and therefore his attack and condemnation just seems silly because of his stubborn refusal to see how others use terminology. Bob is a great guy (I have met him at his store a few times) and doing his part (as he sees it) for the purity of the gospel. I just wish he would spend more time focusing on those who are truly denying the gospel and less on those who really agree with him, but just don’t describe it in precisely the same way he does. (I will say this, Bob is correct on Berkhof and Shedd, but I don’t believe he is correct on James White, the Founders and R.C. Sproul…also not all Paedobaptists believe that their children are regenerated by baptism…infact I would say MOST do not believe this, but Bob can have a pretty broad brush sometimes…ah well, I will save that discussion for another time)
grace and peace,

TEX


12. James H
April 1, 2006
10:32 PM

Tex, love this comment:

[regarding Bob Ross]”Bob can have a pretty broad brush sometimes…”

Just great!

The content of what you said concerning Bob Ross would well describe much of what is communicated and miscommunicated in the church on matters of doctrine. Which is why the book of James and the book of Proverbs in various places enjoins the wise to listen first before opening our mouths to speak.

It works great in marriage, too, I’ve found (after nearly 12 years of wondering why she would argue with me only to discover that she and I were on the same page…).

—James H


13. pgepps
April 3, 2006
3:16 AM

Anyone who wants to see the intellectual insipidity of Brown’s claims could just go back to the book he plagiarized—er, sorry, “fictionalized” (though when you claim certain elements of your fiction as fact, but don’t source the facts, isn’t that still plagiarism?)—his basic claims from. Holy Blood, Holy Grail has been out long enough that I was a high-school student, I think, when I first saw it.

Never mind the Biblical claims. None of the historical core of Brown’s research even gets *near* the grit of Biblical textual studies. Not even *close*.

So, while I agree that it is sadly *true* that many in evangelical churches are going to be suckers for this stuff, I think I have to agree that it is *ridiculous* that it should be so. Churches who have to “prepare” their members specially for such pap as this ought, rightly, to be ashamed; and they ought to be doing better.

Or does anyone out there think there really are *serious* issues of any kind raised that even a basically-well educated Christian should blink at?

Really, now,
PGE


14. Blake Law
April 3, 2006
11:41 AM

PS - of course you’re regenerate before believing, as if believing or any other action could “make” a person “born”


15. Donnie
April 7, 2006
12:49 PM

Isn’t it an interesting coincidence that the release of this movie and the recently “discovered” gospel(?) of Judas should be receiving such press. I can’t wait for the Director’s Cut DVD + Special Features of “Jesus Christ Superstar” which would dovetail so nicely. For those of us who are prepared there is a great opportunity for discussion of the true gospel but we won’t be able to reach as many with the truth as will be harmed by media releases.
I love watching how you’ve grown Tim.