Theology Matters

Scripture and the Preservation of Jesus' Words

2010-08-15T19:22:00.000-04:00

Jesus made the astounding claim, recorded in all three Synoptic Gospels, that heaven and earth would pass away, but that his words would not pass away (Matt 24:35/Mark 13:31/Luke 21:33). It is fair to say at this late date, that the only words of Jesus which have not passed away are those that were written down!

Charles E. Hill, "The New Testament Canon: Deconstructio Ad Absurdum?," JETS 52/1 (2009): 111.

Why Some Get the Atonement Wrong

2010-07-16T19:56:00.000-04:00

"It is when our perception of God and man, or of holiness and sin, are askew that our understanding of the atonement is bound to be askew also...The reason why many people give the wrong answers to questions about the cross, and even ask the wrong questions, is that they have carefully considered neither the seriousness of sin nor the majesty of God."

--John R.W. Stott, The Cross of Christ (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2006), 90-91.

A Shocking Omission

2010-05-01T00:36:00.003-04:00

I’ve been reading Alister E. McGrath’s Christianity’s Dangerous Idea: The Protestant Revolution—A History from the Sixteenth Century to the Twenty-First (HarperOne, 2007). I’m enjoying the book so far and find McGrath’s retelling and reinterpretation of the history of Protestantism quite informative and entertaining. I love it when a writer makes history come alive; and, for me, McGrath is one such writer.

With that said, however, I noticed a startling omission toward the close of his chapter on Martin Luther. In order to feel the force of this, let me give you the context. Here’s one of his closing paragraphs on Luther (p. 58):

Luther’s reforms, it is clear, were neither an opportunistic attack on the morals of the church nor a piecemeal demand for reform here and there. His fundamental conviction was that the church of his day had lost sight of some fundamental themes of the Christian gospel. After all, the theology he had been taught at Erfurt now seemed to him to be heretical, amounting to the idea of “justification by works”—the notion that humanity can achieve its own salvation by its morals or religious achievements.

Well and good. But notice the very next paragraph (Ibid):

Yet Luther is open to criticism here, in that he appears to have extrapolated from his own local situation to that of the entire Christian church throughout Europe. As historians have rightly pointed out, the evidence simply does not sustain Luther’s picture of the medieval church as totally doctrinally corrupt or out of touch with the New Testament—a fact that helps us make sense of the mixed response to his demands for reform.

Can you see it? This is absolutely appalling. No, I’m not arguing with McGrath’s assessment at this point; in fact, I’m intrigued by it. What has me dismayed is McGrath’s glaring failure to provide an endnote for that last paragraph! What historians? What works is he referring to? He doesn’t say.

Oh well, I hope I don’t find more of these "dangerous" omissions in the rest of the book.

Poythress and Walton on The Lost World of Genesis One

2010-02-13T15:26:00.002-05:00

In August of last year, Vern S. Poythress wrote a brief review of John H. Walton's new book, The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate (IVP, 2009), in World Magazine. Poythress is Professor of New Testament Interpretation at Westminster Theological Seminary and Walton is Professor of Old Testament at Wheaton College.

Walton has now responded over at the Science and the Sacred blog, and Poythress has likewise been invited to interact with Walton. See exchanges below:

Poythress' review of Walton's book
Walton responds to Poythress' review
Poythress responds to Walton
Walton responds again to Poythress

(HT: Justin Taylor)

Revelation 2 and the Return of Jezebel: Who Do You Say She Was?

2009-10-24T21:10:00.000-04:00

To the church of Thyatira, John writes,

But I have this against you, that you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and seducing my servants to practice sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols. I gave her time to repent, but she refuses to repent of her sexual immorality. Behold, I will throw her onto a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her I will throw into great tribulation, unless they repent of her works, and I will strike her children dead. And all the churches will know that I am he who searches mind and heart, and I will give to each of you according to your works. (Rev. 2:20-23, ESV)

Some interesting suggestions have been made concerning the identity of the “Jezebel” (Ἰεζάβελ) mentioned in Rev. 2:20-23.

1. Some argue this Jezebel was the actual name of a troublesome woman in Thyatira who, coincidently, mirrored the notorious Jezebel of the Old Testament.

2. Others argue that the name “Jezebel” is used as a title for an actual woman in the church of Thyatira who was causing the aforementioned disturbances. The reason for the title being quite obvious, since the Jezebel of the Old Testament led Israel into Baal worship and sorcery (1 Kings 16:31-34; 21:25-26; 2 Kings 9:22). So calling this woman “Jezebel” would have come as a strong rebuke to her and the congregation that tolerated her. She, like the Jezebel before her, was leading people astray.

3. Still yet others argue that “Jezebel” stands for a corrupt faction in the church of Thyatira and not necessarily an actual, historical woman per se (cf. 2 John 1 [?]).

Here's what we know about this "Jezebel" according to the passage:

She calls herself a "prophetess" (ἡ λέγουσα ἑαυτὴν προφῆτιν).
She's teaching and seducing Christians to "practice sexual immorality" (πορνεῦσαι) and "eat foods sacrificed to idols" (φαγεῖν εἰδωλόθυτα).
She refuses to repent of "her sexual immorality" (τῆς πορνείας αὐτῆς).
Some are committing "adultery with her" (τοὺς μοιχεύοντας μετ᾽ αὐτῆς).
She has "children" (τὰ τέκνα αὐτῆς).
Jesus threatens to cast her onto a sickbed (βάλλω αὐτὴν εἰς κλίνην), throw her fellow adulterers into great tribulation (εἰς θλῖψιν μεγάλην), and kill her children (ἀποκτενῶ ἐν θανάτῳ).

So, was this "Jezebel" the actual name of a real first century woman in the church of Thyatira, a title used for a real first century woman in the church of Thyatira, or a name given to a corrupt faction in the church of Thyatira? What do you think?

James Cone on the Importance of One's Own Context for Doing Theology

2009-10-17T12:02:00.003-04:00

"I respect what happened at Nicea and Chalcedon and the theological input of the Church Fathers on Christology; but that source alone is inadequate for finding out the meaning of black folks’ Jesus. It is all right to say as did Athanasius that the Son is homoousia (one substance with the Father), especially if one has a taste for Greek philosophy and a feel for the importance of intellectual distinctions. And I do not want to minimize or detract from the significance of Athanasius’ assertion for faith one iota. But the homoousia question is not a black question.

"Blacks do not ask whether Jesus is one with the Father or divine and human, though the orthodox formulations are implied in their language. They ask whether Jesus is walking with them, whether they can call him up on the “telephone of prayer” and tell him all about their troubles. To be sure Athanasius’ assertion about the status of the Logos in the Godhead is important for the church’s continued Christological investigations. But we must not forget that Athanasius’ question about the Son’s status in relation to the Father did not arise in the historical context of the salve codes and the slave drives. And if he had been a black slave in America, I am sure he would have asked a different set of questions. He might have asked about the status of the Son in relation to slaveholders.

"Perhaps the same is true of Martin Luther and his concern about the ubiquitous presence of Jesus Christ at the Lord’s Table. While not diminishing the importance of Luther’s theological concern, I am sure that if he had been born a black slave his first question would not have been whether Jesus was at the Lord’s Table but whether he was really present at the slave’s cabin, whether slaves could expect Jesus to be with them as they tried to survive the cotton field, the whip, and the pistol.

"Unfortunately not only white seminary professors but some blacks as well have convinced themselves that only the white experience provides the appropriate context for questions and answers concerning things divine. They do not recognize the narrowness of their experience and the particularity of their theological expressions. They like to think of themselves as universalpeople. That is why most seminaries emphasize the need for appropriate tools in doing theology, which always means white tools, i.e., knowledge of the language and thought of white people. They fail to recognize that other people also have thought about God and have something significant to say about Jesus’ presence in the world.

"My point is that one’s social and historical context decides not only the questions we address to God but also the mode or form of the answers given to the questions."

-James H. Cone, God of the Oppressed, rev. ed. (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1997), 13-14.

Eschatology Debate

2009-10-14T23:24:00.011-04:00

A few weeks ago, John Piper moderated a lively and spirited discussion on Eschatology with three panelists (pastor-theologians), each representing three distinct views on the millennium: the premillennial view defended by James Hamilton, the amillennial view by Sam Storms, and the postmillennial view by Douglas Wilson.

Piper, though moderating, did not hide the fact that he holds to the premillennial view and even ended up siding with Hamilton at times during the exchange. But he was totally fair in allowing the panelists enough time to explain and defend their positions. It's encouraging to see Christians strongly disagreeing all the while maintaining genuine love and respect for one another as brothers in Christ.

This kind of conversation is simply impossible in many churches. Too often a difference of opinion, especially on eschatology, is tantamount to apostasy. Piper and company have done a good job demonstrating how theological differences can and should be seriously and passionately debated among the people of God.

For audio and video of the event, see here.

German, Family, and Genesis 1

2009-10-10T12:07:00.008-04:00

While things have been pretty slow on this blog (as usual), I have been quite busy elsewhere. In the beginning of September I enrolled in a introductory German course in midtown Manhattan. We are using the instructor's own unpublished grammar and workbook (which are quite excellent by the way) and have thus far worked through identifying and translating definite/ indefinite articles, der and ein words, nouns, noun phrases, compound nouns, adjectives and adverbs, participles, pronouns, prepositions, and other fun stuff. It helps that German has a case system similar to that of Greek. For those learning German, check out this helpful blog.

On the home front, my son has started walking and is turning our home upside down! He is so awesome.

In the blogosphere much discussion has ensued concerning Tremper Longman's openness to the question of the historicity of Adam and Eve. (In addition see the posts by James Anderson, Jeremy Pierce, and Nick Norelli.) I do not see this topic (and others directly related, such as hermeneutics, biological evolution, inerrancy, etc.) going away any time soon, as evidenced here (the ever-so-popular 'slippery slope' argument), here (Bruce Waltke's new article on evolution), and here (Peter Enns' future book project on Christianity and evolution). Personally, I do not think the slippery slope argument is helpful at all. I'd love to elaborate further, but I'll leave that for another time. Right now it's time to go play with my boy!

Review of John H. Walton's 'The Lost World of Genesis One'

2009-09-08T22:07:00.013-04:00

John Walton has a new book out titled “The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate.” I just finished reading it a little over a week ago and I must say it’s engaging and quite provocative. His thesis is a bold one, and if he’s right, tons of the combative ‘science vs. faith’ literature (especially in regards to the relationship between modern science and the creation account in Genesis 1) can be sent to the flames.

He argues, quite strongly, that the creation account in Genesis 1 is not concerned with creation in a material sense (e.g., the physical nature of things) but with creation in a functional sense (e.g., the role/function things have). Genesis 1 is not about how God brought material things into existence ex nihilo, rather it’s about how God assigned functions to things that were already in existence. This is how ancient Near Eastern peoples (hence, the writer and audience of Genesis 1) understood “creation” and “existence.”

Walton’s not saying that matter is eternal or that God did not create what we see. He takes that for granted, saying that other passages in the bible, especially the NT, clearly teach physical, material creation ex nihilo. But not Genesis 1. Genesis 1 is about the functional ordering of the cosmos. He also argues that the creation week in Genesis 1 is best understood as a representation or symbol of God creating a cosmic temple. The temple is not “created” until God inaugurates the temple by resting on the seventh day, thus indicating that God’s temple (i.e., the cosmos) is complete. He uses two lines of evidence to support his thesis: (1) the bible, particularly how the Hebrew verb used in Genesis 1:1 (“to create”) is used functionally, not materially, throughout Scripture; and (2) the literature of the ancient Near East and how ancient peoples viewed creation in functional (not material) terms.

If you’re like me then by now all sorts of red flags must be popping up in your minds! Walton, however, needs to be listened to carefully and fairly. Our initial reaction is probably to reject his thesis out of hand, but this is because, he argues, our worldview is so concerned with the material aspects of things that to image Genesis 1 as being about functional creation rather than material creation seems unimaginable. But our worldview isn’t the worldview of ancient peoples, including the ancient Israelites, and our cosmology isn’t the same as theirs. He says, rightly, that we must try to read and understand Genesis 1 the way the ancient Israelites would have understood it.

How Calvinism Lost its Way

2009-07-15T10:21:00.006-04:00

Over at the Koinonia blog, Douglas Estes has written an interesting post on how some Calvinists have inappropriately used their Calvinism as a club to beat people over the head with. If you're a Calvinist, take notes on how not to act toward your non-Calvinist brothers and sisters.

See his post here: "Return to Calvin: A Personal Reflection on how Calvinism has Lost its Way."

Jesus Wore Pants!

2009-06-23T22:06:00.005-04:00

So says this baptist pastor.

Sigh.

The use and abuse of Deuteronomy 22:5 continues. For a sane response see Claude Mariottini's post here.

(HT: Claude Mariottini)

The Role of Doubt in Faith

2009-06-22T18:55:00.013-04:00

While reading through Paul L. Redditt's Introduction to the Prophets, I came across this probing piece on the relationship between doubt and faith:

Too often people think that doubt is the opposite of believing, and sometimes doubts do drive people to despair of the adequacy of their religion. Such an outcome is not necessary, however, since doubt may serve the greater good of driving someone past pat answers to more satisfying answers. Doubt takes seriously the religious belief or structure under attack and the pertinence of the opposition. Such grappling may lead to deeper faith.

--Paul L. Redditt, Introduction to the Prophets (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008), 122.

Israel: Ancient Kingdom or Late Invention?

2009-06-20T21:56:00.011-04:00

Thanks to Jim Baird from B&H Academic for this review copy!

Block, Daniel I., ed.

Israel: Ancient Kingdom or Late Invention?

Nashville: B & H, 2008. Pp. xxii + 346. Paper.
$27.99. ISBN 9780805446791.

Appearances can be deceiving. The title alone may lead one to think this book is about proving whether or not the Israel of the bible actually existed in ancient history. Not quite. It’s actually a collection of essays delivered at a conference on the bible and archaeology in January, 2004, held at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, the purpose of which was “to explore the significance of archaeological discoveries of the past century for the interpretation of the Bible and our understanding of the nation of Israel” (6). All the conference papers (minus one) were updated and revised for inclusion in the book. An additional essay not delivered at the conference (by John M. Monson) was added.

The first essay, written by Daniel I. Block, serves as a general introduction to the book and sets the stage for the essays that follow. He notes that while more resources and new methods of investigation have helped scholars progress in their reconstruction of the social and political world of the ancient Near East, the “effects” these results have had on both “the scholarly world and the public in general,” in reference to ancient Israelite history, have been mixed (4). Many believers find the entire enterprise useful only for apologetic reasons (i.e., in order to prove the bible true) while many nonbelievers find it helpful for debunking the bible.

In “scholarly circles” terms like “maximalist” and “minimalist” are tossed about, “often used disparagingly of others by those who are involved in the discussions” (4). There are extremes on both sides. For instance, there are some who eschew “literary conventions and genres” and use “the genealogies in Genesis to date the age of the earth” (5). And there are others who, in spite of “the discovery of a 9th century BC Aramaic inscription that contain[s] the expression, byt dwd, ‘house of David,’” deny that the David of the Bible ever existed (6). But “thankfully,” says Block, “there is room for a more respectful middle way” (6). He explains:

A high view of Scripture will not make the Scriptures say any more than they want to say—the problem that plagues many Christians—but nor will it refuse to let the Scriptures say what they want to say—a common problem among cynics. Perhaps if we adopt a more realistic stance and pay closer attention to the literary nature and the intentions of the biblical texts on the one hand, and to the fragmentary nature of the archaeological record, on the other, we may find room for modesty in both the conclusions we draw and the style with which we discuss those conclusions (6).

The essayists are evangelical scholars who share a high view of Scripture but do not set out to “prove the Bible.” Rather, in line with the modest, middle way approach described above, their goal is to understand the Old Testament text in its historical and cultural contexts and show how the world of the ancient Near East can “open new doors into the collection of books we hold to be sacred” (6). Along the way, readers are “introduced to ancient Egyptians, Hittites, Assyrians, Luwians, Canaanites, Moabites and Ammonites” (7).

The book is organized logically and chronologically, beginning with three essays (excluding Block’s) which deal with issues of methodology in reconstructing ancient Israelite history. The rest address various issues spanning from the times of the patriarchs all the way to the post-exilic period. The final essay is sort of like a “case study” on the importance of understanding the literature and culture of the ancient Near East for interpreting the Old Testament. The essays and contributors are as follows:

Israel—Ancient Kingdom or Late Invention? (Daniel I. Block)
The Value and Limitations of the Bible and Archaeology (Alan R. Millard)
Contextual Criticism as a Framework for Biblical Interpretation (John M. Monson)
North-West Semitic Inscriptions and Biblical Interpretation (Joel Drinkard)
From Joseph to David: Mari and Israelite Pastoral Traditions (Daniel E. Fleming)
Major Geographical Issues in the Accounts of the Exodus (James K. Hoffmeier)
Slavery and Slave Laws in Ancient Hatti and Israel (Harry A. Hoffner Jr.)
Were the Israelites Really Canaanites? (Alan R. Millard)
Syria and the Bible: The Luwian Connection (Richard S. Hess)
David and Solomon’s Jerusalem: Do the Bible and Archaeology Disagree? (Alan R. Millard)
Who Were Israel’s Transjordanian Neighbors and How Did They Differ? (Gerald L. Mattingly)
Shalmaneser III and Israel (K. Lawson Younger Jr.)
Did the Israelites Really Learn Their Monotheism in Babylon? (Simon J. Sherwin)
Did Persian Zoroastrianism Influence Judaism? (Edwin M. Yamauchi)
Interpreting the Bible as an Ancient Near Eastern Document (John H. Walton)

The essays are written at a scholarly level and are heavily footnoted. I found the essays on methodology by Millard (his first), Monson, and Drinkard to be well balanced and persuasive. Much more can be said but an analysis of each essay is beyond the scope of this review. Overall,Israel—Ancient Kingdom or Late Invention? is a good, up-to-date work on how evangelical scholars are rightly using the fruits archaeological discoveries for the benefit of understanding the bible and the environment in which it was produced.

I'm Still Here!

2009-04-18T23:14:00.005-04:00

Has it really been almost 4 months since my last post? Wow. Well, I've been pretty occupied this year with family, work, and school. I hope to begin blogging more frequently sometime next month. (Truth is, however, I'm not the kind of blogger who posts two to three times a day, 7 days a week - in case you haven't noticed!) I have a few book reviews coming soon on Israel: Ancient Kingdom or Late Invention? and Prophet and Teacher: An Introduction to the Historical Jesus. So Stay tuned.

Happy New Year!

2009-01-02T00:06:00.016-05:00

Happy New Year!

The holidays are now over, which means some of us can finally rest a little easier. This was Matthew’s first Christmas and New Year, leaving no doubt who the center of attention was at all our family gatherings. Let’s just say he’s all partied out right now. Having him with us this time around made the holidays so much more enjoyable!

I got some great new books this Christmas and I’m looking forward to reading them all:

The Truth of the Cross (R.C. Sproul)

Don’t Stop Believing: Why Living like Jesus is Not Enough (Michael E. Wittmer)

The Flames of Rome (Paul L. Maier)

Salvation Belongs to the Lord: An Introduction to Systematic Theology (John M. Frame)

The Epic of Eden: A Christian Entry into the Old Testament (Sandra L. Richter)

How to Win Every Argument: The Use and Abuse of Logic (Madsen Pirie)

The following two books, which I plan to review here shortly, I received courtesy of B&H Publishers and Westminster John Knox Press respectively (thanks!):

Israel: Ancient Kingdom or Late Invention? (Daniel I. Block; B&H)

Prophet and Teacher: An Introduction to the Historical Jesus (William R. Herzog II; WJK)

Last but not least, my beautiful wife bought me an awesome Sony Walkman mp3/video player! I can now listen to music, sermons, lectures, debates, and watch pictures and videos wherever I go. What’s remarkable (or sad) is that I’m the last person in my family to get an mp3/video player. Even my mom has one!

I hope your holidays were no less exciting and pleasurable.

Jürgen Moltmann: Coming Together at the Cross

2008-11-29T23:47:00.003-05:00

"Ecumenism is realized only (but then also world-wide) where we find ourselves beneath the cross of Christ, and mutually discover ourselves beneath his cross as brothers and sisters, as the hungry in shared poverty (Rom. 3.23), as people imprisoned in shared sin. Beneath his cross we all stand there with empty hands. We have nothing to offer God except the burden of guilt and the emptiness of our hearts. Beneath the cross, people are not accounted Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox. There the godless are justified, enemies reconciled, the imprisoned freed, the poor made rich and the grieving filled with hope. That is why beneath the cross we also discover ourselves as children living from the same freedom in Christ, and as friends in the same fellowship of the Spirit."

--Jürgen Moltmann, God For A Secular Society: The Public Relevance of Theology (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1999), 204.

Review of An Ethic for Christians and Other Aliens in a Strange Land - Part 2

2008-11-27T08:15:00.012-05:00

(See Part 1 of Review)

Stringfellow is a captivating writer. His presentation of the political interestedness of the Bible, and the fallen nature of the “principalities” and their mind-numbing influences are superbly convincing. I appreciate his willingness to expose America as a fallen nation – a principality. What struck me most came at the end of the book. He asked whether America’s future would be different from her fallen past. His answer was unexpected: “The categorical answer is no” (p. 155)! That is not something many believers are saying today. But he’s absolutely right. America is not nor will ever be a “holy nation” this side of heaven due to the prevailing nature of the fall. Christians must to come to grips with this.

I disagree, however, with his take on the nature of heaven, which he defined as a state “of self-knowledge and reconciliation and hope…to which every human being and the whole of creation is called to live here in this world” (p. 44). I understand what he was getting at – that to be too heavenly minded renders one of no earthly good. And the incarnation was, among many things, God's verdict that the here and now matter to God and should likewise matter to us. But one need not toss out the baby with the bath water. Heaven is certainly not portrayed as a state of consciousness in the Bible – it’s so much more than that.

What I felt was lacking in Stringfellows argument was a thorough presentation of the victory and sovereignty of Christ over the power of death and the principalities at the cross (Rom. 8:38; Eph. 3:10; 6:12; Col. 1:16; 2:15; KJV). This was desperately needed. He did mention the cross briefly but his treatment of it was disappointingly thin and missed the mark (see p. 129-130). The implications of the cataclysmic event of Christ’s death and resurrection are earth shattering in regards to how we are to live biblically as the church in this fallen world. If this would have been unpacked the book could have ended on a more positive note.

Stringfellow's book reminds ministers that the people who fill their pews every week are in a constant battle with the principalities and powers of this world. They work for them, watch them on TV, hear them on the radio, read them in the papers, and are continually being inundated by their idolatrous, self-serving propaganda. We are all its victims. The way to be liberated from these mind-numbing, demoralizing, incapacitating, conscience paralyzing, and immobilizing effects is through the proclamation of the word of God. Prophetic preaching and teaching will expose the machinations of the principalities and help people escape the vicious power of death.

One final note: Christians need to realize that Stringfellow’s penetrating critique of the principalities includes political parties and leaders as well. Political leaders, especially, are victims of the principalities, plain and simple. And the euphoric notion that a President can save America or free her from her idolatrous self-centeredness and her love affair with "the power of death" is, in the spirit of Stringfellow, hopelessly naïve.

Translating the Dead Sea Scrolls

2008-11-09T18:40:00.014-05:00

My Aramaic professor threw us a curve last week by asking us to sight-read a passage right out of the Dead Sea scrolls! What made this even more challenging was that the vowel system we had grown accustomed to seeing in biblical Aramaic and Hebrew was nowhere to be found in the text. All that aside, we had a good time with this text, especially since the content was so interesting. Here's a taste.

וכמא נעים ומא רקיק לה שער ראישה

If anyone wants to take a shot a translating this go right ahead.

Review of An Ethic for Christians and Other Aliens in a Strange Land - Part 1

2008-11-07T12:58:00.028-05:00

Stringfellow, William.

An Ethic for Christians and Other Aliens in a Strange Land.

Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock, 2004. Pp. 160. Paper. $19.00. ISBN 1592448747.

This book, originally published in 1974, was written during a time in American history not too unlike our own when an unpopular war, political controversy, and ethical entanglements of technological advancement were front and center in the minds of many concerned Americans. One such American who sought to discern those times in which he lived was William Stringfellow (1928 – 1985), an astute Episcopalian layman and Harvard Law trained attorney.

After graduating from law school in 1956 Stringfellow moved into a small apartment in the East Harlem ghetto of New York City and dedicated himself to a life of engagement and activism on behalf of the oppressed in his community (p. 1). He was no stranger to controversy. He was in a committed relationship with a same-sex partner; indicted and under surveillance by the American government for “harboring a fugitive;” relentlessly active in local and federal politics; and unrestrained in voicing his own indictments of America’s degeneracy via his writings and speaking engagements around the country (p. 4).

Stringfellow wants readers to understand America in light of the Word of God. But two obstacles stand in the way. The first is that for too long many Christians have sought “to construe the Bible Americanly…for the convenience of America” (p. 13). This, he says, “represents a radical violence to both the character and content of the biblical message” (p. 14). As a result American Christians have erroneously and irresponsibly identified America as God’s chosen nation, the new Zion, whose overall exploits and actions necessitate the sanction of God. “It is profane, as well as grandiose,” he writes, “to manipulate the Bible in order to apologize for America” (Ibid). The way forward is to read the Bible on its own terms in order to discern the true politics of the Bible, because, says Stringfellow, the Bible is predominantly about politics:

The biblical topic is politics. The Bible is about the politics of fallen creation and the politics of redemption; the politics of the nations, institutions, ideologies, and causes of this world and the politics of the Kingdom of God; the politics of Babylon and the politics of Jerusalem; the politics of the Antichrist and the politics of Jesus Christ; the politics of the demonic powers and principalities and the politics of the timely judgment of God as sovereign; the politics of death and the politics of life; apocalyptic politics and eschatological politics (pp. 14-15).

But while many incorrectly Americanize biblical politics, the second obstacle is the “contradictory custom among many Americans to denounce the truth that the Bible is political.” A quick overview of the history of Israel, the crucifixion of Christ, the kingdom of God, the conflict between the church and state in the New Testament, and the book of Revelation should easily dispel that myth (p. 15). Both extremes must be overcome in order to rightly comprehend America biblically.

Stringfellow uses the book of Revelation as a parable to understand America and show people how to live according to the word of God: “The book of Revelation is both an exciting exposition of biblical ethics and a preeminent example of the practice of biblical politics” (p. 16). The book “is a polemic...an exhortation for biblical living for which the book of Revelation furnishes precedent in substance and style, in ethics and political tactics” (Ibid).

The greatest evils he belabors to expose are the “principalities and powers” of this world, terms which he uses synonymously. These represent “all authorities, corporations, institutions, traditions, processes, structures, bureaucracies, ideologies, systems, sciences, and the like” (p. 27). The principalities and their demonic influence over the world have received far too little attention in American Christianity (p. 17). This is due in no small measure to the naïve understanding American Christians have concerning the Fall (p. 19).

The Fall has tainted all of creation, not just individuals. Societal structures are fallen; nations are fallen; America is fallen – all principalities are fallen. Coming to grips with this fact is “decisive” if one seeks to transcend the stupor many Americans suffer (Ibid).

Stringfellow’s methodology in the book is to move from analysis, to ethics, to politics; to identify “the deadly atmosphere which pervades America now as the essential truth of existence for nations and other principalities in estrangement and conflict with human beings” and appeal “to the authority and style of the Book of Revelation because Revelation contains a parable of the fallenness of the nations and similar powers, and because Revelation offers a witness to the biblical politics which cope with that condition” (p. 21).

(Part 2)

First We Were Two, Now We Are Three!

2008-10-11T22:04:00.008-04:00

It seems like it was only yesterday when my beautiful wife first gave me the news: "Are you ready to be a father? I'm pregnant!" What sweet news! And now, just over four weeks ago, the Lord blessed us with our first child - Matthew! The birth of my son was one of the most amazing things I've ever experienced in my life. First we were two, now we are three. Yeah, we're not getting much sleep right now, but when I hold him in my arms and look at his awesome face and touch his little fingers...then it becomes as clear as day - it's so worth it.

"Children are a gift of the Lord" (Ps. 127:3, NASB)

Entertainment-Oriented vs. Bible-Oriented Preachers

2008-09-21T23:27:00.008-04:00

In his latest Taste & See article, “In Honor of Tethered Preaching,” John Piper fittingly articulates a phenomenon in preaching I’ve seen and thought about for quite some time – the orientation or bent of the preacher in preaching. Specifically, Piper distinguishes between two kinds of preachers: “entertainment-oriented preachers” and “Bible-oriented preachers.” He explains:

The difference between an entertainment-oriented preacher and a Bible-oriented preacher is the manifest connection of the preacher’s words to the Bible as what authorizes what he says.
The entertainment-oriented preacher gives the impression that he is not tethered to an authoritative book in what he says. What he says doesn’t seem to be shaped and constrained by an authority outside himself. He gives the impression that what he says has significance for reasons other than that it manifestly expresses the meaning and significance of the Bible. So he seems untethered to objective authority.
The entertainment-oriented preacher seems to be at ease talking about many things that are not drawn out of the Bible. In his message, he seems to enjoy more talking about other things than what the Bible teaches. His words seem to have a self-standing worth as interesting or fun. They are entertaining. But they don’t give the impression that this man stands as the representative of God before God’s people to deliver God’s message.
The Bible-oriented preacher, on the other hand, does see himself that way—“I am God’s representative sent to God’s people to deliver a message from God.” He knows that the only way a man can dare to assume such a position is with a trembling sense of unworthy servanthood under the authority of the Bible. He knows that the only way he can deliver God’s message to God’s people is by rooting it in and saturating it with God’s own revelation in the Bible.
The Bible-oriented preacher wants the congregation to know that his words, if they have any abiding worth, are in accord with God’s words. He wants this to be obvious to them. That is part of his humility and his authority. Therefore, he constantly tries to show the people that his ideas are coming from the Bible. He is hesitant to go too far toward points that are not demonstrable from the Bible.
His stories and illustrations are constrained and reined in by his hesitancy to lead the consciousness of his hearers away from the sense that this message is based on and expressive of what the Bible says. A sense of submission to the Bible and a sense that the Bible alone has words of true and lasting significance for our people mark the Bible-oriented preacher, but not the entertainment-oriented preacher.

The differences between the two are immensely important. May God grant us the ability to discern the one from the other.

Women, Pants, and Polls (UPDATE)

2008-07-07T21:22:00.014-04:00

UPDATE: The poll I used (from Polldaddy.com) stopped working and unfortunately many votes weren't counted. I re-created the poll using Blogger. My apologies to those who have voted already; please vote again!

I just created a new poll! Check it out on the side bar of the blog. I'd like to know what you think. The content might seem odd to some, but for many Christians (depending on their particular culture and tradition) this is a very hot issue. I'm thinking about doing a series of posts on this topic.

So, what do you think about women and pants? Go vote! If you'd like to share why you voted the way you did, feel free to comment on this post.

Augustine on Reckless Interpreters of Scripture

2008-05-31T11:00:00.009-04:00

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, they cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience.

Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all the means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show a vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.

The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but the people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books and matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learned from experience in the light of reason?

Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although 'they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.'

--St. Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, vol. 1, Ancient Christian Writers, vol. 41, trans. by John Hammond Taylor, S. J. (Newman Press, 1982), Book 1, 19:39.

Why Black Theology Matters

2008-03-23T23:21:00.005-04:00

The controversial statements made by Senator Barack Obama's former pastor, Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright, has brought about a renewed interest in the nature and history of Black Liberation Theology. In fact, Christianity Today has recently posted an interview with Thabiti Anyabwile (Black Power from the Pulpit) discussing black liberation theology and the African American church. Here's a small excerpt of that interview,

Black liberation theology has its origins in the Black Power movement of the 1960s. Its founder, James Cone, was looking for a theological orientation to explain the aims, ethos, and anger of the 1960s revolution. So, not surprisingly, black liberation theology concerns itself with the political aspirations of African Americans from a fairly radical bent by most standards. It's an effort to do theology from the vantage point of the marginalized and the oppressed. Its main benefit is that it does raise questions that aren't often addressed by most theologians. Its main failure is that it either supplants or equates the biblical gospel with a concern for temporal politics, particularly politics viewed from a politically liberal and self-consciously black perspective.

A while back I reviewed one of James Cone's books: God of the Oppressed (part 1 and 2). It had a profound effect on me in many ways and made me realize how important it is to listen and learn from the theological perspectives of others. Saying that black liberation theology raises "questions that aren't often addressed by most theologians" is probably an understatement.

Also of interest is an insightful article written by one of my former professors, Rev. Gabriel Salguero, for the Washington Post's On Faith page (Black Church and Black Liberation Theology: Notes on Listening). He writes,

Although I am a Latino Evangelical, I am a student of the Black Church and Black Liberation Theology. I studied The Civil Rights movement and W.E. B Dubois with David Levering Lewis at Rutgers University. While an M.Div student I took courses on Martin Luther King, Jr with Dr. Peter Paris at Princeton Theological Seminary. As a Ph.D student I studied and was a teaching assistant of Dr. James Cone a primary progeniture of Black Liberation Theology and educator concerning the legacies of M.L King, Jr., Malcolm X, and Reinhold Niebuhr amongst others. What I have learned is that there is a fertile legacy in the Black Liberation Theology that can benefit all of Christianity in many ways. Even if there are points where I do not agree with some of Black Liberation Theologies as I disagree with Lutheran, Reformed, Wesleyan theology on many points a conversation with black liberation theology is necessary for the future of global theology and the Christian church. (By the way there are several perspectives in black liberation theologies they are not a monolith.)

His article is worth reading in its entirety. Theology Matters.

Alister E. McGrath on Faith

2008-03-11T23:26:00.003-04:00

Faith is not something purely intellectual, enlightening the mind while leaving the heart untouched. Faith is the response of our whole person to the person of God. It is a joyful reaction on our part to the overwhelming divine love we see revealed in Jesus Christ. It is the simple response of leaving all to follow Jesus. Faith is both our recognition that something wonderful has happened through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and our response to what has happened. Faith realizes that God loves us, and it responds to that love. Faith trusts in the promising God...

Faith then unites us with the risen Christ and makes available to us everything that he gained through his obedience and resurrection - such as forgiveness, grace, and eternal life...Faith, then, it not just assent to an abstract set of doctrines. Rather, it is a 'wedding ring' (Luther), pointing to mutual commitment and union between Christ and the believer. It is the response of the whole person of the believer to God, which leads in turn to the real and personal presence of Christ in the believer.

--Alister E. McGrath, Intellectuals Don't Need God and Other Modern Myths: Building Bridges to Faith (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1993), 50-51.

One Hebrew Word - So Close Yet So Far!

2008-03-06T23:01:00.006-05:00

I had a killer Hebrew exam this evening. One word wrestled me to my knees, even with my BDB lexicon in hand!

וַיְצַוֵּ֕ם

Anyone want to take a stab at translating this? I managed to analyze its form correctly (Piel, imperfect, 3rd person, masculine, singular) but I just couldn't figure out its root. I know what it is now but...oh well, there's always next time.

Jesus' Family Tomb Hypothesis Examened

2008-01-21T18:01:00.000-05:00

A conference in Jerusalem was held last week, with over 50 scholars in attendance, examining the claims of the documentary The Lost Tomb of Jesus, namely that Jesus' family tomb has been discovered.

Time had an interesting take on what took place, especially when they quoted the film's investigative journalist, Simcha Jacobovici, at the end of the article: "I feel vindicated...It's moved from 'it can't be the Jesus' family tomb' to 'it could be."

This media spin has provoked quite a number of those scholars in attendance to state the facts of the case plainly:

A firestorm has broken out in Jerusalem following the conclusion of the “Third Princeton Theological Seminary Symposium on Jewish Views of the Afterlife and Burial Practices in Second Temple Judaism: Evaluating the Talpiot Tomb in Context.” Most negative assessments of archaeologists and other scientists and scholars who attended have been excluded from the final press reports. Instead the media have presented the views of Simcha Jaocobovici, who produced the controversial film and book “The Lost Tomb of Jesus” with Hollywood director James Cameron, and who claims that his identification has been vindicated by the conference papers. Nothing further from the truth can be deduced from the discussion and presentations that took place on January 13-17, 2008. (HT: Mark Goodacre)

For more see:

The Talpiot Tomb Controversy Revisited (Duke University Department of Religion blog)
One More Nail in the Ossuary (Stephen Pfann)
The Talpiot Tomb Conference (Christopher Rollston)

Also, Darrell Bock has a new site up and running which promises to keep readers up-to-date on what the media is saying about Jesus: Primetime Jesus. Check this site for more responses to the Jesus Family Tomb hypothesis.

A Word About Interpretation

2008-01-11T20:04:00.000-05:00

"The problem is that texts can be interpreted in many ways...evidence for the correct position is never one hundred percent on one side and zero on the other. There must always be some reason for a conclusion, or nobody would be foolish enough to believe it. But we should be wary of arguments that rely on what is possible, rather than what is probable in light of the evidence."

--William V. Crockett, "The Metaphorical View" in Four Views on Hell, ed. William V. Crockett (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 70.

Review of Robert E. Webber's Worship Old and New

2008-01-04T23:44:00.002-05:00

Increasingly, many churches from a broad spectrum of traditions are tinkering with their worship. From predominantly liturgical churches all the way to free style charismatic/Pentecostal churches – many worship practices are being renewed and shared among diverse ecclesiastical traditions. Robert E. Webber, former Geraldyne B. Meyers Chair of Ministry and Director of M.A. Worship and Spirituality at the Northern Baptist Theological Seminary in Lombard, Illinois, in his book, Worship Old and New (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), identifies three reasons why this trend has become popular in recent years (p. 12):

“Churches of nearly every tradition are discovering the worship of the biblical and historic traditions.”
“Churches of nearly every denomination are discovering each other and are recognizing that elements of worship preserved in other traditions are relevant to today’s worship.”
“What is happening is the convergence of worship traditions, a blending of worship old and new.”

This has created a great amount of “uncertainty” and “anxiety” for many pastors, ministers, and worship leaders who want to be faithful to Scripture and yet remain relevant to their congregations’ worship needs (Ibid).

Webber lists three basic positions one may adopt when it comes to this phenomenon of worship renewal in the church. First, there is the traditional position which seeks to maintain its current practice while eschewing anything that is new and introduces change. Second, there is the contemporary position which seeks to rid itself of old and traditional ways of worship in favor of all that is new and fresh. Third, there is the old and new position which, according to Webber, “blends both the old and new, a worship that respects the tradition yet seeks to incorporate worship styles formed by the contemporary church” (p. 13). It is the third of these options that Webber strenuously argues for in Worship Old and New.

There are four general characteristics of worship old and new. First, it takes seriously the “questions about” and “reasons for” worship (Ibid). Second, it “learns from the entire worshiping community” (Ibid). Third, it respects how worship was done in the past, particularly “the Jewish and early Christian roots” of worship (Ibid). Fourth, it is “committed to contemporary relevance” (Ibid).

Specifically, other characteristics of worship old and new include the centrality of the Scriptures as “the foundation for worship studies” (Ibid). Webber is convinced that worship is not an invention of humankind; it is a divine gift bestowed upon the human race. Therefore the Scriptures hold primary importance when it comes to formulating a faithful doctrine of worship in the church. Worship in the history of the church, according to Webber, may be understood as the record of God’s Holy Spirit interacting with various peoples in different times. Therefore we may look to the past with respect in order to learn from “and even borrow for today’s worship” (p. 16).

Theologically, “worship constitutes the gospel in motion” and “celebrates God’s great acts of salvation” while “the people respond with faith, praise, prayer, thanksgiving, and a life of service in the world” (Ibid). Worship old and new also examines the importance of time and seasons, music and the arts, sacred actions and rituals, and various ministries of worship.

Webber discusses these things and much more throughout his book, which is divided into four main parts:

Part I: The Biblical Foundations of Worship—examines the biblical themes in worship; it also looks at how worship was conducted in the early Christian community, including the Old and New Testaments.
Part II: A Biblical Theology of Worship—examines how the Gospel story, enacted through forms and signs, is central to Christian worship.
Part III: A Brief History of Worship—examines how worship was carried out in the ancient/medieval church, the Reformation and Free Church era, and the church in the twentieth century.
Part IV: The Practice of Worship—the longest section of the book, examines the setting, content, structure, and style of worship.

Webber seeks to build his model “on the best of the biblical, historical, and traditional elements of worship” (p. 15). Webber notes that his book and the particular nature of worship he advocates should not be seen as a threat but a challenge. In the end he is concerned that worship be meaningful, sincere, and authentic.

Webber’s synthesis of experiencing worship that blends both the old and new is an approach I have realigned myself with. Worship must be faithful to the Scriptures and it must also be relevant to God’s people; it’s not either/or but both/and. Faithfulness and relevance can and must exist together for effective, sincere, and God honoring worship. Webber has broadened my thinking on worship. His approach is winsome and engaging. His historical analysis is informative. His thesis is entertaining and persuasive. My theology of worship has been enriched.

When You're Tempted to Doubt God's Love for You...

2007-12-28T13:22:00.001-05:00

C. J. Mahaney writes,

"When you're tempted to doubt God's love for you, stand before the cross and look at the wounded, dying, disfigured Savior, and realize why He is there. I believe His Father would whisper to us, "Isn't that sufficient? I haven't spared My own Son; I deformed and disfigured and crushed him--for you. What more could I do to persuade you that I love you?"

"That's how far God's love goes."

"And that is what it all means."

"Listen to Sinclair Ferguson's words on the 'staggering implications of the crucifixion'":

When we think of Christ's dying on the cross we are shown the lengths to which God's love goes in order to win us back to Himself. We would almost think that God loved us more than He loves His son. We cannot measure His love by any other standard. He is saying to us, "I love you this much."
The cross is the heart of the gospel; it makes the gospel good news. Christ died for us; He has stood in our place before God's judgment seat; He has borne our sins. God has done something on the cross which we could never do for ourselves. But God does something to us as well as for us through the cross. He persuades us that He loves us." [Sinclair Ferguson, Grow in Grace (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1989), 56 and 58]

--C. J. Mahaney, Living the Cross Centered Life: Keeping the Gospel the Main Thing (Colorado Springs, CO: Multnomah, 2006), 56-7.

Jones and Crossan Coming to Town

2007-11-03T13:11:00.000-04:00

Registration for the Spring '08 semester at Alliance Theological Seminary began this past Thursday. We all received a list of courses being offered next semester, but one particularly caught my eye:

Postmoderns and the Emerging Church

And who will be teaching this course? Tony Jones. Yep! This would be a great course to take, I'm sure, but unfortunately my schedule won't permit me to take it. (Darn!)

Also of interest to those in the Metro NY area: John Dominic Crossan is coming to Union Theological Seminary to discuss "God & Empire" on Monday, November 5, 2007 at 7:30 pm. Cost: $15 ($7 for students).

(HT: Latino Leadership Circle)

A Closer Look at the Ministries of Joel Osteen and Benny Hinn

2007-10-22T20:20:00.000-04:00

Joel Osteen was featured on 60 Minutes a few Sundays ago. It's a must see. And don't miss Michael Horton's critique near the end of the interview! (For more on Horton's views see here.)

Another must see is the devastating exposé by the CBC News on Benny Hinn. This is ugly folks.

Theology Matters.

Bruce K. Waltke and the Ninth Commandment

2007-10-10T11:14:00.000-04:00

I've had Bruce K. Waltke's An Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical, Canonical, and Thematic Approach for a few weeks now. Although I have tons of required reading to get through, I've managed to read some short sections here and there. I must say I'm very impressed. He interacts with a whole range of literature across multiple disciplines and makes relevant connections to the New Testament when warranted. His work is very edifying as well. Here's a brief quote on the implications of the ninth commandment ("Do Not Bear False Witness") for believers today:

One of the most fragile aspects of a person's life requiring protection is his or her reputation, yet it is also the aspect most at risk by the abuse of others. Politicians seek to destroy one another in negative campaigning; gossip columnists feed off calumny; and in Christian living rooms, reputations are tarnished or destroyed over cups of coffee served in fine china with dessert. These de facto courtrooms are conducted without due process of law. Accusations are made; hearsay allowed; slander, perjury, and libelous comments uttered without objection. No evidence, no defense.
As Christians we must refuse to participate in or to tolerate any conversation in which a person is being defamed or accused without the person being there to defend himself. It is wrong to pass along hearsay in any form, even as prayer requests or pastoral concerns. More than merely not participating, it is up to Christians to stop rumors and those who spread them in their tracks.

--Bruce K. Waltke, An Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical, Canonical, and Thematic Approach (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2007), 432.

Evangelical Theology and Contextualization

2007-09-25T22:46:00.000-04:00

Several decades ago, in his Presidential address to the Evangelical Theological Society, Stanely N. Gundry asked a series of penetrating questions which remain pertinent for us today:

I wonder if we really recognize that all theology represents a contextualization, even our own theology? We speak of Latin American liberation theology, black theology, or feminist theology; but without the slightest second thought we will assume that our own theology is simply theology, undoubtedly in its purest form. Do we recognize that the versions of evangelical theology held to by most people in this room are in fact North American, white, and male and that they reflect and/or address those values and concerns?

--Stanely N. Gundry, "Evangelical Theology: Where Should We Be Going?" Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 22.1 (1979): 11.

Greg Boyd on the Theology of Job (Update)

2007-09-03T21:53:00.001-04:00

The tragic bridge collapse in Minneapolis Minnesota on August 1 has brought to the forefront the question of the sovereignty of God with regard to the evil that occurs in this world. Two local pastors in the Minneapolis area have weighed in on the issue. John Piper wrote a post from the perspective that God is in control in the midst of the tragedy and that had he chosen to do so he “could have held up that bridge with one hand,” but that “God had a purpose for not holding that bridge up.” Greg Boyd responded to Piper’s post and wrote from the perspective that because God has created free agents, “sometimes bridges collapse” and “sometimes things go tragically wrong.” The implication being that things happen in the world that God has no control over. The collapse of the bridge was probably a total surprise to God since, following Boyd’s open theist perspective, God cannot know the future.

Denny Burk has weighed in on Boyd’s response to Piper, particularly by focusing on God’s sovereignty over evil as illustrated in the book of Job. But Boyd has now responded to Burke’s critique by taking a look at the book of Job himself. He disagrees with Burk’s theology of the book of Job, namely that (1) “God controls every move Satan makes;” and (2) “Job’s statement that ‘the Lord gave and the Lord has taken away’ (Job 1:21) is a view the narrator endorses.” In other words, this theology supports the idea that ultimately God is the cause of Job’s sufferings in the book of Job and, by implication, the bridge collapse in Minneapolis.

I’d like to examine one of the points Boyd presents from the book of Job to argue against the view mentioned above.

Point One

First, he argues that since God asked Satan “Where have you been?” (1:7), then “at the very least the point of the passage is to show that…Satan is not under Yahweh’s control.” In fact, Boyd even suggests that God was “surprised to see” Satan since he “was not one of the invited guests to the council meeting of the ‘sons of God’ (1:6-7; 2:1).”

An interesting interpretation, indeed; but it simply does not follow that asking a question of one’s whereabouts necessarily constitutes a lack of control over someone. This is especially evident when, just a few verses down, God grants Satan permission to attack Job and even sets limits on the extent of his attack (Job 1:12). This certainly sounds like a God who is in control over the evil that is about to occur on his faithful servant and in control of the one bringing about that evil. Had Satan not been restrained, he certainly would have gone after Job’s very life. As it turns out, this whole ordeal seems to be insinuated by God who presents Job to Satan as one who admirably serves him. Had he not been in control over what was about to occur, Job could have very well have cursed God and been killed by Satan, and all of it would have been God's fault for gambiling with the devil and a man's life.

Even if we grant, for the sake of argument, that God does not know the future, it wouldn’t take a genius to figure out that parading the faithfulness of Job in front of Satan would entice his fury and anger. Having known Satan for a long time, I’m sure even an open theist’s God would know what was coming. Also, the text does not say or indicate God was “surprised” to see Satan. It doesn’t even say God had a guest list for that matter! Think about the implications for a moment; if God can't see Satan coming, then what can he see? It appears that Boyd is guilty of reading too much of his theology into the text at this point.

Update (9-7-07)

Denny Burk has posted an adequate reply to Boyd's post. I was planning to respond to all four points, but in light of Burk's penetrating critique and some of the good comments made on the post, I feel no further need to do so. (Some of the points I was going to make were brought up in the comments section.) Boyd's interpretation of the book of Job is extremely unpersuasive. I'll end this with one of the many passages that clearly and straightforwardly contradict Boyd's theology of Job:

Job: 42:10-11 (ESV):

And the LORD restored the fortunes of Job, when he had prayed for his friends. And the LORD gave Job twice as much as he had before. Then came to him all his brothers and sisters and all who had known him before, and ate bread with him in his house. And they showed him sympathy and comforted him for all the evil that the LORD had brought upon him.

Kenneth S. Kantzer and Carl H. F. Henry on Evangelicalism

2007-08-22T19:53:00.000-04:00

The Carl H. F. Henry Center has made available online a video lecture series by Kenneth S. Kantzer and Carl H. F. Henry on "Know Your Roots: Evangelicalism Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow," filmed in 1991 at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. An interview by D. A. Carson with both lecturers is also included.

Kantzer's lecture focuses on the history of Evangelicalism from the Reformation to the 20th century. Henry's lecture focuses more specifically on the rise of Evangelicalism in the 20th century, including its struggles with Modernism and Neo-orthodoxy. This was the first time I heard both Kantzer and Henry speak. Having watched the video I must say I'm very impressed and grateful for their lives of service and scholarship in the body of Christ.

(HT: Andy Naselli)

History and Myth

2007-08-13T22:42:00.000-04:00

Do I believe in a supernatural being who is capable of intruding his will into the otherwise "natural" appearance of the course of events? If my answer is negative, then I will dismiss the miracles in the New Testament as unhistorical and account for them in terms of myth. On the other hand, if my response is positive, then I may well conclude that the strength of historical evidence demands acceptance of the historicity of the events.
The view taken by this author is that the miraculous events in the New Testament are factual. The Gospels and Acts make little sense historically if the miraculous is removed. Those authors were convinced of the truth of the miracles and wrote their accounts out of that conviction. Those accounts, when subjected to the tests of rigorous historical inquiry, stubbornly resist our efforts to discredit and remove them.

--Paul Barnett, Jesus and the Rise of Early Christianity: A History of New Testament Times (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1999), 22-23.

An Evaluation of Walter C. Kaiser, Jr.'s 'Promise Theology'

2007-07-28T09:12:00.001-04:00

As soon as the topic of Old Testament Theology is raised a number of significant questions loom on the horizon. How do the various OT books relate to one another? Is there absolute inner coherence or utter detachment among them? Do they address similar subjects and themes? Were they written with a shared purpose or goal, or are they ultimately diverse in aim and principle? Is there more unity than diversity or is there more diversity than unity? Can one rightfully speak of an OT theology or should one speak only of OT theologies? These questions and more have been at the forefront of the “golden age” of the Biblical Theology Movement since the early part of the 20th century, particularly in the field of OT studies.

While much of OT scholarship has abandoned the idea and possibility of an OT theology, Dr. Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., the Colman M. Mockler distinguished Professor of Old Testament and former President of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in South Hamilton, Massachusetts, in both his lectures on “The Christian and Old Testament Theology”[1] and his book Toward an Old Testament Theology,[2] argues strenuously for an overarching unity and center to the OT under the rubric of “Promise Theology” or “God’s Promise-Plan.”

God’s “promise,” according to Kaiser, is his divine declaration or assurance, “first made to Eve, Shem, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, and to the whole nation of Israel” that God would be Israel’s God, Israel would be his people, and he would dwell in their midst.[3] This tripartite formula, along with other similar formulae, stresses “the continuity between the past, present, and future. They are part of God’s single ongoing plan.”[4] The concept of an overarching promise-plan of God is the key to or theological center of the OT.

Methodology

How does Dr. Kaiser arrive at this conclusion? First, he confines his study to the 39 books of the OT. The scope of an OT theology must, he says, limit itself to the canonical books of the OT. To include other texts such as “the Apocrypha, Qumran materials, Nag Hammadi texts, and Rabbinical writings would seriously weaken the stated purpose of discussing the wholeness of biblical theology within a stream of revelation where the writers were consciously contributing under divine command to an existing record of divine revelation.”[5]

Second, he examines the OT canon diachronically. This method “sets forth the theology of the successive time periods and stratifications of Israelite history.”[6] He thus groups the OT writings according to their particular epochs. Third, he adopts an inductive approach to the text of the OT. This way, he argues, one focuses on the priorities of the OT authors themselves instead of imposing on them one’s own priorities by sifting their words through one’s theological or philosophical grid: “Rather than selecting that theological data which strikes our fancy or meets some current need, the text will already have set up priorities and preferences of its own.”[7]

Key Passages of the Promise-Plan

Dr. Kaiser finds that as one proceeds through the OT canon, epoch by epoch, one discovers inductively a “theme, key, or organizing pattern which the successive writers of the OT overtly recognized and consciously supplemented in the progressive unfolding events and interpretation in the OT.”[8] The NT calls this the “promise” (epangelia) – the noun appears 51 times and the verb 11 times. In fact, only 6 books in the NT do not mention the noun at all! It is from the NT that Dr. Kaiser takes the term “promise” to represent that organizing pattern he finds inductively throughout the OT. In his lecture on ‘God’s Central Plan,’ he identifies four peak moments in the promise-plan of God: Genesis 3:15; 12:2-3; 2 Samuel 7; and Jeremiah 31:31-34.

I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel. (Genesis 3:15, ESV)

In Genesis 3:15, the pre-patriarchal era, the promise-plan theme begins with God’s “declaration” or “assurance” that enmity will exist between the woman and the serpent, her “offspring” and his offspring. The word “seed” (or offspring) is a collective singular; it could mean one or many. Interestingly, the text says “he” (third-person, singular masculine pronoun) will bruise the serpent’s head, while the serpent will bruise “his” heel – the Septuagint even translates it this way. So “it was plain from the subsequent history of revelation to Shem, Abraham, Jacob, and their descendents that a representative child continued to be both God’s visible guarantee for the present and a pledge for the future. Also, he was representative of the interests and spiritual and material fortunes of the whole lot who were joined to him.[9]

And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed. (Genesis 12:2-3, ESV)

In Genesis 12:2-3, the patriarchal era, God promises to make Abraham’s name great, to make of him a great nation, and to bless all the families of the earth through him. Although the word “offspring” or “seed” is not mentioned, it is clearly in view (cf. Gen. 17:17-18; 22:17-18). Here the promise-plan remains central; not only does continuity exist with the promise made in Gen. 3:15, but the promise has been expanded upon: “The divine promise pointed to a seed, a race, a family, a man, a land, and a blessing of universal proportions—all guaranteed, according to Genesis 17, as being everlasting and eternal. In that purpose resides the single plan of God.”[10]

Now, therefore, thus you shall say to my servant David, 'Thus says the LORD of hosts...I will make for you a great name...I will give you rest from all your enemies. Moreover, the LORD declares to you that the LORD will make you a house. When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son...And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me. Your throne shall be established forever.' (2 Samuel 7:8-16, ESV)

In 2 Samuel 7, the Davidic era, God made David a similar promise to that made to Abraham. God promised to make David a “house” or “dynasty.” “This was the new addition to the promise plan: all that had been offered to the patriarchs and Moses was now being offered to David’s dynasty.”[11] God would raise-up his offspring after him and establish an eternal kingdom. David’s offspring would become God’s son and God would become his offspring’s father. “Offspring” here is also a collective singular, meaning a group or individual or both. This had immediate fulfillment in Solomon, but it also looked forward to another Son of David who would rule forever. David’s response to this in verse 19 indicates he understood this divine blessing to benefit “mankind” (ESV). Dr. Kaiser translates this passage as follows: “And this is the Charter for all mankind.”[12] And so God’s ancient promise plan would continue through David.

Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. (Jeremiah 31:31-34, ESV)

Finally, in Jeremiah 31:31-34, the seventh century B.C., God declares he will make a new covenant with Israel in which he will put his law within his people and write it on their hearts. He will be their God and they will be his people and he would forgive all their sins. There is some discontinuity with the previous promise in that it would not be like the covenant he made to his fathers, yet there is also continuity, in that part of the tripartite formula is repeated. The fault with the ‘old’ covenant was the people, not God. This time God promises that his people will “know” him – a universal knowledge of God. Dr. Kaiser prefers to call this a “renewed” covenant, stressing its continuity with that promise made to Eve, Abraham, and David. That the Gentiles are somehow also in view made be deduced, he argues, from the Gentile connection in the Abrahamic and Davidic promise.[13]

Evaluation

Dr. Kaiser is to be commended for providing the lay and scholarly community with a well argued defense of the unity of the OT, particularly with identifying the central plan of the OT with God’s promise-plan. Unlike many who have written in this field, he is a conservative evangelical who believes the text of Scripture should be given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to its claims. “The text is innocent until proven guilty” he says. This approach is greatly welcomed since much of what the Biblical Theology Movement had produced in the 20th century had been tainted with extreme skepticism.

His analyses on various texts are well argued, such as the ones mentioned above. He certainly showed me connections between epochs and passages I had never previously recognized. His treatment on Genesis 12:2-3 has revolutionized my understanding of Jew-Gentile soteriology. Promise theology does seem to be a major theme in the OT.

There are, however, some weaknesses in his “promise theology” approach. His treatment on the promise and wisdom literature (the Sapiential era) appeared quite stretched. Granted, there are various messianic psalms which clearly evidence God’s promise-plan for Israel and the nations. But while “the fear of the Lord” can be understood as right living under God’s covenant, the big connections that one finds in God’s promise-plan in Genesis 3:15 or 12:3 or 2 Samuel 7, and so forth, are not quite as spelled out.

Also, some other major themes in the OT do not seem to find its way under the “promise-plan,” such as God’s creatorship – Dr. Kaiser does not address this issue at all. Nevertheless, Dr. Kaiser’s “promise theology” is a great unifying theme in the OT. It is not without its limitations, but for the most part it adequately encompasses many of the major themes of the OT.
__________________________________________________________

[1] Dr. Kaiser’s course on ‘The Christian and Old Testament Theology’ – produced by the Institute of Theological StudiesTM 2002 – is composed of twenty-four lectures on various Old Testament topics given at the Grand Rapids Theological Seminary in 1988.
[2] Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Toward an Old Testament Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1978).
[3] Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Christian and OT – Learning Guide (Institute of Theological StudiesTM, 2002), 32.
[4] Kaiser, Old Testament Theology, 34.
[5] Ibid., 15.
[6] Ibid., 9.
[7] Ibid., 11.
[8] Ibid., 32.
[9] Ibid., 37.
[10] Ibid., 39.
[11] Ibid., 151.
[12] Ibid., 155.
[13] Ibid., 235.

The Bible as the Divine-Human Word of God

2007-07-26T23:12:00.000-04:00

That the Bible is God’s inspired testimony to the word of God as it came through the prophets and through Jesus Christ, means that the Bible is itself the Word of God. Yet it is a word given through human beings within their own history and culture. God did not suspend the humanity of the biblical authors any more than he suspended the humanity of Jesus. The Bible bears all the marks of its authors. Their language, thought forms, literary styles and forms, and their culture all shape the actual way the messages were given.
The incarnation of Christ was by special operation of the Holy Spirit bringing about conception in the womb of the Virgin Mary. By this means, God broke the natural connection with sinful humanity and ensured that the humanity of Jesus was exactly the kind that was needed for the work of salvation: perfect. In the same way, God acted by his Spirit to inspire the biblical authors so that the humanity of the Bible would be exactly what was needed to convey the truth of God without error. When we speak about the infallibility of the Bible we mean that it conveys exactly what God intended it to. God does not allow human sinfulness to interfere with his communication of the truth to mankind.

--Graeme Goldsworthy, According to Plan: The Unfolding Revelation of God in the Bible (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1991), 63.

J. C. Ryle: Holiness in Christ

2007-07-25T23:04:00.000-04:00

I just finished reading bishop Ryle's book, Holiness, reprinted by Packer in Faithfulness and Holiness. What a mine of insight and encouragement! In the quote below, Ryle reminds his readers that true holiness must begin with the person of Christ. It is through our union with him, first and foremost, and not by our own efforts, that holiness becomes a progressive reality in our lives:

Would you be holy? Would you become a new creature? Then you must begin with Christ. You will do just nothing at all, and make no progress till you feel your sin and weakness, and flee to Him. He is the root and beginning of all holiness, and the way to be holy is to come to Him by faith and be joined to Him. Christ is not wisdom and righteousness only to His people, but sanctification also. Men sometimes try to make themselves holy first of all, and sad work they make of it. They toil and labour, and turn over new leaves, and make many changes; and yet, like the woman with the issue of blood, before she came to Christ, they feel “nothing bettered, but rather worse” (Mark 5:26). They run in vain, and labour in vain; and little wonder, for they are beginning at the wrong end. They are building up a wall of sand; their work runs down as fast as they throw it up. They are baling water out of a leaky vessel; the leak gains on them, not they on the leak. Other foundation of “holiness” can no man lay than that which Paul laid, even Christ Jesus...
Holiness comes from Christ. It is the result of vital union with Him. It is the fruit of being a living branch of the True Vine. Go then to Christ and say, “Lord, not only save me from the guilt of sin, but send the Spirit, whom Thou didst promise, and save me from its power. Make me holy. Teach me to do Thy will.”

---J. C. Ryle, Holiness: Its Nature, Hindrances, Difficulties, and Roots (1877); reprinted in J. I. Packer's Faithfulness and Holiness: The Witness of J. C. Ryle (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2002), 154-55.

The TNIV and Philippians 4:13

2007-07-16T21:43:00.000-04:00

I like the way the TNIV translates Philippians 4:13, bringing out its intended meaning more clearly. This in light of a sermon I heard a few days ago, where a preacher used this text (in spite of its context) to argue that God is not happy when we are content with our present situation! Go figure.

I rejoiced greatly in the Lord that at last you renewed your concern for me. Indeed, you were concerned, but you had no opportunity to show it. I am not saying this because I am in need, for I have learned to be content whatever the circumstances. I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want. I can do all this through him who gives me strength. (Philippians 4:10-13, TNIV)

Letters to Angels? Some Thoughts on Revelation 2:18

2007-07-05T21:58:00.000-04:00

"And to the angel of the church in Thyatira write: 'The words of the Son of God, who has eyes like a flame of fire, and whose feet are like burnished bronze" (Revelation 2:18, ESV).

A major characteristic of all seven letters in Revelation is that they each begin with the identification of the recipient [τῷ ἀγγέλῳ, “to the angel”], the recipient’s church [in this case, τῆς ἐν Θυατείροις ἐκκλησίας, “of the church of Thyatira”], and the command for John to write [γράψον]. Scholars have long debated who or what John meant by “the angel.” Here are some of the more prominent speculations:

(1) literal angels who oversee the physical and spiritual need of the churches
(2) the personification of “the prevailing spirit of the church”
(3) the leaders of the churches
(4) messengers or mail-carriers delivering the news to the churches

Each view has its problems.

While the term ἄγγελος (“angel”) appears over 60 times in the book of Revelation alone and probably always (apart from these verses in question ) refers to literal heavenly angles, it seems quite unlikely that they are the ones being addressed here. The content of the letters in general suggest Christian congregations are being addressed, not heavenly angels. Verse 19 says οἶδά σου τὰ ἔργα, "I know your works." Whose works? An angel's? Is John really writing to praise/chastise literal angels? Are they really going to “read” the letters themselves and present it to their respective churches? I doubt this is what John had in mind.

As for the fourth view, if we take the term to mean messenger (as in mail-carrier), which is a legitimate definition of the term, then it is surely possible for John to be writing to a particular "messenger" who will in turn deliver the letter/message to the intended church. But this also seems unlikely due to the fact that “the angels” are described as “the seven stars” that are in the right hand of the risen Christ, suggesting some sort of prominence (1:20). And so we're left with the second and third views, which seem more probable due to the content and approach of the letters, but I can't make up my mind between them!

Anyone have a better suggestion?

The Dangerous Delusion of Christian Perfectionism

2007-07-04T08:25:00.001-04:00

I've been reading J. I. Packer's Faithfulness and Holiness: The Witness of J. C. Ryle. The first half of the book is about the great anglican bishop himself, and the latter half is a reprint of Ryle's book Holiness (1877-first edition).

Since Michael Halcomb has posted some thoughts on John Wesley's theology of Christian Perfection, I'd like to share what Ryle had to say in his book on Holiness about Christian Perfectionsim in general (96-97):

I ask…whether it is wise to use vague language about perfection, and to press on Christians a standard of holiness, as attainable in this world, for which there is no warrant to be shown either in Scripture or experience? I doubt it.

That believers are exhorted to “perfect holiness in the fear of God”—to “go on to perfection”—to “be perfect,” no careful reader of his Bible will ever think of denying (2 Cor. 7:1; Heb. 6:1; 2 Cor. 13:11). But I have yet to learn that there is a single passage in Scripture which teaches that a literal perfection, a complete and entire freedom from sin, in thought, or word, or deed, is attainable, or ever has been attained, by any child of Adam in this world. A comparative perfection, a perfection in knowledge, an all-round consistency in every relation of life, a thorough soundness in every point of doctrine—this may be seen occasionally in some of God’s believing people. But as to an absolute literal perfection, the most eminent saints of God in every age have always been the very last to lay claim to it! On the contrary, they have always had the deepest sense of their own utter unworthiness and imperfection. The more spiritual light they have enjoyed the more they have seen their own countless defects and shortcomings. The more grace they have had, the more they have been “clothed with humility” (1 Pet. 5:5).

What saint can be named in God’s Word, or whose life many details are recorded, who was literally and absolutely perfect? Which of them all, when writing about himself, ever talks of feeling free from imperfection? On the contrary, men like David, and St. Paul, and St. John, declare in the strongest language that they feel in their own hearts weakness and sin. The holiest men of modern times have always been remarkable for deep humility. Have we ever seen holier men than the martyred John Bradford, or Hooker, or Usher, or Baxter, or Rutherford, or McCheyne? Yet no one can read the writings and letters of these men without seeing that they felt themselves “debtors to mercy and grace” every day, and the very last thing they ever claim to was perfection!

In the face of such facts as these I must protest against the language used in many quarters, in these last days, about perfection. I must think that those who use it either know very little of the nature of sin, or of the attributes of God, or of their own hearts, or of the Bible, or of the meaning of words. When a professing Christian coolly tells me that he has got beyond such hymns as “Just as I am,” and that they are below his present experience, though they suited him when he first took up religion, I must think his soul is in a very unhealthy state! When a man can talk coolly of the possibility of “living without sin” while in the body, and can actually say that he has “never had an evil thought for three months,” I can only say that in my opinion he is a very ignorant Christian! I protest against such teaching as this. It not only does no good, but does immense harm. It disgusts and alienates from religion far-seeing men of the world, who know it is incorrect and untrue. It depresses some of the best of God’s children, who feel they never can attain to “perfection” of this kind. It puffs up the many weak brethren, who fancy they are something when they are nothing. In short, it is a dangerous delusion.

J. C. Ryle's Advice to Preachers

2007-07-02T21:27:00.000-04:00

All the simplicity in the world can do no good, unless you preach the simple gospel of Jesus Christ so fully and clearly that everybody can understand it. If Christ crucified has not his rightful place in your sermons, and sin is not exposed as it should be, and your people are not plainly told what they ought to believe, and be, and do, your preaching is of no use.

J. I. Packer, Faithfulness and Holiness: The Witness of J. C. Ryle (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2002), 63.

Millard J. Erickson and Inerrancy (Part 2)

2007-06-12T20:48:00.004-04:00

Erickson understands full inerrancy to be the belief that “the Bible, when correctly interpreted in light of the level to which culture and the means of communication had developed at the time it was written, and in view of the purposes for which it was given, is fully truthful in all that it affirms” (p. 259). First, he makes an important distinction between that which the Bible affirms that which the Bible reports.

The Bible reports many things that are not true, such as the statement “there is no God,” in Psalm 14:1 and some of what Job’s friends say in the book of Job, and some of the slogans Paul quotes in the book of 1 Corinthians. Erickson even postulates that Stephen’s speech in Acts 7 might not be inspired, although he concedes Stephen was clearly filled with the Holy Spirit! Stephen might have simply made a mistake in his chronology. Paul and Peter might be wrong too in some areas! So how does inerrancy fit in here?

Inerrancy is present in the recording of these reports, not necessarily in their factuality or truthfulness. If Scriptural authors affirm something then it must be true, but if they merely report something it doesn’t have to be true in order to hold to this view of full inerrancy. Erickson says, “When…something is taken by a biblical writer, from whatever source, and incorporated in his message as an affirmation, not merely a report, then it must be judged as truthful” (p. 259). Full inerrancy does not mean that the Bible contains all truth that can be known, but that everything it affirms is true.

Second, full inerrancy stresses the importance of interpreting the Bible in its social and historical contexts when evaluating its truthfulness. So, for example, when the NT authors quote the OT, one should not expect them to adhere to our contemporary standards of proper citation (with name, book, publication date, or exact word-for-word accuracy). In their day, a quotation lacking most of these traits (and even paraphrasing or adding to their source) would be considered appropriate.

Third, when judging the Bible’s truthfulness one should take into account the purpose for which it was written. So when the Bible says a certain number of people died or went to battle, etc., one should not expect an exact number. Approximations were perfectly acceptable in their day (and even to some extent ours!) and thus should be taken into account when dealing with inerrancy.

Fourth, when it comes to history and science, one must remember the Bible’s use of “phenomenal rather than technical language” (p. 262). They recorded things and reported things as it appeared to them, using their language and experience. “Biblical reports make no effort to be scientifically exact; they do not attempt to theorize over just what actually occurred… [t]he writer simply reported what was seen, how it appeared to the eye” (p. 262).

Fifth, in issuing a word of caution, when one encounters difficulty in understanding a text, one should not immediately jump to the conclusion of error. Sometimes more data is needed. Yet it may be that “there will never be complete confirmation of all the propositions or even resolution of all the problem issues” (p. 262). It’s best in this case to hold to the Bible’s truthfulness while leaving such issues “unresolved” rather than coming up with twisted and ridiculous explanations.

Erickson, in my view, does a good job explaining the different beliefs on inerrancy. I think his case for “full inerrancy” is reasonable. He makes a strong case for stressing the importance of the validity of the Bible’s historical claims for maintaining the trustworthiness of its theological claims. I don’t believe, however, that one should wait and see if all the Bible’s claims on history and "science" prove true in order to accept its theological teachings.

(Part 1)

Millard J. Erickson and Inerrancy (Part 1)

2007-06-11T22:01:00.002-04:00

Mike F. Bird has recently blogged about inerrancy and noted quite accurately the distorted picture some people paint (from fundamentalists to liberals) when describing inerrancy and those who hold to it.

Millard J. Erickson in his chapter on inerrancy (in his highly acclaimed Christian Theology [pp. 246-265]) does a good job describing the different views on inerrancy while presenting his own distinctive evangelical view. Since Erickson's text is considered by many to be "a contemporary 'standard' in evangelical circles," I think his exposition of inerrancy would be worth looking at.

Absolute inerrancy is the view which holds that the Bible is not only reliable and true, but that it is scientifically and historically precise – and it means to be so. The kind of precision alluded to and conveyed is one modern day scientists would require. So in the case of a passage such as 2 Chronicles 4:2, where the perimeter and diameter of the sea is reported to be 30 and 10 cubits respectively, an absolute inerrantist would seek to find resolution with the discrepancy. If the diameter is exactly 10 cubits, then the perimeter (which equals to π[=3.14159] multiplied by the diameter) must be 31.4159 cubits.

Full inerrancy is the view that the Bible is reliable and “completely true” (p. 248). However, the Bible is not “primarily” a scientific book, nor is it a historical textbook in the mold most history textbooks are written today. This means that when the Bible speaks to issues of “science” and “history,” which it surely does, is does not intend to be as precise as modern-day science or historiography. The Bible uses “phenomenal” language when reporting data. According to Erickson, this means the authors of Scripture “reported [things] the way they appear to the human eye. They are not necessarily exact; rather, they are popular descriptions, often involving general references or approximations” (p. 248). Therefore, the data Scripture describe are not to be understood as false or wrong merely because they are not precise.

Limited inerrancy is the view that limits the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture solely to those portions which deal with “salvific doctrinal references” (p. 248). Revelation and inspiration do not extend to matters of history and science. The history and science of the Bible reflect the limited understanding of the writers during their particular times and should not be relied upon with the same weight as those portions dealing with salvation. The latter is what is inerrant and inspired. As a result the Bible may be spoken of as containing error, not in matters of doctrine or salvation but in science and history.

Inerrancy is of epistemological importance. Granted, there are things in Scripture which go beyond “sensory experience” and hence cannot be empirically demonstrated to be true or false – statements on God’s character or the nature of the atonement, etc. (p. 253). Yet claims having to do with science and history can be verified, albeit “within the limitations of the historical and scientific methods and the data available” (p. 253). Here is where logic and sound reasoning come into play in answering the question of how we know the Bible is inerrant and why science and history matter in Scripture – although these are not the central message. Since we cannot empirically test the validity of theological statements within Scripture, and since we can test the validity of the historic and scientific claims in Scripture, it would seem reasonable to conclude that if the latter sphere of claims is found to be unreliable, then the former sphere of claims may be unreliable as well.

For example, if Luke proves time and time again to get simple facts wrong (names of governors and locations of cities, etc.), and if the Pentateuch’s account of the Exodus of Israel from Egypt is not historical, and if other authors can’t seem to get things right in history or science, then on what basis can one claim to trust them in theological matters? Their testimony becomes unreliable. Erickson explains: “We cannot then continue to hold to other propositions simply on the grounds that the Bible teaches them. It is not that these other statements have been proved false, but that we cannot be certain they are true” (p. 253).

This is not to say that if one biblical assertion concerning history or science is proven false then all Scriptural teaching must be false. Rather, it means that everything Scripture teaches now becomes uncertain. Erickson puts it this way: “false in one, uncertain in all” (p. 253).

“Our basis,” says Erickson, “for holding to the truth of any theological proposition is that the Bible teaches it” (p. 253). So a Christian should not begin by doubting the truthfulness of Scripture until every historical and scientific assertion proves true. But if the Bible is found to report falsely on things such as science or history, then one’s basis for holding the truthfulness of Scripture [i.e. the fact that the Bible teaches it] is shaken. Again, Erickson puts it well: “Credibility, once comprised, is not easily regained or preserved in other matters” (p. 254).

There are those who hold that whether or not the Bible gets it right on matters of history and science is inconsequential. What’s important is “transcendent …doctrinal truths” (p. 254). Hence one believes in them because they choose to do so in spite of whether or not they are actually true (i.e. fideism). Nothing can count for or against theological beliefs (one’s faith becomes unverifiable). For others, another basis for holding to Scripture’s theological truthfulness is sought out. Some, such as liberal theologians, seek to ground their belief in biblical doctrines on the philosophy of religion. Others, such as Karl Barth and the Neo-Orthodox movement as a whole move toward the “authority of the church” for epistemological verification (p. 254). Wolfhart Pannenberg sought to “base theology on history” (p. 254).

Erickson believes that as evangelicals “abandon” the belief that everything in Scripture is true, including what it teaches concerning history and science, then “other bases for doctrine will be sought…[and] the list of tenents will probably shrink” (p. 254).

(Part 2)

Theological Schools Lag in Diversity

2007-06-10T09:27:00.000-04:00

Yonat Shimron has written an interesting article in the News & Observer on diversity in theological schools. Here's an excerpt:

Brian Madison, a doctoral student in theology at Duke University, has already accepted an offer to teach at Calvin College one year from now. But when he joins the faculty of the Grand Rapids, Mich., liberal arts college, he'll be the only black professor in the religion department. Madison's experience is not that unusual at religion departments and theological schools around the nation. One-third of the 253 theological programs and seminaries accredited by the Association of Theological Schools in the United States and Canada have no minority faculty. Another survey found that 90 percent of faculty and 75 percent of doctoral students in graduate-level religion and theology programs are white, according to a survey by the American Academy of Religion.

Read the rest of the article here.

(HT: Keith Johnson)

Christian Beginnings and the Dead Sea Scrolls - A Review (Part 2)

2007-06-08T23:26:00.002-04:00

(Part 1)

In Chapter 5 ("'Spirit of Holiness': As Eschatological Principle of Obedience”), Barry D. Smith, associate professor of philosophy and religious studies at Atlantic Baptist University in New Brunswick, argues that the promise of God to make his people obedient at the eschaton is achieved through “a spirit of holiness” which is attested to in various Second Temple Jewish texts, including the Dead Sea Scrolls (76). Smith writes, “In these contexts, the phrase ‘spirit of holiness’ denotes a new spiritual disposition imparted by God to individual Jews. In other words, ‘spirit of holiness’ is an eschatological principle of obedience” (Ibid). The Hebrew Bible is replete with texts describing that God will one day remove any possibility of disobedience from his people (e.g. Deut. 30:6; Ezek. 36:26; Jer. 32:40; etc.). So too, he argues, can one find similar texts in the intertestamental literature.

In the book of Jubilees we find references to “an upright spirit” (1.20) and requests made to God asking him to “create a pure heart and a spirit of holiness” for the people (1.21; cf. Psalm 51). More can be cited. In Words of the Luminaries (4Q504), a work copied and used in the Qumran community, we read of God taking “measures” in order to prevent disobedience: “For you have poured your spirit of holiness upon us, to fill us with your blessings, so that we would look for you in our anguish” (5:15-16). Smith here sees “God [giving] to the exiles a new disposition to obedience, in order [to]…lead them to repentance” (81). Other examples from the Community Rule (1QS 4.18-21; 2.19-3.12; 9.3-4), Blessings (1QSb 1.1-2), Thanksgiving Hymns (1QH 8; 15.6-7) and Barkhi Nafshi (Bless, O My Soul) (4Q434-38) are cited. Smith concludes that “the term ‘spirit of holiness’ denotes an eschatological principle of obedience,” though he admits not every single occurrence of this phrase in the literature of Second Temple Judaism necessarily has this meaning (97-8). After noting the Hebrew Bible also speaks of Israel’s eschatological transformation in like manner, he suggests this phrase be understood as a “religious-historical” starting point for understanding “some” of the occurrences of the term “Holy Spirit” in the New Testament (99).

The 6th chapter (“Guided by God: Divine Aid in Interpretation in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament”), written by R. Glenn Wooden—associate professor of Old Testament at Acadia Divinity College in Nova Scotia—tries to understand why New Testament writers cite the Old Testament in ways that do not seem to do justice to its historical and literary contexts. He does this by examining how some of the literature leading up to the New Testament does exactly the same thing, claiming that this practice “was an accepted interpretive practice leading up to the New Testament times, one that God used in the development of the New Testament Scriptures” (103).

Matthew’s use of Hosea 11:1 (“out of Egypt I called my son”) in 2:14-15 and other similar instances is likened to “practices used in a group of writings called the pesharim among the Dead Sea Scrolls” (104). In the pesher on the book of Habakkuk (1QpHab 5.6-12), for example, the interpreter understands the writings of the prophet to be relevant for his own day and not for Habakkuk’s (Ibid). Wooden reminds the reader that modern day notions of proper “historical-critical exegesis” were not the kind of hermeneutics ancient writers necessarily operated by. He explains the mind-set of the interpreter as follows: “Basically, the idea is that instead of God giving new revelations, the existing records of revelations (Scriptures) became that through which the divine will was made known” (108). This he calls “Charismatic exegesis” (using David Aune’s phraseology) and cites Daniel as a prime example. Passages in the Hodayot (1QH), Philo (2.264-65), Josephus (Jewish War 1.78-80; Antiquities 13.311-13), and the New Testament (John 16:13; 1 John 2:27; 1 Cor. 2:6-13) are also citied and unpacked. He concludes by stating “that [this kind of interpretation] was quite acceptable, because people knew that God had hidden in the Scriptures meanings that were not obvious to the unaided interpreter. But to one in whom was the Spirit of God, all could become clear” (120).

The 7th chapter (“The Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian Theology”) is quite different from the first six. This is written by Jonathan R. Wilson, Pioneer McDonald Professor of Theology at Carey Theological College in British Columbia. Wilson wrestles with the question of the relationship between Biblical studies and Christian theology and considers how the Dead Sea Scrolls impact apocalyptic theology. Using the metaphor of a play, Wilson sees the first act consisting in the work of biblical scholars who determine what the text meant. The second is reserved for biblical theologians to summarize the exegetical work of the biblical scholars. The final act is where theologians come to categorize and systematize the work of both. But disagreements abound in all stages of the play, and theologians in particular don't like waiting around for the results (which more often than not are conflicting and constantly changing). But theologians do not have to wait in the sidelines; rather they can push their own agendas upon the biblical scholars.

Turning his attention to the Dead Sea Scrolls, Wilson discusses the topic of apocalyptic theology. Using Douglas Harink’s description of apocalyptic (“shorthand for Jesus Christ” [124]) and following the work of Stanley Hauerwas, J. Louis Martin, and Richard Hays—where God’s decisive action in the life and death of Jesus has implications for all of creation—Wilson chastises the “domestication” of apocalyptic theology. Apocalyptic theology “rejects the privatization of Christian faith…and recognizes the necessity of God’s invasive work in the cosmos as the decisive judgment that redeems through the powerful suffering of Jesus Christ” (125). This theology has the cross at its center and the certainty of God’s victory in Christ over evil. He asks his colleagues, those familiar with the scrolls, “[W]hat light” might the scrolls “shed on this call to apocalyptic theology?” (126). Do they provide us with another vision of apocalyptic theology? What about the isolation of the Qumran community from the rest of society? Is that the inevitable result of apocalyptic theology?

The 8th and final chapter (“Apocalyptic Theology and the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Response to Jonathan Wilson”) is written by John J. Collins—his third and shortest article in the book. He rejects the narrow definition of apocalypticism which Martin and Hays espouse (following Paul), for it “dismisses the great bulk of ancient apocalyptic literature as irrelevant” (130). Apocalyptic literature is identified as apocalyptic because “they report revelations of a distinctly otherworldly character,” via visions and “otherworldly journeys,” commonly explained by an angel or messenger (130-31). Its focus is on eschatological judgment for both the living and the dead. The Essene community was indeed sectarian and survived for only 200 years. This was not due solely to Roman military might, but “because a theology based on the assertion of revelation, which could only be accepted or rejected, could not remain persuasive indefinitely” (132). The same sort of problems caused the downfall of prophecy in the Old Testament.

Paul’s brand of apocalyptic theology, however, “was not so extreme” (Ibid). He drew freely from the Hellenistic sources around him and so too did the Christian movement after him. This, in part, is what led to Christianity’s success. One lesson we can learn from the Dead Sea Scrolls and those who hold to apocalyptic theology is this: “A theology that relies exclusively on apocalyptic assertion is not likely to be persuasive to many people for very long and runs the risk of self-marginalization and irrelevance” (133). Those who focus “exclusively” on apocalyptic theology should properly be “labeled sectarian” (Ibid).

The book contains a wealth of information and insight. The connections, typologies, and similarities between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Old and New Testaments are clearly presented. The articles were interesting and intriguing, charitable and informing—without necessarily being too dull and vexing. For those serious about understanding the importance of the Dead Sea Scrolls for biblical studies in a short yet up-to-date book, Christian Beginnings and the Dead Sea Scrolls is a good place to start.

Christian Beginnings and the Dead Sea Scrolls - A Review (Part 1)

2007-06-06T23:49:00.002-04:00

Collins, John J. and Craig A. Evans, eds.

Christian Beginnings and the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2006. Pp. 144. Paper. $17.00. ISBN 9780801028373.

John J. Collins (Ph.D., Harvard University) is the Holmes Professor of Old Testament Criticism and Interpretation at Yale Divinity School. Craig A. Evans (Ph.D., Claremont Graduate University) is the Payzant Distinguished Professor of New Testament Studies at Acadia Divinity College. Both men, experts in their respective fields, have teamed up to compile a series of essays, originally presented in lecture form at Acadia Divinity College in March of 2004, dealing with the latest research on the relationship between the Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian origins. This book forms part of the Acadia Studies in Bible and Theology series, edited by Craig A. Evans and Lee Martin McDonald.

In the preface, the editors briefly describe the history, nature, content, and contribution of the scrolls, calling its discovery “the most important modern discovery related to biblical literature, Judaism of late antiquity, and nascent Christianity” (9). Of the 900 or so scrolls recovered at Qumran in the late 1940s, over 200 were copies of the Old Testament and Old Testament Apocrypha; the others included “sectarian” writings, scripture commentaries, community law codes, hymns, calendars, “and writings concerned with the final struggle against and victory over evil” (Ibid). The scrolls, they claim, have contributed to our knowledge of the text and canon of the Old Testament, along with the doctrines and practices of some in pre-Christian Judaism. The preface ends with a brief synopsis of the eight chapters included in the book.

Chapter 1 (“A Messiah before Jesus?”), written by John J. Collins, deals with the work of two authors who contend that the Christian notion of a suffering servant is “anticipated” in the scrolls – Michael Wise’s First Messiah and Israel Knohl’s Messiah before Jesus. Wise believes this messiah is the Teacher of Righteousness mentioned in the scrolls, whose name he claims was Judah. Although sentenced to death, this messiah was not killed but exiled. Unlike Wise, Knohl’s messiah is not “the Teacher” but a later teacher named Menahem the Essene (cf. Josephus, Antiquities 15.373-79), a friend of Herod the King. This messiah was killed and tossed out into the street. Rather than provide a thorough critique of their books, Collins focuses on that aspect of their proposals where they both (Wise and Knohl that is) agree; they argue “that a figure described in the scrolls identified himself as the Suffering Servant and was believed to be exalted to heaven and that this figure can appropriately be called a messiah” (21).

While acknowledging the possibility and plausibility that the Teacher of Righteousness modeled himself after the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 40-55 in the Hodayot and/or Thanksgiving Hymns, Collins is not persuaded that he was considered or considered himself the messiah. After examining key scroll texts concerning this issue, Collins concludes: “allusions to the Servant Songs do not in themselves establish messianic claims on the part of the Teacher of Righteousness. The argument for such claims would be strengthened if it could be shown that the teacher identified himself with the speaker in Isaiah 61:1-3,” which he does not (31). When the scrolls explicitly talk of the messiah or messiahs, it is always future oriented. The parallels to Jesus are not as great as Wise and Knohl claim. In the scrolls, for example, no connection is made with the Suffering Servant and vicarious atonement: “we have no evidence that Isaiah 53 was understood in terms of vicarious suffering in pre-Christian Judaism” (34). Another dissimilarity is that Jesus is not only exalted into heaven but is expected to return again in judgment at the eschaton.

In Chapter 2 (“An Essene Messiah? Comments on Israel Knohl, The Messiah Before Jesus”), Collins focuses a little more on Knohl’s book. As mentioned in the previous chapter, Knohl argues that from the Essene sect, about a generation before Jesus, a person claiming to be the messiah lived and died, modeling himself as the Suffering Servant of Isaiah. After his death, it is claimed he was exalted up to heaven. Jesus, it is argued, “was later understood according to this paradigm” (37). But no historical record has been found concerning this alleged Essene messiah. Collins engages the four primary texts used by Knohl to support his thesis: the self glorification hymn in 4Q491, the Oracle of Hystaspes, Revelation 11, and 4Q246, the Son of God text” (38).

On a side note [one that my professor would find interesting since he studied under him], Collins expresses his dismay over Knohl’s dependence on David Flusser (!) for considering the Oracle of Hystaspes to be of Jewish origin. He writes,

It is unfortunate, however, that Knohl seems to accept uncritically the idiosyncratic view of David Flusser that the oracle is Jewish. This text—quoted by early-fourth-century Christian church father Lactantius—is ostensibly and plausibly of Persian origin. There is no compelling reason to posit a Jewish stage in its transmission…Knohl seems to follow the rather maximalist view of Flusser. (39)

Chapter 3 (“Jesus, John, and the Dead Sea Scrolls: Assessing Typologies of Restoration”), by Craig A. Evans, focuses on the typologies of wilderness, immersion, and the number twelve in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament: “Our goal is to see how much light each can shed on each other: the scrolls on John [the Baptist], John on Jesus, the scrolls on Jesus, and—in reverse—the light that John and Jesus shed on the scrolls” (46). The ‘wilderness’ is an important symbolic theme in the Old Testament: from God’s dealing with Moses and the people of Israel in the wilderness to Isaiah’s exodus/restoration theme coupled in wilderness typology—this “image of wilderness wandering is well attested,” including “in the intertestamental literature” (50). It should come as no surprise, then, that later “restoration movements in Israel in late antiquity appealed to such rich imagery and time-honored sacred tradition,” such as the Essenes, Jesus, John the Baptist, and others (Ibid).

The Qumran community was also interested in “ritual immersion,” as indicated by passages in the Community Rule (1QS 5.13-18). Those who were considered impure were not allowed in purification baths. John the Baptist, similarly, is found in the Gospels warning the Pharisees to repent and produce fruit, for “washing” was valid only if there was a change of heart and life of righteousness (Matt. 3:7-10) (56). The number 12 plays an important role in Scripture, and this typology is found in the scrolls as well (e.g. 1QS 8.1; 1QM 2.1-2=4Q494 4-5; 1QM 3.13-14; etc.). Evans concludes: “We find that the very early Christian community grows out of a typology (or set of typologies) rooted in the sacred Scriptures of Israel. This structure cannot be adequately understood without a careful and nuanced appreciation of the Dead Sea Scrolls” (62).

In chapter 4 (“Paul and James on the Law in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls”), Martin G. Abegg Jr., the Ben Zion Wacholder Professor of Dead Sea Scrolls Studies at Trinity Western University in British Columbia and director of the Dead Sea Scrolls Institute, discusses the significance of the discovery of 4QMMT for an understanding of Paul’s “works of the law,” and first-century Judaism. He chronicles how the discovery and nature of that document contributed to his acceptance of what has now been dubbed “the New Perspective on Paul.” Abegg explains:

In relation to the Qumran manuscripts, this perspective posits that the sectarians who collected, copied, and perhaps in some cases even composed the scrolls believed that righteousness originated with God, not humans. The community entrance requirement—and thus right relationship with God—is clearly shown to be repentance of sin. A knee-jerk reaction that 4QMMT and the community literature as a whole reflect a “works earn righteousness” religion is hardly justified…There does not appear to be any variation in any of the scrolls concerning this basic pattern. (65-6)

E. P. Sanders is considered the “chief founder” of the new perspective (65). James D. G. Dunn (who coined the phrase “new perspective on Paul” in 1983) is also a prime contributor to this position. Obedience to the law takes place solely within the covenant; it is not a requirement for entrance into the covenant but it is a requirement for remaining in the covenant—paraphrasing E.P. Sanders (66). Sanders arrived at this conclusion via rabbinic literature, but Abegg arrived there via a different route: 4QMMT. And so when it comes to understanding what Paul meant by “works of the law,” Abegg understands it to be synonymous with Jewish “boundary makers” such as circumcision and food laws: “It is my thesis that 4QMMT calls these markers ‘works of the law’” (Ibid). The rest of this chapter is a defense of this position against recent objections by Jacqueline de Roo and Simon Gathercole.

(Part 2)

A Look at God of the Oppressed by James H. Cone - Part 2

2007-05-26T22:31:00.001-04:00

(Part 1)

Cone has done a good job of showing the limitations of theological discourse. No one group, be it white or black, can lay claim to absolute objectivity on all matters. There is much to learn from other people who do not share our culture, history, and experiences. I agree with Cone in that our social a priori or “axiological grid” need not necessarily impede us from changing and broadening our perspectives. Speaking of the white theologians who rose to the challenge of opposing slavery in the 19th century (despite the environment and times in which they lived), Cone rightfully acknowledges that there are “concrete examples that social existence is not mechanical and deterministic. The gospel grants people the freedom to transcend their cultural history and to affirm a dimension of universality common to all peoples.”[1] Paradoxically, this kind of “objectivity” can only come once we recognize our subjectivity.[2]

For Cone the gospel of Jesus Christ is nothing less than the liberation of the oppressed from their oppressors. “[T]he essence of the gospel is the liberation of the oppressed from sociopolitical humiliation for a new freedom in Christ Jesus (and I do not see how anyone can read the Scriptures and conclude otherwise)…”[3] Liberation is the overarching motif in Scripture for Cone. Salvation is liberation, and any theology that would either ignore or purport a secondary status to this theme is “ipso facto invalid and thus heretical.”[4]

Cone is to be commended for bringing to the forefront an essential and much neglected motif in Scripture – the liberation of the oppressed. He adequately surveys both the Old and New Testaments, showing convincingly that God is for the poor and weak of society and against those who would exploit them. From the Exodus-Sinai event to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, “Yahweh is the God of justice who sides with the weak against the strong.”[5]

But what is Cone’s justification for making this motif, which is clearly taught in the Bible, the essential motif of the gospel and all of Scripture? Why not God’s holiness, glory, or sovereignty? What about God’s justice or love? Others can easily be mentioned. Aware of this critique, he plainly states: “These critics have a right to ask, what is the hermeneutical principle of selection involved here, and how is its validity tested?” He answers the former by stating his hermeneutical principle:

The hermeneutical principle for an exegesis of the Scriptures is the revelation of God in Christ as the Liberator of the oppressed from social oppression and to political struggle, wherein the poor recognize that their fight against poverty and injustice is not only consistent with the gospel but is the gospel of Jesus Christ.[6]

This is clearly and eloquently stated. Yet he answers the latter by saying that “[d]ivine revelation alone [=Scripture?] is the test of the validity of this starting point.”[7] I’m perplexed by this answer. Clearly, he wants to ground his hermeneutical principle in Scripture and not in his black experience alone, but he fails to answer why this principle should take precedence over other possible hermeneutical principles that may just as equally be deduced from Scripture. A little more elaboration on this point would have been helpful.

Cone’s Christology is built upon the dialectic of social context, Scripture, and Church tradition. Its fundamental question, ala Bonhoeffer, is “who is Jesus Christ for us today?”[8] First, our social context teaches us “that we cannot separate our questions about Jesus from the concreteness of everyday life.”[9] Second, “the Bible is our primary source of information about the Jesus we encounter in our social existence.”[10] And third, “Tradition, like Scripture, opens our story of Christ to other stories in the past and thus forces us to move outside of the subjectivity of our present.”[11] In addition, the historicity of Jesus must be maintained if a true faith is to be sustained.[12] Jesus’ presence with the oppressed in their struggle today is also necessary and must not be divorced from the Jesus of history. And Jesus’ future consummation of all things, including the complete liberation of the weak, rounds off Cone’s Christological formulation.

Because Jesus really existed and expressed his solidarity with the poor and socially marginalized, and because he is present with the outcasts of society today and will one day fully liberate all peoples, Cone declares that Jesus is black![13] He is not denying that Jesus was a Jew; in fact it is because Jesus was a Jew that Cone can assert he was black.

His blackness is literal in the sense that he truly becomes One with the oppressed blacks, taking their suffering as his suffering and revealing that he is found in the history of our struggle, the story of our pain…Christ really enters into our world where the poor, the despised, and the black are, disclosing that he is with them, enduring their humiliation and pain and transforming oppressed salves into liberated servants.[14]

I find Cone’s three part dialectic to be completely reasonable and well thought out. Keeping one’s social context, Scripture, and Church tradition in proper balance is a great approach for doing theology, let alone Christology. His forceful defense of Jesus’ historicity and Scripture’s faithful record of his life and teachings are well received. (While he would not hold to the Bible’s infallibility, he does hold to its reliability.[15]) His affirmation of Jesus’ blackness is a beautiful and powerful illustration of God truly being there for the poor, helpless, and oppressed.

Cone has opened my eyes toward a new and more self-conscious understanding of the theological task. He has made me aware of the significance and importance of one’s social context for doing theology, and the usefulness and legitimacy of using one’s particular cultural sources in dialectic with Scripture and tradition. Much more could be said about this ground breaking work, but space precludes an extended discussion. Overall, though I would disagree with him at certain points, God of the Oppressed is a must read for those who are serious about doing theology. Cone is an engaging theologian worth listening to.
_______________________________________________
[1] Ibid., 45.
[2] Ibid., 95.
[3] Ibid., 47.
[4] Ibid., 75.
[5] Ibid., 63.
[6] Ibid., 75.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid., 99.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ibid., 102.
[11] Ibid., 104.
[12] Ibid., 106.
[13] Ibid., 122.
[14] Ibid., 125-26.
[15] Ibid., 101-02.

A Look at God of the Oppressed by James H. Cone - Part 1

2007-05-22T21:09:00.001-04:00

This past semester I took a fascinating course on Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Black/Latino(a) Theologies at seminary. My instructor was Rev. Gabriel A. Salguero, a current Ph.D. student (ABD) at Union Theological Seminary, New York. (Salguero has since accepted a position to serve as the director of the Hispanic/Latino(a) Leadership program at Princeton Theological Seminary and recently blogged over at Jim Wallis' God's Politics blog.) One of the books he assigned in class was God of the Oppressed by his professor and mentor, James H. Cone.

In many respects Cone’s book is unlike anything I have ever read. Its content “deals with the social basis of theology and is concerned with, among other related matters, the problem of the particular and the universal in theological discourse.”[1] Its central thesis “is that one’s social and historical context decides not only the questions we address to God but also the mode or form of the answers given to the questions.”[2]

Cone was born in Fordyce, Arkansas and raised 14 miles away in Bearden, “a small community with approximately eight hundred whites and four hundred blacks.”[3] He grew up in the Macedonian African Methodist Episcopal Church (A.M.E.) and received his theological training at Garrett Theological Seminary and Northwestern University. His perspective is that of a black theologian writing in a segregated North America during the civil rights movement in the mid 1970s.

Why is this biographical information relevant to the content of his book? The answer to this question reveals the uniqueness of Cone’s approach. “Because I have lived the Bearden experience, I cannot separate it from my theological perspective. I am a black theologian! I therefore must approach the subject of theology in the light of the black Church and what that means in a society dominated by white people.”[4]

Instead of adopting the white Euro-American approach to theology, one that has reigned and pervaded the theological landscape for centuries, Cone brazenly challenges the hubris of the status quo and its right to speak sovereignly, and adopts an approach to theology that speaks to and springs from his own experiences and concerns as a black American living under white oppression. The questions and sources traditional theology had worked with were not the same as those of non-white races and cultures. This created a tension for Cone and his particular socio-religious community. He writes,

I encountered head-on the contradictions of my seminary education as I attempted to inform black students about the significance of theological discourse. What could Karl Barth possibly mean for black students who had come from the cotton fields of Arkansas, Louisiana and Mississippi, seeking to change the structure of their lives in a society that had defined black as nonbeing? What is the significance of Nicea and Chalcedon for those who knew Jesus not as thought in their heads to be analyzed in relation to a similar thought called God? They knew Jesus as a Savior and friend...Indeed the heart of the problem was the relation of the black religious experience to my knowledge of classical theology…What was needed was a new way of looking at theology that must emerge out of the dialectic of black history and culture.[5]

Cone’s project, as described above, is to create a theology that speaks to black people and uses their history, literature, and other indigenous sources. “Black theology is a theology of and for black people, an examination of their stories, tales, and sayings. It is an investigation of the mind into the raw materials of our pilgrimage, telling the story of how ‘we got over.’”[6] Yet it also entails a dethroning of the exclusivity of white theology.

Somewhere along the line, the white approach to theology became the right one; the white experience became the universal experience, and any theologizing that did work not under the guise of the status quo was dubbed illegitimate. Here Cone points out that “other people also have thought about God and have something significant to say about Jesus’ presence in this world.”[7]

Theology, he argues, is human-talk about God. It is inseparably tied to one’s historical and cultural setting and is limited by the language and experience of those espousing it. Hence, quoting Feuerbach, Cone accents this dictum: “theology is anthropology.”[8] Accordingly, these “anthropological undergirdings” should be acknowledged by all, for “[w]hat people think about God cannot be divorced from their place and time in a definite history and culture.”[9]

(Part 2)
___________
[1] Ibid., 7.
[2] Ibid., 14.
[3] Ibid., 1.
[4] Ibid., 4.
[5] Ibid., 5-6.
[6] Ibid., 16.
[7] Ibid., 14.
[8] Ibid., 37.
[9] Ibid.

Erickson and the Problem of Evil - Part 7

2007-05-22T19:09:00.000-04:00

Theme six: The Life Hereafter

Erickson notes that one of the important things to consider when pondering the problem of evil is that it will not be a problem forever. Although numerous injustices will remain unpunished in this life, God has promised to settle them all in the judgment on the last day. Only then will every wrong be righted. This life is not the end; justice will roll down like great waters and God will be glorified. Tears will be wiped away and the affliction of the righteous will be lifted forever. Hell will be the abode for those who have wanted nothing to do with God and his righteousness. Hell should not be viewed as a place God sends the ungodly by force; rather it is the place the ungodly freely choose to go to themselves.

Once again, I agree with Erickson's conclusions here. Ultimate justice is inevitable. God is just and all evil will be dealt with decisively . This is a wonderful truth for believers. Hell is the logical reality of God’s holiness and justice and those who end up there do so by their own choice, not by compulsion or force.

(Here is a link to all posts in this series.)

Erickson and the Problem of Evil - Part 6

2007-05-20T09:56:00.000-04:00

Theme five: God as the Victim of Evil

According to Erickson, God is not aloof to the effects of evil for at the cross he himself was its victim. What is remarkable about this all is that he suffered willingly in the person of Jesus and this he did on our behalf. Not only was this suffering limited to the cross, but God made himself vulnerable by incarnating himself in the person of Jesus. The eternal one suffered hunger, fatigue, mockery, rejection, and so forth. Any understanding of the problem of evil must take this into consideration.

This is a very powerful truth. Erickson states this well. Though our God is sovereign and transcendent, he is also understanding and empathetic when we suffer. He sympathizes with us. It is an amazing thing, as Erickson notes, “that human sin is painful or hurtful to God” (p. 456). Yes, God understands.

(Here is a link to all posts in this series.)

Thoughts on Bonhoeffer the Theologian - Part 2

2007-04-28T09:23:00.000-04:00

This-Worldly Christianity

Bonhoeffer’s prophetic call for Christians to take discipleship seriously and be active in helping those who are in need is rooted in the incarnation of the Son of God. Jesus became human in order to help others. “Jesus is there only for others…[and] [f]aith is participation in this being of Jesus…our relation to God is a new life in ‘existence for others,’ through participation in the being of Jesus.”[1] Just as Jesus is the person for others, we must be Christ for others.

Just as Christ suffered on the cross by bearing our sins, so should believers be willing to participate in solidarity with the sufferings of others: “Whoever lives in love is Christ in relation to the neighbor…Christians can and ought to act like Christ; ought to bear the burdens and sufferings of the neighbor…It must come to the point that the weakness, needs, and sins of my neighbor afflict me as if they were my own, in the same way as Christ was afflicted by our sins.”[2] The Church community exists as a representation of Christ for others.

That is why living in this world is massively important for Bonhoeffer, so much so, he writes, “the church must be thoroughly worldly.”[3] This does not mean one should adopt ‘evil’ practices or the like. Instead, what he is trying to do is emphasize as strongly as he possibly can that the world believers live in must be thoroughly engaged and not discarded—merely as a temporary pit-stop toward one’s way to ‘heaven.’ “This world must not be prematurely written off,”[4] he writes.

Bonhoeffer’s worldly Christianity is the proper response for a world come of age. Christians who are indifferent to the sufferings of others (e.g. the persecution of the Jews by Nazism) must not view God as the deus ex machina—as one who will miraculously save the oppressed at the very moment of their need without the aid of God’s people. Rather, believers must live esti deus non daretur—as if God did not exist! “God would have us know that we must live as men who manage our lives without him. The God who is with us is the God who forsakes us…The God who lets us live in the world without the working hypothesis of God is the God before whom we stand continually…God lets himself be pushed out of the world on to the cross. He is weak and powerless in the world, and that is precisely the way, the only way, in which he is with us and helps us.”[5]

It is by living as if God did not exist, as if God would not miraculously intervene supernaturally from heaven when others suffered distress, that believers are called to be God’s hands and feet in the world. Christians must act on behalf of those who suffer in God’s name and not wait for God to act without them.

Bonhoeffer’s view of grace, the cross, and this-worldly Christianity are all interconnected. His ecclesiology is clearly fed by his Christology. His articulation of grace and the cross is superb. Grace should never be an excuse for inaction, nor for a refusal to follow Jesus in discipleship. Unfortunately, this is an all too common misunderstanding of the Protestant doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone. He is absolutely right that grace is costly, not in the sense of works-salvation, but in the sense that it costs us our lives as it did the Son of God, the incarnate one, as he embraced the cross for our sake. He sees (rightly in my view) that faith and obedience are inseparably linked—“only the obedient believe.”[6] This echo’s the Reformed understanding that while it is faith alone that justifies, it is never a faith that is alone, but is accompanied by good works.

His ecclesiology is unique and insightful. Just as Jesus was the man for others, the one who lived and died on behalf of others, so too should Christians be Christ for others, in community, by sharing in their sufferings and helping them in their time of need. In this sense I agree with him totally, that we should live “as if God did not exist.” (Let the reader understand!) It is our responsibility to act on behalf of others, especially when they are being oppressed and victimized by evil. It is irresponsible for Christians to sit back and allow injustices to go on undisturbed. There is no theological justification for such inaction. Bonhoeffer’s theology of grace, the cross, and this-worldly Christianity is a welcomed prophetic voice for the churches of today.

________________________________________________
[1] Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers, 381.
[2] Kelly and Nelson, Moral Leadership, 151.
[3] Andreas Pangritz, “Who is Jesus Christ, for us, today?” in The Cambridge Companion to Dietrich Bonhoeffer, ed. John W. de Gruchy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 139.
[4] Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers, 337.
[5] Ibid., 360.
[6] Bonhoeffer, Discipleship, 63.

Thoughts on Bonhoeffer the Theologian - Part 1

2007-04-01T22:32:00.001-04:00

Dietrich Bonhoeffer lived in tumultuous times. With the rise of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party in the 1930s, many German Christians were swayed over to the extreme ideology of Nazism. Hitler sought to unite all German churches into one by force and birthed the Protestant Reich Church in the process. This “Church” reinterpreted Christianity in light of Hitler’s ideological and political ambitions – ethnic nationalism, anti-Semitism, Aryanism, and so forth. Bonhoeffer, the German Lutheran pastor and theologian, vehemently resisted Hitler and the Reich Church, and was one of the founders of the Confessing Church – an underground resistance movement composed of pastors and congregations who refused to join the Reich Church.

At the same time, Bonhoeffer was wrestling with the question of how one is to understand God and Jesus in light of modernity. Bonhoeffer’s unique catchphrase for modernity was a “world… come of age.”[1] This meant a world which had gone through the Enlightenment and had thus reached an age of intellectual maturity, especially in the spheres of both science and religion. “[T]he autonomy of man,” writes Bonhoeffer, “(in which I should include the discovery of the laws by which the world lives and deals with itself in science, social and political matters, art, ethics, and religion) has in our time reached an undoubted completion. Man has learnt to deal with himself in all questions of importance without recourse to the ‘working hypothesis’ called ‘God.’”[2]

God was out of a job and Bonhoeffer found Christianity’s response to God’s predicament severely wanting. Christians went on the defensive by either attacking a segment of modernity’s intellectual achievements (e.g. the discovery of the theory of Evolution by Charles Darwin) or desperately searching to find God a job by positing God as the answer to humanity’s ignorance. God found employment alright, as the deus ex machina: “that means that [God] becomes the answer to life’s problems, and the solution of its needs and conflicts.”[3] God was relegated solely to the confines of filling in the left over gaps of human knowledge. This “God as a stop-gap,” according to Bonhoeffer, continually finds God’s self in retreat as human knowledge progresses.[4]

Grace and Discipleship

That was the world to which Bonhoeffer sought to reintroduce a true and genuine concept of grace and discipleship. German Christians had allowed grace to be cheapened. Building on an inadequate understanding of Luther’s famous rediscovery of the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone, the German Church had convinced itself of its right standing before God while allowing the horrible injustices of Hitler and the Third Reich to continue without protest. Grace had become merely an abstract “principle” void of any concrete reality on the part of the believer. That kind of grace, “cheap grace,” was for Bonhoeffer “the mortal enemy of our church.”[5]

It became an excuse for inaction, but Bonhoeffer saw it for what it truly was: “a cheap cover-up for [the German Church’s] sins, for which it shows no remorse and from which it has even less desire to be set free.”[6] He described the cheap grace prevalent in his day as “preaching forgiveness without repentance; it is baptism without the disciple of community; it is the Lord’s Supper without confession of sin; it is absolution without personal confession. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without the living, incarnate Jesus Christ.”[7]

True grace, however, is “costly grace.” Bonhoeffer explains:

It is costly, because it calls to discipleship; it is grace, because it calls us to follow Jesus Christ. It is costly, because it costs people their lives; it is grace, because it thereby makes them live. It is costly, because it condemns sin; it is grace, because it justifies the sinner. Above all, grace is costly, because it was costly to God, because it costs God the life of God’s Son…and because nothing can be cheap to us which is costly to God. Above all, it is grace because the life of God’s Son was not too costly for God to give in order to make us live…Costly grace is the incarnation of God…Grace is costly, because it forces people under the yoke of following Jesus Christ; it is grace when Jesus says, ‘My yoke is easy, and my burden is light.’[8]

While he defined cheap grace as being void of discipleship and the cross, here he defines true grace—costly grace that is—as being inextricably tied with discipleship and the cross. Take this away and one is left “without the living, incarnate Jesus Christ.”[9] Discipleship is following the call of Jesus wherever and however he bids one to go. The cross represents the way of suffering in this world as a result of following Jesus’ call, leading one even to the very real possibility of death.

Bonhoeffer’s stress on obedient discipleship should not be understood as a denial of Luther’s teaching on Justification by Faith Alone, but only the distorted view of it held by many German Christians. “Luther’s deed,” he writes, “cannot be misunderstood more grievously than by thinking that through discovering the gospel of pure grace, Luther proclaimed a dispensation from obeying Jesus’ commandments in the world…Costly grace was given to Luther…[it] was costly, because it did not excuse one from works. Instead, it endlessly sharpened the call to discipleship.”[10] Geffrey B. Kelly and F. Burton Nelson point out that Bonhoeffer “saw the whole sphere of obedience to God’s will in any age inextricably bound to the gift of faith and to the gospel of what God has done for us in Jesus Christ.”[11]

....

___________________________

[1] Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers From Prison, enl. ed., ed. Eberhard Bethge (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1997), 326.
[2] Ibid., 325.
[3] Ibid., 341.
[4] Ibid., 311.
[5] Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Discipleship, ed. Geffrey B. Kelly and John D. Godsey, trans. Barbara Green and Reinhard Krauss (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2000), 43.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid., 45.
[9] Ibid., 43.
[10] Ibid., 49.
[11] Geffrey B. Kelly and F. Burton Nelson, The Cost of Moral Leadership: The Spirituality of Dietrich Bonhoeffer (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003), 134.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer: "After Ten Years"

2007-03-08T19:30:00.001-05:00

"Christ, so the scriptures tell us, bore the sufferings of all humanity in his own body as if they were his own – a thought beyond our comprehension – accepting them of his own free will. We are certainly not Christ; we are not called on to redeem the world by our own deeds and sufferings, and we need not try to assume such an impossible burden. We are not lords, but instruments in the hand of the Lord of history; and we can share in other people’s sufferings only to a very limited degree. We are not Christ, but if we want to be Christians, we must have some share in Christ’s large-heartedness by acting with responsibility and in freedom when the hour of danger comes, and by showing a real sympathy that springs, not from fear, but from the liberating and redeeming love of Christ for all who suffer. Mere waiting and looking on is not Christian behaviour. The Christian is called to sympathy and action, not in the first place by his own sufferings, but by the suffering of his brethren, for whose sake Christ suffered."

-Dietrich Bonhoeffer, “After Ten Years,” in Letters and Papers from Prison, enl. ed., ed. Eberhard Bethge (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1997), 14.

Luther on Faith and Works - 2

2007-01-31T22:16:00.000-05:00

Faith and Works Are Necessary

If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love - John 15:10

Jesus is saying, "You are in me and remain in me, so make sure you keep my commandments. For I must give each of you a task as a sign to others that you are my true branches. That task is to love each other. I keep this command myself, so I can be an example and model to you. And I remain in my Father's love because I keep this command. Therefore, if you keep my commandments, you will remain in my love." Earlier in this book, Christ also says, "Everyone will know you are my disciples because of your love for each other" (John 13:35).
So there are two parts of Christian teaching that we must emphasize for Christians daily. Neither faith nor works can be ignored. For when faith isn't preached - when no one explains how we are joined to Christ and become branches in him - then everyone resorts to their own works. On the other hand, if we teach only about faith, it leads to false Christians. These people praise faith, are baptized, and even call themselves Christians, but they don't show any fruit or power.
That's why it's so difficult to preach. No matter how I preach, something goes wrong. Someone always goes off on a tangent. If I don't preach about faith, the result will be useless and hypocritical works. If I only emphasize faith, no one does any good works. The result is either useless, faithless do-gooders or believers who don't do any good works. So we must preach the message to those who accept both faith and works. We must preach to those who want to remain in the vine, put their trust in Christ, and put their faith into action in their everyday lives.

Martin Luther, By Faith Alone, ed. James C. Galvin, trans. Ric Gudgeon, Trudy Krucke Zimmerman, and Gerhard Meske (Iowa Falls, IA: World Bible Publishers, 1998), February 2.

Justin Martyr on the Christian Life

2007-01-31T21:55:00.000-05:00

Let it be understood that those who are not found living as He taught are not Christians - even though they profess with the lips the teachings of Christ. Justin Martyr (c. 160, [Eastern Writer]), 1.168.

David W. Bercot, ed., A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson, 1998), 128.

Luther on Faith and Works - 1

2007-01-30T23:12:00.001-05:00

Faith Comes First

For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them—Ephesians 2:10

You have often heard me say that the Christian life has two dimensions: the first is faith, and the second is good works. A believer should live a devout life and always do what is right. But the first dimension of the Christian life, faith, is more essential. The second dimension, good works, is never as valuable as faith. However, people of the world adore good works. They regard them to be far higher than faith.
Good works have always been valued more highly than faith. Of course, it's true that we should do good works and respect the importance of them. But we should be careful that we don't elevate good works to such an extent that faith and Christ become secondary. If we esteem them too highly, good works can become the greatest idolatry. This has occurred both inside and outside of Christianity. Some people value good works so much that they overlook faith in Christ. They preach about and praise their own works instead of God's works.
Faith should be first. After faith is preached, then we should teach about good works. It is faith—without good works and prior to good works—that takes us to heaven. We come to God through faith alone.

Martin Luther, By Faith Alone, ed. James C. Galvin, trans. Ric Gudgeon, Trudy Krucke Zimmerman, and Gerhard Meske (Iowa Falls, IA: World Bible Publishers, 1998), January 1.

Erickson and the Problem of Evil - Part 5

2006-12-31T08:41:00.000-05:00

Theme four: Specific Evil as the Result of Specific Sins

Focusing more narrowly on evil, Erickson sees that specific sins may lead to specific evils. Particular choices and actions by volitional beings may cause great evil for others and even themselves. David, for example, suffered much pain as a result of committing adultery with Bathsheba and murdering her husband. He not only caused much pain in his own family but he did the same for others as well. While these negative effects follow as consequences, they may also be chastisement from God, though not necessarily. On the other hand, however, one must exercise caution in attributing the evil that has fallen on someone to their own particular sins. The blind man in John 9 was not in his present state for some particular sin that he or his parents committed, but because God had purposed it for a reason. Similarly, Job suffered extreme evil in his life apart from committing any particular sin. And while his friends blamed him for his unfortunate condition, God rebuked such condemnation as wrong. God had a divine purpose in Job’s trial.

Again, I find myself in agreement with Erickson. This is a good, balanced approach. One should always exercise caution when trying to judge the reason behind specific evils that befall our lives, the world, and others.

Does the Father Submit to the Son? - D. A. Carson

2006-11-23T11:56:00.000-05:00

[M]ark well the distinction between the love of the Father for the Son and the love of the Son for the Fater. The Father commands, sends, tells, commissions - and demonstrates his love for the Son by "showing" him everything, such that the Son does whatever the Father does. The Son obeys, says only what the Father gives him to say, does only what the Father gives him to do, comes into the world as the Sent One - and demonstrates his love for the Father precisely by such obedience. Not once is there any hint that the Son commissions the Father, who obeys. Not once is there a hint that the Father submits to the Son or is dependent upon him for his own words and deeds. Historically, Christians avoiding the trap of Arianism have insisted that the Son is equal with God in substance or essence, but that there is an economic or functional subordination of the Son to the Father.

Footnote:

Because this matter is tied to debates about the roles of men and women, currently such a delicate topic, extraordinary publications have appeared in recent years. Royce Gruenler, The Trinity in the Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986), denies that there is any functional subordination of the Son to the Father, on the ground that each "defers" to the other. The Father "defers" to the Son by granting him what he asks. But this is a vain attempt to bury under the banner of deference the massive differences in the descriptions of the roles of the Father and the Son as depicted in the Fourth Gospel. Because I "defer" to my son's request to pick him up at the soccer pitch does not mean he commands me in the way I command him or that my love for him is displayed in obedience to him.

In a recent article, Gilbert Bilezikian, "Hermeneutical Bungee-Jumping: Subordination in the Godhead," JETS 40 (1997), 57-68, argues that his opponents in the debate over women's roles are flirting with heresy on this issue, since subordination in the Godhead does not reach back into eternity past but is restricted to the Incarnation, which teaches both men and women self-denial for the sake of others. It is difficult to find many articles that so richly combine exegetical errors, historical misconceptions, and purple prose in so finely honed a synthesis. But I do utterly agree with his final appeal not to "mess with the Trinity" in support of a contemporary agenda.

Closer to the mark is Paul K. Jewett, God, Creation, and Revelation: A Neo-Evangelical Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 322-323, who rightly concedes that the historical view is that there is no subordination to the Father by nature, but that there is what many would call economic or functional subordination. He prefers to think of it as "the free act of the Son." I am not sure that this is an adequate formulation, but even if it were, it is difficult to imagine any complementarian advocating something other than the free act of the woman in any distinction in roles to which they hold.

D. A. Carson, The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2000), 39-40, 86

Erickson and the Problem of Evil - Part 4

2006-11-22T09:56:00.000-05:00

Theme three: Evil in General as the Result of Sin in General

As a result of the fall, the created universe has been negatively affected and tainted by sin. Sin has affected the divine-human relationship (separation from God), human-human relationships (murder, domestic abuse, etc.), and the human-creation relationship. The latter Erickson calls “natural evil” while labeling the first two as “moral evil.” Both evils persist in the universe today. There is some question as to whether or not some of what may be defined as natural evil already existed prior to the fall according to the geological record (such as earthquakes). But Erickson would rather view these as neutral in character. It is after the fall that these produce great evil and harm.

Erickson wrestles with the question of how sin entered the created universe when all that was made by God was good. He dispels the notion that the fall of Satan was provoked by some evil already present in the universe. This he calls the “germ theory” of sin (p. 453). But rather than conceptualizing evil as some sort of substance, he suggests it is the result of a “twisting” of something that is good – like the presence of a broken bone as the result of the twisting of a limb. Erickson writes, “Sin results when a person’s will and relationship to God are twisted the wrong way, when the wrong one of two possibilities is actualized” (Ibid). Therefore, Sin is not something created by God; it is the result of twisting or distorting the good God has created. By creating genuinely free angels and human beings, God created the potential for evil and his creatures actualized it.

I agree with the approach Erickson has taken here. Certainly, Scripture precludes God from having originated evil in a direct sense since God does not sin nor can he even look upon sin; there is no darkness in God at all (James 1:13; 1 John 1:5). So explaining the appearance of evil in the created order by a “twisting” of the good already present is quite helpful. The evil we see in this world is the result of the fall and a distortion of the good God has created.

Erickson and the Problem of Evil - Part 3

2006-11-20T17:53:00.000-05:00

Theme two: A Reevaluation of What Constitutes Good and Evil

Erickson finds that defining what is good and evil by whether or not one finds it “pleasant” is “incorrect” (p. 450). There are three things one must consider.

First - the divine dimension. Good must be defined in relationship to God, and our ultimate good, as revealed in Scripture, is our being conformed to the image of God’s Son (Rom. 8:29). And since God is omniscient, he knows what is truly good as well as what truly harmful to us. God sees and knows more than we do.

Second - the time-duration dimension. What may seem evil or harmful to us now may end up contributing to our ultimate good down the road. Also, what may be good and pleasant now may end up harming us in the future. Erickson uses dentistry as an example. A person undergoing a procedure may experience great pain at that moment, but eventually this pain will lead to pleasant non-painful results.

Third - the extent of evil. What one person considers evil may be a great good for another. A certain amount of rain in one place may be disastrous while the same amount of rain in another place may be a godsend. Erickson reiterates, however, “that what makes something good is that God has willed and planned it” (p. 451).

These are important observations that tend to be overlooked. I agree with Erickson’s assessment here that consideration of the divine and duration-time dimension, along with the extent of evil should be factored into our assessment of what constitutes good and evil.

Erickson and the Problem of Evil - Part 2

2006-11-17T14:57:00.000-05:00

Theme one: Evil as a Necessary Accompaniment of the Creation of Humanity

We know there are certain things God cannot do. (E.g. tell a lie or break a promise - yet even that has been questioned recently!) Likewise, explains Erickson, God cannot create human beings “without certain accompanying features” (p. 448). “Free will” is one of them. Whether or not this freedom is noncompatibilistic or compatibilistic is beside the point: God made humans in such a way that they are able to act against his wishes. As a result, writes Erickson, “evil was a necessary accompaniment of God’s good plan to make people fully human” (p. 449). Thus death in the physical universe became the inevitable result of “genuine punishment” from God, which in turn went hand in hand with "genuine moral choice” (Ibid, emphasis added).

Erickson asks an important question: “could not God have created his world in such a way that evil intentions or evil results would not occur or could he not intervene within it to alter the course of events?” (Ibid). He answers the latter part of the question adequately by showing that life would be “virtually impossible” to live out if God were to prevent every single act of wrongdoing, but he completely ignores the former.

I would argue that evil is not a necessary component of human existence, for we read in Revelation 21:4, at least, that death and mourning and pain (all of which Erickson agrees are the results of evil) will not exist in the coming kingdom of God. Now, I am not aware of anyone who argues that believers will be robotic or non-genuine in heaven since evil (and the potential for evil) will not exist. So if God can see to it that evil will not be present in the future kingdom while enjoying true fellowship with his redeemed people, why is it that Erickson maintains God could not have created “genuine” human beings from the very start without necessitating evil or the potential for evil? This remains unanswered.

Erickson and the Problem of Evil - Part 1

2006-11-16T21:24:00.000-05:00

Dr. Millard J. Erickson is Distinguished Professor of Theology at Western Seminary, and the author of more than 20 books. He was professor of theology and academic dean at Bethel Seminary for many years.

I'm working my way through Erickson's highly acclaimed text, Chrisitan Theology, for my Systematic Theology course at Alliance Theological Seminary. It's a great text by an extremely good theologian. In fact, J. I. Packer writes the following blurb on the back of the book:

During the past decade Millard Erickson's Christian Theology has established itself as the most widely used and most generally useful of modern Protestant surveys of Christian truth. Robustly evangelical, essentially conservative, thoroughly contemporary, firmly Baptistic, gently Calvinist, and cautiously post-tribulationist premillennial, its fair-minded breadth and meticulous analysis of options have won it consistent praise.

In chapter 20 of Erickson's Christian Theology, he discusses the infamous problem of the problem of evil. The chapter is titled “Evil and God’s World: A Special Problem.” He notes that intellectually, explaining how evil can exist in a world created by a good God is “[p]robably the most difficult…challenge to the Christian faith” (p. 436). Great theologians of time past have not been able to provide the definitive and final solution to this difficult problem, and Erickson is careful enough to acknowledge he is not the exception. Absolute certainty on this issue will continue to evade all this side of heaven. Yet he holds there are certain teachings in Scripture that may help “alleviate [the problem] somewhat and [help us] see the directions from which [a] final solution might come had we more complete knowledge and understanding” (p. 439).

He offers six themes to help deal with the problem of evil:

1) Evil as a Necessary Accompaniment of the Creation of Humanity
2) A Reevaluation of What Constitutes Good and Evil
3) Evil in General as the Result of Sin in General
4) Evil as the Result of Specific Sins
5) God as the Victim of Evil
6) The Life Hereafter

In the following posts we'll briefly look at Erickson's views on these six themes and offer a quick comment or two in response.

Hope in Death Through Christ - William A. Dyrness

2006-11-15T18:48:00.000-05:00

There is no question of denying the reality or the terror of death; it is rather a matter of getting things in perspective. When one fully understands the character of God, when one sees the way the moral order of the world operates, when one has seen God deliver his people, then death after all is seen to be the small and weak thing which it is in the eyes of God. When the victory finally comes, there is no question but that death itself will fall. Here too, though, the OT seems to stand on tiptoes; it reaches for a complement and embodiment of all that it knows with the highest certainty to be true. That embodiment is the new creation that Christ came to reveal. The truth they only knew in part, Christ has come to make even clearer to us: that by his death and resurrection we may be his people, and he our God, forever.

William A. Dyrness, Themes in Old Testament Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1979), 242.

William A. Dyrness on Biblical Theology

2006-11-03T22:29:00.000-05:00

All good theology is biblical to a greater or lesser extent, but biblical theology is that special discipline that seeks to study biblical themes on their own terms. In distinction from systematic theology, which seeks to understand the interrelationship of biblical themes and their historical and philosophical implications, biblical theology studies the leitmotivs of Scripture as they develop in the course of God’s dealings with people in the biblical period. It is historical and progressive. It centers on God’s saving self-revelation as it takes the shape of certain events in which God calls to himself a people who will reflect his character and further his loving purposes. It sees these developments against the background of a world which God created as a vehicle of his purposes and values. Finally, it sees how God refuses to abandon his purposes despite the unfaithfulness of his own people and works even in their unbelief to create a people more perfectly and completely his own.

William Dyrness, Themes in Old Testament Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1979), 16-17

Millard J. Erickson on Tradition and Authority

2006-10-18T18:03:00.000-04:00

There is a positive value to tradition: it can assist us to understand Scripture and its application. The Fathers do have something to say, but their writings must be viewed as commentaries on the text, not as biblical text itself. We should consult them as we do other commentaries. Thus, they function as judicial authorities. Their authority comes from their utilization and elucidation of Scripture. They must never be allowed to displace Scripture. Whenever a tradition, whether it is a teaching of an ancient origin or of a recent popular leader, comes into conflict with the meaning of the Bible, the tradition must give way to Scripture.

Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1998), 284.

God's Impassibility and His Love

2006-09-03T23:00:00.000-04:00

I just finished reading D. A. Carson's The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God (Wheaton, Ill: Crossway, 2000). Here's a great quote concerning the danger of over emphasizing God's impassibility over against his love:

It is no answer to espouse a form of impassibility that denies that God has an emotional life and that insists that all of the biblical evidence to the contrary is nothing more than anthropopathism. This price is too heavy. You may then rest in God's sovereignty, but you can no longer rejoice in his love. You may rejoice only in a linguistic expression that is an accommodation of some reality of which we cannot conceive, couched in the anthropopathism of love. Give me a break. Paul did not pray that his readers might be able to grasp the height and depth and length and breadth of an anthropopathism and know this anthropopathism that surpasses knowledge (Eph. 3:14-21). [pp. 58-59]

F. F. Bruce on 'The Gospel Miracles'

2006-08-28T20:19:00.000-04:00

So the question of whether the miracle-stories of the Gospels are true cannot be answered purely in terms of historical research. Historical research is by no means excluded, for the whole point of the gospel is that in Christ the power and grace of God entered into human history to bring about the world's redemption. But a historian may conclude that these things probably did happen and yet be quite far from the response which the recorders of these events wished to evoke in those whom they addressed. The question whether the miracle-stories are true must ultimately be answered by a personal response of faith - not merely faith in the events as historical but faith in the Christ who performed them, faith which appropriates the power by which these mighty works were done.

This response of faith does not absolve us from the duty of understanding the special significance of the several miracle-stories and considering each in the light of all the available knowledge, historical and otherwise, which can be brought to bear upon it. But these are secondary duties; the primary one is to see the whole question in its proper context as revealed by the significance of the greatest miracle of all, the resurrection of Christ.

F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1981), 67.

The Eternal Subordination of the Son: "Biblical and Orthodox" or "Heresy"?

2006-07-27T21:54:00.002-04:00

The debate between complementarianism and egalitarianism has sparked a debate within Trinitarian Theology: the Eternal Subordination of the Son to the Father. Is it biblical and orthodox or is it a heresy condemned by the Christian Church throughout history? Here are some references on this topic from both sides, most of which are available online.

The Eternal Subordination of the Son: "Heresy"

Gilbert Bilezikian. “Hermeneutical Bungee-Jumping: Subordination in the Godhead.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 40/1 (March 1997): 57-68.

Kevin Giles. “The Subordination of Christ and the Subordination of Women” in Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy, eds. Ronald W. Pierce and Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, contributing ed. Gordon D. Fee (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2004), pp. 334-354.

Kevin N. Giles. “The Doctrine of the Trinity and Subordinationism.” Christians for Biblical Equality.
Kevin N. Giles. "The Father and the Son Divided or Undivided in Power and Authority." Christians for Biblical Equality. [ETS Paper, 2006]
Kevin N. Giles. "An Examination of the Seven Pillars on which the Case for the Permanent Subordination of Women Stands." Christians for Biblical Equality. [ETS Paper, 2006]

The Eternal Subordination of the Son: "Biblical and Orthodox"

Stephen D. Kovach and Peter R. Schemm, Jr. “A Defense of the Doctrine of the Eternal Subordination of the Son.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 42/3 (September 1999): 461-476.
Craig S. Keener. “Is Subordination Within The Trinity Really Heresy? A Study of John 5:18 in Context.” Trinity Journal 20NS (1999): 39-51
Bruce A. Ware. “Tampering With the Trinity: Does the Son Submit to the Father?” in Biblical Foundations for Manhood and Womanhood, ed. Wayne A. Grudem (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2002), pp. 233-256.
Peter R. Schemm, Jr. “Kevin Giles’s The Trinity and Subordinationism: A Review Article.” Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 7/2 (Fall 2002): 67-78.
Wayne A. Grudem. Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth: An Analysis of More Than One Hundred Disputed Questions. Sisters, OR: Multnomah, 2004. Pp. 405-428.

Peter R. Schemm, Jr. “‘The Subordination of Christ and the Subordination of Women’ (Ch 19) by Kevin Giles.” Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 10/1 (Spring 2005): 81-87.
Bruce A. Ware. "Equal in Essence, Distinct in Roles: Eternal Functional Authority and Submission among the Essentially Equal Divine Persons of the Godhead." Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. [ETS Paper, 2006]

So What do you think - "Heresy" or "Biblical and Orthodox"?

Is Exegesis Without Presuppositions Possible?

2006-06-23T11:21:00.000-04:00

While I have heard many things about Rudolf Bultmann before, I never read a thing he wrote – until now. I recently read a short article of his titled “Is Exegesis Without Presuppositions Possible? [1957].” I found it interesting to say the least. While I strongly disagree with him at points I did find some things I agree with. Here’s a good quote:

The question whether exegesis without presuppositions is possible must be answered affirmatively if “without presuppositions” means “without presupposing the results of the exegesis.” In this sense, exegesis without presuppositions is not only possible but demanded. In another sense, however, no exegesis is without presuppositions, inasmuch as the exegete is not a tabula rasa, but on the contrary, approaches the text with specific questions or with a specific way of raising questions and thus has a certain idea of the subject matter with which the text is concerned.

- Rudolf Bultmann, “Is Exegesis Without Presuppositions Possible? [1957]” in Existence and Faith: Shorter Writings of Rudolf Bultmann, trans. Schubert M. Ogden (Cleveland, OH: The World Publishing Company, 1960) p. 289.

Reflections on The Church in Emerging Culture: Five Perspectives

2006-06-22T13:13:00.000-04:00

Leonard Sweet, ed. The Church in Emerging Culture: Five Perspectives. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2003.

Of the five essays [written by Andy Crouch, Michael Horton, Frederica Mathewes-Green, Brian D. McLaren, and Erwin Raphael McManus] on how the Church is to relate to the “emerging culture,” I found Michael Horton’s essay to be the most persuasive. He distinguishes between two types of postmodernism – academic and popular – and notes that at the popular level there is no one version of what postmodernism really is. Sometimes postmodernism is simply used as a “code word” for whatever is new (i.e. that which comes after modernity), the “triumph of popular culture” (p. 108). “Postmodernism,” writes Horton, “is the new code word for mission, a new way of enforcing not just change but particular changes that have particular ideological assumptions” (p. 110).

Christian truth should not be relativized by the modern-postmodern culture. Instead, these trends should be “seen as part of this passing evil age…relativized by the age to come” (p. 115). Horton would rather see a distinction between “this present evil age” and “the age to come,” “the kingdom of Christ and the kingdoms of this world” – a distinction defined by the New Testament – as opposed to focusing too much on the divide between “modern and postmodern” (p. 113, 115, 119). Horton writes,

I’m postmodern enough to realize that nobody really stands outside of his or her own culture and language. My intent here is to suggest that faith gives us confidence to believe that the Scripture provides us new glasses through which to view the world from God’s perspective, albeit accommodated to our capacity…(p. 115)

Horton’s proposal for the Church engaging culture is to maintain the centrality of the “Word and sacrament” through which God promised “[the Church] would endure and prevail under the perpetual guidance of the Spirit” (p. 129). For “[w]hile no teaching in Scripture is timeless…the truths taught by the mouth of God in redemptive revelation endure through all times and places” (p. 124). This doesn’t mean any change is necessarily wrong. His analogy of the Church as “a centuries-old building” as opposed to “a suburban strip mall” (which is torn and rebuilt a whim) is helpful. “It has been extended, remodeled, and improved over successive generations, so that it has lived through time and ties together past, present, and future…[bringing past and present] in conversation, as if to wave its hand to future generations to indwell it, care for it, repair it, and make their own contributions to its completion.” (p. 120).

Andy Crouch, like Horton, has a negative view of postmodernism, seeing a close connection with consumerism: “Postmodernity channels the exaggerated hopes and promises of modernity, along with those promises’ disappointments, into the one thing we can still reasonably hope for: a great sale” (p. 72). His solution for the Church is found in two important practices: baptism and the Eucharist (p. 78). He places too much emphasis on these, and, in my opinion, not enough on the Scriptures.

Frederica Mathewes-Green is not sure if postmodernism exists. She believes there are such things as objective truths and that we can know “some” of these though some we do not / cannot know and are “beyond our comprehension” (p. 155). She also says that “there is an objective truth who is a person, not a proposition,” referring to Jesus (p. 155). She is not quick to go for change since most of the time it backfires: “People who are coaxed into buying [the gospel] for its charming qualities are apt to feel deceived and to quit altogether when the going gets tough…Adjustments to reflect local or temporary culture have a net trivializing effect” (p. 159). Mathewes-Green’s solution for the Church engaging culture is to “submit to the accumulated faith of our older brothers and sisters,” referring to the tradition of the Church (p. 165). I don’t find this satisfactory. She places too much emphasis on tradition. The Church has and (if the Lord tarries) will continue to get things wrong. It is to the Scriptures that we must go.

Brian D. McLaren believes that when it comes to communicating the gospel, “our message (like our methods) must change from time to time and place to place in order to remain truly the gospel of Jesus and the gospel about Jesus” (p. 198). The gospel isn’t about “propositions, mechanisms, abstractions, or universal concepts” but about “narrative – story” and action (Ibid.). The problem for modern churches is that the gospel message has stopped being about Jesus (p. 218). I agree with a lot of McLaren’s emphasis on praxis, but not his rejection of doctrine, theology, propositions (as either-or). While it is true that the Church has got a lot of things wrong, he should distinguish – as Horton points out – between the message (which is about Jesus saving us from our sins and does not change) from our interpretation of the message.

Erwin Raphael McManus does not want the church to isolate itself from the culture surrounding it: Comparing culture to a river, McManus says “We [i.e. the Church] must resist becoming the buckets and instead remain in the river” (p. 238). There is much in this essay that I resonated with. Indeed, McManus would probably be my 2nd pick in terms of which I find more persuasive. But statements like these leave me scratching my head: “The power of the gospel is the result of a person – Jesus Christ – not a message. The Gospel is an event to be proclaimed, not a doctrine to be preserved” (p. 248). I agree with Horton that this kind of dichotomy is unhelpful and unnecessary. I think I know what McManus is getting at, but it’s the way he’s going about it – eschewing things like doctrine – that I can’t agree with. Everyone has doctrine or theology whether they acknowledge it or not.

For more on Horton's views, see his article "How the Kingdom Comes" in Christianity Today [January 2006, Vol. 50, No. 1, Page 42].

Changing Our Minds on Pauline Theology

2006-06-14T20:02:00.000-04:00

As we form a coherent view of Paul's theology we should not be afraid to change our mind. We are all learning and growing, and our knowledge is partial. No one sees the whole picture adequately, and yet we keep straining to see it better. That is part of the process and excitement of learning. New issues and situations rightly call us to reexamine the text to see if we have misunderstood what Paul was saying. Paul was a profound and complex theologian, and also one of the most important both historically and for the life of the church today. We should expect that studying a great thinker like Paul will take time and effort. Along the way we will probably even discover that we have not always interpreted him correctly. We hope that as time progresses our knowledge of Pauline theology will deepen. We also hope that as we under-gird our theological reflection with careful exegesis we will gain confidence in our interpretation of Pauline theology.

Thomas R. Schreiner, Interpreting the Pauline Epistles (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990), 142.

A Virgin Shall Conceive: Isaiah 7:14 & Matthew 1:23

2006-03-22T08:42:00.003-05:00

In Chapter 7 of Isaiah, Ahaz the king of Judah is deeply distressed by the alliance of “Rezin the king of Syria and Pekah the son of Remaliah the king of Israel” for they are set to wage war against Jerusalem. The word of the Lord comes to Ahaz through the prophet Isaiah saying in effect that Rezin's and Pekah’s plan “shall not come to pass” (v. 7). In 65 years, Israel will be wiped out (v. 8). After Ahaz refuses to ask for a sign that these things will surely come to pass, Isaiah foretells of God’s sign: a virgin will conceive and bear a son (Immanuel – “God with us”), and before he is of age to tell right from wrong “the land whose two kings you dread will be deserted” (v. 16).

Isaiah’s prophecy, contextually speaking, has to due with Ahaz’s current situation. The Lord declared Rezin's and Pekah’s plan will come to naught, and the sign that this will surely happen is a virgin (whose identity is not specifically mentioned in the passage) will conceive and give birth to a son and before his teens Rezin and Pekah will be no more. It appears understood that by “virgin” he means a young woman who is of marriageable age, who will then conceive in the same manner as all children are conceived. There is nothing “miraculous” here in and of itself. The significance of the child’s name, Immanuel, was that it was a tangible sign of God’s presence with Judah. This is the immediate exegetical meaning of Isaiah’s prophecy.

In the Gospel of Matthew, the writer explains that Jesus’ mother Marry, who was engaged to be married to Joseph – and still a virgin – was pregnant with Jesus by the miraculous work of the Holy Spirit (1:18)! Matthew clearly sees a connection with the conception of Jesus and the 7th chapter of Isaiah: “All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: "Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel" (which means, God with us)” (1:22-23).

This does not negate the fact that Isaiah had relevance the day it was written, nor does it negate the immediate context of Isaiah 7 and its function as God’s sign to Ahaz. What Matthew sees here is that in Jesus’ conception there is an ultimate fulfillment of that passage. Yes, the son to be born in Isaiah 7 is a sign of God’s presence with his people (i.e. Immanuel). But in Jesus’ birth, being the one and only Son of God – true deity himself – God’s presence amidst his people in and through Jesus is the ultimate fulfillment of that prophecy.

The same can be said concerning the “virgin conceiving” in Isaiah. It has a contextual meaning there, but Matthew sees an ultimate meaning in the birth of Jesus. Although Isaiah doesn’t have in mind the virgin birth of Jesus, his prophecy is fulfilled (typologically) in Jesus Christ’s birth. That is what Matthew is trying to show when he says that Isaiah’s prophecy is fulfilled in Matthew 1:22-23.

Jesus in America: The Greatness of Man, Pacifism, and Psychological Therapeutics

2006-03-01T12:05:00.000-05:00

In Jesus in America: Personal Savior, Cultural Hero, National Obsession, Richard W. Fox introduces the reader to the many faces of Jesus as he’s been perceived and understood through the last four to five centuries in North America. Beginning with the Jesus of Europeans in the New World and ending with the Jesus of Dan Brown’s novel, The Da Vinci Code, Fox describes how numerous characters sought to explain and understand Jesus in their own times. In what follows, I do not attempt to review Fox's book. Rather, in this very brief excursus, I will describe and critique three cultural themes associated with Jesus from three different times in American history as presented in Jesus in America.

The view of Jesus as one who’s teaching is essentially on the “greatness of Man” gained wide prominence under the writing and thoughts of Ralph Waldo Emerson in the mid 19th century. Like Thomas Jefferson, Emerson did not believe Jesus was God, second person of the Trinity; instead, he viewed Jesus as a great wise man. But although Jefferson held Jesus as a great teacher, Emerson saw Jesus as much more. In his eyes, Jesus was all about human potential and tapping into the divine within. Christianity, with its emphasis on salvation and the deity and worship of Jesus was just getting in the way of Jesus’ true message, “the worth of man.” Emerson said, “You can never come to any peace of power until you put your whole reliance in the moral constitution of man & not at all in a historical Christianity…Christ preaches the greatness of Man but we hear only the greatness of Christ” (194).

The view that Jesus is all about making much of us as opposed to us making much of him is a product of the enlightenment, which shifted people’s focus from the all powerful God of the Bible to the all-powerful ability of mankind to solve all of life’s problems. While fostering the desire for men and women to strive for education and self-improvement (which is not necessarily a bad thing) this kind of humanistic thinking dethrones the Creator and sets the creation in his place! For one who believes in the inspiration of Holy Scripture, a merely human (non divine) Jesus whose main goal is the aggrandizement of mankind and not the salvation of sinners from sin for his ultimate glory is a farce.

In the early 20th century, Christians struggled with the ideals of pacifism and just war. In following Jesus’ teachings, should Christians be absolute pacifists? Some groups, such as the Quakers and Mennonites, believed Jesus was “an absolute nonresister” (325). Most Protestants, however, both liberal and conservative, reached a different conclusion: “Christ’s pacifism was not absolute. He preached nonresistance to evil when the only sufferer was oneself. But he demonstrated a willingness to use force in the temple. Nations were positively obligated to defend their citizens against aggression” (324). Reinhold Niebuhr, a German pastor, rejected absolute pacifism, but also taught that Jesus’ principle of nonresistance might be “too ideal for a sinful human world…it might fail it if were tired” (326). Pretty soon, Niebuhr and his followers left Jesus out of these ethical decisions because Christ’s peaceful teaching did not sit well with social responsibility for protecting others by force.

Niebuhr did not need to go so far, since other Protestants recognized that it was just as “Christ-like” to forcibly defend and protect the weak as it was to “turn the other cheek,” depending on the situation one is in. Holding to an absolute view of pacifism, in the name of Jesus, is not a position I would hold. Paul quite plainly acknowledges the need for “governing authorities” to exercise force in maintaining civility in the nation. In fact, he calls them “God’s servant” who is there “for your good” (Romans 13:1-7, ESV). This principle is just as true on a smaller scale, for example, if one were to personally try and attack one’s friends or family. Unfortunately, it is not always crystal clear when one has “just” reasons to use force. This is something I am still trying to figure out.

A trend that has seen considerable growth in evangelicalism, from about the late 20th century up to the beginning of this century, is the psychological preaching and teaching in the churches – less emphasis on the Word of God in Scripture, and more emphasis on “psychological therapeutics.” T.D. Jakes, pastor of the Potter’s House church in Dallas serves as a prime example. His style of teaching is characterized by “marvelously staged performances” for powerful emotional effect (390). So talented is Jakes in his “performances,” Fox says, “Jakes plays the congregation like an instrument” (390)! Here, Jesus is all about “self-help” and “psychotherapy.”

It is pretty obvious that our churches are filled with hurting people in need of serious help. Jakes is to be commended for his passionate concern in this regard. But I would hesitate to take it as far as he’s gone in using “theatrics” to minister to people. The truth of the matter is that the gospel message, which is ultimately about Jesus as Lord and Savior, can get muddled up to appear that the gospel is solely about being emotionally healthy. People can be manipulated. Using emotional ploys may have its proper place in presenting the gospel and helping others – God is not a cold and emotionless God; but if such presentations are not checked, the Jesus we end up marketing may end up not being the Jesus of the Bible. Hence, people may come to Jesus for help in their marriage or finances, but end up not knowing the true Jesus who saves souls from damnation.

D. A. Carson on the Intent of the Atonement

2006-02-25T01:15:00.001-05:00

The Love of God and the Intent of the Atonement by D. A. Carson, research professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois.

Here I wish to see if the approaches we have been following with respect to the love of God may shed some light on another area connected with the sovereignty of God – the purpose of the Atonement.

The label “limited atonement” is singularly unfortunate for two reasons. First, it is a defensive, restrictive expression: here is atonement, and then someone wants to limit it. The notion of limiting something as glorious as the Atonement is intrinsically offensive. Second, even when inspected more coolly, “limited atonement” is objectively misleading. Every view of the Atonement “limits” it in some way, save for the view of the unqualified universalist. For example, the Arminian limits the Atonement by regarding it as merely potential for everyone; the Calvinist regards the Atonement as definite and effective (i.e., those for whom Christ died will certainly be saved), but limits this effectiveness to the elect; the Amyraldian limits the Atonement in much the same way as they Arminian, even though the undergirding structures are different.

It may be less prejudicial, therefore, to distinguish general atonement and definite atonement, rather than unlimited atonement and limited atonement. The Arminian (and the Amyraldian, whom I shall lump together for the sake of this discussion) holds that the Atonement is general, i.e., sufficient for all, available to all, on condition of faith; the Calvinist holds that the Atonement is definite, i.e., intended by God to be effective for the elect.

At least part of the argument in favor of definite atonement runs as follows. Let us grant, for the sake of argument, the truth of election. [Footnote 1: If someone denies unconditional election, as an informed Arminian (but not an Amyraldian) would, most Calvinists would want to start further back.] That is one point where this discussion intersects with what was said in the third chapter about God’s sovereignty and his electing love. In that case the question may be framed in this way: When God sent his Son to the cross, did he think of the effect of the cross with respect to his elect differently from the way he thought of the effect of the cross with respect to all others? If one answers negatively, it is very difficult to see that one is really holding to a doctrine of election at all; if one answers positively, then one has veered toward some notion of definite atonement. The definiteness of the Atonement turns rather more on God’s intent in Christ’s cross work than in the mere extent of its significance.

But the issue is not merely one of logic dependent on election. Those who defend definite atonement cite texts. Jesus will save his people from their sins (Matt. 1:21) – not everyone. Christ gave himself “for us,” i.e., for us the people of the new covenant (Tit. 2:14), “to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good.” Moreover, in his death Christ did not merely make adequate provision for the elect, but he actually achieved the desired result (Rom. 5:6-10; Eph. 2:15-16). The Son of Man came to give his life a ransom “for many” (Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45; cf. Isa. 53:10-12). Christ “loved the church and gave himself up for her” (Eph. 5:25).

The Arminian, however, responds that there are simply too many texts on the other side of the issue. God so loved the world that he gave his Son (John 3:16). Clever exegetical devices that make “the world” a label for referring to the elect are not very convincing. Christ Jesus is the propitiation “for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:2). And much more of the same.

So how shall we forge ahead? The arguments marshaled on both sides are of course more numerous and more sophisticated than I have indicated in this thumbnail sketch. But recall for a moment the outline I provided in the first chapter on the various ways the Bible speaks about the love of God: (1) God’s intra-Trinitarian love, (2) God’s love displayed in his providential care, (3) God’s yearning warning and invitation to all human beings as he invites and commands them to repent and believe, (4) God’s special love towards the elect, and (5) God’s conditional love toward his covenant people as he speaks in the language of discipline. I indicated that if you absolutize any one of these ways in which the Bible speaks of the love of God, you will generate a false system that squeezes out other important things the Bible says, thus finally distorting your vision of God.

In this case, if we adopt the fourth of these ways of talking about God’s love (viz. God’s particular and effective love toward the elect), and insist that this is the only way the Bible speaks of the love of God, then definite atonement is exonerated, but at the cost of other texts that do not easily fit into this mold and at the expense of being unable to say that there is any sense in which God displays a loving, yearning, salvific stance toward the whole world. Further, there could then be no sense in which the Atonement is sufficient for all without exception. Alternatively, if you put all your theological eggs into the third basket and think of God’s love exclusively in terms of open invitation to all human beings, one has excluded not only definite atonement as a theological construct, but also a string of passages that, read most naturally, mean that Jesus Christ did die in some special way for his own people and that God with perfect knowledge of the elect saw Christ’s death with respect to the elect in a different way then he saw Christ’s death with respect to everyone else.

Surely it is best not to introduce disjunctions where God himself has not introduced them. Of one holds that the Atonement is sufficient for all and effective for the elect, then both sets of texts and concerns are accommodated. As far as I can see, a text such as 1 John 2:2 states something about the potential breadth of the Atonement. As I understand the historical context, the proto-gnostic opponents John was facing though of themselves as an ontological elite who enjoyed the inside track with God because of the special insight they had received. [Footnote 2: I have defended this as the background, at some length, in my forthcoming commentary on the Johannine Epistles in the New International Greek Testament Commentary (NIGTC).] But when Jesus Christ died, John rejoins, it was not for the sake of, say, the Jews only or, now, of some group, gnostic or otherwise, that sets itself up as intrinsically superior. Far from it. It was not for our sins only, but also for the sins of the whole world. The context, then, understands this to mean something like “potentially for all without distinction” rather than “effectively for all without exception” – for in the latter case all without exception must surely be saved, and John does not suppose that that will take place. This is in line, then, with passages that speak of God’s love in the third sense listed above. But it is difficult to see why that should rule out the fourth sense in the other passages.

In recent years I have tried to read both primary and secondary sources on the doctrine of the Atonement from Calvin on. [Footnote 3: One of the latest treatments is G. Michael Thomas, The extent of the Atonement: A Dilemma for Reformed Theology from Calvin to the Consensus (1536-1675), Paternoster Biblical and Theological Monographs (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1997).] One of my most forceful impressions is that the categories of the debate gradually shift with time so as to force disjunction where a slightly different bit of question-framing would allow synthesis. Correcting this, I suggest, is one of the useful things we may accomplish from an adequate study of the love of God in holy Scripture. For God is a person. Surely it is unsurprising if the love that characterizes him as a person is manifest in a variety of ways toward other persons. But it is always love, for all that.

I argue, then, that both Arminians and Calvinists should rightly affirm that Christ died for all, in the sense that Christ’s death was sufficient for all and that Scripture portrays God as inviting, commanding, and desiring the salvation of all, out of love (in the third sense developed in the first chapter). Further, all Christians ought also to confess that, in a slightly different sense, Christ Jesus, in the intent of God, died effectively for the elect alone, in line with the way the Bible speaks of God’s special selecting love for the elect (in the fourth sense developed in the first chapter).

Pastorally, there are many important implications. I mention only two.

(1) This approach, I content, must surely come as a relief to young preachers in the Reformed tradition who hunger to preach the Gospel effectively but who do not know how far they can go in saying things such as “God loves you” to unbelievers. When I have preached or lectured in Reformed circles, I have often been asked the question, “Do you feel free to tell unbelievers that God loves them?” No doubt the question is put to me because I still do a fair bit of evangelism, and people want models. Historically, Reformed theology at its best has never been slow in evangelism. Ask George Whitefield, for instance, or virtually all the main lights in the Southern Baptist Convention until the end of the last century. From what I have already said, it is obvious that I have no hesitation in answering this question from young Reformed preachers affirmatively: Of course I tell the unconverted that God loves them.

Not for a moment am I suggesting that when one preaches evangelistically, one ought to retreat to passages of the third type (above), holding back on the fourth type until after a person is converted. There is something sleazy about that sort of approach. Certainly it is possible to preach evangelistically when dealing with a passage that explicitly teaches election. Spurgeon did this sort of thing regularly. But I am saying that, provided there is an honest commitment to preaching the whole counsel of God, preachers in the Reformed tradition should not hesitate for an instant to declare the love of God for a lost world, for lost individuals. The Bible’s ways of speaking about the love of God are comprehensive enough not only to permit this but to mandate it. [Footnote 4: Cf. somewhat similar reflections by Hywel R. Jones, “Is God Love?” in Banner of Truth Magazine 412 (January 1998), 10-16.]

(2) At the same time, to preserve the notion of particular redemption proves pastorally important for many reasons. If Christ died for all people with exactly the same intent, as measured on any axis, then it is surely impossible to avoid the conclusion that the ultimate distinguishing mark between those who are saved and those who are not is their own will. That is surely ground for boasting. This argument does not charge the Arminian with no understanding of grace. After all, the Arminian believes that the cross is the ground of the Christian’s acceptance before God; the choice to believe is not in any sense the ground. Still, this view of grace surely requires the conclusion that the ultimate distinction between the believer and the unbeliever lies, finally, in the human beings themselves. That entails an understanding of grace quite different, and in my view far more limited, than the view that traces the ultimate distinction back to the purposes of God, including his purposes in the cross. The pastoral implications are many and obvious.

D. A. Carson, The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God (Wheaton, Ill: Crossway Books, 2000), 73-79.

Warfield on Four-Point Calvinism

2006-02-21T10:19:00.000-05:00

Admittedly, one of the more controversial points of Calvinism has been the “L” in the acrostic TULIP – “Limited Atonement” (otherwise known as Definite Atonement or Particular Redemption). There have been some within the Calvinist tradition that have held to the four-points (TUIP) but not the point on Limited Atonement. B. B. Warfield, professor at Princeton Theological Seminary from 1881 to 1921, wrote a significant critique of the four-point Calvinism espoused by some of his Christian brothers and sisters in his book, The Plan of Salvation (also available online; see chapter on Calvinism).

In his book, Warfield identified those whom today would be called "four-point Calvinists" (i.e. those who hold to universal atonement) as those who, “affected by what they deem the Scriptural teaching concerning the universal reference of the redemption of Christ, and desirous of grounding the universal offer of salvation in an equally universal provision… propose therefore to think of the provision of salvation in Christ as universal in its intent; but to represent it as given effect in its application to individuals by the Holy Spirit only particularistically.”

Warfield continues,

That is to say, they suppose that some, not all, of the divine operations looking to the salvation of men are universalistic in their reference, whereas salvation is not actually experienced unless not some but all of them are operative. As the particular saving operation to which they ascribe a universalistic reference is the redemption of Christ, their scheme is expressed by saying that it introduces the decree of election, in the order of thought, at a point subsequent to the decree of redemption in Christ. They may therefore be appropriately called Post-redemptionists, that is, those who conceive that the decree of election is logically postponed to the decree of redemption. In their view redemption has equal reference to all men, and it is only in the application of this redemption to men that God discriminates between men, and so acts, in this sense, particularistically.”

Four-point Calvinism, or “Post-redemptionism” as Warfield calls it, is also known as “Hypothetical Universalism” or “Amyraldianism,” the name of which is taken from Moses Amyraut (1596-1664), “who first formulated in the Reformed Churches the Post-redemptionist scheme.”

What’s wrong with holding to an unlimited view of the atonement? Warfield answers:

Post-redemptionism…(although it is a recognizable form of Calvinism, because it gives real validity to the principle of particularism), is not therefore necessarily a good form of Calvinism, an acceptable form of Calvinism, or even a tenable form of Calvinism. For one thing, it is a logically inconsistent form of Calvinism and therefore an unstable form of Calvinism. For another and far more important thing, it turns away from the substitutive atonement, which is as precious to the Calvinist as is his particularism, and for the safeguarding of which, indeed, much of his zeal for particularism is due. I say, Post-redemptionism is logically inconsistent Calvinism. For, how is it possible to contend that God gave his Son to die for all men, alike and equally; and at the same time to declare that when he gave his Son to die, he already fully intended that his death should not avail for all men alike and equally, but only for some which he would select (which, that is, because he is God and there is no subsequence of time in his decrees, he had already selected) to be its beneficiaries? But as much as God is God, who knows all things which he intends from the beginning and all at once, and intends all things which he intends from the beginning and all at once, it is impossible to contend that God intends the gift of his Son for all men alike and equally and at the same time intends that it shall not actually save all but only a select body which he himself provides for it. The schematization of the order of decrees presented by the Amyraldians, in a word, necessarily implies a chronological relation of precedence and subsequence among the decrees, the assumption of which abolishes God, and this can be escaped only by altering the nature of the atonement. And therefore the nature of the atonement is altered by them, and Christianity is wounded at its very heart.

The Amyraldians "point with pride" to the purity of their confession of the doctrine of election, and wish to focus attention upon it as constituting them good Calvinists. But the real hinge of their system turns on their altered doctrine of the atonement, and here they strike at the very heart of Calvinism. A conditional substitution being an absurdity, because the condition is no condition to God, if you grant him even so much as the poor attribute of foreknowledge, they necessarily turn away from a substitutive atonement altogether. Christ did not die in the sinner's stead, it seems, to bear his penalties and purchase for him eternal life; he died rather to make the salvation of sinners possible, to open the way of salvation to sinners, to remove all the obstacles in the way of salvation of sinners. But what obstacle stands in the way of the salvation of sinners, except just their sin? And if this obstacle (their sin) is removed, are they not saved? Some other obstacles must be invented, therefore, which Christ may be said to have removed (since he cannot be said to have removed the obstacle of sin) that some function may be left to him and some kind of effect be attributed to his sacrificial death. He did not remove the obstacle of sin, for then all those for whom he died must be saved, and he cannot be allowed to have saved anyone. He removed, then, let us say, all that prevented God from saving men, except sin; and so he prepared the way for God to step in and with safety to his moral government to save men. The atonement lays no foundation for this saving of men: it merely opens the way for God safely to save them on other grounds.

We are now fairly on the basis of the Governmental Theory of the Atonement; and this is in very truth the highest form of doctrine of atonement to which we can on these premises attain. In other words, all the substance of the atonement is evaporated, that it may be given a universal reference. And, indeed, we may at once recognize it as an unavoidable effect of universalizing the atonement that it is by that very act eviscerated. If it does nothing for any man that it does not do for all men why, then, it is obvious that it saves no man; for clearly not all men are saved. The things that we have to choose between, are an atonement of high value, or an atonement of wide extension. The two cannot go together. And this is the real objection of Calvinism to this compromise scheme which presents itself as an improvement on its system: it universalizes the atonement at the cost of its intrinsic value, and Calvinism demands a really substitutive atonement which actually saves. And as a really substitutive atonement which actually saves cannot be universal because obviously all men are not saved, in the interests of the integrity of the atonement it insists that particularism has entered into the saving process prior, in the order of thought, to the atonement.

Suffice it to say, Warfield was an avid defender of "orthodox" five-point Calvinism.

Whitefield to Franklin: Electricity is Nice But You Need to be Born Again

2006-02-01T17:48:00.000-05:00

[Benjamin] Franklin was moved but bemused when George Whitefield, his longtime friend and publishing client, tried to lead him to Christ. "I do not despair of your seeing the reasonableness of Christianity," Whitefield wrote to him in 1740. "Apply to God; be willing to do the divine will, and you shall know it." A decade later Whitefield added that "as you have made a pretty considerable progress in the mysteries of electricity, I would now humbly recommend to your diligent unprejudiced pursuit and study the mystery of the new-birth. . . . One at whose bar we are shortly to appear, hath solemnly declared, that without it, 'we cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.' You will excuse this freedom. I must have aliquid Christi [something of Christ] in all my letters."

[Footnote: Benjamin Franklin, Writings (New York: Library of America, 1987), p. 1408; Whitefield to Franklin, Nov. 26, 1740, Aug. 17, 1752, in Leonard W. Labaree, ed., The Papers of Benjamin Franklin (New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1960), vol. 2, p. 270, vol. 4, p. 343.]

Richard W. Fox, Jesus in America: Personal Savior, Cultural Hero, National Obsession (New York, NY: Harper SanFrancisco, 2004), 124.

Learning the Biblical Languages: Worth the Effort?

2005-12-28T08:37:00.000-05:00

Brian D. Russell from realmealministries.org has written a good piece on the study of biblical languages "as an encouragement to seminarians to persevere and succeed in their language studies."

Here's a short excerpt and outline of his essay, Learning the Biblical Languages: Worth the Effort?

Is it still worth the effort to gain competence in the biblical languages? Are there tangible benefits for the pastor or Bible teacher in the local church?

The answer is a resounding, “Yes!” Direct study of the Bible in its original languages serves as a gateway to a deeper understanding of the Scriptures because it…

1) Promotes Careful Reading
2) Explains Contradictory Translations
3) Serves as a Hedge against Misinterpretation
4) Allows for a More Perceptive Reading of Context
5) Enables One to Access the Best and Most Up-to-Date Resources
6) Models a Missiological principle

(HT: ESV Blog)

For more on the importance of learning the biblical languages, see "The Place of Greek and Hebrew in a Minister’s Education" by Michael H. Burer.

Final Exams Are Over!

2005-12-19T15:17:00.001-05:00

Another semester at seminary has past; definitely one to remember. Highlights include hearing Dr. William V. Crockett tell stories about his debates with Dr. Clark H. Pinnock concerning the nature of hell and about his former professor at Princeton Seminary, Dr. Bruce M. Metzger; and listening to one of my professors (who shall remain nameless) explain how Elijah in 2 Kings 2:11 was actually struck by lightening and swept away by a tornado! No joke.

It wasn’t an easy semester. Along with taking 3 courses I'm working 40 hours a week, have responsibilities in my local church, and - to top it all off - I’m in the process of planning my wedding (coming this April). I don’t know how other bloggers are able to produce such great stuff day after day. I guess I don’t have the gift of blogging. Nevertheless, I hope to blog more frequently this month before next semester resumes. Stay tuned!

Pour Your Sins On Christ

2005-11-23T22:26:00.000-05:00

For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

2 Corinthians 5:21

When we become aware of our sin and frightened by it, we must not allow the sin to remain on our conscience. This would only lead to despair. Rather, just as our awareness of sin flowed to us from Christ, so we must pour our sin back on him to free our conscience.

So be careful you don't become like the misguided people who allow their sin to bite at them and eat at their hearts. They strive to rid themselves of this sin by running around doing good works. But you have a way to get rid of your sins. You throw your sins on Christ when you firmly believe that Christ's wounds and suffering carried and paid for your sins. As Isaiah said, "The Lord has laid all our sins on him" (Isaiah 53:6). Peter said, "Christ carried our sins in his body on the cross" (1 Peter 2:24). And Paul said, "God had Christ, who was sinless, take our sins" (2 Corinthians 5:21).

You must rely on these and similar verses with your whole heart. The more your conscience torments you, the more you must rely on them. For if you don't do this and try to quiet your conscience through your own sorrow and penance, you will never find peace of mind and will finally despair in the end. If you try to deal with sin in your conscience, let it remain there, and continue to look at it in your heart, your sins will become too strong for you. They will seem to live forever. But when you think of your sins as being on Christ and boldly believe that he conquered them through his resurrection, then they are dead and gone. Sin can't remain on Christ. His resurrection swallowed sin up.

– Martin Luther, By Faith Alone, ed. James C. Galvin, trans. Ric Gudgeon, Trudy Krucke Zimmerman, and Gerhard Meske (Iowa Falls, IA: World Bible Publishers, 1998), January 7.

History and Theology

2005-11-02T10:49:00.001-05:00

Recent discussion in my Old Testament class has compelled me to think about the relationship between history and theology. What do we do when certain details in the OT don't match up with the data historians currently have today? Does that negate the truthfulness of Scripture? Should that cause us to question and maybe even abandon our faith? Was the author intending to chronicle history for history's sake or was he aiming to convey a theological truth? Is one more important than the other? Can we have one without the other?

As one who holds to the truthfulness and reliability of Scripture, I find myself struggling with these kinds of questions. I don't want to bank my entire faith, for example, on whether or not modern historians can find evidence for Israel's conquest of Canaan. That isn't what brought me to my knees in repentance and faith; it was the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit who opened my spiritual eyes to see the "the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ" through the gospel (2 Cor. 4:6, ESV).

Let's get one thing straight: faith in and of itself isn't what saves a person. People place their faith on all kinds of things. It is the object and trustworthiness of what/who we believe that makes all the difference in the world. Truth does matter. It matters whether or not what the Bible says happened did in fact happen (taking its literary genres into account of course), especially since the writers themselves base their theological assertions (which we would all agree is the primary reason for their writing in the first place) on historical events - on God's actions in history! If these events did not happen, on what basis can we accept the truthfulness of the theological points they are trying to make?

This is exactly the point that Paul was making to the Corinthians when some of them expressed disbelief in the resurrection of the dead:

Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied (1 Corinthians 15:12-19, ESV).

Does this mean our ultimate authority now becomes modern archaeology and historiography? No. God doesn't ask us to believe in his Word after we can somehow "prove" it is true; rather, he commands us to believe in his Word because he says it's true. Belief in the gospel can only be accomplished through the power of the Holy Spirit convicting our hearts of the truthfulness and trustworthiness of Jesus Christ as revealed in the Bible (John 15:26;16:8).

I like the way Bill T. Arnold and Bryan E. Beyer articulate the relationship between history and theology:

History and Theology [2]

The Bible is more than a history book. It writes history from a decidedly religious perspective. There is no attempt at what we today might call objectivity in modern history writing. The writers are writing what scholars refer to as Heilsgeschichte, or salvation history. This designation distinguishes biblical history from general history, which usually deals with the sequence of human events in the natural sphere. The events of salvation history are supernatural divine revelations in time and space, and recorded in Scripture to promote faith.

The recording of that salvation history is important in biblical faith. The events themselves cannot be recreated and studied firsthand, only the record of the events. So faith must study the events through the written record. Biblical faith, then, assumes the historicity of the events on which the revelation is based. It also asserts the truthfulness of the interpretation of those events, which the Bible presents in written form. The written form itself then becomes an important piece of historical evidence. [3]

Biblical authors frequently appeal to events for validation of their theological points, and they assume the historical accuracy of the events they describe. The factuality of those historical events makes it possible to accept the theological assertions of the Bible as true. Historicity does not prove its theology is true. But historical trustworthiness is necessary in order for the theological assertions to be true because those assertions are based on the events of history.

For example, we may assert that we believe in the Lord of the Old Testament as a gracious and loving God who makes and keeps covenant with his people. That is a theological assertion. But unless Yahweh did in fact make and keep the covenant with the children of Israel, the theological assertion is groundless, regardless of its plausibility. If the history is not true, then the theology based on that history is mere human speculation.

The faith the Bible defines and expresses is explicitly a historical faith. It is rooted and grounded in the historicity of certain past events. Historicity is a necessary ingredient of biblical faith, though not an adequate basis of faith, in and of itself. Faith in the Old Testament is defined in terms of past events, no less so than New Testament faith is rooted in the resurrection (1 Cor 15:12-19).
_________________

[2] Gordon J. Wenham, “History and the Old Testament,” in History, Criticism, and Faith: Four Exploratory Studies, ed. Colin Brown (Downers Grove/Leicester: InterVarsity, 1976), 13-17; V. Philips Long, The Art of Biblical History (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 88-119.

[3] Elmer A. Martens, “The Oscillating Fortunes of ‘History’ within Old Testament Theology,” in Faith, Tradition, and History: Old Testament Historiography in Its Near Eastern Context, ed. A. R. Millard, James K. Hoffmeier, and David W. Baker (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1994), 313-40.

Bill T. Arnold and Bryan E. Beyer, Encountering the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1999), 160-161.

Abraham's Testing Analyzed by Hebrews

2005-09-28T14:50:00.000-04:00

Hebrews 11:17-19 says,

"By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was in the act of offering up his only son, of whom it was said, "Through Isaac shall your offspring be named." He considered that God was able even to raise him from the dead, from which, figuratively speaking, he did receive him back" (ESV).

The author of the book of Hebrews, in verses 17-19 of chapter 11, presents Abraham as a one of the ‘heroes of the faith’ by looking at how he responded to God’s command to sacrifice his son Isaac in Genesis 22:1-12. It was “by faith” that Abraham offered up his “only son.” Though Abraham had a son by Hagar, Ishmael, God had promised that Sarah would give him a son, and through that offspring God would establish his covenant (Gen. 17:9). Therefore, Isaac became his “only son” in the sense that he was “the son of promise.” How could God ask Abraham to kill the son through whom God had promised to establish his covenant and make a great nation? Should God be obeyed in this instance?

Abraham proceeded to do as the Lord commanded and sacrifice his son Isaac because Abraham believed God would still fulfill his promises somehow, even if God had to “raise him [Isaac] from the dead”! That is an amazing statement. The trust Abraham had in God was so great, that although no one had ever been raised from the dead (at least the Bible doesn’t record any resurrections in Genesis or the rest of the Pentateuch for that matter), he believed God was faithful enough that if he did kill his son he would have to bring him back to life in order to come through with his promises. “Figuratively speaking” says the author, he was resurrected since Abraham did receive his son back after God commanded him not to go ahead with the sacrifice.

Abraham is not idealized in Scripture as someone superhuman. He is a human being like us, imperfect and sinful - and the Scriptures won’t try to hide that from us either! God uses ordinary people to accomplish his purposes. All he asks from us is to trust him. May God strengthen our faith.

Praying For God’s Mercy

2005-09-01T10:12:00.000-04:00

Have pity on me, O God, in keeping with your mercy. In keeping with your unlimited compassion, wipe out my rebellious acts.
Psalm 51:1
We naturally think, “I’m frightened by the sight of God, so I can’t look to heaven for help. I know that I’m a sinner and that God hates sin. How can I pray?” With these thoughts, an intense battle begins inside us. Because we know we are sinners, we may think we have to postpone praying until we feel worthy. Or we look for other people to assure us that we have done enough good works to have confidence in our own worthiness. Only then do we pray, “God have mercy on me.” But we were born in sin. If we had to wait until we felt pure and free from all sin before we prayed, we would never pray.
We must shake off these kinds of unchristian thoughts. When surrounded by our own sinfulness – even while drowning in our sins – we should cry out to God, just as David did in this psalm. Then, we won’t have to postpone our prayer. What purpose do the words, “Have pity on me, O God, in keeping with your mercy,” serve if the only people who pray them are pure and don’t need any mercy? No matter how sinful we feel, we must encourage ourselves to cry out to God, “Have mercy!”
I have learned from my own experience that praying is often the most difficult thing to do. I don’t hold myself up as a master prayer. In fact, I admit that I have often said these words coldly: “God, have mercy on me.” I prayed that way because I was worried about my own unworthiness. Yet, ultimately, the Holy Spirit convinced me, “No matter how you feel, you must pray!” God wants you to pray, and he wants to hear your prayers – not because you are worthy, but because he is merciful.

– Martin Luther, By Faith Alone, ed. James C. Galvin, trans. Ric Gudgeon, Trudy Krucke Zimmerman, and Gerhard Meske (Iowa Falls, IA: World Bible Publishers, 1998), September 2.

Weddings and Marriage

2005-07-29T11:52:00.000-04:00

As I prepare for my wedding sometime next year, these words from Dr. Albert Mohler help to bring sanity back to my mind:

We had nothing when we were married. We had to rent a furnished apartment because we couldn't afford to buy any furniture. Our wedding cost lest than most engagement rings cost today. And you know what, none of us are looking back thinking we wish we spent more money on the wedding.
Radio Program: How Do You Know When It’s Time To Get Married? Thursday, July 07, 2005

Imputation and Sanctification

2005-07-27T12:29:00.000-04:00

Why is the doctrine of the imputation of Christ's righteousness important for us to know as we seek to grow in our sanctification? Jerry Bridges explains:

Whenever we seriously contemplate the holiness of God, our natural reaction is to say with Isaiah, “Woe is me, for I am ruined! Because I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty” (Isaiah 6:5).

A serious view of the holiness of God – His own moral perfection and infinite hatred of sin – will leave us, as it did Isaiah, seeing with utter dismay our own lack of holiness. His moral purity serves to magnify our impurity.

Therefore, it is important that we receive the same assurance that Isaiah received: “See … your guilt is taken away and your sin atoned for” (Isaiah 6:7). It is not only at the initial point of salvation that we need this assurance. In fact, the more we grow in holiness, the more we need assurance that the perfect righteousness of Christ is credited to us. This is true because a part of growing in holiness is the Holy Spirit’s making us aware of our need of holiness. As we see this need, it is well for us to always keep in mind the righteousness of Jesus Christ on our behalf, and the fact that “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Corinthians 5:21).

The truth of our acceptance by God through the righteousness of Christ may seem so elementary that you wonder why it is stressed here. It is because we need to dwell on it to thwart the attacks of Satan. The Holy Spirit makes us more aware of our lack of holiness to stimulate us to deeper yearning and striving for holiness. But Satan will attempt to use the Holy Spirit’s work to discourage us.

- Jerry Bridges, The Pursuit of Holiness, in The Practice of Godliness / The Pursuit of Holiness / The Pursuit of Holiness Bible Study (Colorado: Navpress, 2001), 43-44.

Leaving Church Disappointed

2005-07-19T15:24:00.000-04:00

Isn’t it wonderful how people of different races, cultures, and socio-economic backgrounds can come together as believers in Christ and members of the one body to encourage one another in love, to worship God, and to hear God’s Word faithfully and boldly proclaimed as it has been revealed in the Holy Scriptures? Of course it is. That’s why church is so important to me.

But if the preaching in the pulpit goes bad, the worship and fellowship will eventually follow suit. Preaching, which is an act of worship, is vitally essential for the spiritual life and health of the church. It has been my experience that as my knowledge of God increases (through sound biblical preaching/teaching and Bible reading) my desire to worship God and fellowship with him, and my desire to fellowship with my brothers and sisters in Christ also increases.

The Word of God changes and molds the hearts of his people. This should come as no surprise, for “the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12, ESV). That’s why Paul can say to Timothy: “I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word” (2 Timothy 4:1-2, ESV).

And so it distresses me to no end when preachers:

do not expound the text they are preaching from
use a text out of context as a pre-text
scream at the top of their lungs during the entire sermon
do not even mention the gospel or Jesus Christ and yet dare to make “alter calls” at the end of the sermon
need to hear an “amen” from someone every 30 seconds in order to keep preaching
preach on Sanctification without even mentioning the work of Christ in Justification and Regeneration as our ground for pursuing Sanctification

The list could go on, but I digress.

The greatest problem in the world is sin, and the only hope for this dying world is the gospel of Jesus Christ as revealed in Scripture. Preachers, let’s treat the Word of God with the respect and awe it deserves and seek to faithfully proclaim the whole counsel of God to the praise of his glorious grace.

The Faith of Moses: Looking Forward to the Reward

2005-07-08T15:49:00.000-04:00

Moses has been a powerful encouragement to me, in the way he trusted God and in the way God used him. But there is one aspect of his story that has significantly revolutionized my understanding of the Christian life, which is not found in the Exodus, the Pentateuch, or in the rest of the Old Testament; it is found in the book of Hebrews:

By faith Moses, when he was grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter, choosing rather to be mistreated with the people of God than to enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin. He considered the reproach of Christ greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt, for he was looking to the reward (11:24-26, ESV)

The fleeting pleasures of sin can never satisfy the longing of the soul; they never last. But “in [God’s] presence there is fullness of joy; at [his] right hand are pleasures forevermore” (Psalm 16:11). And just as Moses was looking forward to that reward, namely God himself and our enjoyment of him, so too I’ve learned that my ultimate joy can only come from the everlasting God and not the deceitful lies of sin’s pleasures, which in the final analysis can only leave me miserably unsatisfied.

Swiss Reformer Responds to His Critics

2005-06-20T15:48:00.000-04:00

The following quote may come as a surprise to some. It comes from a man who was too often slandered and misunderstood. Not only was this true in his day, it remains true in our day. Hear him as he defends his ministry:

I am also duly clear in my own conscience, and have God and the angels to witness, that since I undertook the office of teacher in the church, I have had no other purpose than to benefit the church by maintaining the pure doctrine of godliness. Yet I think that there is no one who is assailed, bitten, and wounded by more false accusations than I . . . But the devil with his whole troop is deceived if, in overwhelming me with foul lies, he thinks that this indignity will make me more feeble or more pliant. For I trust that God out of his infinite goodness will permit me to persevere with unwavering patience in the path of his holy calling.
– John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, vol. 1, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 4.

Though I might not agree with everything he said or did, I do agree with him on many fundamental issues.

For a basic overview of his life and ministry see "John Calvin: The Man and His Preaching," by Dr. John Piper. "Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith" (Heb. 13:7, ESV).

Show Me The Money!

2005-06-17T21:34:00.000-04:00

Early this morning, as I flipped through TV channels trying to catch today’s news and weather, I stumbled onto the Believer’s Voice of Victory broadcast, a division of Kenneth Copeland Ministries. Against my better judgment I paused to catch a minute or two of the program. I should have known better.

As a part of their “Prosperity Overflow Convention Special” (the name of which was supposedly given to Kenneth Copeland by direct revelation from God), they aired a sermon by Creflo A. Dollar, of Creftlo Dollar Ministries. Here’s how it began: “I believe with all of my heart that God is about to show all the world that it is profitable to serve him.” And, of course, by “profitable” here he means “financially advantageous.” In essence, he's saying that God is going to show the world how much money you can make if you become a Christian! Try that message in your evangelization; you’ll fill churches up in no time! It all pretty much went downhill from there.

I’m going to quote from and comment on a part of the sermon which, let’s just say, left me in a bewildered state, wondering what planet I was on. Just to make sure I wasn’t hallucinating, I located the broadcast on the web and forced myself to watch it again. Here’s the link (Dialup /Broadband). Warning: this broadcast may cause blindness, seizures, shock, and severe drooling; it gets really ugly about 11 mintues into the program.

Here goes:

You need to make a demand on money. Money is not going to come if you don’t make a demand on it. Let me share one more thing with you. If you don’t make a demand on money, money won’t come…

Where does he find biblical support for this?

Philippians 4:19 “But my God shall supply all your need according to his riches in glory by Christ Jesus” (KJV). Now, most people read this and they think, “Well, ok, I have a need, God knows about it, and he’ll take care of it.” That’s not exactly what he’s talking about here. If you’ll look up this word “need,” it’s 5532 in the Strong’s Concordance, one of the definitions is “demand.” “My God shall supply all your demands.” It’s also defined as employment; he’ll supply your affairs, your occasions, your requirement, your business, your lack, your necessity, your needful things. This scripture gives the picture of furnishing what is required. My God shall supply or furnish what is required.

No English translation that I’m aware of uses the word “demand” here. Instead, the word "need" is used. Why is that? The Greek word translated as “need” here in Phillipians 4:19 is chreian (of chreia) which Strong’s defines as “1. necessity, need; 2. duty, business”. The KJV never once translates this word as “demand” in the New Testament. It seems Dr. Dollar has misread Strong’s Concordance and understood "demand" as a legitimate definition for chreia. In fact, the word “demand” doesn’t even show up as a possibility in standard lexicons and Greek-English Dictionaries:

Friberg’s Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament: 1) need, lack, necessity…plural needs, necessities of life (AC 20.34); (2) abstractly what is needed, what is useful (EP 4.29); (3) needful matter, business, duty (AC 6.3)
Louw-Nida's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains, Second Edition: (a) what is needed 57.40 (b) what should be 71.23 (c) needed task 42.22
Newman's A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament: need, necessity …need, want, lack … duty, task, function (Ac 6.3)

This is an excellent example of eisegesis. Are we really to believe that Phillipians 4:19 is telling us that God is going to grant all of our demands? I don't think so. Scripture teaches us no such thing. Dr. Dollar continues:

Now the best way I can show you this is, if you’ve ever visited a Circuit City, where you go and you purchase an item but they have a model there on the floor. You don’t actually get that but you just tare a ticket off. You take that ticket to the counter; you pay whatever the price is on that thing. And then after you’ve paid for it, you got your receipt, you got your ticket – you still don’t have your item yet. You take that ticket at another counter and you place a demand: “here’s my ticket; it’s paid for; now I’m giving you this slip and in exchange I want what I paid for.” Now…it’s not Circuit City’s fault if you decide to take your demand slip and just walk on out and get in your car and leave. The reason why you don’t have what you purchased is because you didn’t go and place a demand – you didn’t place that demand slip for that thing to be filled.

And so he concludes:

Well, that’s what he’s saying here. My God shall supply, he shall supply all of your demands, all of your requirements. You have sown and you have planted and you have given but you have failed to make a demand. You’ve been walking out with the supply slip, the demand slip, in your pocket, and you’re saying, “well, God, how come you didn’t give me this,” he says, “Well, you know, you have the demand slip; make a demand and tell me what you require and I will furnish the supply according to my riches in glory!” I’m telling you right now, a lot of you have sown and you have given and you…you’ve been pressed in financially. But it’s time for you to go before the God of heaven and say, “here’s my demand slip” and give it to him and watch God furnish the supply of what’s needed once you begin to place a demand on that thing…but that’s not going to happen unless you start putting a demand on him.

Yeah. Let’s all go before the Sovereign Lord of the Universe, the Creator of all things, the Almighty and all knowing God and demand that he give us lots and lots of money!

Money comes to me…it’s supposed to come to you. Turn to somebody and say “I’m supposed to be rich!” Turn to somebody else and tell them “I’m supposed to be wealthy!” Now everybody look at me and say “Moneeeeey, cometh, to me, NOW!” Do y’all believe that? Say it again! “Moneeeeey, cometh, to me…” Stand up, stand up! It won’t come unless we put a demand on it …Let’s put a signal out so that our money can find us. You ready? “MONEEEEEY, COMETH, TO ME, NOW!”…Listen, you decree a thing and the bible says that he’ll establish it!

There you have it. He had a congregation of thousands, standing on their feet, yelling "Moneeeeey, cometh, to me, now!" (They prolonged each word in that sentence as they shouted. Those of you who remember seeing Jerry McGuire will be reminded of the scene where Cuba Gooding Jr. demanded Tom Cruise to yell, "Show me the moneeeeey"!) Why yell? Maybe if they scream loud enough God will pick up their "signal." For those who have the stomach for it, just forward the broadcast 11 mintues into the sermon (Dialup /Broadband) and you'll see this spectacle with your own eyes.

Now, if you've read this far or have watched the program for yourself you might need to take a coulple of deep breaths and maybe have a drink of water at this point. And we wonder why sometimes we get strange looks from people when we tell them we’re Christians. They're probably thinking: “Ah, Christians; I’ve seen you types on TV, always talking about money.” What a disgrace to the gospel! That’s why theology matters. This kind of message doesn't save anyone. Instead of gaining believers in the God of the Bible, this message gains converts to some magical genie/cash machine. That isn't the God of the Bible. That's bad theology.

On Becoming a Husband

2005-06-13T13:24:00.004-04:00

These are very exciting times for my fiancée and me as we prepare for a summer wedding, Lord willing, next year. Since our engagement, some of our friends and family members have noted a certain “glow” in our appearance. Well, I don’t know about me, but my fiancée's glow is definitely there! (Though I’d say it has always been there, not as result of our engagement, but as a result of her God-given beauty!) I have been so undeservingly blessed by God that he would grant me such a blessing as this: “He who finds a wife finds a good thing and obtains favor from the LORD” (Proverbs 18:22).

As I meditate on the goodness and mercifulness of God in providentially bringing my fiancée into my life, I can't help but feel the tremendous weight of responsibility of being a godly Christian husband to my bride-to-be. The Bible is not silent on this matter but instead has powerful things to say to husbands and would-be husbands concerning the treatment and care of their wives. Here's a passage from the inspired apostle Paul:

Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband. (Ephesians 5:25-33, ESV)

These words send chills up my spine. To know that God will one day hold me accountable for the way I treat my wife is enough to make my heart stop. Although there's much to comment on here, I'll mention one thing briefly: becoming a husband is no small matter! How different would the world be if husbands sought to obey Ephesians 5? How different would some of our own churches be? I pray that God would help me be the husband he commands me to be. I pray that God would awaken husbands in our churches to heed God's Word to love, nourish, and cherish their wives.