Twenty-First Century Tabletalk

Creativity

2012-01-18T21:38:00.000-06:00

Creativity is impossible to manufacture. More often than not, we just copy the latest trend. That's not to say all copying is wrong. I understand the logic. Why reinvent the wheel? If it works, do it. At some point, though, our copying of the latest trend drones away into uninspiring sameness.

We can see this tendency especially in pop Christianity. Music, preaching, Sunday services, church programs all seem to follow the cookie-cutter mold of what works. Systematic theologies, for instance, seem to take the same scientific approach (try reading Calvin's Institutes and contrast it with some of the newer Systematic Theologies). Popular Christian music's lyrics, music, and vocals all seem to sound the same. Everybody seems to want to sound like their hero preacher. Technology probably makes matters worse. I wonder if information overload makes us more prone to copying what we hear. How can we recover our creativity?

Before the how question can be answered, we should probably address the why. I think creativity makes us better people who live more fulfilling lives, and I'm not talking about fulfilling your Joel Osteen fantasy. Perhaps an example from my workplace might help. I am a programmer. I work with a team of people to convert a program from an old (ancient) platform to a new(er) platform. Each person I work with contributes their ideas on how best to do this conversion project. We certainly copy each other a great deal, but we face challenges along the way that demand unique solutions. As a team and as individuals, we need creativity to make the project go smoothly - to face these challenges. If we restrict ourselves too much to one way of thinking, I do not believe the project would go as smoothly or the end product would be as strong.

Christianity especially makes creativity difficult - even heresy is difficult to create nowadays (I mean is Love Wins really all that creative anyways?). For instance, a creative pen toward the doctrine of the Trinity is not well looked upon and shouldn't be. Yet, I think we should examine doctrine with a critical eye. We will often rediscover the truth of a particular doctrine, but maybe the process of rediscovery has given us a new way to communicate its content. At other times, we may find that contemporary understanding of the issue is wrong, and we can work to correct that understanding. Either way, we can enrich our lives and the lives of others through this process.

Creativity is difficult work for me. I have three ways that I've tried to promote creative thinking in my own life. First, I try to really know the subject. The more I know the subject the more I am able to look at the issue in different ways. While I do depend on people I agree with, I try to keep an open mind toward those I don't agree with. They may ultimately have the wrong the conclusion, but at least they approach the issue differently than those I depend upon the most. In my recent study of Romans 1, I found that I agreed most with Douglas Moo's approach to the chapter. Carson and Morris did not deviate much from Moo so I gleaned less from them than I did from Dunn though I disagreed with him more. The more I read, the more I felt like like I understood the subject and I was able to formulate my own thoughts.

Secondly, I don't limit my interests to one field of study. My passion is the Bible (theology, the languages, hermeneutics, etc.), but I've tried to make sure that I listen to good music, read good books, watch good movies. I try to understand the content as well as the medium through which the content was communicated. Oftentimes, the medium is the creative part. Honestly, I feel like I'm more of an admirer of good work than I am a producer. But engaging with these creative works helps me to think that way when it comes to studying my passion.

Thirdly, I have no delusions of grandeur. As high as my standards are, I'm sure I have reinvented the wheel several times in my journey towards creativity. Though creativity comes naturally to some people, I understand that I will have to work hard. I am in a constant evaluation mode. My goal is to get better at thinking and communicating.

I want to be able to find ways to creatively communicate my thoughts (hopefully creative ones) to others. I want to be able to find ways to make an art of my science. I can't paint like van Gogh. I can't write like C.S. Lewis. I can't speak like Martin Luther King Jr. Then again, I don't want to.

A New Blog

2011-12-28T10:10:00.002-06:00

Hello all. I hope you had a merry Christmas and I also hope that you have a Happy New Year. I just wanted to let you know that I have started blogging over at ἐνθύμησις. That doesn't mean I won't continue posting here!

The Descent Motif of Philippians 2:5-11

2011-12-23T22:56:00.000-06:00

You will certainly find that Philippians 2:5-11 describes Christ's deity, incarnation, death, and exaltation and is extremely important for Christology. One should not neglect, however, how Paul is using the hymn to encourage the Philippians to proper living as citizens in God's kingdom (Phil 1:27). They are to have the same attitude as Christ (2:5)

Who because he is in the form of God
Did not think to take advantage of
The divine equality he possessed
But rather he emptied himself
By taking the form of a slave
By being born as a man
And having been found as a man
He further humbled himself
By being obedient as far as death
Even as far as a wretched death on a cross
Therefore, God did indeed highly exalt him
That is, he gave him the name above all names
For this two-fold purpose: that in honor of the name of Jesus
Every knee of heaven and earth and under the earth shall bow
And every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is LORD
To the glory of God the Father.

We can see that the hymn begins with the picture of Christ in a high position (equality with God). Then, He emptied himself. He who is in the form of God took the form of a man. Then, He humbled himself. As a man, he did not stop at the incarnation. He became obedient even as far as dying the shameful death on the cross. We can see that Christ stoops to the lowest point that anyone could ever go. At that point, God "super exalts" Christ to the highest position. The focus shifts to the name that Christ receives. He is YHWH, and all things are subjected to him.

Paul intends the Philippians to take Christ as their example. Christians should walk the way of humility. I have been thinking about this passage in Scripture for a while now (I had to write a term paper on it). This lesson has been a difficult one for me to learn especially since I have had the opportunity to learn more about theology, languages, philosophy, etc. than perhaps most Christians have opportunity to learn. As I reflect on this passage, for me to take pride in what I learn is silly for two reasons. One, how can I take pride in something that is a gift of God. Scripture is God-breathed, and God had to give me a new heart before I even would accept it. I have Scripture, believe it, study it, understand it all because of what God did. Two, Christ's act of self-humiliation as Paul presents it in Philippians simply leaves no room for self boasting. Humility is our way of life as Christians.

I am comforted to know that God gives grace to people like me who struggle with this kind of weakness. I am thankful for the strength he gives me to endure the struggles of pride in my life. And I am thankful that I have to strive be as humble as my Savior who is much humbler than I am and exalt my Lord who is always worthy of my praise.

Childs's Thoughts on Heilsgechichte

2011-12-16T21:19:00.001-06:00

Over the past few days, I've been reading the Prolegomena of Childs's 700+ page volume on Biblical Theology. Childs has a way of writing that is almost nourishing to the mind. I'm only 16 pages into the book and can't help but feel refreshed every time I pick it up. Thus far, he has been outlining sort of a history of approaches to Biblical theology while providing thought-provoking commentary along the way. The section he has just dealt with is the "History of Redemption" (i.e the Heilsgechichte) approach. This approach to a certain degree has been fairly popular within Evangelicalism, and I think one of Childs's critiques can appropriately address the Evangelical approach to "History of Redemption." I'll try to be brief and at the risk of being wrong, propose a couple of solutions that may help to mitigate these problems with the Heilsgechichte approach.

We should continue to contend that Christianity is a historical faith. If we do not, if our faith is not firmly planted in the truth, in the fact that the events of the Bible actually happened, we risk falling into subjectivism. We should continue to fight the battle of the veracity of Scripture. When Biblical theology is the matter at hand, we need to be careful how we factor history into interpretation. One of Child's critiques is that the Heilsgechichte approach, because it seeks to unify the OT and NT by tracing the thread of God's unfolding plan of redemption, can in some circles focus too much on the event rather than the text itself. While I think Childs is directing his criticism against a type of critical scholarship which depends upon the reconstruction of the event behind text, Evangelicals should be careful not to read the text of Scripture as a superficial retelling of an event. This approach can obfuscate the meaning of the text because it's not paying attention to the way the author puts the text together. What I find interesting is that we can focus on what Jesus or David say but spend less time trying to understand what Luke or the author of Samuel are doing with their texts.

The other side of this critique is that we pitch our tents of interpretive focus at the end of the history of God's plan. Our time spent in the New Testament by far outweighs our time spent in the Old. Could this partially be due to our view of the Bible as the "History of Redemption?" The entire Biblical story certainly points to Christ. The Old Testament eagerly anticipates the redemption wrought through Christ. Once we see Christ's face on the pages of the New Testament, how do we evaluate the value of the Old? Is it merely a prequel to the main story? I think the answer is that the Old Testament fills the New with meaning. While the New reveals Christ's face, the Old provides a depth to Christ's character and person. We know what redemption, messiah, salvation, sin, etc is because the Old Testament teaches us how to think of those terms properly. The New Testament does as well, but as I have read the New Testament, I have come to realize how thoroughly fluent it is with Old Testament language. The New assumes you know the Old, and so we should work hard to understand the Old.

I'm not saying we should throw the concept of the "History of Redemption" under the bus. I am saying that the unity between the testaments is at its base the text of Scripture - not the events it reports. As we learn how the authors are using their texts, we will grow in our knowledge of the depth of God's wisdom that the Old and the New Testaments together provide us.

A linguistic approach to studying biblical languages: a student's perspective

2011-11-10T21:12:00.002-06:00

I know that linguistics is a broad field, and I do not intend give an overview. Nor can I speak authoritatively on the benefits of taking a linguistic approach to studying Greek and Hebrew. I can only tell you about how it has benefited me as a student of these languages. Linguistics is a scientific and descriptive study of a spoken language. Beginning with phonemes (identifiable sounds within a language), linguistics builds upwards toward syntax. Such a study of a language or a family of languages can greatly enhance one's view of a that language.Furthermore, I only intend to focus on morphology and phonology. I hope this sketch will whet your appetite and encourage you to incorporate linguistic categories in your language studies.

We are often told in beginning grammar that changes in the way the word is pronounced is due to certain "rules" which of course, must be memorized. Beginning at the phonemic level, we can begin to understand why those sound changes occur. For instance, the difference between the suffix "s" in the English words "buzzes" and "flats" is that in "buzzes" the "s" sounds like a "z" rather than the sound we normally associate with "s." The change in pronunciation is due to the vowel "e" in "buzzes" - it requires use of the vocal chords. When pronounce the "e" next to the "s" you are still using your vocal chords, so you make the "z" sound. (Put your hand over your Adam's apple, pronounce "s" then "z" then pronounce "buzzes" then "flats", you should be able to tell the difference).

Now, this may seem trivial, but when you see the word (present tense) εχω go to (future tense with rough breathing mark which makes an "h" sound) εξω, you would understand the change not as a rule but because as a result of the combination of sounds. (The rough breathing mark does not occur in the present because the χ (ch like in Bach) makes a similar sound to the (h). It reappears in the future because the χ is replaced with the ξ (sounds like x) allowing the rough breathing mark to reappear).

Morphology is equally if not more complex than phonology. This field deals with larger units called morphemes. We can identify two types of morphemes: bound and unbound. Unbound morphemes can stand on their own, but the bound morphemes must be attached to another morpheme. Take the English word "dogs." "Dog" is an unbound morpheme, and "s" (the marker for plurality) is the bound morpheme. The Hebrew word קטלי also exhibits this behavior קטל is the unbound morpheme and י (The first common singular ending) is the bound morpheme. In Hebrew מ is often a nominal marker (e.g. שכן means "to dwell" and משכן means "dwelling place"). Greek also exhibits complex morphological behavior. The word λελαληκα has 3 morphemes. The perfective morpheme λε, the lexical morpheme λαλε, and the aspect morpheme κα. If know how the morphology of a language works, it can help you to identify a word and it's function in a sentence.

Phonology and morphology should not be separated from semantics or syntax. They can, however, help those who study the languages make sense of a language. The closer we can get to thinking in a language the closer we are to understanding it. I have two recommendations for further reading - one for Greek and one for Hebrew. For Greek students, please read David Alan Black's Linguistics For Students Of New Testament Greek . For the Hebrew learner, pick up Joshua Blau's Phonology and Morphology Of Biblical Hebrew. Even if you have a good grasp on the languages, these books will fill in gaps. Enjoy your learning!

Love of the Word

2011-11-04T19:27:00.004-05:00

Wednesday marked the end of a four month trek through Hebrew Grammar I at Cary Alliance Church. The class began with 8 individuals from the local church and the surrounding community. The cost of the class was the purchase price of the Grammar. No external motivations were given. We gave no grades, no quizzes, no tests. "Homework" consisted of memorizing vocabulary, a couple of exercises out of the book and the charge to do as much extra practice as the student desired. As the size of the class slowly dwindled, the form of the class became rather concrete. We met, discussed questions and concerns regarding the previous week's lesson, went over the current week's lesson, recited vocabulary, and we spent the last 45 minutes of the class reading the Hebrew and sight translating.

By the time the last class concluded, three students remained. While I recognize that a 37.5% success rate doesn't seem to be too impressive, remember that these students were no compelled by an academic requirement that required this class for graduation nor were they compelled by a grade received at its conclusion. Instead, each truly possess a love for the Old Testament scriptures and a desire to know them better. This is what caused them to persevere through my shoddy attempt to teach Hebrew Grammar.

Rodney, Christine and Ingrid, thank you for worshipping together with me over the past 4 months. Thank you your discipline and the example you have set for me to persevere in my own knowledge and love of the scriptures. If only everyone in seminary, those who desire to serve in a "full-time" teaching capacity, had the discipline and desire of you three.

No Exceptions to the Westminster Standards? I don't believe you!

2011-10-13T09:27:00.002-05:00

I recently attended a presbytery meeting in a conservative Presbyterian denomination where four or five men were examined for ordination to the ministry. In the process, they were asked if they took any exceptions to the Westminster Standards (WCF, WLC, WSC). An exception is usually understood as a substantial disagreement with any proposition found in the documents. Not to my surprise but certainly to my dismay, all the candidates took no exceptions--and I don't believe them.

Jason Stellman over at his blog has recently pointed out this same unfortunate phenomena of candidates not taking any exceptions, when most, if they had studied the standards more carefully, would have surely taken at least one exception. For example, do all those who took no exception to the Westminster Standards really believe that, "This covenant of grace is frequently set forth in Scripture by the name of a testament, in reference to the death of Jesus Christ the Testator?" Are these candidates aware that almost no scholar in biblical or systematic theology believes this any longer? Yet they do? Really?

Charles Hodge, in his argument against a type of subscription which demanded subscription to every proposition writes,

If the rule that no man should be allowed to exercise the ministry in our church, who did not adopt every proposition contained in the Confession of Faith, should be carried out, we verily believe we should be left almost alone. We are not sure that we personally know a dozen ministers besides ourselves, who could stand the test. (Charles Hodge, "Adoption of the Confession of Faith" The Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review 30:4 (1858): 686)

But lo-and-behold, at one presbytery meeting all four or five men took no exception to any proposition found in the Westminster Standards? I'm sorry, but I will not be convinced that the PCA or OPC is all that more conservative than the Presbyterianism found in the mid-19th century, even while fully acknowledging all the mid-19th c. problems which led to the Old-school/new school split.

So for the love of virtue and honesty--take an exception.

John Davenant and Hypothetical Universalism Part 7

2011-08-31T21:00:00.003-05:00

In the last post, we looked at how Davenant defends the first proposition by means of various Scripture texts. Davenant's first proposition is that,

The death of Christ is represented in holy Scripture as an universal remedy, by the ordinance of God, and the nature of the thing itself, applicable for salvation to all and every individual of mankind. (340-341)

Davenant continues his defense of this proposition by way of syllogistic argumentation. Specifically, Davenant lays out eight arguments in support of proposition one. Davenant follows standard Aristotilian logic by setting out various syllogisms taking the form of:

Major Premise: All men are mortal (all M are P)
Minor Premise: Soctates is a man (S is M)
Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates is mortal (S is P)

Argument 1:

Davenant's first argument, following the above syllogistic format, goes something like:

Major Premise: "That death which brings some spiritual advantages even to those who are not saved, is not applicable to the elect alone"
Minor Premise: "but the death of Christ brings advantages even to some who will not be saved"
Conclusion: "the death of Christ, as to some of its effects at least, is not only applicable to all men generally, but is actually applied to some who will not be saved."

Davenant reminds his readers that "the death of Christ" mentioned in the major and minor premises refers to "all that accumulation of the meritorious obedience of Christ, to which his death put as it were the last finish." The key assumption Davenant is making is that "it is this infinite merit of the Mediator Christ, which God the Father beholds, when he bestows any spiritual benefit upon lost and miserable mortals in order to eternal salvation." [Italics mine]

Davenant recognizes that the minor premise, hinging as it does on the assumption above, is that which clearly needs defending for his argument to bear scrutiny. Accordingly, Davenant appeals first to the proclamation of the Gospel as a spiritual benefit derived from the "infinite merit of the Mediator Christ." So, Davenant asks, "is it not to be esteemed of considerable advantage, that God should deign to call many even of the non-elect to repentance and faith, and, under the condition of faith, to eternal life?" Davenant notes that Titus 2:11 calls the preaching of the Gospel, "the grace of God [which] has appeared that offers salvation." Further, God calls the

preaching of the Gospel, a treasure (2 Cor. iv. 7), and pronounces the feet of them that preach the Gospel beautiful (Rom. x. 15), and threatens the taking it away as the greatest punishment (Matt. xxi. 43), and declares that they shall be most severely punished who have despised and rejected this so great benefit. Luke x. 11, and 2 Thess. i. 8. All these things shew that the Gospel is a supernatural benefit granted even to those who abuse it. (252-253)

Davenant, not content to rest his argument merely on the ground that the preaching of the Gospel is a spiritual benefit given to some of the non-elect, appeals to the famous Hebrews 6 passage which speaks of those "great and supernatural benefits" such as an enlightened mind and a taste of the heavenly gift--all given to many who are unbelievers (or non-elect). These benefits, according to Davenant, are "given through and for the sake of Christ." Davenant apparently see the gifts in Hebrews 6 as the same spiritual gifts promised to believers, appealing e.g. to John 1:16 and 1 Cor. 12:11 which says that spiritual gifts are given "by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills."

Francis Turretin, somewhat surprisingly (seeing he is a high Calvinist), argues that the problem between the "[Hypothetical] Universalists" and his own view does not respect whether the death of Christ brings "many blessings" to reprobates.

We do not inquire whether the death of Christ gives occasion to the imparting of many blessings even to reprobates. For it is due to the death of Christ that the Gospel is preached to every creature, that the gross idolatry of the heathen has been abolished from many parts of the world, that the daring impiety of men is greatly restrained by God's word and that some often obtain many and excellent (though not saving) gifts of the Holy Spirit. All these unquestionably flow from the death of Christ, since no place would have been given for them in the church unless Christ had died. (Turretin, Institutes, 2:459 (XI)).

In other words, Turretin would seem to agree with the Davenant's minor premise. At the meetings of the Synod of Dort, the British Delegates write and argue that,

there are sundry initial preparations tending to Conversion, merited by Christ, and dispensed in the preaching of the Gospel, and wrought by the Holy Ghost in the hearts of many that never attain to true Regeneration or Justification, such as Illuminatio [en: Illumination], & Notitia dogmatum fidei [en: knowledge of the dogmas of faith], Fides Dogmatica [en: dogmatic faith], Sensus peccati [en: a sense of sin], Timor poenae [en: a fear of punishment], Cogitatio de liberatione [en: the thought of deliverance], Spes veniae [en: hope of pardon], &c. An evident example whereof may be seen in them that sin against the Holy Ghost, Heb. VI & X. And consequently we hold, that the whole merit of Christ is not confined to the Elect only, as some here do hold, and was held in Colloq. Hag. [Conference at the Hague (1611)] by the Contra-Remonstrants. (Quoted in Milton, The British Delegation, 219)

Interestingly, the question of whether or not "whatever supernatural grace is given through Christ to any man, is given from the merit of Christ" was a debated point among Reformed scholars in Davenant's time. E.g., Samuel Ward, an English contemporary of Davenant and a fellow delegate to the Synod of Dort, wrote to James Ussher complaining that, "some of us [i.e. the English delegates to Dort] were held by some [as] half remonstrants, for extending the oblation made to the Father, to all; and for holding sundry effects thereof offered serio [en: seriously], and some really communicated to the reprobate." (Ibid., xliv). As an aside, the British delegates, as a whole, believed that this latter affirmation (viz. "sundry effects...really communicated to the reprobate" gained ground upon the Remonstrant's denial of perseverance of the saints, "and thereby easily repell[ed], not only their instances of Apostasie [sic], but also their odious imputation of illusion in the general propounding of the Evangelical Promises." (ibid., 217).

James Walker, the 19th c. Scottish Free-Church historian, also notes that the question of whether certain benefits are purchased by Christ for the reprobate was not new for Scottish Presbyterianism.

[The] scheme that Christ had purchased 'common benefits,' the ordinary temporal blessings of life, and that it is through His grace that the world is sustained as it is, and that all its bounties are enjoyed by mankind...[has] at different times and in different forms...been debated in the Scottish churches. [James] Durham has an essay, in which he considers whether any mercy bestowed upon the reprobate, and enjoyed by them, may be said to be the proper fruit of, or purchase of, Christ's death. And he answers decisively in the negative. The native fruits of Christ's death, he says, are not divided, but they all go together. So that for whom He satisfied and for whom He purchased anything in any respect, He did so in respect of everything. There may be certain consequences of Christ's death of an advantageous kind which reach wicked men. But that is a mere accident. Nay, to the wicked there may be given common gifts, by which the Church is edified and the glory of the Lord advanced; but these belong to the covenant redemption, as promised blessings to God's people. It is argued further, that it is very doubtful whether, looked at in every point of view, it can well be said that it is a blessing to men who yet reject the Son of God, that they have the morally purifying influences of Christianity, and are more or less affected by them in their character, or by any such blessing as can be said to fall from the tree of life. So, too, thought Gillespie, and so thought Rutherford. (Walker, The Theology and Theologians of Scotland, 50-51)

In other words, Durham et al would have denied that the merit of Christ purchases benefits (albeit, common grace benefits) for the non-elect. Davenant may have retorted to someone like Durham by claiming that, "Christ does not confer any thing upon men which he hath not first merited for them by his obedience" including those spiritual blessings spoken of in Hebrews 6 which the reprobate receive. In defending this claim, Davenant appeals to Bernard of Clairvaux as stating that "whatsoever wisdom, whatsoever virtue you think you have, attribute it to Christ, the virtue of God, the wisdom of God. The source of fountains and rivers is the sea : the source of virtue and knowledge is our Lord Jesus Christ." (Cf. Bernard, Sermon 13 on the Song of Songs, Para. 1). Furthermore, Ambrose stated that, "every gift of the grace of God is in Christ." Thus, a common grace gift is from Christ also.

Another argument in support of the question of whether the death of Christ is applicable to the non-elect comes from Davenant's understanding of the early church's teaching that the "death of Christ was applied in baptism for the remission of original sin to every baptised infant." Davenant claims that this opinion can be confirmed by way of Prosper, the African Fathers in their Synodical Epistle, and the Council of Valence (5th Canon).

Argument 2:

The second argument employed by Davenant in defense of proposition #1 follows the following syllogistic pattern:

Major Premise: "He who by undergoing death by the ordination of God sustained the punishment due not only to the sins of certain individual persons, but of the whole human race; His passion, by virtue of the same ordination, is applicable not only to certain definite persons, but to every individual of the human race."
Minor Premise: "But Christ by dying sustained the punishment due to the sins of the world"
Conclusion: "Therefore, he willed that his death should be, as it were, an universal cause of salvation applicable to all."

Davenant begins by stating that the person who finds the major premise unsound must "shew why God willed that his Son should bear the sins of the human race, if he was unwilling to appoint in his death a cause at least applicable to the human race, although the application would not follow in many." Davenant sees the cause of God in offering Christ as a propitiation even for those who would not believe as proceeding from the pleasure of "the Divine goodness and wisdom to exact from our Redeemer, and as it were to receive into his own hands, an universal ransom applicable to all."

Davenant lists three other causes for Christ's death for all men. First, that the "liberty of the Divine will" might be made more manifest (in applying the remedy to those whom he wills by divine election). Second, "That he might afford a specimen of great mercy" towards the non-elect who are in the Church. Finally, that unbelievers may be convinced that God had provided a remedy which was not wanting with respect to their sins, but they still are not willing to come (cf. John 5:40).

In his defense of the minor premise, Davenant appeals to Isaiah 53:6. Further, he quotes Prosper, the disciple of Augustine, who said that "the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ is the ransom of the whole world, from which they are excluded, who, either being delighted with their captivity are unwilling to be redeemed..." Davenant also mentions the second article of the Church of England's Thirty-Nine Articles which states that, "[Christ] truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, to reconcile his Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for all actual sins of men." (Cf. Art. 31 of the 39 Articles)

Finally, Davenant seems to leave the most 'air-tight' testimony as his last. Davenant quotes Paraeus, the chief disciple of Ursinus (whom Richard Muller has claimed to be a hypothetical universalist), as writing in a letter to the Synod of Dort,

The cause and matter of the passion of Christ was the sense and sustaining of the anger of God excited against the sin, not of some men, but of the whole human race; whence it arises, that the whole of sin and of the wrath of God against it was endured by Christ, but the whole of reconciliation was not obtained or restored to all. Act. Synod. Dordrect. p. 217. (quoted in Davenant, 356)

Davenant understands this quote of Paraeus as affirming:

He who willed and ordained that Christ the Mediator should sustain the wrath of God due to the sins not of certain persons, but of the whole human race. He willed that this passion of Christ should be a remedy applicable to the human race, that is, to each and every man, and not only to certain individual persons; supreme power being nevertheless left to himself, and full liberty of dispensing and applying this infinite merit according to the secret good pleasure of his will. (356)

If it is accurate, as Richard Muller asserts in his review of Jonathan Moore's book on English Hypothetical Universalism, namely, that Ursinus was a hypothetical universalist, and if Davenant has conclusively proved (and other historians have since confirmed) from the quote above that Paraeus, Ursinus' chief disciple, was a hypothetical universalist, then what shall we say about the Heidelberg Catechism authored chiefly by Ursinus? Is it positing a hypothetical universalist position in question 37?:

Question 37. What dost thou understand by the words, "He suffered"?
Answer: That he, all the time that he lived on earth, but especially at the end of his life, sustained in body and soul, the wrath of God against the sins of all mankind: that so by his passion, as the only propitiatory sacrifice, he might redeem our body and soul from everlasting damnation, and obtain for us the favour of God, righteousness and eternal life. [italics mine]

Argument 3:

Major Premise: "Whoever from the ordination of God may be called to believe in the Mediator, and they who by believing may obtain eternal life, to them the death of Christ from the previous ordination of God is applicable for salvation"
Minor Premise: "But every living person may be called to believe in the Mediator, and by believing, according to the evangelical covenant, may obtain eternal life"
Conclusion: "Therefore, the death of Christ is applicable to every living person."

Davenant begins by explaining that the connection between the antecedent and consequent found in the major premise is, "that a real call to believe presupposes an object prepared in which to believe, and this very possibility of being saved by believing implies a saving object, that is, That the death or merit of Christ was ordained as a remedy applicable to him to whom such a benefit is promised under the condition of faith."

This argument is not unique to Davenant. One of the chief concerns for the moderate Calvinist was the need for an object to which a sinner may be called to believe. If Christ is not applicable to all sinners, then all sinners cannot be called to believe in Christ. The connection in the major premise, for Davenant, is absolutely crucial.

The second premise, the minor, is a truth which Davenant thinks all orthodox Christians ought to concede. Although Davenant recognizes that the Gospel message will not, by God's providence, be proclaimed to all men, he nonetheless argues that,

God himself has appointed that the Gospel should be a thing really to be announced to all...If any one preacher could go over the whole world, and come to every individual mortal, it would be lawful for him to offer Christ to every man, and, under the condition of faith, to announce and promise salvation to be obtained through Christ...[the death of Christ] would not be sufficient to save all, even if all should believe, unless it be true that by the ordination of God this death is an appointed remedy applicable to all. If it be denied that Christ died for some persons, it will immediately follow, that such could not be saved by the death of Christ, even if they should believe. (357-358)

At this point, Davenant raises an apparent objection, an objection most high Calvinists have raised against the hypothetical universalist position, namely:

That God has not commanded his ministers to announce that Christ died for every individual, whether they believe or not, but only for believing and penitent sinners, and therefore it cannot be demonstrated from the universality of the call, that the death of Christ is, according to the ordination of God, an universal remedy applicable to all. (358)

However, Davenant finds this reasoning absurd. For "faith is not previously required in mankind, as a condition, which makes Christ to have died for them," but faith is the means of actually appropriating the (saving) benefits of the death of Christ to oneself. Davenant concludes his third argument by asserting that "when therefore we announce to any one, that the death of Christ would profit him if he believed, we presume that it was destined for him, as applicable before he believed."

Argument 4:

Major Premise: "If all men, as soon as the doctrine of the Gospel concerning Christ the Redeemer enduring death on account of the sins of mankind, is made known to them, are bound to be grateful and obedient to Christ, then it is certain that this work of the Redeemer in offering himself as a sacrifice to God, is to be considered as a benefit generally applicable to all; for there is no cause why we should say that they are bound to gratitude, or to the duties of obedience, on account of the death of Christ, who are altogether excluded from that benefit"
Minor Premise: "But an Apostle testifies that every man may be excited to obedience by this argument."
Conclusion: "[Therefore], unless the death of Christ be understood as a remedy applicable to all, the foundation on which the ministers of the Gospel build exhortations of this kind, will be always uncertain, and often false: Always uncertain, because it cannot be known by men who are the elect. Often false, as often indeed as it is exhibited to the non-elect, who by this kind of redemption are not bound to live to Christ, unless it be presupposed that the sacrifice offered by Christ for the redemption of the world was for them."

Davenant defends the minor premise by way of 1 Cor. 6:20 and 2 Cor. 5:15. Davenant even argues that Christ may not claim supreme dominion over each and every man by right of his death as Rom. 14:9 seems to suggest, unless the merit of Christ be applicable to all according to God's ordination.

Again, in conclusion, Davenant suggests that, "we ought, to extend his death to all, at least as to the right and power of a saving application," though acknowledging that "the Spirit of Christ (who bloweth where he listeth) gives to men the faculty and will of applying, as well as the benefit of the death applied, according to the decree of his special mercy."

Thoughts On Biblical Narrative

2011-08-30T21:40:00.004-05:00

I don't think I'm saying anything new or particularly insightful. I figured I would just share what I've been thinking about lately:

Perhaps the greatest challenge to a modern audience is to realize the Bible is both literature and history. I do not think we should try to separate the two. I think part of the problem is that we see accuracy and fact tied up with scientific precision. The biblical writers, however, do not write with the precision we would expect (they do not contain direct quotes, stories are not always ordered chronologically, etc). Each writer selects, arranges, and adapts his material to convey meaning. In doing so, they write with great degree of accuracy - revealing the theological and historical reality of each event in a way that only well-written literature can do.

I think that reading and understanding Scripture is much like learning to speak. As we read, we build a grammar and vocabulary for understanding the Biblical language. We are like children learning to think, read, and speak. The act of reading allows us to learn the grammar and syntax of Scripture so that we may see the devices that the author uses. The use of words and phrases, breaking with genre, and the arranging of material are a part of the language that the author uses to convey the event and its meaning to his readers.

More importantly, the author challenges us to evaluate the window through which we see the world through the Biblical framework. The Bible confronts us as a lion his prey. With great force, it devours our false conceptions of the world in which we live. The story of the Fall is not about a snake and “apple” but conveys perverseness of human sin. The stories of the Patriarchs are not just stepping stones to the Messiah but reveal the depth of God’s faithfulness and steadfast love upon which found God’s salvific acts. Israel’s continual rebellion is not just an example for us but an illustration of God’s patience and mercy and the need for the circumcision of the heart. Jesus is not just the miracle working man who dies and is resurrected, but Israel’s representative who succeeds where Israel fails mediating the blessings of the covenant to those who have faith. Paying close attention to author’s usage of language and literary devices allows us to see these things in vivid colors.

We have no need to exact a postmodern, relativistic, “what this means to me” attitude when it comes to interpretation of Scripture. C.S. Lewis once said, “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the Sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.” Scripture is God’s light which teaches to see the world as it is and live in it as we should. For this reason, let us aspire together to understand the biblical narrative for through it we can understand reality.

John Davenant and Hypothetical Universalism Part 6

2011-08-03T15:28:00.006-05:00

In the last post, we began to survey Davenant's explanation of proposition #1. This proposition asserts that

The death of Christ is represented in holy Scripture as an universal remedy, by the ordinance of God, and the nature of the thing itself, applicable for salvation to all and every individual of mankind. (340-341)

Exposition of Davenant's Dissertation:

In the next section, but still in defense of the first proposition, Davenant turns to what he calls "the testimony," appealing to the Scriptures. The first Scripture text, not surprisingly, is John 3:16. The text, according to Davenant teaches (1) Christ as given by the Father to death is proposed as an universal remedy for the whole world. (2) The death of Christ is declared applicable to salvation to every man. (3) The condition or means of application is through belief.

Davenant is aware that some relegate the use of "world" in this verse as referring to the whole body of the elect (i.e. those who will believe in Christ), but Davenant responds by asserting that although "the death of Christ brings salvation eventually to the elect alone...it cannot be inferred that it was not a remedy applicable to others, and by the ordination of God to be applied, if they should believe." Davenant illustrates the point he wishes to make:

Suppose that all the inhabitants of a certain city laboured under some epidemic and mortal disease; that the king sent to them an eminent physician furnished with a most efficacious medicine, and caused it to be publicly proclaimed, that all should be cured that were willing to make use of this medicine. Doubtless, we might truly say of this king, that he so loved that city, as to send his own most skillful physician to it; that all who were willing to attend to his advice, and take his medicine, should not die, but recover their former health. But if any should object that this physician was sent only to those should follow his prescriptions, and that his medicine was applicable by the appointment of the king only to those who were willing to take it, he would in reality not only make the beneficence of the king appear less illustrious, but affirm what was evidently false. For medical assistance was offered to all, without any previous condition on the part of the person sent, or of the sick; healing medicine applicable to all without exception was provided. The willingness to receive the physician and take the medicine had no connection with the intention of the Sovereign in sending the medical assistance, but with the certain restoration of health. (344-345)

According to Davenant,

Our faith therefore is required not merely to assent to the proposition, that God has given or ordained his Son to be a remedy for us, but that being given and ordained, He should be received by us to the obtaining of eternal life. (345)

The second Scripture text that Davenant appeals to in support of the first proposition is John 3:17-18 annexed to John 12:47-48. Davenant argues that in these texts we see that the Son of God was sent by the Father to be an universal remedy for the whole world. Again, Davenant argues against taking the "world" in these passages as the "world of the elect." Davenant claims that "this world" into which Christ was sent included both believers and those who would continue in unbelief (non-elect). Second, Christ was sent to those who will be condemned on the last day. Third, those who are declared to be condemned are condemned on the ground that "they have not believed in the only begotten Son of God, or, because they have rejected him." It is perspicuous enough that Christ "was offered to them by God, and sent to save them."

The third testimony from the Scriptures offered in support of Davenant's argument, is Acts 13:38ff. Again Davenant notes that the death of Christ is applicable "not only to those whom it is actually applied through faith, but even to the despisers, who rejected Christ." Davenant is not ignorant of verse 48 which teaches that, "faith itself...is not found in unbelievers through their own fault, and is produced in them that believe through the special favor of a merciful God." But, Davenant warns, as he does in other places, against allowing the mystery of election to determine or affect the doctrine of the atonement:

let us not by an unreasonable and too deep speculation into an awful subject, draw a veil over that Divine philanthropy from which has emanated a remedy applicable to all and every individual of sinners, though certainly effectual only to all those who believe.

The fourth testimony, found in 2 Cor. 5:18-20, receives extensive attention from Davenant. Davenant makes three observations:

First, "that the Apostle here lays down what he calls reconciliation procured from God through the mediation of Christ, as a common benefit for the whole world." The phrase "have reconciled the world" according to Davenant means, "to have ordained and granted to the world that universal remedy or propitiatory sacrifice of the death of Christ, which is applicable to all."

Second, Davenant notes the importance of observing

in what sense God is said actually to have reconciled the world lo himself, by the merit of the offering of Christ, namely, because the sacrifice of Christ being made, he will not impute their trespasses unto them; that is, He will not require from any man that he should make satisfaction for his own sins, that being impossible; nor, further, will he punish any one for his sins who shall make use of this propitiatory sacrifice. (347-348)

Note, that Davenant takes care to distinguish between the act of satisfaction for sin and the application of that satisfaction—namely, the removal of guilt and punishment from the offender who believes on Christ. So, while Davenant affirms that the propitiation is unlimited (i.e. for all men), the application of the death of Christ is limited by the mystery of election in which God is merciful to whom he wishes and hardens whom he wishes. We might say that while Davenant does not differentiate in his language between atonement (or more specifically, expiation or propitiation) and redemption—the former being unlimited by the nature of the sacrifice and the latter being limited by divine election—his theology is certainly capable of allowing for that distinction.

Third, Davenant understands this passage to teach that this reconciliation (or non-imputing of sin) is understood by Paul as occurring "as soon as Christ is understood to have laid down his life for the sins of the world." But, "there remains that the Gospel should be believed" before men are brought into actual possession of this grace.

Davenant appeals to Aquinas and Musculus' understanding of the aformentioned text:

Aquinas writes that

[Paul's admonition "be ye reconciled to God"] seems contrary to his statement that God has reconciled us to himself. Therefore, if he reconciled us, what need is there to be reconciled? For we are already reconciled. I answer that God reconciled us to himself as efficient cause, namely, on his part, but in order that it be meritorious for us, it is necessary that reconciliation be made on our part (Commentary on 2 Cor. 5:19; Trans. F. Larcher)

Musculus, another commentator appealed to by Davenant, commenting also on 2 Cor. 5:18ff writes:

God reconciled to himself the whole human race, which was, and is, and will be from the beginning to the end of the world, when he gave his Son to death for all...God reconciled the world to himself in Christ, not imputing to them their sins, as far as relates to the work of reconciliation itself— prepared and sufficient for reconciling the whole human race. But since reconciliation cannot lake place between the unwilling, the Ministry of reconciliation was appointed by God himself, by which all are called and invited heartily to embrace this grace. If the whole world would embrace it, certainly the whole world would be reconciled to God, all imputation of sins being removed, and would be saved, nor would any mortal perish...That the ministers of this reconciliation should preach nothing else than the reconciliation made by God, and so made that he might reconcile the world to himself through Christ, not imputing to them their trespasses. To preach this grace faithfully, and to call every one to repentance and faith in Christ, is to preach the word of reconciliation. (Probably from Musculus' commentary entitled, In ambas apostoli Pauli ad Corinthios epistolas commentarii.)

Davenant warns against allowing election to interfere with this reconciliation made by God in Christ:

Those, therefore, who altogether apply themselves and adhere to the secret of predestination, so as at the same time to fritter away, and evidently to subvert this reconciliation of the world, overturn also the ground of our preaching the Gospel, which consists in this chiefly, that we assure every man, that God is so reconciled to him by the death of Christ, that if he believes in Christ, he will not impute to him his trespasses, but will bestow upon him eternal life. This work, confirmed on the part of God and Christ, is called the reconciliation and redemption of the world, although He hath not willed that the unbelieving and impenitent should be reconciled and redeemed. (349)

Appealing to Augustine's chief expositor, Prosper, Davenant quotes Prosper as saying, "The Redeemer of the world gave his own blood for the world, and the world would not be redeemed." Further, Davenant quotes the Church of England's 31st article, "The offering of Christ once made is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction, for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual; and there is none other satisfaction for sin, but that alone." (Thirty-Nine Articles)

Summarizing 2 Cor. 5:18-20, Davenant says that "God, by giving his Son to death, himself supplied for his enemies an asylum of reconciliation, to which whosoever flees for refuge, has God so appeased and reconciled through the benefit of it, that he will at once receive him into his favour."

The fifth testimony is found in the book of Hebrews, specifically 2:3 and 4:1-2. Davenant sees three truths building on each other taught in this section of Hebrews. First, that the Gospel, called salvation, is offered to all those to whom it is preached. Second, this salvation, being laid up in Christ, is rejected by all unbelievers who lack faith in the promises of the Gospel. Finally, this neglect and unbelief on the part of the unbeliever is the "true cause which prevents the ungodly from obtaining the rest of the Lord, that is, which deprives them of eternal life offered to them in Christ." However, and this is Davenant and other moderate Calvinists' chief objection to the Owenian or high Calvinist model of the atonement, namely,

But none of these things [i.e. the three points just mentioned] can be said truly and seriously unless it is presupposed that salvation through the death of Christ is applicable to all men, according to the appointment of God. For who can properly be said to have neglected salvation, that is, the cause of salvation appointed and prepared by God, which never was prepared or appointed for him, or applicable to him? Or how does this neglect and unbelief exclude them from a participation in the salvation offered through Christ, who were entirely excluded from it on account of a defect of the appointment of God ? We must therefore admit that there must necessarily be some appointment of God, according to which, Christ, as a cause of salvation, was applicable to them who fell from salvation by their own fault. (350)

In other words, for Christ to be rejectable by the unbeliever, Christ must have been applicable to the unbeliever.

The sixth and final testimony is deduced from "those passages combined, in which the will of Christ in dying is declared to be of such extent as to be the procuring cause of salvation to all." Davenant appeals to 2 Cor. 5:14, 1 Tim 2:6, Heb 2:9, and 1 John 2:2. Davenant argues that the Remonstrants take these texts too far by affirming, "That each and every man was restored into a state of' grace and salvation by the death of Christ itself." However, these texts do assume or teach that the death of Christ has been made applicable for "the obtaining of reconciliation and remission."

In the next post we will survey Davenant's other arguments in support of the first proposition.

Any thoughts, objections, or questions with respect to Davenant and his view thus far?

John Davenant and Hypothetical Universalism Part 5

2011-07-20T14:13:00.001-05:00

In the last few posts (2, 3, 4), I had summarized Davenant's history of the controversy over the extent of the atonement. This post will begin a digest and interaction with the body of Davenant's Dissertation on the Death of Christ, specifically dealing with his four (plus one dealing with the limitation of Christ's death) main propositions on the nature and extent of the death of Christ.

Exposition of Davenant's Dissertation:

The first aspect of the death of Christ to consider, according to Davenant, is that the death of Christ is represented in the Scriptures as a "universal remedy appointed by God, and applicable for salvation to the whole human race."

This aspect of the death of Christ will be explicated by way of four propositions, which Davenant will defend. Then Davenant will give a final proposition defending the "particular" aspect of the death of Christ--wherein the death of Christ is "by the special decree of God to be efficaciously and infallibly applied to the salvation of particular persons." The former aspect--the universality of the death of Christ--will demand the most amount of attention from Davenant.

The first proposition to be defended goes like this:

The death of Christ is represented in holy Scripture as an universal remedy, by the ordinance of God, and the nature of the thing itself, applicable for salvation to all and every individual of mankind. (340-341)

For each proposition, Davenant first explains the proposition, then confirms the proposition by testimony (i.e. the Scriptures) and arguments, finally he defends his proposition against apparent objections.

Explanation of proposition:

According to Davenant, the death of Christ comprehends "the whole obedience of Christ, active and passive...Whatever therefore Christ did, and whatever he suffered, from the cradle to the cross, the whole of the meritorious and satisfactory work of the Redeemer." (Rom 5:19, Phil 2:7-8).

This death of Christ is represented in God's word as the universal cause of salvation. By this, Davenant means "that according to the will of God...this remedy is proposed indiscriminately to every individual of the human race for salvation, but that it cannot savingly profit any one without a special application."

Universal remedy and universal cause of salvation are used synonymously in Davenant and includes two things:

First, that of itself it can cure and save all and every individual: secondly, that for the production of this determinate effect in each individual it should require a determinate application. (341)

Thus Aquinas himself wrote that

the death of Christ is the universal cause of salvation, as the sin of the first man may be said to be the universal cause of damnation. But it is necessary that an universal cause should be applied particularly to each individual, that its proper effect may be experienced. (Summa Contra Gentiles, 4.LV.26)

Further, that this death of Christ is applicable to all and every individual of mankind, excludes both angels and the dead. Also, it is not applicable to the living "under every condition, but [only] under the conditions ordained by God." So that if Peter had "persisted in denying Christ to the last" or Judas "had repented and believed in Christ," Christ's death would not be applicable to the former but only to the latter. This conditionality is why Davenant adds the clause "from the ordination of God, and the nature of the thing."

Davenant then appeals to Contra-Remonstrant delegates at the Hague Conference (1611), a precursor to the Synod of Dort. The Contra-Remonstrants said that

Unbelievers, although they have deserved condemnation, yet there is at present some way and means through which they may avoid it, namely, if they should believe...Any sinner may know, even before he departs this life, that Christ died for him also, as far as pertains to the sufficiency of his merits, and also as to their application, provided only he should believe in him.

For Davenant, the above statement by the Contra-Remonstrants is crucial in that "the non-application [of Christ's death] in such cases arises not from the limitation of the remedy, but because the only mode of application appointed by God is obstinately rejected." Thus Davenant does not affirm that at the moment of Christ's death the merits of his death were applied to all mankind, nor was it "infallibly to be applied to all." Rather, the death of Christ was applicable to all. This is an important point made on Davenant's part because of the charge most-often levied against the Hypothetical Universalist position, namely, that God failed. Owen, Turretin, et al., saw Davenant's position as positing some sort of failure in God's ordination (i.e., God ordained to redeem all, but all are not redeemed). However, In Davenant's theology, God has only ordained that the atonement be made applicable to all, not that it be applied to all.

How then does Davenant, as any good Calvinist must, deal with the fact that God only gives certain men (i.e. the elect) the means (i.e. faith) to appropriate the merits of Christ? He says that it "ought not to be inquired...but must be referred to the secret will of God."

In the next post, we will consider Davenant's exposition of the Scriptures in support of proposition #1.

Trueman

2011-07-09T18:35:00.000-05:00

On this happy note, enjoy the Lord's Day!

John Davenant and the Conference at the Hague of 1611

2011-07-09T08:28:00.008-05:00

As some of you may have noticed, I haven't posted anything new on the Davenant front. Chiefly because, as I was typing up my new post, I came across this quote by Davenant:

For there is in the Gospel a certain ordination of God, according to which the death of Christ is applicable to all and every living man; which cannot be affirmed of demons or the damned. To this those words in the conference of the Hague seem to relate, in which the Contra-remonstrants endeavored to shew some difference between the state of the devils and certain unbelievers. For the devils, they say, a Mediator was not given or ordained, but for men (page 154). A little after, Unbelievers, although they have deserved condemnation, yet there is at present some way and means through which they may avoid it, namely if they should believe (page 155). Any sinner may know, even before he departs this life, that Christ died for him also, as far as pertains to the sufficiency of his merits, and also as to their application, provided only he should believe in him (page 156). (342) [Italicized portions are Davenant's quote of a source...maybe the conference minutes?]

What intrigued me about this quote was its mention of the Conference at the Hague. I had never heard of it and so I did some sleuthing. I found out that it was a pre-Synod of Dort conference held by the Contra-remonstrants with the Remonstrants in order to, among other purposes, discern the differences of opinion between the two parties. It appears that scholarship (that is, the scholarship that mentions the conference!) describes the conference as a precursor to Dort, a kind of mock-run. Interestingly, Davenant appeals to it as if it were some well-known conference, though a brief Google search brings up very little on the conference (especially in English). However, a recent dissertation (in English!) on Arminius and his theology seems to deal with the conference at length.

I have requested the book from another library because I want to find out more about the conference and from where Davenant is quoting. Thus, the next post, going through Davenant's Dissertation, will be delayed until I can find out more info on this Conference at the Hague in 1611.

Learning German

2011-07-02T21:59:00.002-05:00

When studying a new language, an English speaker might get frustrated with gender. Sure, gender is important in Greek and Hebrew, but in German, es ist sehr sehr wichtig. Take the following conversation for instance:

Jacob: Guten Tag Herr Paul.

Paul: Guten Tag Jacob, wie geht es Ihnen?

Jacob: Mir geht es sehr gut. Danke. Wie geht es Ihnen?

Paul: Sehr gut.

Jacob: Wie geht es das Junge?

Paul: [walks away mumbling] dummer Amerikaner.

What just happened? I was only asking how his young boy is doing. No. In fact, I asked, "How is the offspring of an animal." I doubt that Paul appreciates that I think his wife is an animal.

The moral of this story, be diligent in your studies and don't take shortcuts.

DISCLAIMER: I am sure that I have make several capitalization and punctuation mistakes. Please forgive my ignorance.

John Davenant and Hypothetical Universalism Part 4

2011-07-02T18:52:00.000-05:00

In this post, continuing an exposition of Davenant's history of the controversy (Part 1, 2, 3), we will look at Davenant's reading of the medieval and reformation theologians on the extent of the atonement.

Exposition of Davenant's Dissertation:
One of the most important contributors regarding the extent of the atonement was Gottschalk of Orbais in the 9th century. Some historical theologians have suggested that Gottschalk was the first theologian to explicitly teach limited atonement (i.e., Christ died only for the sins of the elect).

According to Davenant, Gottschalk taught

that our Lord Jesus was not crucified and put to death for the redemption of the whole world, that is, not for the salvation and redemption of all mankind, but only for those who are saved. (334)

However, Hincmar, archbishop of Rheims, assembled a synod which responded by stating that

Our Lord Jesus Christ, as no man is, was, or will be, whose nature was not assumed by Him, so no man is, was, or will be, for whom He did not suffer, although all are not redeemed by the mystery of his passion. (334)

The Church of Leyden (including Remigius of Lyon), however, was dissatisfied with both Hincmar and Gottschalk's formulations. Leyden was more unhappy with Hincmar's understanding of the atonement than Gottschalk's, though they still took a mediated position where the death of Christ was "not confined to the predestinate alone."

The immediate history following the Gottschalk controversy is described by Davenant as:

At length theological questions came into the hands of the Schoolmen, who, although they were fruitful artificers of disputes, yet were unwilling to renew this subject [which was debated during Gottschalk's time-period]. To them [i.e. the Schoolmen] it seemed sufficient to teach that Christ died for all sufficiently, for the predestinated effectually; which, since no one could deny, no handle was given for using the saw of contention. (336)

Next, Davenant moves into the Reformation period, surveying "the Doctors of the Reformed Church" and their views of the atonement. Davenant begins by stating that

they taught that [the death of Christ] was proposed and offered to all, but apprehended and applied to the obtaining of eternal life only by those that believe. At the same time, they judged it improper to mingle the hidden mystery of Election and Preterition with this doctrine of the Redemption of the human race through Christ, in such a manner as to exclude any one, before he should exclude himself by his own unbelief. (336)

Davenant appeals to Melanchthon (Loci Communes, Preus translation, 84), Calvin (Comm on Jn. 3:16, Rom. 5:18), Bullinger (A Hvndred Sermons Vpon the Apocalipse of Iesu Christ, printed by Iohn Daye in 1573, 79-80), Benedict Aretius, Musculus (Common Places of Christian Religion, London in 1578, 304-315) and Zanchi.

For instance, Davenant quotes Calvin on Rom 5:18:

[God] makes grace common to all, because it is set before all, not because it is actually extended to all. For although Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and through the goodness of God is offered to all indifferently, yet all do not apprehend him.

Another example of Davenant's use of the Reformers in support of his thesis appears with a quote he finds in Bullinger on Revelation chapter five.

The Lord died for all: but all are not partakers of this redemption, through their own fault. Otherwise the Lord excludes no one but him who excludes himself by his own unbelief and faithlessness.

The main point Davenant would have his readers discern by his quoting the different Reformers is "that our orthodox Doctors so explained the doctrines of election and reprobation...[so that it] might not infringe the universality of the redemption accomplished by the death of Christ."

This ends Davenant's discussion of the history of the controversy. In the next post we will consider Davenant's first of four propositions respecting the universality of the atonement which he wishes to defend. The four propositions are:

1. The death of Christ is represented in holy Scripture as an universal remedy, by the ordinance of God, and the nature of the thing itself, applicable for salvation to all and every individual of mankind.

2. The death of Christ is the universal cause of the salvation of mankind, and Christ himself is acknowledged to have died for all men sufficiently, not by reason of the mere sufficiency or of the intrinsic value, according to which the death of God is a price more than sufficient for redeeming a thousand worlds; but by reason of the Evangelical covenant confirmed with the whole human race through the merit of this death, and of the Divine ordination depending upon it, according to which, under the possible condition of faith, remission of sins and eternal life is decreed to be set before every mortal man who will believe it, on account of the merits of Christ.

3. The death or passion of Christ, as the universal cause of the salvation of mankind, hath, by the act of its oblation, so far rendered God the Father pacified and reconciled to the human race, that he can be truly said to be ready to receive into favour any man whatever, as soon as he shall believe in Christ; yet the aforesaid death of Christ does not place any one, at least of adults, in a state of grace, of actual reconciliation, or of salvation, before he believes.

4. The death of Christ being granted to be applicable to all men on condition of faith, it is consistent with the goodness and justice of God to supply or to deny, either to nations or to individuals, the means of application, and that according to the good pleasure of his own will, not according to the disparity of human wills.

As to the particularity of God's intention, Davenant will also defend in the course of the book this proposition:

The death of Christ, from the special design of God the Father, who from eternity ordained and accepted that sacrifice; and of Christ, who offered it in the fulness of time to God the Father; was destined for some certain persons, whom the Scripture calls the elect, and for them alone, so as to be effectually and infallibly applied to the obtaining of eternal life.

Horton, Keller, and Chandler on the Church's Role in Culture

2011-06-28T12:19:00.004-05:00

I am indebted to all three of these men for differing reasons. I found this video particularly helpful in making good distinctions.

Chandler, Horton, and Keller on the Church in Culture from The Gospel Coalition on Vimeo.

HT: Justin Taylor

John Davenant and Hypothetical Universalism Part 3

2011-06-28T10:44:00.002-05:00

In this post, I want to continue working through Davenant's work focusing on his historical survey of the controversy which had ensued up until his own time. (part 1, part 2)

Exposition of Davenant's Dissertation:

Like any good theologian, Davenant was not content with grounding his view of the atonement by mere appeal to reason or a biblical text. Rather, like Owen (vol. 10, Works, 422-424) et al, Davenant begins his treatment of the question of extent with a historical survey of the question. Davenant starts his history claiming

that before the dispute between Augustine and Pelagius, there was no question concerning the death of Christ, whether it was to be extended to all mankind, or to be confined only to the elect.

According to Davenant, none of the church fathers expressed the extent of the atonement in such a manner as to exclude certain persons because of God's decree (viz. because of election). Although the church fathers agree that the atonement is "actually beneficial to only those who believe" yet they nowhere teach that Christ dies only for the elect. Davenant appeals to Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-c. 215), Origen (184-253), and Primasius of Hadrumetum (6th C.) for support.

Davenant then defends Augustine's view of the atonement against those who claim, like the Semi-pelagian Vincentians claimed in Augustine's time, that Augustine believed "that our Lord Jesus Christ did not suffer for the salvation and redemption of all men" (Vincentian words). Prosper, seen as the authoritative interpreter of Augustine, who came to defend Augustine's doctrine against the Vincentians, argued that Augustine taught that the "passion of Christ is profitable and saving to the elect alone" (Davenant's words) but not that "Christ suffered only for the elect" (Davenant's words). So, according to Davenant's reading of Prosper's defense of Augustine, Augustine sought to maintain the efficacy of Christ's death as pertaining only for the elect, but with regard to sufficiency and the virtue of the death of Christ--it was for all men. Davenant supports this claim by quoting Prosper contra the Vincentians:

That as far as relates to the magnitude and virtue of the price, and to the one cause of the human race, the blood of Christ is the redemption of the whole world: but those who pass through this life without the faith of Christ; and the sacrament of regeneration, do not partake of the redemption...The cup of immortality, which is composed of our infirmity, and Divine goodness, has indeed in itself what is profitable for all, but if it be not drunk, it does not heal.

Davenant further argues that if Augustine believed that "Christ died for the predestinate alone," then Proper would not have taught that infants who were not predestined to eternal life received the benefit of remission of original sin (from the merits of Christ). But in point of fact, Prosper and even the (fourth) Synod of Valence in 855 taught just such a doctrine--namely a benefit of Christ's death applied to a non-elect.

Davenant concludes by claiming "that Augustine and his disciples would never be the patrons of the doctrine, That Christ suffered for the predestinated alone."

Davenant then determines to take up the question of Pelagian's view of the atonement contra two errors propounded by theologians which are in contrast to each other. Some theologians teaching that Christ died for the elect alone argued that "Christ died for all" is a Pelagian error. Other holding the opposite opinion argued that "mere Pelagianism" holds that Christ did not die for all men. After replying to a misinterpretation of an Augustine quote (3,3,8), Davenant responds to the former opinion claiming that Augustine (obviously a non-Pelagian) did not find fault with Pelagius' view that Christ suffered for all

which opinion of Pelagianism it can be shown was not condemned in any Council that was formed against the Pelagians, nor in any work of Augustine written against the Semipelagians. He professedly writes against the errors of the Semipelagians in his books, On the Predestination of the Saints, and On the benefit of Perseverance: yet he never attempts to infringe the proposition--That Christ died for all men.

The latter view, which taught that Pelagius believed that Christ did not die for all men, was propounded by Grevinchovius, a Remonstrant theologian. Davenant shows that this understanding of Pelagius was based on a misreading of Faustus who actually was charging Augustine et al with such a view (though Davenant thinks Faustas misunderstood Augustine).

Davenant lays out three errors Pelagius made with respect to the death of Christ. First, Pelagius erred by teaching that "redemption through the death of Christ pertains to all men of all ages: and that infants are altogether free from sin and damnable guilt, from which they could be redeemed." In other words, that the death of Christ pertained to those who were without sin. Second, the Pelagians and Semipelagians were wrong in teaching that even those who persisted in unbelief participated in redemption through the death of Christ. According to Davenant this sort of teaching is "absurd, false, and very obscure." The third and "most grievous error" that they made was attributing the primary cause of the efficacy of Christ's death bringing certain persons to eternal life as lying in the human will and not in God's free gift of "perservering faith" to the elect. Davenant says that

Here the controversy directly regards the grace of predestination and free-will, and obliquely touches upon the death of Christ, inasmuch as the orthodox, assigning a reason why it eventually brings salvation to some persons, always ascend to the Divine predestination, the Pelagians descend to the human will.

After dealing with various other issues, Davenant summarizes everything with a helpful note:

that it ought to be added, that those Fathers, when they restrict the death of Christ to the predestinate, do not do it absolutely; but in consideration of the saving effect which, by means of faith, it brings to them alone: and on the other hand, when they extend this death of Christ to all, they do not extend to all that special will of God in calling them according to his own purpose, in giving them faith, and effectually working in certain individuals according to his own counsel and operation, that they may reap the benefit of the death of Christ.

From this quote, a couple observations may be made. First, Davenant is working off the well-known, though oft-abused, Lombardian formula which simply states that Christ died for all with regard to the sufficiency of the price but efficiently for the elect alone. The Lombardian formula becomes a hermeneutic not only with respect to the reading of the orthodox fathers, but also in his reading of the scriptures themselves. So, scripture texts which speak of Christ's death being for all men Davenant will read in terms of sufficiency and texts which appear to limit Christ's death to the elect alone will be read as to the efficacy of the atonement. A second observation, which Davenant will explain in more detail later in his Dissertation, is the distinction made between God's general and special will. The general will is that Christ died for all men in case that they would believe. The special will of God (as seen in the quote above) is God's will to effectually apply Christ's death to the elect by gifting certain men with persevering faith.

In the next post we will deal with Davenant's reading of Gottschalk (of whom some like Carl Trueman have suggested is the first theologian in church history to argue for limited atonement) and other medieval theologians moving into the reformation period.

Dustin Crowe on the Web

2011-06-27T21:14:00.001-05:00

You can read some excellent blog-posts found on his Church website written by our very own Dustin Crowe here.

John Davenant and Hypothetical Universalism Part 2

2011-06-21T11:42:00.002-05:00

In the last post I attempted to introduce a couple key conclusions which I find to be crucial in understanding hypothetical universalism during the 16th and 17th centuries.

In this post and the subsequent posts I want to begin an exposition of John Davenant's (1572-1641) Dissertation on the Death of Christ. In many ways, as shall become apparent, Davenant's work is the alternative (17th C.) Reformed view of the atonement to the view espoused by John Owen. In other words, the two mainline Reformed views of the atonement found in the 16th and 17th C. are ably defended by John Owen and John Davenant respectively.

While John Davenant was unaware of Owen's work (Owen's first work, The Display of Arminianism, was not published until after Davenant's death), Owen was fully aware of Davenant's work . In Owen's preface to his work titled The Death of Christ (see Vol. 10, Works (Goold Ed.), 432), Owen notes that he had received Davenant's work after his own The Death of Christ had already been written and found Davenant's Dissertation "repugnant unto truth itself." Further, Owen asserts that its main foundation is not "founded on the word." Owen even charges Davenant's work as "tempering the truths of God so that they may be suited to the self-indulgency of unsubdued carnal affections...[and] remov[ing] that scandal and offence which the fleshly-minded doth take continually at those ways of God which are far above out of his sight."

John Davenant's Dissertation was appended to Davenant's Colossians commentary (Allport edition). Volume 1 and Volume 2 of Davenant's commentary on Colossians can be found online.

Exposition of Davenant's Dissertation:

Davenant introduces the controversy lamenting

that those mysteries of our religion, which were promulgated for the peace and comfort of mankind, should be turned into materials for nothing but contention and dispute. Who could ever have thought that the death of Christ, which was destined to secure peace and destroy enmity, as the Apostle speaks, Ephes. ii. 14, 17, and Coloss. i. 20, 21, could have been so fruitful in the production of strife?

Davenant, with a pastoral heart, suggests that instead of inclining oneself to debate the question "for whom did Christ die?" the believer should press on "applying to ourselves the death of Christ, by a true and lively faith, for the salvation of our own souls."

Davenant, seeking to get at the heart of the differences between the two views on the extent of the atonement, remarks that for both those who limit redemption to the elect and those who hold to universal redemption, the death of Christ

is regarded as an universal cause of salvation applicable to all mankind individually is they should believe, and as a special cause of salvation applied effectually to certain persons in particular who have believed.

Because of this common ground, "it will perhaps appear that in some things which are contested with eagerness, there are rather various modes of speaking than different opinions."

However, before Davenant will give his own exposition of the death of Christ, he will survey the history of the controversy up until his own time-period. This will be the subject of our next post.

John Davenant and Hypothetical Universalism Part 1

2011-06-15T22:30:00.019-05:00

Over the past couple months I have read, and continue to read, many writings among "Reformed" writers related to the extent of the atonement. I have come to some surprising conclusions which have spurred my research concerning the subject all the more. These conclusions are as follows:

1. Hypothetical universalism is not synonymous with Amyraldism. The latter popularly refers to a particular ordering in the decree(s) of God while hypothetical universalism (at least the non-Arminian type) teaches "that Christ died for all men, so far as to purchase them pardon and salvation on condition they would repent and believe; and for the elect, so far further as to procure them faith and repentance itself" (Baxter, Certain Disputations of Right to Sacraments). So, for instance, one could be a supralapsarian hypothetical universalist like William Twisse (prolocutor of the Westminster Assembly). In other words, the ordering of the decree(s) and the extent of the atonement did not have a necessary correspondence to each other.

2. There is a need to stress the difference between the Arminians who taught a universal redemption and the Calvinists who taught a universal redemption. Both groups taught that Christ died for all generally, but the Calvinists also argued that Christ died specially for the elect. This special sense of Christ's death included his impetration or acquisition of certain graces (e.g., regeneration) only for the elect. Further, the Calvinist, unlike the Arminian scheme, did not leave the application of Christ's death up to the sinner's use of free-will in obtaining the benefits of Christ's death, but rather taught that the limitation to those who would receive the benefits of Christ's death would be delimited by sovereign unconditional (e.g., not based on foreseen faith or the exercise of free-will) election.

3. Many Reformed thinkers in the 16th and 17th C. taught a form of hypothetical universalism. For example: James Ussher, William Twisse, Edmund Calamy, Heinrich Bullinger, John Davenant, Jerome Zanchi, John Preston, Zachary Ursinus, Stephen Marshall, Richard Vines, et al.

4. The Synod of Dort, though commonly considered the place where the five-points of Calvinism were drawn up against the Remonstrant articles, does not teach a view of Christ's atonement antithetical to the Reformed hypothetical universalism of the early 17th C. In fact, the English delegation sent to the Synod of Dort believed in hypothetical universalism--most famously Bishop John Davenant. The only confession of faith that I have came across which may have precluded the non-Amyraldian hypothetical universalism is the Westminster Confession of Faith, though even this point is disputed among historians. Recent scholarship (e.g., Richard Muller, Jonathan Moore, and Lee Gatiss) has tended to argue that the wording in certain places of the WCF was elastic enough to include those with non-amyraldian hypothetical universalism persuasions. NOTE: I am aware that the Helvetic Consensus did not allow for hypothetical universalism but it was not strictly-speaking a confession of faith.

5. The lack of linguistic and theological precision in the modern debates concerning the extent of Christ's atonement are not nearly as nuanced as the debates in the 16th and 17th centuries. This has, in many cases (no naming names!), led to what I consider to be shoddy historical theology. Further, because of this lack of precision (in the modern debate), those who teach a so-called 'four-point' Calvinism today are very rarely teaching a form of Reformed hypothetical universalism as sophisticated as what is found in the 16th and 17th century.

6. Finally, those systematic textbooks to which Reformed theologians (I am thinking especially of Hodge, Shedd, and Dabney) most often appeal, do not generally give a nuanced exposition of hypothetical universalism and it is most often conflated with Amyrault and Amyraldism. Further, at least with respect to Dabney, one might question whether his position, though claiming to be non-hypothetical universalist, is in fact much closer to that of Davenant et al. than he realized.

Converging Studies: Deuteronomy, Romans, and the Imago Dei

2011-06-13T14:51:00.004-05:00

Recently my thoughts have been devoted to two separate areas of study: Deuteronomy and the Image of God. In the course of these studies, aided by Nathaniel and my wife Mary Beth, I observed an interesting connection.

Deuteronomy 4 lays out the expectation for the people of God to obey him, to keep his commandments, and to keep themselves from idols. Deuteronomy 4:16-18 goes on to say,

beware lest you act corruptly by making a carved image for yourselves, in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female, the likeness of any animal that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the air, the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the water under the earth.

The language is evocative of both creation and the sin of the Canaanites. First, creation is brought to mind because Israel is not to fashion any "image" in the "likeness of male or female" or any of the other created entities listed in Genesis 1. Thus, the author desires us to understand the theological impetus for this injunction: the creature creator distinction is not to be transgressed, especially since male and female are supposed to "image" God. Second, the Pentateuch has previously described the actions of the Canaanites in terms of "acting corruptly" and corrupting the land. The integration of both concepts here in Deuteronomy brings us to the author's warning.

If Israel prostitutes herself and acts corruptly, she will be purged from the land in the same manner that God will purge the Canaanites. Israel's exile will not simply consist of being cast out of the land. Instead, Moses claims that Israel's idolatry will result in the following:

You will not live long in it, but will be utterly destroyed. And the LORD will scatter you among the peoples, and you will be left few in number among the nations where the LORD will drive you. And there you will serve gods of wood and stone, the work of human hands, that neither see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell (26-28).

Paul, it seems, makes the same argument in Romans 1. He has removed the distinctly Jewish context and has cast his condemnation in a larger mold. All of creation has seen the glory and majesty of God revealed in creation. Instead of worshipping the creator they have "exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles."

What is God's response to this idolatry and rebellion? As in Deuteronomy, he gives them over to their desires. Whereas Deuteronomy simply says that Israel is given over to the service of idols made with human hands, Paul extrapolates further saying, "They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness..."

Idolatry is a pernicious evil that ultimately brought about the exile of Israel from the Promised Land, even though they were to be a holy nation, set apart from the idolatry of the nations, a kingdom of priests. Deuteronomy 4:15 says, "Therefore watch yourselves very carefully." Idolatry is not a thing of the past. A bygone practice of an ancient people. Let us heed John's words at the conclusion of his first epistle, "Little children, keep yourselves from idols."

Syriac

2011-06-08T21:32:00.004-05:00

On those rare occasions when someone takes an interest in my studies and ventures to ask me how many languages I know, I typically respond reluctantly. If I were to be honest with myself, my reluctance is due more to a false sense of humility than I am willing to admit. Why is that? Well, I also find myself including Syriac. Well, I have studied Greek, Hebrew, Latin and Syriac. **notice the switch here? I was asked how many languages I know, not how many languages I have studied**

Sometimes this switch is unconscious, but at other times it is conscious. I do this because I don't want to tell "untruths" but do want to boost my image in the eyes of men. I finally did it though. I picked up John F. Healey's Leshono Suryoyo: First Studies in Syriac. Needless to say, I was embarrassed.

Do you remember that day when you picked up a Hebrew Grammar for the first time? You slowly opened the pages until you found the alphabet and you said to yourself, "I know what an א is, but what in the world are the rest of these letters." That was my experience tonight? Can I really say that I have even studied Syriac? If my take away from the class is no more than what I knew before I started the class, then no, I cannot.

Whatever languages you have acquired in seminary, do not allow this to happen to you. Do not squander the knowledge you have been given. Constantly be in the languages. If you aren't then you will lose them. And when you lose them, you will lament over the amount of time it took to learn them to begin with, and how much time will be required of you to reacquire them.

Hoekema on the Imago Dei

2011-06-08T13:48:00.007-05:00

I am currently preparing a three lesson series for our youth on the Image of God and its implications. Part of my study includes reading Hoekma's Created in God's Image. During my reading I came across a quote I would like to share:

The image is now malfunctioning—and yet it is still there. The loss of the image of God in the functional sense presupposes the retention of the image in the structural sense. To be a sinner one must be an image-bearer of God—one must be able to reason, to will, to make decisions; a dog, which does not possess the image of God, cannot sin. Man sins with God-imaging gifts.

In fact, the very greatness of man's sin consists in the fact that he is still an image-bearer of God. What makes sin so heinous is that man is prostituting such splendid gifts. Corruptio optimi pessima: the corruption of the best is the worst.

The God Who Wasn't There

2011-06-06T08:11:00.002-05:00

It might encourage many of you around the table to hear that Netflix is now streaming The God Who Wasn't There. This is a "documentary" directed by Brian Flemming and stars Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris.

For those of you familiar with the so-called "New Atheist" movement, you will not find their critiques surprising. You will find a collage of all the Jesus films put out since the invention of film making, which summarize the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. This is followed by the charge that Paul invents his own religion, as his epistles fail to mention any of the events in the life of Christ (other than his death, resurrection and ascension). Next, we are privileged to see about 5mins worth of clips from The Passion of Christ by Mel Gibson, followed by the charge that Christians are violent and blood-thirsty. This provides a natural transition into an endorsement of the Crusades. After all, if the Bible is true, then a little bit of pain and suffering in this life is insignificant compared to the destination of the eternal soul.

Essentially, the film is composed in such a manner as to depict Christians as a violent and stupid threat to the progress of human civilization.

I have no interest in reviewing the film or correcting theological and historical inaccuracies etc. I only have one small insight. The New Atheists have joined the market place of preachers and their rhetoric is powerful. When engaging them or their disciples, how will we react? Will we respond with the same bitterness, hatred and sarcasm?

Conflating the Gospels

2011-06-03T09:21:00.003-05:00

In this day and age students of the Gospels have been thoroughly warned to not conflate the diverse Gospel accounts. This is not because the Gospel accounts are not capable of being reconciled historically, but because we recognize that each author has selected and crafted his material, under the inspiration of the Spirit, for a specific theological agenda.

When reading through Luke today I was reminded of this fact. Luke records the ministry of John the Baptist. After John is seen quoting from Isaiah, "A voice crying in the wilderness...," the crowds gather around him. John immediately says, "You offspring of vipers. Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?" As I read this I was forced to scan the Greek a second time in order to make sure I didn't miss a sentence. Why? Because Matthew directs this statement specifically to the Pharisees and the Sadducees.

It seems as if Matthew's intent is to replace Jesus as the teacher and righteousness of Israel and does so in part by exposing the hard-heartedness and hypocrisy of the Pharisees and Sadducees of the day. Luke seems to make all of Israel complicit by dropping the presence of the leaders from the target audience.

As my observations are only cursory, maybe one of you might find this as an interesting paper topic.

Runaway Jesus

2011-06-02T09:54:00.007-05:00

As I was reading through Luke I came across a familiar but peculiar incident. Jesus, when at the Feast of the the Passover, abandons his family in order to sit under the teachers in the temple. Eventually, his parents realize that he is not with the company of travelers and sets course back to Jerusalem to find their "wayward" son.

When Mary and Joseph finally stumble across Jesus in the temple, Luke finally divulges the details of Jesus' activities. It is almost as if he is forcing us to view the incident through Mary and Joseph's eyes, ensuring that we know that Joseph and Mary "see" what what we see.

The ensuing narrative tells us that the teachers Jesus sat under were amazed at the συνεσει "insight/understanding" of Jesus. This noun is sharply contrasted with Mary and Joseph's inability to συνηκαν "to understand" Jesus' words, "Why were you seeking me? Did you not know that it is necessary for me to be in my Father's house?"

We are often told that Jesus' understanding and wisdom is the result of faithful parenting. Jesus was brought up in the fear and admonition of the Lord. While I am sure that Mary and Joseph were faithful parents, it seems as if the narrative indicates that his insight comes from on high, so to speak.

While it seems as if Luke's intent is to stress the divine wisdom and understanding of Jesus possessed even from childhood, he does not intend to deface the reputation of his parents. After all, he concludes the narrative by noting that Mary had some, minimal as it may be, awareness of Jesus' actions, "And his mother treasured up all these things in her heart."

Has Christian Education Failed Us?

2011-06-01T16:29:00.006-05:00

I sat down to a half order of fajitas today at El Cerro, a local Mexican eatery, with a friend and colleague. Our conversation ranged from his recent return from the Christian and Missionary Alliance's national conference to the hubbub of daily life. Somewhere in that mix he said something that stuck with me, "The trend of churches today is towards either the mega-church with paid staffs or the mini-church/house churches with bi-vocational pastors. There are ceasing to be small to mid-size churches that are capable of supporting their pastors."

Furthermore, in the next couple of years about half, if not more, of oversees missionaries will be working under the guise of legitimate businesses.

If these statistics are in fact true, then it leads me to the question, "Has christian higher education failed us?"

Let me explain: The aspiring pastor/missionary chooses a 4 year bible college for his education. This is to be differentiated from a Christian Liberal Arts degree. I am speaking of a full 4 years of biblical training. When he finally walks across that stage and receives that hard earned piece of paper, he comes to the realization that he has the option of finding a local church or continuing his education.

If he is not so fortunate to land a career within one of those aforementioned mega-churches, then he is faced with the hard reality that he has no means of "tent-making" but plenty of smaller churches that would love for him to participate in ministry.

The student who decides to pursue further education is forced to take either the Master of Arts approach, which has less coursework, does not adequately prepare the student for Doctoral work as some programs require more Masters level credit work than the Master of Arts requires, or the MDiv approach. The downside to the Master of Divinity is the fact that it is colossal repeat for the student who received a BA in Bible. Furthermore, the MDiv does not adequately prepare the student for Doctoral work.

Once again, if these statistics are correct, even the student who graduated with a BA and MDiv is up a creek without a paddle, to use a tired expression. The church is still not able to "hire" him and he still has no trade upon which he can support himself or his family.

This might seem to many of you a huge rant concerning my own experiences in the Christian system. Let me disabuse you of that notion. I would never trade the formative years I experienced at Moody Bible, wherein I learned to read books of substance, develop my writing style, translate Greek and Hebrew, and develop lasting relationships. Nor would I trade the tutelage I received under men like Dr. Black, Dr. Thomas, Dr. McKenzie, and Dr. Kellum (I'm sure I left someone out) at Southeastern.

Yet, the Bible Colleges and Seminaries of the day are potentially doing a great disservice to future ministers, missionaries and academicians who desire to serve the church and her Lord. We have rightly stressed the notion that all minsters of the gospel should be theologically literate. Yet this education only takes place within the college/seminary. The student who desires to be faithful by cultivating his mind is potentially left without a means of livelihood as he has been trained to do nothing else.

The impetus behind this post is to seek council from those around the table. Should we be advising the youth of our churches who desire to be future ministers/missionaries/academicians to attend Bible Colleges? Or should we encourage them to seek education in Liberal Arts colleges (Christian or secular) and then secondary education in the seminary only after they have established themselves in some field of industry?

Hermeneutics: The art and science of giving ground to culture?

2011-05-31T18:22:00.004-05:00

Today marks the first day of preparation for the Sunday School series Nathaniel and I are teaching in Deuteronomy. This is the final iteration of our two year long stint through the Pentateuch. In my preparations I came across this rather lengthy quote from Thomas Mann in his commentary on Deuteronomy. The quote that follows presupposes a late dating for the book, around the time of Josiah and Hezekiah.

"The long process of reinterpretation that produced Deuteronomy presents us with a curious irony. On the one hand, our critical understanding of the book as the product of such a process suggests that contemporary interpreters within the church or synagogue have a warrant for imitating the process itself. In other words, just as the biblical authors reinterpreted old traditions in the light of current situations, so we need to reinterpret this ancient book in our own time and in the light of the rest of scripture. That may even entail changes or outright rejections of material that we find objectionable. For example, no one would want to punish rebellious teenagers by stoning them to death in public (Det. 21:18-20; perhaps the front steps of a courthouse would be a location in present-day society corresponding to the ancient city gate). Similarly, we may find some of the dietary laws irrelevant. On a broader scale, we may denounce as inhuman the militant demands that all the Canaanite natives be slaughtered (as in 7:16). We may have problems accepting a religious model of government that our own ancestors replaced with the separation of church and state."

My first reaction to this paragraph was to heartily object. "Upon what basis then are we to judge the truthfulness and applicability of scripture? Are the prevailing sentiments of culture to determine what portions of scripture are still valid?"

Yet, this objection was quickly squelched by the immediate recognition that none of the examples Mann lists are viewed as theologically viable options. The conservative (he who accepts an earlier date and does not attribute the process of this book's composition to the re-interpretation of early history and traditions) claims that such practices are not acceptable on the basis of a systematized hermeneutic that understands this book as a special "dispensation" in Israel's history (for all of my covenantal friends out there, I am not offering a Dispensational interpretation/approach, but am merely using the term to describe God's unique work in Israel as a Geo-Political entity at this particular juncture in history), which is not to be repeated as the church is to submit to the laws of the land, not theocratic rule. BUT, is this hermeneutic not also selective in what remains viable for church praxis?

Hopefully the blogosphere might be able to shed some light on this particular quandary.

A Blessing in Disguise

2011-05-30T20:43:00.007-05:00

As many of you know, the Cerone house was damaged in one of the many tornados that ripped through North Carolina. This obviously threw a good number of kinks in our plans and caused a great deal of stress. After all, if we had only lived a few more houses down the street, we would have been spared.

Nevertheless, God has blessed this struggling Seminary graduate with a summer job. Who would have known that after all of those years working for an independent contractor would eventually pay off? God has blessed me with the confidence and experience to do the work with friends and family.

So far, we have finished repairing the entire front slope of the roof. The was accomplished with the help of my father-in-law (Darrell), sister-in-law (Katie), and her boyfriend George.

We are currently working on the siding and even though we hit a fair number of unexpected roadblocks, everything is starting to come together (and by starting to come together I really mean: We have been working on laying siding for 2 days and won't have the first piece until until Tuesday). Thanks to my father, two brothers, and wife for all their help.

Despite the fact that the work is excruciatingly difficult and tedious, I have the ability to diligently look for a job that fits me, instead of taking the first thing that becomes available. It also has enabled me to continue learning and teaching. Now off to study German!

και πνευμα ως περιστεραν καταβαινον εις αυτον

2011-05-28T09:13:00.002-05:00

On Thursday Nathaniel and I were translating through the first chapter of Mark and came across a rather interesting use of the preposition εις. Mark's presentation of the baptism of Jesus records the Spirit descending as a dove "into" him, whereas Matthew and Luke write that the Spirit came επι, "upon," him.

Several commentators insist that the use of εις most certainly means that the Spirit has indwelled Christ for his coming ministry. R. T. France, in The Greek New Testament Commentary, recognizes that "It is indeed possible that Mark's choice of this preposition was more theologically determined: just as other NT writers will speak of the Spirit 'dwelling in' believers, so he comes to Jesus not just as a temporary equipment for a specific task, but as a permanent presence in his life." Yet, this observation is hastily checked by his admonition that pressing this too far would render the imagery of the narrative nonsensical. He writes, "The apparent absurdity of the imagery whereby Jesus sees a bird descending into himself forms a more persuasive argument for taking εις here in the wider sense as roughly equivalent to επι."

Does France's conclusion render what seems to be Mark's intentional use of εις impotent? Or is he right in observing that such weight cannot be borne up by such a versatile preposition?

What are your thoughts?

The Languages

2011-05-26T10:04:00.002-05:00

As many of you know, I took an Independent Study last semester with with Dr. David Black entitled Ecclesiastical Latin . My natural inclination would be claim I know Greek, Hebrew, and Latin and proceed to put these three languages aside while I focus exclusively on learning German.

Dr. Black's exhortations to his students over at daveblackonline forced me to check my pride. He reminded us that if we do not utilize the languages we have learned daily, we will lose them. Surely, the five years I have spent in Greek classes would not depart as quickly as he claimed, I thought. But after taking up his challenge to read two verses from the GNT each day for the length of the summer I quickly realized that all it took was one semester. My Greek had become as rusty as the tin man from The Wizard of Oz .

It is for this reason that I have put upon myself the task of translating at least two verses from the GNT, BHS, and Vulgate each day for the rest of the summer, and hopefully the rest of my life. In the words of Dr. Black, "In an age that glorifies degrees and titles, we need people who can demonstrate that an education is not a huge waste of time and money." It is for this same reason that I ask all of my fellow students of the Bible, "Will you allow the knowledge you so arduously acquired slip away?" It is not enough to get a degree and hang it on our walls. We must always be hungry for deeper truths, live them out, and inspire others to do likewise.

Eyes and Ears

2011-05-06T21:10:00.000-05:00

Since the convictions and ecclesiastical camps you all currently are in take different stances, I was interested in seeing/hearing (note my neutrality there) different sides on an issue. I was listening to Ligon Duncan and he adamantly rejects almost any use of “visual arts” in the church service. He stated this included showing any type of video clips and I assume (though I could be wrong) he would also be against other visually-focused things in the church: dance, art, images, skits, etc. In his view, Protestantism is a religion of the ear whereas Catholicism is a religion of the eye. Obviously the main text quoted is “faith coming by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.” He doesn’t get into the Sacraments as the visible word, and I’m not even sure if that would support or hinder his argument.

Anyways, I would benefit by any thoughts on whether you think the implementation of the visual in our church services is biblical/unbiblical or wise/unwise, why you think so, and what types of visual things you think are appropriate/inappropriate.

Name the Author

2011-05-02T16:54:00.002-05:00

According to the Arminian soteriology we are justified in the forgiveness of sin. This is not the same as a discharge after merited punishment. And the personal holiness of Christ, while necessary to his redemptive mediation, is not accounted to us as an element in our justification, The atonement in his blood is the true and necessary ground of forgiveness, Yet it is not such a ground that justification must accrue to the redeemed. Justification or forgiveness is conditioned on a true faith in Christ. The required faith may be exercised, but is subject to no necissitating power of grace. Hence the atonement is only a provisory ground, not an intrinsically causal ground, of forgiveness and salvation.

Aquinas

2011-04-28T15:10:00.004-05:00

I found a sobering passage from Thomas Aquinas while translating this afternoon.

"Tertio ex hoc accenditur caritas. Nullum est tam evidens caritatis indicium, quam quod Deus creator omnium factus est creatura Dominus noster factus est frater noster, Filius Dei factus est filius hominis. "Sic Deus dilexit mundum, ut Filium suum unigenitum daret." Et ideo ex huius consideratione amor noster reaccendi debet, et inflammari ad Deum."

Translation:

Third, love is kindled. For there is no sign so evident of the love of God than that the creator of all things became a creature, our Lord became our brother, the Son of God became the Son of Man: “In this way God loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son.” Therefore, from this consideration, our love ought to be kindled afresh, and to be re-ignited to God.

Now that the Easter season has come and gone it is tempting to allow the significance of the incarnation, death and resurrection of Christ to slip from our minds. Let us always remember that Christ left his throne on high was made like us in order that he might sympathize with us in every way and become our great high priest. Let our hearts, as Aquinas says, be rekindled and re-ignited to a deeper love of the Trinity.

Name That Author

2011-04-25T19:12:00.002-05:00

I figured since things are slow that I would steal Jacob's Name That Author idea and post one of my own:

"Yet the Santa Claus theology carries within itself the seeds of its own collapse, for it cannot cope with the fact of evil. It is no accident that when belief in the "good God" of liberalism became widespread, about the turn of the twentieth century, the so-called problem of evil (which was not regarded as a problem before) suddenly leaped into prominence as the number one concern in Christian apologetics. This was inevitable, for it is not possible to see the good will of the heavenly Santa Claus in the heart breaking and destructive things like cruelty, or marital infidelity, or death on the road, or lung cancer. The only way to save the liberal view of God is to disassociate him from these things and to deny that he has any direct relation to them or control over them; in other words, to deny his omnipotence and lordship over this world. Liberal theologians took this course fifty years ago, and the man on the street takes it today. Thus he is left with the kind of God who means well but cannot always insulate his children from trouble and grief. When trouble comes, therefore, there is nothing to do but grin and bear it. In this way, by an ironic paradox, faith in a God who is all goodness and no severity tends to confirm men in a fatalistic and pessimistic attitude to life."

Abraham Lincoln's Religion

2011-04-13T07:37:00.002-05:00

Interesting stuff. You can read about it here.

Dr. Guy Waters' Review of Schreiner's Commentary on Galatians

2011-03-24T13:05:00.001-05:00

At Ref21.

Name That Author

2011-03-23T08:39:00.002-05:00

A while ago I started a series entitled name that author. Since things have been slow (for the most part), I figured I would post a quote from a book I am currently reading. I am lobbing you guys a softball here, so I hope you can hit it.

"To those who answer the question in this way it appears that Christians throughout life are subject to the tension that accompanies obedience to two authorities who do not agree yet must both be obeyed, They refuse to accommodate the claims of Christ to those of secular society, as, in their estimation, men in the second and third groups do. So they are like the ______ believers, yet differ from them in the conviction that obedience to God requires obedience to the institutions of society and loyalty to its members as well as obedience to a Christ who sits in judgment on that society. Hence man is seen as subject to two moralities, and as a citizen of two worlds that are not only discontinuous with each other but largely opposed. In the polarity and tension...life must be lived precariously and sinfully in the hope of a justification which lies beyond history. Luther may be regarded as the greatest representative of this type, yet many a Christian who is not otherwise a Lutheran finds himself compelled to solve the problem in this way."

I have edited out certain phrases that would make it too easy.

The Month of May

2011-03-22T13:59:00.002-05:00

May 2011...

Sure, May is an important month...the sun is out, the weather has warmed up, but isn't too hot, the flowers are blooming etc. But this year, May is particularly important. Yes, I am graduating this May, but that isn't what makes this May so special. This May is particularly monumental because of the fact that Mountain is re-releasing Pitch Black. Yes, you read me right, Pitch Black is coming back to a supermarket near you.

Sadly, some of you don't know what Pitch Black is. In 2004 Mountain Dew released this sour grape flavored beverage during the Halloween season. It also made an appearance the following year. Yet, Mountain Dew discontinued the flavor after that. It has been a sad 6 years for this soda drinker. But relief has finally come...for those of you who visit my home, be warned: You will not have room to walk, as I will be stocking up as if Y2K was a threat all over again.

Some Caveats:
1) No...this isn't a theological post and has nothing to do with the Bible (though it would be nice if there were some ethical imperative that Mountain Dew must never again discontinue this modern marvel)
2) I know there are more serious things in the world to talk about
3) Mountain Dew has not paid me a dime to write this post (Although I will happily accept payment in the form of a truck full of Pitch Black soda...and not bottled...canned...that way it won't ever lose its carbonation).

What I like about N.T. Wright and the New Perspective

2011-03-21T09:37:00.005-05:00

“So tell me about the New Perspective on Paul.”
“Yeah, the New Perspective is a reformulation the reformation the doctrine of justification. They claim that the Reformers got it wrong. Justification isn’t about how one gets right before God. It’s about how one gets into the people of God. So to them, Justification isn’t a salvation issue; it’s an ecclesiology issue.”
“Okay…sin is still a problem right? What does the New Perspective say makes someone right before God?”
“Good question. Well, you have initial justification which is by faith alone. You get into the people of God by faith instead of by the rituals of the Law. Final justification is in accordance with the whole life lived.”
“Wow, that sounds an awful lot like Roman Catholicism.”
“It sure does.”
------
My fear about evangelical conversations about the New Perspective is that all discussion about it will take on some form similar to the mock conversation written above. So far, I have heard little interaction with the “meat” of what the New Perspective on Paul (NPP) scholars, especially N.T. Wright, argue. For the sake of brevity, I want to focus on N.T. Wright. Oftentimes, Wright has been misrepresented by well-intentioned reviewers. In my opinion, these reviewers make two mistakes. First, they omit a major part of his work by evaluating his impact on the systematic theological formulation of justification instead of focusing on the Biblical theological implications of his view. Secondly, they misunderstand his view on justification. Wright, contrary to what has often been said about his views, brings healthy critique to the view of evangelical view of justification and offers a much needed perspective on what the Bible says as a whole.

God’s plan for a fallen world lies at the center of N.T. Wright’s perspective.¹ When humans rebelled against their Creator, they were exiled from Eden. The Fall brought the curse upon this world setting it on a path toward destruction (Gen 3). The covenant made with Abraham is God’s remedy of the problem: God will bless Abraham’s seed (reversing the curse), and through Abraham’s seed the blessing will come to the entire world. God chose Abraham’s family (i.e. Israel) to be the mediators of the blessing to the whole world. Even God’s chosen people, however, could not escape their sinful disposition. They, like the rest of humanity, rejected God. As a result, they were also exiled. All of humanity lies under the judgment of God with no hope of being restored. If God’s promise-through Abraham-for the world is stopped by Israel’s failure, what happens to the promise? Will God be unfaithful to the promise? Of course not! Israel demonstrates their need for a savior– they need a Messiah. For that reason, God sent his Son. The Messiah, however, was not only going to save Jews, he was going to save the world.

For Wright, justification includes both God’s dealing with sin and membership in the covenant (though the two are not mutually exclusive). No one can be justified by works of the law because “what the law does is reveal sin.”² Jesus’s substitutionary death deals with the sin problem. All who have faith in Jesus are “in the Messiah,” and what is true of him becomes true of them. Those who have faith are in union with the Messiah and share his status as vindicated before God. Thus, Jesus’s faithfulness “redefine[s] his people”³ from a people who stand condemned to a people who are declared to be in the right from a people who were in exile to a people who are now gathered together in the promise of God. “‘[R]ighteousness’” – the status of the Messiah – “denotes the status enjoyed by God’s true family, now composed of both Jews and Gentiles”⁴ God demonstrates his faithfulness to promise through the faithfulness of Jesus. God’s plan which was to go through Israel to the world is accomplished through Jesus the Messiah.

Salvation is not about where Christians go when they die but about “the rescue of the world itself.”⁵ So the gospel could be defined as: “God had a single plan all along through which he intended to rescue the world and the human race, and that this single plan was centered upon the call of Israel, a call which Paul saw coming to fruition in Israel’s representative, the Messiah.”⁶ This plan includes God’s dealing with sin through penal substitutionary death of his Son on behalf of fallen humans, but the gospel is not limited to the soteriological realm. If you place your faith in Jesus, you will be a part of the family of Abraham, an inheritor of the blessing of Abraham which looks forward to the restoration of the earth from the curse. If you do not place faith in the Messiah, you will continue to live in exile and are in danger of being forever in exile – cut off from the promises of God.

Humans do not have to be proselytized to Judaism in order to be in the family of Abraham. When Gentiles exercised faith in Jesus, they were brought into the family of God and inherited blessing of Abraham. In other words, they were saved. The Jews on the other rejected their Messiah and still tried to maintain their “sonship” by doing the works of the law. They, however, remain on the outside looking in.

We cannot under emphasize the role of the Spirit in Wright’s formulation of justification. Through the power of the Spirit, one “seeks” for final salvation. We work for salvation (not to earn it), and the Spirit works within us “mak[ing] that victory operative in our moral lives and [enabling] us to love God in return.”⁷ The Spirit transforms his people into covenant keepers. Through faith a person is presently justified anticipating the future verdict that one will be found “righteous” – within God’s people – by the working of the Holy Spirit (Remember that being in God’s people meant that the what was true of the Messiah is true of that person). What Israel lacked in the OT, God gives to the church in the NT. Christians are still commanded to be faithful to the covenant. Since they have the Holy Spirit, they now have the power to be faithful. Final justification according to this view is that same as the evangelical formulation: we are saved not on the basis of works but in accordance with works (NOTE: Where I differ with Wright is that his view excludes imputation of Christ’s righteousness. More could be said on this, but to do so would go beyond the scope of this article.). The work of the Messiah and the Holy Spirit ensures that God’s plan to remedy the world will not fail.

I do not think that Wright’s view excludes much from the evangelical view of the justification. I think that his view adds much to the view justification. His view of justification brings the whole Bible into perspective. What I like about Wright is he that includes the entire Biblical narrative in his view of justification. Because of his attention to narrative, he is able to give us a more robust theology of the church, of eschatology, and of pneumatology. We must be careful not to exclude sin and the wrath of God from our gospel message. “Jesus saves me.” Yes and amen! But if our gospel message week in and week out is only concerned with how “Jesus saves me,” are we not missing something essential? Do not God’s gospel purposes extend beyond the individual? We do not agree with everything Wright says, but I hope that we will read Wright to see how justification encompasses more than the individual’s standing before God. If our gospel message continues to be unreflective of the whole Biblical narrative, we evangelicals will continue to be reductionistic in our reading of Scripture. I think Wright provides a much needed corrective to our perspective onsalvation.

------

^{1. Wright, 25. He faults the Reformers for failing to attend to God’s larger purposes for the world.}
^{2. Ibid, 118.}
^{3. Ibid, 118.}
^{4. Ibid, 121.}
^{5. Ibid, 10.}
^{6. Ibid, 35.}
^{7. Ibid, 239. This removes the accusation that Wright’s version of the NPP could lead to a return to Catholicism.}

Ash Wednesday: A Question from My Wife

2011-03-09T10:39:00.001-06:00

Dear people around the table,

Ash Wednesday is today and is essentially non-existent in my almost Baptist life. What is it and do any of you celebrate it and why or why not? Wikipedia says you Presbyterians are supposed to... :)

Thanks!
Mary Beth

Geneis 24 Exegesis (Part 1)

2011-03-05T11:36:00.006-06:00

INTRODUCTION:

I have decided to do a series of posts on Genesis 24. The translation is fairly wooden because I want the reader to be able to see how I am interpreting the story as much as possible in my exegesis section rather than in my translation. In other words, I want to retain the structure of the Hebrew as much as possible. Albeit, one cannot avoid interpretation in translation, so the following translation does contain some smoothing out. In this series of posts, I hope to be able illustrate some hermeneutical principles for interpreting Old Testament narrative, and I would love your input and observations as we go along.

TRANSLATION:

1. And Abraham went old in days, and the LORD had blessed Abraham in all things. 2. And Abraham said to his servant - the elder of his house the ruler in all which belonged to him, “Please set your hand under my thigh. 3. Let me cause you to swear by the LORD God of the heavens and God of the earth that you will not take a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanites in the midst of whom I am dwelling. 4. For you will go to my land and to the land of my descendants and you will take a wife for my son for Isaac.” 5. And the servant said to him, “Perhaps the woman is not willing to go after me to this land, shall I surely cause your son to return to the land out of which you came?” 6. And Abraham said to him, “Watch yourself lest you cause my son to return there. 7. The LORD God of the heavens who took me from the house of my father and from the land of my relatives and who spoke to me and who swore to me saying ‘To your seed I will give this land’ he will send his messenger before you and you will take a woman for my son from there. 8. And if the woman is not willing to go after you, you will be free from this my oath, however, you will not cause my son to return there.” 9. And the servant set his hand under the thigh of Abraham his master and swore to him unto this word. 10. And the servant took ten camels from the camels of his master and he went and all the good things of his master were in his hand and he arose and he went to Aram-Nahorim to the city of Nahor. 11. And he caused the camels to kneel from outside to the city toward a well of water in the time of the evening at the time the when women drawers [of water] were to come out. 12. And he said, “LORD God of my master Abraham, please meet before me today and show steadfast love with my master Abraham. 13. Behold I am a standing one at the well of water and the daughters of the men of the city are going out ones to draw water. 14. And let it be the young woman to whom I say ‘Please turn your jar and let me drink’ and let her say, ‘Drink and also your camels I will cause to water’ [let her be the one] you decided for your servant for Isaac and by her I will know that you have shown steadfast love with my master.”

*NOTE: the [ ] indicate places where I’ve supplied words that were not in the text to smooth out the translation.

EXEGESIS:

The first observation we should make in this narrative is that it begins with the waw-conjuction “And Abraham…” In this way, the narrative is connected to what has gone on before. Namely, God called Abraham and promised to him land, seed, and possessions. God made a covenant with Abraham. Abraham failed several times (Hagar, Pharaoh, Abimelech), yet Abraham exemplified faith throughout his life. God, despite Abraham’s failures, had thus far been faithful to his covenant. He gave him possessions, a seed, and a piece of the land of Canaan (see Gen 23).

The second observation we can make is that first sentence does not contain a wayyiqtol; it is a waw+x+qatal – backgrounding information. The narrative proper begins in verse 2, but what is said in verse 1 is important information to keep in mind when reading the narrative.

Thirdly, we cannot avoid the sense of irony in the first verse. Yes, God had given him possessions, seed, and land, but God promised to make Abraham a great nation. Isaac has no wife. Isaac cannot have children. Abraham cannot be a nation.

Abraham’s first act in this chapter (which would be one of Abraham’s last acts) is to cause his servant to swear to bring a wife to his son from Abraham’s family. He is not to intermarry with the Canaanites. Why? Perhaps, our answer resides in Genesis 9 where Noah curses Canaan and blesses Shem and Japheth. Abraham, who descended of Shem, would have no part in sharing the blessing with a cursed people. Maybe marrying a Canaanite would cut Isaac off from the blessing. The narrator does not pause to tell us exactly why Isaac is not to marry from the people of the land.

Furthermore, when the servant asks if he should return Isaac to the land of Abraham’s family, Abraham responds with a strong prohibition: “Watch yourself lest you cause my son to return there. The LORD God of the heavens who took me from the house of my father and from the land of my relatives and who spoke to me and who swore to me saying ‘To your seed I will give this land.’” Abraham’s motives for not sending his son back to the land of his family are founded in the covenant God made with Abraham. Shall Abraham violate the covenant by sending his son back to Nahor? Shall Isaac abandon the promise of God? May it never be! Abraham’s faith is again exhibited in his exhortation to his servant: God will send his messenger and you will take a wife for my son. Notice bookends of the prohibition “do not take my son there.” To take Isaac back to the land of Abraham’s descendants is to trespass against the covenant of God.

The faithful servant swears to keep this oath with Abraham. He takes with him many camels and the good things of his master and journeys to Abraham’s home town. The servant arrives at the city of Nahor in the time of the evening. The author utilizes a nominal clause to tell his reader that women come out to draw water at this time. This background information contextualizes the servant’s prayer. The servant asks God to show him the wife of Isaac through a specific chain of actions. The servant in this part of the request begins with hinneh – “behold” or “take note.” The servant is standing at the well, and the women are coming out. The one girl who fulfills the chain of action - she is the one for Isaac. Notice the words that are used: “Turn your jar so that I may drink,” “Drink and your camels I will also cause to water.” These words will be important to review later in the story.

Here is one final observation: the servant’s prayer heightens the tension in the story. The servant asks that the LORD would show his steadfast love (hesed) to Abraham. The term hesed is an important theological term. Hesed is often used in reference to God’s covenant faithfulness. He shows steadfast love and faithfulness to those who keeps his covenant (Deut 7). He is abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness (Ex 34). The servant uses this term twice in his prayer. First, he uses the word after he asks the LORD to prosper his day. Second, he uses the word after he asks the LORD to show him the girl he has chosen for Isaac. The object of God’s hesed is Abraham (not the servant himself). The servant’s prayer is an explicit reminder of what is at stake in this narrative. God’s covenant faithfulness is at stake. Isaac does not have a wife. Abraham cannot be a great nation. God is unfaithful. Will God show his steadfast love to Abraham? Will God be faithful to his promise? We will have to wait until the next post…or you could just read the story.

Rob Bell for and against

2011-03-05T08:06:00.003-06:00

A few days ago Rob Bell's new promo video for his soon to be released book Love Wins made a splash in Evangelicalism. There were some like Justin Talyor who came out with an assessment of what Bell would say in the book without reading the book. Others like Greg Boyd read an advanced copy of the book and have come out in support of the book. Boyd made a small criticism of those who haven't read the book and still gave an opinion. In general I would agree with Boyd that it is better to have fully examined something before you write a critique of it. However, in Boyd's critique he concludes that he really doesn't know for sure where Bell stands on the issue regarding Universalism. Justin Taylor made his assessment regarding what Bell believed based on the video as well as on a large amount of material from the past. Others have read the book and agreed with Justing Taylor, so perhaps reading the book wasn't needed to give an accurate opinion of what Bell believes. In Bell like fashion let me leave you with a couple of questions. Is it right for someone to access someone else's teaching...ever? Do we have to wait for someone to come right out and say, "I believe such and such" before we can make a judgement? If someone seems to be leading thousands of people down the wrong road how long do we wait till we try and warn those people? I'm just asking the questions.

Koessler: Worship

2011-03-03T13:13:00.002-06:00

For you former Moody students out there, I thought you might like to know that Dr. John Koessler was published in this month's issue of Christianity Today. The name of the article is "The Trajectory of Worship."

Is there such a thing as a heretic?

2011-03-01T17:06:00.000-06:00

I have a question that I would like to pose. When is someone who claims to be a Christian no longer considered a Christian? Let me put it another way. If someone is a pastor and teaches that Jesus was just a man who was really nice but never claimed to be God and ended up married running a used camel dealership, we would have no problem saying that this man is not a Christian at all no matter how many crosses he has tattooed to his forearm.
Rob Bell is about to release a new book and according to the promo video he seems to be suggesting that God couldn’t really be sending people to Hell? Could He? There have already been some who have seen this video and have condemned him for teaching Universalism. Is he? Vegas odds would be in favor of this assessment. I personally am not coming to this conclusion as absolute, further study needs to be done such as reading his new book, and if a final determination cannot be assessed from that then I believe it is reasonable for Mr. Bell to be asked outright and a definitive answer from him to be given.
I would like to use this occurrence to ask the question; “when is someone a heretic? CNN has asked this question of the Christian community as a whole;”is Rob Bell a heretic?” It is almost as if they are daring us to give an answer. Division in the church?! now that would be a juicy story. Perhaps CNN doesn’t realize it but that is exactly the question that should be asked. It is one thing to differ concerning who wrote the book of Hebrews but to come out and say that Christianity is only one among many ways to God that is a teaching of a different color.
The fact is that Bell may be suggesting something even worse. He seems to indicate that for us to believe that we need to be saved from a wrathful God at all would make God unloving, therefore in the end Love will win and all will be with God and Hell is just a story to scare children. As I said Mr. Bell should be given complete opportunity to denounce this as just an overreaction and that in fact he does believe we need Jesus for salvation, and that He is the only way to God. Perhaps Oprah could squeeze him in for an interview.
It seems in the Evangelical world that the only belief that is considered Heresy is the belief that there can be some who claim to be followers of Jesus and actually be called Heretics. “Who are we to judge others, that is for God to do”, seems to be the mantra today. The deity of Christ, the Resurrection, the Atonement, trinity, the virgin birth, miracles, creation, is there anything that we can say is something that has to be believed in order to be a Christian?

What To Believe?: Bart Ehrman and James Berends

2011-02-17T14:21:00.005-06:00

For anyone who might be interested, Bart Ehrman and James Berends will be talking about their respective spiritual journeys tonight at 6:00PM EST. The conversation will be held at Global Education Center, Nelson Mandela Auditorium 301 Pittsboro Street Chapel Hill, NC. For those of you who are not in the area, the event will be broadcasted live via facebook here. For more information about the event and the speakers, click here.

[revision] If you were unable to view the event live last it is still available. Follow the previously given instructions in order to watch it live. Then click on the video of Bart Ehrman. After clicking on that video, a list of videos will be displayed. The first video, and I believe that it is the only video, is the recording of last nights conversation.

Somthing just for fun

2011-02-16T09:09:00.001-06:00

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20110216/D9LDRAT01.html

Proving once again if it isn't Scottish it is c......called into question.

Robert Alter's The Art of Biblical Narrative

2011-02-13T18:20:00.009-06:00

Robert Alter in his book The Art of Biblical Narrative urges his readers to read the Bible as literature. As evangelicals, we may bristle at the notion that we should read the Scripture as a work of art. The Bible is not fiction, but the hermeneutic that dominates our churches does not allow us to engage the text of the Hebrew Bible (HB). Though we do not use the historical critical method, evangelicals are still at fault for finding the locus of the meaning of the text in the event behind the text. Proper reading of the HB, however, is a text-centered reading. If we are to discover the meaning in the text, we need to learn how to read it. Alter’s book gives us some of the guidelines of text-centered reading and encourages us to engage the HB as attentive readers.

In chapter one, he criticizes the modern approaches to the HB while detailing his literary approach to the HB. Alter continues his discussion on the literary approach in chapter two where he addresses the problem of “history” and “prose.” Chapters three through eight describe some of the literary conventions in the HB including: Type scenes, dialogue, repetition, characterization, composition, and narration. Alter also provides a plethora of examples from the HB demonstrating these conventions. He concludes his book in chapter nine with one last encouragement to reader: be alert when reading the text for the author can communicate meaning through a variety of these techniques.

Alter’s critique of historical critical method is fair. Critical scholars are adept in finding the variations and oddities in the way stories are told in the HB. Their conclusions, however, have led them to divide the HB into its various sources in an attempt to reconstruct the history of Israel. Similarly, evangelicals, though we do not tear the text apart, often leave the text to find significance in history as depicted by the text. Alter’s method provides a much needed correction to current scholarship.

Approaching the Bible as literature has its share of problems. If evangelicals approach the HB (or the New Testament for that matter) as “fiction,” are we not giving up on inerrancy? Although Alter is not an inerrantist, Alter struggles a bit with the conflict between history and prose. Alter ends up classifying the HB as “history-like fiction.” As evangelicals, we do not agree with his conclusion, yet that should not prevent us reading the Bible as literature. Alter argues this point well in the following chapters. The Biblical writer used literary conventions to provide his readers with a fuller picture of the event. The text is the locus of meaning. Our modern view of history will have to be shaped with the knowledge that the Bible is literature, but we must first acknowledge the prose-like nature of the text.

The conventions that Alter provides are helpful to our reading the Bible as literature. Dialogue is a major part in the narrative world of the Bible. Dialogue develops the picture of the personality of the character in a way that narration cannot. Alter uses the story of Joseph and Potiphar’s wife to exemplify this idea. Potiphar’s wife says two words in the Hebrew: “Lie with me.” The terseness of her words displays her single mindedness – she must bed Joseph. Joseph, however, articulates his refusal with a long speech – showing his upright character. When Potiphar’s wife finally obtains Joseph’s robe, she makes two speeches. To the servants she says, “Look, this Hebrew has been brought to us to make sport of us! He came in here to sleep with me, but I screamed. When he heard me scream for help, he left his cloak beside me and ran out of the house.” To her husband she says, “That Hebrew slave you brought us came to me to make sport of me. But as soon as I screamed for help, he left his cloak beside me and ran out of the house.” Her speech to the servants is intended to rally them against Joseph who had been their superviser. She makes her appeal to her husband with the intention shaming him. He was the one who brought Joseph to the house, and all Joseph had done was try to rape her. Joseph is upright, and he is treated unjustly. The cunning words of Potiphar's wife gets him thrown in prison. As the previous example has shown, dialogue makes the Biblical characters more human and gives us a fuller picture of the event.

Dialogue is also important in the retelling of events. Where the narrated event is the same and where it differs in dialogue can be significant in determining the meaning of the story (read Genesis 24 to see how the servant uses speech to convince Rebekah’s family to allow her to return to the land of Canaan).

Repetition is also important. Where words, phrases, or events are repeated, the author is bringing out significant meaning. Examples include: blessing and cursing and covenant in the Pentateuch, the verb “to see” in Genesis 1-3 and 1 Samuel 15-16, or the word “hesed” in the book of Ruth.

Pay attention to oddities in narration. Oddly placed genealogies (see Gen 24: 15 or Ex 6:13-27), for instance, are inserted into the narrative as a sort-of narrative comment. Inclusios and chiasms are also significant.

Alter’s discussion of composition is thought provoking. Why does the Bible writer “glue” sources together in the way he does? We can pull the stories a part and examine the meaning of the stories separately from the form present in the HB. The meaning of those separated sources, however, is different from the meaning found in the present form. There may have been two creation stories, two flood stories, a Priestly source and a Holiness Code source, but they have been placed together to convey new meaning beyond the meaning of the sources. Composition is a powerful way to communicate meaning. The more we read, the more we can pick out the compositional seams of the sources. We ought to take time to ponder why the author decided to arrange the materials in the way he did.

The type-scene is the idea that some scenes are repeated several times with varying detail to convey meaning about persons and events. For example, the well scenes (Rebekah and the servant, Jacob and Rachel, Moses and the daughters of Reuel) throughout the Bible shed light on character of the individuals in the story. This convention can be taken too far. If the reader is not careful, he could make a type-scene out of anything. The idea also seems to lean heavily on the idea of the HB as fiction. I am not willing to throw this convention out the window, but I am reticent to look for it when I read.

Alter’s method stands firm despite dubious terms like “history-like fiction.” If evangelicals would adopt a more careful reading of the Scripture rather than rely upon our ability to uncover the event, we would be able to see the meaning of Scripture more clearly. Without the disparaging the use of history, I would like to humbly suggest that we let the focus on the historical event take a back seat when we think about the meaning of the text. I along Alter would like to encourage all readers to pay attention to all the details of the HB. We would improve our understanding of Scripture if we do.

James Anderson on Two-Kingdom Theology

2011-02-11T16:20:00.002-06:00

Dr. James Anderson of RTS Charlotte asks some tough questions with respect to David VanDrunen's (and might I add WSC's) two-kingdom theology. Any thoughts?

3 Baruch

2011-02-11T07:46:00.010-06:00

As a part of my independent study on Ezekiel (The Restoration of Israel and the Gentile incorporation therein) I am required to read all of the Pseudepigrapha and Apocrypha (as well as any other 2nd Temple Literature I can get my hands on). It was while I was reading that a particular passage in 3 Baruch caught my attention.

3 Baruch chapter 4 narrates an incident wherein Baruch is led into Hades by an angel of God. While there he observes many awe-inspiring things and these sights prompt him to ask about the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The angel identifies it as the grapevine. Many of you may be thinking, "There is no evidence for that in the text" or "Does it really matter what fruit Adam partook of since the test was one of obedience or disobedience?" These are fair objections, yet the connection that the author of 3 Baruch makes is significant.

3 Baruch is reading the event of Genesis 3 in light of Genesis 9. Subsequent to his departure from the ark, Noah planted a vineyard and imbibed of its fruit to the point of drunkenness. It must be noted at this point that the document is not making a case against drinking wine, as a matter of fact, it endorses it in moderation, as we will see shortly. In order that the significance of all this might not allude us for the sake of the minor details I will cut to the chase. 3 Baruch provides early support for understanding Noah as a second Adam/type of Adam, who, like Adam, fell in disobedience.

Finally, 3 Baruch connects the vine with the blood of Christ. Thus, it is both by the vine that man is thrust into sin, depravity and waywardness and also restored unto grace.

Caveat: Obviously I am not writing this as if 3 Baruch is a part of the canon or is authoritative in any manner. It is merely an early interpretation of the canon we have received.

Calvin vs. Calvinists or Muller vs. Helm

2011-02-07T20:56:00.002-06:00

This post by Adam Parker is fascinating.

Book Review: The Bible for Young Children

2011-02-02T11:11:00.004-06:00

This volume, graciously given by Eerdmans to review, is a nice collection of art and brief summaries of key events relating to redemptive history. The art, corresponding to the different events being re-told, is simple and clear. Likewise, the summaries of the events are equally simple, with no controversial interpretations, though at times lacking in important details (see e.g., point 2 below).

A couple of observations should be noted.

1. It is not the whole biblical story which is re-told. Rather, key biblical events are selected (9 in total), some more germane to the overall biblical drama than others. For instance, the Exodus event, clearly a key event in redemptive history is chosen along with the story of Daniel and the lion's den, a comparatively minor event in redemptive history. Why there is no mention of such key events as Israel's exile or Acts' history of the early church is puzzling.

2. On the positive side, theologically speaking, all the stories, many including supernatural events like Jonah, are told as if they were in fact real events (as opposed to myth or fictional story). Negatively, however, is the absolute lack of any mention of sin or the need for a Messiah to deal with sin. Yes, the story of Jesus is told, but noticeably without any real mention of the Jesus' message, "repent and believe." Even in the Exodus event, the forty years of wandering in the desert is told without any hint of the reason for the wandering--namely, because of the Israel's hardness of heart. In fact, it gives the reader the impression that it was just a "very long trip"(pg. 40).

3. Finally, it should be noted that there are pictures of Jesus, which in some Protestant traditions, are a violation of the second commandment. Thankfully however, the pictures of Jesus are not the typical 'white good-looking Jesus' which are unfortunately prevalent in much of the art depicting Jesus.

What Is the Church?

2011-01-26T12:19:00.002-06:00

I'm currently working through some issues of church and parachurch and was wondering what folk were using as their functional definition of church (as opposed to some other entity that does Christian things).
Feel free to shout at me any opinions that come to mind concerning...
What constitutes a church?
Is there any place for a parachurch ministry to legitimately exist?
How does a place of theological education fit within your hastily assembled (or well-thought through and hastily argued) framework?

Pride and Pistols

2011-01-19T11:10:00.003-06:00

The February 2011 edition of the magazine American History[1] has a fascinating article on the gentleman’s way of settling disputes prior to the Civil War, dueling. Lest we think smear campaign ads and the occasional dissenting shout in the midst of a presidential speech are the worst politicians get, this article retells several stories of duels to the death among congressman, governors, and even twice elected president Andrew Jackson. Remembered today because of the “got Milk?” commercial during the 2002 Olympics, the most famous duel occurred when Vice-President Aaron Burr shot and killed former Secretary of State Alexander Hamilton.

And yet, as the article makes clear, politicians were but one group using this means to settle disputes. Any “gentleman” whose honor was insulted or questioned by another gentleman could challenge his opponent to a duel. Don’t worry; they didn’t challenge just anyone to a gunfight. It had to be another gentleman. If it were simply a lesser man, an “underling” who insulted a gentleman, then he “thrashed the upstart with a cane or whip” (p. 36). Gentlemen esteemed their honor above all else and when it was called into question they could either ignore it and be considered a coward by the public or do the noble thing and shoot it out. Even more interesting than some of the stories in the article are the quotes demonstrating these men really saw this as the right course of action. In fact, they saw it as the only proper response.

Andrew Jackson’s mother taught him the importance of dueling when she said, “’The law…affords no remedy for such an outrage that can satisfy a gentleman. Fight!” (p. 34). Jackson clearly held onto this viewpoint throughout life, expressing it in the following quote while he was President. “ Unless some mode is adopted to frown down by society the slanderer, who is worse than a murderer, all attempts to put down dueling will be in vain” (p. 38). A slanderer, here meaning someone who insults the honor of a gentleman, in his opinion is worse than a murderer, which makes perfect sense as to why he had no qualms killing someone in a duel. An Arkansas Senator, Ambrose Sevier, also defended duels by stating, “Nine out of every ten were fought for causes that could not be got over any other way” (p. 39). Again, don’t miss the subtlety of this statement. Senator Sevier clearly states there is no other way to resolve disputes and insults than dueling.

I find this interesting not only because the leaders of a nation saw dueling as the most fitting and only proper response to an injury to someone’s honor but also because it clearly pictures the heart of pride. Stories, whether historical like these or ones in a good piece of fiction, provide great test-cases or examples by which truths come to light. We should be able to discern these things immediately in our own life but blindness to our own sin often restricts this. However, when you read things like murdering another because an insult to his reputation you clearly see how foolish this is and how pride corrupts people. Our hearts are so prideful that we believe the lies about how important and significant we are, lies occasionally fed to us by others but most often they are lies we convince ourselves of. Not only does pride cause us to have big heads and puffed chests but it leads to the destruction of anyone who would challenge us. Although some continue to kill or abuse others even today because they can’t back down or look like a punk, most of us don’t take out a gun and kill someone because our honor/reputation is challenged or because our pride is injured.

However, our hearts are no less wicked than those before us and we employ subtle ways to defend ourselves and attack others. If someone at work or church slightly questions your talents, gifts, abilities, or position are you quick to get angry and defensive? If your spouse disagrees do you show hostility because your pride is hurt? If someone slanders you, gets in your way, or challenges you is your immediate reaction to put them in their place? I know in my own life this is a constant challenge. I’ve yet to actually engage in duel with pistols like the aforementioned politicians (air-soft fights don’t count right?), but my own pride exhibits itself in somewhat similar ways. Pride often shows itself in my life in a sarcastic and harsh tongue. Sure there are times where sarcastic jabs are friendly or purposeful, but other times sarcasm is a defensive way of trying to demean someone else and prove my importance. When someone says or does something injurious my pride there may not be a smoking gun in my hand but there is usually a sarcastic and biting word on my tongue. It reveals pride in my heart as I see my honor/reputation/dignity worth more than the other person. Rather than care more about obedience to God or the worth of the other person, my immediate concern is exalting myself and tearing down the other person.

This is one example of how pride manifests itself in my life and merely an instance of the extremes it will take us to. How does pride rear its ugly head in your own life? Whether it be a murderous duel among gentleman to defend their honor or an argument between people trying to prove themselves right, we must all be aware of how subtle and dangerous pride is and we must seek God’s help to root it out of our own lives. Theology always comes into play so we would do well to remember only God is perfect and worthy of honor, and as fallen human beings we are full of failure and weakness. We exist not to exalt ourselves but to glorify God and help others see His glory by loving and serving them. Your pride and my pride would distract us from such a purpose and try to deceive us into putting ourselves at the center.

[1] Carlson, Peter. “Pistols at Dawn.” American History. February 2011: 32-39.

Antinomianism and Union with Christ in Reformed Theology

2011-01-18T13:23:00.006-06:00

I have been, as of late, writing a long (35-page) study on how the doctrine of union with Christ has been used in Reformed theology as an argument against the oft-heard charge against Protestant theology--justification by faith alone leads to antinomianism. Of course, correspondingly, there is also the pastoral concern that if you preach justification by faith alone then you will breed all sorts of antinomian tendencies in your parishioners.

The paper surveyed two Reformed responses, triggered in two largely different polemical contexts, with one strong and unified response against the alleged antinomianism of Protestant theology: You can't have justification without sanctification because neither can be had without having Christ--and to have Christ is to be made holy.

John Calvin, fighting the Roman Catholic accusation of Protestant theology as promoting antinomianism responded to the Roman Catholic Sadoleto this way:

We deny that good works have any share in justification, but we claim full authority for them in the lives of the righteous. For, if he who has obtained justification possesses Christ, and, at the same time, Christ never is where his Spirit is not, it is obvious that gratuitous righteousness is necessarily connected with regeneration. Therefore, if you would duly understand how inseparable faith and works are, look to Christ, who, as the Apostle teaches, (1 Cor. 1:30,) has been given to us for justification and sanctification…for faith cannot apprehend Christ for righteousness without the Spirit of sanctification.

Edward Fisher (fl. 1645), the author of the well-known but controversial book The Marrow of Modern Divinity, argued against the Puritan preparationists of his day:

Wherefore, friend Antinomista, if either you, or any man else, shall, under a pretence of your being in Christ, exempt yourselves from being under the law of the ten commands, as they are the law of Christ, I tell you truly, it is a shrewd sign you are not yet in Christ; for if you were, then Christ were in you; and if Christ were in you, then would he govern you, and you would be subject unto him. I am sure the prophet Isaiah tells us, that the same Lord, who is our Saviour, “is also our King and Lawgiver," (Isa. 33:22; and, truly, he will not be Jesus a Saviour to any but only to those unto whom he is Christ a Lord; for the very truth is, wheresoever he is Jesus a Saviour, he is also Christ a Lord; and therefore, I beseech you, examine yourself whether he be so to you or no.

Review of Syntax of the Hebrew Verb in Classical Hebrew Prose

2011-01-16T15:30:00.015-06:00

Since I took Hebrew Syntax and Exegesis (Hebrew 3), I have been fascinated by the discussions over the use of verbs in a language. My fascination revolves around how the author employs narrative devices to tell the biblical story. Those devices are dependent upon the syntactical relations between words, sentences, paragraphs, etc. In other words, in order to understand the author’s narrative devices, we must understand the author’s use of language.

One of the more problematic areas of study within the Hebrew language is the determination of the function of the verb. The problem is evident in our translations. The same Hebrew verbal form (QATAL, YIQTOL, WAYYIQTOL, weQATAL, and weYIQTOL) is often translated into different tenses. Niccacci in his book Syntax of the Verb in Classical Hebrew Prose follows the “text linguistic” approach to studying the verb. That is, he is concerned with studying the function of the verb through an examination of its usage in the Hebrew text.

“Text Linguistics” is concerned with more than just a word’s function in the sentence. To make this point, Niccacci quotes “text linguistic” scholar H. Weinrich, “ A grammar which does not accept units beyond the sentence can never even notice let alone resolve the most interesting problems of linguistics” (19). Going beyond the sentence, Niccacci’s study of the verb depends upon the examination of its usage within the framework of Hebrew prose.

Chapters one and two introduce “text linguistics.” Since “text linguistics” is used mostly for modern languages, The third and fourth chapter outline his approach for the Hebrew language as it is found in the Bible. In chapters five and six, Niccacci examines two major divisions in prose: narrative and discourse. In chapter seven, he systematizes his discussion on the verb in chapters four and five. Chapter eight addresses “inter-sentence relationships” i.e. clausal structures. He offers a summary of the verb in prose in chapter nine, and chapter ten contains a summary of the verb’s usage in poetry.

The chapter on narrative is fantastic. According to Niccacci, the WAYYIQTOL is the main narrative tense; it marks the continuation of the story. On the other hand, WAW-x-QATAL constructions are antecedent (background information) to the narrative – they can anticipate or rehash narrative information. YIQTOLs and weQATALs indicate continual or habitual action.

The chapter is particularly helpful in detailing the use of the wayehi. When the verb is translated as “And it was”, it is the “macrosyntactic marker” of the narrative, which means “that its presence alone is enough to mark the passage as narrative” (48). He makes three important comments: the wayehi links the antecedent to the main narrative, it can link unrelated material together, and it never occurs at the beginning of the narrative.

In chapter five, Niccacci moves to the use of the verb in discourse. He argues that the YIQTOL is the main discourse form. Indicative YIQTOL, which never occurs at the beginning of a sentence, and weQATALs are translated into the future tense. The weYIQTOL is a jussive form, and the YIQTOL can also function as a jussive. Whenever עתה or הנה is used, the narrator is drawing attention to important details in the discourse. A WAYYIQTOL chain, which occurs after a WAW-x-QATAL, indicates a narrative inside discourse which he calls “narrative discourse.”

In chapter eight, Niccacci goes into great detail on inter-sentence relationships. He develops good criteria for determining subordinating and coordinating clauses paying special attention to ‘casus pedens’ and its role in a clause.

Though Niccacci is able to systematize much of the discussion, Niccacci does not have a answer for every example. In the case of the continuation WAYYIQTOL in Job 1, he admits that he does not have an answer to why the weQATAL seems to be interchangeable with the WAYYIQTOL.
Niccacci does a great job in providing examples for his reader. The Hebrew text is not pointed, but he provides the English translation to aid the reader. To the detriment of the inexperienced Hebrew reader, he occasionally does not provide the translation of the Hebrew examples. That occasion, however, is rare.

Though Niccacci provides many examples to clarify his categories, he can be confusing. For instance, the reader may have to read his chapter on two-element syntactic construction several times in order to understand the discussion. The summary chapter of the verb in prose is also difficult because he wants to maintain that the categories that he developed in the previous are not grammatical laws, the reader can be easily lost in the discussion. If the latter chapters were organized a little better, I think he could have avoided confusing his readers.

The short chapter on the verb in poetry does not provide much useful information. Niccacci seems to be making the point that his categories do not work in poetry. Admittedly, the book focuses on the verb’s function in prose, so one cannot fault him too much for the lack of details.

Niccacci’s work goes a long way in describing the use of the Hebrew verb. I recommend this book to anyone desiring to expand their knowledge of the use of the verb in prose. The most important idea to glean from this book is to remember that our understanding of syntax must go beyond the word and the sentence. Along with word and the sentence, we must consider whole narrative structures in order to determine verbal function. Scholars and pastors – anyone who desires to understand the story should engage the author on every level from the word to the entire narrative.

Top 100 Christian Books of 2010

2011-01-14T22:50:00.012-06:00

I found this link over at David Black Online. I don't entirely know why I even clicked on the link or spent the time reading through the books that made the list. Why, you ask? Having worked at a Christian bookstore several years ago I knew that I would be incensed by the what might be included on the list. Needless to say, it did not disappoint.

The list was mainly comprised of the following:

1) Romantic Christian Fiction (Rivers, Kingsbury, etc)
2) Finances (Ramsey)
3) Self-Help
4) General Christian Fiction

Well...you get the picture.

Now, it would be incredibly easy to rant about the decline of the theological and biblical literacy in America, but not only would that be too easy, I myself grow weary of that rhetoric. I merely desire to ponder aloud:

1) Is there a problem?
2) Where in lies the problem?
3) Is it a shortcoming of Church leaders, elders, pastors etc?
4) Is the fault to be placed on the individual Christian?
5) Is the fault on Christian bookstores? After all, you cannot find an extensive reference section in either Family Christian or Lifeway (unless the Lifeway is a seminary bookstore).
6) Can it be simply boiled down to good old American greed? We want the greatest return on our investment. Why spend the time to learn the difficult matters, when I can have the latest self-help book that will guarantee spiritual maturity in 8-10 weeks or your money back?

Please don't misunderstand me. Not everyone has a passion to learn Greek, Hebrew and Latin. Nor does everyone have a deep longing to understand the inner-dimensions of the Ontological argument for the existence of God (I surely don't). Furthermore, I don't expect every Christian to be in the same place mentally, spiritually, or emotionally. Nevertheless, it seems as if something has gone terribly awry when less than a tenth of the books on this list rise above genres such as self-help, pop-psychology, etc re-packaged in Christian jargon. Is it too much to ask for a systematic theology, a commentary that faithfully seeks to interpret the text on its own terms, or even a simple basic theological primer for new Christians to appear on this list?

It seems as if I failed. If you are still with me, I apologize for the rant. Yet, these are my honest thoughts. No pontifications. No valid assessment. Just the thoughts of a somewhat distraught seminary student. If any of you have a better handle on these matters, feel free to respond.

Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament

2011-01-14T06:56:00.008-06:00

Believe it or not, this is a pleasure read. When I wake up in the morning I try to follow a regimented schedule: read a chapter of Matthew out of the GNT, read a paragraph or so from Leviticus from the BHS, read a chapter in Exploring Jewish Literature of the Second Temple Period. Before spending the rest of the day knocking out two lessons from Wheelock's Latin, I take a break and dive into this book.

I distinctly remember the first week of Greek Exegesis 2 with Dr. Bateman at Moody Bible. Sure, he was eccentric, but he had a passion for the language. The first lesson we covered was on conjunctions. We learned which conjunctions signal independent clauses and which signal dependent clauses. We learned, as fundamental as it might be, that conjunctions divide clauses into self-contained units. While none of this material was particularly difficult to grasp, it forever changed my understanding of the language.

Much in the same way, Runge's first chapter on conjunctions was delightful. He discusses the "markedness" of the major conjunctions. Do they signal continuity or discontinuity? Do they add an aspect of development to the narrative in question? Which conjunctions have unique semantic constraints? All of these elements help the Greek student understand the discourse structure of whatever Greek passage is under consideration.

Although I have not read enough to give the book a thorough evaluation, this chapter alone is a must read for all students of the Greek New Testament.

The Connection Between Federal Headship and the Application of Redemption

2011-01-12T21:39:00.004-06:00

We are to consider, that as Jesus Christ, the second Adam, entered into the same covenant that the first Adam did, so by him was done whatsoever the first Adam had undone. So the case stands thus,—that as whatsoever the first Adam did, or befell him, was reckoned as done by all mankind, and to have befallen them, even so, whatsoever Christ did, or befell him, is to be reckoned as to have been done by all believers, and to have befallen them. So that as sin cometh from Adam alone to all mankind, as he in whom all have sinned; so from Jesus Christ alone cometh righteousness unto all that are in him, as he in whom they all have satisfied the justice of God; for as being in Adam, and one with him, all did, in him and with him, transgress the commandment of God; even so, in respect of faith, whereby believers are ingrafted into Christ, and spiritually made one with him, they did all, in him, and with him, satisfy the justice of God, in his death and sufferings.[1]

[1] Fisher, The Marrow of Modern Divinity (Christian Focus, 2009), 120.

Don't shoot your Allies!

2011-01-09T21:35:00.008-06:00

The free time I have from school has afforded me ample time to catch up on books I had wanted to read but school-work did not allow. Chief in line was Bruce Gordon's biography on Calvin. I am half-way done and came across a letter Calvin wrote to Bullinger which is worthy of reproducing.

The context: Calvin is seeking to persuade Bullinger in the name of Protestant unity not to respond to Luther's caustic diatribes against Bullinger and the other Swiss Zwinglians, particularly their doctrine of the Lord's Supper.

I hear that Luther has at length broken forth in fierce invective, not so much against you as against the whole of us. On the present occasion, I dare scarce venture to ask you to keep silence, because it is neither just that innocent persons should thus be harassed, nor that they should be denied the opportunity of clearing themselves; neither, on the other hand, is it easy to determine whether it would be prudent for them to do so. But of this I do earnestly desire to put you in mind, in the first place, that you would consider how eminent a man Luther is, and the excellent endowments wherewith he is gifted, with what strength of mind and resolute constancy, with how great skill, with what efficiency and power of doctrinal statement, he hath hitherto devoted his whole energy to overthrow the reign of Antichrist, and at the same time to diffuse far and near the doctrine of salvation. Often have I been wont to declare, that even although he were to call me a devil, I should still not the less hold him in such honour that I must acknowledge him to be an illustrious servant of God. But while he is endued with rare and excellent virtues, he labours at the same time under serious faults. Would that he had rather studied to curb this restless, uneasy temperament which is so apt to boil over in every direction. I wish, moreover, that he had always bestowed the fruits of that vehemence of natural temperament upon the enemies of the truth, and that he had not flashed his lightning sometimes also upon the servants of the Lord. Would that he had been more observant and careful in the acknowledgment of his own vices. Flatterers have done him much mischief, since he is naturally too prone to be over-indulgent to himself. It is our part, however, so to reprove whatsoever evil qualities may beset him, as that we may make some allowance for him at the same time on the score of these remarkable endowments with which he has been gifted.

Calvin, in what I perceive to be wise counsel we need to hear in our contentious age, writes:

This, therefore, I would beseech you to consider first of all, along with your colleagues, that you have to do with a most distinguished servant of Christ, to whom we are all of us largely indebted; that, besides, you will do yourselves no good by quarreling, except that you may afford some sport to the wicked, so that they may triumph not so much over us as over the Evangel. If they see us rending each other asunder, they then give full credit to what we say, but when with one consent and with one voice we preach Christ, they avail themselves unwarrantably of our inherent weakness to cast reproach upon our faith. I wish, therefore, that you would consider and reflect on these things rather than on what Luther has deserved by his violence; lest that may happen to you which Paul threatens, that by biting and devouring one another, ye be consumed one of another. Even should he have provoked us, we ought rather to decline the contest than to increase the wound by the general shipwreck of the Church.

You can read the whole letter in Volume 4 (pages 429-434) of Calvin's Tracts and Letters recently republished by Banner.

Difficulties in Leviticus

2011-01-09T19:46:00.009-06:00

As Jacob wrote in a previous post, he and I are continuing to teach through the Pentateuch. We are teaching through Leviticus and Numbers this semester. I had the privilege of working through Leviticus 1-7 this week. The text contains offering rituals to be performed by the covenant community.

What was particularly challenging about this section was the seeming lack of obvious literary features that indicate the author's intended meaning. Unlike Genesis and Exodus, Leviticus opens with a large section of discourse. The discourse contains a list of ordinances for sacrifices and offerings. While I was doing research on this section, I found that many commentators tried to find significance in the symbolic nature of the sacrificial system. I don't doubt that the sacrificial system is highly symbolic. The search for symbolism within chapters 1-7, however, often led commentators away from the text. They focus on how the sacrificial rites were practiced in Israel rather than the literary purpose of those sacrifices within the framework of the book.

In regards to symbolism, the author does not seem to allow the reader to go too far. The text is simply too cut and dry. Yet, the text does have literary features that I believe the reader is supposed to see. For instance, I think the refrains at the end of each offering are significant. For instance, at the end of each burnt offering the author adds the phrase: "It is a burnt offering, a pleasing aroma to the LORD." I think this links the burnt offering back to Genesis 8 and 9 when Noah offered a burnt offering to the LORD. The textual links seem to indicate the purpose of the burnt offerings. God promises to never to destroy mankind again. He renews his covenant with man and blesses Noah and his family. Within the covenantal community, God requires these sacrifices to be offered continually. Man's thoughts are continually wicked, and he requires an offering so that he would not destroy Israel on account of their wickedness.

The author adds this refrain to the end of each grain offering, "The rest of the grain offerings belong to Aaron and his sons. It is the most holy part of the food offerings." The priests are holy since they are dedicated to the service of the Tabernacle. The priests are not common people. They have the special status of mediators for the people. The part of the grain offering (the most holy part) serves as a reminder for them (and for us as readers) that they are to be holy to the LORD.

Also, the first seven chapters contain some narrative lines that seem to act as a sort of glue - marrying lists of offerings together. The lines I'm referring to are: "And the LORD spoke to Moses." Those phrases give the reader a feel for the divisions of text within that section of the narrative.

I'm afraid I've rambled too long for my first post. I'm sure that I missed many of the narrative "hooks" that the author left for his readers. I've had much fun teaching this class, and Jacob and I have received many encouragements from the people in the class. I'm looking forward to the rest of the semester as we tackle both Leviticus and Numbers.

The Well

2011-01-09T07:49:00.005-06:00

Our good friend Thom Desmond has planted a church in Antigo WI. Their first service will be today at The Fifth Avenue Restaurant and Lounge. Here is a link to their site The Well. Thom, we are praying for you and this new church family. We would love to hear from you. How are things coming along? What did you preach about this morning?

A New Semester at RTS-Jackson

2011-01-07T09:26:00.003-06:00

As I embark on another semester at RTS-Jackson, I figured I would run down the classes I am scheduled to take (with the corresponding syllabus linked):

1. Johannine Literature (Dr. Guy Waters)--Surveys the content of John's Gospels and Letters (excluding Revelation). Main text in this course is Köstenberger's A Theology of John’s Gospel and Letters.

2. Joshua to Kings (Dr. Daniel Timmer)--Surveys the content of (not surprisingly!) Joshua to Kings (excluding Ruth). Main texts in this course include Provan, Long, and Longman's A Biblical History of Israel, Satterthwaite and McConville's Exploring the Old Testament: A Guide to the Historical Books, and Goldsworthy's Preaching the Whole Bible as Christian Scripture.

3. Exegesis in the NT [Romans 1-8] (Dr. Guy Waters)--Surveys the content of Romans 1-8 in the original language. Main text in this course is Doug Moo's commentary in the NICNT.

4. Introduction to Preaching (Dr. Derek Thomas)--Introduces some principles for sermon preparation and delivery. Main texts in this course are Robinson's Biblical Preaching, Mohler's He is Not Silent, Feed My Sheep, Clowney's Preaching Christ in All of Scripture, and Lloyd-Jones' Preaching and Preachers. No Syllabus available.

5. An independent study on Linguistics and Discourse Analysis--Info forthcoming...If anyone has advice on studying this topic feel free to offer it.

Progress in Latin

2011-01-05T18:15:00.003-06:00

I am now finishing lesson 10 in Wheelock's Latin and realized that by this time I should be finishing lesson 14. I have a lot of catching up to do before January 20th (the start of the new semester). One of the biggest roadblocks I've had in the past few days have been the demonstrative pronouns. I know, I know, they are very similar to the first through third declensions, but they are proving to be a little more difficult than I expected. For some reason I faultily remember learning the Greek pronouns was a much easier task than it was in truth. Based on my faulty recollection I have developed less sympathy for those I tutor and their inability to keep apace. This is a good reminder that it took a great deal of effort to acquire and maintain the Greek paradigms and I pray it will engender deeper compassion for those who truly desire to learn the languages.

Final Semester

2011-01-05T09:07:00.002-06:00

I just received word that both of my Independent Studies have been approved through the Dean of Graduate studies. What is the upshot? My last semester will be my favorite semester! In order to complete my studies for the MDiv program at Southeastern I only have to complete 6 hours of study and these two classes fulfill those requirements. This means that I will have a vast amount of time to pour myself into both classes.

My first Independent Study is Ecclesiastical Latin with Dr. David Alan Black. I have attempted to learn Latin four times previously. The roadblock I have constantly encountered is not the difficultly of the language (it is virtually identical to Greek) but a lack of time due to other requirements for school. Finally, I will be held responsible for the completion of this exciting task!

My second Independent Study involves an investigation of all Pseudepigraphal, Apocryphal and other 2nd Temple Literature looking for language of eschatology as it specifically relates to the restoration of Israel along with the rest of adam (humanity/mankind). This project will be taken under the guidance of Dr. Tracy McKenzie.

Needless to say, I am excited about this final semester and the privilege to study under two of Southeastern's finest!

Provision for Deliberate Sin in Leviticus

2011-01-03T09:37:00.002-06:00

It is no secret to those who are somewhat familiar with Levitical Law that the sacrificial system provides no provision for those who sin in a deliberate and/or high-handed fashion. Some examples of this might be as follows: murder, adultery, and blasphemy. I do not seek to provide an explanation or solution to/for this matter. Instead, I would like to quote R.K. Harrison's explanation for this "conundrum."

He writes, "But there is no ritual here or elsewhere in the Pentateuch to cover the sins of deliberate and conscious rebellion against God, expressed in such acts as adultery, idolatry, murder or blasphemy. Yet a moment's reflection will enable one to perceive the rationale of such a situation. Had the levitical sacrificial system covered every form of sin and catered for all possible contingencies of transgression, there could have been no room for the work of Christ, since under such conditions it would have been unnecessary."

Maybe I am wrong to feel uncomfortable with this solution. Nevertheless, some reasons for my discomfort are as follows:

1) Was Jesus' sacrificial death only to make possible the forgiveness of these sins?

2) Does this mean that Jesus' death was unnecessary for all of us who don't murder, commit adultery or blaspheme? (Obviously one might counter this question with Jesus' New Testament ethic of murder as defined by hatred of brother)

3) Does this mean that the sacrificial system had efficacy in and of itself apart from Christ?

If anyone still reads this blog, I would like to hear your thoughts on the matter.

Latin

2010-12-17T16:28:00.004-06:00

Well, the semester has ended and the question at the fore of every student's mind is, "How can I be productive during this extensive break?" Who am I kidding? Virtually no one is asking that question except me and a few others, who like me have no life. I digress. During the Christmas season Nathaniel and I will be performing a mad dash through Wheelock's Latin grammar with the intention of being 3/4 of the way through before the beginning of the next semester. We are on day two and have accomplished three lessons.

Lesson 1: Present Active Indicative
1/s o 1/p mus
2/s s 2/p tis
3/s t 3/p nt

Lesson 2: First Declension
nom a ae
gen ae arum
dat ae is
acc am as
abl a is
voc a ae

Lesson 2: Second Declension (masc)
nom us i
gen i orum
dat o is
acc um os
abl o is
voc e i

de sapientia meae populi me laudant!

Culby 8 on the web this week

2010-12-08T19:14:00.004-06:00

Just a couple of quick links on the web.

Michael Lynch posted his reflections on ETS 2010 over at Ref 21.

What Josh Hayward's youth group is reading is over at 9marks.

Brief Gleanings from Genesis and Exodus

2010-12-07T11:39:00.000-06:00

Previously I commented about the benefits of teaching through numerous Old Testament books within the local church context. In that post I commented that the New Testament is firmly placed upon the foundation of the Old Testament, relying heavily on its motifs, themes, theology and general history. In response to that post I was asked to provide some concrete examples that might support the very broad generalizations made.

First, in teaching the opening chapters of Exodus, one quickly discovers the motif of water. The Pharaoh intends to weaken/destroy the nation of Israel by commanding its newborn males drown in the Nile. Moses is delivered from the water in an ark (much like Noah). Subsequent to his flight from Egypt, Moses delivers the women from the shepherds and draws out water for them. Upon his return to Egypt, God turns the Nile to blood. Furthermore, Moses delivers Israel from the Egyptians through the waters of the Re(e)d Sea. Conversely, the water of that same sea serves as the means by which wicked Egypt is destroyed. All of this is to say that water functions throughout Exodus within contexts of life/deliverance or death/punishment. One of our observant attendees keenly remarked, "This gives the New Testaments representation of Christ as the living water much more depth." No, that is not to say that we read all of this into any and all references to water in either the Old or New Testament. But it does allow us to understand that in several places, water is used as a representation of that life and salvation given by God alone (take for instance Paul's understanding of the spiritual rock that followed Israel in the wilderness that provided water to sustain them...that rock is Christ; 1 Cor.10).

Second, a close reading of the Old Testament, particularly Genesis, allows us to take the theological discussion of unconditional election out of the abstract. If one were to causally peruse the Pauline epistles numerous seemly obscure references to election. Yet, with the exception of Romans 9, very little extended discussion on the topic. A close reading of Genesis reveals a meticulous recounting of God's elective purposes. The narrator intentionally signals that with each new generation God is selecting individuals, against socio-cultural norms, to fulfill his purposes. This is not because of anything these individuals have done (as a matter of fact, Jacob is sent into exile for decades before he is brought back to his father's house). Instead, they are chosen because of God's grace/favor and in accordance with his own purposes. This shows up in the theology of Paul and particularly Romans 9.

Obviously this is a quick presentation, but I hope the examples provided are helpful.

Teaching the Old Testament

2010-12-05T13:38:00.003-06:00

It may come as a surprise to some within the modern church that the early church relied and depended upon the Old Testament as Scripture. This corpus of Scripture seems to be entirely ignored by regular church goers. They cannot be entirely blamed. After all, it is much easier for the preacher/pastor to preach solely from the New Testament where questions such as "Of what significance is the law for NT believers?" or "How much continuity is there between the Old and New Testaments is there versus discontinuity?" can be altogether avoided. Yet, it seems as if we shortchange both ourselves and our audiences if we shy away from teaching the Old Testament narrative because it is "too difficult."

It has been my experience of late that the church has been deprived of the rich theology and history of God's redemptive work through Israel, which can be found throughout the Old Testament. A friend (Nathaniel Cooley) and I have been teaching through Genesis and Exodus in Sunday School. Our goal has been to understand the text in its final form and to present it in its own right. I have found that our listeners have started to develop an understanding of biblical metaphor, reoccurring themes and motifs, which have easily translated into a fuller understanding of the New Testament's use of the Old Testament and a more profound understanding of Christ's redemptive work as incarnate God.

The impetus for this post was the overwhelming support we have received from those who attend the class. Fearing that the class might abandon ship if their captain were to unwisely steer them into the daunting rocks known as Leviticus and Numbers, we gave them a choice. We can move on to the book of Matthew, which heavily relies on the Old Testament for Matthew's presentation of Christ, or finish the Pentateuch. There were no dissenting voices. So while this ship may still be dashed upon the rocks of misplaced ambition, we (Nathaniel and I) hope to establish deep roots by soaking in the narrative and truths of this thing we call the Old Testament (known to the early church as inspired scripture).

Greek

2010-12-03T07:06:00.007-06:00

I know this blog has all but died, evidenced by the fact that spammers have taken over the comments section. Nevertheless, I decided to post a couple new discoveries.

While I do recognize that it is anathema in some circles, I picked up the Reader's Hebrew and Greek Bible at ETS for a steal of a deal. Previously I told myself that to use such a tool is inexcusable for the serious Greek student/scholar. This may be true, but it has provided the wonderful ability to read through the book of Matthew with little effort before I go to sleep and after I wake up. It also has the benefit of learning both vocabulary and syntax in an inductive fashion. Needless to say, daily spending time in the Greek New Testament is something I hope to continue and I encourage all of you to do as well.

Second, for all you Greek students/scholars, I was pleasantly surprised when I came across this incredibly helpful link http://www.earlychurchtexts.com/main/homepage/homepage.shtml All those gorgeous volumes on the nicene, post nicene, ante nicene church fathers (red, green, and blue volumes) can be found on this site in their original Greek or Latin for free. As an added bonus, there is a parallel English translation as well as links to a dictionary for each Greek/Latin word.

Happy translating!

I need to buy a book

2010-09-04T13:00:00.002-05:00

Hey guys, I know it's been a while since we used this page, but I have a query
I recently misplaced my beloved pocket edition of the ESV and have decided to replace it. The best place I've found for this is still the WTS Bookstore, however, to get a cheaper shipping rate, I need to buy another $20 of books. Any suggestions on awesome things you've been reading?

For my Tolkien loving friends

2010-05-11T12:16:00.002-05:00

If you love the Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit you will loves these lectures.

http://itunes.apple.com/podcast/the-tolkien-professor/id320513707

Just for fun. Trying to prove that we can enjoy all of life

2010-05-06T11:55:00.001-05:00

http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2010/05/its-awesome-part-ii.php

RTS vs. Dr. Waltke

2010-04-22T12:23:00.003-05:00

I'm sure many of you have already heard about this but I came across this USA Today article a couple weeks back.

http://ow.ly/1xApk

Revelation 20 part 3 paper

2010-04-20T07:07:00.001-05:00

http://reformingmatrix.blogspot.com/2010/04/revelation-20-part-3.html

Revelation 20 part 2

2010-04-17T07:05:00.002-05:00

Here is my second part of my paper on Revelation 20.

http://reformingmatrix.blogspot.com/2010/04/revelation-20-part-1_17.html

Revelation 20 part 1

2010-04-07T22:14:00.000-05:00

I have put up part one of four of my paper on Revelation 20

http://reformingmatrix.blogspot.com/2010/04/revelation-20-part-1.html

Recent trends in emerging/emergent churches

2010-04-04T15:12:00.002-05:00

I just put a post up on my Reforming Matrix blog and am linking it here.

http://reformingmatrix.blogspot.com/2010/04/recent-trends-in-emergingemergent.html

sermon preparation

2010-03-16T22:36:00.000-05:00

http://www.feedingonchrist.com/thoughts-on-sermon-preparation/

Here is an excellent post from Nick Batzig

John 1:1- Syriac

2010-03-14T18:51:00.003-05:00

When reading through the Syriac version of John 1:1 we discovered an interesting tidbit. Literally, the Syriac text reads,

"In the beginning was he, the word. And he, the word, was with God and he the word was God. This one was in the beginning with God. All by his hand was."

What is even more striking than the repetitive use of the pronoun huw "he" is the fact that melto' "the word" is a feminine noun. The author seems to be going out of his way to make the point that this word was a person and that person was Jesus Christ. One might object by saying that the translation is not true to the original Greek and is subject to the later interpretation of the translator. While there may be some validity to this, it can be quickly dismissed by the fact that the Syriac translator(s) have stuck to a word for word translation of the Greek text to such and extent that the phrase "and he the word was God" seems unnatural in Syriac.

Didache

2010-03-04T10:12:00.002-06:00

Now you can call me a dork and I'd completely agree. Lately I've been doing some reading through the Didache in the Greek in order to sharpen up my vocabulary a bit. I'm not an expert on the Apostolic Fathers but it struck me as I was reading through it how extremely reductionistic it is.

The entire book, as the title claims, is a list of teachings for the Christian community. What I noticed, aside from the obvious absences of anything that strikes of Gospel was one particular quote. "But, concerning food, whatever you are able, bear. Keep away from idol meat, for it is worship of dead Gods."

I noticed that this is not what Paul says about meat sacrificed to idols. He instructs Christians to abstain only when it is brought to their attention that the meat was sacrificed to idols (almost as if the person offering it thinks that you should have a problem with it). I also noticed that, although this is a blanket instruction to refrain, the Didache does not go so far as to say that the meat was sacrificed to other gods, but that it is sacrificed to what is not (dead gods). Is this not the reasoning that Paul gives for why the Christian is allowed to eat the meat sacrificed to idols? That is, because the Christian recognized that there is only one God and that idols have no real existence.

Just an observation...not really making any conclusions.

Guilty Pleasure

2010-02-22T20:05:00.001-06:00

I have to post this. I think it's the music that makes it so funny. Remember this is all tongue and cheek.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OebZJzB7W_c&feature=related

My review of the movie; "The Book of Eli"

2010-02-04T22:27:00.002-06:00

http://reformingmatrix.blogspot.com/2010/02/review-of-movie-book-of-eli.html

I opened another blog so I could post things that might not fit onto this one in order not to take up space on this blog

but in case anyone is interested I have reviewed the move "The Book of Eli" and placed it there.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/02/us/02fight.html?th&emc=th

2010-02-02T10:58:00.000-06:00

Now this is hard hittin gospel action baby!

Name That Author

2010-01-20T10:37:00.003-06:00

Since there has been a lull in the blog posting, I decided to revive my, "Name That Author" series. The quote is as follows,

"The great political, and other worldly excitements that agitate Christendom, are all unfriendly to religion, and divert the mind from the interests of the soul. now these excitements can only be counteracted by religious excitements. And until there is religious principle in the world to put down irreligious excitements, it is in vain to try to promote religion, except by counteracting excitements. This is true in philosophy and it is a historical fact."

Since I believe this is an easy quote to figure out, please also provide the title of the book you believe it belongs to!

Prayer for Haiti

2010-01-13T22:21:00.002-06:00

I'm sure you're already in prayer for the millions around the world with family/friends connected to the tragedy in Haiti. Please pray specifically for my friend Ed, whose family has lost at least 16 members since yesterday. Pray that additional missing family members would be found, and that God would minister to the survivors.

Thanks.

The Baptism of Jesus and the Fulfillment of all Righteousness

2009-12-05T08:58:00.003-06:00

As promised, here is my paper. Before you waste your time reading it, this is my thesis.

Matthew intends his readers to understand Jesus’ baptism through the lens of an exodus event wherein Jesus passes through the Red Sea as the representative head of Israel in order to succeed at all points where old Israel has failed, thus fulfilling all righteousness.

2009-11-06T10:30:00.002-06:00

Why do the nations rage and the peoples plot in vain?
The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together
against the Lord and against his Anointed, saying,
Let us burst their bonds apart and cast away their cords from us.
He who sits in the heavens laughs; the Lord holds them in derision
Then he will speak to them in his wrath,
and terrify them in his fury, saying
As for me I have set my King on Zionn, my holy hill
Psalm 2:1-6

Let us pray for the wounded,
Let us grieve for the dead,
Let us stop those that do evil,
Let us keep our eyes fixed on the Lord.

Please pray for the families and wounded of Fort Hood.

Kingdom of God Outline: In Full

2009-10-24T09:17:00.001-05:00

Here ya go.

Mark Jones and Christian Charity

2009-10-20T20:22:00.002-05:00

I've been super busy this week, but I did come across this post by Mark Jones. Frankly, I couldn't agree more. Here is a sample:

In the end, while I don’t agree, for example, with a Klinean view of the covenant of works, there’s no way I’m going to lose sleep over someone who espouses a Klinean view of the covenant of works. To me, that debate is an intramural Reformed discussion, which is best talked about over beer or two or …

Thankfully, dealing/chatting with Dr. David Rim at Moody taught me the importance of charity in academic discussions (though practicing charity can be difficult at times!).

NT Intro Paper

2009-10-16T20:21:00.002-05:00

I have finally settled on a topic for my NT Introduction Exegesis paper. I will be exploring the theme of Jesus' recapitulation as Israel and the fulfillment of all righteousness as it pertains to the new exodus imagery in Jesus' baptism in Matthew 3:13-17. I will propose that Jesus' baptism was not merely a simple identification with the people who were to repent and be cleansed (because the kingdom of heaven is near) nor was his baptism simply an example of the forthcoming practice of Christian baptism (though these nuances/aspects are not necessarily excluded). Instead, Matthew evokes Exodus imagery in his baptism. The baptism of Jesus symbolizes Israel's passing through the Red Sea and subsequent temptation in the wilderness. Anyways, more to come at a latter date!

Piper isn't the only one to say it!

2009-10-15T23:45:00.002-05:00

This is how Vos begins chapter 8!

We have already seen, that not the thought of man's welfare, but that of the glory of God was supreme in our Lord's teaching concerning the kingdom. While emphasizing this, we must not forget, however, that to him this thought was inseparably connected with the idea of the greatest conceivable blessedness for man. That God should reign was in his view so much the only natural, normal state of things, that he could not conceive of any true happiness apart from it, nor of it without a concomitant state of happiness for those who give to God the first and the highest place. This is in general the connection between the kingship of God as a rule over man, and the of as a possession for man, a connection not obscurely indicated in the saying, Matt. vi. 33. With the kingship of God all other things must come, for, as Paul later expressed it: ''If God be for us, who shall be against us ?" (70)

God will Bless Your Obedience. A Proper Motive for Obedience?

2009-10-15T10:24:00.004-05:00

Vos answers this question in his book on Jesus' Teaching Concerning the Kingdom of God,

The first thing to remember is that we have no right to declare the desire for reward as a motive in ethical conduct unworthy of a high standard of morality and therefore unworthy of the better element in our Lord's own teaching. This would be the case only, if it figured as the only or the supreme motive, and if other motives of a disinterested God-centered kind did not exist side by side with or above it. If our Lord appealed to the fear of punishment as a deterrent from evil, why should he not have appealed to the desire for blessedness and reward as an incentive to the good? May we not believe that Jesus himself was strengthened in enduring his suffering by the prospect of the promised glory ? cf. Heb. xii. 2. Does anybody think that in his case this interfered in the least with his making it his meat and his drink to do the Father's will? (pg. 66-67)

This is why Vos is so good!