PERSPICUITY: Faith and Practice. Life and Doctrine.

Abraham Kuyper on "Institutional Church" and Cultural Renewal

2010-06-09T13:24:00.000-07:00

"The organic character of the Christian life must come to expression in the form of organized Christian communal activity in areas other than the institutional church (this is the Organic Church)…Christians who go out into their various vocations do so neither as direct emissaries of the institutional church nor as mere individual believers…Christian social, cultural, and political action does not flow directly from the structures and authorities of the church, but comes to expression organically in the various spheres of life as believers live out the faith and spirituality that develops and is nurtured in the church’s worship and discipline."

REDEEMING THE CULTURE

2009-11-11T19:03:00.000-08:00

I've had questions about this issue for several years now. I remember driving to Philadelphia with my buddy Kevin and listening to a number of Tim Keller lectures about this particular topic--given at some Acts 29 function I think. I had never thought much about local churches having a responsibility to redeem culture. I had no opinion on the matter.

But what I found that day was if everything I knew about the Bible (what it says explicitly, implicitly, and the implications of both) could be compared to an airstrip, then Tim Keller's words (on this topic) had no place to land. What he said was winsome and clever, but, I don't think at least, scriptural.

Tim Keller certainly isn't the only purveyor of this idea (and far from the most radical!) and I'm not sure if he's the best conversation partner, so I'm really hoping that what I know 'broadly' of his thoughts on this issue can serve as a springboard for my brothers jumping in. I know that I won't be convinced until I have several questions addressed.

That being said, the next several posts will be questions and concerns (in no particular order) I have about the Bible's teaching on the local church's responsibility to redeem (not just citizens, but) city structures, (not just business men, but) businesses, (not just people, but) culture.

QUESTION 1.

It's true that Paul focussed on cities for his missionary work, but aren't cities in the NT only valued so far as they contain lots of people who apart from Christ are destined for hell and that they are strategic places for getting the truth circulated to other individual people who apart from Christ are destined for hell?

SIMILARITIES BETWEEN MODERNISM AND POSTMODERNISM ON AUTHORITY

2009-01-08T12:05:00.000-08:00

The enlightenment insistence on the autonomy of human reason was perhaps before all else, a revolt against all 'authorities'. The postmodern recognition that reason has its limits has not brought that revolt to an end. Instead it has given it a different dress, the inviolability of personal perspective: no-one has the right to say I am wrong. (Mark Thompson, A Clear and Present Word, 134)

PURPOSE OF A LOCAL CHURCH?

2008-12-30T09:05:00.000-08:00

When Kevin and I started looking towards the possibility of linking arms with Grace Harbor Community Church in Providence, RI we planned a final trip to meet with their elders. They sent us a handful of questions to be answered and sent back to them before we arrived--mostly about the role of the local church, elders, etc. I'm posting some of my answers since these are such central and important questions and deserve sharpening from any brothers or sisters reading this blog. For conscience sake I didn't use any resources (save the Bible) when answering, so surely, there is lots of room for improvement both in addition and clarity.

What is your understanding of the identity, focus, and purpose of the church?

I’m baptistic in my ecclesiology because I believe only Christians are to be baptized into the church. And so I believe the identity of the church is a local group of Christians, uniting together as the body of Christ on earth, being equipped and cared for through the office of deacon and spiritually shepherded, taught, prayed for, and led by elders, assembling together for the preaching of and submission to God’s Word in everything and the observance of the two ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, caring for one another’s souls and bodies and evangelizing to an unbelieving world for the ultimate purpose of glorifying our triune God.

The purpose and focus of the church is to be the attractive bride of Christ that God through Christ’s person and work purchased Her out of the world to be and is to reflect the heart and will of God as expressed clearly to us in the Bible and the New Testament epistles in particular.

COVENANT AND ESCHATOLOGY

2008-12-26T13:24:00.000-08:00

For some fun reading before next semester I picked up Michael Horton's Covenant and Eschatology: The Divine Drama. His basic thesis is that the content of the Bible should determine the method for doing theology, rather than developing a prolegomenon before coming to the text.

Some notable quotes so far:

Furthermore, the covenant itself is stable, though hardly static; historical, though not historicist. The vertical "intrusions" keep redemptive history from being "one damned thing after another," while the horizontal stride keeps eschatology from being subsumed into some ahistorical event. The "new thing" is a true novum, yet not "wholly other." The new creation is both new and creation--that is, both that which transcends creation and that which renews and therefore has some considerable continuity with it.

Peter Berger as quoted by Horton says,

"In a culture where religion is functional both socially and psychologically, Chrsitian preaching itself ought to call men to a confrontation with the God who stands against the needs of society and against the aspirations of the human heart." We need to recover that sense so pervasive in other periods; namely, that even Christians do not know what they really need or even want--and that attending to their immediate felt needs may muffle the only proclmation that can a ctually satisfy real needs. Berger judges that "the more general personal consequence of the abandonment of theological criteria for the Christian life is the cult of experience...Emotional pragmatism now takes the place of the noest confrontation with the Christian message.

ROBERT REYMOND ON THE TIMING OF CHRIST'S INCARNATION

2008-12-18T07:00:00.000-08:00

"When the time had fully come, that is to say, at God's appointed time--when the Jewish diaspora had spread throughout the Roman Empire and the Old Testament had been translated into Greek, opening the eyes of the Greek world to its theological power and beauty, when the pax Romana extended over most of the known world with great roads and the Greek language linking the empire of the Caesars and making travel and commerce possible on a scale formerly impossible, when Greek philosophical thought had atrophied into skepticism, offering no hope in human wisdom to improve the ancient world (1 Cor. 1:19-21), when the so-called civilized world as a result had sunk so low morally (Rom. 1:21-32) that even pagans were crying out for relief from the rampant immorality all around them--in keeping with the Old Testament 'promises, prophecies, sacrifices...and other types of ordinances..., all foresignifying Christ to come' (Westminster Confession of Faith, VII/v), 'God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law' (Gal. 4:4) as the Messiah and Mediator of the covenant of grace."

A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, 545

Ps. This book is, in my humble opinion, the best Systematic Theology around. He's a presbyterian cat, so the chapters on baptism and church polity are off, but it is pretty helpful to see such a level-headed and clear cat propose such flat arguments for paedo-baptism and presbyterian church polity. Reading those chapters has made me feel even better about being baptist.

It's going for $23 (includes shipping) on abebooks right now if anyone wants to snag it.

ANTHONY HOEKEMA ON ESCHATOLOGY

2008-12-10T21:54:00.000-08:00

"From first to last, and not merely in the epilogue, Christianity is eschatology, is hope, forward looking and forward moving, and therefore also revolutionizing and transforming the present. The eschatological is not one element of Christianity, but it is the medium of the Christian faith as such, the key in which everything in it is set...Hence eschatology cannot really be only a part of Christian doctrine. Rather, the eschatological outlook is characteristic of all Christian proclamation, and of every Christian existence and of the whole Church."

HOLY PLACES

2008-12-08T17:41:00.000-08:00

"Neither prayer, nor any other part of religious worship, is now, under the gospel, either tied unto, or made more acceptable by any place in which it is performed, or towards which it is directed."

Westminster Confession of Faith 21:6

D. MARTYN LLOYD-JONES ON PERSEVERANCE

2008-10-18T21:25:00.000-07:00

Martyn Lloyd-Jones was a Welsh pastor in London in the first half of the Twentieth Century. His books (which are basically just his sermons) have helped me to read the Bible better. I would recommend anything with his name on it.

In his sermons on Philippians he notes the following:

"Thank God, my hope of that day of Jesus Christ and his glory does not rest upon my own will power or upon my own desire or understanding. It rests upon this fact that he would never have started the work if he had not decided to finish it...What Paul means (in Rom. 5:10) is this: if Christ died for you when you were an enemy and a rebel and hated him, if he died for you in that condition, how much more, then, will God keep and sustain and hold you, and finish the work by the love of Christ--it is unanswerable logic. The character of God guarantees the completion of the work."

MODE OF BAPTISM?

2008-10-16T21:45:00.000-07:00

For Baptist churches the mode of baptism has been viewed as a very important part of the ordinance. By-in-large we believe that Scripture is clear enough that immersion--that is, submerging the candidate under the water-- (as opposed to effusion or sprinkling) is the proper way to be baptized. As a result, Baptist elders have encountered a handful of tricky theological and ecclesiological questions. For instance, when do you consider someone's previous 'baptism' as invalid and thus require a "rebaptism"?

EASY SITUATIONS:

1. He/she was baptized before conversion.
2. He/she believed the baptism was saving.
3. He/she was baptized by a non-Christian “church”.

In all of these situations I would say that his/her "baptism" (if the quotation marks haven't given it away) wasn't a genuine baptism at all. He/she should be baptized.

A DIFFICULT SITUATION

He/she was baptized as a believer by sprinkling as opposed to immersion. Here's a hypothetical situation. We have a girl named Libby Brighton who wants to join our Baptist church. She was baptized upon conversion in a PCA church by sprinkling. She had a proper understanding of the ordinance as a symbol representing a spiritual reality. Everything about her baptism fits the biblical description except for the mode. Should she be ‘rebaptized’?

MY REASONS TO SEE LIBBY'S PREVIOUS BAPTISM AS VALID

1. We wouldn’t say the Lord’s Supper is invalid simply because the mode isn't precise: grape juice instead of wine.

2. There is no EXPLICIT command in Scripture to be immersed--the Lord could have used more explicit language. We take our practice from what we consider to be very strong implicit evidence, from the physical accounts in the Gospels and Acts and the symbolism of baptism as going down into the grave and being raised with Christ. But even so, immersion isn’t explicitly commanded in Scripture.

3. She was baptized under the care and authority of her Gospel-believing elders. As a young believer she was submitting to her leaders, which in any case, we would say is the proper default (Heb. 13:17). I believe for this reason alone, this baptism was a true and genuine baptism with which the Lord was pleased.

4. There were baptisms in the first century when candidates were sprinkled because of a lack of water and these were seen as valid. Historically, immediacy has been given priority over precision of mode.

5. Out of all the details for a Christian baptism given in Scripture, mode seems to be the most inconsequential:
a. Baptized by a Gospel-preaching church under the authority of elders.
b. Had proper understanding of the ordinance as not saving, but symbolic of a spiritual reality
c. Was a believer when baptized
d. Baptized by immersion

6. A 're-baptism', even with an explanation could cause unhelpful doubt among the other members of a congregation.

7. Scripture seems to deal less severely with those lacking in knowledge: Luke 12:47-48, Matt. 11:20-22, James 3:1.

In my opinion Libby's situation is not preferable, but not enough to overturn a one-time ordinance. One caveat however: It is important to remember that conscience is key and while a good conscience doesn’t necessarily mean one shouldn’t be baptized again, a consistently guilty conscience over time would necessitate this.

CORRECTIVE CHURCH DISCIPLINE

2008-10-01T21:11:00.001-07:00

I come to two different passages of Scripture teaching in detail on the process of church discipline: Matthew 18 and 1 Corinthians 5. On a simplistic reading, the two don't seem to fit neatly together. Jesus in Matthew 18 outlines very clearly that a brother/sister shouldn't be excommunicated until three levels of intervention have occurred: A single individual approaches the brother, a group of 2 or 3, and finally, the entire local congregation. Only at that point should the sinner "be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector." Paul in 1 Corinthians 5 however seems (on a simplistic reading) to bypass both initial steps and moves directly to step 3: instant excommunication. Some would argue that Paul's 'bypass' is because this particular sin (a man sleeping with his father's wife) is in a different class than some other sins--namely because it was a 'public' and 'heinous/gross sin'. I don't think the text warrants this distinction. My reasons:

1. Matthew 18 is clear and didactic, whereas 1 Corinthians 5 is situational and relies in part on information that we aren't privy to (5:9's "I wrote to you...")--namely, a previous letter to this church. In any case, Paul's direction in this specific case when we aren't given all the details isn't reason enough to bypass the clear teaching of Jesus in Matthew 18.

2. Corrective discipline is a potentially disastrous tool. 2 Corinthians 2 says about a man who was under such discipline: "For such a one, this punishment by the majority is enough, so you should rather turn to forgive and comfort him, or he may be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. So I beg you to reaffirm your love for him." Corrective discipline is designed by the Lord to shame and sorrow the sinner. Therefore, this is one topic where local churches should be particularly careful in their proceedings.

3. Every other example of the process of discipline or potential discipline in the New Testament stresses these initial steps.

a) Revelation 2:20-21: "But I have this against you, that you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and seducing my servants to practice sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols. I gave her time to repent, but she refuses to repent of her sexual immorality."

The text is particularly helpful because this sin is the same kind as that of the man in 1 Corinthians 5--gross public and heinous sexual sin. However, John in this text makes it clear that he had given her "time to repent" and presumably would have discontinued the process of corrective discipline if she had. Important verse for this discussion!

b) 2 Thessalonians 3:14-15: "If anyone does not obey what we say in this letter, take note of that person, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed. Do not regard him as an enemy, but warn his as a brother." (Next post will be on what it means to "have nothing to do" with "your brother"... Kind of confusing)

This instruction follows the commands of Paul in his first letter to the Thessalonians in which he says, "And we urge you, brothers, admonish the idle, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with them all" (1 Thess. 5:14) He also notes his public teaching from his last visit to them: "For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat" (2 Thess. 3:10). What we see in the case of these rebellious Thessalonians is that they had at least two previous rebukes/appeals by Paul and the Thessalonian Christians. There is more reason to believe that in this way the steps of Matthew 18 had been taken than not.

c) 1 Timothy 5:19-20: "Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear."

Once again, there is no exception given which would lead to instant discipline. It is only when the offender "persists in sin" that discipline (in this case the public rebuke of an elder) takes place.

d) Titus 3:9-11: "But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned."

Same as above.

4) Finally, it's instructive to see where Matthew, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, places Jesus' teaching on church discipline--between the parable of the lost sheep and the unforgiving servant.

18:10-14 is the parable of the lost sheep--the point being that the shepherd will leave the ninety-nine, symbolizing his willingness to do anything to gain this sheep back. 18:21-35 is Jesus' parable of the unforgiving servant--the point being that a Christian should forgive their brother 'seventy times seven times' and "forgive your brother from your heart."

These parables corroborate the teaching in the rest of the New Testament that a believer is never to delay in any way forgiveness to a brother or sister as long as he/she is repentant.

CANON QUESTIONS

2008-09-25T10:11:00.001-07:00

A brother reminded me this week about the importance of having adequate answers to questions about our canon of Scripture. For instance, it's pretty intuitive to ask, 'How do we know that the Bible books in our Bible are the ones that are supposed to be there?' I looked at this questions about two months ago and found lots of help from a couple of Herman's--Ridderbos and Bavinck. Bavinck in Volume 1 of his Church Dogmatics (which is well worth the 27 bones it's going for on half.com) says,

"The canonicity of the Bible books is rooted in their existence. They have authority of themselves, by their own right, because they exist. It is the Spirit of the Lord who guided the authors in writing them and the church in acknowledging them." (I:401)

PSALM 51

2008-09-13T11:43:00.000-07:00

Have mercy on me, O God, according to your steadfast love; according to your abundant mercy blot out my transgressions. Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin! For I know my transgressions, and my sin is ever before me. Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you may be justified in your words and blameless in your judgment. Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. (Psalm 51:1-5)

I have been so thankful for this Psalm. Basically, it's allowed me to take 'Repentant Scott' and compare it to 'Repentant David under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit'. I have been challenged and humbled by seeing the differences. Two stand out:

1. I have trouble keeping my sin "ever before me".
2. I have trouble realizing that in a very real way, the most real way in fact, my sin is against God and God alone.

Calvin's commentary on this Psalm has given me advice on both these fronts.

1. HOW DO I KEEP MY SIN "EVER BEFORE ME"?

"The more easily satisfied we are under our sins, the more do we provoke God to punish them with severity, and if we really desire absolution from his hand, we must do more than confess our guilt in words; we must institute a rigid and formidable scrutiny into the character of our transgressions."

From this passage of Scripture (and Calvin's commentary) and conversation this week with some dear brothers, I've realized that the best first step for me in learning true repentance is studying my sin, or as Calvin says, "instituting a rigid and formidable scrutiny into its character". I have to anticipate the excuses which I in my flesh will no doubt employ to get myself off the hook and I must leave no room for these lies. I am guilty of sin and my sin is heinous with heinous consequences, for those whom I've sinned against directly, my local church family, and myself.

2. HOW DO I BELIEVE IN MY HEART THAT MY SIN IS TRULY AGAINST GOD?

"But I conceive his meaning to be, that though all the world should pardon him, he felt that God was the Judge with whom he had to do, that conscience hailed him to his bar, and that the voice of man could administer no relief to him, however much he might be disposed to forgive, or to excuse, or to flatter...To one who is thus overwhelmed with a sense of the dreadfulness of being obnoxious to the sentence of God, there needs no other accuser."

Scripture certainly acknowledges that as Christians, we sin against our brothers and sisters. And the Bible gives us clear direction and command to reconcile those relationships with repentance and forgiveness, but Calvin's point (which I think is also Scripture's point) is that God is our ultimate judge--and when compared to human judgment, the latter seems arbitrary. Two sinful tendencies get in the way of me believing this: My fear of man and my lack of fear of God.

The good news is that the rest of this Psalm goes on to anticipate the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on behalf of sinners--the Just for the unjust. And because I have placed faith in Jesus' person and work, I am seen as innocent in my Father's eyes. And not only that, but God by his Holy Spirit is actually making me into what He has declared me to be in Christ. The New Testament makes clear that this is motivation for acknowledging and battling sin--recognizing who I am in Christ.

GEORGE LADD ON DIFFERENCES BETWEEN JESUS AND HIS CONTEMPORARIES

2008-09-03T10:23:00.000-07:00

"The one bond which brought his disciples together was personal relationship to his person. This set him apart from other Jewish leaders. The disciples of the rabbis found common ties in the rabbinic teachings, the Pharisees in their observances, the apocalyptists in their eschatological hopes, while Jews as a whole recognized a common bond in their Abrahamic descent and the covenant. The disciples of Jesus had no common bond other than the person of Jesus."

(The Presence of the Future, 247)

Ladd has reminded me once again that as Christians, we don't follow a system of thought or philosophy. We don't follow a particular set of ethical teachings. We follow a man--the Son of Man--Jesus Christ. This is why new believers can be justified by faith without really understanding the ins and outs of the doctrine. We aren't saved by a doctrine, but by a man.

Wright on Resurrection/Afterlife in the Old Testament

2008-08-22T20:39:00.000-07:00

I've found some help in N.T. Wright's Resurrection of the Son of God--in particular his chapter on the development of 'resurrection/afterlife' in the Old Testament. An astute reader of the Old Testament notices that it seems to lack the emphasis placed on resurrection and afterlife found in the New Testament. In fact, in some parts of the Old Testament--the pentateuch, the history, and some parts of the wisdom literature--there seems to be no expectation of an afterlife at all! However there are some Psalms as well as parts of the latter prophets that mention the idea explicitly and some that aren't explicit, but at least leave room for it. Wright explains well the revelational progress of this idea through Israel's history.

His main contention is that even when God hadn't clearly revealed to Israel that there was an afterlife, he had given the Israelites categories to make sliding into this doctrinal belief very easy. Wright traces the development of Israel's idea from belief that:

1) When you die you're dead spiritually, physically, the whole nine yards.

TO...
2) When you die, you're still alive spiritually and can be spiritually blessed, or spiritually cursed.

TO...
3) When you die, if you are one of God's people, you will be raised from the dead in a physical body, i.e., resurrection.

Wright says,

It would be easy, and wrong, to see the hope for resurrection as a new and extraneous element, something which has come into ancient Israelite thinking by a backdoor or roundabout route. (121)

In other words, this is not a move away from the hope which characterized all of ancient Israel, but a reaffirmation of it. It is a reaffirmation, indeed, in a way which the hope simply for a blessed but non-bodily personal life after death (as perhaps witnessed by Psalm 73 and one or two other passages) would not be. (122)

We might suggest that the likely turning point in the sequence--the moment when somebody really begins to think in terms of human beings themselves actually dying and actually being given a newly embodied life at some point thereafter--is to be found in Isaiah's servant passages. (123)

The idea that God reveals Himself and His eternal plan progressively throughout redemptive history in the canon as opposed to all at once is the foundational idea for the discipline of biblical theology. It's interesting that B.B. Warfield basically argued the same way for recognition of God's triunity as Wright does here for belief in resurrection. Warfield said that although we don't have reason to think Israel believed in a Three-Person God, the Lord had at least prepared them with the main categories they would need--namely, that the way God revealed Himself to them was multi-faceted and yet, 'the Lord your God is one'!

WHAT SHOULD THE CHURCH DO? Part I

2008-08-05T10:12:00.000-07:00

The distinction between individual Christians and the church is helpful in and of itself. For instance, if what I wrote below is true, this distinction will keep the church from what I consider to be a huge danger--namely, making pronouncements for her members (and her members' consciences) that aren't clearly spoken to in the Bible.

However, making this distinction shouldn't be our final destination, but more of an onramp--an onramp to a bigger issue. And that issue is this: It seems to me that many local churches are involved in pursuits for which the New Testament gives no precedent and further, these pursuits occur to the detriment of those which the New Testament does give precedent (a commanding precedent in fact!).

The way that these local churches (including their various associations and church planting organizations) argue for this faulty understanding is by appealing to Systematic categories and frameworks developed from human reason that they believe are implied in the text, but which, I think, are in fact contrary to clear and plain scriptural teaching.

THE INDIVIDUAL CHRISTIAN VS. THE CHURCH: A Helpful Distinction

2008-07-25T12:12:00.000-07:00

Basically, the reason for the distinction (in my head at least) is to protect the consciences of individual church members. My logic:

1a. Each individual member is responsible in some way before the Lord for what his/her church teaches (both explicitly and implicitly). This is a congregational distinctive I know, but I see it in the Bible--Galatians with false teachers, Acts 6 with deacons, Matthew 18 and 1 Cor. 5 with discipline, etc.

1b. When a local church teaches on anything publicly--whether it's explicit teaching, or implicit through endorsing certain programs, 'causes' the church might be involved in, etc.--that church is speaking (in part at least) for her members.

2. Therefore it's safe for churches to teach on/endorse topics that are:
a) clearly discussed in the Bible or,
b) not so clearly discussed, but that require a stance in order to practically run a peaceful church (such as baptism or issues of polity).

3. The Bible talks about the Gospel. The Bible doesn't talk about specifics for how to take care of the 21st Century homeless in a democratic state (or to pick up one of Wright's pets, third-world debt)--it doesn't even come close.

4. Therefore, in order to protect the consciences of individual members of local churches--saints who are tied to these bodies and responsible for their teaching--a church, to the best of its ability, should be incredibly slow to teach on or endorse any idea that the Bible doesn't speak to at least implicitly.

Individual Christians however, can endorse lots and lots and lots of ideas that aren't explicitly/implicitly spoken to in the Bible. I've been under the care of elders who had drastically different thoughts on politics--fiscal policy in particular--and at one point even debated against one another on the floor of United States Senate. These men had very different perspectives on how Christians should solve this particular matter, but they both realized the Bible doesn't speak to it directly and therefore they could IN NO WAY make a decision on this issue binding on the consciences of their sheep, which is exactly what they would be doing if they had been representing their church.

PART II: Prolegomena

2008-07-19T17:14:00.000-07:00

Any way you slice it N.T. Wright is an important figure in evangelicalism. He's a prolific author and speaker and, having been around for a while in both academic and popular settings, has an ever sprawling audience.

When most evangelicals talk about their nervousness with Wright they're referring to his thoughts on the doctrine of justification. From what I understand Wright is off-center on this issue--an issue that bears as heavily on the Gospel as any. Wright, in typical British evangelical fashion, gives himself to pacifism (in more ways than one!) and would like to stay above the fray, but the protection of this doctrine makes it worth picking the fight--a fight which Wright consistently characterizes as "mean".

However, his thoughts on "redeeming culture", seem to me at least, to be just as de-centered. These, while not as immanently dangerous as those on justification, will do serious damage if left unchecked. The combination of their palatable appeal with the lack of criticism Wright receives for them leads me to fear these ideas almost as much as those on justification (I may be reaching here).

The purpose of these posts (I'm assuming it will take several) is to interact with these ideas of Wright--ideas which I have no reason to believe will fall out of vogue any time soon. Currently my conscience is not burdened in characterizing his writings on this topic as confusing at best and dangerous at worst.

Points to keep in mind while critiquing Wright's ideas about redeeming the culture

1. N.T. Wright is Bishop of Durham in the Anglican Church and therefore also a member of the British House of Lords. If that sounds weird to American Christians it could be simply because, on this side of the Atlantic, we've grown up under a form of government that separates church and state. I would also attribute the perception of oddity here to good instinct. In any event, Wright's office in the church is tied to his participation in government, public policy, legislation, etc. Obviously, this will color his thoughts on these issues.

2. I've heard one brother give an Anglican definition of church as, "the plural word for Christian". This gets at what I think is a crucial distinction in any conversation about the Christian's role in politics--we must distinguish between a local church's responsibility as the church vs. an individual Christian's responsibility. The two are NOT the same! Wright assumes that they are.

3. Wright probably feels more freedom to publicly speculate on these matters than I do. That's not to say that he's not intellectually careful--he is. It is to say that Wright sees value in public theological speculation--not just in the academy, but also in the pulpit in ways that I don't.

If these points don't make much sense now, they will in conjunction with future posts.

CONTRA WRIGHT, ROMANS TELLS US HOW INDIVIDUALS CAN BE SAVED

2008-07-18T10:17:00.000-07:00

Here's a helpful quotation from Brian Vickers' dissertation (supervised by Schreiner) answering the proposal by N.T. Wright and various others that in Romans, Paul is not talking about how individuals are 'saved'.

If by "soteriology" one means only 'conversion,' or a detailed discussion of the mechanics of God's salvation, then I agree with Hays and Wright and affirm that this text is not about "how one becomes saved." But saying that the text is not primarily concerned with soteriology is going too far. The presence of Abraham, a former idol-worshipper who became the patriarch of Judaism, argues that soteriology is a central part of this text. The larger context also argues for a concern with soteriology in this text through the uninhibited display of the sinful condition of humanity that has resulted in God's condemnation (1:18-3:20; 3:23), and Paul's linking of forgiveness and justification with the death and resurrection of Christ (4:25). The people of God are identified explicitly as those who believe in Christ who died under the just condemnation of God in their place for their sins (3:25). An absolute separation between covenantal and soteriological themes is unwarranted. The two themes exist in harmony."
(Brian Vickers, Jesus' Blood and Righteousness, 91n53).

NEITHER SURPRISED NOR HOPEFUL: An Interaction with NT Wright's Latest Popular Offering--Part I

2008-07-12T11:54:00.000-07:00

I'm not really sure what to say about NT Wright anymore. If I follow the lead of trusted evangelical brothers then I should begin an entry like this with 'praise' for Wright. And for sure, there are lots of helpful sentences in Wright's works. But that's about as much as I can say. Wright has such a developed system for Bible reading and Christian experience that I can't really be faithful to his authorial intentions and at the same time commend any of his 'ideas'--just sentences and paragraphs...maybe some chapters.

I finished Surprised By Hope last week. This is the first book by Wright that I've read cover to cover and so, I am by no means an NT Wright scholar. But I have read several chapters from Simply Christian, What Saint Paul Really Said, and Resurrection of the Son of God, listened to about ten of his audio lectures, heard him lecture in person, and been part of a local church that, knowingly or not, endorses parts of Wright's system. I'm familiar with his main theses and was before I read his book. I was in fact surprised by very little.

The best chapter in the book is "The Strange Story of Easter" (4). This chapter is the safest in the book (IMHO), basically because it can stand alone, outside of Wright's tight-webbed system for understanding biblical Christianity. He does a fine job of giving evidence for the factuality of the resurrection. There are a few points where Wright's commentary shows his ideological hand and for this reason, I would say to anyone reading this chapter (as I would to anyone reading any NT Wright--a point to be discussed later), take the helpful sentences and do with them what is natural (and unavoidable)--interpret them through the lens of a clear reading of the Bible and the New Testament in particular. That being said, here are some sentences on evidence for the resurrection: (Hopefully readers of these quotations will find enough context to know what he's saying...)

"The disciples were emphatically not expecting Jesus to be raised from the dead, all by himself in the middle of history. The fact that they were second-Temple Jews and that resurrection was, as some have said, an idea that was in the air, simply won't account for the radical modifications they made in the Jewish belief or for the astonishing features of the Easter stories themselves." (60)

"There are, after all, different types of knowing. Science studies the repeatable; history studies the unrepeatable...Historians don't of course see this as a problem and are usually not shy about declaring that these events certainly took place, even though we can't repeat them in the laboratory." (64)

"If someone declares that certain kinds of events 'don't normally happen,' that merely invites the retort, 'Who says?' And indeed, in the case in point, we should note as an obvious but often overlooked point the fact that the early Christians did not think that Jesus' resurrection was one instance of something that happened from time to time elsewhere." (65)

And my favorite paragraph in the book (Which corroborates what I've been learning about evangelism--two posts down):

"We cannot use a supposedly objective historical epistemology as the ultimate ground for the truth of Easter. To do so would be like lighting a candle to see whether the sun had risen. What the candles of historical scholarship will do is to show that the room has been disturbed, that it doesn't look like it did last night, and that would-be normal explanations for this won't do...But to investigate whether this is so, we must take the risk and open the curtains to the rising sun. When we do so, we won't rely on the candles anymore, not because we don't believe in evidence and argument but because they will have been overtaken by the larger reality from which they borrow, to which they point, and in which they will find a new and larger home." (74)

This concludes Part I.

A THOUGHT ON THE ORIGIN OF GNOSTICISM

2008-07-07T20:49:00.004-07:00

Gnosticism was an aberrant form of Christianity, perhaps the first heresy (at least the first we know of, I think). N.T. Wright summarizes in a broad stroke the belief of the 1st Century Gnostic:

"These children of light were like fallen stars, tiny pinpricks of light currently hidden within a gross material body. Once they had realized who they were, though, this knowledge (Greek gnosis) would enable them to enter into a spiritual existence in which the material world would no longer count."

Wright chalks up the origins of Gnosticism to the influence of Platonism on the church. Wright is brilliant and a brilliant historian, so I'll trust that platonic thought helped to nurture gnosticism. However, I do see Wright (perhaps due to other intellectual commitments to his brand of Christianity) as overstepping his bounds in saying that this heresy grew only only from platonic influence.

Couldn't this heresy have grown up, as most do, from taking an original Christian thought too far? Christianity contains the strange teaching that human beings are saved--that is, seen as innocent in God's eyes from all sin--not on the basis of doing anything (good behavior, making sacrifices, prayer, repentance, etc.), but by believing something. It really is a strange proposition...so strange that it's difficult to explain to the nonbeliever (and at certain points in one's life, to the believer). One is saved by believing certain events and a certain interpretation and application of those events. We're saved by believing something! Even Judaism of Jesus' and the early church's day didn't believe this. Second Temple Judaism (from what I've seen) believed individual Jews were saved on the basis of their election as the people of God + works and in particular, the work of repentance.

In it's context the idea of "belief unto salvation" (and especially belief unto salvation as opposed to works) was uniquely Christian. Maybe Gnosticism highlights this novelty. But then again, I'm no historian. Just a thought.

THOUGHTS AIMED TOWARD A MORE FAITHFUL SHARING OF THE GOSPEL

2008-07-05T15:02:00.000-07:00

Brothers,

I'm hoping that your comments in response to this blog entry will help to sharpen my thinking on evangelism. I've told most of you, but in the Lord's sovereignty, I had a three hour Gospel-conversation with a Math major from Berkley about two weeks ago. Oddly enough, this encounter came on the heels of thinking/praying/searching the Scriptures/talking with Ann(i)e about evangelism.

Lately I've really questioned my approach to evangelism, which has basically been to try and get my hearer to think I'm cool and likeable and be sure that 'Scott would never believe anything that's crazy'. Once I think they think I'm cool enough, I tell them about the Lord and the Gospel and then...I stop. No call to repentance and faith, at least not one with any weight, pleading, etc.. I feel like this is the outcome of fear of man in my heart and a distrust in the Word of God as used by the Holy Spirit to change sinful people. I really feel like, in my evangelism at least, I'm a functional arminian.

So here are some thoughts on evangelism.

Broad Affirmations Concerning Evangelism (several of these, in principle at least, are from Frame's "Apologetics to the Glory of God"):

1. We should tell nonbelievers (and fellow brothers/sisters) what we think God would have them know that they do not currently know.

2. Every unbeliever intentionally distorts the truth (Rom 1:18-32; 1 Cor 1:18-2:16; 2 Cor 4:4).

3. Every unbeliever knows God (Rom 1:21) and doesn't know God (1 Cor 1:21, 2:14) at the same time.

4. Our arguments for the faith must use knowledge based on "fear of the Lord" and not "foolishness"--this dichotomy being found in Scripture.

5. We must make direct apologetic witness not to the unbeliever's empiricist epistemology, but to his/her memory of God's revelation and the methodology implicit in that revelation.

6a. The Holy Spirit is the Person of the Trinity with the most active part (temporally) in evangelism: Rom 15:18-19; 1 Cor 2:4-5; 2 Cor 3:15-18; 1 Thes 1:5; 2 Thes 2:13-14.

6b. Our promise in Scripture is that the Holy Spirit will tie itself to God's Word...ergo, in evangelistic conversation we should make a beeline to Bible-talk (of course our particular words are 'tailored' to our hearer...of course!).

7. All arguments are circular to a degree--those for Christianity being no different--but there is a difference between 'narrow' circular arguments and 'broad' circular arguments. Both these being equal and depending on whom we're talking to, we should opt for the more fruitful option, which I think is the broad kind (but see #9 about the legitimacy of the narrow kind as well).

8. Scripture never argues for the existence of God; rather, the Bible states that He is clearly revealed in nature and in the hearts of men. I think this is true... Any pushback on the first part of that?

9. Scripture never rebukes childlike faith. In fact, I can think of few more beautiful dispositions towards God than that displayed by the new believer who lacks even a 'broad' circular argument for their faith (much less the arguments that evidentialists and classical apologeticians tout!), but simply believes the Lord because the Bible tells him/her to do it. I love it!!!!!

10. Because of #1, along with the fact that we are only messengers for the Lord--waiters that are just trying to get the food from the kitchen to the table without messing it up--there is a very real aspect of us talking "at" people as opposed to "with" them in evangelistic encounter. I say this because I'm not sure we can tell unbelievers what the Lord would have them know without a confrontational aspect to what it is we're saying(which is what I see in Acts, 1 Cor., etc.). This doesn't have to be prideful, pharisaical or selfish because we're not carrying our own words, but the words of another--the Lord. In keeping with authorial intent we should also carry His demeanor while speaking His words. And His is a demeanor of severe seriousness. "It is a gross insult to God, and a real disservice to men, to cheapen and trivialize the gospel by one's presentation of it." (Packer, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God)

11. However, we must balance #10 with what Paul says in 2 Tim. 2:24- "And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth..." Any practical suggestion (a hypothetical anecdote maybe) for what numbers 10 and 11 look like in tandem?

12. Creativity has its place in evangelism. I couldn't agree more with J.I. Packer: "Christ's command means that we all should be devoting all our resoureces of ingenuity and enterprrise to the task of making the gospel known in every possible way to every possible person. Unconcern and inaction with regard to evangelism are always, therefore, inexcusable." (Packer, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God)

13. The examples I see in Scripture (in 1 Corinthians in particular, but not exclusively) show Christians coming away from evangelistic encounters looking foolish, crazy, or both--the very adjectives I've strained so hard to avoid. "For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of it power." (1 Cor 1:17)

14. The community of the local church is singled out in Scripture as a way unbelievers will know we are truly Christian. Therefore, we should bring nonbelievers to our meetings together.

What do you guys think about #5 and in particular the second part about an innate methodology? What about #10? These are the two that I wouldn't have thought about a month ago, am comfortable with for now, and think some of you guys might disagree with. If you don't disagree, help me think through how these principles should apply to my evangelistic encounters.

THE STUDY OF PAUL AND THE DUAL NATURE OF SCRIPTURE: An Apology for Biblical Theology

2007-12-25T19:49:00.000-08:00

For Christmas my mom and dad gave me some great books; in particular, some books that will be helpful for my New Testament Theology class in the Spring:

1. The Pauline Eschatology (Vos)
2. Justification and Variegated Nomism: The Paradoxes of Paul (Carson, ed.)
3. Paul: An Outline of His Theology (Ridderbos)
4. Paul: Apostle of God's Glory in Christ (Schreiner)
5. Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (Hawthorne, ed.)

My sister (who consistently surprises me with her sharp instincts) asked, 'Why so many books about Paul? Where are the books about Jesus?'

It's a fair question with a pretty easy answer. The Christian faith is a book-based religion, like Islam, but there is an important difference. Islam teaches that Muhammad was only a secretary for the archangel Michael (who was speaking for God). Muhammad had no creative input in the writing of Koran whatsoever. It was mere dictation--he heard the words and he wrote them down. Christianity is different. God the Holy Spirit caused inspired thoughts to 'rise up' in the minds of the authors of scripture. Just like many other paradoxes (not contradictions) in Christianity, these Words of the Bible are fully contrived by men and at the same time fully contrived by God. One helpful analogy is the dual nature of Christ. Christ was fully man and fully God. Scripture is the same.

Therefore, what we're looking for in discerning the meaning of Scripture is authorial intent--we want to know what Paul was thinking. He wrote those letters (half the New Testament) to other believers with the intention of those believers understanding his words. So, in the words of Tom Schreiner, our task in Pauline theology is to get inside Paul's mind, understand what he meant with those words, and explain those thoughts in our contemporary context.

To understand what God would have us understand from the text, we must understand what Paul was thinking when he wrote the text. The two are the same. And unfortunately, that task is much easier said than done. Paul was a First Century Jew. I'm a 21st C. South Carolinian. Our contexts bear little analogy. That's why the study of Paul's thought-life and worldview is so important.

SEMINARY STUDENTS AND THE LOCAL CHURCH

2007-12-05T15:48:00.000-08:00

One issue our elders at Sojourn have been dealing with since the beginning of the church (2000) is the role of seminary students in our membership. There have been several exceptions, but by-in-large the elders haven't been impressed by the involvement of our SBTS'ers. We've begun including a section in our membership classes that's addressed only to the seminarians called, "Shepherding Seminary Students". The following is a more filled-in outline of my comments to them--a sort of hodgepodge of ideas based almost completely on my reflections from time spent at CHBC.

To begin, the Lord in His infinite kindness has used Southern Seminary for Sojourn's good. Four of our six elders are graduates of SBTS and probably around 50-65% of our members serving actively and consistently in the church (above and beyond regular weekly attendance) are seminarians. We've had seminary professors come and speak at our Theology Breakfast (Wellum, Ware, Whitney, Seifrid, Allison) and preach on Sundays. So what we're not saying is that we dislike the seminary or think it's doing more harm than good.

However, there are some potential pitfalls when one begins a seminary education.

1. What we have seen oftentimes is the supposed idea that a Christian's time in seminary is sort of its own 'dispensation'. What would be required from a regular lay-member isn't required from the seminary student because he's working towards future ministry and can't be hampered by present ministry. This kind of thinking creates a two-tier membership, an idea which is completely foreign to the New Testament's teaching on the local church.

2. There is an implicit appeal that runs throughout the New Testament. Every letter penned by one of the Apostles was presented within the context of local churches. There is no part of the Christian life in the epistles which is detached from that overarching framework. Every command begins within one's local church. For example, 1 John 3:11-18: "Love your brother". Implicit in this command is the knowledge of how your brother needs to be loved. You must know your brother’s needs--you must have a relationship with your fellow church members! Paul assumes the same kind of close relationships for the purpose of spiritual care: In 1 Corinthians 5 Paul expects these believers to know this man is in an adulteress relationship and to work at restoring him to the Lord.

3. I can think of few things as counter-intuitive as a man training for eldership to pull back from involvement in the local church so he can prepare for eldership. The catchy slogan would be: "Seminary doesn't make pastors, the local church makes pastors. Or maybe for clarity's sake, "chapel and shepherding groups don't make pastors, but the main meeting of the church and intra-church small groups make pastors".

4. Not to mention the command in Hebrews to "not forsake the assembling of the saints" (10:25), a command that in many contexts (determined by the elders) includes more than one weekly meeting (I think I'm departing from CHBC here). At Sojourn, our elders have decided that intentional community is important enough to require participation in a weekly small group (obviously there are exceptions due to scheduling, etc.). In terms of these groups, our standard line to seminarians is, if you don't have enough time for a small group, you probably don't have enough time for this church.

5. It's also the local church that is supposed to confirm the call to ministry in any individual pursuing the pastorate. And, just like every other command in the New Testament, the qualifications Paul gives for elders are all set in the context of one's local assembly. The members of one's church must be able to see these qualifications, which (especially in regards to being apt to teach) means they should have more than just a surface involvement in the church. In these ways, those studying to be pastors should be MORE involved than others. Paul's qualifications (which are expected from all Christians) should be embodied in these men. He should be what my pastor calls a "Gospel Pace-Setter" in his church. It is these men and these men alone whom Paul tells us are called for the eldership.

6. One big task in eldering seems to be learning how to shepherd those who aren't like you. For most of us that means non suburb-raised/white/reformed/20-somethings. This opportunity is much more available in local churches than in seminary. Involvement in the church will teach you how to love those who aren't like you.

7. Finally, the local church is the hope of the world. It is the front-line work. It is the church that the gates of Hades will not overcome. It is the church that Christ promised to build. And it is the church that displays to the world the closest thing any of us can see to the coming kingdom of heaven.

A MULTI-SITE CHURCH?

2007-11-29T18:10:00.000-08:00

Thinking about multi-site church (one church with many campuses) has always been an academic exercise for me. I figured I would have to come down somewhere at some point, talking to a fellow brother in ministry who might be considering this kind of church structure, or some situation like that, but that time wasn't now. Well, in the sovereignty of the Lord, that time is now. My church is considering multi-site.

My questions are these:

1. Is multi-site biblical? Is it required? commended in some circumstances? prohibited? Or do we have no biblical teaching to help us answer this question?
2. If there isn't explicit biblical teaching on this subject, are there qualities about God, the Gospel, or the church from which this model of church would skew or detract?
3. Is multi-site prudent? If it's not required/commended in Scripture, is it the best/wisest option of all those available?
4. What are the motives behind multi-site?
5. How involved should the congregation be in thinking through and making this decision?

THE MEANING OF 'HILASTERION' FROM "PIERCED FOR OUR TRANSGRESSIONS"

2007-11-03T09:24:00.000-07:00

"As we have seen, God's wrath at human sin is prominent in Romans generally, central in the section that immediately precedes Romans 3:21-26, and absent from God's justified people in the section that immediately follows. It is by setting forth his Son as 'a sacrifice of atonement' that God has turned his wrath aside, leaving his people justified before him. That hilasterion here means 'propitiation' could hardly be clearer."

ON 'TITHING'

2007-10-29T22:34:00.001-07:00

The idea of ‘tithing’ 10% of our income has probably done more harm than good. Many of us can give more than 10%, even if it requires a less lavish lifestyle.* And there are surely some among us (newly weds, students, those in serious debt, etc.) who would be unwise and irresponsible to give 10%. For this season of their life, they must give less. The truth is the Lord has never been interested in percentages. He is very interested however, in the attitude and intentions of our heart.

*C.S. Lewis said, “If our expenditure on comforts, luxuries, amusements, etc., is up to the standard common among those with the same income as our own, we are probably giving away too little. If our charities do not at all pinch or hamper us, I should say they are too small. There ought to be things we should like to do and cannot do because our charities expenditure excludes them.”(Mere Christianity, 86)

HONOR ALL MEN. LOVE THE BROTHERHOOD: Part of a Theology of Financial Giving

2007-10-29T22:25:00.000-07:00

The Lord has been kind to lay on the hearts of the members and pastors of Sojourn the desire to care for those outside the walls of this church, both in Germantown and the wider city of Louisville. We believe this is a charge issued from our Lord Himself in passages such as Luke 10:29-37 (the story of the good Samaritan). But we must not forget that which the New Testament makes clear is the prerequisite to this charge. We’re instructed by the apostle Peter, “Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood.” (1 Peter 2:17) We are to honor everyone, but we are to love the brotherhood (It's crucial to note that the Bible is using the terms 'brother' and 'sister' not in the sense of a universal brotherhood of all men--an idea spun by liberal theologians at the beginning of the last century--but rather fellow Christians). Paul echoes this sentiment in his letter to the church at Galatia: “So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith.” (Galatians 6:10)

It is clear in Scripture that there is a marked difference between a believer’s responsibility towards a fellow believer and his/her responsibility towards a non-believer (we’ve seen Jesus recognize this distinction throughout our study of Matthew: 12:46-49, 18:17; see also 1 Corinthians 5:9-13). Deuteronomy sheds some light on one practical implication of this difference: “You may require payment from a foreigner, but you must cancel any debt your brother owes you…There should be no poor among you…If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother. Rather be openhanded and freely lend him whatever he needs.” (Deuteronomy 15:3-4, 7-8)

The Bible teaches that loving our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ is much more than just financial care—but it is certainly not less! The Apostle John exhorts us, “If anyone has the world’s goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God’s love abide in him? Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth.” (1 John. 3:17-18) And James tells us, “If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace, be warmed and filled,’ without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that?” (James 2:16)

THE EXAMPLE OF THE EARLY CHURCH

The book of Acts documents for us the very first Christian church, containing the very first Christians. And what is it that we find these immature young believers doing right away? “And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need.” (Acts 2:44-45) We know from a few chapters later that the church in Acts wasn’t practicing Socialism—individuals still owned property, had money, etc. But all of a sudden, these men and women were thinking and living out of a Gospel framework—and it was this Gospel that compelled them to give freely to their brothers and sisters in need. As a matter of fact, this love for the brotherhood—believers taking care of one another—is what Paul seems to be looking for first and foremost when determining whether new churches are in fact TRUE Christian churches. Thus, even when these young believers get so much wrong (1 Cor. 5; Gal. 1:6, 3:1-5; Rev. 2-3), Paul can always recognize them as true Christians by their love for one another: “We ought always to give thanks to God for you brothers, as is right, because your faith is growing abundantly, and the love of every one of you for one another is increasing.” (2 Thes. 1:3; also see Eph. 1:15-16;Col. 1:3-4) And again, “Now concerning brotherly love you have no need for anyone to write to you, for you yourselves have been taught by God to love one another.” (1 Thessalonians 4:9) We see here that there is something wrought in the Christian by the Holy Spirit that compels him to love his fellow brothers and sisters and that this love is one distinguishing mark of true faith in Christ.

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR SOJOURN?

First and foremost we should give to the offering on Sundays. Part of owning our own building is maintaining that building and part of growing numerically is providing enough staff to shepherd this ever-increasing flock. The Lord has blessed us with wise, caring leadership whom we should trust to leverage our resources to maintain the ministries of our church—ministries that by necessity require money.

But it also means we should go beyond just giving an offering on Sundays. It means that the members of this church should be involved in one another’s lives enough to spot real personal needs. It means we should buy one another meals. It means we should give struggling newly-weds money for rent. It means that if we’re able, we find a seminary student who seems to be gifted for ministry and we help pay for his/her education. It means we pay for a car repair that we know a poor college student in our community group can’t afford. It means we offer to take care of baby-sitting bills for a few months to give parents one less expense to worry about. In short, it means that we operate out of the same gospel framework we see among the new believers in Acts 2, praying that by the Lord’s grace and through the power of the Gospel, we would give not only according to our means, but also beyond our means (2 Corinthians 8:1-3). May the Lord find in Sojourn this sort of love for one another that is ever-increasing!

JONATHAN EDWARDS ON THE FREEDOM OF THE WILL

2007-10-26T18:17:00.000-07:00

Edwards sumamrizes what 'arminians', 'pelagians' and others who 'oppose calvinism' mean by 'liberty of the will'. There are three components:

1. It consists in a self-determining power in the will, or a certain sovereignty the will has over itself...so as not to be dependent, in its determinations, on any cause without (outside of) itself

2. Indifference belongs to liberty...the mind, previous to the act of volition, is in equilibrio (not favoring one way or the other...completely impartial)

3. Contingency is required...opposition to all necessity or any fixed or certain connection between cause and effect of an action

JE summarizes their position: "They suppose the essence of liberty so much to consist in these things, that unless the will of man be free in this sense, he has no real freedom, how much soever he may be at liberty to act according to his will."

Edwards reasons differently:

"The choice of the mind never departs from that which, at the time, and with respect to the direct and immediate objects of decision, appears most agreeable and pleasing, all things considered."

"A man never, in any instance, wills anything contrary to his desires, or desires any thing contrary to his Will."

"Thus, when a drunkard has his liquor before him...if he chooses to drink it, and not to let it alone; then this action, as it stands in the view of his mind, with all that belongs to its appearance there, is more agreeable and pleasing than letting it alone."

JONATHAN EDWARDS ON OUR NEED FOR WRITTEN REVELATION

2007-10-22T08:48:00.000-07:00

Edwards includes in his "Mischellaneous Observations" several arguments for the truth of the Christian religion (his apologetic scheme). He points out the superiority of a religion with written revelation over those without:

"For though it must be granted, that men who are willing to transgress, may abuse written as well as unwritten laws, and expound them so as may best serve their turn upon occassion; yet is must be allowed, that, in the nature of the thing, revelation is a better guard than a bare scheme of principles wtihout it. For men must take more pains to conquer the sense of a standing, written law, which is ready to confront them upon all occasions. They must more industriously tamper with their passions, and blind their understandings, before they can bring themselves to believe what they have a mind to believe, in contradiction to the words of an express and formal declaration of God Almighty's will, than there can be any pretence of occasion for, when they have no more than their own thoughts and ideas to manage. These are flexible things, and a man may much mroe easily turn and wind them as he pleases, than he can evade a plain and positive law..."

ANSELM (1033-1109 A.D.) ON THE PROPITIATORY NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT

2007-10-21T09:35:00.000-07:00

"If the Lord God will judge thee say, 'Lord, I place the death of your Lord Jesus Christ between me and Thy judgment: in no other way do I contend with Thee.' If he says to thee that thou art a sinner, say, 'Lord, I place the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between Thee and my sins'...If he shall say that he is angry with thee, say, 'Lord, I place the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between me and Thy anger.'"

LEON MORRIS AND FRIENDS ON THE WRATH OF GOD: Selections from "The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross"

2007-10-09T16:39:00.001-07:00

"Underlying the fact that these and other things are said to turn away the divine wrath is the basic truth that God is by nature merciful rather than wrathful. Indeed wrath may be thought of as His 'strange work' (Is. 28:21)...While wrath is a dreadful reality, it must not be taken as the last word about God." (Morris)

"If we understand it properly (God's wrath) it has nothing whatever to do with primitiveness, with naive anthropomorphism. On the contrary, it is the necessary expression of God, taking himself and us seriously. He takes us so seriously that our changed attitude with regard to him produces a change in his attitude towards us... The term 'God's wrath' therefore means that the breach of communion, which has been made from our side, means also a breach for God. It means that our guilt is guilt in his sight too, that our separation from him is a reality for him too, that his holy will, encountering resistance, becomes in itself resistance." (Emil Bruner)

"Indeed, it is largely because wrath is so fully personal in the Old Testament that mercy becomes so fully personal, for mercy is the action of the same God who was angry, allowing His wrath to be turned away." (Morris)

"Whoever thinks he can smile at God's wrath will never praise him eternally for his grace." (Heinrich Vogel)

-A CALL TO SPIRITUAL REFORMATION- BY DA CARSON

2007-09-23T19:10:00.000-07:00

"What a man is alone on his knees before God, that he is, and no more". –M’Cheyne

Sometimes in Scripture an aspect of the Christian life is seen as so central, that the biblical authors saw explicit command as unnecessary. An example of this would be the importance of the local church. There are very few places where a New Testament author says explicitly, “Join a church and attend that church every week. This is important.” What we do see is the overwhelming assumption of the New Testament authors that every Christian will be involved in a local expression of the body of Christ. Prayer is much the same way. There are several explicit commands to pray, but more than that, we see Christ, Paul, and others in the Bible simply assuming that Christians WILL pray—a much stronger argument than a few proof-texts. Prayer is important, thus a good book on prayer is a helpful book for a Christian to read.

There are few authors who have been as spiritually useful in preaching, writing, speaking, and teaching as D. A. Carson. He is as consistently careful in his writing as he is prolific (authoring or editing over 45 books). Time and time again, in a sea of sloppy, novel and unbiblical ‘Christian’ books, I find myself commending not only single volumes by Carson, but Carson himself. Trust this man! He has clearly articulated the Gospel over and over again. The Bible is his sole authority. And his teaching is accompanied by a life that has borne much fruit (the type of teacher Christ tells His disciples to trust).

His book, A Call to Spiritual Reformation, contains no pithy acronyms or cute illustration-centered chapter titles. It doesn’t furnish me with a long list of killer quotes, or clever new ideas. The power of this book lies in its simply systematizing what the New Testament epistles teach us about prayer. Carson has single-handedly changed the way I pray—that is, how I think about prayer and what I pray for. By pointing to the Apostle Paul, he has helped me to make three crucial category shifts:

1. Individual to corporate

I bet 90% of my prayers before reading this book were egocentric. These prayers weren’t categorically bad—Paul prayed for himself, as did Jesus. But the model we’re given in the New Testament epistles for prayer is radically other-centered. Therefore, Carson says, “If in our prayers we are to develop a mental framework analogous to Paul’s, we must look for signs of grace in the lives of other Christians, and give God thanks for them.” Paul was constantly praising the Lord for and interceding for his brothers and sisters through prayer. This is one big reason why we have a member directory at Sojourn. The design is that we would work through that directory page-by-page, praying for our brothers and sisters in Christ. Carson’s book taught me how to pray biblical prayers for these brothers and sisters.

2. Material/physical to spiritual

Most believers have experienced some sort of prayer meeting when the majority of the time is taken up by requests for so and so’s grandmother’s surgery next week, etc. Not a bad request. Bad if that is the steady diet of a prayer meeting. When Paul encounters churches facing intense physical challenges: persecution, famine, etc., he doesn’t pray for what we might—deliverance from these enemies and good health—material and physical concerns. Rather, he prays that they would, “have growing faith” and “increasing love”, be “holy and blameless before the Lord at Christ’s coming”, and “filled with the knowledge of God’s will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding”, “bear fruit in every good work”, and “grow in the knowledge of God”. Paul’s words echo the teachings of Jesus: “And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” (Matthew 10:28) As followers of Jesus, we adopt his teaching that the most important and vital battles are happening not in the physical world, but in the spiritual. This book taught me how to pray in light of that fact.

3. Temporal and temporary (the here and now) to Future and final

It’s natural to be affixed on what’s right in front of you without much of a future perspective. We think about our present situation to the detriment of the future. The phenomenon of credit card debt alone furnishes us with proof of this tendency in sinful men and women. But Christianity doesn’t offer us our full hope here and now. We’re waiting for something. Paul says that he longs to “strike the tent” and go home—he’s merely camping in the wilderness of this world (Philippians). Our faith is built on the truth that we are hoping and waiting towards a future event. Carson says, “Can biblical spirituality long survive where Christians are not oriented to the world to come? And, in this context, can we expect to pray aright unless we are oriented to the world to come?” And we shouldn’t forget that the Bible ends on just this note: “Come Lord Jesus!” A Call To Spiritual Reformation has reminded me of these truths and given me a model of prayer that aims towards the future and final.

CARL F. HENRY'S FIFTEEN THESES: A Christian View of Revelation

2007-09-18T14:21:00.000-07:00

This list and the extensive (and I do mean extensive!) writing behind this list (Henry's magnum opus: God, Revelation and Authority) would have been such a help to me in college at Carson-Newman. Phrases such as, “Inerrancy is heresy” and “Conservatives are Bible-olaters” were fairly common in my Religion classes. But it wasn’t my professors pointing to the so-called inconsistencies in the text, or variants between manuscripts that fooled me. The trap set for me was much more unassuming and inconspicuous at the time (and infinitely more damaging!). The attack I fell prey to was waged against the very nature of Scripture.

Dr. Don Olive distinguished between two schools of thought in one of my philosophy classes: 1) The Bible as revelation and, 2) The Bible as ‘the record of revelation’. The ‘special revelation of God’, said Dr. Olive, was Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ alone! The Bible was merely the record of this revelation. This presentation sounded very pious to my immature Christian ears and I bought it! I even mentioned it to Christian friends who I recognized were not making this ‘helpful distinction’ (Lord have mercy on me for saying false things!!).

This argument, or an argument of the more Barthian flare (Scripture as a window into the revelation of God, but not revelation itself) is much more devastating than a simple attack on the 'discontinuity' of the order of events in the life of Christ between Mark and Luke, or something similar. The previous argument cuts to the core of what Scripture is. Dr. Henry’s theses have become such a wonderful framework for helping me along in a true and God-honoring doctrine of Scripture. Here they are.

1. Revelation is a divinely initiated activity, God’s free communication by which he alone turns his personal privacy into a deliberate disclosure of his reality.

2. Divine revelation is given for human benefit, offering us privileged communion with our Creator in the kingdom of God.

3. Divine revelation does not completely erase God’s transcendent mystery, inasmuch as God the Revealer transcends his own revelation.

4. The very fact of disclosure by the one living God assures the comprehensive unity of divine revelation.

5. Not only the occurrence of divine revelation, but also its very nature, content, and variety are exclusively God’s determination.

6. God’s revelation is uniquely personal both in content and form.

7. God reveals himself not only universally in the history of the cosmos and of the nations, but also redemptively within this external history in unique saving acts.

8. The climax of God’s special revelation is Jesus of Nazareth, the personal incarnation of God in the flesh; in Jesus Christ the source and content of revelation converge and coincide.

9. The mediating agent in all divine revelation is the Eternal Logos—preexistent, incarnate, and now glorified.

10. God’s revelation is rational communication conveyed in intelligible ideas and meaningful words, that is, in conceptual-verbal form.

11. The Bible is the reservoir and conduit of divine truth.

12. The Holy Spirit superintends the communication of divine revelation, first, by inspiring the prophetic-apostolic writings, and second, by illuminating and interpreting the scripturally given Word of God.

13. As bestower of spiritual life the Holy Spirit enables individuals to appropriate god’s revelation savingly, and thereby attests the redemptive power of the revealed truth of God in the personal experience of reborn sinners.

14. The church approximates the kingdom of God in miniature; as such she is to mirror to each successive generation the power and joy of the appropriated realities of divine revelation.

15. The self-manifesting God will unveil his glory in a crowing revelation of power and judgment; in this disclosure at the consummation of the ages, God will vindicate righteousness and justice, finally subdue and subordinate evil, and bring into being a new heaven and earth.

***Notice how he has set up these theses doctrinally: Aspects connected with the Father (1-7) the Son (8,9) the Bible (10, 11), the Holy Spirit (12, 13) the church (14) the consummation (15).

JONATHAN EDWARDS ON PERSONAL ASSURANCE OF SALVATION

2007-09-10T17:50:00.000-07:00

"The real Christian, enjoying assurance of salvation, has holy boldness but he also has less of self-confidence and more modesty...He is less apt than others to be shaken in faith, but more apt than others to be moved with solemn warnings, and with God's frowns, and with the calamities of others. He has the firmest comfort, but the softest heart. Richer than others, he is the poorest of all in spirit: the tallest and strongest saint, but the least and tenderest child among them." (taken from Religous Affections)

WHEN IS IT SAFE TO DIVERGE FROM ONE'S ELDERS?

2007-09-05T07:19:00.000-07:00

The relationship between elders and individual members of a congregation seems a bit tricky to me. In the kindness of the Lord, I have the opportunity to reflect on this relationship with Rob Plummer and Mike Cosper (two of our elders at Sojourn) on a somewhat regular basis (especially since the elders of our church have put foward a new proposed constitution). We have agreed on some things and disagreed on others. These are my thoughts so far:

On the one hand, we are commanded to "obey our leaders and submit to them" and to "imitate their faith" (Heb. 13:17, 7). On the other hand, we can see a consistent emphasis in the NT epistles on congregational responsibility/authority. Here’s the support I see in Scripture—(and anybody reading this blog is very likely more able than I am in interpretation, so correct me by all means!)

The churches in Revelation (not just the elders) are held responsible for corporate sins and not just individual ones (also in 1 Timothy). Paul holds the members (he doesn't mention the elders) of the church at Galatia responsible for ensuring biblical teaching and resisting those who are heretical—even if it’s the Apostle Paul! 1 Corinthians makes clear, as does Matthew 18 that the congregation has a responsibility in church discipline and 2 Corinthians 2 shows that the gathering has some responsibility in reconciliation. In 2 Corinthians 10-13, Paul lays out a grid for judging leaders, stressing that some should be kicked out! Dave, the Carson article Sojourn gave us to read for leadership training describes the Systematic deductions that I draw from these texts:
"In 1 Corinthians and again in Matthew 18, the Lord Jesus insists that when things come down to the crunch, you tell the conflict to the church. You tell it to the church—for not only is there wisdom in the whole church, but there is a final sanction in the whole church. In fact, in the New Testament, there is a running tension between the authority that rests with the church and the authority bound up with the elders." (Don Carson)

So it is absolutely crucial that I am obeying and submitting to my leaders, but it's equally crucial that I realize there are situations when by doing that, I could displease the Lord. Some examples would be Martin Luther disobeying his leaders, or J. Gresham Machen, John Murray and others in the PCUSA disobeying and disassociating with their denomination due to its Gospel aberrations. From what I can tell, these men would have been sinning had they obeyed their leaders.

It's also one reason (I think) that, by the Lord's grace, we have denominations. The First Century church's concerns weren't with the ordinances--not out of neglect or irresponsibility--they just hadn't gotten there yet! By the Lord's grace, we have had two thousand years to study Scripture further and develop more personal, biblically-based convictions (that as individuals we believe we are held accountable by the Lord to act upon), such as views of pre-conversion baptism, the way local churches should be governed, etc.

So, I guess I think that the normal pattern of doctrinal belief is to trust one's elders, but I would add two exceptions to this regular rule. When there is:
1. Divergence on the fundamentals of the Gospel or any other seemingly clear teaching of Scripture (like God knowing the future, or eschatology-just kidding)

2. Divergence on doctrine that affects the practice of a local church (and implicitly gives a definition for "church" that you think is unbiblical). So, I think it would be displeasing to the Lord for me to stay at a Presbyterian church in Louisville if I became thoughtfully convinced that the Bible teaches believers baptism, even if that Presbyterian church was orthodox on the essentials of the faith and my elders thought I should stay.

The importance of these exceptions is hightened when we realize Scripture makes clear that as church members we are responsible in some way for what we are letting our elders teach us and (if it's not too strong to say), we are somehow endorsing their teaching by remaining in the pew.

THE CLARITY OF SCRIPTURE

2007-08-28T16:46:00.000-07:00

I would not have been able to understand the title of this blog five years ago. It wasn't until my Junior year in college that I read Martin Luther's "The Bondage of the Will". Luther served me well by explaining very simply and succinctly the doctrine of the perspecuity (clarity) of Scripture. He says,

"I certainly grant that many passages in the Scriptures are obscure and hard to elucidate, but that is due, not to the exalted nature of their subject, but to our own linguistic and grammatical ignorance; and it does not in any way prevent our knowing all the contents of Scripture...If words are obscure in one place, they are clear in another...I know that to many people a great deal remanis obscure; but that is due, not to any lack of clarity in Scripture, but to their own blindness and dullness, in that they make no effort to see truth which, in itself, could not be plainer."

God has given us His Word, so naturally He intends for us to understand it. This truth is so intuitive and presuppositional, that I don't feel the need to pull out individual verses to try and prove it (these verses are available however: Ps.19:4, 2Tim.3:16, 2Cor.3:15) The perspecuity of Scripture means several things:

1. The assertions of deconstructionists, Postmoderns, Neo-Orthodox-ers, and some Emergents that Scripture is something less than 'reliable propositional truth'--that is, WORDS which CORRESPOND with real TRUTH, are doomed.

2. As Christians, we can't shirk doctrinal responsibility by appeals to "mystery". It's true that Deuteronomy 29:29 says there are "secret things that belong to the Lord", but only after it talks about "the things that are revealed" being for us. Now don't get me wrong, we should never confidently affirm a belief that isn't represented in Scripture, either explicitly, or from clear implication--in other words, we should be extremely slow to speculate. I have no interest in trying to answer a doctrinal question which Scripture never asks/answers. However, it is our responsibility to hang on the every Word of our Savior, exhausting all our resources to understand His intended meaning.

3. Our rule for life and doctrine, faith and practice is found totally and only in the Bible. Church history is a wonderful resource for interpretation of those verses. My spiritual fathers give me precedent for so much (and this is an understatement!!) that I believe the Bible teaches. But at the end of the day, I am responsible to this book and this book alone. I shouldn't be scared (definitely cautious!!!) to part ways with Origen, Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, or J.I. Packer for that matter. I am responsible to this Book alone.