As we approach the next decade, many bloggers are commenting about resolutions. Of the many posts I have read, the best is by Burk Parsons over at the Ligonier blog called "Resolved by the Grace of God." This article is great because of its simple and brief yet profound approach to this issue. Here is the concluding paragraph before the resolves.These are the sorts of questions I have always considered when it comes to this whole business of making resolutions, and I have a hunch that many of my fellow biblically-informed skeptics also ponder such questions. Nevertheless, the Word of God gives us not only permission to make resolutions, it gives us good reasons for doing so. Various biblical passages seem to provide us with reasons for resolutions and examples of men of God who resolved to live for Him in a particular manner for a particular reason (Dan. 1:8; Matt. 1:19; Acts 19:21; 1 Cor. 10:14–32; Col. 3:12–17; 2 Thess. 1:11). As such, in considering how to glorify God in all that we do in our particular circumstances and callings, we would be wise to resolve to make particular resolutions to assist us in our sanctification. This we do by the power of the Holy Spirit, resting assured that we have been declared righteous by the Father because of the completed righteousness of the Son.
We recently had the opportunity to talk with Dr. Tim Keller about his newest book Counterfeit God’s: The Empty Promises of Money, Sex and Power and the Only Hope that Matters. In this book Dr. Keller argues that all sin is, in some sense, idolatry. He points out that all humans were created to worship and serve the true and living God. If they are not worshiping the true God they will always put something or someone in His place. In this interview we asked Dr. Keller questions about this new book. You can find the interview here. We hope you enjoy this episode of Christ the Center.
I understand that the concept of social justice is a concept which has been used to bring those in the broader Christian community in line with more redistributive political agendas. I want to avoid, for the moment, the question of whether the government's policy of playing Robin Hood is virtuous or vicious and instead deal with the abusive terminology involved in using a phrase like "social justice."
So then, if the terminology were honestly used, what would social justice look like? Well, frankly, it would look like the opposite of what those advocating the current definition of "social justice" say it is. In a society practicing true or literal Social Justice, each would receive according to the labor of their hands, whether that is much or little. However, the concept of "social justice" as it is pushed today reflects the opposite sentiment. It says that people should receive mercy at the hands of society, and receive goods which they did not produce or earn. There may be merits or demerits to this, but what I am simply pointing out is that the proposed policies and terminology are at odds.
Dr. Guy Waters was recently interviewed on his chapter in Risking the Truth titled, "A Debtor to Mercy Alone." This new book has an interesting layout in that it is set up like an interview. The author is asked a series of questions and then gives a response. This gives the book a more conversational feel. The audio of this interview can be found here (do not worry when you hear the people speaking Spanish, the interview was done on a Spanish speaking radio station). The interview also covers the Federal Vision and the New Perspective(s) on Paul. Dr. Waters takes a balanced and even handed approach to both of these movements in the interview, which should be commended.
Dan Wallace has a new post about his time and experience at this year's annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature. After an introduction, he mainly focuses in on the attitude of some (if not most) at SBL toward Evangelicals, you know those crazy people who actually think the Bible is recording real history. His conclusion is right on point and hits the target square in the middle.If we’re to judge liberal vs. conservative by one’s method, then the new liberal is the evangelical and neo-evangelical who is willing to engage the evidence, examine all sides, and wrestle with the primary data through the various prisms of secondary literature. He’s open. I tell my students every year, “I will respect you far more if you pursue truth and change your views than if you protect your presuppositions and don’t.” And they know my mantra, “Go where the evidence leads.” Sadly, some of the most brilliant scholars in biblical studies have become radically intolerant of conservatives. When conservative professors have that same attitude, they’re usually afraid of having their ideas challenged because they’re insecure in their beliefs. And they’re labeled as fundamentalists. When many “liberal” scholars are just as intolerant, what should we call them?
In part 3 of our series of letters interacting with Wizard, he raises a question regarding prayer. As always, my response to Wizard (and hopefully some interaction) follows in the comments section. The following was written to us by Wizard:
I don't understand the blues. The blues come from a world I don't live in. I've never been discriminated against because of my color; I've never lived in abject poverty; my kids don't cry all the time, and I have never felt in danger of my wife leaving me. These are tremendously common themes in the blues, especially the delta blues from the early 20th century. Singer after singer, from Robert Johnson to Lonnie Johnson belted out heartfelt songs bemoaning their unfaithful lovers (see Lonnie Johnson's song "She's Makin' Whoopee In Hell Tonight" for a good example). Nowadays, these themes have become somewhat of a cliche, but there was a time when these ideas were fresh, untried topics for musical exploration.I have a bible in my home,
I have a bible in my home
If I don't read it my soul be lost
And sister she taught me how to read,
sister she taught me how to read
If I don't read it my soul be lost, nobody's fault but mine
This man recorded only 30 songs between 1927 and 1929, but each and every one was unique and stood on its own as a testament to awesome theology and amazing, world-shaking musicianship. His songs have been covered by the White Stripes, Led Zeppelin, the Rolling Stones, Dave Matthews, Nick Cave, Bruce Springsteen, Bob Dylan, and many others. Ry Cooder described Willie's song "Dark Was the Night (Cold Was the Ground)" as "The most soulful, transcendent piece in all American music." And yet for all of the acclaim Blind Willie now enjoys, in life things were not so great for Blind Willie. Legend has it, Willie was blinded at a young age when his stepmother threw lye in his face as revenge against Willie's father who beat her when he caught her cheating on him. Subsequently, Willie's father would leave him on street corners, begging for food and money in exchange for his songs.A.G. Smith, mighty man, built a boat that he couldn't understand
Named it a name of God in a tin, without a "c", Lord, he pulled it in
God moves, ah, God moves, God moves, ah, and the people had to run and pray
My mother, she's in glory, thank God I'm on my wayRather than denying the reality or importance of sorrow in the Christian life, Willie acquiesces to the pain, accepting it and then turning it towards the creator, seeking his solace with God since he could find no comfort in this life.
Father, he's gone too, and sister she could not stay
I'm trusting Him everyday, to bear my burdens away
'Cause I just can't keep from crying sometimes
Well, I just can't keep from crying sometimes
When my heart's full of sorrow and my eyes are filled with tears
Lord, I just can't keep from crying sometimes
Lord, in my time of dyin', don't want nobody to cry
All I want you to do, is take me when I die
Well, well, well, so I can die easy
Well, well, well, well, well, well, so I can die easy
Jesus goin' make up
Jesus goin' make up
Jesus goin' make my dyin' bed
blogger, is going to be turning 85 on Tuesday. Born in 1924 to immigrant parents, Josh traveled the world, eventually discovering the fountain of youth after studying the handwritten journals of Francisco DeAntonia (which he stole from a safety deposit box in Zurich). After his adventures in South America, Josh settled into the common life of an elderly man who appears to be only in his late twenties. Having lived through the Great Depression, World War II (where he fought as a fighter pilot), the Vietnam War, and the Death of God movement in the '60s, Josh says he is no longer afraid of anything except sock puppets, crab bisque, preachers in cardigans, and those who deny penal substitutionary atonement. When asked what he still wants to accomplish in life, Josh just sips his warm milk, looks out the window fondly and smiling says, "I just want to write a book where I destroy all heresy."
I have been M.I.A. from Bring the Books because I have been working on my paper that I will be delivering at ETS on November 19th at 11 am. I have probably spent about 100 hours this year on this single paper. I am pleased with the research and conclusion of the paper but I need to work on the syntax and wording a bit more. One of the pieces of evidence I have found in my study that is pretty compelling to me is how Psalm 2:7 is used in the New Testament to prove a high Christology. Below in a section from my paper on this high Christology.
King and Servant Show 1 (Click Here)
You've all been demanding it, and now here it is: Part 2 of "Letter From a Skeptical Friend." You may recall that in August we posted a letter from a friend of ours named Wizard. In this letter, our friend expressed some doubts about the Christian worldview in favor of the atheist worldview. We have been waiting and waiting for his next letter, and yesterday I finally received his next list of theistic issues he wanted to bring up. In the letter, he briefly expressed a few concerns. Rather than listing all of them here (he brought up three main issues), I am just going to print the first problem he raises and then attempt to address it in the comments section, just like we did with his last letter.
The schedule of the papers being given at ETS this year can be seen here. Our very own blogger extraordinaire, Josh Walker, can be found on the left-hand side of page 14. He will be delivering a paper entitled, "Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews: A Pauline/Lukan Perspective." Congrats again to Josh Walker! If you are attending, be sure to come by and say hello!
Edwards’ View of Imputation of SinSo root and branches being one, according to God’s wise constitution, the case in fact is, that by virtue of this oneness answerable changes or effects through all the branches coexist with the changes in the root: consequently an evil disposition exists in the hearts of Adam’s posterity, equivalent to that which was exerted in his own heart, when he eat the forbidden fruit (Edwards 221).
Adam’s posterity came by the corruption of nature by God’s withholding his Spirit and image from them judicially for their breach of the first covenant. It is not derived down naturally but God withholds his Spirit from them in judgment for their first sin viz. for their eating the forbidden fruit…They are looked upon as having eaten the forbidden fruit as well as Adam. They transgressed in Adam and therefore are subject to the same judgment (Gerstner 327).
“Edwards [here] is clearly departing from the Reformed tradition fundamentally, and seems fully aware of it. Here the problem is not that the reformed tradition tended to be silent about the subject, but that the solution it offered did not satisfy Edwards.”
It tells us that two things are identical if God wills them to be so. It tells that if his teaching conflicted with its teaching he must be in error. Obviously [Edwards] had no such notion concerning the doctrine of personal identity. He was aware that it was different from ordinary reformed thinking but he did not think it inconsistent with…the Bible, but, in fact, most satisfactorily explained it.
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned…Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous (Romans 5:12, 18-19; my emphasis).
The Speed of Light is defined as “The speed at which light travels in a vacuum; the constancy and universality of the speed of light is recognized by defining it to be exactly 299,792,458 meters per second.” A light year is considered the distance that light travels (through a vacuum) in one year (9.46 x 1017cm). The nearest star (other than the Sun) is 4.3 light years away. In other words, we see this star as it existed four years ago, not as it actually is right now. The distance to the most distant object seen is about 18 billion light years. Hence, we can at least be confident, given the time that this light has taken to reach our planet, that the universe is, at the minimum, 18 billion years old. The distance to the galaxy M87 in the Virgo Cluster is 50 million light years. Likewise, when we look into a telescope and see M87, we are looking into the past and seeing M87 as it was 50 million years ago. But did M87 even exist 50 million years ago? Some Christians think it did not. Christian Reconstructionist Gary North clearly rejects the scientific measurement of the speed of light when he argues, “The Bible’s account of the chronology of creation points to an illusion. …The seeming age of the stars is an illusion…Either the constancy of the speed of light is an illusion, or the size of the universe is an illusion, or else the physical events that we hypothesize to explain the visible changes in light or radiation are false inferences.”*1. If the entire universe is a maximum of 15,000 years old then the speed of light is not a constant 299,792,458 meters per second.
2. The speed of light is a constant 299,792,458 meters per second.
3. Therefore, it is not the case that the entire universe is a maximum of 15,000 years old.
Using modus tolens, we can see that one must either reject the constancy of the speed of light or reject the young-universe proposition that the universe has only existed for 15,000 at the most. However, there are other extra-scientific possibilities which should be considered before a final judgment is issued. For example, some such as Gary North, argue that astronomers’ measurements of the size of the universe are simply wrong. Often, as Hugh Ross points out, those arguing this point are under the misleading notion that scientists only use the unreliable redshifts to measure astronomical distances. However, scientists actually use a wide variety of methods to measure distances within the universe.1. If x appears to have properties of existence yet does not, then one is unwarranted in believing in the existence of y.
2. One is warranted in believing in the existence of y.
3. Therefore, it is not the case that x appears to have properties of existence yet does not.
4. Therefore, if distant stars appear to have properties of existence yet do not, then one is unwarranted in believing in the existence of the sun.
1. If one is justified in believing that the speed of light is not constant, then no one is justified in believing in induction.
2. The speed of light is not constant.
3. Therefore, no one is justified in believing in induction.
The Christ the Center panel met with Dr. Guy Waters, associate professor of New Testament at Reformed Theological Seminary in Jackson, to discuss the importance of membership in a local congregation. The biblical basis for church membership was explored along with its connection to mutual support, discipline, accountability and observance of baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Also discussed was the significance of the non-communicant/communicant member distinction and its basis in Scripture. It was noted that aversion to local church membership among Christians is a relatively recent phenomenon and so this proved to be a very practical conversation. Especially in our time with the rise of the virtual church movement. The audio for the interview can be found here.
Everybody remember 'Ida,' the much-hyped missing link that proved evolution once and for all? Well, you can all forget it now, as well. MSNBC: ‘Missing link’ primate isn’t a link after all. Apparently, rather than being an ancestor of humans and apes, this creature is related to lemurs, which certainly disquaifies it from holding its much coveted 'link' status.
The Importance of John LockeAs this place in general is plain and full, so the doctrine of the corruption of nature, as derived from Adam, and also the imputation of his first sin, are both clearly taught in it. The imputation of Adam’s one transgression is indeed most directly and frequently asserted.
Locke believed that a person’s identity consisted in this: continuation of consciousness. As long as a person held preserved memories of their own past, with no break in consciousness, then that person’s identity could be established or held certain. To be sure, there are many other aspects to Lockean identity. For example, Locke believed that transmigration of the soul was possible. Transmigration is the idea that a person’s soul could leave their body, and become united to another body. The person’s identity would remain the same, however, since the person’s consciousness never ceases operation. Entire books could (and probably have been) be written on the subject, but for the present purposes, this short summary will do nicely.Well might Mr. Locke say that identity of person consisted in identity of consciousness; for he might have said that identity of spirit, too, consisted in the same consciousness. A mind or spirit is nothing else but consciousness, and what is included in it. The same consciousness is to all intents and purposes the very same spirit or substance, as much as the same particle of matter can be the same with itself at different times (Edwards Works 1, cclxiv).
Identity of person is what seems never yet to have been explained. It is a mistake that it consists in sameness or identity of consciousness, if by sameness of consciousness be meant having the same ideas hereafter that I have now, with a notion or apprehension that I had had them before, just in the same manner as I now have the same ideas that I had in time past by memory.
It is possible without doubt in the nature of things for God to annihilate me, and after my annihilation to create another being that shall have the same in his mind that I have, and with the like apprehension that he had had them before in like manner as a person has by memory; and yet I be in no way concerned in it, having no reason to fear what that being shall suffer, or to hope for what he shall enjoy. Can anyone deny that it is possible, after my annihilation, to create two beings in the universe, both of them having my ideas communicated to them with such a notion of their having had them before, after the manner of memory, and yet be ignorant one of another? And in such case, will anyone say that both these are one and the same person, as they must be if they are both the same person with me? It is possible there may be two such beings, each having all the ideas that are now in my mind in the same manner that I should have by memory if my own being were continued, and yet these two beings not only be ignorant one of another, but also be in a very different state, one in a state of enjoyment and pleasure, and the other in a state of great suffering and torment…Will anyone say that [these], in such a case, [are] the same person with me, when I know nothing of [their] suffering and am never the better for [their] joys? (Gerstner 325-326).
It would seem that Edwards came to rest with respect to personal identity with the above doctrine that it is divinely constituted. It is closely related to the doctrine of continuous creation. Just as the only real difference between creation and providence is that creation is referred to the first time that God brought things into being, while providence is the term for all subsequent times, so the only difference between Adam’s sin and his posterity’s is that Adam’s is simply the first. His posterity’s sin is the same as his because their personal identity is the same, but it is the second, third, fourth etc. – a difference not in the thing itself but in the number of the thing (193).
…God’s upholding created substance, or causing its existence in each successive moment, is altogether equivalent to an immediate production out of nothing, at each moment… (193).
Orthodox Christianity will always have its opponents. This is due to the nature of humanity, which tends to reject the sovereign God in every possible way. In the 18th Century, Jonathan Edwards fought off such enemies of the faith. At this particular time, these people attacked the concept of original sin. Particularly – they asked – is it fair that I am responsible for a sin that Adam (the first man) committed? It is within Edwards’ answer to this incredible challenge that we find the thought of John Locke. Though in the final analysis, we shall see that Edwards’ answer trod its own path never before traveled. We will find that his answer actually stems from an eventual rejection of Locke’s view of personal identity over time. It is nonetheless crucial to grasp how this intellectual giant answered the challenges he encountered.
Jason Stellman has a new series of posts defending the glories of Presbyterianism. The first one can be found here. I found his post helpful and biblical. His conclusion, posted below, is a good summary of our pilgrim journey in this age.So to sum up, the Reformed understanding of the relationship between the church and Scripture is anything but pristine, but it does accurately reflect the nature of life in this age before the consummation. Indeed, on that Day all the loose ends will be tied up and all our questions will be answered. But until then, we who embrace our pilgrim status and are enabled to boast in seeming weakness and glory in seeming shame are content to labor, to learn, to grow, all the while knowing that God will guide his church into all truth.
This week, a friend of mine on Facebook, who is a member of the Church of Christ Disciples, requested some arguments in favor of women pastors. I, of course, did the opposite and began soliciting my own arguments. Here is what I said:1 Tim. 2:12-14, man. Paul doesn't say that the women in ministry issue is cultural. He anchors his reasoning in the order of creation and in the Fall. If you want to be a hip modernist, then go ahead and tell yourself that God wants women to be preachers over men, but if you want to do justice to Paul's reasoning, then there's nothing wrong with... Read More changing your mind on this issue. Come over to the mean old-fogie side of the aisle. We're all grumpy sexist misogynists over here! ... "Come overrrrr to the daarrrrk siiiide...!"
Paul argues that woman was "deceived" and ate of the fruit. But the man was not deceived, he knew what was right and blatantly rebelled. But his argument is flawed. Would you really rather have a woman teacher who can be deceived but willing to be given more info and corrected? Or, a man who will defy reality and God's Word and blatantly sin.
The general tenor of the arguments being offered were emotional in nature. Everyone had some kind of great experience with a female pastor, everyone said they'd learned something good in that context, and therefore it must be okay. Pragmatism was the rule of the day. Many people argued that if these women felt the call to ministry that the Spirit wouldn't call them to something that was wrong.The Bible tells us how to know if something is from God or not. Let me give an example. A man feels an undeniable urge to have sex with his neighbor's wife. His poor sense of morality tells him that perhaps this is from God. Perhaps God wants him to do this thing. Now, how do we know whether this is from God? Well, I submit that it's easy. The Bible says that it is wrong to lust after a woman, the Bible says not to commit adultery, and the Bible is clear that we are not to covet our neighbor's wife. Easy; despite our strong personal inclinations, we submit to the written word because our emotions can be easily fooled without an objective standard to submit to.
Similarly, if there is a woman who feels an overwhelming desire to be the pastor of a church, there is a very easy way to tell if this desire is from God or whether she is being deceived to one degree or another. Look in the Bible. If the thing you desire is forbidden by God Himself, then He would be contradicting Himself to give you the desire to do said forbidden thing. Also, considering that the Bible does authorize women to teach children and other women, there is an outlet for the woman who feels she is gifted by God to teach others. This is not a desire that cannot be fulfilled.
The church my wife and I attend, Redeemer Church PCA, has a new website, which can be found here. The new site is much improved. The information and resources are easier to locate and use. The sermons by our pastor, Mike Campbell (pictured to the left), can be found here and you can podcast them here. His current sermon series on James is outstanding! I highly recommend it.
On the latest edition of Christ the Center, Burk Parsons joined us to discuss two books he has edited. A majority of the discussion centers around Assured by God: Living in the Fullness of God’s Grace, a wonderful collection of contributions on the reformed doctrine of assurance. Burk explains the importance of the doctrine for the Christian life.
