Called Sheep

God Doesn't Care How Smart You Are

2012-01-22T17:39:00.000-08:00

Sin has a way of elevating the trivial and subjugating the important. Gossip magazines, celebrity news, and most of mainstream media testify to this trend. Pay attention to the kind of news that is reported and compare that to what Scripture emphasizes—you'll quickly see sin's distorting presence at work. My-life-is-over and this-is-the-greatest-thing-ever statuses on Facebook have become trite. Everything is important—except what really is.

While talking with some co-workers and friends, something profoundly simple struck me: God doesn't care how smart I am. Sure, it sounds obvious, but the ramifications of that statement are immense. Intelligence garners a special place of honor and reverence in America—and perhaps elsewhere in the world. People who are smart are looked up to and set apart. The question is: why? They did nothing to become smart—that was a gift. Knowledge and wisdom are gained; intelligence is given. While IQ is important for certain careers and tasks—no one wants a stupid doctor—it really has no greater value before God than being of average intelligence. After all, He didn't make everyone a genius.

So why then do we "worship" those who are smarter than the rest? And not only that, but also look down upon those of lesser intelligence? How many times have you thought less of a person because of how "stupid" they were? We make jokes about them all the time. I even find myself thinking such thoughts when having to show someone how to do something that—to me—seems patently obvious. Granted, there is a difference between lesser intelligence and being a fool: the fool has a lazy, untrained mind that does not readily accept correction; the "dumb" person merely lacks certain levels of cognitive functioning.

The problem is sin. No, there is nothing wrong with being bright or gifted. And one might say it makes life a little easier. Nevertheless, those characteristics that truly matter—love, humility, honesty, integrity, faithfulness, joy, kindness, patience, diligence, steadfastness—receive fewer accolades and are far less "important" than characteristics like intelligence, success, good looks, and self-esteem. Maybe it's just me, but I find myself thinking more highly of people who are smarter than I am than those who more accurately reflect the character of Christ. What does this say of us? It is merely another way we have allowed worldly, sinful thinking to distort our perception of what is important. The next time you find yourself belittling someone of lesser intelligence than you, remember this: God doesn't care how smart you are.

If God is real, why aren't we?

2011-09-22T20:48:00.001-07:00

The past few months I have been on a crash-course in sanctification. Through this, God has revealed a few things to me that I had previously misunderstood or ignored. I hope to explore them here in the coming weeks.

If God is real, why aren't we?

If we believe in the God of the Scriptures - the God who created the world, redeemed sinful men through the death and resurrection of the Messiah, recreated a people for himself and is coming again to judge the living and the dead, then why do we not act as if our relationship with him is real?

Perhaps it is just me, but I have always been afraid to be honest with God. Sure, I confess my sins and speak of my concerns and anxieties, but it rarely ever passes into the realm of emotional transparency. I have feared that if I became angry, resentful, disappointed or frustrated with God, he would look down upon me. I imagined that as long as I didn't tell him directly how I felt, I would be ok. He wouldn't discipline me for it. After all, what good reason is there to be upset with the one who saved you? Sure, I felt angry, but I did not act as though I did. I went to church, sang, prayed, fellowshipped, all as if God and I were on happy-peppy-smiley terms. Well, as it turns out, that is hypocrisy at the deepest level.

Consider, for instance, a human relationship. Take a brother or close friend. Is your disposition towards them constant? Are you always happy and cheerful towards them? The answer is, of course, no. You go through the many and diverse emotions that define a loving relationship. Why? Because you love them. It is the ones you love the most that can hurt you the most. It is only those you are indifferent to that do not stir up your emotions.

Why are we not like this towards God? Do we imagine that we need to be happy and cheerful towards him at all times? To put on our Church-face even when no one else is around? Is this what it means to be holy or sanctified or genuine? No. God is not fooled. A quick perusal through the Psalms reveals that this kind of emotional roller coaster is definitive of man's relationship with His God. There are psalms of lament, joy, disappointment, doubt, triumph and fear. God's people struggle with him. They do not always understand his ways. They do not always see his faithfulness to his promises. (And this is not only true for the OT saints prior to the climactic redemptive accomplishments in Christ. We too live between promise and fulfillment.) God made us as emotional beings. He expects us to experience them. He expects us to get angry at him, frustrated when things do not work out as we expected, doubtful when we cannot see his faithfulness towards us, joyful when he keeps us from sin, content when we more fully realize all we have in Christ.

Genuine relationship. This is what we should desire with our God. No, we should not allow our emotions to run unchecked. We should always be moving towards joy, contentment and hope. We should transform our emotions with the truth we have been given. We should act in obedience regardless of how we feel (this will be the subject of a coming post on sanctification). However, we should not fear to be emotional towards God. Let us cast off the formality of piety and open ourselves up to feeling the diverse, painful and yet immensely joyful reality that is redeemed man's walk with his God.

His Story: A Sweeping Overview of God's Great Plan

2011-07-19T12:05:00.000-07:00

In the weekly small group that I teach, we recently completed an 18-part series on the story line of the Bible. Using D.A. Carson's book The God Who is There as my primary material, my goal was to demonstrate the single, over-arching story that God has been working out in history from day one. While I utilized Carson's material greatly, I took a different approach than he. Rather than jumping back and forth across the books, I endeavored to let the Bible reveal itself progressively as we moved from Genesis to Revelation. For those of you who are familiar with this approach, its technical name is Biblical Theology. I focused on how God revealed both himself and his plan over time, allowing the Biblical themes of righteousness, sin, redemption, sacrifice, holiness, and kingdom to organically unfold as they did in the history of revelation.

One thing I discovered as we went through the series was how lacking we Western Christians are in a proper understanding of our place within God's work. So much of Christianity in America is focused upon the individual: Jesus is my personal Lord and Savior, personal Bible study, etc. It may come as a shock to many that the Scripture, while certainly speaking of and to the individual, is primarily concerned with God and his people. It has never been about individuals as such, but with humanity as a whole. I have spoken of this individualistic phenomenon elsewhere. Nevertheless, I found that by looking at what God is doing in history and for a people, there is very little room left for a "me" centered faith. I am not the focus of God's work. Salvation is not for my getting out of hell and into heaven. Jesus didn't die first and foremost for "me". No, salvation is and has always been about God redeeming a people for himself, and, through them, redeeming the entire creation from the curse of sin. I hope to develop some of these themes in later posts.

Thus, I plan on posting the lessons in revised and edited form over the coming weeks, in hopes that they will benefit others like they have for us.

The Author of Hebrews Use of the OT

2011-01-19T12:09:00.000-08:00

I am presently writing an essay on the author of Hebrews' use of the Old Testament. As part of my research, I created this table containing both direct quotations and allusions to Old Testament texts found within the letter. I decided to post it on here in case others may find it to be a useful resource.

Hebrews Text	OT Source
1:2a	Psalm 2:8
1:3	Psalm 110:1; (109:1 LXX)
1:4	2 Sam 7:14; (2 Kgdms 7:14)
1:5	Ps 2:7; 2 Sam 7:14;
1:6	Deut 32:43/Ps 96:7; Ps 103:4
1:7	Ps 104:4; Ps 44:7-8 LXX; Ps 101:26-8 LXX
1:8-9	Ps 45:6-7 (44:7-8 LXX); Ps 102:25-27 (101:26-28 LXX)
1:10-12	Ps 102:25-27 (101:26-28 LXX); Ps 45:6-7
1:13	Ps 110:1 (109:1 LXX)
2:6-8a	Ps 8:4-6
2:12	Ps 22:22 (21:23 LXX); Isa 8:17b-18
2:13	Same as above
2:16-18	Isa 41:8 LXX; Isa 41:9; Jer 38:2; Isa 41:10;
3:2-5	Num 12:7; 2 Sam 7; Ps 77:8, 37
3:7-11, 15-19; 4:3-7	Ps 94:7c-11 LXX
4:4	Ps 95:11 (94:11 LXX); Gen 2:2
5:5	Ps 2:7; 2 Sam 7:14
5:6	Gen 14:17-20; Ps 110:4; (Parallel Literature) 11Q13 (Lev 25:9-13) 2 Enoch 71-72; 1QapGen ar XXII 14-17;
5:7-9	Ps 116; 22
6:4-6	Possibly Enlightened: Neh 9:12,19; Ps 105:39 Heavenly gift: Exod 16:15; Ps 78:24; Neh 9:15
6:7-8	Gen 3:17-18; Isa 5:1-5; Hos 10:8,12; Exek 19:10-14 Deut 11:11; 28:12
6:14	Gen 22:17
6:18,20	Ps 110:4
7:1-4	Ps 110:4; Gem 14:17-20 Parallel Literature Philo Alleg Interp. 3.79-82 Qumran 11Q13II,13 Apoc Ab 17:10
7:17,21	Ps 109:4 LXX; 110:4
8:1	Ps 110:1 (109:1 LXX)
8:5	Exod 25:40
8:8-12	Jer 31:31-34
9:20	Exod 24:8
9:23	Lev 16:16-19
9:28	Isa 53:12
10:5-9	Ps 40:6-8a (39:7-9a LXX) Parallel Literature 2 Enoch 45:3
10:12-13	Ps 110:1 (109:1 LXX)
10:16-17	Jer 31:33-34 (38:33-34 LXX)
10:27	Isa 26:11; 66:15; Zeph 1:18; 2 Bar48:39-40
10:28	Deut 17:2-7; 13:8
10:30	Deut 32:35-36
10:37-38	Isa 26:20 and Hab 2:3; Ps 39:7-9a LXX
11:1-40
11:3	Ps 33:6, 9; Gen 1
11:4	Gen 4:1-10
11:5	Gen 5:24
11:7	Gen 6:13-22
11:8-11	Gen 12-17
11:12	Gen 22:17
11:17	Gen 22:1-10
11:18	Gen 21:12
11:20	Gen 27:27-29
11:21	Gen 47:31
11:22	Gen 50:22-26
11:23-26	Exod 2
11:30-31	Josh 6
12:2	Ps 110:1
12:5b-6	Prov 3:11-12
12:12-13	Job 4:3-4; Sir. 25:23; Isa 35:3; Prov 4:26a
12:15	Deut 29:17
12:18-21	Exod 19:16-22; 20:18-21; Deut 4:11-12; 5:23-27
12:26b	Hag 2:6
13:5	Possibly either: Gen 28:15c; Deut 31:6; Deut 31:8; 1 Chron 28:20; Josh 1:5
13:11	Lev 16:27;

Man: The Glorious Union of Two Worlds

2010-02-25T16:52:00.000-08:00

OT Studies: Course 1 - Genesis

Reflections on Man's Place in the Cosmos

In the beginning, God made the universe. Consider for a moment the sheer immensity and infinitesimility (yes, I made that word up) of the cosmos; from the billions of vast galaxies that hang in the heavens, to the micro-factories churning away in the cell; from the might and valor of the dinosaur, to the delicate and charming sea horse; from grandeur to simplicity, the work of the heavens and the earth is breathtaking. It is within this stunning backdrop that something exceedingly strange occurs: the creation of a human being.

In the first few verses of Genesis an account is given of the creation of the known universe. Having created the spiritual host of heaven, the Lord turns to the physical world. In each cycle a common theme is seen. When the plant kingdom is brought forth, every bush and tree and flower is created in such a way as to produce after its own kind: to bear its own seed in the likeness of it. This continues with the animal kingdom, as every creature from reptiles to birds is endowed with the ability to produce after its own kind; however, none of these are said to have been modeled upon something greater than themselves. Indeed, it may be said that these are entirely new creations. Nothing has existed like them before either in heaven or on earth.

Yet what do we see when the sixth cycle arrives and God prepares to create man? It does not say what we would expect; man is not merely created and then said to produce after his own kind just as the animals. No, something far more astounding and yes -- strange -- occurs: God produces after his own kind. "Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.'." What an impossible thought! The eternal, matchless sovereign of the universe proceeds to create a being after his own likeness! His own seed! No animals or plants had such a purpose, yet man is made after something far greater and impossibly grander than himself. His purpose is not found in himself, as the plants and animals may have more claim to; rather, he is inexorably and wonderfully tied to his maker. He bears the image of another who had no beginning. He is fashioned after the glory of the Glory of Heaven.

This alone should be impetus enough for man to fall down and worship God for all eternity. Yet, in his infinite wisdom, there is more; without even divulging into the task and purpose given to man based upon this likeness, something astonishing has taken place. When God created the angels, they were fashioned of spirit to inhabit that realm which is wholly spiritual. When God created the stars and planets, plants and animals he fashioned them of matter to inhabit that realm which is wholly physical. Yet in man, these two seemingly irreconcilable worlds come together. "The LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature." How astounding is this! In the creature man, the world of spirit and the world of the earthly unite. It is as though man is placed at the meeting of heaven and earth: the dwelling place of man and the communion of God. This truth furnishes vast insight into the function of man and his relation to both the physical and spiritual worlds. As spirit, man has in himself a vital union with his maker. He is spirit as God is spirit. Consequently, he is to be as "god" over all of creation; his duty reflects that of his Father. Yet as body, man is intimately united to the physical world; he is not only spirit, and therefore shares in the life of both plants and animals.

This union of two worlds makes him the mediator of blessing and vessel of cursing to the rest of creation. Had Adam continued in obedience and righteousness, surely the rest of creation would have been blessed for it. Yet as a consequence of his treachery and rebellion against God, man is not only cursed, but becomes the vessel of cursing to what he is connected with: the physical world. That bond and harmony once shared between both the spiritual world and the physical is now severed. Death spreads to both. He is cut off from the life of God and presence of righteousness. For after all, he is spirit. He is also cut off from the land from which he came and the peace man and earth once shared is twisted and corrupted. The earth no longer yields to his labors and even the animals are at odds with him. For after all, he possesses a body.

Is it little wonder then that it was necessary for the Christ to be both God and man in order to reconcile all things to God? Unlike Adam, he is the perfect, full, complete image of the invisible God, sharing that very being that makes God God. And not only this, but he partook of the nature of man, both body and spirit, in order that he might redeem both man and creation from the curse of sin. Make no mistake, this union of the divine and the human in the person of Christ far exceeds that of the union of spirit and body in man! It may be said that man was but a type of the union found in Christ at the incarnation. Where man was but in the likeness of God, Christ was very God of very God. He stands as the perfect mediator between the Two Worlds. By becoming man and bearing the guilt of sin, Christ redeemed what was lost. By being God he had the power and ability to unite what was beyond mere human ability. He once again united God and man. At the culmination of all things, having judged the living and the dead, Christ will stand as the true and final Adam, the real union of spirit and body, and once again have dominion over a world where peace and harmony in creation is found. All glory and honor be to the Christ and Savior of creation.

The Individual: the New Society.

2010-02-23T12:19:00.000-08:00

Reflections on Occidental Society's Exaltation of the Individual

What is the fundamental unit in a society or community: the individual or the group?

While meditating upon my studies of the Old and New Testaments, the concept of the one-vs-the-many (not referring to the philosophical sense of the paradox found in Plato or others) kept re-emerging in my mind. In the past I have briefly studied the ancient cultures of the Romans and Greeks. When comparing their view of community versus that found in Occidental society, a stark contrast presents itself: the fundamental unit is found in the group, not in the individual. In other words a person was defined not primarily by what he did but by the various communities he was associated with. He was not firstly a metal worker who enjoyed wrestling (yes, this is probably anachronistic). He was a Greek, of the city of Athens, and a worshiper of Athena. His identity was bound up in a category much larger than his own personal characteristics and lifestyle; the larger-than-him community gave definition and meaning to his life.

What a far cry from this we are! In Western society, as stereotyped in the United States, the individual is the starting point of identity. We are not first Americans, of the state of California, and worshipers of "insert spiritual flavor of the day here." We are teachers, father of two, husband of Kate. We are the defining element of our lives, not our various communities. (Take note of this example: the individual is first and the group second.) In fact to us, the group only exists because of the individuals that comprise it. While this is in some sense true, the fact remains that everything in our lives boils down to one thing: me. I do not say this in a merely pedantic manner to point out our narcissism and self-centered attitude, but rather to demonstrate our pervasive conception of the individual in opposition to the group.

So what does this have to do with Biblical studies? Much in every way! Due to this all-engrossing mindset, much of the church has lost the Biblical concept of the group. By establishing the individual as our starting point, we have lost a true understanding of our essential and yes, corporate, identity: our union with Christ. The focus of God upon His people is found from beginning to end in the story of redemption. In the garden even Adam and Eve were portrayed as being the corporate "parents" of all humanity. Yes they were individuals, but their identity was with humanity before God, not as isolated persons. When Adam fell, all mankind fell in virtue of his union with and representation of mankind. Abraham, while called as an individual, had the distinct honor of being the father from whom the people of God would be brought forth - both spiritually and physically. The nation of Israel represented the elect people of God. You were an Israelite first and an individual second. When the people sinned, the nation was cursed. When the people repented, the nation was blessed.

This brings us to the fulcrum of the redemptive story: the coming of Christ. Christ himself, while certainly an individual, represented a much larger entity than himself. He was the manifestation of the godhead in physical form. He was God to man and man to God. He was the savior of his people. By virtue of his death, burial, resurrection, ascension, and pouring out of his spirit, he purchased and united a people for God from every nation on earth. No longer did the classification of Jew, Gentile, Roman or Greek matter. No, it was the union with Christ and the inclusion of them into the family of God that became the defining element in the life of the Christian. Christ established his Church first, and Christians second. Christians as a mass of individuals do not make up the Church. Rather, the Church was the ideal and individual Christians are brought into the fellowship of it. God's people exist as a communion and more are added to it. Indeed, at the consummation of all things, the saints in heaven will no longer be characterized by job or hobby or political affiliation. They will be the people of God - the body of Christ. Their identity, as is ours now, is found in Christ. (As a side note, I am not saying that a vague, amorphous institution known as the Church was established before people were redeemed and that it, by virtue of its own power, is the object of the love of God. Certainly individuals receive the love of God, not an institution. Instead, I mean to point out that God works with groups which are composed of individuals, not the other way around. Christ redeemed the Church in concept and Christians in application.)

What a difference this perspective makes! God has a people not a bunch of persons! My identity (e.g., my goals, ambitions, giftings, and calling) are not first and foremost my own. They are from God and for the church. I do not exist for my own pleasure, but the pleasure of God for the benefit of others. Much could be said of our lives and how they reflect this individualistic mentality, everything from God's will for my life, to choosing the best school for me, to choosing to have kids when I want to, to why the Church exists in the first place. However, this post is merely an introduction to the matter not an exhaustive treatise - although it is tempting! Nevertheless, the ramifications of this are extensive and too numerous to list in a single post. However, I pray that these reflections may spurn greater discussion among God's people.

NT Studies: Course 1 - Introduction

2010-01-25T16:57:00.000-08:00

NT Studies

Course 1 - Introduction

Context, Context, Context

While reading through Carson and Moo's Introduction to the New Testament, I became freshly aware of the significance of placing ourselves into context. We are frequently reminded to always read a text in its context to prevent reading it as a proof text. After all, the NT was written some 2000 years ago and is contextualized within a culture that is foreign to most of us. In addition to the cultural and historical dimensions, we must consider the literary context - how does this particular passage fit into the larger flow of the book? and the theological context, at what point in redemptive-history does this take place? Without reference to these, we have little hope of arriving at a faithful interpretation of the original meaning.

Yet how often do we begin with placing ourselves into such contexts? Surely we do not imagine that we are the first Christians to study the scriptures. The modern Church is the result of centuries of faithful Christians who have sought to understand the Word of God. While we desire to promote our ingenuity in the realm of Biblical studies, our approach to the text is a byproduct, whether directly or indirectly, of the historical development of Biblical Hermeneutics. Yes, we have come a long way since the schools of Antioch and Alexandria, but our context is inexorably tied to theirs. We have a historical ancestry that encompasses the theological terminology we use, the limiting framework of possibilities of a text, and our view of scripture itself. I am not stating that our theology is merely historical or evolutionary. The Reformation is testimony enough that at various points in the history of the Church, God's people have sought to go back to the source for their life and doctrine. Yet even when this process is followed, the theological and political tensions of the day, along with any philosophical trends, will, in part, affect the result. Thus we should not be ignorant of this history, for it is part of our historical context.

Therefore, just as it would be the height of folly to read any text of scripture without placing it into its various contextual spheres, we also must check our baggage so that we might not study scripture with a misconception of our own historical context.

New Testament Studies: Course 1 Resources

2010-01-21T19:19:00.000-08:00

NT Course 1 Resources

Today marks the beginning of my New Testament studies. In the similitude of my OT approach, I have chosen books that give a balanced overview of historical, theological and literary approaches.

An Introduction to the New Testament by D.A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo

New Testament Introduction: Revised Edition by Donald Guthrie

Jesus and the Gospels by Craig L. Blomberg

The Greco-Roman World by Jeffers

Backgrounds of Early Christianity by Everett Ferguson

History: Consigned to Fable or Valid Enterprise?

2010-01-20T18:36:00.000-08:00

History: What is it?

The definition of exactly what constitutes history, especially as it pertains to Israel's own as found in the Scriptures, has gone through a paradigm shift over the past few centuries. No longer regarded as essentially objective or trustworthy, many modern scholars have concluded that history is so fret with subjectivity on account of its basis in human testimony, so hopelessly restricted by ideologies, that a reconstruction of the actual events of the past is nigh impossible. Since the only access we have to historical events is from the testimony of either primary or secondary sources, that testimony cannot be anything except elitist and insufficient. Men can only perceive events from a single vantage point and even then it is conditioned by various presuppositions. In other words, history (as far as we have access to it) is dead. The only thing that lives is the biased, conditioned testimony of men who are unable to see the actual events objectively.

...or so goes the argument from many modern historians. As Christians who presuppose a personal, triune God who has actually spoken in history to mankind, we must summarily reject this position. Not only is history knowable, but it is precisely in the framework of a Christian worldview that history is given purpose and validity. The irony of this fallacious view of history is that the ones promoting it are themselves subject to various ideologies and presuppositions that necessarily bias and "compromise" their perspective. It is not the fact of an all-encompassing worldview that is the problem, but the foolishness of any and all non-Christian ones.

For instance, Whitelam, a main proponent of this view, creates such an objective, non-human set of standards that history must be subjected to that neither he nor any man has, by his own definition, known history. For the most part, history is merely a collection of recollections and accounts of men to their own and other's experiences. Their testimony is the basis for our understanding of history. How would we know anything about Caesar Augustus apart from those who wrote about him? Some may object and declare, "Aha! We have archaeological evidence of him on coins, monuments, and statues." Fair enough. Let me ask you this: what do these tell you in and of themselves? Do coins speak? Do statues tell you when and why they were created? If not, the only way to make sense of these finds is to fit them into a pre-existing framework of historical events - and that as only known from testimony. Indeed, archaeology would be utterly useless if it were not for the testimony of those living at the time. We would merely have a collection of neat things to look at, yet be unable to make any coherent story from them. It is this failure to recognize the necessity of testimony for the discipline of history that undermines the entire modern thesis.

But how does Christianity make sense of history? How are we to understand it? If history is simply a recollection of men and women, who are we to trust? Don't men and women lie? Don't people commit perjury all of the time? If only there was a source of knowledge and wisdom that was without error and truthful in all its statements! Thanks be to God that there is! Unlike the secular humanist historians, the Christian not only accepts the validity of testimony but has complete faith in it on account of the one testifying: the Lord Jesus Christ. God has spoken to man throughout history and swears by His own name that it is true. For the Christian, the testimony of God is the beginning and end of all proper understanding of past and even future events. Yes, historical accounts are a result of subjective, limited, and biased human beings who, in many cases, are writing in order to advance a certain agenda. Yet because this testimony is that of God Himself working through men, the biased, limited, and subjective account is invariably accurate and true. While it is never absolute, it is absolutely true. Therefore, history is justified as a discipline and should by no means be discarded as a hopeless endeavor, for by it God has revealed Himself to men and continues to make known His glorious name.

Old Testament Studies Resources

2010-01-20T16:46:00.000-08:00

OT Studies

Course 1

Resources

This week I began my Old Testament Studies course (self-study), beginning with an introduction. (Most fitting, I think.) I have selected the following books to assist me in my study of the Old Testament, both in its content, historical context and theology.

Historical

A Biblical History of Israel

Author: Iain W. Provan, V. Philips Long, Tremper Longman, Philips V. Long

Theological

From Paradise to the Promised Land: An Introduction to the Pentateuch
Author: T. D. Alexander

Theological Interpretation of the Old Testament: A Book-by-Book Survey
Author: Kevin Vanhoozer

Biblical Theology
Author: Geerhardus Vos

Introduction/Content

An Introduction to the Old Testament: Second Edition

Author: Tremper Longman III, Raymond B. Dillard

Dear Theologian

2010-01-15T22:05:00.000-08:00

Dear Theologian,

   This path of study has been both a joyous and difficult one, has it not? I have watched you from the beginning and followed you until this day. Do you remember your first longings? That moment when you realized the valley of knowledge you had known was but a mere crevice in the massive landscape of the Word? Having come to a knowledge of your ignorance and beholding the mountains from afar, you pursued the Lord with passion and sought only to know Him both in mind and heart. You devoured books and yet never seemed to be full. The knowledge you gained did not puff up, but humbled and refined. Every hill and meadow was glorious; every tree bearing fruit.

   Then you awoke to a new awareness: you couldn't do this alone. So you sought the counsel of others and joined the halls of University. Now you stood among giants and were expected to stand as they. Reading became more difficult. Studying more tiring. The books stacked higher and the writing grew longer, but you loved it still. This thirst for knowledge still drove you and the challenges only fueled you. The brethren at your local church began to grow strangely dimmer. Surely you still loved them, but they didn't seem to love the Lord as much as you did. For if they had, they would know about Him the way you know Him. They would mine the Scriptures with every exegetical tool and systematize it into a coherent set of doctrines. Even your pastors, who you once looked up to and admired for their knowledge of the Lord, began to seem........rather ordinary. Sure, they could preach better than you, but if they would only get the terminology right. If they would only exposit within a redemptive-historical framework and rightly understand the importance of the original languages. The teaching wasn't as deep nor the preaching as profound. It just all seemed.......simple. If they could only see what you could see. If they could only know what you knew.

   Then you discovered your greatest passion: debate. O how powerful was the Word to tear down every opposing worldview and expose the folly of unbelief! Everyone around you seemed completely blinded by the incoherent, inconsistent, and unjustifiable argumentation they were employing - especially your fellow church members. Didn't they realize the books and sermons they were learning from were nothing but drivel? What kind of book on studying the Bible doesn't address the problem of language in conveying truth or the intricate network of presuppostions and preunderstandings that the reader brings to the text? It was your job to point out these intellectual sins and lead others onto a more straight and narrow way. Surely God would not give you this knowledge for any other purpose.

   Your library expanded with volumes on every conceivable topic. You had a book on how to read a book and how to justify reading a book. You had 6 systematic theologies, 4 works on the doctrine of god and who knows how many introductions to the Old and New Testaments. Ahh, the smell; the look and feel of that new theological book. Your knowledge was growing and your thirst still strong.

   Where is your heart, O great one? What happened to your original quest for knowing God and making Him known? No, it was not the books that lead you astray. No, it was not the seminary nor the professors. No, you were right in your critique of many problems in the church and the laziness of so many around you. But you forgot one very important thing: you were as they before I opened your eyes. You were content grazing in that small valley without the faintest idea of the world beyond. You did not know the names of Barth, Schleiermacher, Bultmann, or Owen. The complexities of language and the history of the doctrine of the Trinity did not yet take up space on the shelves of your mind. No, these things did not drive you from me. Your heart did. What was once an earnest and innocent desire became an idol and a thing of reproach. Love lost its root in you and grew dim as knowledge grew strong. People became objects of study and critique, rather than fellow redeemed sinners. The arguments in the halls of history became more important than the bitterness and pride festering in your own heart. You lost your first longing. The Word which was to master you became a thing to be mastered.

   Remember from where you have fallen. Remember the end for which you toiled. For without love, your theology has become barren. What should have merely been the means to stimulate religious affections and your love for the Lord became the end in itself. Remember from where you have fallen.

Sincerely,
   Wisdom

Systematic Theology: Prolegomena continued

2010-01-13T16:31:00.000-08:00

   Having read the introductions to several systematic theologies, I began perusing through Monergism's website for articles on the task of theology. To my utter surprise, I came away challenged and encouraged by one article in particular.........and that by a Mennonite scholar. Yes, a Mennonite scholar. While I certainly do not agree or endorse all of his positions, John Yoder had some very compelling things to say when it comes to the task of doing theology. The following are my reflections upon this article. It will be quite scattered in thought but hopefully be comprehensible.

   Yoder on The Use of the Bible in Theology
   See article here

   Unlike every other introduction to theology I have read, this begins with the issue of the end of theology as it functions in the covenant community. Boy, was this a stab in the heart. Here I have been bemoaning the cultural sins of occidental society with its emphasis upon the individual rather than the community, the "I and me" vs. the "we and us" (this will be the topic of a future posting, Lord willing), and yet I completely failed to see it in my own approach to theology. What hypocrisy! Thanks be to God for opening my eyes to this blindness. Yoder goes on to state that theology is the job of the Church not the academy. This is not to say that theology should be banned from the University, nor that people are forbidden from studying the Scriptures on their own. Instead I believe the notion of doing theology in the covenant community is an emphasis of seeing oneself in a larger group. We are not isolated individuals each charged with our own separate work to conduct - including theology. No, we have been called into the community of faith, the church. We are tasked with ministering to one another and fulfilling our duty contingent upon our various spiritual giftings. One particular application of this principle I find most lacking is seeing the 21st century church as the fruit of the diligent labor of our brethren of old. We are not a "new" church. We stand upon the shoulders of those who have come before us. As such, when we attempt to do theology, really digging into the Scriptures to see what the Lord would have us to do, we must be cognizant of the fact that our work is merely a continuation of what has come before. We are not starting from scratch; nay, we dare not do so if we take seriously the Lord's promise to build His church.

   This community emphasis is also seen in the function of theology. At its heart, its end is catechetical. Theology is not for the scholar, the professor, or the intellectual. The truth of the Scriptures is for the believer, in order to sanctify him, mature him, and bring him up into the likeness of Christ. The Scriptures were written for the people of God, both to bring them salvation and work that new-found salvation out. It also serves to expose and correct our cultural sins. We are so easily blinded by the sins of our society that sound theology becomes a necessity for biblical thinking. One example is our tendency to read all things as essentially speaking to the individual, not the community. When Paul speaks of our bodies as the temple of the Holy Spirit, our first thought is that he is talking about my body. Rather than seeing the communal and covenantal work of the Spirit, we reduce it to I and me. Furthermore, it is not only the "what" (the facts) but the "how" (application) that is crucial. Theology should be used as a means of correcting our false assumptions, poor hermeneutics, and myopic applications. Within the church body, it serves as a rod to both guide and discipline us. Even the function of the teacher is not to invent something new nor proclaim some hidden wisdom that has been discovered in the Scriptures. No, he is to be the expositor, the corrector and guardian of the once-for-all faith delivered to the saints. Newness should be the last goal of the pastor/teacher. Faithfulness and protection should be paramount.

   Yoder brings up a very interesting issue of whether the church is to be viewed simply as "maintenance" or rather as "mission." Obviously these two cannot be put into contradistinction, but must be seen as juxtaposed. The church should never be reduced to the idea that it is merely trying to "stay alive" in a dark world. However, we must also avoid the idea that the sole purpose is missionary work so that the daily feeding and discipling of the flock is relegated to the basement. I would like to further explore this subject at a later time once I have given it further thought.

   Finally, the issue of hermeneutics is discussed towards the end of the article. One insightful premise is that our methodology of theology should be derived from its source and rule: the Scriptures. Rather than imposing our own alien grid onto the Scriptures so as to draw out its treasures, we must seek to humbly submit to its own framework and system; how do the apostles "do theology"; how did Christ approach the Scriptures; how does the NT interpret and utilize the OT, etc. These must be our concerns in order to be faithful to the Scriptures themselves. We must also take the presentation of Scripture seriously. Has God revealed Himself through lists of topics or treatises? No, He chose to do so through history and speech. Most of the OT is comprised of narrative and even where it is not, the psalms and wisdom literature find their meaning within the context of history. This redemptive-historical context must be taken seriously and thought through. How does this affect our view of Systematic theology? Is it proper to teach propositional truth without reference to its historical context? One strong example of the misuse of the latter position is the presentation of the gospel. Without situating both the person and work of Christ and the people to whom we are speaking in a historical framework, the gospel loses its power. While there are many true propositions bound up in the gospel (the death of Christ accomplishing forgiveness of sin, his resurrection justifying His own work and the means of ours), they become vapid and almost silly without reference to their historical, objective foundation. While the gospel is timeless in its power and efficacy, it is time-bound in its origins and accomplishment.

Systematic Theology Course 1: Prolegomena

2010-01-13T16:02:00.000-08:00

As I press on in this new studying schedule, I will be taking the time to write up short summaries of my studies. Some of these may be very quickly written whereas others may be of a more academic nature; it all depends on the time I have and the insight gleamed. This is the first of this series.

The Task of Theology

What is the nature of Systematic theology? First, it must be constructive. The teaching of the Scriptures, both explicitly and implicitly in view of its parts and as a whole, must serve as the unchanging basis for all doctrine and teaching. (sola scriptura). It is not only the rule of all faith and practice, but the rule of all theology and biblical scholarship! The academy does not enjoy a neutral position of hyper-critical authority whereby it can stand over the Scriptures in scrutiny. All theology must be approached as a means of worship and duty. Any system of belief that does not have its foundation in the revealed Word of God alone is not true theology; it is merely the mental ruminations of men placing their own so-called wisdom above that of the Omniscient God. Second, the task of Systematic theology must be demonstrative (confessional). Once constructed, the aim is to demonstrate through sound exegesis and instruction, that these cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith are indeed firmly rooted in the soil of God's word. However, if one finds that some previously held doctrine does not derive from sound exegesis and hermeneutics but rather fallible tradition, it must be abandoned and replaced with the truth. This is simply an outworking of the reformed cry, sempre reformanda. Finally, theology must be critical. No, I have not contradicted myself in my previous dismissal of the hyper-critical schools of Academia. Rather, the good and necessary criticism that flows from good theology has the duty of exposing and tearing down every worldview and false belief that does not find its root in the Scriptures. These must be analyzed and exposed for the folly that they are. We must always begin with ourselves and then move towards the world around us. (Consider the ramifications of this in Christ's teaching about the plank in your eye vs. the speck in your brothers. Unless we first deal with our own sins, especially our intellectual ones, we will not be able to see clearly to critique others'.) It is this work of construction, confession and critique that Systematic theology has as its aim.

Note: This is certainly not the only task of Systematic theology, but it is the one which is chiefly neglected and so essential in our era of radical postmodernism.

New Course of Study

2010-01-13T15:48:00.000-08:00

   As of this week, I am embarking upon a more robust and detailed study of the Scriptures and Theology. Over the past several weeks I have found myself whittling away the time in profitless activities that have neither fruit for me or for others. (Yes, this includes Facebook - how many times can you really check people's status' a day? It is very pathetic.... - technology news, chatting and other stupid things.) Therefore, in order to redeem both my resources and time, I am setting a strict schedule for my studies. The fact that this happens to coincide with the first of the year is entirely coincidental, I assure you. I do not make New Year's resolutions. ;)

   One of my weaknesses is beginning a project only to never finish it. I envision a grande plan for learning all of the Scriptures only to find myself biting off more than I can chew......or swallow.....or even look at. I fear this may be the case again, but I plan on revising it as I go along. One of the most important things in biblical studies is to remain balanced. In order to accomplish this, I am choosing to study the Old Testament, New Testament, Systematic Theology, Church History and Puritans writings. (This is in addition to my present school study in Hermeneutics and linguistics, along with Hebrew and Greek.) Within each of these major subjects, I will be studying, in some detail, the content, theology and history of each. For example, as I begin my OT studies, I will be covering an introduction to the OT, the history of Israel and the overall theological flow of it as it points to Christ. Once I begin Genesis, the history of the ancient-near eastern culture, biblical theology and the content/structure of the book will be examined. This method will also be applied to the NT, Systematic Theology and Church history, albeit with slight modifications.

   My hope in all of this is that my worldview (that network of presuppositions which make sense of reality) will be gradually conformed to that of Christ's so as to be the best possible instrument for His work through me. May the Lord be glorified in this.

Assuming the Gospel: A Plea for a Balanced and Complete Presentation of the Good News

2009-12-04T19:39:00.000-08:00

What is the gospel?

What elements must be present in order for the gospel to have been faithfully preached?

   These questions came to my mind after hearing several pastors preach, with one in particular having the great duty of explaining what the gospel was. In hearing them, something struck me: we so easily assume the particulars of the gospel, especially if the audience is composed of church-goers. It is not as though any of these pastors (or those to whom this applies) intentionally leave out certain truths. Neither are they ignorant of the fundamental propositions inherent to the gospel. Rather, it is a subtle yet dangerous overemphasis on one aspect of God's work of salvation in and through Jesus Christ to either the exclusion or emaciation of the others. The reasons for this are great and many and I will not presume to know why a particular pastor is guilty of this homiletical fallacy. Instead, I want to point out, hopefully with humility and respect, the problem and as a response, offer a specific yet practical solution.

   The Problem of Assumption

   Assumption, in and of itself, is not a bad thing. In fact, it is good and proper to assume certain things as a Christian. We should assume that those who profess faith in Christ are Christians, unless their actions or beliefs prove otherwise. We should assume that our pastors are working for our good and are seeking to build up the church in maturity, unless their actions or beliefs prove otherwise, etc. However, it is rarely good to assume that Christians, let alone church-goers, are intimately or even vaguely familiar with the message and heart of the gospel. Not only is this, in all probability, a false assumption, but the very nature of man precludes it. We, as fallen sinners, are "naturally" opposed to the concept of grace. We forget it, deny it and try to live our lives ignoring it. It is contrary to our thinking, not to mention the concepts of sin, judgement and righteousness. Sin always leads us away from the gospel and towards a works-based righteousness. We will never drift into truth. We will never drift into righteousness. Christians need the gospel as much as unbelievers. To deny them of the clear articulation and application of it is to rob their souls of life.

   So how is it assumed? More often than not, a pastor will take for granted the fundamental elements of the gospel. Sometimes the term is just used without any explanation. "Believe the gospel. It is the gospel that saves us, for it is the power of God for salvation to all who believe." At other times, Jesus' death and the forgiveness of sins offered in it are the sole propositions set forth. "Jesus died on the cross so that all who believe in Him might be forgiven of their sins. He paid the penalty of sin so that we wouldn't have to. He took what we deserved so that we might receive what he alone merited." All of these things are good and true, but they are not the gospel.

   To the first I would ask, what is this gospel? Is it my experience at church? Is it what I try to live every day? What does it mean to believe? What do I need saving from, A bad marriage? An illness? A bad hair day?
   To the second, Who is Jesus? What does a cross and death have to do with sin? If he is dead, how can he help me now? etc.

   These are the assumptions that we are making with our gospel proclamation. We are assuming that people remember each of the elements of Christ's life, death and resurrection and what they accomplished. We are assuming that they understand the concepts of both God's love and justice, faith and repentance, sin and eternal life.

   Depending on the topic of the sermon, one or more of the following tenets will usually be missing:
- sin, guilt, condemnation and judgment
- Christ's incarnation, life, death, burial, resurrection and ascension
- substitutionary atonement, sufficiency of Christ's work and forgiveness
- God's grace, love, righteousness and justice displayed at the cross
- command of repentance and faith.
   While this may sound like a lot to cover, it can easily be delivered in under 5 minutes. If the heart of Christianity is to be found in the message of the gospel, shouldn't we be striving to teach it faithfully rather than assuming it is already understood?

   The Problem of Emphasis

   Not only is assumption a danger but so is its partner in crime: emphasis. Let us say, for the sake of discussion, that the pastor doesn't assume anything about his hearers. Instead, during the course of his sermon, he gets to the work and person of Jesus Christ and lays it out in detail. Well, if he isn't assuming anything, won't he be fine? Not necessarily. It has been my experience that the main message of the days sermon inadvertently leads to an unbalanced presentation of the gospel. If 1 Corinthians 13 has been expounded, the love of God towards sinners will receive the majority, if not all, of the emphasis. If Romans 2 has been exposited, the wrath and judgment of God towards sin will be the focal point - with grace and forgiveness taking a backseat. This is only a natural thing for us to do. We are excited and passionate about the subject we are expounding and as a result, we overemphasize that same part of the gospel. However, this is a very dangerous habit.

   The gospel cannot be reduced to a single emphasis. It is not merely a message of love or grace, etc. It is not merely the death of Christ or the subsequent resurrection. Rather, it is all of this and more, in their proper balance.

   A Proposed Solution

   So how can these things be prevented? I propose the following solution.

   A. Get the content of the message nailed.

   First and foremost, memorize the gospel message. I do not mean that you have a canned response that you present at every occasion. Instead, resolve in your mind to be able to recite the primary elements of the gospel so that if any of them are missing, you can quickly remedy the problem. So what are these primary tenets?

   1) Prolegomena: teach the law. While this is not the gospel message itself, it is necessary to be taught first in order for the gospel to be proclaimed in its proper context. Teach who God is (especially His righteousness and holiness) and what He demands (perfect keeping of His law). Explain sin and how every single person without exception is under the judgement and condemnation of God on account of it. (death, hell, etc.)

   2) The Message: it is all about Christ. Explicate clearly his sonship, sinlessness and perfect obedience to the law and how He is the fullfillment of the Old Testament scriptures. Preach his death, why it was necessary and what it accomplished. (wrath and justice of God, sufficient atonement for and forgiveness of sin, reconciliation, peace, etc.) Last, but certainly not least, explain the resurrection and ascension of Christ. (justification, victory over sin and death, acceptance of God, rule and reign in the heavens and the earth, etc.) The amount of detail you relay is entirely up to your discretion, but the central elements of his life, death, burial and resurrection must be given their due.

   3) The heart: justification by grace through faith in Christ alone. Be sure to emphasize (see, I told you it was ok in and of itself) that this salvation is a free, unmerited gift of grace on account of the Father's love for sinners. It is not a reward for our works but a reward for Christ's. Justification is wholly and fully of grace through faith. We are not justified by faith, but by means of our faith as a result of Christ's work. It is the great and glorious truth that God declares guilty sinners to be innocent in His sight on account of both the imputed righteousness of Christ and His full payment for our sins.

   B. Present a balanced command as the proper response

   4) The response: Repentance and Faith. This message of what God has done in Christ is received by repentance and faith. It is not earned by them, but these are the first fruits of a redeemed heart. It is not enough to simply believe that Jesus died for sin and was resurrected for justification, for even the demons believe this. Faith must be explained as an assent to truth, personal acceptance of fact, and complete assurance in its object. Secondly, repentance is the companion of faith. If one believes without having a conviction of sin and subsequent turning away from it and to Christ for forgiveness, his faith is in vain. True faith is accompanied by true repentance.

   5) A Command: Yes, faith and repentance are a command from God, not a suggestion. Peter and Paul both declared that God now commands all men everywhere to repent and believe the gospel. It is the duty of every man to do so, not merely a proposition they should consider. Keeping this in mind prevents us from "selling" the gospel. We do not need to appeal to the emotions and sentimentalities of sinners. Playing quiet, soft music while the sinner's prayer is recited is not a command. In fact, it presents the gospel and God's injunction as merely emotional decisions that can be swayed with the right environment and mood. Furthermore, since when did men ever need the apostles to tell them the words to say as an act of faith and repentance? If the sinner cannot find any words to plead to God for mercy and grace and confess his own transgressions, he has not been convicted of sin at all. The broken sinner needs not another man to mediate for him. Christ by the Holy Spirit is sufficient enough. Therefore, by bearing this injunction in mind, repentance and faith can be declared with full assurance that the Lord will save His people.

   C. Take Heed to the Balance

     We must make every effort to examine our speech so as to ensure that we are not neglecting any of these great truths of the gospel. Do not let the sermon's message of God's love trump his demonstration of justice and righteousness at the cross. All things in their proper place and in the proper time. Do not be careless and assume you have it down. Constantly and persistently examine your messages to ensure you are preaching the whole counsel of God, especially in the gospel.

Faith and Works

2009-09-30T19:31:00.000-07:00

Protestants have valiantly and unabashedly heralded the Biblical doctrine of justification by faith alone in Christ alone for centuries. Indeed, this was the very bedrock of the Reformation and has continued to be the bulwark between Christianity and every false religion. Nothing can be added to faith in Christ as the means of receiving redemption from sin and salvation to God. For if anything is added to the imputation of Christ's righteousness received through faith as the sole grounds of our justification, whether sacrament, good deeds, continued confession and repentance, etc, God is no longer glorified in salvation. It is only when He alone is the grounds of man's salvation that the phrase saved by grace has any valid meaning.

Yet, it seems that a strong, and indeed noble desire to flee from anything even hinting at a works based righteousness has led to an unbalanced perception of the Christian life. While the Christian life begins, continues and ends with faith, that faith is never alone. While justification is solely based upon Christ's work and received through faith, that faith is never alone. When the Holy Spirit regenerates a man and grants to him faith and repentance, these very gifts are the firstfruits of good works. The first thing a man does that is accepted as good and holy before God is faith and repentance - and that only because He is the one who grants it! Yet, these "works" cannot and should not be ignored for what they are: firstfruits. From the moment a man is saved, he begins upon a path of good works that the Lord has prepared for him to do. He is so radically transformed in will and desire that his former goals are reordered with God now as the chief end - not himself. He begins to love the things of God and hate the things of the world.

Now, if these things be true, what does it say of the faith he had at first? If a man repents of his sins and has faith in the Lord Jesus Christ as his only hope of being guiltless before God, is that faith enough to justify him? Yes! BUT, here is the point to remember clearly: that same saving faith is justified by works. At conversion, the Holy Spirit plants the seed by which grace grows in the soul. This seed is Christ. He is the shoot from which all good works bloom and grow. Indeed it is the purpose of God to save men so that they may do good works! While the grounds of justification never changes and the means of receiving grace continues by faith alone, this faith produces plentious good works.

It is at this juncture that I believe Evangelicals have missed the mark. Faith and works cannot be made to contest with one another. The very soul of the Christian life is a process of this faith producing these works. If a man claims to have faith, let him examine himself to
see whether he is in the faith. Does his life bear the fruit of genuine faith? It is not enough for him to claim a profession of faith at the first as the sole assurance of his salvation. He must determine whether his life since that time has been one of continued growth in holiness, hatred of sin and desire to do good works which bring glory to God. Does the shoot of his faith have branches with good and wholesome fruit, or is it withered and dry with only poison for a crop?

You can see then, that genuine faith is never alone in the Christian. Do not fear good works nor striving to live so as to bring glory to the Lord. Rather, plead for his grace daily that He may continue to nourish you by His means of grace (word, sacraments, prayer and fellowship) so that the branches of your life may be full of ripe and pleasing fruit. Do not suppose that a man who clings to a naked faith without a crop of good works will enter into the Kingdom of God. For that faith is false. That faith is rotten. That man will perish with his faith. For just as the man who stands before God on the basis of his own works will be condemned, so also will the man who stands upon a faith that has not works perish. For true faith bears fruit and never withers. True faith is known by its works, not solely by it's profession. True faith is grounded in the person and work of Jesus Christ.

Will a faith so rooted in Him not also produce a life like His? So then, a man is justified by faith alone, but that faith is never alone.

Currently Reading

2009-09-20T11:19:00.001-07:00

Reading and Studying this month:
Scripture
1) Samuel (DONE)
2) Kings (DONE)
3) Isaiah (DONE)
Puritans
4) A Christian Soldier - Thomas Watson
Studies
5) Hebrew Grammar - Year 1
6) Greek Text of John - Year 2
Casual
7) When People are BIG and God is small

Rapid Reviews I: The Pilgrim's Progress

2009-09-20T10:48:00.001-07:00

This is the first in what I hope will be an on-going series of concise, to-the-point, book reviews. Rather than spending countless words detailing the pros and cons of every book I read, these Rapid Reviews will succinctly state my reflections. It is an attempt at saying much in very few words.
I also hope to use this as a means of
keeping track of my reading. So, let's begin with this week's book.

RR: The Pilgrim's Progress

Required reading for all Christians - especially Calvinists.
Fosters worship and prayerful self-examination.

The marks of genuine salvation are set forth in beautiful allegory.
Worldliness is exposed as treason.
Love is allegiance and unwavering obedience to the King.
Piety is stirred up in the soul.
The often ordinary and common guise of spiritual warfare is vividly portrayed.
The resolve of the Christian from first breath until last is beinoutound a genuine and faithful servant in this world and the world to come.
Christians are pilgrims in the present age - not natives, seeking to balance the dual reality of the already of regeneration and the not-yet of complete salvation.

Read it. You will find yourself both despising your flesh and enraptured by the glorious truths of the Gospel of God.

May the Lord do . . .

2009-09-03T18:54:00.000-07:00

Just some quick reflections on my reading of 2 Samuel today.

While we, as Calvinists, will vehemently defend the total depravity of men on the one hand and the supreme holiness of God on the other, how honestly and closely do we take this to heart? Yes, we have been made the righteousness of God in Christ; yes, we cherish the justification we have by grace through faith. But what do we expect, nay, even assume from the hand of the Lord? Blessing? Honor? Glory? Peace? Surely we have all of this in Christ, yet only a taste is given now. The fullness of these treasures await the return of Christ and the judgment of the world.

Do we bless the Lord when afflicted? Do we praise His name when loved ones die or sickness prevails or money dries up? Surely the holy and sovereign God is the Lord who brings all of these things—yes, even to His people. Shall we share in the glory of Christ without being first purified through the fire of suffering? Some may say that the Christian is loved—surely the Lord will spare him grief. How ignorant such a statement is! Did God spare His own Son? Did he keep him from the pains of trial, temptation, grief, or death? No, but it was His good and holy pleasure to crush Him so that by Christ's obedience, even unto death, many sons might be brought to glory. Our great calling is to share in the sufferings of Christ. While we no longer suffer so as to purge ourselves from sin or judgment, as if our works should justify us in His sight, we still suffer because Christ suffered. We will be despised because He was despised. We will know loneliness because He was alone. If the world and Satan so hated Christ, how can they not also now abhor his very Body: his brethren who have been united to Him both positionally and vitally by His Spirit?

Therefore, let us not despise the Word of the Lord by ceasing to mix our confession with our faith. The Lord is He who rules and reigns in the heavens. Justice, righteousness, and holiness are his raiments. Let us flee from childish suppositions and boldly declare with David, "May the Lord do what seems good to Him."

A Short Thought on Contextualization

2009-07-26T21:18:00.000-07:00

While listening to a lecture on evangelism given by Peter Jensen at a missions conference (or so I assume), the following thoughts came to mind. I wrote them quickly on my iPod, so errors may be present. Just some quick thoughts and commentary. It is more of a series of reflections tangentially related than discussion of a single topic.

In general, Western people have lost the ability to properly weigh propositional statements. The necessary skill of discernment is no longer common practice. In this era, everyone's view is believed to be equally valid and as worthy of respect as any. All voices have a right to be heard, regardless of the actual validity or merit of the position. Consequently, people must be taught logic and epistemology. They need to be able to see through poor argumentation, and analyse the statements being presented. Contrary to popular belief, The History Channel, ABC, "experts", radio show hosts, scholars, and politicians do not possess inherent authority. Just because the History Channel says so, doesn't make it so. These "authorities" are not exempt from scrutiny or critique. Their propositions are only as valid as their source and their interpretation of it. They are not the sovereign vehicles of truth.

In order to undertand the gospel, the Biblical categories of God, man, sin, wrath, judgment, redemption, and creation must first be put in place. The horizon of the Scriptures must be made to align with the horizon of man's worldview. Once this is done, the gospel can be proclaimed, and repentance and faith commanded, without fear of misunderstanding or distortion. This does not by any means guarantee a true saving knowledge, but it will certainly help to protect the truth of the gospel.

This lead into the issue of contextualization. Contextualization, properly understood, is not taking the facts of the gospel or the truths of Scripture and transforming them to fit into a modern cultural situation. Contextualization brings no change to the message, nor the purpose of it. Instead, contextualization attacks the high places that men have set up in their effort to either distort or remove the reality of God's world. It tears down the structure of the supposed wisdom of men so that the true and everlasting foundation can be exposed. Contextualization prepares the way for the gospel. It tears up the rocky, pot marked path of man's wisdom, so that the stable and true road of the God-derived worldview may be laid for the "context" of the gospel. Context changes. There is an almost limitless number of beliefs, cultures, perspectives, and languages. Context is in perpetual flux. However, the content of the gospel is fixed. It does not change. It has been established in objective history by the almighty God, whose hand cannot be moved.

Therefore, all evangelists must be equipped to effectively demolish the worldviews of the world, with all of their distorted categories for truth and unbalanced perspectives, in order to construct the Biblical reality, which alone is able to allow the glorious truth of the gospel to shine forth. It cannot be merely negative or positive. It must contain both the negative work of demolision and the positive work of construction. Men are saved not by apologetics or the destruction of a false worldview. They are saved by the glorious work of the Holy Spirit, as he uses the gospel to raise men to life. However, in order for the gospel to be understood, it must be placed within the proper biblical worldview. And this is only accomplished through the positive and negative works of apologetics and evangelism.

2008-07-22T11:23:00.000-07:00

Biblical Hermeneutics: An Introduction

The following study will briefly outline and explain the science of biblical interpretation known as Hermeneutics as found in Louis Berkhof's Principles of Biblical Hermeneutics. For the most part, all of the material found here will be that of Berkhof's and not my own. However, where I do have personal insight or further expounding, I will place an asterisk (*) before and after the enclosed material so as to not confus the reader.

Hermeneutics is the science that teaches us the principles, laws, and methods of interpretation. Biblical Hermeneutics, or Hermeneutica Sacra is distinct from other forms of the art which deal with law, poetry, novel, history, etc. It is precisely because the Scripture is the inspired Word of God that a unique and distinctive hermeneutic must be developed and employed for it. One of the primary goals of hermeneutics is to remove *the contextual, historical, philosophical, and literary* differences between the author and the contemporary reader.

However, is this study of hermeneutics necessary for the Christian? *Is it not enough to just allow the Spirit to "enlighten" our minds as we read? While this is a popular sentiment in modern-day evangelicalism, it is not a sound nor biblical principle.* This can be proven from several considerations. First, sin has darkened and distorted the mind of man, *yes even the regenerate one*, so that his cognitive functions are always prone to error from the truth. Second, each man is understandbly unique in his capacity for study, his level of training or education, and his spiritual health. All of these factors will affect one's interpretation or, hermeneutic, to a great degree. *Finally, the Christian is to be always ready to give a defense for the hope that lies within him. To this end, he should be adequately furinished with the tools necessary to mine and plow the Word of God efficiently and properly.* One of the greatest assets the man of God can have is the ability to properly understand the scripture and thereby practically apply it to any given situation. It also prevents the man from falling into doctrinal dissillusion or being lead astray by the various waves and trends of Christian teachers.

Using Louis Berkhof's Principles of Biblical Interpretation as a guide and source, this study will both outline and expand upon the following main points:

Part 1: History of Hermeneutical principles throughout the church age

Part 2: Characteristics of the Bible which serve as the foundation for hermeneutical

methodology

Part 3: The qualites that every interpreter of the Bible should possess

Part 4: A discussion of the threefold interpretation of the Bible

2008-07-14T15:19:00.000-07:00

Exodus

Introduction

Textual Background

For a more detailed discussion of the textual history and authorship of the Pentateuch, please see the Introduction to Genesis article.

In addition to the issues raised in the Genesis Introduction, a study of the textual background, that is how the book was compiled or written, of Exodus adds a few more details. In addition to the narrative material authored by Moses, there were most likely at least 2 more ancient records which existed prior to Moses' writing. These included, but perhaps are not limited to, the Decalogue (The Ten Commandments) (Ex 32:16) and the Book of the Covenant (Ex 24:7.) Since these were written directly after the words were given by God, Moses would have naturally taken these sources and included them in his compilation of Exodus. This is important to bear in mind as one reads through Exodus, as it will help to see the great antiquity of some of its parts.

The typical outline of the book sees a prologue (consisting of Moses' early life), the exodus, the giving of the law, and the tabernacle construction. These are thematic divisions, which focus upon the content that is most emphasized in the various parts. However, while these divisions are helpful, it should be stated that any artificial structure applied to the book itself should be seen as assistive and not definitive. In other words, it helps to see the overall structure of the book when studying it but they should not be constantly born in mind when reading as it will break up the text in a way that was not originally intended.

Historical Context and Interpretation

Coninuting on with general outline introduced in the Genesis Study, the following questions will be addressed in turn:

Who wrote it?
When was it written?
To whom was it written?
Why was it written?
What literary style is it written in?

The concern of authorship was addressed adequately in the Genesis Introduction. The traditional position that Moses was the substantial author of the Pentateuch, and therefore Exodus as well, is maintained here.

While evangelical scholars disagree about the time when Genesis was written or compiled, the agreement over the historical context for Exodus is more unanimous. Since the book ends with the erection of the tabernacle in the wilderness, it must have been completed, at the earliest, after this event (at least, in its extent form.) Theoretically then, Exodus could have been written anytime from the start of the wilderness wanderings (unlikely, in this author's opinion) to the death of Moses. If one views the Pentateuch as a literary whole, then Exodus cannot be separated from either Leviticus, Numbers, or Deuteronomy in terms of when it was written. Some scholars, such as Richard Pratt, have suggested that the book's emphasis upon Moses' calling from God, his divine authority, and role as leader lend support to a post-wilderness wanderings era. This concludes that the reason for this emphasis was to demonstrate to the second-generation Israelites that Moses was God's appointed leader and prophet for the people, and that Exodus was written to give the historical account of this fact in order to combat the accusations against Moses' authority. This view has much to commend itself, but it would be wise to take it with a certain caution so as not to interpret the entire book as a defense of Mosaic leadership.

The question of original audience is bound up with the time of writing. If it was written fairly early in Israel's travels, then the first-generation of Israelites who came out of Egypt would be the immediate recipients. If it was written fairly late into the travels, the second-generation would be more in view. Regardless of which is the case, the intended audience was certainly the people of Israel and consequently their subsequent generations.

This has been addressed fairly briefly already, but a few more things may be said as to why Exodus was written. The most obvious purpose would be to record the great works of God as seen in the call of Moses, the plagues, and the exodus. Second, it was also most certainly written to compile the contents of the law as given at Sinai to preserve for future generations. Finally, it may have been written, as already discussed, to give divine authentication to Moses' leadership role in Israel.

Last of all, the literary style of Exodus needs to be taken into account. Broadly speaking, it is merely one part of a literary genre known as the Pentateuch. Finding its place as the second of the five books, Exodus takes a similar approach to historical biography as that of Genesis, yet in a decisively more narrow scope. It gives the historical events which lead up to the Israelites entering into the promise land, yet a substantial amount of the book is devoted to the law as given at Mount Horeb or Sinai. So in terms of its basic literary style, Exodus can either be looked at as a narrative with detailed sections of law, or as law with introductory and conclusive narrative. It also falls into the general style of ancient near eastern treaty format. The structure of the "book of the covenant" and the ten commandments is very similar to suzerain-vassal treaties of that time. Summarily stated, these were agreements made between an authoritative "suzerain" or king and those under his authority, or the "vassals." In this style of convenant, the suzerain made the laws, and then announced the blessings and curses as stipulations of those laws. The vassal, being under this authority, was required to obey them. For more information about this kind of treaty, please see http://tinyurl.com/6xrv7r (This author does not endorse everything in this paper nor those who author it. He simply desires to help further illuminate the nature of a suzerainty treaty.)

Progressive Unfolding

What role does Exodus play in both the redemptive and progressive unfolding of the plan of God in the Bible?

With the book of Exodus, God's covenant promises, which began in the garden with Adam (Gen 3:15) and found fuller illumination through the declarations to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, begin to take on a much larger scale. While the beginning of the fulfillment of a promised seed is found in Abraham's only son Isaac, that is, the one born according to promise (Gal 3:29; 4:23), the explicit promise of a seed which would rival the number of the sand on the seashore (Gen 22:17) takes place in Israel's rapid multiplication in the land of Egypt (Ex 1:6). Thus the shift in Genesis-Exodus goes from a single family to a large nation. This exponential growth satisfies the necessary conditions for God to demonstrate his power in judgment over Egypt for their enslavement of his people and his grace in the salvation of Israel. It is through great signs and a mighty arm () that the Lord accomplishes this redemption, calls and gathers a people to himself and for himself, and further establishes his covenant with them. The great mystery is that he chooses to do this with supernatural manifestations of might through a single man; Moses. It is through this Moses that God mediates to the people, performs his wondrous deeds, gives instruction and command, and delivers discipline and judgment. God has chosen a people and one mediator between that people and himself. God has sanctified and blessed a people to be a nation of priests unto himself. And God has provided the means by which these people are to receive forgiveness of sin and live blameless, holy, and guiltless before him: the blood of sacrifice.

2008-07-03T11:45:00.000-07:00

Mark

Background

While mostly neglected up until the 18th century, in modern times the Gospel According to Mark has received much more careful attention and study. This is primarily due to the predominant theory that Mark was the first gospel written and that both Matthew and Luke draw from it. As with any study of a book of the Bible, the basic questions of authorship, purpose, audience, and content are of utmost importance. These will be answered in turn.

The authorship of Mark was never in question up until the 18th century, when modern methods of higher criticism became the standard for biblical studies. While their objections to the traditional attribution of this Gospel to John Mark, the companion of Peter and cousin of Barnabas, should be taken seriously, they are not much more than speculation and contradict the great testimony of the early church. While it is possible that John Mark of Acts is not the writer of this Gospel, there is certainly no internal witness which makes this impossible.

Assuming Markan authorship, the next question is for what purpose and to whom was Mark writing? The question of purpose inevitably becomes one of speculation, conjecture, and hypothesis. The reason for this is that the Gospel does not explicitly state the purpose of its writing. However, in the opening statement of Mark this purpose, whatever it might be, seems to be connected with the gospel of Jesus Christ. The issue of intended audience is known with a little more certainty, but again since Mark does not make this explicit only theories can be raised. The general nature of the Gospel, in its explication of certain Palestinian Jewish customs and the translation of certain Aramaic phrases into Greek, suggests that the intended audience were Greeks (perhaps in Rome). By understanding this, it helps to give an historical context to the Gospel as a whole and can shed some light onto why certain things are included or excluded from the account.

Content

Mark's Gospel (as it will be hereafter refered to as) is one characterized primarily by action. While it contains a substantial amount of the teachings of Jesus, they are not given separate attention apart from their place within the narrative framework (Unlike Matthew and Luke, which gives entire sections of discourse without reference to events taking place). Consequently the Gospel, while perhaps not following a strict chronological order, follows the general pattern of Jesus' ministry in Galilea, then in Jerusalem, and then the week of his Passion and Resurrection. However, a precise outline or structure to the Gospel is not possible without a clear understanding of it's purpose, which apart from specuclation as discussed earlier, is not possible at this time. It is also much more vivid in its detail of events and records subtle physical descriptions. Alongside this is Mark's candid accounts of the lives of Jesus and the apostles in particular. He does not attempt to paint a more glorious and becoming picture of them, but rather focuses upon their very human and sometimes foolish characters. These characteristics allow the reader to walk alongside the disciples of Jesus, as it were, with an eye-witnesses vantage point that is far more vivid and real than of the other Synoptic accounts.

Mark's portrait of Jesus begins with the declaration that he is the Son of God. This plays itself out in the demonstration of power and authority which Jesus has over nature, demons, and death. There is a great emphasis in this Gospel of Jesus' divine miracles which give testimony to him as the Son of God and the promised Messiah. This is evident by the amount of miracles Mark includes in the narrative of Jesus' ministry. While Mark includes several interactions between Jesus and the Pharisees, the emphasis is upon his works and his private instruction to his disciples as his ministry unfolds. This progressive aspect of Jesus' ministry is clearly, and most importantly, purposefully, begins with Jesus' baptism, his early and later Galilean works, and culminates in the climax of the Gospel itself: the crucifixtion of Jesus. All of the early ministry of Jesus which takes place in and around Galilea acts almost as the prelude or prologue to the events at Jerusalem. On three separate occasions, Jesus teaches his disciples that the Son of Man must suffer much (or many things), and that he will die and be raised again three days later. This is the underlying literary and theological theme which drives Mark's Gospel. While the resurrection is mentioned, it does not have the prominence of the crucifixtion in this Gospel as in Matthew, Luke, and John. This should be taken into account when reading Mark's Gospel, as it will allow one to see the overall theme.

The Ending

Before concluding this brief introduction to the Gospel According to Mark, it is necessary to mention the textual emendation found after Chapter 16:8. Most modern translations (NIV, NASB, ESV, NLT, NKJV) will have the verses following 16:8 in brackets with a note to the effect that the 'Oldest Manuscripts Omit the Following Verses." This heading is referring to the fact that the earliest copies of the Gospel According to Mark end at 16:8. Also, the slightly later manuscripts that do contain either some or all of the verses of 16:9-20 show scribal annotations which indicate that the text was not held to be original, or at least was disputed, by the scribes making these early copies. In addition to these grounds, the majority of New Testament scholars agree that the rhetoric, vocabulary, and structure of these verses are distinctly non-Markan and give further evidence to their spurious nature.

Perhaps the reason for these additions was the somewhat abrupt nature of Mark's ending. Later scribes may have wished to alieve this problem by bring the gospel to a more "acceptable" conclusion. Whatever the case may be, it is very safe to assume that Mark's last words are found in 16:8, and that the later verses have been added to them.

Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels

2008-06-30T17:03:00.000-07:00

Synoptic Gospels

Background

The first three books of the New Testament - Matthew, Mark, and Luke - are most commonly referred to as the Synoptic Gospels. The word synoptic comes from the Greek and roughly translated means "seeing together." As far as the term "Gospel" is used, it makes reference not only to the literary genre which it represents, but also to the nature of the content which it contains. It has been a great area of interest to Biblical Scholars in attempting to categorize the three gospels into a comparable and contemporary literary style. However, as the studies progressed it became apparent that these gospels, rather than reflecting a more traditional mythical or strictly biographical writing style of the 1st century, actually represent an entirely new literary style. Yes, they contain elements of biography (such as the focus upon one central figure and recording various historical events in that figure's life), but they are not merely this. The gospels are best understood to be unique works of literature, properly designated "Gospel," which find their fullest illumination with the person, life, and message of Jesus Christ. Thus it is important from the outset to recognize that these books are very unique not only in their message, but in the delivery of their message as well. It is also important to state that the term "gospels" in the plurarl is completely foreign to the biblical writings themselves. According to them, there is not a plurality of Gospels, but rather a single gospel which finds articulation in the works of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. This is evident in the early titles which were attached to these writings: The Gospel According to Matthew, The Gospel According to Mark, etc. It is only proper then to view the synoptic "gospels" as relating the same message or story but with a different style, framework, and purpose.

The Synoptic Problem

While each gospel is certainly a self-contained literary work, the synoptics are so undeniably related that they have been given this title. The structure, literary style, and wording are so similar, and in some places, identical, that a mere reading of them makes this apparent. Some of the areas where this is most easily discerned is in the various accounts of particular miracles or events in the life of Jesus. While each gospel has a different perspective on the matter, they refer to the same events, and in some cases use the same vocabulary and wording to recount them. See: the question of Jesus’ authority (Mt. 21:23ff.; Mk. 11:27 ff.; Lk. 20:1 ff.) However, while there are indeed many events which are paralleled in all three gospels, two of the Gospels, that of Matthew and Luke, have an even more peculiar relationship. Rather than merely retelling the same historical event, Matthew and Luke share many of the same teachings of Jesus which are not found in Mark. This common material is almost exclusively that of the oracles of Jesus, what he taught, and do not contain narrative. This sheds some very important light onto the question of the gospels relationship to one another.

Yet, even though there is great continuity between the gospels, there is also some substantial differences between the three. The previous focus upon the similarities should not be so dominant in one's thinking so as to neglect the various divergences which each gospel contains. While Matthew and Luke are undeniably related, they each contain wholly unique material. For instance, Luke contains many parables and narratives which Matthew and Mark do not, and likewise Matthew's birth narrative is without a companion in the others.

Three Main Theories

In analyzing these gospels to determine their author, origin, purpose, and original audience this "synoptic" relationship bears great weight. It will come as no surprise then that many theories have been proposed which seek to explain this peculiar situation. There are as many theories as there have been theorists who have tackled this issue, yet even so only a few have stood the test of scholarship. The first is that of the "oral theory." This postulates that stemming from the teachings of the apostles, the teachings and life of Jesus were orally taught to the church for a substantial period of time. Owing to the Jews affinity for oral instruction, this would have had prominence until the church began to expand into Gentile territories. It is speculated then that at this point, these oral traditions had to be written down in order to instruct the Gentiles in the same teachings, as they placed written documents as more important than oral testimony. As such, these various teachings were written down in either aramaic or Greek, and then served as the source for which the first synoptic gospels were written. This proposed to account for the divergence in many of the teachings and events of Jesus found in the gospels as well as the similarities. However, while this theory has it merits, it has been largely discounted in modern scholarship.

Another popular theory stemming from the 18th century is the "mutual dependence" theory. This simply states that the gospels used one another as source material in the compilation of their work. Whether Matthew used Mark, or Mark used Matthew is debated amongst adherants of this view, but nevertheless all have the common belief that the gospels "borrowed" from one-another in their development.

The single most popular theory of origins today is the documentary hypothesis. Simply stated, this teaches that two of the Gospels (most commonly Matthew and Luke) utilized multiple written sources. The number of these sources has varied from four to two, but the most common understanding is that one gospel and one "teachings" source were used, which has become known as Q. This has led scholars to the development of Markan priority. They see Mark as being the first gospel written, and therefore Matthew and Luke as subsequently drawing upon it and this Q sayings document, in addition to their own material. This, they claim, accounts for the similarity in narrative structure between all three (Matthew and Luke using Mark as an outline in essence), the great amount of Markan material found in Matthew and Luke (90% of Mark is contained between the two),the various teachings of Jesus which are found in Matthew and Luke but not Mark, and finally the original material found only in Matthew and Luke. Without going into much detail as far as the specifics for all of this, suffice it to say that this theory has presented itself as the most plausible of the options yet it is not without its difficulties. The "Synoptic Problem" still exists and while a definitive, comprehensive answer cannot be given to explain this relationship, great insight has come from the various theories examined.

Application

In summary, the important things to gleem from this in terms of expositional and exegetical studies of these gospels are:

1) The gospels are unique literary works without parallel in the ancient world, and therefore the method of outlining and interpreting should take the claims and merits of the gospels on their own terms

2) These three gospels are not completely isolated works, but rather share a very profound and unique relationship with one another. This must be kept in mind when interpreting the gospels so as not to allow a single saying or event as told in one of the gospels to dominate the significance and perspective of the other two.

3) They are individual works. Each evangelist felt a need to give a written account of this "Jesus-Christ Gospel", and therefore the relationship between the three should not overshadow completely the individual completeness and purpose of each. In other words, they should not be combined in order to determine what "really happened", but rather be studied individually, while using their relationship as a control over one's interpretation.

4) They are through and through Christologically-central works. While not explicitly biography, each gospel finds its meaning and purpose in the person, work, and message of Jesus Christ.

5) They are historical works written by men as inspired by the Holy Spirit. They did not drop out of heaven on golden tablets. As such, the importance of the original historical situation and audience cannot be ignored without doing great damage to their content and meaning.

Genesis Introduction

2008-06-30T17:02:00.000-07:00

Genesis

Textual Background

Graf-Wellhausen theory:
The Pentateuch is a compilation of multiple sources known as J, E, P, and D. These stand for Jehovist, Elohist, Priestly, and Deuteronical. These represent different periods of teaching and writings which were compiled in the late post-exilic period, possibly under Ezra. This is the result of both redaction and source criticism. This theory views the Pentateuch as containing opposing and even competing viewpoints between the various sources (Such as the "two" accounts of creation and the flood found in Genesis 1-2, 6-9 respectively). Began in the 17th and 18th centuries, but found prominence in the 19th and 20th centuries, and continues to be the predominant view today among liberal scholars.

Tablet-Theory:
This theory draws from recent archaeological findings in the 20th century. It sees the book of Genesis as reflecting the ancient near eastern style of tablet writing. Rather than understanding the toledoth sections in Genesis (toledoth is the Hebrew word translated as "generation" or "family" in Genesis) as titles or introductions to the following material, it sees them as concluding colophons to the previously written account. These colophons, according to recent findings, gave information about the author and/or the one who possessed the information contained on the tablet. For example, rather than understanding Genesis 2:4 as the beginning of a "second" creation account, it views it as the end note or conclusion sentence to Genesis 1:1-2:3. According to this method Genesis can be broken up into 13 different tablets, each representing original or very ancient source material to which Moses then compiled into a single work.

Mosaic Authorship:
Without denying the possibility of external sources, whether oral, written, or a combination of the two, traditional evangelical scholarship has attributed the first fives books of the Bible, known as the Pentateuch (penta meaning five, teuch meaning book or scroll) to Moses. However, this does not mean that Moses necessarily penned every word in the books, nor that he even wrote a single line in it. (It was common for influential leaders of the time to use scribes to write what they dictated) Rather, it affirms that the ultimate source and authority for the collection was Moses himself; whether through editing, authoring, dictating, or a combination of these methods. However, several times in Numbers and Deuteronomy, God instructs Moses to write down the things which he has told him, which would seem to indicate that at least for these sections, Moses himself was the author.

Scribal additions theory:
There are many places throughout the Pentateuch where scribal additions are clear and apparent. Such additions range from the updating of an ancient term or name to correspond with the modern language of the scribe, to entire sentences or sections which give commentary, as it were, to the previous sections. While this may appear to be a "corruption" of the text, or a deliberate changing of the material, this was not the case in the ancient near east. Scribal additions, corrections, and updates were common practice, as is now known from archaeological discoveries of Babylonian and Egyptian tablets, and were not viewed so negatively as we do today. The scribes were simply acting as "translators" as it were in order to make the text more understandable to the modern audience.

Historical Context and Interpretation

While this will vary greatly depending on the particular theory of authorship one takes, if Mosaic authorship as defined above is to be assumed then the historical context of the writing of Genesis becomes much clearer. While Genesis is most assuredly a unique work, it is not without parallels in the ancient near east. Such narratives as the creation story, the flood, and the tower of Babel all have similar structures and characteristics with other ancient documents of the time. This is not to say that Genesis is merely a retelling of these myths (in the ancient sense and not in the Greek or modern usage of the term) but rather that it follows the literary conventions of its day. Ultimately, this shows that God chose to use the literary genre of the times to reveal himself to his people. Genesis did not drop out of the sky on golden tablets and neither did any other book of the Bible for that matter. It was the product of a real person/persons using real language, real literary style, and real historical events. God is a personal God who uses the culture and language of a given people to communicate to them. This is why it is so foundational to begin a study of any book of the bible by asking the following questions:

Who wrote it?
When was it written?
To whom was it written?
Why was it written?
What literary style is it written in?

It is not enough to simply ask these questions, however, but rather to allow their answers to be the controlling factor in one's interpretation. It is one thing to say that Moses wrote Genesis, but quite another to take that and use it as a filter through which we attempt to understand the book itself. Unlike most modern evangelical approaches to hermeneutics (the technical term for the method of interpreting a book of the bible) which begins by reading a text without much concern for its original context or purpose in order to pull out some universal and timeless application, true biblical study must begin with authorial intent. This simply means that our first goal is to answer this question: What did the author (in this case, Moses) purpose for his readers to understand by writing this text? What did he mean by it? In asking this, we are going to begin to discern the reason for why God himself purposed for this text to be written. In other words, God's purpose begins with Moses' purpose. If we can discover this, we discover the original and ultimately primary function of the passage we are studying. However, this does not deny that God cannot have an alternative function for a particular text. This is obviously the case in many, if not all, of scripture as it leads to and points to Christ. However, we will not be able to see how the scriptures point to Christ until we first understand the scriptures as they were originally given. God did not hide secret messages in his word which need to be decoded apart from their "transparent" meaning. Rather, it is through the original meaning and a proper understanding of it that we are able to arrive, finally, at the application end which not only reveals Christ in ways we have not considered, but also takes these writings and "contextualizes" them properly to our own lives. We must always remember the very trite but helpful saying: "Nothing in the Bible was written to us, but everything in the Bible was written for us."

The actual time-frame in which Genesis was written (once again assuming Mosaic authorship) could be anywhere from right before the Exodus (in my opinion, very unlikely) to the time up until Moses' death. By taking this context into account, Genesis begins to take on a new light in which to understand why the various historical accounts are included. If Moses is writing (or compiling/editing) these stories during this time frame, it was most certainly for the purpose of instructing and exhorting the Israelites during their years of wandering/conquering. Therefore, the book, while containing historical events, is not primarily for the purpose of setting to paper (or in this case, clay and leather) a historical narrative. Rather, it uses the works of God in past to instruct the Israelites in the purposes of God from the beginning, to give context and meaning to their current situation, and to correct/rebuke their false views of both God and his plans for them. In other words, it is a book not merely of historical value, but more importantly one of educational and exhortational value.

The Westminster Motto: Incomprehensible!

2008-05-28T10:11:00.000-07:00

The basic premise of Divine Accommodation, according to the Westminster school of thought, which finds its roots in Cornelius Van Til's teachings, is that every revelation which God has given to man has been in "baby talk." In order for a finite being such as man to understand an infinite God, that God must reveal truth in such a way that it is not only comprehensible to man, but qualitatively different than the truth as it exists in himself. The argument goes that if God is infinite and eternal, he is of necessity also incomprehensible, and therefore no finite being is able to know or understand anything about him or his works unless they are given in "finite reference." While I am not absolutely sure on this, it seems as though this is an outworking of Van Til's analogical view of knowledge. In this, he states that our knowledge is analogical to God's in both content and quality. At no point does man's knowledge correspond completely with God's knowledge of the facts. I am still reading up on this, so it is possible that I have misunderstood Van Til's exact position.

However, the basic premise remains the same: God must accommodate his knowledge and words to man in order for any revelation to be comprehensible. There are a few philosophical and theological problems I have with this view, but one of the main problems is their use of Isaiah 55:8-9 in defense of it. It reads as follows:

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,
declares [Yahweh].
For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways,
and my thoughts than your thoughts." ESV

At first glance, this seems to give some credance to the afformentioned doctrine of the incomprehensibility of God regarding revelation. However, the use of this verse to promote this doctrine is entirely eisegetical and out of context. This verse is not teaching, at least primarily, that God's thoughts are so much higher and transcendant than man's that there is no point of contact or "common ground" between God's knowledge and man's knowledge. Granted that this verse does not deny this, it certainly does not promote it. Rather, the entire import of this verse comes within the context of Yahweh revealing his compassion and mercy for his people, if only they would "forsake [their] way, and....return to [Yahweh]" Isaiah 55:7. God is exhorting his people to turn from their wickedness and sin, and seek him while they are not yet corporately under his judgment. The verse just before the oft quoted passage in verse 8 ends with this:

"let him return to [Yahweh], that he may have compassion on him,
and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon." ESV

Here, with just a cursory look at the passage, it is perfectly clear that the following statements about the difference between God's ways and thoughts and those of man have a distinctly moral overtone. In essence, God is showing that while his people have acted wickedly, turned from their God, and sought after idols, he is still loving towards them for the sake of his covenant and their fathers (verse 4) and therefore that he will have mercy and lovingkindness towards them still if they repent. When these two aspects are seen together, it is no wonder that God's thoughts and ways are higher than ours! For how awesome and "incomprehensible" is the mercy and grace of God, when pure justice would require their condemnation and judgment! How much higher are his ways than ours, that he would show mercy to a wicked people, and pardon evil doers!

As it can be seen, this verse by no means teaches the Westminster School of Thought's incomprehensibility or divine accommodation of God, and therefore should not be used in support or defense of it. However, it is said to see that many are still using this as a "proof text" for their epistemology.

In the next few posts I hope to also bring up some particular objections I have with Van Tillian apologetics and the methods used therein. I am still in the process of researching it, so I will refrain from comment until I am more fully equipped to do so.

A Called Sheep of Christ,
Corey

The transmission of Original Sin

2007-07-30T20:19:00.000-07:00

How is it that the sin of Adam makes all men descended from him both legally guilty and completely corrupt?

Stated in other words, how is it that God brought about the physical, moral, and absolute corruption of man, e.g., his will, reasoning, body, as a result of the fall?
How is the actual corruption of man's nature connected with the legal status he inherited from Adam?

As a matter of clarification, it must be said that the following positions, i.e. traducianism and creationism, both fall within the orthodox and reformed doctrine of Federal Headship. Neither one denies the tenets of this doctrine, and therefore neither is heretical.

Firstly, Federal Headship must be defined. To put it succinctly, the federal headship doctrine states that Adam was the legal representative of all of mankind. As man's representative, whatever blessings or curses he was given directly affect and apply to all of those descended from him. Therefore, if Adam was obedient to the commands of God, both he and his posterity would enjoy the blessings from that obedience. However, as was the case, if Adam transgressed God's law both he and his posterity would be legally guilty before God. Thus on the basis of this and this only can Paul say that in Adam all sinned. As God's appointed representative, or federal head, Adam incurred both guilt and corruption for his disobedience.

With that understood, the questions stated early naturally arise. How does the sin of Adam affect all men descended from him both physically and spiritually, both legally and actually? At this point many may object and say that it is presumptuous and possibly even sinful to seek to answer these questions. In other words, to seek to answer questions that scripture does not address is futile speculation, and as such, unfit for the Christian. This objection is one that contains a great amount of truth. It would be sinful for the Christian to seek to answer and teach upon matters that God has not revealed to him. Yet, the only way that a man can know whether this is the case is to study and reason from the scriptures. If after careful study he finds himself in such a position, it would be wrong of him to continue to pursue it.

The consequences of the different positions concerning these questions are indeed important. While it is not something that will alter any clear teaching of Scripture, it can help to solidify the total consequences of sin in the mind of the Christian. It is to this end that this study is designed.

How then were the consequences of Adam's sin brought to bear upon the rest of mankind? Now, as stated earlier, this is not a question of whether Adam was the representative of all mankind. This is not to be questioned due to the clarity of scripture upon the issue, nor is it the purpose of this study. The very nature of Christ's mediatorial work on behalf of his people is founded upon this doctrine of representation, i.e., federal headship. For in Romans 5, the Apostle Paul speaks of Adam as "a type of the one who was to come.", i.e., Christ. He also explicitly states the relationship between Adam as a representative for those who were in him, and Christ as the representative for those whom he represented in Romans 5:17, "Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men." Therefore, the issue is not one of questioning this representational nature of Adam and mankind, but rather the issue is how that relationship works itself out in application.

Another issue that must be clarified is the resultant "real guilt" that all men possess as a result of being "in Adam". Due to the federal headship of Adam, when he transgressed God's law, all of those whom he represented also transgressed. For, as stated earlier, "one trespass led to condemnation for all men." All those who Adam represented are legally guilty for his- transgression. They are justly and actually condemned because of it. What was this condemnation? Romans 5:12 states that, "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned." The penalty and judgement on this transgression was that of death. Adam's sin brought death to all men, both spiritual and physical. The reason that this can be justly done is that Adam represented all of mankind. His guilt is the guilt of all. Once again, while the purpose of this study is not to prove the aforementioned doctrine, it must be clearly understood prior to further discussion concerning the transmission
of sin.

Having clarified the necessary prolegommena, or that which needs to be understood first, the issue of the means of this judgement raises its head. How did God bring about the consequences of Adam's transgression upon the rest of mankind? In other words, how are men descended from Adam born corrupt and wicked as a result of Adam's sin? There seems to be a want of
explanation of this process. Perhaps it is because many believe it is futile to question how Adam's sin resulted in physical corruption for all of his posterity. There seems to be an element of "mystery" that many accept in this area. Also, they can rightly claim that in Romans 5, Paul does not clarify how the transgression of Adam resulted in death. However, by ignoring this issue several problems arise. Firstly is the issue of the creation of the soul. Since it is explicitly taught in scripture that man is wicked, corrupt, depraved, and evil from conception, it is therefore necessary to understand his entire being as being corrupt. This includes both body and soul. Yet, if the soul of man is corrupt, how does it become so? It can not be logically believed that the legal guilt imputed to men by God somehow corrupts the soul at conception. This would imply that legal status has, by its very nature, the power to create. For if the soul of man is made corrupt solely because of his legal standing with God, then it indeed somehow possess the ability to create corruption in the soul. Obviously, this seems an absurd and ridiculous proposition. For when does scripture ever speak of legal status as possessing such ability? The very fact that it is legal negates such an ability.

So the question remains: how does the soul become corrupt? In order to answer this question, the way a soul is created must be understood. There are basically two different views concerning
the creation of the soul. The first is known as creationism. This theory suggests that God creates the soul ex nihilo, or out of nothing, sometime at the conception of man. Therefore, each man's soul is an immediate, or direct creative work of God. It has no natural or mediate means of creation. Over against this view is that of traducianism. This theory suggests that the soul of man is created in the same manner as his body; the joining of the sperm and egg. Therefore both the body and the soul are physically created through mediate or natural means. God does not act apart from this natural process. (This, of course, affirms the fact that it is by God's purpose and design that this natural process is in place. It does not suggest that this natural process is somehow apart from the providence and creation of God.) According to traducianism, the creation of Adam's soul by immediate means was a one time act. Once God had created man's body from the earth and his soul from "the breath of his nostrils", man now had the ability to procreate both body and soul. Contrary to this, creationism suggests that God continues to create the soul of man immediately as he did with Adam. Now to consider how this affects the main purpose of this study, that of the transmission of original sin. If indeed creationism be true,
a serious problem presents itself. If man's soul is an immediate creation of God, how can God be said to not be constantly creating that which is wicked and sinful? By attributing this immediacy
to God, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that God directly creates the corrupt, sinful, and depraved soul of every man. To this all of scripture testifies against. For God can not be the direct author or creator of sin.

In light of this, the traducian view can explain how man is born corrupt of body and soul. Since both body and soul are propagated from the same sperm of the father, it can be shown that the
physical corruption of man that was a result of the sin of Adam is transmitted by "ordinary generation", or mediate means. This resolves the problem of God being the immediate creator of sin. In order to overcome this seemingly insurmountable obstacle, the creationist must look back to the representational relationship of Adam and mankind. The resulting corruption of the soul
is not a result of ordinary or natural means, but rather a consequence of legal standing. This, of course, has already been addressed.

There is also another area which sheds light on this subject. It is said, by Christ himself, that the regeneration of a sinner is rightly called being "born again" or "born from above". The implication being that a man must be made into a new creation and not just have his legal status changed. For if legal status was enough to result in the physical change of the soul, then it would not be necessary for a man to be made into a new creation. His legal standing, that of an imputation of righteousness from Christ, would by some power of its own, make the man a new creation. Yet is it to be believed that the new creation that the believer undergoes is merely legal? Rather, it can be seen that there are at least two aspects of being "in Christ"; that of a change in legal status, and that of a change in physical nature. It is not enough for there to be just one or the other. For if man's soul alone was made new, he would still be under the guilt of Adam. In contrast, it would be impossible for God to declare a man to be righteous on behalf of Christ's righteousness and yet remain without a soul which has been made new, in the likeness of Christ. Consequently, there is both legal and physical change in being "born again". Therefore, if Christ is said to be a type of Adam and directly compared with Adam in terms of his federal headship, it would be consistent to say that in the fall of Adam there was both a legal and a physical change.

The corruption of the natural order, or creation, can also illuminate this area. For Romans 8:20-21 tells us that, "the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God." In the case of God's judgement which he carried out on creation, it can not be said that the legal status of creation caused its corruption. Rather, it is the express declaration of Romans that creation was subject to corruption
apart from its own deeds. (Not to mention that apart from man, creation is not capable of transgressing any laws.) This would again seem to support the view that a change of legal status does not create a change in physical nature. Rather, in this case, the legal status, or Adam's fall, was the reason for the corruption but not the inherent cause of it. The corruption and judgement of nature was based upon the transgression of Adam, but it did not, of its own accord, cause the corruption of nature. For Romans teaches that it was "subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it," that being God.

In considering the previous arguments, the question becomes: So what? How does this practically apply itself to the Christian? The following practical applications present themselves from these issues. Firstly, by looking at the creation of the soul a man is able to find assurance in the sovereignty of God over his decreed means. For some would accuse God of doing his work of creation and then letting it all play out. However, in contrast to this, we see that even the very natural and seemingly mundane act of sex has been ordered and decreed by God to bring about his purposes. God is just as sovereign in using mediate means as he is when he works immediately or directly. He is God over all creation, including the natural processes and their ends. Secondly, the nature of the believer's relationship with Christ can be seen
with even greater clarity. By understanding the union that all men have with Adam, both by natural and federal relationships, the elect's union with Christ is seen for all of its glory. For not only is a believer legally in Christ and thus righteous, but he is also a son of God. He has been adopted into the family of God, and thus made to be a son and fellow heir with Christ. This is in accord with the "natural" union which the believer experiences when he is made into a new creation. The absolutely sovereignty and power of God is seen in this. For if men are subjected to guilt and corruption not on the basis of their own works and deeds, but rather on the basis of their federal head, how much more is the adoption and union of Christ a complete work of God and not dependent upon the works and desire of men? Just as God brings all men to being under the headship of Adam according to his own will and desire, so he also brings many sons to glory and adoption. For what man can claim that he chose to be born under Adam? What man can say that it was according to his own will and desire that he was born in sin? Who can suggest such folly? So also the man who is in Christ must boldly and humbly proclaim that his salvation is "not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God." and God alone.

The Doctrine of Man - Reymond

2007-06-10T16:54:00.000-07:00

Here is the outline I made for Reymond's teaching on the doctrine of man in his systematic theology. Please excuse the grammar and punctuation, as these are strictly outlines. The outline of Berkhof's can be found in the previous post.

Reymond
Part II
God and Man
Chapter 12: The Biblical View of Man (pgs. 415-418)

Man, essentially, is a creature of God. He is the crowning work of God’s creative activity, uniquely the “image of God”. He is also a covenant creature, with whom God has entered into a covenant.

A. Man as Covenant Creature of God
a. The biblical account of the creation of man is found in Genesis 1:26-27 and 2:5-25.
b. This account clearly teaches a direct act of God in creating man.
c. Man is not merely “another one” of God’s creations. He is not another star or animal. He occupies a position of the highest significance among the created order.
i. Man is created as the last event in Creation. All things before him were created for him.
ii. The description of God’s creative work changes when man is brought into view. He is not merely another “And God said”. Rather, he is the direct result of the solemn divine counsel of the triune God.
iii. Man alone is created in the image of God (Gen 1:26-27)
iv. Man has dominion over all of God’s other creatures (Gen 1:26-28, 2:19-20, Psalm 8:3-8)
v. Genesis 2:5-25 is not a “second account” of creation, but rather a more detailed account of the sixth day of creation
vi. Into man alone is it said that God breathed into him the breath of life. (Gen. 2:7). In doing this, God created man qualitatively distinct from all other animals. There is more to man than “mere” physical life, which all animals possess as well. This breath of life (neshamah in Hebrew) entails two important characterstics :
1. Man has a spiritual understanding or comprehension of God and his moral law. (Job 32:8) It is this “breath of life or spirit” in man that gives him understanding “of the Almighty”. (See also Rom. 2:14-15a in how the law of God is written upon the hearts of all men)
2. Man has a conscience. (Proverbs 20:27) His ability to distinguish between moral good and moral evil is a direct result of his being given the “breath of life” (neshamah)
vii. Man alone has the capacity of rational speech. It is also to man only that God Himself speaks.
viii. God enters into a covenant only with man, and with no other creatures He has created.

The Doctrine of Man - Berkhof

2007-06-10T16:51:00.000-07:00

This is simply an outline that I made while studying through both Reymond and Berkhof's Systematic Theologies. It just gives the main points of each section in order to help me to better grasp what is being taught.

Berkhof
Part Two
The Doctrine of Man in Relation to God
Man in His Original State

I. The Origin of Man
(pg. 181-190)

Theological Anthropology is only concerned with what the Bible says respecting man and the relation in whom he stands and should stand to God. Scripture is its only source. All other experiences of man are read in light of the Word of God.
B. Scriptural Account of Origin of Man
Two-fold account of the creation of man.
- Genesis 1:26, 27
a) The creation of all things in the order in which they occurred.
- Genesis 2:7, 21-23
b) begins with Genesis 2:4.
c) Without regards to chronology, this second account is centered on man as
the penultimate of God's creative works.
It shows how all that preceded the creation of man was prepared and
intended for man.
1. Man's Creation was preceded by a Solemn Divine Counsel
- Gen 1:26. This shows us that it was God's purpose within Himself (reference to
the trinity most likely) to create man in His own image or likeness.
No other work of creation reveals God speaking of the creation prior
to His creating it. Man's creation had a special and unique place in all
the rest.
2. See Book
3. Man was created after a Divine Type
- In regards to the fishes, birds, and beasts we see that God created them
"according to their kinds". The type of each creature prior to man followed the
design for each creature. They did not have a reflection or likeness to anything
else in God Himself.
- However, man was created after the image and likeness of God Himself. He
was not created in the likeness of some lesser creature, nor formed from such.
His very "image" was a reflection of an eternally existing one which had no
creation, that of the triune God.
4. The two distinct elements of the Human Nature
- Genesis 2:7
- Here we have explicit detail to the two-fold nature of man. Man is shown to be
both physical and spiritual in his "being".
- On the one hand we have man being created from preexisting material. His
body was formed from physical creation.
"then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground" Gen 2:7a
- The second element of man is his soul. This is qualitatively different than the
creation of man's body. God here breaths into man a living soul. Man's soul is
created from nothing but the breath of God.
“and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a
living creature." Gen 2:7
Also take note that the body was not alive until the soul of man was created.
For further study see: Eccl 12:7, Matt 10:28, Luke 8:55, 2 Cor. 5:1-8, Phil 1:22-24

C. Evolution (see book)
D. The Origin of Man and the Unity of the Race
1. Testimony of Scripture to the Unity of the Race
- The Word of God makes it abundantly clear that the whole human race
descended from a single pair (Adam and Eve). Not only does the human race
share a single “human nature” but that they also share the same genetic
heritage.
- This can be seen in Acts 17:26, where Paul says that
“And God made of one every nation of man to dwell on all the face of the earth”

Conversion and Christian Experience

2007-06-10T15:59:00.000-07:00

Alright,

      (I apologize ahead of time if my writing seems a little off. My mind is not all together well right now, so if things seem confusing that is why).

       It has been quite some time since I last posted on my journal. Without delving into immaterial personal details, suffice it to say that I have been studying and researching more than before. This has been the main reason for my gap in posts. In addition to this, I have been researching many different schools to attend in the fall. With months of detailed research, the quest is now over, and I hope to attend Wales Evangelical School of Theology in the fall through Distance Learning. I can not wait to study the Word of the Lord in greater depth and more efficiently, and to see how the Lord will use me to fulfill His work.

      Today's post is a little different than the others I have done. My purpose for this website has been to actively journal and track my progress through doing theology. It has included some exegesis, philosophical discussion, progress reports, and various other entries. However, today I have decided to post something a little more personal.
Part of the requirement for applying to Wales Evangelical School of Theology, (from now on abbreviated as WEST), is to write a brief outline of my conversion and subsequent Christian experience. I did not take a large amount of time and effort in writing this, but I do not see any reason to not post it. Perhaps some may be encourage by it, or perhaps even be moved to glorify God. Regardless, here is the short essay that I wrote for my application to WEST. May it edify any who may read it.

Conversion and Christian Experience Outline

“Many plans are in a man’s heart, but the counsel of the Lord will stand” (Proverbs 19:21 NASB). Seeing this truth manifest itself in my life, especially over the past four years, has been given me a much clearer and accurate knowledge of who God is. While it was not until my senior year of High School that the Lord called me unto Himself, I have been able to see the wisdom in His purposing and accomplishing all of the events that led up to my conversion.

For all of my childhood I was raised in a home with parents who were wholly devoted to the Lord in all of their ways. I was grounded in the scriptures and taught to fear the Lord from a very early age. This gave me a solid foundation throughout my years in lower education and into High School. Yet even though I knew–though merely intellectually--the truth of scripture and the God of it, I planned my life according to my own desires and wishes. These plans consisted of attending a four-year Christian University immediately after High School in order to “find my purpose in life.” However, the wisdom and counsel of the Lord will stand. After only one month of my senior year, the Lord dramatically interrupted my plans by bringing an illness upon me. This illness not only disabled me physically, but also mentally. The plans I had relied upon and strived to accomplish for so many years were brought to nothing. Nevertheless, it was through this very thorn in my flesh that the Lord saved me. It was only out of the very deepest pit of hopelessness and despair that I could see the glory and love of Christ. I had nothing to rely upon except the Lord. And He was perfectly sufficient.

After my new birth, the Lord gave me a great passion and desire for knowing Him fully and truly through His word. I began to diligently study doctrine, church history, and specifically reformed theology. In addition to my studies, the teachings from such men as R.C. Sproul, John Piper, James White, Spurgeon and others opened my eyes to the wonders and riches of the word of God. During the same time as this, the Lord led me into membership with a wonderful reformed Baptist Church. The discipleship, teaching, exhortation, and fellowship that I have received there has been an indispensable part of my spiritual growth until this day.

It is at this point in my life that I believe the Lord has called me to further prepare myself for His work. My desire is to see reformation in the churches of America, and to educate the body of Christ with the solid food of the word. It is for this purpose that I hope to attend and study at Wales Evangelical School of Theology. I believe that there is no better school to equip me for shepherding, protecting, serving, and teaching Christ’s sheep than WEST.

The Bondage of the Will

2007-03-30T15:30:00.000-07:00

Yesterday I finished reading the Preface/Introduction to Martin Luther's The Bondage of the Will. In it, the editors/translators give a brief biography of both Erasmus and Luther. It details each of their histories, and also their relationship with eachother. I can not even begin to describe how much this work has enlightened me to a part of history I was completely in the dark of. I had no idea who Erasmus was, and I thought I knew Luther......I was wrong.

      The issues that Luther addresses in this work (considered by both he and most to be his greatest) are absolutely relevant to today. I was shocked to see the same ideology and philosophy of today present during Luther's day. I suppose I should not, considering most heresies and attacks the Church faces today are not new. The stark contrast between Erasmus' view of Christianity and Luther's is extremely similair to what we see in modern evangelicalism. The problem is that one of them is not biblical!

      One of the chief principles that Erasmus lived by, was the idea that peace and unity were more important than truth. He believed that it was better for the church to remain in error and accept that error, rather than expose the truth and be divided. This is no different than much of evangelicalism today. Christianity is beginning to be more about "peace, love, morality" than objective, absolute truths. Christians think that one of the most crucial rules to live by is that which brings peace and not division. They would rather remain ignorant of biblical truth and teaching than stand upon it; because standing upon the truth of God's word is divisive. And afterall, "good Christians have debated these issues for hundreds of years!" Indeed they have! The problem is not whether these things are debated, but which of these are true! Christianity is not a loose set of "guidelines" for a man to live by. Truth is not relative to each individual, and it is not something the Lord takes lightly. Truth matters.

     In the words of Luther, "Take away assertions[doctrinal statements concerning Christianity] and you take away Christianity". Christianity IS objective truth. Without doctrine, Christianity is nothing but vain philosophy, rules for "healthy living", or a "good story". If a Christian or a church ceases to stand up for sound doctrine, it has lost its very foundation. I do not think that the protestant church today really knows where it came from. They do not know the history of the Reformation, let alone the doctrine to which it clung to. Without an understanding of the work of God in history, we are doomed to repeat their errors.

     As I said earlier, there are very few issues which arrise in the world that are "new" attacks upon Christianity. They mostly are "jazzed up" forms of old heresies. One of these is the anti-intellectualism of modern day evangelicalism. There are so many Christians who do not think that theology/doctrine are important. They have an indifferent attitude towards biblical truth. They believe that all they need to know is that they are saved, and that is enough for them. Growing in knowledge, wisdom, and understanding doesn't seem to apply to them. They are happy to remain ignorant of Christian doctrine. Oh brothers, what have we done? Have we learned nothing from the reformation? Have we learned nothing from the past trappings of the Church? We can not continue in an attitude of indifference towards the Gospel! How can a man not care about the very thing that set him free? How can he not cherish, love, and desire to know rightly the only thing that can save sinners? I implore any of you who made read this blog to consider the words from Luther in the following quote from The Bondage of the Will. It is just as relevant and applicable to today as it was then.

"Luther will have no truck with Erasmus' conception of an undogmatic Christianity, and the humanist's airy indifference to matters of doctrine seemed to him as essentially un-Christian as anything well could be. For the Christian 'assertions' were no mere 'hit-or-miss' rationalisations of religious experience; what they contained was the revelead truth of God, recorded in Scripture for the Church's instruction and sealed upon the believer's by the saving enlightenment of the Holy Spirit. [Luther wrote that] 'The Holy Spirit is no Sceptic, and the things He has written in our hearts are not doubts or opinions, but assertions-surer and more certain than the sense of life itself'.".

     In the coming weeks and months I will be journaling as I read through Luther's The Bondage of the Will. I am so excited to see the truth of my God in scripture, and to become more like Christ through it. I pray that my study of this great work from a man of a great God would be enlightening to you as well. I pray that you will see God as He reveals Himself in scripture, and by the teachings of Luther.

The Biblical View of Man

2007-03-08T10:57:00.000-08:00

Alright,

I am going to forgo writing on the Eternal Decree of God until a later date. Instead, I will be commenting and meditating upon the Biblical View of Man. The main source of this information comes from Dr. Robert Reymond's A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith. However, in beginning to carefully study through this work, I came across a passage of scripture that I believe needs to be addressed before any other study of man is made.

"For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual." - 1 Corinthians 2:11-13 ESV

What an amazing truth for the Christian to cling to! To understand that He has been given the Holy Spirit, the very Spirit of God! For without such regeneration in man, who could understand the ways or thoughts of God?

The parallel of verse 11 is clearly seen in the original Greek. On the one hand, Paul draws the example of how no one knows (oiden) the thoughts of a man but that man's spirit. For how can one man know the thoughts of another man? The only way is for the one man to tell or explain his own thoughts to the other. Only the mans spirit knows his own thoughts, and thus only his spirit can tell those thoughts to someone else. And so it is with God. Only the Spirit of God knows the thoughts of God, and therefore only the Spirit of God can rightly explain God's thoughts to man.He then makes the exact same parallel to God. He says that no one knows (oiden) the thoughts of God but the Spirit of God. By stating this, Paul is establishing two things. Firstly, he is proclaiming his authority as an apostle. He explains this further in verse 13 where he says that the words in which he speaks "are not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit." These very words that Paul is writing are not from himself, but from God Himself. He is able to say this because He has the Spirit of God. (Notice the "we have received" in verse 12.) So in his apostolic role, Paul's words are rightly understood by his fellow Christians because 1) They are from the Spirit of God and 2) They are heard by Christians who have received that same Spirit of God, and 3) the Holy Spirit then makes those things "known" or understandable to the man.

Secondly, Paul is establishing the fact that man needs the Spirit of God in order to know the words taught by Him. Man left to himself is unwilling and unable to know the thoughts of God. For nothing but the Holy Spirit knows the thoughts of God.(verse 11) If we were to stop in verse 11, we would rightly conclude that man is hopeless to understand the things of God. However, the great comfort comes in verse 12: "Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God". How great is this gift! God, in his infinite mercy and grace, has given the Christian His very Spirit, so that we are able to understand His thoughts.

It is absolutely crucial at this point to see that it is indeed a gift. For in verse 14 Paul goes on to say the following:

"The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned."
- 1 Corinthians 2:14 ESV

This fact is greatly ignored in much of evangelicalism today. Paul clearly states that fallen man (man in his "natural" state) believes the things of God to be folly and foolishness. The "thoughts of God" mentioned in the previous verses are considered to be absolute foolishness to man. He does not understand them, and even rejects it as foolishness. Not only is this made plain and clear from the text, but Paul goes on to say that man is not even able to understand the spiritual wisdom of God. He is in an absolute state of inability to discern or understand the spiritual things of God. Man is helpless without the grace of God. This is precisely why Paul states in verse 13 that the Spirit of God is what enables us to "understand the things freely given us by God."

Notice first what is required in order to understand. "receiv[ing].....the Spirit who is from God" This is precisely how the natural man, stated as being unwilling and unable to understand, is now able to understand. He has received the Spirit of God.

Secondly, notice the manner in which this Spirit is received. "freely given". There is absolutely nothing in the man that qualifies him to receive the Spirit of God. For how could there be? "So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy." The gift of the Holy Spirit is exactly that.....a gift! For Paul states that not only have we received the Spirit of God (which implies the receiving of a gift and not the act or will of man), but that it is that very Spirit that enables us to understand that it was freely given! The free gift shows us that the gift was free!

Lastly, notice this point is reaffirmed in Paul's saying "The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God." Man does not accept the truth of God. He is not able to do so! This is why the receiving of the Holy Spirit is all of grace and none of man. Until God gives the man His Spirit, he will not accept nor understand the words of God. The Spirit must be given first, and then subsequently the regenerated man is able to understand the thoughts and truth of God by that Spirit. This is what makes Grace Free. In Romans 11:6, Paul is establishing the fact that God's election is not based upon anything within the man, but rather on grace. In speaking about how there has always been a remnant within physical Israel that God has chosen to redeem, he says that "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace." The very nature of grace itself is that it must be unmerited, undeserved, and free.

I went a little bit off the topic I had originally intended to discuss, but I could not ignore the truth in this verse that is so easily dismissed today. As self-centered, sinful men we are always trying to give ourselves credit for what God has done. Rather than honoring and glorifying God for His wholly and completely free grace which has been given to His people, we rob Him of that very honor. We must not do this!

I pray that I rightly understood this passage and did not read anything into it that is not there. I pray the Lord uses these words to proclaim His glory and grace in the hearts of His people.

Later today or tomorrow, (Lord willing), I will continue writing on the Biblical View of Man as expounded upon in Reymond's Systematic. This was just the first verse used!! Praise God for the riches of His word that is found in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Biblical Terminology

2007-03-05T09:28:00.000-08:00

Alright,

Today I have been studying both God's Knowledge and His eternality. In doing this, I began to better understand the necessity of scripture as the final and ultimate authority for all things.

It has become blatantly obvious in my studies so far, that many Christians have imposed secular definitions of terms onto their use in scripture. For instance, it is commonly asserted in Arminian and most evangelical theology that men have "free-will". However, the problem is not the use of the term free-will, but rather the extra-biblical philosophy they attribute to it. They presuppose the Greek understanding of free-will as being THE definition of it, and then take that and try and make it fit with scripture. This is a very serious problem. Not only are they taking the musings of pagan philosophies, but they are interpreting scripture in light of them! The same thing can be said of predestination, immutability, sovereignty, et al.

The seriousness of this method can not be taken lightly. Rather than defining biblical terminology (although free-will is not technically a term scripture uses to describe man's nature) through secular means, we must be willing to "re-define" what the biblical definition of that term is. Without taking the whole of scripture into account when defining such a term, we are going to easily be lead to mixing the truth of God's word with the vanity of men. I would like to clarify what I mean by "re-define". For one, if we are to be technically correct, it is men who have re-defined the term. For all truth is of God, and therefore any understanding we have of that truth will be a "reflective reconstruction" of it. Therefore, when man has taken such biblical revelations as man's free-will, and defined it in contrast to what God has said it is, we are re-defining. This must not be done.

So, in my studying of such things as man's free-will, God's attributes, and all such other areas of study, I have to be willing to "re-define" my understanding of these things. I must place myself under God's authority, and change my beliefs accordingly. For I have found that many well intentioned theologians have misrepresented the truth of Scripture by coming to God's word with presupposed definitions.

I pray that as I continue, by the grace of God as all things are, that He would grant me wisdom and understanding by the Holy Spirit to convict and convince me of the truth, and to submit to its authority.

Progress Report

2007-03-02T09:47:00.000-08:00

Well, it has been a little while since I have "journaled". The main reason for this is that I have been spending most of my time in study. However, I wish to write briefly about a few things.

Over the past week or so I have been understanding scripture with much more clarity. The Lord has given me wisdom and discernment, and for that I can never cease to thank Him. I am currently studying the following areas:

The Eternal Decree of God (The Reformed and Arminian view of what God bases this decree upon)

The Providence of God (Concerning His working out His eternal decree in creation through common and special grace)

The Knowledge of God (Open Theism, Reformed, and Arminian views)

Old Testament Survey: Leviticus (For certain, one of the most eye-opening and clear revelations of God's holiness and man's sin I have done)

Presuppostional Apologetics: Chapter 13ish in Bahnsen's Always Ready.

New Testament Greek: Chapter 7 in Mounce's The Basics of Biblical Greek (Greek is absolutely astounding. I am absolutely loving this study)

The Knowledge of God: Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion Chapter V-VIII (Man's knowledge of God)

Covenant Theology: Reymond's Systematic (Concerning the Reformed view of the two dispensations in God's redemptive dealings with men)

As you can see, this is far too much to be able to consistently journal about. However, it is my hope that as I struggle and study each topic more I will be able to express them in words on this journal. Not only for my own benefit, but perhaps for any who may also be struggling through these same topics.

I suppose that is all that I will write for now. I just wanted to keep track of where I was at in my studies.

By Faith

2007-02-21T10:24:00.000-08:00

I am continuing my studies through Reymond's Systematic Theology. I just finished the chapter concerning the sovereignty of God, and His eternal decree. However, I am not going to be writing about that today. (Do not want to spend the time to get into that right now).

Concerning God's purpose in creation is what I would like to consider. For as long as I can remember (which is not that long), I have thought of creation, that is all things God has created including the earth, man, animals, etc., as God's way of revealing Himself to all men. I had this idea that it was by creation that men could know God rightly. I was wrong. While this is true in a sense, it is only true in principle.

Most certainly God has revealed certain attributes to men through that which He has made.

"For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse." Romans 1:20

So doesn't this say that all men "clearly perceive" God's godness and eternal power? If so, then why did I say that man only knows these things in principle. Let us continue to read.

"For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened." Romans 1:21

Here is the purpose of Paul's referring to God's revelation of Himself in Creation. While God's eternal power and "Godness" are clearly revealed in creation and by it men know God, they suppress that truth of Him in unrighteousness. They are "futile in their thinking" and their hearts are dark. Knowing God, they exchange the truth about God from what is known by creation for a lie. Due to the fall, man is totally depraved. He is no longer able to rightly know God by creation. Instead of seeing the glory and wisdom and power of God revealed by it, he proclaims himself to be wise and becomes a fool.

Another point to consider is that God never created the world solely to make Himself known to His creatures. From the beginning of creation, before man fell from glory to total depravity, God had a personal relationship with man. God spoke with Adam. God walked with Adam. God cared for Adam. The LORD never separated Himself and His purposes from His created work. He never left man alone to "know Him" by creation. It was never His purpose to let creation reveal Himself to Adam. God had a personal relationship with Adam. Adam knew God because God made Himself personally known to him. Creation proclaimed the glory of God, but Adam's knowledge of God was not limited to the things created.

The issue that is at hand now, is that all men are born with original sin. We are "futile in our thinking, dark in our hearts, desperately wicked, etc." While God's work "declares the glory of God" Psalm 19:1, men do not honor Him or know Him rightly through it. Left in our fallen state, we never honor or worship God by what He has created. Not only do we not have a right relationship with God, but even the created work that declares His glory we corrupt and suppress!

Therefore, it is futile and vain to believe that through natural theology (attempting to know God by what has been made) we can rightly know Our Creator. If we were in the state of Adam, it would be possible. However, we are not. We can not rightly know God (in our fallen state) by creation. This is why it is foolishness to rely on reasoning and nature to lay a foundation for theology. Our reasoning and mind are darkened and futile without being born again! As Reymond states, we can not move from things to God in order to "prove" God's existence. Not only are we unable to know God through reasoning and "proofs", but scripture teaches that all men already know God! It is absolute hypocrisy to try and prove the existence of God to unregenerate men by means of arguments or proofs, when they already know Him! Rather than not knowing Him, they know Him and suppress their knowledge of Him in all kinds of foolish philosophy and reasoning.

Also, we are missing the purpose of God's creation if we try and use it as the basis for our theology. God did not create the universe for men to discover Him. He created all things for His Glory and to be the vessel by which He would bring about His eternal plan of redemption. Creation is the "stage" upon which God is working out His glorious act of redeeming a people to Himself through Christ, for Christ, and by Christ. It was never meant to be a mass of "evidence" for men to take apart to try and understand the world apart from God. This is impossible. That can only be known by "special revelation", or the revelation God has given us about all things in His word.

I will end this post with a passage from God's special revelation that speak of His purpose in creation, and the way in which men rightly know Him through it.

"By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible." Hebrew 11:3

As we can see from what God has said in Hebrews, it is BY FAITH that men can understand creation. It is BY FAITH that we can rightly know the God of creation. And as we know, faith is not something that comes from man, but it is the gift of God.

"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." Ephesians 2:8-9

Therefore all of our right understanding of God through creation comes through faith, which is a gift from Him in the first place! For by it we clearly see all things. And the purpose of creation was for God the Father to be brought glory through Christ His son by His eternal purpose to save men through Christ. For it is through Christ that all things were made, both in heaven and in earth. Creation can not be separated from God's work in Christ through it, because it's very function and reason for "being" is found in Christ!

"Creation's raison d'etre then is to serve the redemptive ends of God" Reymond Systematic Theology pg.398

Is God a failure?

2007-02-10T01:08:00.000-08:00

I have already posted today, but I needed to write down my thoughts on something else.

After reading Chosen by God last night, I have been going over it in my mind all morning. There are some things that have come to mind that I need to write down. So here goes....

If God has given every single person the opportunity to be saved, is God a failure? If He does not choose to elect some to salvation, and leave others to their just condemnation then is God's plan of salvation an utter failure? How has God chosen to save people? By what method or means? Let us go to scripture to find out:

"For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe." - 1 Corinthians 1:21 (ESV)

"How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!"......."So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ." - Romans 10:14-15, 17

So what does God tell us about how he saves people? He saves people by the preaching of the gospel. Whether it is read or heard, the gospel is the way that God has chosen to save people. There is no other way in which a person can be saved.

So what can we say to this? If God's purpose of redemption was to give every single man the opportunity to be saved, then He has greatly failed. For what of the countless number of people who have never heard, and will never hear the gospel? Is God's purpose successful for them? How can they be saved if they never hear? How can there be faith without hearing?

If God had purposed to give all men an equal opportunity to be saved, then why did He choose this method? Would He not have chosen a method which would not be so limited? Would He not have chosen something that would be available to every single person regardless of their physical location? How can He be said to purpose that every single person be saved, and yet choose a method to save them that doesn't accomplish this?

The only conclusions to this way of thinking is either that man has an alternate means of being saved, God is a failure, or that God is not sovereign and therefore powerless to do that which He desires. The Christian can not claim any of these without compromising the gospel and the whole of scripture. He can not accept these things without rejecting the revealed truth of God in scripture.

It would seem that by choosing to save men through the preaching of the Gospel that God has designed to not save all men, but rather to save only some. If He has chosen to save only some, then it would follow that He would purpose and plan so that the gospel is preached to every one of them. It would be so perfectly orchestrated so that all His chosen ones would hear the Gospel and be saved.

This is not to be taken to mean that men are only saved by the hearing of the gospel. Rather, the gospel must be either read or heard in order for a man to be saved. It alone does not save him, but without it he can not be saved. It is the method by which all of God's elect are saved.However, that is something for another day.

Also, this post is not an argument for calvinism or reformed theology. This is merely the process of thought that is going through my mind. I am struggling with these conclusions. Yet, I can not ignore them. I believe that by writing these things down I can more clearly articulate my struggle.

I pray God would give me wisdom if I am in error in my thinking, and that by my continued study of His word I would be lead into the truth. May He have mercy upon me, and grant me the faith to trust Him in all things.

Chosen by God

2007-02-10T00:30:00.000-08:00

Well, I finally gave in to reading Chosen by God by R.C. Sproul.
My Pastor gave it to me to read, yet he warned that I may not be ready to read it.
I wasn't.........yet I do not think someone is ever ready to read about the essential doctrines of predestination, election, God's sovereignty, and "free will". As man, we resist any idea that we are not in control. If there is anything that says that we are not autonomously free, then we rise up and fight it. Even as Christians who have been born again, made new, given a new heart with new desires and new thoughts, we still resist the truth of these matters.
Is it because the Bible is not clear in teaching these doctrines? Are they somehow obscure or so deep that we can not ever really know? If they are not clear, then it would be futile for us to try and understand something that is not even there. However, if scripture does explain/teach these doctrines then it is not only foolish to be ignorant of them, but downright sinful. Who are we to decide what the Bible should say? Can we ignore something it teaches because we simply don't like it? Do we think that by being naive to these things that we are somehow neutral? Do we not know that if we do not have the sound teaching of scripture on what the truth of the matter is we will fill it with our own vain philosophy? It is not possible to be neutrally ignorant. We either abide in the revealed truth in scripture, or we replace it with our own deceit. There is no neutral ground. A man who thinks he can simply be "undecided" or make the claim that "good Christians disagree" about such matters is not on a ground of neutrality. He is simply placing himself above God by deciding that what He has revealed about Himself is not important. What fools we are! Who are we to reply against God by ignoring the truth He has given us?

So what are we to say to this? If Scripture teaches the truth about these matters what must we do? We must submit ourselves to the study of God's word. For how can a Christian have any right understanding in doctrine without a knowledge of God's revelation concerning them? It is pride in the greatest degree to assume that man can rightly understand the things of God on His own apart from God's revealed truth.

This is where I have found myself. I can no longer ignore the truth in Scripture. I can no longer justify my beliefs by presuming to be ignorantly neutral. I must submit myself to God's revelation, and I must be willing to forsake all that is at odds with it. This is one of the most difficult things to do, I readily admit.

So, while I am still studying Theology Proper (the study of who God is) and doing an Old Testament Overview, I must know what Scripture says regarding the doctrines of predestination and election. I can not remain blind to something that is so clearly taught in scripture. (Yes, I believe that scripture very clearly teaches these things).

Chosen by God

Never has such a simple book caused me so much frustration and struggle. I have been told by many friends that they have gone to this book three and four times before being able to get through it. I did not understand what they meant until now. It is not as though this book is intellectually advanced or difficult to understand. It is not. The issue is not one of intellectual ability, but willing obedience and submission. I don't like it. I don't like it at all. While reading throught the first chapter on God's Sovereignty, I wanted to put it down. I wanted to stop reading it. My mind was telling me this was true, but my heart resisted. It just can't be true.........

Yet, I continued through it. By the end of the chapter, I was at war with myself. On the one hand, I was struggling with whether scripture really teaches this interpretation of God's Sovereignty. Is Sproul reading into scripture? Is he taking texts out of context in order to push his theology? On the other hand, I was unable to deny what I was reading. I have studied scripture, and I know it does teach such things. God has revealed this about Himself. So in essence, it comes down to submission. If this is who God is, and Sproul is rightly understanding scripture and relaying it to me, then I MUST accept it. To do otherwise would be to reject the truth about the God who saved me, who has called me to Himself. I would be putting myself in the place of God........in defiant idolatry.

So is this what scripture teaches? I don't know............yet. I am still struggling with it, but I can not ignore it. I must keep asking the Lord for wisdom and understanding to rightly know Him. That I may worship Him in truth, preach Him with truth, and know Him. For this is eternal life.

If left to Interpretation

2007-02-03T11:30:00.000-08:00

Today I have taken a few steps back in my study of Systematic Theology. I need to get a right understanding of how I am to do theology, why I am to do theology, and what kind of mindset I need to have in doing it. I can not let it become an intellectual exercise or an assent to facts. It must be a humble holding out of my hands before almighty God. It must be done on my knees in both reverential wonder and fear before God. There is no idea or fact that I can have which does not have a foundation in God. As many theologians in the past have said:

"Theology is thinking God's thoughts after Him"

This must be my approach in theology. My hope and prayer is that God would see fit to grant me His grace in all its wisdom and discernment as I hold out my hands before His throne. For all of the riches of wisdom and knowledge are found in Christ Jesus. The end of my study must bring me to Him just as the reason for doing it is to rightly know Him. For how can a man have faith in that which he does not know? For faith comes by hearing, and hearing from the Word of God.

Therefore, it is not only my desire, but my duty to rightly know the only true God and Jesus Christ my Lord. For this is eternal life.

Well, on to the main purpose for this post. In reading some of Wayne Grudem's "Introduction to Systematic Theology", and Louis Berkhof's "Systematic Theology" something seemed to solidify more than it has before. The Bible is the record and "interpretation" of the works that God has done since the beginning. I use the word interpretation here in a sense which may be misunderstood if not rightly explained. By interpretation, I do not mean to imply some subjective opinion concerning an event. For a single event can elicit many interpretations of what actually happened. For an example of this, all one needs to do is look to any major event that has taken place in history. It will not take long to find the vast scope of differing interpretations. By using interpretation, I mean to say that in Scripture we not only have the record of the event in history, but the reason behind it! For in His grace and mercy, God saw fit to use men to write down all that He has done and why He has done it.

This is one of the foundations for being able to do theology in the first place. For in scripture we have an interpretation of events from none other than God Himself. If these events and acts were left to men to observe, study, and hypostulate, we would have no basis for being able to do systematic theology. Instead, we are told by the triune God not only the acts in which He worked, but His reason for doing them. If scripture was merely a history book, we would have no way of knowing whether our interpretation of the events was the Truth. Instead, God has taken the initiative of revealing His thoughts and mind for us. We do not have to wonder why Christ died.....we do not have to wonder why man was created........we do not have to guess as to how God brought His people out of Egypt.....because He has told us! We have the very mind of God in the Word of God. He has revealed by divine revelation the purpose and plan in His plan of redemption. How Great is Our God!! (This does not even take into account the fact that God the Holy Spirit has been given to His people, that we may rightly know Him from His word.)

This is my confidence in doing theology. God has revealed Himself to us in His word, and by His Holy Spirit He has not only written it, but continues to use it to bring the Truth of Himself to all generations and all nations.

May God guide me in my study of His word, and in doing so be glorified.

May I think God's thoughts after him.

Salutations

2007-02-02T12:04:00.000-08:00

Hello. I am not sure why I am introducing myself in a blog which will most likely never be read by a single individual, but.... My purpose for having this blog is to keep a somewhat organized journal of my study through scripture. Firstly, I do not intend for this blog to be a representation for any systematic theology or doctrine. Rather, it is merely a physical manifestation of my struggle and wrestling through theology.

Secondly, it allows me to look back in times of early study and see what I was struggling with, where I was at, and how God has changed me since then. It does not allow for me to forget all that God is doing and will do.

Thirdly, this blog forces me to meditate upon that which I study. This will further solidify my thoughts, and better allow me to see the error of my ways.

Lastly, I hope that this blog will be an encouragement to any who might (if ever) stumble upon it. I know that in doing theology there are many difficult things that you face, the foremost being the breaking down of beliefs which are unfounded or heretical. This is hard, and yet a necessary result of living by the Word of God.

This blog will in no way be a "formal dissertation" of that which I believe or hold to be truth. Many things written will be a result of uncertainty or doubt. It is a journal of thoughts and not a record of doctrine.

Corey

Introduction

2007-02-02T10:30:00.000-08:00

Hello. I am not sure why I am introducing myself in a blog which will most likely never be read by a single individual, but.... My purpose for having this blog is to keep a somewhat organized journal of my study of Systematic and Reformed theology. Firstly, I do not intend for this blog to be a representation for any systematic theology or doctrine. Rather, it is merely a physical manifestation of my struggle and wrestling through theology.

Secondly, it allows me to look back in times of early study and see what I was struggling with, where I was at, and how God has changed me since then. It does not allow for me to forget all that God is doing and will do.

Thirdly, this blog forces me to meditate upon that which I study. This will further solidify my thoughts, and better allow me to see the error of my ways.

Lastly, I hope that this blog will be an encouragement to any who might (if ever) stumble upon it. I know that in doing theology there are many difficult things that you face, the foremost being the breaking down of beliefs which are unfounded or heretical. This is hard, and yet a necessary result of living by the Word of God.

The structure of this blog will be in the "journal" style. By this, I mean to say that it will not necessarily be edited for proper grammar or sentence structure. I hope that is does have this, but I make no promises.
It will also be a site for my "trains of thought" and the like. It is very informal, and therefore not to be taken as an apologetic, statement of faith, or "systematic theology" in and of itself. It will represent what I become convinced that scripture teaches, in addition to the process in how I arrived at that conclusion.

This is mostly for my own study, but if anyone happens to read it, I pray it is edifying to my brothers and sisters in Christ as well.

Corey