Minister's Blog |
|
« Previous Entries Next Entries »
Mark Driscoll on studying - 4 January 2012
“If a guy is only studying for too long, he becomes an idealist. And he starts criticizing the work of other men, because he’s not busy doing his own work. And we call that Bible College.” More here.
Bible in a year - 3 January 2012
Several friends of mine have recently begun some kind of Bible-in-a-year programme. If that sounds like the kind of thing that you’d enjoy (and if you’ve never tried it, why not?), you can find several great plans and other resources online. Here are a few:
- The M’Cheyne Bible-in-a-year plan
- YouVersion
- David Field’s online audio Bible, now also online at Believers Resource
Prayer again - 3 January 2012
Jesus is “dedicated to prayer, for he knows who moves the universe” (Doug Jones).
Prayer in a nutshell - 3 January 2012
Doug Jones nails it again: “We find Jesus regularly retreating into the real world of causation – prayer.”
Not just preaching it - 3 January 2012
Philip Ryken has some wise things to say about using the Lord’sDay:
“The Lord’s Day is for visiting the sick. It is for welcoming strangers, especially internationals. It is for helping people worship in the nursing home. It is for hosting the homeless to dinner. It is for giving fatherly care to orphans. It is for taking time to counsel friends who need encouragement. It is a day for giving all the service to God that we are unable to give the rest of the week. In addition to giving us a good day for rest and worship, the Lord has also given us a great day for the gospel – not just for preaching it, but also practicing it through loving deeds of mercy.” (Luke, p. 252)
Wives saving their husbands - 2 January 2012
Anthony C. Thiselton (building on, and at times quoting, Murphy-O’Connor) speaks a good deal of sense about 1 Corinthians 7:14, which reads, “the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband.” Here’s part of what he says (1 Corinthians; NIGTC; p. 530):
“What determines that a husband or wife who is not a believer is made holy is ‘the willingness of the unbeliever to continue the relationship’ which ‘has had a decisive influence on his or her behaviour.’” In such a case, “The lifestyle of the Christian partner cannot but affect the ethos and to some extent the values and lifestyle of the home, whether this be the husband or the wife. The spouse’s example, witness, prayer, and living out the world make the spouse (and the children) in this sense holy.”
Thiselton thereby gives the appropriate weight to the potentially compelling witness of a Christian spouse, without making nonsense of the need for the unbelieving spouse to come to personal faith in Jesus (cf. v. 16).
More could be said, I think, on the subject of the children mentioned later in v. 14. But insofar as it goes, this much is helpful.
Renouncing self-gratification - 2 January 2012
Some thoughts found in, and prompted by, Charles Cranfield, Romans (pp. 730-733) on Romans 15:1-4.
“We who are strong have an obligation to bear with [bastazein] the failings of the weak, and not to please ourselves. 2 Let each of us please his neighbour for his good, to build him up. 3 For Christ did not please himself, but as it is written, ‘The reproaches of those who reproached you fell on me.’ 4 For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.”
- “It is unlikely that bastazein means ‘endure’ here.” Presumably is doesn’t mean “bear with” either. For “Paul is requiring from the strong something much more positive than that they should tolerate the weaknesses of the weak,” which by itself might “involve putting a certain pressure upon the weak” or even harbouring “an attitude of superiority and condescension” toward them.
- Rather, bastazein means “carry,” as it does in the vast majority of other NT occurrences. This certainly fits the present context. For (and here Cranfield is superb) “What is required is that the strong should actually help the weak by taking something of the weight of the burden which they have to carry off their shoulders on to their own.” The strong are “to help to carry the infirmities, disabilities, embarrassments and encumbrances of their brothers who are having to live without that inner freedom which they themselves enjoy. Their response to this obligation will be a test of the reality of their faith.”
- “This helping to carry the burden of the infirmities which weigh the weak down will involve not pleasing oneself.”
- On the phrase “for his good, to build him up” [eis to agathos pros oikodomen], Cranfield writes, “The neighbour is very likely to be ready to be pleased by flattery and by the condonement of his wrong-doing,” which will hardly tend to his good. Instead, therefore, “the pleasing of the neighbour which is here commanded … has regard to his true good, to his salvation … which is directed owards his edification … no mere man-pleasing but [with] regard to God.”
- “Paul appeals to the example of Christ” in the phrase “for Christ did not please himself” – a statement which “sums up with eloquent reticence both the character of the incarnation and the meaning of Christ’s earthly life.”
- A surprise in v. 3 – Paul appeals not to the life of Christ but to the OT, quoting from Ps 69:9, where the righteous sufferer (Christ, in Rom 15) addresses God, declaring that men’s hostility towards their Maker has now been directed at their Saviour. Christ suffered this intense hostility from men voluntarily; how much more should we be ready to undergo willingly the comparatively trivial trial of “renouncing our self-gratification” in such matters as food, drink and special days “for the sake of our brothers for whom He suffered so much.”
Jesus and Kim Jong-un - 2 January 2012
The New Year message from the government of North Korea called upon the people of that country to defend their new leader Kim Jong-un to the death.
Jesus apparently thought things should be the other way round.
God the Son became God our brother - 24 December 2011
Another cracker from Glen Scrivener.
Ripping apart the old covenant - 22 December 2011
Doug Jones on Luke 5:33-39: “These claims about new wine are some of the strongest words Jesus speaks on the relationships between old and new covenants. It is not a picture of sweet blending, but ripping and bursting.”
Uncertainty is worst of all - 22 December 2011
It’s not obvious in Luke 5:27-32 whether or not the Pharisees are present at Levi’s feast. They perhaps seem like outsiders in v. 30, but then they’re close enough to comment, and to question the disciples in v. 33.
This uncertainty could easily have been resolve had Luke wished. I suggest therefore that the ambiguity is deliberate. It serves to underscore the precariousness of the Pharisees’ alienation from Jesus by compounding their predicament with uncertainty. And if there’s one thing worse than alienation in a relationship, it’s alienation compounded with uncertainty.
A sign of worldliness - 22 December 2011
Romans 12:16 “Associate with the lowly.”
Charles Cranfield: “Paul is enjoining … a friendly and unselfconscious association both with ordinary unimportant people and with the outcasts of society that is free from any suggestion of patronizing or condescension … it is always a sign of the worldliness of the church then its ‘leaders’ no longer associate as readily and freely with humble people both inside and outside the church as with those who feel socially superior.” (Romans, ICC, p. 644.)
If I were a swan - 22 December 2011
Romans 12:1 “Present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your logicos worship.”
Epictetus: “If I were a nightingale, I would do what is proper for a nightingale; If I were a swan, I would do what is proper for a swan. In fact I am logicos, so I must praise God.”
Cranfield, Romans (ICC), p. 602.
11. The creation of man - 19 December 2011
 |
 |
So far in the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course we’ve covered some introductory material, the doctrine of revelation and the doctrine of God. We’re moving on in session 11 to the next major topic: the doctrine of creation.
We begin with the creation of man. Here’s the plan:
- First, we’ll be looking (with the help of Gordon J. Wenham’s commentary on Genesis) at what Genesis 1 means when it says man was created “in the image of God.”
- Second, we’ll be continuing to work through Calvin’s Institutes, turning to I.xv (1:183-196), the discussion of “Human Nature as Created.”
- Finally, we’ll be looking at the chapter on “Human Nature” in the second volume of Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics (chapter 12).
Questions for reflection
i. What do you think it means to say that man was created “in the image of God”?
ii. Does fallen man bear the image of God?
iii. What is the human soul?
Study question on Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, pp. 29-32
1. What meanings have been suggested for “image” and “likeness” in Genesis 1:26-27? What do you think of the various options?
Study questions on John Calvin, Institutes, I.xv (1:183-196)
2. What does Calvin mean when he says, “This knowledge of ourselves is twofold” (I.xv.1)? How does Calvin explain what he is setting out to do in this chapter?
For reflection: How would Calvin respond to the statement, “I’m homosexual – and that’s just the way that God made me”?
3. How does Calvin describe “the soul” (I.xv.2)? What two reasons does Calvin give for thinking that there is in man something “separate from the body” (I.xv.2)?
4. What does Calvin think is meant by “image” and “likeness” in Genesis 1:26-27 (I.xv.3)?
5. How is the image of God in man most clearly seen (I.xv.4)?
6. What is “the delusion of the Manichees” concerning the soul (I.xv.5)? What is wrong with the Manichean view?
For reflection: Can you think of any biblical text(s) that might at first glace seem to support the Manichees’s view?
7. According to Calvin, what “faculties” (i.e. capacities) does the soul possess (I.xv.6-7)?
8. What kind of freedom does Calvin believe Adam had before the fall (I.xv.8)?
Study questions on Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics 2, ch 12 (pp. 530-562)
9. What does Scripture say about man’s created nature, and where does it say it (pp. 531-533)?
10. What arguments does Bavinck adduce against the theory of naturalistic evolution (pp. 536-539)?
11. What are the key features of “Roman Catholic Supernaturalism” (pp. 539-542)? What are its shortcomings (pp. 542-548)?
12. Why did the Reformers reject the Roman Catholic view of the divine image? What alternative(s) did they propose (pp. 548-554)?
13. In what five ways does Bavinck flesh out his conviction that “the whole person is the image of God” (p. 555; cf. pp. 556-562)?
26. Covenant theology (3) - 19 December 2011
|
|
In session 26 of the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course we’re continuing our study of Covenant Theology with the help of O. Palmer Robertson’s book, The Christ of the Covenants (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1980). You’ll recall from the previous sessions that covenant theology is a way of reading the whole Bible that takes into account the unfolding shape of God’s work in the world and his unfolding relationship with humanity. This relationship always takes the form of a covenant, and Covenant Theology attempts to trace the development of these covenants through Scripture.
We’ve looked in previous sessions at the theme of the divine covenants in general terms, and then at some specific biblical covenants, beginning with the so-called “Covenant of Creation,” made with Adam before the fall, and then looking at God’s covenant with Abraham. We continue today where we left off, looking at the seal of the Abrahamic covenant and the Mosaic covenant, before working through Robertson’s critique of dispensationalism.
As ever, if you’re pressed for time omit the questions marked with a *.
Questions for reflection
i. “The Mosaic Covenant was an external covenant requiring external obedience; the New covenant is an internal covenant requiring – and indeed providing – transformation of heart.” Do you agree?
ii. Can a Christian be saved without being baptised? Explain your answer?
iii. Explain what is going on Exodus 3:24-26. Does this have any implications for your answer to the previous question?
iv. To whom should baptism be administered? Why?
Study questions
We begin in chapter 8, still looking at the Abrahamic covenant, but focussing on the seal of the Abrahamic covenant: the sign of circumcision.
1. “Far from being an optional aspect of the covenantal bond, the seal is the covenant” (p. 148). What does Robertson mean by this?
For reflection: What light does your answer to the above question shed on Ex 2:24-26?
2. What are the five points identified by Robertson which highlight “the import of circumcision as originally instituted for Abraham” (pp. 150-152)? Do any of these points surprise you?
3. “This absolute openness to the incorporation of Gentiles into the community of Israel has far-reaching significance affecting the interpretation of massive portions of Old and New Testaments” (p. 154). Why?
4. What do you think of the following statements from Robertson? In particular, is there a tension with his previous claim that “the seal is the covenant” (p. 148)?
- “The circumcision symbol of the old covenant has no value whatsoever unless it be joined with the true righteousness which it represents” (p. 160)
- “The symbol of circumcision under the old covenant is not the thing which makes a man acceptable to God. Only the true circumcision of the heart by the Spirit accomplishes the cleansing which is sufficient to make a man acceptable to God” (p. 161).
5. Robertson argues that “circumcision under the old covenant is replaced by baptism under the new covenant” (p. 162). What do you think of the argument as Robertson develops it on pp. 162-166?
Chapter 10 discusses the Mosaic covenant. After some opening remarks about dating based on alleged parallels with Hittite treaties (pp. 168-169), Robertson moves on to the theological significance of the Mosaic Covenant (from p. 170 onward).
6. “Whatever concept of law may be advanced [concerning the Mosaic era], it must at all times remain subservient to the broader concept of covenant” (p. 171). What does this mean? Why does it matter?
7. How does Robertson describe “the distinctiveness of the Mosaic covenant” on pp. 172-173?
For reflection: Do you agree with Robertson’s characterisation of the Mosaic covenant here? You might find the following texts helpful as you consider this question:
- Deuteronomy 6:4-6
- Deuteronomy 30:14
- Psalm 37:31
- Psalm 40:8
- Psalm 119:11
(Note: Robertson himself seems aware of some problems in his argument here – see footnote 13 on p. 190. It isn’t clear, however, that he manages to resolve them.)
Robertson tackles head-on what he calls the “difficult question” of whether “the covenant of law [is] still significance for participants in the new covenant” (p. 178).
8. “The Christian does not live under an externalized ministration of law engraved on stone tablets … he no longer relates to that law as an impersonal code standing outside himself” (pp. 182-183). What do you think of this statement?
9. How does Robertson believe that Jeremiah 31:33-34 supports his argument (p. 190-191)? Do you agree with him?
Chapter 11 is an extended critique of dispensationalism. If you’ve never heard of dispensationalism, you’re about to find out how lucky you are (as Calvin used to say) to have been spared the experience.
10. Why, according to Robertson’s brief comments on p. 201, is “covenant” a significant framework through which to understand biblical revelation?
11. What alternative system of structuring biblical revelation does Robertson interact with? What caveats does he note?
12. How do the earlier dispensational treatments of Gen 1-3 differ from the later developments (pp. 204-206)?
13. What crucial passage does dispensationalism misunderstand in its elaboration of “the dispensation of conscience”? What are the effects of this misunderstanding (pp. 206-208)?
14. “The treatment of the ‘covenant’ with Noah [‘the dispensation of human government’] in dispensational thinking may be characterized as secularistic rather than redemptive-historical” (p. 210). What exegetical factors lead dispensationalism towards this way of thinking?
15. What “basic dualism” (p. 212) in dispensational thinking is manifested in their treatment of the covenant with Abraham? How does it arise? What “basic distinction” is “involved in God’s treatment of his elect people” (p. 214)?
16. What misunderstanding leads dispensationalists to postulate a “Palestinian covenant” (pp. 217-218)?
17. What is Robertson’s “focal point of disagreement with dispensationalism” (p. 220) concerning the Davidic covenant? What evidence does he adduce to establish his view (pp. 220-221)?
18. How do dispensationalists believe Jesus responded to the Jewish rejection of his kingship? How did Jesus actually respond (p. 224)?
19. What implications does Robertson believe that dispensationalist thinking has for understanding Jesus’ resurrection (pp. 225-227)?
20. “The present age is not a ‘parenthesis’ unforeseen by the prophets of old” (p. 227). Why do dispensationalists disagree?
John Frame on Greg Bahnsen - 15 December 2011
While we’re on the subject of theonomy, and Greg Bahnsen’s Theonomy in Christian Ethics in particular, John Frame wrote a review of Bahnsen’s book back in 1977. Here are some of the highlights.
Summary of Bahnsen’s position:
The author insists that the whole Old Testament civil law, including the penalty structure (execution for adultery and so on) is binding upon present-day civil governments.
The “ceremonial law” (e.g. animal sacrifices) is no longer literally binding.
Church and state were distinct even during the Old Testament period (this is the distinction between priestly and kingly offices).
This position does not require that the state enforce religious conversion, nor does it give civil officials power over the Church.
The civil government must, however, carry out its distinctive functions under the authority of Biblical law.
Positive points:
On the whole the book is well organized and easy to read; it is easy to skip certain sections for future reference and to pick up the train of argument later on.
His is the most thorough and cogent defense of [this] position so far published.
This book performs a great service. It takes the whole controversy out of the “shouting” stage and presents solid arguments which must be soberly discussed. The work shows impressive exegetical and logical skill. Bahnsen here has established himself as one of the very best younger theologians of our time.
For those who disagree with Bahnsen’s position—well, the ball is in their court; they must come up with an answer.
Criticisms:
The book is somewhat wordy; Bahnsen sometimes engages in overkill by multiplying references and arguments. At times he lapses into language unintelligible to those not trained in philosophy.
I would suggest that Bahnsen confront more directly the reason why many people consistently resist the continuing use of these civil laws distinctive to the Mosaic covenant, namely that the Mosaic covenant, in contrast with previous covenants and with the New Covenant, identifies the kingdom of God with a specific earthly political unit. The uniqueness of that Old Testament theocracy needs closer examination.
Every Christian is a theonomist - 14 December 2011
This morning’s tutorial in the new Ethics module of the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course touched on the subject of theonomy. This topic has become somewhat controversial among some evangelical and Reformed churches in recent years, so it’s worth being clear about what exactly we’re talking about.
“Laws” in the sense of “rules that must be obeyed” (as distinct from “the Law of Moses”) are inescapable in Christian ethics, and indeed in the Christian life generally. The key question is not “Law or no law?” but rather, “Which law should we follow?” or perhaps better, “Whose law should we follow?”
There are three possible answers to this question: (1) God’s law; (2) My law; (3) Someone else’s law. Every Christian must of course be committed to the first of these – God’s law, another name for which is theonomy (theos = God; nomos = law). Every Christian, therefore, is a theonomist.
This position must be distinguished from another possible theological viewpoint that also bears the name “theonomy”. This is the position espoused by Greg L. Bahnsen, James B. Jordan, Gary North, Rousas J. Rushdoony and others, who at various times during their ministries have been described as theonomists. These men believe(d) not only that all Christians are required to obey God’s law, but also that this law has a certain content.
Clearly, one could be committed to the view that Christians are required to obey God’s law (theonomy) while disagreeing with these theonomists about what that actually entails. In fact, these men all held rather different views about the particular shape of God’s law. This only serves to underline further the crucial point: every Christian is (or should be) a theonomist, although as we study the Scriptures we may reach different conclusions about precisely what the relevant nomoi are.
(Not) abolishing the Law - 14 December 2011
|
Here is the assignment following the eighth tutorial in the newly-launched Introduction to Christian Ethics course, the new module in the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course.
1. Write brief notes about how Jesus’ insistence that he did not come to abolish the Law (Matthew 5:17-20) is consistent with Paul’s statement that Jesus has abolished the Law (Ephesians 2:14-16).
You might find it helpful to reflect on the following sub-questions (among others):
- What does “abolish” mean in each context?
- What “Law” is being referred to in each context?
- What purpose is served by the non-abolition / abolition in each context?
The following commentaries and other secondary works represent a variety of different perspectives, and may be helpful:
- Calvin’s commentaries on the relevant texts
- D. A. Carson, Matthew (Expositor’s Bible Commentary)
- Peter T. O’Brien, Ephesians (PNTC)
- Chapter 2 of Greg L. Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christian Ethics
- Other standard Reformed texts (Turretin, Institutes; Calvin, Institutes; etc.)
If you are unable to answer these questions comprehensively or with certainty, try at least to clarify (1) the questions that would need to be addressed; and (2) some possible answers that might be given.
Puritan light and Quaker heat - 13 December 2011
Some thoughts found in, and prompted by, Peter Adam, “Word and Spirit: The Puritan-Quaker Debate,” in Preachers, Pastors and Ambassadors: St Antholin Lectures Volume 2: 2001-2010, ed. Lee Gatiss (London: The Latimer Trust, 2011). Complete with some great one-liners from Ussher and Luther.
- “Puritans were ‘the hotter sort of Protestants’” (p. 51). Now that’s the right kind of heat.
- “The Puritans, conservative or radical, followed a different faith to the Quakers, and this difference resulted from opposing views on Word and Spirit” (p. 53). “Both Puritans and Quakers” recognised these “deep theological differences” (p. 53).
- Archbishop Ussher (the hitherto-unknown standup comic): “Nothing is so familiar nowadays … as to father upon Antichrist whatsoever in church matters we do not find to sort with our own humours” (p. 53).
- “Many Quakers came from a Puritan background” (p. 55).
- The fundamental disagreement: “The Puritans believed that God spoke through the Bible, and the Quakers believed that God spoke immediately, and not through the Bible” (p. 55).
- “The use [by Quakers] of biblical words and phrases … concealed the wide gap between Puritan faith and Quaker experience … the Quaker message was a radical departure from Puritan faith” (p. 58).
- Luther (another secret comedian) would not believe the Zwickau prophets even if “they had swallowed the Holy Ghost, feathers and all” (p. 59).
- Section 3 – the worrying consequences of Quaker teaching.
- The puritan/Quaker differences may have originated in differences among the Reformers, exemplified by the differences between Zwingli and Luther (p. 84):
- Zwingli: the Bible is a sign of the truth that God communicates by his Spirit;
- Luther: the Bible is the means God uses to communicate his truth.
- “Zwingli wants to refute an ex opere operato view of preaching but in doing so runs the danger of failing to recognise that the Bible is God’s words ‘intrinsically as well as instrumentally,’ in the useful phrase of J. I. Packer” (p. 85).
- “Calvin asserts both the efficacy of the external Spirit-inspired Word and the necessity for the internal word and testimony of the Spirit. In this he honours the ‘means’ which God uses, Bible and preacher, as well as pointing to our own powerlessness and our dependence on God’s work in our hearts, minds, and lives” (p. 85).
- A final thought: It’s one thing to ask the question, “Which words can we trust?” It’s another thing to ask the question, “Which words have the power to change us?” I’m inclined to think that the second question is at least as important, perhaps sometimes more important, as the first.
A chiasm in Luke 5:28-32 - 12 December 2011
27 And after these things he went out, and he saw a tax collector named Levi, sitting in the tax booth. And he said to him, “Follow me.”
28 And leaving everything and rising, he followed him.
29 And Levi made a great banquet for him in his house, and there was a great crowd of tax collectors and others who were with them, sitting at the table.
30 And the Pharisees and their Scribes grumbled to his disciples, saying, “Why with tax collectors and sinners does he eat and drink?”
31 And answering Jesus said to them, “The healthy have no need for a doctor, but the sick.
32 I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”
« Previous Entries Next Entries »