Minister's Blog |
|
« Previous Entries Next Entries »
Van Til meets Leithart - 28 November 2011
Everyone seems to be reading books on the subject of leadership at the moment, including my good friend Peter Scholtens, who has a number of good things to say about Peter C. Maxwell’s book The 360 Degree Leader.
This whole subject strikes me as a very good example of how what Cornelius van Til called “borrowed capital” combines with what Peter Leithart called “middle grace”.
“Borrowed capital,” in van Til’s writing, refers to the ideas which non-Christian pick up from the Christian world(view) and treat as their own, without acknowledging their source. In apologetic terms, this leaves unbelievers vulnerable, for in simultaneously denying the Christian faith while affirming some of the things for which only the Christian faith can provide a basis, they are in effect cutting off the branch they’re sitting on. But as long as you don’t scratch too deeply, a Christian can learn quite a lot of interesting and useful stuff.
“Middle Grace,” in Leithart’s work, refers to (one of) the process(es) by which unbelievers receive the insights described above. Not special grace, for they don’t read the Bible; not (strictly speaking) common grace (for these insights don’t come through “the light of nature” as such). Rather, they are gained by unbelievers through their contact with the church, where these truths are taught and believed.
Add all this together, and what we find are a whole host of books on “leadership” written from a perspective that is not (at least explicitly) Christian, coming out of countries where the gospel of Christ has historically had a significant impact on the culture. And these books often have a great deal to commend them, for, despite the fact that they don’t mention Christ by name, their authors have somehow managed to pick up on quite a lot of things which, in Christian terms, make for good leadership.
If you want proof, take a look at Peter Scholten’s summary of Maxwell’s 360 Degree Leader. And ask yourself, isn’t this an uncannily accurate portrait (of just a few aspects of the character) of Jesus?
Maxwell carries on by explaining where our influence lies, specifically in these 5 areas:
1. Position – Influence because of your role.
2. Permission – Influence because of your character.
3. Production – Influence because of your production.
4. People Development – Influence because of who you’ve mentored.
5. Personhood – Influence because of your personality.John Maxwell also focuses on direction of leadership – up, across, and down.
When leading up well, we must help our leaders by anticipating what our leaders need and then shouldering some of their load. It is also important to anticipate and use the time we have well, getting to know them and how to work with them.
When leading across well, we need to complete rather than compete, being a friend rather than a competitor.
When leading down, place people where they will thrive, modeling the behaviours you wish to see. In the end, you are most effective as a leader when your vision is clear and you reward the behaviours you want to see.
Not Ashamed 2011 - 25 November 2011
 |
It’s that time of year again. 1 December 2011 is Not Ashamed Day. Click the logo for more information.
Someone’s coming… - 25 November 2011
This coming Sunday marks the beginning of Advent. As one way of marking this season, we’ll be taking a break from our Old Testament readings in the book of Isaiah, and instead reading four other passages that specifically look forward from the perspective of the Old Testament to the coming of Christ. Here’s what they say, followed by a couple of sentences of introduction to each one:
Jeremiah 23:1–6
“Woe to the shepherds who destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture!” declares the LORD. 2 Therefore thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, concerning the shepherds who care for my people: “You have scattered my flock and have driven them away, and you have not attended to them. Behold, I will attend to you for your evil deeds, declares the LORD. 3 Then I will gather the remnant of my flock out of all the countries where I have driven them, and I will bring them back to their fold, and they shall be fruitful and multiply. 4 I will set shepherds over them who will care for them, and they shall fear no more, nor be dismayed, neither shall any be missing, declares the LORD.
5 “Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will raise up for David a righteous Branch, and he shall reign as king and deal wisely, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. 6 In his days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell securely. And this is the name by which he will be called: ‘The LORD is our righteousness.’”
Here Jeremiah condemns those who ruled Israel in his day – the “shepherds” (v. 2) of Israel – who cared nothing for the people of God, but were concerned only for themselves. The LORD promises to punish them “for their evil deeds” (v. 2), and to provide a shepherd “who will care for them” (v. 4). This promise is fulfilled with the coming of “a righteous Branch” who will “reign as king and deal wisely” (v. 5), in whom the LORD himself will be present, for his name will be, “the LORD is our righteousness” (v. 6).
Micah 5:1-5a
1 Now muster your troops, O daughter of troops; siege is laid against us; with a rod they strike the judge of Israel on the cheek. 2 But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days. 3 Therefore he shall give them up until the time when she who is in labor has given birth; then the rest of his brothers shall return to the people of Israel. 4 And he shall stand and shepherd his flock in the strength of the LORD, in the majesty of the name of the LORD his God. And they shall dwell secure, for now he shall be great to the ends of the earth. 5 And he shall be their peace.
Like Jeremiah, Micah also looks forward to One will ” be ruler in Israel” (v. 2). This great King shall come from a surprising place: “Bethlehem Ephrathah” (v. 2), an insignificant little town which would nonetheless be the birthplace of Israel’s Messiah, the one who will bring “peace” (v. 5).
Zephaniah 3:14-20
14 Sing aloud, O daughter of Zion; shout, O Israel! Rejoice and exult with all your heart, O daughter of Jerusalem! 15 The LORD has taken away the judgments against you; he has cleared away your enemies. The King of Israel, the LORD, is in your midst; you shall never again fear evil. 16 On that day it shall be said to Jerusalem: “Fear not, O Zion; let not your hands grow weak. 17 The LORD your God is in your midst, a mighty one who will save; he will rejoice over you with gladness; he will quiet you by his love; he will exult over you with loud singing. 18 I will gather those of you who mourn for the festival, so that you will no longer suffer reproach. 19 Behold, at that time I will deal with all your oppressors. And I will save the lame and gather the outcast, and I will change their shame into praise and renown in all the earth. 20 At that time I will bring you in, at the time when I gather you together; for I will make you renowned and praised among all the peoples of the earth, when I restore your fortunes before your eyes,” says the LORD.
Zephaniah looks forward with great joy to the coming of the King: “Sing aloud, O daughter of Zion; shout, O Israel! Rejoice and exult with all your heart, O daughter of Jerusalem!” (v. 14). The LORD is coming in the person of Christ as “a mighty one who will save” (v. 17), who will gather the mourners, the lame, and the outcast (vv. 18-19), and will punish those who oppress the weak (v. 19). When the promised King comes, all the world will see how he has restored his people (v. 20).
Haggai 2:1-9
1 In the seventh month, on the twenty-first day of the month, the word of the LORD came by the hand of Haggai the prophet, 2 “Speak now to Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, and to Joshua the son of Jehozadak, the high priest, and to all the remnant of the people, and say, 3 ‘Who is left among you who saw this house in its former glory? How do you see it now? Is it not as nothing in your eyes? 4 Yet now be strong, O Zerubbabel, declares the LORD. Be strong, O Joshua, son of Jehozadak, the high priest. Be strong, all you people of the land, declares the LORD. Work, for I am with you, declares the LORD of hosts, 5 according to the covenant that I made with you when you came out of Egypt. My Spirit remains in your midst. Fear not. 6 For thus says the LORD of hosts: Yet once more, in a little while, I will shake the heavens and the earth and the sea and the dry land. 7 And I will shake all nations, so that the treasures of all nations shall come in, and I will fill this house with glory, says the LORD of hosts. 8 The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, declares the LORD of hosts. 9 The latter glory of this house shall be greater than the former, says the LORD of hosts. And in this place I will give peace, declares the LORD of hosts.’”
Haggai prophesied during the construction of the Temple after Israel’s return from exile – a task that was delayed because the people of God allowed themselves to become pre-occupied with their own houses rather than the house of God. Even when the Temple was finally constructed, it wasn’t very impressive – it was “as nothing in [the] eyes” of those “who saw … its former glory” (v. 3). Yet “in a little while” (v. 6), the LORD promises to “shake the heavens and the earth” and fill his house with greater glory than the earth has ever seen. And then, when the glory of the LORD has been seen in the Son, the world will know “peace” (v. 9).
Insistently demanding - 25 November 2011
The verb epikeimai (to press hard, to be urgent, to insist upon) appears only twice in Luke’s Gospel.
First, in 5:1, “the crowd was pressing in on Jesus to hear the word of God.”
Second, in 23:23, the crowd “insistently demanded that he be crucified.”
Thus with this one word Luke tells the story of the fickleness of humanity.
Don’t end your story end in Luke 23:23.
Those passionate Puritans - 25 November 2011
Stephen Prothero has written a good article on the CNN Belief Blog entitled “Puritans gave thanks for sex and booze.” The argument will be familiar to anyone who knows anything about what the Puritans were really like. However, it may be news to people who think they know all about the Puritans when in fact they have simply imbibed the myths put about by the secular media and the liberal church establishment.
Here are a few of the salient highlights:
- The standard depictions of “the New England Puritans” included “killjoy and prude.” But “New England’s Puritans were by no means allergic to fun.”
- On drinking, “While hard alcohol was frowned upon, beer and wine were celebrated as gifts from above.”
- On the other alleged Puritan taboo, “Another gift from above was sex, which New England Puritans liked just about as much as the rest of us (or more). They sought to channel sexual desire into the institution of marriage, but inside marriage they let their lusts run free.”
- This high view of sex combined with their high view of church authority to produce some interesting moments around the Lord’s Table: “New England’s Puritans disciplined church members who refused to have sex with their wives, including one James Mattock, excommunicated from his church in Boston in 1640 because he ‘denied conjugal fellowship unto his wife’ for two years.”
- In summary, “After the eating and drinking was done, plenty of Puritans thanked God for saving them from celibacy.”
HT: Joel Garver
Philippians 4:10-19 - 25 November 2011
Is there a panel structure in Philippians 4:10-19?
10 I rejoiced in the Lord greatly that now at length you have revived your concern for me. You were indeed concerned for me, but you had no opportunity.
11 Not that I am speaking of being in need, for I have learned in whatever situation I am to be content. 12 I know how to be brought low, and I know how to abound. In any and every circumstance, I have learned the secret of facing plenty and hunger, abundance and need.
13 I can do all things through him who strengthens me.
14 Yet it was kind of you to share my trouble. 15 And you Philippians yourselves know that in the beginning of the gospel, when I left Macedonia, no church entered into partnership with me in giving and receiving, except you only. 16 Even in Thessalonica you sent me help for my needs once and again.
17 Not that I seek the gift, but I seek the fruit that increases to your credit. 18 I have received full payment, and more. I am well supplied, having received from Epaphroditus the gifts you sent, a fragrant offering, a sacrifice acceptable and pleasing to God.
19 And my God will supply every need of yours according to his riches in glory in Christ Jesus.
Biblical imagery - 24 November 2011
In Luke 5:1-11, “Luther captures the significance of all the imagery: the sea is the world, the fish are people, the net is the preaching of the gospel, and the boat is the church” (Arthur Just, Luke, pp. 206-270; citing Luther, Sermons, vol. 4, pp. 164-165).
He’s not stolen it - 24 November 2011
Here’s an issue that a friend of mine is going to be chewing over in the next few weeks:
“Explain and evaluate the following arguments against copyright: 1. Copying is not theft because it does not deprive the original owner of his property. 2. Laws against copying are illegitimate because they wrongly presuppose that a vendor may restrict all future owners.”
I’m looking forward to hearing the answer, especially because I think these are the anti-copyright arguments which are both (a) most central to the anti-copyright case (cf. Kinsella, Against Intellectual Property); and (b) most likely to be susceptible to a biblical critique, especially when you take the OT case laws seriously (cf. Gary North, Greg Bahnsen, J. B. Jordan).
Creating wealth ex nihilo - 23 November 2011
I don’t always find myself in agreement with Nick Robinson, Political Editor at the BBC, but this article entitled “Ten things about your money and how they spend it” contains some shrewd observations. Here are some of the most intriguing ones:
On the subject of who pays how much tax, “Some 60% of households are net recipients from the Treasury … The top 10% of households contribute, on average, five times more than they get back … The top 1% of earners – just 300,000 people – pay 27% of all income tax.”
On the subject of what we pay for, “In 2010-11, we spent more paying interest on our national debt than we did defending the realm.” That’s alarming, since defending the realm is one of the few activities of our government that the Bible actually says they should be doing.
On the subject of debt and deficits, “Deficits have been a feature of British political life for decades. In the early 1990s, for instance, John Major’s Conservative government ran up a deficit of more than £50bn, or £77bn in today’s money. The deficit which the coalition inherited is much bigger.” What – we owe money? Who knew?
On the subject of who’s to blame for the mess, “For much of the last 30 years, our politicians have promised higher spending, and lower taxes – and we’ve encouraged them.” Correct. The reason our rulers have spent years telling us lies about their ability to create wealth ex nihilo is that we have elected precisely those rulers misguided enough to do so.
But now those lies are finally coming home to roost in a big way – in the form of massive public debt. And the Great British Public is turning its ire on… you guessed it… the government. It’s a bit like Israel blaming a famine on Baal.
Here’s the heart of the problem: our rulers are only people, just like us. They’re not God. So they can print fivers, but they can’t produce real wealth out of thin air. By insisting that they attempt the impossible, we have turned the ordinary men and women who rule us into idols, and now we’re surprised that they can’t save us. Whenever you turn a created thing into an idol, you ruin it.
God has given us the rulers we deserve. We have sown the wind, and now we will reap the whirlwind.
My conscience is clear - 23 November 2011
 |
Here are the exercises to be completed in the week following the fifth tutorial in the Introduction to Christian Ethics course, the new module in the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course.
1. Write brief notes on 1 Corinthians 8-10 (focussing particularly on chapters 8 and 10) to explain how Paul’s example and teaching exemplify the proper role of the conscience in ethical reflection. Some issues to bear in mind may include (but may not be limited to) the following:
- the importance of following one’s conscience;
- the importance of educating one’s conscience;
- the distinction between material sin and formal sin;
- ignorance as a modifier of culpability;
- the distinction between vincible and invincible ignorance;
- the distinction between natural evil and moral evil;
- what one should do in cases of ethical uncertainty;
- whether one should seek to compel someone else to act against their conscience;
- whether, how, and when one should seek to educate another person’s conscience.
Note: I’m not looking for a detailed essay here. Something more conversational in style or a series of bullet points would be fine.
Give me Jesus, not mammon - 22 November 2011
Some thoughts provoked by, or found in, Douglas Jones’s commentary on Luke’s Gospel (Luke 5:1-11).
- “The passage is about overwhelming wealth … too many fish [for the nets to contain] … [Thus] the text provides us with something of an unspoken economic test for the fishermen. Satan has just tested Jesus with the temptation of instant and immense wealth – all the kingdoms of the world, food, and safety. But Jesus resisted instant wealth, Then Jesus actually creates instant wealth in front of these very poor fishermen … This poses a subtle dilemma the fishermen have to respond to.” The astonishing thing, then, is that they “leave everything” (v.11) and follow him.
- Douglas Jones thinks that the sin lying behind Peter’s confession “I am a sinful man” (v. 8) was his (previous, and now abandoned) thirst for mammon, manifested in his endless pursuit of wealth – “we toiled all night” (v. 5). Possible, I guess, but I’m not convinced. Toiling all night isn’t a problem, especially if you’ve caught nothing.
When could Jesus come back? - 22 November 2011
There is all the difference in the world between the following two statements:
- Jesus could come back at any time.
- Thought Jesus could not come at any time, nonetheless when he does come his coming will be unexpected.
Unfortunately, these statements are often conflated in people’s minds, resulting in considerable confusion. Note, however, that the Bible’s imagery of a thief in the night, and Jesus’ warnings to be ready, and so on, do not necessarily imply (1). They only require (2).
HT: MF.
I was afraid, so… - 22 November 2011
|
Here are the exercises to be completed in the week following the fourth tutorial in the Introduction to Christian Ethics course, the new module in the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course.
Consider the following situations, in which fear might inclined a person to do something which, if looked at in isolation, we would consider bad:
- A Christian denies the gospel after being threatened with execution if he refuses to worship Allah.
- A man steals his friend’s car keys to prevent his friend driving home after drinking too much alcohol.
- A Missionary-Pastor abandons his church after he and his family receive threats of violence from members of the local community.
- A homeowner hears a burglar downstairs in the dead of night, attacks him and renders him unconscious.
- A 20-stone weightlifter breaks a child’s arm after the child threatens him in the gym.
- A child joins in with playground bullies after being threatened, “Punch the new kid or we’ll punch you.”
- A Christian child joins in with Halloween celebrations at school out of fear of social ostracism.
- A sailor, fearing an impending storm, throws his passengers’ belongings overboard.
State briefly whether the fear provoked by the perceived threat justifies the action performed in each case. If you think that the action would be justified in some circumstances, but not in others, explain the nature of the circumstances that would make the difference.
Then explain what principles you employed to distinguish between the different situations. You may wish to consider (among others) the following factors:
- What kind of evil the agent fears (moral evil or natural evil);
- The degree of active, studied consent involved at the moment the action is performed;
- The credibility of the threat;
- The degree of proportion between the threat and the action taken.
Note: I’m not looking for detailed essays here. Something more conversational in style, or perhaps akin to a blog post, is fine. If you find it easier to write brief notes rather than continuous prose, that’s fine too.
What magnificent buildings - 21 November 2011
A long time ago I made some notes on R. T. France’s NIGTC commentary on Mark 13. I was reminded about them by a conversation with a couple of friends today, and on the off chance that anyone can understand my idiosyncratic brand of shorthand, here they are:
494-6; v1-2
The end of the temple announced
disciple’s enthusiasm, cf. J: ‘T=doomed!’
v1 significant: ‘As Jesus was leaving the Temple’! Cf. Ezekiel, glory of God leaving!
emphatic ou me + 2x aorist subjunctive
497-505
Ctxt in Mk: climax of growing hostility to J (cf. 495)
Importance of OT refs, missed by many modern ppl
Not ‘apocalyptic’
NTW (not RTF): all of Mk 13 wrt AD 70
SoM coming from God to receive authority
‘change of gov’t’
v30 comprehensible!
RTF: v32f – parousia
change of subject: ‘that day’ (singular, cf. prev plural)
uncertain time ref (cf prev certainty)
cf. Mt, parousia explicit
Traditional view: all about parousia. Reasons:
v24-27, cosmic imagery
‘SoM’ / ‘coming with clouds’ = coming to earth, not heaven.
But in 14:26, ppl increasingly accept Dan / heavenly vindication idea. Why not in Mk 13 too?!
505-8; v3-4
Subject = destruction of temple (v3 tauta; sitting opp temple)
v4: 2 parts of question about same subject (unlike Mt 24:3)
thus disciples concerned over (a) time of destruction; and (b) what sign will allow us to prepare for it
Ans (i): v14, 26, 27, esp 30: ‘this generation’
Ans (ii): hint in v28-9: fig tree, buds
v3: mt of olives: messianic connections (11:1)? Ex 11:23, God abandoning the temple
v4. synteilesthai (to be completed) ds not imply parousia reference, contra Mt. Rather, tauta x2 => same referent
in Mt, the vb appears in a specific (eschat.) phrase, unlike here
508-13; v5-8
Josephus: many false semeia in AD30-70
resulting confrontations = foretaste of AD 70 confrontation with Rome
also wars and natural disasters
telos here ds not imply parousia, but completion
è focus here: disciples mst not be misled by these signs
v6: ‘I Am’ (ego eimi) wrt Messiah, not YHWH (Cf. Mt, ‘messiah’)
many historical examples
Qu: Does throeomai // 2 Th 2:2 hint at parousia reference? (511)
v8: gar, implies further amplification Re: wars etc.
‘birth-pains’ in NT period was a general ref to suffering, not technical term wrt coming of messiah
513-9; v9-13
Interim period: time of proclamation, not passivity
blepete – begins imperatival focus of section. Exhortation.
series of slightly distinct exhortations
v9: direct object of blepete (eautous) personalises and focuses warning
poss progress from Jewish thru Roman persecution?
proclamation concerning Jesus both the cause and the consequence (‘witness to them’) of the opposition
v10: preaching to gentiles b4 temple destroyed
v11: recalls v9 trial scene.
519-30; v14-23
‘When you see’ – introduces more direct answer to question of v4.
‘abomination of desolation’ – reintroduces temple via ctxt of Dan
v17-20 <=> situation leading up to AD 70
Specific historical referent of these events?
(1) profanation of temple; (2) clearly discernible as sign; (3) shortly before Roman seige
v14-16: general 3rd-person refs: therefore warnings directed toward all Judeans, not jst disciples. (cf. also 17-20)
è potential confusion and debate, but not over main flow of discourse
v14: ‘abomination of desolation’ – Dan.
masc. ptcp => ‘(male) god Zeus?
Once in place, ppl mst leave immediately!
Precise identification of AoD uncertain.
v15-19: wrt horrific war in Judea.
v20: siege of Jer lasted only 5 mths
v21-22: period of war and siege offers more opp’s for false messiahs
historical examples
v23: emphatic hymeis => ‘be warned’!
530-40; v24-31
Key verses for RTF’s distinctive view
So far, a full answer to v4 question has not been given
Outline:
v5-8: false ‘signs’
v9-13: digression: difficulties for disciples during intervening period
v14-22: specific sign: AoD, requiring specific response.
v24: contrastive alla highlights new focus of answer, beyond prev. ‘affliction’
24b-27: heavy dependence on OT prophets
24b-25: cosmic language => climactic changes to existing world order
v26-27: SoM comes: arrival of new world order; SoM sends out angels to gather in elect from all nations.
v28-31: answer to second half of v4 question: signs of approaching fulfilment
v28: fig tree parable – ‘be ready!’
v30: Actual time of events: within ‘this generation’
v32f: peri de – another subject
Key to RTF’s view: understand imagery in light of OT prophecy, not later Xn ‘coming of SoM’ = parousia ideas
v24-5: alla not imply change of subject, just contrast in scale of events
‘in those days’ => explicitly the same era of time as prev events: AD 70
cosmic language // in OT prophets: political changes within world history, wrt divine judgment
Shock: applied here to Jerusalem + temple!
v26: With v27, portrays +ve side of new world – the new thing that will come (cf. -ve in v24-25)
Echo Dan 7:13-14: ‘coming of SoM’ to be enthroned before God. A new king!
SoM = Jesus; in dan, SoM represents ‘saints of most high’; thus J receiving power on behalf of his ppl
How is SoM ‘seen’? What ‘evidence’? Ctxt suggests either 1. destruction of temple; or 2. gathering of ppl of God
-ve and +ve sides of same coin: powerful growth of church / SoM now the supreme authority
v27: sovereignty of SoM shown in gathering the elect
‘angels’? either (a) = ‘messengers’, => Xn missionaries, or (b) angels involved somehow in gathering the elect
v28-29: Back to v4 qu: fig tree illn that abomination of desolation / events of v14-22 are sign SoM’s coming
‘Fig tree’ – common nr Jerusalem, also symbol of Temple’s failure in Mk11
‘it’ (v29) = destruction of temple; ‘these things’ mst be before AD70 to serve as signs of its nearness
v30: ‘this generation’ = only a problem for ppl who get text wrong!
temporal sense required by construction of sentence and by v4 question (‘when?’).
alternative readings of ‘this generation’ don’t work
(a) ‘this gen’ = Jew (Jerome). actually argues in favour of RTF!
(b) ‘this gen’ = ‘that gen’, ie those alive at time of v29, understood as future age
Wrong: (i) interpretation of v29 argues against it;
(ii) even if RTF wrong on v29, this interpretation would require ‘that gen’, not ‘this gen’!
(b’) ‘this gen’ = human race in general. It never means this; it would be a misleading way to say it!
(c) ‘all these things’ not refer to events described up to v27.
But ‘these things’ refers to v4 qu, hence destruction of temple. This view requires entirely bad interpretation.
v31: Emphasises truth of J’s pronouncement
541-6; v32-7
Peri de => change of subject. ‘That day’ (singular), contrast ‘those days’ (pl) up to v31
Contra NTW, who argues for same subject
Meaning of ‘that day or hour’:
v33-37 themes are parousia-related.
// themes in Mt, where parousia mentioned
But why change the subject here?
theological connection between judgment on Jer and on world (cf. Mt)
Blepete (v33, cf 5, 9,23) – look for true Christ (cf. prev false christs)
v32: Contrast: time of parousia unknown to J; destruction of Temple entirely predictable
v33: Blepete – summons to vigilance, unlike prev ‘cooling of expectation’ (5, 23) and call to prepare for suffering (9)
v37: Broadens perspective to ‘everyone’ – all must ‘watch!’
Further evidence the parousia is in view – relevant beyond immediate hearers
Isn’t life obvious? - 21 November 2011
If you’re hungry, then eat. If you’re thirsty, then drink.
“Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.” (Matthew 4:4)
“Jesus said to them, ‘I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.’” (John 6:35)
How Calvinists spread good cheer - 18 November 2011
The title of this post is not my own; it comes from the Wall Street Journal, and it’s subtitled, “Charity and predestination go hand in hand.”
No, I’m not joking. Yes, that Wall Street Journal.
Aaron Belz’s article on the charitable work of Pacific Crossroads Church in California contains the following quotation from John Calvin’s commentary on 2 Corinthians, explaining why the Calvinist (and biblical) belief in God’s sovereignty sets us free to be generous to the poor:
“What makes us more close-handed than we ought to be is when we look too carefully, and too far forward, in contemplating the dangers that may occur—when we are excessively cautious and careful—when we calculate too narrowly what we will require during our whole life, or, in fine, how much we lose when the smallest portion is taken away. The man that depends upon the blessing of the Lord has his mind set free from these trammels and has, at the same time, his hands opened for beneficence.”
HT: SJ
And the world is a big place - 17 November 2011
Some thoughts found in and provoked by Douglas Jones on the Gospel of Luke:
- “Jesus, like a priest, ‘laid his hands on every one of them’ and healed them” (p. 78).
- “Jesus’ royal priesthood is grounded in creation, and His goal is to bring about a restoration of creation, a new Eden. … It’s a bit of Eden breaking through. Jesus restores creation person by person” (p. 78).
- “All this kingdom work, all this liberation and restoration, creates a community attaching itself to Jesus” (p. 78). Note v. 42, “the people sought him and came to him and would have kept him from leaving them” – multiple verbal clauses intensifying and emphasising their attachment to their Messiah.
- This is potentially rather significant. The point of Jesus’ redefinition of Israel is that he’s now saying, “If you want to be an Israelite, you need to be attached to me.” The reaction of the people of Capernaum reflects exactly this (correct) instinct. Yet to be attached to Jesus they didn’t need to have him in the body. They needed only to be living within the sphere of his Kingdom. Since they are now living there, Jesus can safely go on to the other towns and preach the good news of the Kingdom there too.
- Jesus’ calling of the first disciples (Simon Peter, James and John, 5:10) at the start of Lk 5 is occasioned by the size of the task that obviously confronts him at the end of Lk 4. “He is only one Son of Man, and the world is a big place. For the kingdom to grow, he needs other royal priests to join him” (p. 79).
A brightly lit fountain - 16 November 2011
Augustine on God: “He is both a fountain and a light: to the thirsty he is a fountain, to the blind a light … God is all of these things to you: if you are hungry, he is bread to you; if you are thirsty, he is water to you; if you live in darkness, he is light to you.” (Quoted in Bavinck, RD 2:102)
Debate: Is the Bible Historically Reliable? - 16 November 2011
Gunnersbury Baptist Church recently hosted a live debate between Kenneth Humphreys, author of Jesus Never Existed, and Dr David Instone-Brewer, Senior Research Fellow in Rabbinics and New Testament at Tyndale House, Cambridge, on the subject, “Is the Bible Historically Reliable?” Watch it online here.
An unsightly reminder - 15 November 2011
“If a man could look into the dungeons of hell, and see the poor damned souls that lie bound in chains of darkness, and hear their cries, what would he be taught?” (John Owen)
« Previous Entries Next Entries »