Many of you know that I've been working through Beale's book The Temple and the Church's Mission. Because of the nature of the study it is a very intense book, which I'll be following up with some more posts in the near future. Nevertheless, I recently came across a great page from our friend Zack Nielson's blog, which, incidentally is the church which he leads worship at.
Beale had a seminar weekend there which he offered some great insights into Understanding Symbolism and how the New Heaven and New Earth equate with the Temple. This is a major premise in the above book I'm reading. As you can see in the picture, he also lists some great resources on the book of Revelation and Biblical Theology...and even download notes on the Temple.
You can access the site by clicking the pic...or here.
April 30, 2008
A weekend with G. K. Beale
If there were an ESPN for Christian blogging...
...it would have to be these guys.
For those of you not familiar with them, its Justin Taylor (left) and Tim Challies (right).
Justin has his blog Between Two Worlds where he basically links-up the top stories going on with respect to Christian blogging, theology, culture, and everything else that fits the bill. I also refer to Justin's blog the CNN of Christian blogging. He's always got good informative stuff that makes you think, which is why I visit there numerous times a day to see the latest post!
At Tim's blog, Challies dot com, there is a slightly different agenda. Tim made it to the big leagues by writing articles that deal with Reformed theology, book reviews, personal reflections and other various topics. You will find a little more personal substance on the items under review. Taylor for the most offers his two cents, Tim usually offers ten cents. Tim's also has a few unique items. One is called the a la carte where be does something similar to Justin's site; offer a few little comments on some interesting links. He also has something called "king for a week." In his own words, "This section allows me to highlight the contributions of other bloggers and to pay tribute to people who have blessed (or even just amused) me through their efforts."
For what its worth I figured since I've been in the blogosphere for close to 4 months now, I'd have a little fun and also let our readers know who the bigger players are.
Colin Gunton: The Role of the Creeds as Mediators of Revelation
As I pointed out in my last post on Colin Gunton's book, "A Brief Theology of Revelation", Gunton is going to survey issues surrounding what he calls the five 'mediators of revelation' for the Christian Church; Bible, creed, church, tradition, and authority. In this first section he focuses in on the historic creeds of the church. In the beginning, Gunton draws on a number of examples from both Scripture and creeds produced by the church and he attributes revelatory characteristics to both, "These affirmations have varying grammatical and logical form. Some describe events, or acts; others the status of those who act or bring about events. Yet for all their diversity, I would claim, simply as they stand, they are, or purport to be revelatory" (Pg.13). He also claims that although they are components of a revealed religion, "..those confessions are not 'static' in the sense of being timeless principles written in stone" (pg. 14).
His point here, as he develops his argument, is not that the historic confessions of the church are true in what they state at one point but not at another, but that creating confessions has always been a practice of God's people (beginning with Israel), and that the way the truths of the Christian faith may be expressed can be dynamic; dynamic in the sense that the way Christian truth is revealed in these confessions may be formulated differently at different points in time. This notion is held in check by Gunton's grounding it in the idea that there is a common thread of truth expressed in these confessions, which affirms the stable basis for Christianity. He suggests this as a way to overcome the modern, skeptical epistemological conceptions levelled against the church. In other words, the varying expressions of the faith throughout history do not suggest a moving or changing basis for Christianity, but rather a series of time-conditioned expressions of what is static; the revealed truth of the Christian faith. All of these confessions, Gunton says, should be attributed revealtory authority, to the degree to which they reflect this continued stable strand, or root, of Christian affirmation.
One point Gunton seeks to make quite forcefully is to deny the common assertion that revelation is an unmediated experience; to bring into question the understanding of revelation that "God does not disclose the something about God, but God" (Pg. 16). He levels this criticism at several points with regard to Barth's theology of revelation; consider this quote from the very beginning of the book,
"The overemployment of the category arose in the course of a proper reaction to the neglect, particularly in Barth's attempts to overcome the epistemological challenges presented him by his predecessors and to allow the God of Jesus Christ to come to rational expression on his own terms. But it was, I believe, an overemployment, and resulted in an imbalance in the systematic structure structure of Barth's theology, as well as in those who were influenced by him."
Later Gunton says that Barth's overemployment of revelation tends to lead other doctrines to collapse into it. Gunton, as an alternative, plans to explore revelation as divine action as opposed to simply self disclosure.
April 29, 2008
May '08 giveaway: signed R. C. Sproul trading cards.
Dr. Sproul has been kind enough to sign 4 of our prototypical theological trading cards for use of promotional giveaway for Christians in Context throughout the month of May.
(Original post Sproul card post, here.)
As with our last promotion, this is a simply thank you to our faithful readers and supporters. While the giveaway doesn't really begin until Thursday, we are allowing early entries. If you sign up today you'll also be eligible for Lawson's book The Expository Genius of John Calvin, which drawing will be held this Wednesday night. ***
Just scroll down in the sidebar and enter your email address and enter the verification code. You'll then receive an email asking to "activate" your subscription. Only those who activate their subscriptions will be entered in the drawing. Note : Your email will not be given or solicited to any third parties. Note: Anyone who has already signed up for our email subscription will automatically entered.
***April give-a-way has ended.
Give-a-way rules:
1 - One entry per email subscribed. You may increase your chances by referring someone. Just send us an email to info [at] christiansincontext [dot] org and include the email of who you referred. If they activate their email you'll receive 3 entries into the drawing. Any blog who displays this on their site will receive 5 entries in the drawing. A post or a link will suffice...email us to let us know.
2 - You must carry an active subscription until the drawing takes place. Any subscriptions that are not verified within 10 days will be deleted.
3 - Free shipping only available within the United States. International winners will receive a $5.00 USD credit toward shipping.
April 28, 2008
Are God and evil compatible?
The above caption is the title of chapter 3 in Hasker's work The Triumph of God over Evil (IVP, 2008). A question for the ages, indeed. Therefore I want to continue my review with a short little summary of chapter 2 and 3. Being there are 8 chapters total I plan on doing a post on each subsequent chapter, with hopes of having Dr. Hasker to join the conversation for clarification, correction, and discussion. I will warn you at the outset that dealing with the types of philosophical argumentation Hasker utilizes you'll need to put your [theo-logical] thinking hat on tightly. Lets move on, shall we?
In chapter 2, Hasker examines the impact that the Holocaust has on the development of a theodicy. He starts off by introducing John K. Roth, a noted philosopher and Holocaust scholar. Then moves on to D. Z. Phillips, a Wittgensteinian philosopher of religion. Roth essentially calls for what he terms is a "theodicy of protest." By this he asserts that one shouldn't even attempt a theodicy in light of the many evils the world has known. It appears that Roth utilizes an interesting theological perspective in regards to what it traditionally regarded as theology proper. Reason being, he goes on to state that in order for God to be "vindicated" from evil, it will largely depend on the "future" of man and the "future" of God. What he means here is that in order for God to 'redeem' himself, he not only needs to offer a radical (good) transformation in the eschaton, but must also repent, as it were, with respect to his allowance (or permission) of evil. As a result it seems that Roth has allowed for an unsubstantiated alternative view with respect to the attributes of God, particularly with respect to his immutability. All in the name of evil.
Phillips also challenges the traditional attributes of God with respect to his omnipotence. He holds the position that God cannot do something that is logically impossible for him to do. Now, this I would agree. But Phillips then goes on to assert that it is impossible and inharmonious for God to "allow" evil to exist, if he is to be morally perfect. Therefore, according to the logic employed by Phillips God cannot be omnipotent, given the fact that he could not, know all things exhaustively. Otherwise if He knew (or knows) evil would happen, and didn't act upon it, the he either knew it and allowed it (bringing his morality into questions), or he didn't know (calling his omniscience into question). Phillips takes the later position.
With that said, I do want to offer that Hasker's does find flaws in each and determines to starts to make his case chapter 4 onward. As a result, the title of chapter 3 is the logical step in the right direction when dealing with the development of a theodicy.
In chapter 3 Hasker starts off by quoting a statement from David Hume regarding God's omniscience, omnipotent, and morality. As stated earlier regarding Phillips position, Hume deems it illogical for evil to exist in conjunction with the three aforemetioned attributes about God. Hasker then moves to what seems to be the answer to this question, the free-will defense. Bear in mind that Hasker does not use chapter 3 to make his argument, only to establish his rendition of the logical compatibility of God and evil.
At this point Hasker seeks to uncover the this compatibility by establishing the nature of free will. He does so by starting with Alvin Plantinga's position. A significant quote by Plantinga is this, "To create creatures capable of moral good, therefore, he [God] must create creatures capable of moral evil, and he cannot leave these creatures free to perform evil and at the same time prevent them from doing so." To this I would have to agree, assuming at the outset that all is good that the creatures in fact possess the ability to choose good (which I would deem was the scenario with Adam and Even before the fall). Hasker then goes on to speak more in depth about the possibilities of a given scenario. He looks at the questions of God's knowledge of Adam and the possible situations in which Adam might find himself, circumstantially. For example, Hasker asks, could God create Adam good with the ability to choose between good and evil, but place him in certain pre-determined situations so as to create an environment that Adam would not sin? He defines these instances as the counterfactuals of creaturely freedom. Ultimately Hasker concludes this as impossible since if God were to create Adam within a particular situation so as to completely prevent Adam from sinning, then in fact Adam was not truly free (or significantly free.)
Hasker then moves on to address the elements of natural evil (hurricanes, disease, etc) and middle knowledge (for more, click the word) and how they affect the arguments for and against. I will not add much of what was discussed here except the fact that Hasker determines natural evil to in fact be logically coherent in the schema God and evil, but denies middle knowledge can really play a factor in the discussion due to the lack of cohesion within the "counterfactuals of freedom" and the alleged "foreknown" determined outcome (more on this later).
Hasker promises at the end of chapter 3 that after establishing the groundwork [in chapters 1-3] he will then move on to voice his argumentation in the subsequent chapters. I promise the subsequent posts to be more interactive and offer more of my [and his] opinion as opposed to simply summarizing the book. I will say this, thus far Hasker has yet to address the biblical data with respect to the apparent tension of this issue. I expect him to do so in the subsequent chapters. Incidentally he does note in the preface that to find a book that deals with the philosophical aspects coupled with a theological response is a rarity. I look forward to the coming chapters.
April 26, 2008
Thoennes, Talley, and Grace EV Free on Romans
Dr. Erik Thoennes (who I t.a. for at Biola) and Dr. David Talley are the primary teaching pastors at Grace Evangelical Free Church in La Mirada, CA, where they semi-recently began preaching through Romans.
I do not attend Grace EV Free, but I listen to sermons from there all the time. Talley and Thoennes are two of the best preachers I know, and not only has my girlfriend (who does go to the church and is dang smart) attested to how good this series has been, but I've begun listening through it and have been both convicted and blessed.
It's the series called "The Story of Redemption" when you click on the link. Enjoy.
April 25, 2008
Radical Worship Defined
Lisa Robinson guest posts on Parchment and Pen on what it means to worship God. I found it thoughtful and biblical and generally in line with thoughts I have had ever since reading D. A. Carson's essay in Worship by the Book (which I could not recommend any higher). The anecdote she presents and her response always reminds me of the "I don't care about your sacrifices if you aren't living obediently" injunctions in the Prophets (e.g. Isa. 1:11-17; 66:3-4; Amos 5:22ff).
The Good News According to Ben Stein?
Maybe it's because my primary employment is as a substitute teacher at two private Christian high schools, but has anyone else noticed that Ben Stein and Christian culture are strange bedfellows?
At at least one of those two schools (and I think at both), teachers are offering extra credit for their students to go see Expelled. In fact it seems that the Christian world more generally is getting giddy about catching academic Darwinism with its pants down. I wonder if the film's subtitle should actually be: "See, all us Christians told you rotten atheists, and we were right!"
Well, maybe not. For one thing, it just isn't catchy. But for another, perhaps we ought to remind everyone that Mr. Stein, a bright fellow though he may be, is not a Christian. And I have not yet seen the film (I plan to when it hits the dollar theater- or does it have special effects worthy of my ten bucks?), but isn't the point not as much that ID is correct, but that academic Neo-Darwinists are pushing out the IDers? Starts to make you wonder why Christian high school science classes are being encouraged in droves to go see a documentary about academic integrity.
But of much greater concern is that we Christians are missing much more than the point of the movie. Stein is a Jew making money by pushing a point about ID vs. Neo-Darwinism in academia. And that's fine. But he is not sharing the gospel. So even if we think he is right, why do we Christians fight battles like this so hard in our culture when we won't share the gospel with our next door neighbors? Which of the two really matters most: the effects of Darwinism, or the effects of sin?
Expelled is certainly not the only time this Christian culture phenomenon has reared its ugly head (cf. all the hoopla about removing the Ten Commandments from courtrooms). So why do we get sucked in to things like this? While it probably is not the only reason, maybe it is that we desire to not only be right, but vindicated as such in the eyes of the larger culture.
The problem is that this is not what we are called to (you may remember that stuff Jesus said about how everyone will hate us for following him) and is potentially dangerous: do we not run the risk of confusing the culture about what matters most to Christianity?
As followers of Jesus, we are called to make disciples, not theists. The gospel is the only way that this can happen. I am not saying that we should not watch or even tell our friends about Expelled. I am not saying we should not engage the culture and discuss ideas. I am not saying that the ID vs. Darwinism debate shouldn't matter to Christians.
I am saying that we need to make the main thing, the main thing. And the main thing is the gospel.
April 24, 2008
Theologian Trading Cards: Anselm of Canterbury
Another highly respected theologian in church history has been given the honor of making our coveted theologian trading cards, Anselm of Canterbury. You may notice that Anselm is on the same "team" as Karl Barth, only he's the manager. The reason for this is based on the tremendous influence that Anselm has on the formulation of Barth's theology.
Many of you familiar with little historical theology are privy to Anselm. He is widely considered the first scholarly philosopher of Christian theology. Perhaps his most notable publication is called Cur Deus Homo (or, Why the God-man?). There Anselm builds a theological framework showing why Jesus Christ, being God, had to become human for the salvation for humanity. The Christian community remains indebted for the work this man had contributed.
The Fidelity of Betrayal: Towards a Church Beyond Belief
Peter Rollins discusses a number of fundamental issues related to our reading of the biblical text in chapter 3 of his forthcoming book, "The Fidelity of Betrayal: Towards a Church Beyond Belief" (Paraclete Press, June 2008). Since he covers a lot of ground relatively quickly, we'll see how well I'm able to work with his presentation.
- Let's try to restate Rollins' argument thus far within a few paragraphs; first, in many cases, the nature in which details are recorded in the biblical text, allows for varied or multiple readings of particular events. In addition, the various, and often conflicting accounts of God and his dealings with man makes it impossible to construe the text as a seamless document describing God and his workings in this world in static terms; this is particularly evident when examining examples strewn all-across the Old Testament. One factor that has disoriented our conception of Scripture, making it very difficult to attend to the details of the biblical text as it actually presents itself, and ultimately truncating fruitful appropriation both personally and corporately, has the been the polarization of views regarding the status of the text; on one side stands the mainstream academic arena, and on the other, fundamentalism. The mainstream academy wishes to assert that, in light of readily apparent historical and ethical inconsistencies in the Bible's presentation of God, the Bible can be no more than a human creation. On the other hand, Fundamentalism asserts that all apparent historical and ethical difficulties can be readily explained by the use of rightly developed historical and exegetical tools, and that the Bible is a seamless, revelatory, and inerrant conceptual presentation of God and his actions in this world; past, present, and future. The problem, Rollins claims, is that both contingents in this debate, both conservative and liberal, develop assessments of the text that rest on rationalistic analysis, and as a result, both prevent the reader from moving beyond truth claims to an encounter with the biblical text. To further the point, Rollins points out that the modern doctrine of inerrancy is largely, if not primarily based on a concern to prove that the Bible is historically and conceptually consistent via rationalistic modes of argumentation.
- Now, to interject in the midst of his argument, I think he is right on this particular point about inerrancy and fundamentalism. The doctrine of inerrancy was originally developed in its modern form during a time when historical-criticism and rationalistic modes of argumentation were extremely influential. Fundamentalist biblical theology, armed with its rationalistic methods of inquiry and the doctrine of inerrancy offered the necessary vehicle for sustaining a place from which traditional renderings of the Christian faith could remain cloistered. While, on one hand, the desire to protect a traditional articulation of orthodox Christianity was certainly commendable, I also think its helpful to entertain suggestion that the primacy of place given to inerrancy may have resulted in the stifling of productive Christian theological renderings. This is not to say that the work of the historically oriented exegete has been fruitless, but is merely to say that the power of Christianity and the Bible itself does not rest in our ability to defend the historical veracity of the biblical text
- Now Rollins himself does hold to the position that the Bible is not a seamless, inerrant document; but he also argues that it is not valid to label the character of the text, either divine or merely historically contingent, on the basis of whether or not one believes it either is or is not consistent with itself. In fact, Rollins suggests that the Bible's varied and therefore imperfect conceptual and historical accounting of God is testimony to the fact textual descriptions of God are not capable of describing perfectly that which is largely indescribable. At one point Rollins argues that our systematic, theological conceptions of God, if we are honest, are more closely related to philosophical construal than a sensitive reading of the Scriptural text. Ultimately, Rollins seeks to reassure the reader that, rather than viewing the inconsistencies in the text as an obstacle to faith, one should actually look to the "fissures" in the text as a testimony to, and gateway towards, the infinite God.
- As a compliment to this reading which is based on an openness to the varied contours of the text, Rollins calls for a pre-modern reading that does not turn a blind eye to critical textual issues, but functions out of a willingness to suspend those issues for a time in favor of a religious appropriation of Scripture. The result of all this seems to be to create a platform from which personal and imaginative appropriations or encounters with the text can take place. It must be remembered that, in light of how Rollins develops his conception of the nature of the text, the type of reading he suggests, if his argument is correct, cannot be a suggested reading, but can only be the required reading; the approach to the text is both static and dynamic. Static in the sense that our conception of the text requires a certain type of reading, but dynamic in the sense that the results that can potentially spring forth are the fluid product of the individual.
- Rollins offers such a radical proposal that I am not sure exactly whether or not, at this early point in the book, I am ready to offer critique beyond what I have already given in the first three installments of my review. What I would ask at this point is that, from my rather crude attempt to reconstruct his argument in a relatively short space, would Dr. Rollins be willing to offer clarification or corrections to my descriptions, and, would Dr. Rollins be willing to describe a practical example or examples, from which the value of this type of reading can be seen? In other words, what does this type of reading facilitate for the individual or the church as a whole; how do you think this reading, as the dominant reading, would manifest itself in the life of the church?
April 23, 2008
Neo-Confederate, Fundamentalist Christianity!
Ok, so two good friends of my wife and I, Matt and Laycee, thought it would be funny to put this bandanna on our 18 month old son, Luke, and Luke, in perfect form, decided to scowl for the picture.Give us some captions for this picture people...I can think of a few, but I'll refrain from alienating anyone for now.
How Christians Ought to Talk About War (or In Defense of Systematic Theology)
My first substantive post on CIC covers something I'm tired of: anti-war Christians (a position I respect) defending their anti-war stance with the simple "Jesus said to turn the other cheek and love your neighbor" argument (and here I refer to people who are anti-war in principle, not just anti-Iraq-war specifically).
The most recent Relevant magazine has a pretty fascinating section where 8 or so prominent Christian thinkers (including Brian McLaren, N. T. Wright, Jim Wallis, Shane Claiborne, and Chuck Colson, et. al.) give their thoughts on various issues in the church and culture. All frustrations with the fact that McLaren has never actually answered a question in his whole life aside ("Brian, do you want to eat at In-N-Out or Chipotle tonight, hunny?" "Dear, you're asking the wrong kind of question- we need to move above these polarizations and look at food in a more inclusive way; we need to form a dialogue between the Mexican and American cultures and the food they produce..."), many of the answers were relatively thoughtful, if a little Christian-culture-trendy. Even a couple of McLaren's "go above the question" answers had some insight that I had to be careful not to immaturely dismiss just because of who they came from.
That said, I was just shocked at how many of these folks wrote off war in a way that came off nothing short of shallow. I constantly read, "Jesus would not have gone to war. Jesus was about peace and love." And of course, they're not completely misreading Jesus- Jesus was (and is) about peace and love.
But then, so is the God who commanded the slaughter of the Canaanites. In fact, Phil. 4 calls that God the "God of Peace." And unless we deny the full deity of Christ and the unity of the Trinity (whether you want to restrict yourselves to those horrible canon-within-a-canon theological categories or not), then we must say that the Jesus who talked about loving your neighbor as yourself also talked about slaughtering the Canaanites. Come to think of it, didn't he get that "love your neighbor as yourself" business from Leviticus (you know, that book in the God-of-Canaanite-slaughter-authored Old Testament)?
My point is this: give Christian just war theorists a little credit. They read the Gospels too. They know what Jesus said about loving neighbors and turning the other cheek. I promise- they aren't skipping that part of the Bible. I am not even really arguing a position; I am arguing that we need to argue better.
So let me suggest a few principles that we need to address/keep in mind for this debate:
1. Don't just say, "Jesus was about self-sacrificial love, so war is wrong." This argument is totally oversimplified, and, as I've tried to say above, is bad systematic theology. Of course, I know systematic theology has fallen on hard times, but you have to reckon with the whole counsel of Scripture on this issue. There's just no way around that.
2. If you do use the "Jesus was about self-sacrificial love" argument, develop it better. Do not just say it and leave it at that. Christian pacifists certainly can appeal to Jesus to argue their point, but not if it is this simplistic. Be thoughtful.
3. Related to the first two, if you are a Christian pacifist, please explain the God-ordained slaughters of the Old Testament. Tell me what pacifism amounts to exactly (was every war in history necessarily evil, or is it only all war now that is necessarily evil?). Further, if you are a Christian just war theorist, tell me how I as a Christian could shoot someone who I am supposed to love and forgive unconditionally. There are difficult questions for both sides, and they should not be written off.
4. Don't start with the Iraq War- there are just too many ins and outs not related to just war theory itself. Start with the theory of a potential just war, attack or defend it, then apply those results and other thoughtful criteria to the Iraq War specifically.
5. Be gracious. This is true of any argument, but this is one of those that gets pretty charged. Just because someone believes in the possibility of a just war does not mean that he is a "shoot first and ask questions later" warhawk. Just because someone is a pacifist he is not necessarily a liberal sissy. Listen to each other.
6. Don't be a reactionary. It's cool to be a Christian Democrat now, probably large in part because people like questioning dominant assumptions. But do not just vote Democrat on an anti-war basis unless you can really honestly defend the position.
7. Don't be unthinking. It's easy to be a Christian Republican, probably large in part because it is the dominant assumption. But do not just vote Republican without thinking about having a consistent ethic of life.
Oh, and the systematic theology thing- I think that might partly be a pet peeve. But I do think this is a good example of a time where jettisoning systematics and "embracing tension" would make Christian ethical decision-making darn near impossible.
On Andrew Faris
Hey folks,
It is a distinct pleasure to have been invited to post on Christians in Context. Norm and I thought it would be good for me to tell you a bit about myself so you know at least a little a bit of what lies behind the new name on this blog.
My name is Andrew Faris. I am 24 years old and unmarried (currently dating a fine woman named Britt, who you can see from the picture is way out of my league).
I graduated in Fall '05 with a B. A. in Biblical Studies from Biola University (thus my connection to Norm) and will be finished this summer with my M. A. in New Testament from Talbot School of Theology. Before you ask, I don't know what is next for me. Maybe just sitting around and blogging if I can't come up with a job.
The Biola professor I t.a. for says that the best way to really get to know someone is to find out what they love and what they hate. I think he's right, so here you go:
I love Jesus, the Bible, theology, music (jazz, folk, indie rock, Johnny Cash) the Los Angeles Dodgers, black coffee, ultimate frisbee and disc golf, dark beer, my pipe, root beer, Chipotle, In-N-Out, and my family, friends, and godly mentors.
I hate my struggle with sin, bad Bible teaching, how afraid to share the gospel I can be, smooth jazz, pop country music, the San Francisco Giants, how slowly I read, grading papers, light beer, vegetables, and my inability to focus during prayer.
There is always more stuff that I could add to lists like this, but I'll end with a quick thanks to Norm, Damian, and anyone who is still reading. I look forward to interacting with all of you.
A New Visiting (and possibly permanent) Blogger on Christians in Context
I would like to introduce our newest addition to the Christians in Context cohort of bloggers; Andrew Faris! Andrew and I attended Biola University together as undergraduate students, and I have come to know and respect Andrew as a great thinker, a good friend, and a committed disciple of Christ. I know our readers will enjoy reading Andrew's lively and creative topical interests and writing style, so look forward to some interesting material from Andrew in the coming weeks. Please be sure to welcome him to our community!
April 22, 2008
Theologian Trading Cards: B. B. Warfield
In our sixth installment of theologian trading cards we're proud to introduce B.B. Warfield (November 5, 1851 – February 16, 1921), based on the 1909 Honus Wagner American Tobacco Card.
Warfield was the principal of Princeton Seminary from 1887 to 1921. In 1887 Warfield was appointed to the Charles Hodge Chair at Princeton Theological Seminary, where he succeeded Hodge's son A. A. Hodge. Warfield remained there until his death. As the last conservative successor to Hodge to live prior to the re-organization of Princeton Seminary, he is considered the last great Princeton theologian before the split in 1929 that formed Westminster Seminary and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.
Click HERE for more on Warfield.
How to use the Law of God effectively in witness.
Our mandate from Christ himself in Mark 16:15 is “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation." Kirk Cameron, former teen heartthrob offers up his rendition of sharing the Gospel. He and Ray Comfort from The Way of the Master have a ministry devoted to evangelism. Glean what you can and share the Gospel.
April 20, 2008
Colin Gunton: Mediators of revelation
The issue of what constitutes revelation has been a topic of significant interest to me in recent times. I can see that there are many different answers to this question depending on the segment of the church it comes from. Coming out of an educational environment that has its roots in historic fundamentalism, the answer to this question has been limited to the Bible itself.
"The heart of our problem is not the proposition, but our tenuous hold on the tradition. Modernity has made doubters of us all, has apppeared to cut such a breach between ourselves and our creedal past that we do not know whether there is a faith once delivered to the saints, or at least whether we may appeal to it. One example will illustrate the point. Recall what Karl Barth said about Anselm's attitude to the creed, recognising as he said it the difference between the ancient and the modern. For his predecessors, as for Anselm, there is an 'objective credo which compels Christian humility before the ratio veritatis that is the presupposition of all human knowledge of heavenly things'. There is, we might say, a revealed religion, a stable set of proposition-like affirmations on which he may base his theological enterprise. 'Anselm always has the solution to his problems already behind him (through faith in the impartial good sense of ecclesiastical authority), while, as it were, they are still ahead.' There is stability for you, and yet not a static stability or one lacking in dynamic, because stability is not the same as inertia. Anselm achieved a theology that was in several important respects an advance on the thought of his predecessors and is still full of insight for the enquirer, and yet he lived in a pre-modern world in which propositional truth was accepted so naively. I labour the point, for it is important. The problem we face is the modern calling in question of the five aspects of the Christian faith that Anselm took for granted: Bible, creed, church, tradition, and authority. The problem is not that the propositions with which we are concerned are static; it is that they have been called into question. And the five aspects set the scene for the remainder of these lectures: authority, Bible, tradition, and church will concern us in future lectures, as mediators of revelation, for that is the problem we face." (pg.12)
What I perceive Gunton to be saying so far is that, first, in the wake of modernity, there is no basis for agreement on what actually constitutes authoritative revelation, and two, that because of this state of affairs, we often find ourselves lacking the ground on which to base constructive and serviceable theological constructs for our modern church. He makes some interesting statements about the creeds as revelation in subsequent pages, but that will have to wait for the next post. Allow me to leave it at this; crystallizing one's stance with regard to revelation, in my opinion, is a necessary foundation from which any productive theological construal of the Christian faith can be achieved. To remain mired in epistemological questions is the death of true Christian theology as a revealed faith.
The Triumph of God over Evil: an open theist's perspective.
I was given a copy of the book you see to the right by InterVarsity Press in hopes of offering a some feedback and consequently some publicity for the book. To be honest, I wasn't planning on starting to work through this book for another few months, seeing as I was and am still eager to grapple with Beale's book on the Temple. But after I did a little research into who William Hasker was about and what his previous works had been, I discovered something unique about his theological position. He's a self confessed open theist. For those not familiar with this concept it is the belief that God does not exercise meticulous control of the universe. Rather he leaves it “open” for humans to make significant free will choices that impact their relationships with God and others. A corollary of this is that God has not predetermined the future.
Now I'll be honest, I've only really heard one person who was an open theist speak of their views. It was a debate between James White and John Sanders. Though I haven't heard this debate in about 3 years, so my recollection is quiet dim. However I am familiar with the concept and have read articles pertaining to this doctrine from an evangelical standpoint. Nevertheless, the fact that Hasker, who incidentally is a philosopher, had undertaken the task of offering a theodicy, I simply had to dig in.
Now I've just finished chapter one which basically offers a summary and starting point for what and how Hasker plans on addressing. Therefore for the purposes of this post I'm simply going to lay out his plan for you and offer some comments and expectations I have going forward.
Hasker first starts off by noting the nature of the arguments from a somewhat different perspective. His purpose of the book is to offer some answers to the argument from evil. This 'from' he defines as "arguments that claim to show, on the basis of the world's evil, that this evil is either logically inconsistent with the existence of God or, failing that, provides compelling reason to disbelieve in the existence of such a being." Hasker then goes on to make reference to the nature of whom is carrying the argument. That is, whether it be from the atheist or from the theist. He rightly states that for the atheist who is considering the argument for the lack of consistent evidence for the existence of God on the basis of evil, that the atheist has no real ramifications from his argument. There are no consequences to his rationale since arguing against God offers no shift in his original position. Hasker then makes reference to how differently this argument is for the believer. Clearly the outcome for them will be much more considerable. He says, "for the theist a successful argument from evil may for the abandonment of a cherished belief system, or it may have the result that the person continues to believe but does no in such a way that his or her doxastic [belief] structures lacks coherence and is threatened with internal collapse."
After this Hasker shows how the evidence for the acceptance for the arguments can shift based on the two considerations, the existential and the philosophical. By existential he means, personally experiencing evil, and philosophical he refers to making abstract concepts adhere to rational thought. He notes how C. S. Lewis dealt with the nature of evil quite differently when writing The Problem of Pain and A Grief Observed. Noting that Lewis wrote the latter after he experienced evil firsthand with his wife dying of cancer.
It is at this point that Hasker introduces his theological position which he plans on utilizing to defend the historically accepted attributes of God (all powerful, all knowing, all loving). There is no beating around the bush, Hasker candidly admits that he is an Open Theist. This, Hasker feels, is the only position that can offer a credible argument for the existence of evil and God as all powerful, etc. To his credit, Hasker he does do a good job at accurately presenting the evidence for the "classical theistic" position. That is, the attributes of God as generally accepted in the teachings of Augustin, Aquinas, and Calvin. However his initial arguments that God willingly set aside and restricted himself in order to allow for a more genuine relationship between his creatures remains suspect. Hasker writes, "...God has not chosen to do this [unilaterally control everything] but has instead bestowed upon his human creatures a genuine power to make decisions of their own, including decision as to whether or not to cooperate with God's loving purposes toward them." He goes on to say, "This creates a real possibility of tragedy in the world, as our actual history illustrates all to vividly..."
Now, let me say that I believe this to be a topic of great importance and deserves the attention of every believer. How we as Christians understand the nature of evil and how it relates to God is of the utmost importance. However, at the outset I do feel I'm can suspect where and how Hasker plans on addressing these items. The rationale has pretty much been set forth. If God does not govern all events in the sense that he offers control and stability to existence, and man is ultimately free in the libertarian aspect, then of course evil can happily co-exist in our world, or any world for that matter.
In conclusion, though I feel I might know where Hasker is going with all this, I am quite curious to hear his argumentation and plan to interact further in subsequent posts. The reason why I offered up as much in this post is because I felt it necessary to lay some ground work to Hasker's endeavor. That way as I follow up with some succeeding thoughts the reader can have a good basis for my interaction, and possible argumentation.
April 18, 2008
Theologian Trading Cards: Tony Jones (Our First "Rated Rookie"!)
Regardless of where you stand with regard to postmodernity, the Emergent Movement, or the views of Tony Jones himself, no one can deny that Tony Jones has been, and continues to be an influential figure in the modern (or perhaps postmodern) church. He is the national coordinator of the Emergent Village, a doctoral fellow at Princeton Theological Seminary, and a prolific writer who regularly speaks in a variety of venues all across the nation.
Tony Jones also tends to be a figure who draws controversy; Christians in Context happened to find itself engaged in a bit of controversy with Tony Jones a couple months ago, when our co-blogger, Matthew Wilcoxen decided it was necessary and appropriate to address a challenge that Tony put forward on Scot McKnight's blog, Jesus Creed. Here was Tony's challenge:
"Sadly, this is happening more and more to me, and I continue to offer the same challenge: Will someone please show me where, in print, I have said something that is outside of classic, historic orthodoxy. I may not be evangelical, as it’s been defined over the past 150 years, but I’ve never claimed to be an evangelical. But surely Christian orthodoxy is much broader than modern evangelicalism. Was Augustine orthodox? Luther? Aquinas? Hildegard?"
Matt responded to this challenge; to read it, Click Here
For those of you who chose not to read Matt's post, below is a key quote from a paper that Tony Jones presented at Wheaton, which caused a great deal of controversy:
"My "paper" went for a bit over an hour, then there were about 40 minutes worth of questions before Vince Bacote and I finally had to cut it off. I'll likely publish a version of that paper somewhere, sometime, so I'm not ready to give it all away here. But, the gist of it was that I said that orthodoxy doesn't "exist." Instead, orthodoxy is an event, in the Derridean/Caputoean sense. That is, orthodoxy happens when human beings get together and practice it (talk about God, worship God, pray to God, write books about God, etc.). There's no orthodoxy somewhere out there that one can point to and say, "See that? That's orthodoxy. That's what we're trying to get to."
At the time when this exchange originally occured, Tony Jones responded that although Matt's post was a bit 'mean spirited', he felt the response was substantive, and was worthy of a response. Thus, Tony Jones also promised that he and Scot McKnight would be co-writing a paper that explains the "nature of orthodoxy." Since then, just recently actually, Matt and Tony had the chance to correspond via email, and Tony assured Matt that a response was forthcoming. Stay tuned for this paper, it should be interesting to interact with Tony and Scot's presentation.
For those who might be interested in taking a look at Tony Jones' blog, along with some of the other major figures in the Emergent Movement, I have included a list of links,
Tony Jones, Click Here
Brian McLaren, Click Here
Peter Rollins, Click Here
LeRon Shults, Click Here
Dan Kimball, Click Here
There are many more blogs I could link, but these are a few to get people started who want to engage with some different streams of thought. If you want more, consider the series of links in our sidebar.
And finally, Tony, I know you're a baseball fan and used to serve as an umpire, so I hope you appreciate the gesture in good fun!
April 17, 2008
Some intriguing links..
The folks at caver 319 pointed me to a lecture from G. K. Beale on the book I'm currently reading The Temple and the Church's Mission (here).
Ben Myers talks about his experience with Logo's new electronic edition of Karl Barth's Church Dogmatics (here).
Ligonier's new blog is offering some podcasts from the Together for the Gospel conference, here is one of Sproul's messages (here).
Our friends at Theology Unplugged have a good discussion on nature of slavery and polygamy (here).
Andrew Jackson offers some advice on how to engage in politics as a Christian (here)
Michael Spencer (the internet monk) speaks to the issue of persecution among American Christians (here) (cf. here).
...and finally....
Joe Carter offers some humorous advice on how to pick a preacher (here).
Hot and Cold: some thoughts on my journey through atheism...
About the same time my brother Chris came to know the Lord in 1999, I declared myself to be an atheist. Incidentally, no one really saw my desertion from God as a shock, mainly because of my lifestyle during those times (which I will come back to in a moment). But my main reason for beginning to abandon my Catholic upbringing had to do with my brother getting saved. His influence and radical transformation had a big impact. I used to say to friends and family, "Well, if there is an Christian out there, my brother is one of them and I am not." So in the beginning of my journey I stopped pretending to be something I wasn't. To my credit, then, at least I was honest enough to be honest.
As this happened, things began to erupt in my family. The two closets brothers (of 3) met each other at polar opposite with respect to their religious beliefs, something that became a major burden to everyone we knew. On the one hand Chris was preaching Christ crucified, and on the other, I publicized the notion of a Godless world. Now the negative implication were major battles of belief and disbelief; dissension grew enormously between my brother and I. But in the positive, it forced my mother and other brother (along with my grandparents and absent father) to wrestle with the question of life and death. I said above that I was raised Catholic. In my home there was no real ethics to deal with, only that which was approved by the family and the local community. And if you did do something slightly more heinous, then the occasional trip to church and the confessional took care of the ol' conscience as well as societal perception. Which goes to show that religion in my family was more apart of our heritage than anything else. But when Chris and I went to both extremes, it compelled everyone to evaluate their own perception of the meaning of life and eternity.
Now, I by no means thought critically about the scientific or philosophical arguments against Christianity, only the ramifications of a life without God. Which ultimately I was using as a conscience buffer to substantiate my lascivious lifestyle. And as bad as this was, God used it as a tool to bring my subsequent family member to Christ. Allowing them to consider how and why a godless person in the truest sense could or would be saved. You can imagine the reaction; it made everyone consider it even more.
The reason I'm sharing this is to encourage our readers of the impact that each one of you have, that you may or may not be aware of. We all have unbelieving friends and family members and whether you know it or not, when you let your (His) light shine, it does make a difference. Sometimes in the beginning it may seem bad, like in the case with me. But consider my testimony, or more importantly, think about what God did for Saul of Tarsus (the Apostle Paul)...
I pray that each one of us would not grow faint of heart, but that we trust in the sovereignty of God in salvation praying each day for the lost souls of our friends and families.
April 16, 2008
The Fidelity of Betrayal: Towards a Church Beyond Belief
I just finished the second chapter of Peter Rollins' forthcoming book, "The Fidelity of Betrayal: Towards a Church Beyond Belief" (Paraclete Press, 2008). Dr. Rollins makes some challenging assertions in this chapter as he offers a few points for comparison between Judas and Abraham; first, he points out that both men were divinely chosen to carry out a murderous task, that both are required to sacrifice one to whom they are intimately connected, and that both displayed the willingness to carry out the injunction. The only difference, Rollins explains, is that Abraham receives Isaac back, while Judas does not receive Jesus back because Judas commits suicide before this could have happened. Ultimately, Rollins claims, the diffeerence between Abraham and Judas is not in what they did, but in how they are perceived. Rollins claims that the Christian theological grid is the basis for this perceived difference, not the text itself.
Now I have couple thoughts here, both positive and negative for Rollins. First, I think his comparison of Abraham and Judas rests on his reading of the events surrounding Judas in the first chapter. For those of you who have read my review of chapter 1, you already know that I find his reading of the text, and more specifically, his reading of the events surrounding Judas, to be an unlikely option. For those of you who have not read my reasoning, it basically runs as follows; Rollins reads the New Testament text without considering the wider cultural milieu that New Testament scholars draw on from available literary evidence (i.e. the Old Testament and other ancient Jewish texts from that general time period). This is important is because it gives us a clear idea of what Jewish eschatological belief (Jewish belief about God's final consummation of all things) entails, and provides a much more plausible reading of the events surrounding Judas' betrayal. It is a reading based on a wide variety of evidence drawn from primary source materials, and not an act of mere creativity. I think, at the very least, Rollins would do well to address the problems that the sythesis of this literature poses for his thesis. In any case, I would recommend that one read my review of chapter 1 before weighing the arguments for oneself.
At the same time, I must applaud Rollins for his continued sensitivity to the biblical text. Consider the following quote:
"To be a biblical literalist means that one attempts to attend to the text as it stands before us rather than importing foreign ideas, regardless of how obvious they may seem. In this way I wish to steadfastly affirm biblical literalism; I wish to stand side by side with the Christian fundamentalist who demands that we let the text speak for itself. Of course I also wish to be informed by the scholars who engage in biblical criticism. But this does not in any way stand opposed to the attempt to attend to the text as we have received it in its final form."
Rollins makes his point with several potent examples, drawing on the Old Testament, while delving into the issue of Old Testament ethics. Now, I am not an Old Testament scholar, and I will be the first to admit that several of the examples he raises represent a very close scrutiny of details, and require rather complex explanations. This is one point where the force of his argument is felt. At the same time, I can't help but question the presupposition he uses to support the line of questioning. Dr. Rollins goes on to assert that for one to explain ethical questions that arise from the narrative on the basis of God's all-encompassing authority or sovereignty, is to wrongly import philosophical constructs into one's reading of the text. Consider the following footnote:
"The idea of God as a being who is unchanging, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent and thus always right is more of a philosophical rendering than a biblical one. In metaphysical theology God is thought to be the perfect being, and perfection is related to the realm of total knowledge, total power, total presence, and absolute oneness. In contrast, the God we encounter in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures seems much more dynamic and messy."
Many of us would simply say, I think, that to reject God's all-compassing authority, sovereignty, and ethical privilege as God is simply unacceptable; I am inclined to do so myself. I think the apostle Paul would agree with this assessment, and Romans 9 seems to provide evidence enough to support this. At the same time, it is not easy to develop ethical synthesis from the varied texts of the Old Testament without significant analysis and interpretive synthesis. I also question whether or not Rollins' call for such a breed of literalist reading is realistic; if one must avoid any synthesis in order to claim that one's reading is a literalist reading. This makes me wonder, if one is to adopt the idea that the conception of God in the Old Testament is messy, inconsistent, and somewhat incoherent, just how he intends to develop a conception of God that's not a "still birth." In other words, how does he intend to develop a conception of God that's worthy of dedication and worship. Not suprisingly, it seems, based on an examination of the table of contents, that the second major section of this book was written to address this issue.
April 15, 2008
A Friendly Reminder
This is just a friendly reminder to our readers and visitors that there are now just 15 days away from the end of the FREE BOOK GIVEAWAY. Since we announced the giveaway on March 30th we've had 19 people enter the contest; which means that if you enter today your chances are actually very good.
You may also notice that we have a new addition to the site in the side bar, the THEOLOGICAL WORD OF THE DAY. We are co-sponsoring this endeavor with Reclaiming the Mind Ministries. So be sure to sign up for our word of the day and expand your theological vocabulary!!!
Random Norm Update: Looking Ahead
Some of our regular readers may have noticed my absence from our scene over the past few days, so I thought I would offer a bit of an update. Over the past weekend, as the college pastor of Cornerstone Church of Long Beach, I co-lead a group of about 50 for a major outreach event to a very poor community in Mexico. I first went to the community and met some of the local pastors about 2 months ago, and we have been coordinating with them since then, leading up to a variety of events of last weekend. Quite frankly, my encounter with this community and their daily conditions has remained with me since I first went there, and it continues to weigh heavily on my heart (I will share some pics, details, and reflections in the next couple days once I get resettled back home).
Secondly, I plan to continue my review of Peter Rollins's forthcoming book, "The Fidelity of Betrayal: Towards a Church Beyond Belief" (Paraclete Press, June 2008). Look for some interaction by Peter Rollins himself as the review progresses.
I am also planning to release the next theologian trading card this week and begin a second book review in tandem with the current one. I plan to start working through Colin E. Gunton's 1993 Warfield Lectures on revelation, which have been put together by T&T clark in the book, "A Brief Theology of Revelation" (1995).