Great Things Seen...

I sent this out to our core team at Jacob's Well...thought it might be of some encouragement here on the POCBlog as well.

------------------------------------------------------------------

One sees great things from the valley, only small things from the peak.

- G. K. Chesterton

Today, I ran across this quote from an author which has long inspired me and provoked much thought in the soul. It reminded me again of the beauty and the hope of our task ahead as those who are digging Jacob's Well here in central Jersey.  Hope is an interesting thing indeed.  It is mocked by the cynic, it is made an idol by the naive, yet remains the ingredient of life that we cannot live without. During a time of public celebration and transition in American today, hope is at the forefront.  Hope for change, hope for a better economy, hope for peace in a world of terror. 

For follower's of Jesus our hope is always in a different place.  It is not in our money, it is not in our success, it is not simply in human leadership and it does not live in pollyannaish optimism.  Our hope is in someone, yes.  Our hope is in his future, yes. Our hope is optimistic because we trust in the character and love of God seen fully in the face of Jesus Christ.

This past Sunday I read quickly a passage from Romans 15 - it is a verse we will very much live together in 2009. Here is the passage in context:

We who are strong have an obligation to bear with the failings of the weak, and not to please ourselves. 2 Let each of us please his neighbor 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. 5 May the God of endurance and encouragement grant you to live in such harmony with one another, in accord with Christ Jesus, 6 that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. 7 Therefore welcome one another as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God.

Here is our road Jacob's Well - to live for God's glory, for the good of our cities, townships and neighbors, to love and laugh deeply as a church family and through the encouragement of the Scriptures find our hope.  This past weekend we encouraged one another, welcomed new friends and with one voice sought to honor our God.

As we are an embryo of a church, we are growing.  As we sojourn together in our time and place we cannot help but look up from the valley to see great things ahead. As God looks down on our lives, our struggles, our quarrels, our pains...he knows that we are small.  Yet he calls our vision upward and outward and gives us dreams. 

I am thankful today after watching the inauguration of our new president; I am even more thankful for the King who was inaugurated with a crown of thorns. He is risen and now guiding his people to his Kingdom which will have no end.  As we sojourn in America, let us give thanks today for the nation we possess. Yet let us never waver in our hope in Jesus; for in him we find our greatest longings, purest worship and the true home for our souls.

This week we'll sojourn back to the Thomas' house. We will finish Daniel 1 this week by "Sojourning in the Grace of God."  Should be great.

Love to each of you,

Reid S. Monaghan

Gospel Diamond

To visually represent the broad story of the good news Jesus last week I started scribbling before going to speak at Rutgers Cru. One of the core values/identities of Jacob’s Well is that we desire to be a gospel centered people.  That our lives, our community, our flow as people would be found in the story of a redeeming God pursuing people and bringing them back into relationship with himself and all things. The centrality of Jesus life, teaching, death on a cross for sin and resurrection for our justification (declared forgiven before God) should be the core reality that we live.  This story of redemption is one of the great clues to the fabric of reality in the universe. 

Anyway, I wanted to represent this story visually in a way that shows both the darkness and glory of the cross of Christ, that honors the full historical and futurical sweep of redemption and to show mad love to the visual learners.  Because I think it is sad that people make them read and don’t provide enough pictures.  So here’s to you Mr. downcast visual learner guy, this pics for you…

To be honest this diagram sort of happened while scribbling and then I “saw” after the fact some cool things which could be communicated using this.  Anyway, I’ll explain as we traverse through the diagram.  It reads left to right, no offense to the right to left readers…

To see a slightly larger version of this diagram, you can click here

Creation

We begin by drawing a dot which represents the beginning of all space and time.  The Scriptures teach and scientific reasoning accords that the universe began to exist in the finite past.  God spoke the world, the stars, galaxies, plants, animals, all the elements into existence.  As the crown of creation he creates men and women in his image and likeness to rule creation with him as his stewards.  The creation was in rhythm and God and people were in harmony and order.

Fall

The next line is drawn downward and dark.  The Old Testament teaches us that the first human beings, in direct contradiction to their creator, disobeyed him and reaped the consequences on the world and the human race.  The Christian teaching of the fall of humanity is established in the Old Testament in the first three chapters of Genesis.  As a result of our rebellion, God brought a state of decay upon creation and human beings.  The results are devastating.  Each person sins against God by nature and by choice.  We are guilty before our creator for our rebellion and as a result of sin, all people die, though we act like we will live forever. The consequence of human sin has translated into a world which is not a paradise, but rather a war zone full of disease, human atrocities, natural disasters, and our separation from God and each other.   Yet God did this in hope, (Romans 8:18-30) for his plan was just beginning.  Though we had sinned, in love God set about to forgive and restore.  He would win back a people from the curse and vindicate his name which had been dishonored by the very creatures he had created.

Covenant

Even though things had grown dark, the promise of God redeeming the world was given just after the sin of the first human beings. A promise was made that the offspring from a woman would one day crush the head of the serpent and restore the broken world.  This blue dotted line is the line of redemption that God began to weave into creation.  Even though at times it seems a bit dark in this world, God is constantly at work in the course of redemption. The plan included many people and nations, many hundreds of years and a complex matrix of events and signposts.  His plan would find its fullness when God himself, incarnate as the second Adam, the person of Jesus of Nazareth, would pay the final price for sin and bring us back into relationship with God.   This drama unfolded throughout the Old Testament and was ultimately fulfilled in the New Testament.  It unfolds on various continents, centered in the Promised Land, through various covenants by which God invited people back into relationship with himself.  This was all extended by grace, a free gift from God who offers peace to those who now live at war (either passively or aggressively…or passive aggressively) with him.

As God worked to redeem a people throughout history, he did so by making promises, or establishing covenants with people.  Seeing the whole of redemptive history, particularly the Old Testament, through the grid of the unfolding of the covenants is very helpful.

History marched forward under the direction of God until the arrival of what the Scriptures describe as the fullness of time.  Of this time, the book of Galatians tells us a beautiful truth:

4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.

Yes, the fullness of time had come.  God the Father had sent God the Son into the world as a fulfillment of all of God’s covenant promises over the ages.  His coming was foretold by prophets, his work unfolded in the covenants, and his love would fulfill the hearts of his people.  And a cross was waiting for him.

The Cross - The Paradoxical Jewel of our Faith

It was a fortuitous event of providence that I drew lines “UP” for the work of God in promising to save his people and a line “DOWN” to indicate the fall.  For both arrive at a cross, both the brightest moment and the darkest hour of history.  For in the one event God the Son saves the world and at the same time, the Roman government murders him.  Acts 2:22-24 shows this complexity of the crucifixion of Jesus:

“Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know— this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it.

This simultaneous paradox is the crown jewel of our faith and the lines will soon form a diamond, the most precious of jems. The Kingdom of Jesus came with the crucified King and now continues through all the people that he saves and redeems.

Redemption

From the darkness of Jesus’ abandonment and execution comes his resurection whereby life is proclaimed to forever conquer death.  Our own lives that are stained with sin and separation from God can be transformed when we hear the gospel message.  When we hear of the love of God expressed towards sinners through Jesus’ death on the cross we are called to repent (change our minds and turn away from) of our sin and receive his forgiveness by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8,9). The gospel teaches us that Jesus died a death that we deserve, his death for sin.  Additionally, he lived the life we cannot live, a life without sin.  By placing our trust/faith in him we receive forgiveness and pardon from God for our sins and are counted righteous before God in him. In Jesus we are brought back into relationship with God and given eternal life as the gift of a gracious and loving God. We are then transferred from a dark path into the path of redemption and mission in the world. We intersect with eternity on Jesus’ mission which is manifesting and ultimately bringing into fullness the Kingdom of God.

Mission

Jesus is constantly on mission in the world to seek and save the lost and manifest his rule and reign on the earth through his people.  We join this two fold mission by proclaiming good news so that people, sinful people like ourselves, experience the saving power of Jesus as he saves people and places them in his church.  The church then represents and manifests a different Kingdom than the Kingdoms of the earth serving as a display of God as a counter cultural community of hope and love.   Redeemed people on mission in the world…heading towards an ultimate and final consummation of the Kingdom awaits.

Kingdom 

[Quick TheoNote: The diagram here represents a person’s existential connection to the Kingdom, not when the Kingdom begins “in time” - the appropriate temporal “beginning of the Kingdom” would be during the incarnation.  See Mark 1:14,15 - “The Kingdom is at hand” - the diagram here shows how the mission of Jesus through the church connects people to the Kingdom - this happens when someone is redeemed and transferred from the Kingdom of Darkness to the Kingdom of Jesus (See Colossians 1).  I am also using “simple” eschatology and making no comment on those issues…only that the Kingdom comes with Jesus and people are connected to it through his mission and the redeeming work of the cross.]

The final destination for the people of God is the coming fullness of the Kingom of Heaven, the kingdom where the rule and reign of Jesus is full and final.  All sin and evil will ultimately be eradicated and we will live eternally in a realm sans disease, war and death.  It will be a reality where God wipes away all tears and his presence will illuminate existence fully for all time. The feeling we have in this age of things not being quite right will surprisingly be lifted and the souls of men will finally be at peace.  All those who repent and believe and follow the resurected Jesus will live forever with him, those who refused to believe, chose themselves as their own god, who did not trust and follow him will remain in their sins outside of his Kingdom forever.

This view has a few things which I find commendable. First, it has the cross of Jesus central to the gospel.  Second it has redemption occupying the scope of all history not simply a few moments.  Third, it acknowledges the church’s role as an in-breaking of the Kingdom into this present reality with good works and doing justice manifesting that reality.  Finally, it keeps the short gospel, Jesus died in the place of sinners as their substitute, to save us from sin, death and hell as the central message the church proclaims. At the same time that message is proclaim from the church who live as servants to the world, fellow sinners and sojourners on the road to the heavenly city…a Kingdom which will be realized fully by God and not human beings.

All is made possible by the cross of Christ, the diamond of our faith.  Whereby God is seen most clearly by suffering and giving his life for those he loves and saves.  This diamond, much like an engagement ring, declares God’s promised love for his people, which will end on a great wedding day where Jesus the bridegroom, and his bride the church, will party together to enter into eternal communion at the end of this age.

Thoughts?

The Gospel

Over the past several years I have been thinking through how the term gospel is used in the Bible.  It has a narrow form and a broad meaning in the Scriptures.  The narrow, and very true form, is represented by texts such as 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 which reads:

Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures...

This is clearly the gospel of the church that followed Jesus on his mission into this world after his resurection.  However, the gospel has a broad form that requires much more context of understanding that a mere few sentences, points or laws.  One rather jarring passage in the New Testament that points to the broader story in Scripture being called "the gospel" is found in Paul's letter to the churches in Galatia. Now don't misunderstand me, the gospel Paul preached, and the Galatians are reminded not to abandon, is the apostolic preaching summed up in 1 Corinthians 15.  Yet in Galatians three we find a wonderful indication that this gospel has a much more looming history (and future) than some acknowledge:

O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith— just as Abraham “believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”? Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.

So in some very true and profound way Abraham had the gospel preached to him in the Abrahamic covenant; the promise God made to Abraham that in him, all the nations should be blessed. So the gospel holds as its pinnacle jewel, the death, burial and resurection of Jesus for sinners.  This jewel is the center of the gospel and the center of history; but the good news has a much broader historical and futurical (future history) scope.

In communicating this story many have taken the tact to present the gospel in a narrative form. Something which does not talk very long to communicate. Here is my simple attempt...if you read it aloud you will find that it does not take very long at all:

I would summarize the gospel as the story of the one Creator God, making all things, space, time, matter, energy in order to display his nature to his creatures.  God created human beings in his own image and likeness to know him, love him, and reflect his character in the world to one another for their joy and his glory.  Our first parents then gave God the proverbial Heisman, choosing to live life their way rather than God’s way.  They turned away from God and his provision for them, disobeying his commandments and thereby bringing fracture in their relationship with God, one another, and creation.  God in his grace set about to redeem a people back to himself and has pursued us throughout history to this end.  He promised in the very early days to send a human being, a seed of a woman to bring people back to God, reconciling them to himself and all things (Gen 3:15).  Throughout history he communicated with us and connected with us through prophets, men called to speak God’s message to humanity.  He made covenants with his people that would culminate the in his sending of his own Son to the earth.  He would be a Jewish person, the offspring of Abraham (Gen 12, 15).  He would fulfill God’s commandments perfectly satisfying the demands of the law completely and live without sin (Heb 4.15).  He would be a king to his people (2 Sam 7) guiding them into a life of love, joy and peace.  He would teach us the truth, show us perfected humanity, and ultimately die to pay the penalty for our own rebellion and sin.  This person, Jesus, gave his life for us in what Martin Luther called the great exchange.  Our sin was placed on him as he took our deserved judgment and punishment by dying on a cross.  We then receive his righteousness, a favor and good name before God the Father (2 Corinthians 5.16-21).  We are thereby forgiven, brought back into relationship with God, our guilt is removed, God’s wrath no longer is upon us, and we now become his followers and agents of reconciliation in the world.  We receive all of this by his grace; none of it is earned by our works or actions.  God will someday bring his kingdom in fullness where Jesus will completely and finally bring an end to all evil and usher in an eternal age of life and peace for all who follow him.  Those who persist in rebellion against God will face his justice for all which was done in this life.  

Of course more could be said than I have here, but the essence of the broader gospel story is there.  As a guy who did not come to faith until I was almost 20, seeing the big picture of God's work in the gospel has been very helpful to me understanding what God has done, has promised, is doing and will do in the eschatology.

In my next post here I will share a little diagram we came up with last week when speaking to college students and our little church here in New Jersey.  I hope it may give you great appreciation for the gospel and a compassion to connect God's story with others who may be interested in the hope that we have (1 Peter 3:15).

Whence Natural Theology

Some theo-geeks out there may be aware of the continental theological megaclash between Brunner and Barth in the 20th century over the place of "natural theology" in coming to a knowledge of God.  Now what is meant by natural theology is coming to a knowledge of God without special revelation - to form a view of God only form nature and reasoning.  Brunner advocated some form of this...Barth just yelled NEIN! A friend of mine and I were kicking it around a bit through e-mail and I found his thoughts clear and helpful. B&B here refers to Brunner and Barth. Emphasis is mine...

I couldn't work in one important criticism of B&B's language: they use the terms natural revelation, natural theology, and natural religion interchangeably.  I would use these terms to refer to different ideas and I think B&B use them to refer to different things....which makes B&B much harder to understand!

If God reveals himself cosmologically (in creation) , anthropologically (in humans), and Scripturally, the non-Scriptural means we call natural revelation.  Natural theology we could then define as any enterprise that places what we know about God from natural revelation on par with (above or foundational to) what know about God through Scripture.  I accept natural revelation; I reject natural theology. 

Biblical theology or let's just say theology takes Scripture as the starting point for knowledge of God and allows natural revelation a secondary and peripheral place.  We can think about God through natural revelation because we, though still in a fallen and thus humble state, can examine natural revelation in light of God's definitive self-revelation (Jesus in Scripture).  When we approach non-believers then with theistic arguments we are recognizing two things: (1) that belief in god is not equivalent to belief in God (Ex 20.2-3 & John 20.28), and any knowledge of God that takes natural revelation as the normalizing knowledge of god is idolatry. However, (2) those in whom the Spirit works will begin to recognize Him in his handiwork and when they hear true knowledge of God, in whatever form it has come to them, they will yield to it.

In other words, God reveals himself through natural revelation (transmitters of his Glory), but the receivers (our knowledge of God through them) are broken.  God's megaphone to the world falls on deaf ears.  Actually, no, God's natural revelation falls on twisted ears that turn knowledge of God into gods of our own design.  We justify our existence through them, though they come to dominate us.  Without the Spirit speaking through the lens of Scripture all knowledge of God is idolatry.  We thus stand condemned.  When we take the Scripture as our starting point we can use natural revelation as a secondary form of knowledge of God.  Some in whom the Spirit is at work will begin to recognize God through natural revelation, but we are people groping in the dark.  God might (may it be so!) use natural revelation to destroy false idols, to make us uncomfortable in our captivity to them, to prod us, and to prepare the way for true knowledge of Himself. 

So, yea, I agree!  Natural revelation has a place in evangelism: a pointer to our foundation, light, shepherd and sum of all things, King Jesus...

Back to work...

Knowing the Way...

Over the past few weeks our core group at Jacob's Well has been asking some simple questions as we start our work to establish a new church in central New Jersey.  How do we begin to establish a community which will live for the glory of God and the good of the city by extending hope through the gospel of Jesus Christ.

In order to walk in the way of Jesus we are pausing right at the beginning to look at some important questions.

• First, if this is Jesus' church we need to know clearly who he is...he is the Christ, the one promised to be our prophet - to bring us the message of God, he is a great priest - reconnecting us to God and he is our great King - our leader in this life and the age to come. Furthermore, this "Christ" is the Son of God - he is God come to earth...God incarnate - God in a meat suit.
• Second, we asked the question...what is Jesus' mission? What did he come to accomplish when he came to earth? We saw two things clearly: 1) To seek and save that which was lost...people far from God - con men, hookers, liars, religious people, etc. he came to forgive people and reconnect them to the Father by his death on a cross. He paid for our sins and offers grace and pardon to all who will come. 2) He came to bring a new reality - the Kingdom of God. A realm not of physical geography or political boundaries but rather a realm where the rule and reign of Jesus is supreme. This kingdom breaks through into this age, through the church, a counter cultural society where we live in the world but differently. We handle sex, money, power, alcohol, media, marriage, soccer games, etc. in a different way under the rule of Jesus our King.
• Third, we looked at how the mission of Jesus extended through his earliest followers and how their model gives us a paradigm for our work today. Normal people, empowered by God the Holy Spirit, moves people to establish churches, communities where people are saved by Jesus and set together under his rulership and reign. Through the course of everyday commerce and living the church extended the mission of Jesus into the reaches of the Roman Empire through the ancient port cities - urban areas of cultural and economic import.

This week we close our series on Knowing the Way by looking at this society called the church and seeing what the church is and how she functions. Finally, we'll see how we live life together in a way that gives God honor, does good for our neighbors and people hear of the forgiving God of the gospel of Jesus Christ.  

Should be fun times...

According to Plan - Gold from Graeme Goldsworthy

 
Graeme Goldsworthy, According to Plan - The Unfolding Revelation of God in the Bible - An Introductory Biblical Theology (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2002)

There are very few books that I recommend that everyone who is a follower of Christ read.  I am particularly careful in how I go about recommending books that have "Theology" written somewhere on the cover.  I found out after moving to Nashville that the word "Theology" can cause some church folk to twitch in fear that you are about to split hairs about some meaningless thick book you have read. I think many times theology is just not presented well to normal folks and I find this tragic.  So today I want to recommend According to Plan - The Unfolding Revelation of God in the Bible - An Introductory Biblical Theology by Graeme Goldsworthy.

I remember one of the challenges I faced as a young Christian was looking at the big book called the Bible and knowing how it all fits together...understanding what the whole book was about. I could read various books in the canon but I needed a big picture view of how the many parts made up the unified whole.  Goldsworthy's book does just that - it gives a unified thematic view of the Scriptures centered on the person and work of Jesus Christ. 

Biblical Theology

One the strong points of this book is that it succeeds greatly in its goal to introduce the reader to Biblical Theology. In differentiating this form of theology Goldsworthy does the reader a great service in chapter 2 by introducing the various forms of Christian theological inquiry.  I'll summarize some of this here (and add my own take) for the readers of the POCBlog

Systematic Theology

"Systematic Theology asks: What should Christians believe now about any aspect of Christianity.  Its results: Christian Doctrine" (Goldsworthy, 30).

Systematic theology takes up the task of seeing what every relevant passage of Scripture teaches on a various topic.  It looks at all the passages in order to form a clear and succinct statement of Christian teaching. Any time a church or a Christian person says anything about God it is an exercise in systematic theology.  Mistakes can often be made by not looking at ALL the texts relevant to a topic and thereby teaching a reductionist view of a subject.

Historical Theology

"Historical Theology asks: What have Christians believed about their faith at any given time?  Its results: A record of the development of Christian doctrine." (31)

Historical Theology is looking at what various Christian people and traditions have taught at various times in Church history.  Historical Theology is helpful in that it assists us in our understanding of the faith as we look at what others who have gone before us.  It is not authoritative, but helps us see the truths and errors of the past.

Pastoral Theology

"Pastoral Theology asks: How Should Christians minister to one another so that they grow to maturity in Christian living? Its results: Care and growth in the local church." (31)

Pastoral theological is the application of biblical truth and the study of how the gospel shapes and changes people's lives.  It focuses on the importance of a theology of ministry and how we rightly relate to God in shaping one another's lives.

Exegetical Theology 

"Biblical Exegesis asks: What was the text intended to convey to those for whom it was originally written? Its results: Understanding the intended meaning of the text." (34)

Exegesis is the unpacking and explaining of particular passages of Scripture in their original historical, grammatical and literary contexts. 

Biblical Theology

"Biblical Theology asks: By What Process has God revealed himself to mankind? Its results: The relating of the whole Bible to our Christian life now" (32)

Biblical theology looks at large themes in various sections of Scripture.  It treats major themes in the Old Testament, the New Testament or the major sections of the biblical corpus.  I find the best way to understand the subjects treated by biblical theology is by example.  The following I hope you find helpful as well:

• What is the focus of sacrifice in the Pentateuch?
  
• What is Paul's theology of Grace?
• What do the Gospels teach about the Kingdom of God?
• What is the central theme of the entire Bible?

Whereas systematic theology is concerned with Christian Doctrine treating all passages relevant to a topic and teaching it for today, biblical theology brings to us the major themes of Scripture seeing its subject as a unified whole. Systematics break down the teaching of Scriptures into its parts to unify doctrine, whereas biblical theology steps out to see the big picture.  One makes sure you do not miss some of the trees that are actually in the forest (Systematics) the other makes sure we don't miss the forest from closely examining the trees (biblical theology). Both are extremely valuable and important to the church and the believer.

Goldsworthy does a fantastic job introducing the discipline of biblical theology but also convincingly laying out the central theme of the Christian Scriptures...namely, the person and work of Jesus who is called the Christ.

Central Theme of The Bible - Jesus Christ

Many times Christians have been so exposed to systematic theology that they can recite certain doctrines or somethign learned in Sunday school, but find it difficult to see how the whole Bible is relevant to the faith.  What does a man cutting off the foreskins of his son have to do with me?  Biblical theology explains just how integrated Scripture is and the unique unfolding of God's purposes throughout redemptive history.  Just what does circumcision mean? Why was this given?  How does it relate to God's ways of dealing with people?  How does this continue today? Or does it? 

Biblical Theology sees a beautiful line of continuity in God's revelation in Scripture which reaches its zenith in Jesus Christ and then sees our life as the church as his sent community continuing his mission until this age comes to a close.  If you ever wondered how the big Old Testament narratives reveal God's purposes in Jesus Christ I cannot recommend this volume enough.

Book Structure

Another strength of According to Plan is the way in which the material is structured and laid out.  After each major idea or paragraph the author porvides a succinct summary of the major point.  These are so well done that you could get the entire thrust of the book by just reading these summaries.  Now I did read the book and did not attempt said path, but I will say that after reading a section and then the summary I continually thought - what a great way to review this book.  Additionally each chapter has a summary, listing of main themes, keywords and a preview of what is ahead. Also each chapter includes a study guide at the end for further discussion.  Finally, the book also has several helpful illustrations and diagrams though you need to follow how the diagrams "build" up throughout the book.  Overall, the structure of the book makes it very helpful for learning and review; the author goes to great length to help a more popular audience find traction in biblical theology. 

Conclusion

In conclusion I want to commend this book to anyone who wants to investigate the theological teaching of the Scriptures as a whole.  Read it slowly, enjoy it greatly and see what the Bible is really about. His name is Jesus.  If you have ever been bogged down by what seems like the excessive minutia of Systematic Theology (let alone speculative theology) then take biblical theology a spin. Rather than a naive trust in Scripture, the discipline of biblical theology gives a robust and deep faith in the wonderful message of the Holy Bible. There were and are not accidental stories in redemptive history, they all have a purpose in the revelation of God in Jesus Christ and the Kingdom of God.  This book has helped me marvel at the unity and glory of the story of God...and it has helped me love him more deeply.  For this I thank God and give According to Plan a hearty POCBlog recommendation.

The Nine

During the summer of 2004 our family moved to the Nashville metro area to begin to walk towards  the beginnings of a work with young adults in that city.  In October 2004 we held our first public gathering for the Inversion Fellowship - a group of young adults that I have walked with over the past 3.5 years.  In this first short years of Inversion’s existence we wanted to create a culture that wrestled openly with the issues of life, theology and mission – living very much on the ground of contemporary culture.  We didn't hire the coolest band in Nashville, we didn't have laser light shows and we didn't call people to simply get married, be happy and settle down with a little Jesus on the side. Our hope and prayer was to find life and satisfaction in the goodness and greatness of God and then to give our lives together for the Kingdom. 

We also thought it wasn't "cool" to not read or think deeply about the issues of truth and life.  We value laughing deeply together but not remaining ignorant about the intersection of truth and life. One of the bi-products of this turned into a series of short booklets (some are a bit more bookish) that we just finished and have "self-published" for our peeps in Inversion.

The following is from the Inversion web site where the booklets are available as free downloads for anybody who might be encouraged by these works...sample covers are below.  There are nine books covering various subjects.  You can see the complete listing here.

We want to thank the many upside down people of Inversion as love for them was a huge part of this work.  Most importantly we thank Jesus – our God and Savior - whose love, fame and mission gave meaning and hope to the work of our hands.  We pray these are of some use to him and his continuing work in the world in the days to come.

 

Poetry - Modern Sex

Church Historian Michael Haykin is also a poet as well as a writer about all things in the Puritan era...I really found his poem entitled Modern Sex quite interesting:

No metaphysical union here
Nor majestic ontology—
Only animal pairing
That come break of day parts,
Not to share a glance again.

No talk of Love,
nor Companionate meeting of flesh—
Only business
That ploughs the field
For lucre and gain.

Embodièd worship
And Glory gone—
The squalid alone is left,
Confusion, chaos, and coal
Without regal Fire.

Michael A.G. Haykin
Modern Sex ©2008.

Black Liberation Theology

There is a short video interview with Anthony Bradley discussing Black Liberation Theology availble on YouTube. This appeared on CNN's Glen Beck program.

(HT - Darin Patrick)

Consumed by Mixed Martial Arts - A Biblical Apologetic for MMA

I recently read a post by my not so punchy friend Owen Strachan over at his blog Consumed.  Owen has been wrestling out loud about Christian believers and their relationship to (or non relationship to) Mixed Martial Arts (MMA).  MMA has become wildly popular through the Ultimate Fighting Championship, aka the UFC.  He was provoked by an article in NY Times Magazine and some comments made by Mark Driscoll - a pastor and fan of MMA. His main question could be surmised by some simple questions: Should Christians beat the hell out of each other or enjoy watching other men do so?  Does being tough and masculine mean an endorsement of barbarism? Now he might not say it that way, but this seems to be the essence of his struggle.  I think this is a valuable struggle as our relationship to violence is a long tragic part of the tale of human history.

This question gets to the much larger issue of the role of violence in life and in the life of a follower of Jesus Christ.  This post does not seek to raise the pacifism/just war discussion in any detail but let me state at the outset that I do not see pacifism as tenable either practically or biblically.  Let me just say that the if you are a pacifist you will probably find much to disagree with when reading the coming reflections on ultimate fighting and mixed martial arts.  But I will make one promise to all the pacifists reading. If the evil horde invades; those who believe in a civil and noble defense will protect you, your home and family.  You’re welcome.

So, to reflect on fighting in general and ultimate fighting in particular I propose just a few things.  First, I will make some observations which I will call my recommendations.  These will be a few small reasons for “why we fight.”  Second, I will offer a rejoinder to qualify the beastly urge in all people to desire license rather than morality when dealing with delicate issues.  Fighting is not a good thing, but it is a real and unfortunate permanent feature of human existence in a fallen state.  I wish I could just shout - STOP FIGHTING, can’t we all just get along and the whole universe would realign to our wishes.  Yet because the world is full of human beings, like you and me, there may be times when it is necessary, in defense of what is good, to punch someone in the throat. 

Recommendations

My first recommendation is this.  There are times when men (and I do mean male men) must fight for what is good, right and true. 

The great philosopher Kenny Rogers once used a thought experiment called The Coward of the County to explore the struggle that men have in relationship to violence.  A violent father who had made bad choices and caused great harm teaches his son:

Promise me, son, not to do the things Ive done.
Walk away from trouble if you can.
It wont mean you’re weak if you turn the other cheek.
I hope you’re old enough to understand:
Son, you don’t have to fight to be a man.

The advice is well taken by the son until the life and limb of a loved one is violated by a group set on evil doing…the boy, having learned the lesson from his father and become a man, ends the treatise with the similar but slightly different chorus:

I promised you, dad, not to do the things you done.
I walk away from trouble when I can.
Now please don’t think I’m weak, I didn’t turn the other cheek,
And papa, I sure hope you understand:
Sometimes you gotta fight when you’re a man.

When do we fight…it must be in defense, for what is right, when there is no other option and when we must win.  Sam Wise Gamgee once encouraged his good friend Frodo with words I recommend for all men and women. 

Frodo: I can’t do this Sam.

Sam: I know. It’s all wrong. By rights we shouldn’t even be here. But we are. It’s like in the great stories, Mr. Frodo. The ones that really mattered. Full of darkness and danger, they were. And sometimes you didn’t want to know the end. Because how could the end be happy? How could the world go back to the way it was when so much bad had happened? But in the end, it’s only a passing thing, this shadow. Even darkness must pass. A new day will come. And when the sun shines it will shine out the clearer. Those were the stories that stayed with you. That meant something, even if you were too small to understand why. But I think, Mr. Frodo, I do understand. I know now. Folk in those stories had lots of chances of turning back, only they didn’t. They kept going. Because they were holding on to something.

Frodo: What are we holding on to Sam?

Sam: That there’s some good in this world, Mr. Frodo… and it’s worth fighting for.  

Some things require a fight.  Not all things - not greed, lust, covetousness - things all too often fought for in the world of men.  But the misdeeds of the vile and violent does not mean that others should never fight - in fact, it is precisely the reason we must. 

To learn to fight, you must fight…

It is my opinion that certain men should be trained to protect the common good and provide peace so that human society can flourish in goodness, truth and beauty.  Additionally, Christians have a great interest in a just state and a protected citizenry due to the commands and structure found in Romans 13.  Historically Christian thinkers Ambrose, Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin and many others have argued that defensive, just wars are sometimes necessary.  I found this message to come through powerfully just last night as my wife and I finished up Season 1 of the CBS television show Jericho.  In the finale, men were called to fight an aggressive invader with life and limb on the line (perhaps another post, but I find this to be a great show).  Yes, there was the token blond girl with the gun, so feminists you can be happy to fight as well, but the reality in the show demonstrated a common theme in history.  At times a band of brothers must be arrayed to fight and physically beat back a sinful invasion.  If this be the case, men must learn to fight during peace time as well as war time.  Those in the military are taught fighting techniques - martial arts, wrestling - lets just say they learn MMA.  Where are these techniques developed in peace time?  Where do men grow in toughness, discipline and fortitude when the enemy is at bay.  They learn through hard work, training, drills and sport.  In fact, in sport, better ways to wrestle are actually developed in relatively safe, controlled sporting environments.  As a wrestler for most of my life, I know this to be true.  Come try and take me - I am more prepared than most.  I suppose we could eliminate every sport but, say, golf…but I do not think that would be used by the marines to learn to fight and win war.

So we do not want a culture of violent thugs and brutes without honor.  What we really need is a society of men who live in meekness and strength, virtue and passion and strength under authority.  I will grant it is here that mixed martial arts is a very mixed bag.  It has both thugs and men of character slugging in the octagon.  Such is life.  Pull for the guy that is not a thug. 

The Bible uses fighting as a metaphor for life and spiritual growth

But as for you, O man of God, flee these things. Pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, steadfastness, gentleness. Fight the good fight of the faith. Take hold of the eternal life to which you were called and about which you made the good confession in the presence of many witnesses.

1 Timothy 6:11-12 

Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain it. Every athlete exercises self-control in all things. They do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. So I do not run aimlessly; I do not box as one beating the air. But I discipline my body and keep it under control, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.

1 Corinthians 9:24-27

It seems to me if this be the case than God’s Word expects us to know what fighting actually is and that we should know how to do it.  Now this is one of those chicken and egg problems in theology.  Did God use fighting to accommodate a violent people in order to teach them of our greater spiritual battles with the world, the flesh and the devil?  Or did God understand he made the world and we would have to fight while living life outside of Edenic perfection?  In other words, because of the fall there will always be some sort of fight.  My thought would be the latter.  For humans to grow food…it is work, a fight.  For humans to create order out of the thorny, thistled world of sin…it is a battle, sometimes literally.  For humans to communicate, have honest commerce, to act according to conscience…it will be a fight.  For humans to overcome sin, find forgiveness, live in righteousness, be reconciled to God…it is a fight, but the battle is the Lords.  For followers of Christ to deny the flesh and turn their wills to God daily…it is a spiritual fight. 

If you hold to the presupposition of an inspired Scripture then you must see that God wants all of us to know what “fight” means.  It is human to struggle - internally and externally.  It is a wrestle with our own depravity and that of others.  Robert Hawkins, one of the characters on Jericho, was asked a question by his teenage daughter: Who are the good guys and who are the evil guys? His answer - there aren’t any such thing.  Some my take offense to that, but I find it biblical.  A human being is always a mixture of good (imago dei) and evil (sinful depravity and rebellion).  Jesus said it this way: there is none good but God.  If this be true, there will be a fight and God desires to teach and shape his people in the midst of the battle.

One last note is appropriate before moving on.  It is interesting that Paul is telling his younger padawan Timothy that he is to fight the good fight of faith.  As such I feel it is the fathers of a culture which must teach young men to respect and honor women, walk in self control and know when to fight and when not to.  Hence Kenny Rogers. Fatherless societies become base and excessively violent.  When Dad is at home young men can be strong and self-controlled…respectable - such men are exactly what we need.  They are in my opinion what every radical feminist desires. Unfortunately she has seen too much of the former to find much use in men.

Some Reservations

Now to MMA.  Any sport that involves the movement of the body risks to some degree bodily harm.  My Mom will testify that she freaked out every time I wrestled and played a football game.  As such any sport must have rules designed to make the competition as immune from death as possible.  Yet sometimes this too is unavoidable.  People die every year playing football, soccer and walking across the street.  We can do as much as we can to prevent death but it is simply not avoidable - it is amazing that I made it to 35 without wearing a bike helmet growing up!  So football has rules to prevent very dangerous contact (head to head, hits on QBs etc). Amateur wrestling, even soccer, have rules to prevent this type of contact.  There are underground MMA arenas without such rules; I find that deplorable and do not recommend any of this barbarism.  UFC has evolved from its early, more deplorable days, to have many rules.  The UFC now has just these type of rules; a very long list of fouls which are designed to protect the combatants.  

One final rejoinder about MMA culture.  Let me be very clear.  The culture surrounding the UFC is base.  It is hyper sexualized, full of some non thinking men and there is much disrespect for competitors and opponents.  If tattoos bother you, the UFC will provide lots of them to see.  Maybe the one place in the world that has more than the NBA.  Like boxing, basketball, football, etc. there is also a huge gambling culture that surrounds it as well.  I believe the UFC’s ownership is connected to the gambling industry.  I do not support this any more than I do people betting on the Tar Heels in the NCAA tournament.  Additionally, there is also an offshoot of the fighting culture that will likely continue to spiral downward into madness and barbarism. 

Yet does this culture’s existence not mean that it is precisely the place for the gospel?  Would it not be good to enter and tell of Jesus the saving one in such arenas?  Could not respect for opponents, civil sportsmanship and godly masculinity provide a contrast in the middle of the UFC world?  Could it not mean that Matthew 5:16 - so let your light so shine before men that they might see your good works and praise your father in heaven - might be true in UFC world as well?  If such worlds are not engaged - the only direction they can go is downward. Or one may conclude that it is unredeemable.  Some human activities do degrade to this status.  I do not think this is so of the UFC.  So I watch the UFC with guys I teach and lead; I also discuss it as a fan with non Christians.  I also teach godly masculinity and I believe we need to be able to mature and be able to discern and live the difference.  To do otherwise is to put one’s holy head in the sand. This course of action seems to quench any mission in culture and is pretty lame as well.  I would rather put my hand in the hand of God and walk out into the darkness…and let him light the world.  Yes, even the world of ultimate fighters.

Prosperity Gospel

Many have heard John Piper's opinions on the prosperity gospel that is peddled in American churches and growing around the world.  The Atlantic Monthly even had an interesting look upon the prosperity gospel phenomena in the growing churches of Nigeria (this is a great article to read fully - the prosperity stuff is on page 3). Back to Piper...a portion of Piper's message has been set to many videographical expressions...the one below I think is the best I have seen to date.

(HT - Justin Taylor) 

A Question about Calvin...

One of the guys on the staff at our church asked me an interesting question today.  John Farkas, who just recently started blogging here, sent me the following request:

Give me your perspective on Calvin's 3 most important contributions.  Try to keep it to about 100 words (150 if you must)

I have to confess that I sinned against keeping it brief, but I did ask for forgiveness.  Here is my response which may get some fun comments from John Calvinists out there.  Here goes.

----------------------------------------

John,

Sure thing. I am a bit of a fan of the reformed view of God, the gospel and the church so I have many positive things to say about the contributions of Jean Calvin...I'll try to stay at three but will likely sin against the word limit. 

Ad Fontes 

Calvin was trained in France during a transition time in western culture.  The medieval catholic church was in great need for reform and humanistic studies (not secular humanism, but the study of man and culture) were on the rise in Europe.  One of the beacon calls of the era as ad fonts - to the sources.  The call was to return to the classical roots of western culture.  Additionally, church scholars applied this to theology.  That to form Christian doctrine one ought to go to the sources of Christian faith - namely, the inspired writings of the New Testament...the teachings of Jesus and the apostles.  Calvin sought to craft a thoroughly Bible based theology and literally wrote the first Protestant systematic theology when he was only 27 years old: The Institutes of the Christian Religion.  A word about Systematics.  Today there are many who do not like a systematic theology - the cry is for narrative etc.  I get that and affirm narrative theology, biblical theology etc. Yet all systermatic (in the way of Calvin) seeks to do is not reduce the Scriptures teaching about something (say the identity and work of Jesus) to one part of Scripture.  Calvin and those who like systematic just want to say ALL that the Bible says about Jesus, not just part of it.  For instance some might say Jesus is a nice, pacifistic teacher in looking at the sermon on the mount.  Yet to not look at the exalted Christ of Revelation who comes with a sword to strike the nations would give you a one dimensional Jesus whereas the whole of Scripture gives a much more 3D, full view.  Calvin sought to form doctrine by treating all of Scripture.  I think that was a great contribution - he certainly was not infallible and I don't agree with all his conclusions, but this is a lasting contribution of his.  By going "to the sources" Calvin and other Protestants affirm the idea of God's revealing himself to us in Scripture.  Man, left alone with his imaginations, will only create idols as he seeks to create God in his own image.  I also think that applying this view to the arts gives art a "narrative framework" which to live within.  The rich narrative world of Scripture can give birth to art that is truly good and beautiful rather than that which is created by man with an unsanctified imagination.   

Unique Theological Contribution to understanding Jesus and the Church

To my knowledge Calvin was the first to articulate a rich typological view of Jesus as seen in the Old Testament offices of Israel - the Prophet, the Priest and the King.  Calvin taught that all of these foreshadowed the work and ministry of Jesus himself and then that Jesus extends that ministry in and through his church.  In the Old Testament - Prophets, Priests, Kings - Israel's life was structured by these offices, which served as types - these were the three offices which were "anointed ones" - those anointed by God and set apart to serve his purposes^[1] The Prophet (1 Kings 19:16 - ) speaks the Word of God and Calls People to repentance, to God and His Mission.  The Priest (Leviticus 21:10 - Chief priest anointed with oil) intercedes between God and people facilitating worship and ministry.  The King (1 Samuel 10 and 16 - Samuel Anoints Saul and David, 1 Kings 1:39 - Zadok anoints Solomon, Jehu in 2 Kings 9 anointed by Elisha) ruled under the authority of God and his Word, guiding and shepherding a people through life.  The King protects, provides, and serves his people. Calvin saw this in Jesus' Ministry as a consummation of all the types. 

John Calvin --- Moreover, it is to be observed, that the name Christ refers to those three offices: for we know that under the law, prophets as well as priests and kings were anointed with holy oil. Whence, also, the celebrated name of Messiah was given to the promised Mediator.^[2]

Jesus is our Great Prophet (Hebrews 1:1,2)- He is the fulfillment of the law and prophets - his word is God's word.  Jesus is our great High Priest - Hebrews 8:1,2 - We HAVE such a high priest, he intercedes for us, brings us to the father, covers our sins with his sacrifice of himself - there is one mediator (1 Tim 2:5, 6).  Jesus is our Covenant King (Psalm 2, Psalm 110:1; Matthew 1:1-4; Revelation 17:14) - He is our covenant King, our good shepherd, not one of his sheep are lost, he will guide us home, we will live and not die if we trust him.  

Additionally, his ministry extends in the Church. The prophetic Ministry of Jesus extends when the Word of God, the gospel is preached.  The priestly ministry of Jesus extends in the Sacraments - the new covenant is mediated by Jesus, in his church. Baptism serves as the entry sign into the covenant and the Lord's Supper as the continuing sign of the covenant.  Finally, the kingly ministry of Jesus extends in Church Government and Discipline. God gives elders to the church to guard the doctrine of the church, pastor/shepherd/love the sheep, and discipline us towards godliness and holiness.

All of this flows from Calvin's unique insight into the continuity of the covenants and the Old Testament pointing penultimately and typologically to Jesus, the Christ. 

Bible teaching and Commentary 

Many people fail to realize that Calvin was primarily a Bible teacher.  His sermons and commentaries remain a wonderful gift to the church that are available online for free - http://www.ccel.org/index/author-C.html.

Church sending, Pastoral Training and Cultural Transformation 

Something that is unknown about Calvin to many is that they trained hundreds of ministers and sent them out all over Switzerland and France.  Many of these young men went into France and were slaughtered for their preaching.  It is no historical mystery why the Protestant movement did not flourish as much in France - they were massacred.  Finally, there is good little book that I believe I heard referenced by Tim Keller on the influence of Calvin's theological vision on shaping the City - it is called Light of the City.

OK, I sinned against the number of strengths and word limit - forgive? 

---

^[1]In the Old Testament priests (Exod 29:7, 21), prophets (1 Kgs 19:16), and kings (1 Sam 10:1) were anointed for special tasks  James A. Brooks, vol. 23, Mark, electronic e., Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001, c1991), 38.

^[2]Jean Calvin and Henry Beveridge, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Translation of: Institutio Christianae Religionis.; Reprint, With New Introd. Originally Published: Edinburgh : Calvin Translation Society, 1845-1846. (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), II, xv, 2.

Baptism and Covenant

Christian baptism, which has the form of a ceremonial washing (like John’s pre-Christian baptism), is a sign from God that signifies inward cleansing and remission of sins (Acts 22:16; 1 Cor. 6:11; Eph. 5:25-27), Spirit-wrought regeneration and new life (Titus 3:5), and the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit as God’s seal testifying and guaranteeing that one will be kept safe in Christ forever (1 Cor. 12:13; Eph. 1:13-14). Baptism carries these meanings because first and fundamentally it signifies union with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection (Rom. 6:3-7; Col. 2:11-12); and this union with Christ is the source of every element in our salvation (1 John 5:11-12). Receiving the sign in faith assures the persons baptized that God’s gift of new life in Christ is freely given to them. At the same time, it commits them to live henceforth in a new way as committed disciples of Jesus. Baptism signifies a watershed point in a human life because it signifies a new-creational engrafting into Christ’s risen life.

J.I. Packer

There is nothing more central to Christian faith than the person and work of Jesus the Christ.  There is nothing more central to his work and message than the gospel - the good news of what he has done, is doing and will do in redeeming sinners and this fallen world.  In walking together as the church in every age there are few things more central than the sacraments/ordinances Jesus gave to us.  Yet there have been few things which have brought up as much debate amongst Christians as the two sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s supper.  This essay has very small goals.  I will briefly treat the different views of baptism held by those who have a covenantal understanding of the gospel. I am looking mainly here at covenant baptism; the view that baptism is a sign and seal of the new covenant marking a person as belonging to Jesus and part of the church. In circles of confessing believers, I am speaking of baptism as viewed by those in reformed traditions, those who seek to trace their views back to Scripture in the Protestant view. 

There are many debates surrounding baptism which can take place along various lines. Very common are the questions of who should be baptized and the age at which is should be administered.  Additionally, there are debates about methodology: immersion/dunking, pouring, sprinkling, shaken but not stirred.  Here I only want to look at two simple questions. 1) First, the relation of baptism to the new covenant and 2) Who then should be baptized. After answering these two questions I become a bit less concerned.  Though I believe that immersion in water is the NT model that fits most clearly with the meaning of baptism, I find no problem with sprinkling, pouring, or dipping if/when environmental circumstances come into play.  Let me just get to the issue directly and tackle the issue of covenantal understandings of baptism and whether it should it be for babies or not.  OK, this is for my reformed and Baptist type friends.

Agreements

There is a wonderful agreement about baptism with those who hold to certain tenants of reformation theology.  We all believe the following:

1. Baptism was commanded by Jesus (Matt 28:18-20) and practiced by the apostles (Acts 2)
2. Baptism signifies the gospel and our union with Jesus Christ (Romans 6:3,4)
3. Baptism marks a person as part of new the covenant community. It is the outward signifier that a person is under the new covenant of grace and part of Jesus’ church (Colossians 2:12)

Now when we come to the question as to when it should be applied; here we find our differences.  Historically reformed churches (Presbyterians, RCA, CRC and others) typically baptize infants as a sign of the covenant and a confession of the faithfulness of God to his promises. Baptistic types (Various Baptists, Bible Churches, Non Denominational) wait until a person has expressed faith in Jesus and applies baptism after conversion rather than physical birth.  Let us look very briefly at some support offered for both positions.

Baptism after Birth (Paedo Baptism or Infant Baptism)

It is a no small task to rightly give the traditional reformed view of baptism.  For that I refer you to a volume of essays entitled The Case for Covenental Infant Baptism edited by Greg Strawbridge. Here I only want to highlight a few of the biblical/theological arguments for baptizing infants:

• In the New Testament we see statements that the promise of the gospel is for you and your children and those who are far off (See Acts 2:37-39).  The promise in the OT included children so in the New Covenant it does as well. 
• Household baptisms - there are several circumstances in the NT where “households” were baptized.  Acts 16 has Lydia and her household as well as the Philippian jailer’s household being baptized.  1 Corinthians 1 has the “household of Stephanas” being baptized.  The assumption here is that infants and/or children would have been baptized as well as those who had believed.
• There is a symmetry seen between Old Covenant circumcision and New Covenant baptism as the sign of the covenant.  In the OT the children of believers were included as members of the covenant community and in the NT this is the same.  Baptism signifies such membership and thus should be applied to children. As such the person is subject to the blessings and curses of covenant membership (see Deuteronomy 28).
• Church tradition – it was an early and long standing practice in church history to baptize infants. 

Baptism after the New Birth (Credo Baptism or Believers Baptism)

• Makes note that in the Bible there are no recorded instances of infants being baptized. Every record of baptism in the New Testament are of people who have heard the gospel and then placed faith in Jesus Christ. 
• Household baptisms are an argument from silence and hence prove nothing as to who was actually baptized. Furthermore, in some cases, as in Acts 16, the word of the Lord was spoken to all in the house and all in the house rejoiced and had a party.
• There is a break in continuity between Old and New Covenants.  Though baptism is the sign of the new covenant, it is applied not simply to males as was circumcision in the Old; it is applied to all who believe. As such the time of application is also different.  It follows regeneration/new birth exemplified by repentance and faith.
• Meaning of baptizo - the meaning of the word baptism in the New Testament means to dip or immerse.  Sprinkling of babies would not be in view. 
• Though this gets a bit towards the “mode” debate, it is clear that baptism is reflecting a “burial/death with Christ” and a raising “to live a new life” (See Romans 6:3,4 and Colossians 2:12). 
• People also walked down into water to be baptized.  Jesus himself in the gospels and the ethiopian in the book of Acts (See Acts 8).  These rights seem to describe adult actions and is reflective of believers.
• Practice of the church.  One of the earliest documents we have of early church practice, The Didache, gives details on the practice of baptism and it reflects believers baptism. For instance you cannot “order an infant to fast two days before his baptism.”

So what do we make of the two views? First, I agree that we should not loose the meaning of baptism as “sign of the covenant.”  When baptism was taught by some early Christians to “remove original sin” (this was Augustine’s view) the desire and motive for baptizing infants became enormous.  If a person was not baptized he was not saved.  This doctrine is not taught in Scripture but became a big deal in the church. If baptism is the means by which God removes original sin, then you must baptize as soon as possible.  Hence all matter of reasons, theologies etc were made to explain this application of baptism.  Some Roman Catholic theologians crafted a  doctrine of “limbo” to keep babies out of hell if they were not baptized. 

Later during the Reformation, those studying the Bible clearly brought into question the “saving power” of baptism.  The reformers were clear that it is the gospel that saves as God saves sinners through Jesus’ work on the cross. Their baptism signifies and seals this truth but does not save them in and of itself. However, many reformed churches created a sort of half-way view which is reflected in covenant infant baptism.  My thought is that once you sever baptism/salvation and maintain the proper meaning and symbolism as a outward sign of conversion (see JI Packer quote at the top) then it must be applied when it signifies an actual state of affairs. The person has been saved and at this point they ought be baptized.  Reformed thinkers acknowledge that the earlier Catholic view that baptism saves is flawed. Here is the 19th century reformed theologian Charles Hodge’s take. I will give the entire context of his 8th point arguing for infant baptism and then ask some questions.

On this point all Christians are agreed. All churches —the Greek, the Latin, the Lutheran, and the Reformed —unite in the belief that infants need “the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ” and the renewing of the Holy Ghost in order to their salvation. The Reformed, at least, do not believe that those blessings are tied to the ordinance of baptism, so that the reception of baptism is necessary to a participation of the spiritual benefits which it symbolizes; but all agree that infants are saved by Christ, that they are the purchase of his blood, and that they need expiation and regeneration. They are united, also, in believing that all who seek the benefits of the work of Christ, are bound to be baptized in acknowledgment of its necessity and of their faith, and that those who need, but cannot seek, are, by the ordinance of God, entitled to receive the appointed sign and seal of redemption, whenever and wherever they are presented by those who have the right to represent them.

Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Originally Published 1872. (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), 3:557. 

I have made bold the above portion of the quote to emphasize the right turn that is made by Hodge. He is right to say that the Reformed have separated salvation from the ordinance, he is incorrect then in shifting back towards the view that those can receive who have not been regenerated in the gospel and exercised faith.  If he would end his sentence above with the word “faith” I would find complete agreement. Yet because of a theological system, he tacks on the clause I have highlighted.  We should be baptized upon our acknowledgment of its necessity (it is commanded by Christ) and of our faith.

If this be so, we ought to apply the sign at the time someone enters the New Covenant, and believe it or not, many are agreed that this happens at the new birth.  Now what are some in the Reformed tradition afraid of being lost in the process.  I believe it is child’s place in the covenant community. This indeed would be a terrible loss that I stand with them against.  Yet I believe we can maintain the “sanctification” or “set apart nature” of children of believers because Scripture actually teaches this in 1 Corinthians 7.  We do not need to baptize them to signify this. As a community we can hold up and pray for the babies (boys and girls) and then baptize if they become spiritual babies when they repent, believe and place their faith in Christ.  I love the interpretive framework of covenantal theology; I just don’t see that we must submit to something absent from Scripture in order to see the holistic covenant of grace unfolding in the Bible.

The current edition of the doctrinal statement of Jacob’s Well has this position that drives my hardcore Baptist friends nuts.  It is written to affirm what we see as the biblical teaching on baptism and show charity to other confessional Christians in regards to church membership. It is very close to the positions John Bunyan and John Piper.  

At Jacob’s Well we only perform and teach baptism by immersion for believers who profess personal faith in Jesus Christ. We believe that water baptism is symbolic of the fact that we have repented from our sins, we have been cleansed of our sins and God has forgiven us, we are buried in Christ in death and have risen with Him in newness of life (Isaiah 1:18; Matthew 28:19; Acts 8:36–38; Romans 6:3–5; Colossians 2:12; Acts 10:47). Additionally, baptism is the sign and seal which marks a person’s entry into the new covenant community of the church. This is our only practice of baptism, though we will receive people into membership who have been baptized by sprinkling, pouring, or immersion as long as it was performed by a biblical local church, the person now evidences conversion and where the baptism was performed in the name of the triune God.

Love or Sentiment?

I saw these posters online and thought they provoked many thoughts and ideas.  However, I find these sorts of statements, though provocative, to be far too simplistic.  I have no issue with the center poster - it is beautiful to me...the outer images however make me ask a few deeper questions.

These two images obviously are using the extreme to teach a point. They are using a form of visual hyperbole.  Yet this is the problem when taken in a very wooden fashion.  In other words, if we must examine what we mean by "love" or we can stoop into mere sentimentalism.

A few quick questions:

• Did Jesus love the Pharisees? I would say “yes” - was he “nice to them” - well, he was pretty harsh with them. He said some of the most searing hot things to them. Why?
  
• Additionally in Acts 13 did Paul “love” the sorcerer Elymus? I would say “yes” but he was not nice to him.
  
• We also see Jesus talk about people perishing, the reality of divine wrath and judgment from his Father, etc.  Was God failing to "love his enemies" as some revisionist theologians would have us believe?
  

God in grace gives all sinners the call of grace and kindness to draw rebels and sinners towards repentance.  Yet he will by no means clear the guilty - and WE are the guilty.  Here we find the amazing in the grace given in the gospel.  Yet there is more to be said.

 

Hitler or Osama, or any of us may freely receive the grace of God - but there still remains temporal justice. Hitler or Osama or any of us ought to receive justice for our sins and our crimes.  The amazing grace of the gospel is that God forgives and justifies guilty sinners.  This ought to make us humble and grateful and willing to love anyone, not thinking anyone to far for the grace of God.  So yes, we ought to pray for our enemies, love them, but we should not capitulate to evil either. Love doesn’t mean we should offer up our children to murderers or pedophiles simply because “we love them.” It means entrusting justice to God and also keeping a murderer from doing further harm.

 

Posters like this are far too simplistic and assume too much. Should we “love” Osama - yes, in that we hope for his redemption, repentance and for grace to take hold of his heart…but that doesn’t mean he should not be firmly opposed and held responsible for any evil he does or has done.

One of the artists who designed this poster wrote the following:

I have so much anger in my heart at the very sight of a swastika. And I had to draw one to make these posters. It infuriated me. I’ve been trained to hate Hitler and Osama. Yet, Christ tells me to love these people—how? why? what? These people deserve justice and death! Look at what they’ve done. Look at these atrocities.

Before we turn off the outrage and anger in our consciences, let me encourage the designer. The swastika should not make us feel and think nice thoughts. It ought to make us angry for what it stood for. There is a righteous anger throughout the Old and New Testaments and exhibited in the very life of Jesus. To feel good about swastikas is a different kind of wickedness - that of a seared conscience.  It may disguise itself in sentimentalism, but it is not love. 

May God give us love for our enemies and righteous anger in the face of evil.  The cross of Christ is actually the perfect union of fierce wrath and justice as well as mercy, grace and love.  It is where righteousness and justice kiss - let us not forget to come to God in repentance and marvel at grace.  But the evil in our own hearts and all around us should not be welcomed with a fuzzy embrace.

A Tale of Two Books

There are two books that I am greatly anticipating this spring, one of which just shipped from Amazon.com and will soon arrive in one of the sheik little brown boxes to my door step.  The two books are the kinds that you hope to be able to give to others who have questions about Jesus or the historic Christian faith...but will not be too simplistic or boring to actually give to someone.  The books are written for different audiences, but I think the reader of the POCBlog will love both.

For the Sophisticated Skeptic and the Thoughtful Believer
(Updated - There is now a dedicated web site for the book) 

 
The Reason for God:Belief in an Age of Skepticism by Timothy Keller, Penguin, 2008 Hardcover | 9.25 x 6.25in | 320 pages | ISBN 9780525950493 | 14 Feb 2008 | Dutton Adult

Keller is a well known Presbyterian minister at Redeemer Prebyterian Church in New York City.  He was recently interviewed in Newsweek magazine (see The Smart Shepherd) and is well known and loved in the missional/theologically driven church planting movement.  The book is a work of Christian Apologetics which is sectioned into two main parts.  Part I, entitled, “The Leap of Doubt” an exercise in defensive apologetics seeks to answer some objections to Christian faith:

1. There can’t be just one true religion
2. A good God could not allow suffering
3. Christianity is a straitjacket
4. The church is responsible for so much injustice
5. A loving God would not send people to hell
6. Science has disproved Christianity
7. You can’t take the Bible literally

The second half, entitled “The Reasons for Faith,” the move is to more positive apologetics and shaping a case for the gospel.

1. The clues of God
2. The knowledge of God
3. The problem of sin
4. Religion and the gospel
5. The (true) story of the cross
6. The reality of the resurrection
7. The Dance of God

This book will surely interupt my current reading and jump to the front of the line.  I may however tell Keller to wait as I really want to get to After the Baby Boomers - How Twenty and Thirty Somethings Are Shaping the Future of American Religion by Robert Wuthnow .

To purchase Keller's new book Westminster Books has it for 15.47. If you have some car time allotted in life, there is also an audio book version (read by Keller) which Westminster books has for 18.87

For the Indie, Emo and Younger Crowds - And Just About Everyone

 
Vintage Jesus by Mark Driscoll and Gerry Breshears, Crossway Books/Re:Lit 2008, Hardcover, 5.5 x 8.5 inches, 256 pages, ISBN: 9781581349757.

If there is anything that the Christian faith is centered upon it is the person and work of Jesus.  Far too often he is the subject of much revisionist theology, much cultural invention and just plain misunderstanding.  In this work you have pastor Mark Driscoll and theologian Gerry Breshears doing a marvel team up to put out some biblically faithful yet relevantly communicated Jesusology.  From reading Mark's other books and having interacted with Dr. Breshears on a few different occasions I really look forward to this book.  Driscoll's wit, erudite mind and humor will certainly come through as will Breshears theological care and acumen.  You want good theology and the laugh out loud - this is the book.  I think this is one you could give to any non Christian person under 35 without any concern.  Jesus will be honored, the Bible's actual teaching about him on display and by God's grace  the reader just might meet Jesus in the process. 

Amazon has it for cheap here. The sermon series upon which Driscoll based the book is also online for free (audio/video) at Mars Hill Church's web site.  Audio book coming in March.

JI Packer - who is really getting up there in years - wrote this endorsement:

“This book reveals Mark Driscoll as a highly powerful, colorful, down-to-earth catechist, targeting teens and twenty-somethings with the old, old story told in modern street-cred style. And Professor Breshears ballasts a sometimes lurid but consistently vivid presentation of basic truth about the Lord Jesus Christ.”

J. I. Packer, Board of Governors’ Professor of Theology, Regent College

Wrestler and Ultimate Fighter Matt Lindland wrote this one: 

“This book presents an honest view of Jesus without giving in to the pressure to soften him up. I had to grapple with the real vintage Jesus. This is a Savior worth fighting for.
Matt Lindland, 2000 Olympic silver medalist in wrestling; top-ranked middleweight mixed martial arts fighter

Continuity and Discontinuity

There are two passages in the first chapter of 2 Timothy which brought me to thinking about a theological issue which is of some debate in the church. 

First, Paul states that he thanks and serves God “as his ancestors did.”  Second, Paul describes the faith of Timothy’s mother and grandmother being the same faith which he genuinely possessed.  Paul’s ancestor’s were Jewish as were those in the matriarchal line which came before Timothy.  It is very possible that both Timothy’s mom and grandmother were Christian converts, but the passage seems to hint at continuity between Old Covenant faith and New Testament Christianity. Of course this is of much debate as discussions about the relationship between Old Testament Israel and the New Testament church continue until this day.  In this essay I will lay out ever so briefly four theological views that relate the relationship of Old and New Covenants, Israel to the church and surrounding theological issues.   In conclusion I will then give a few reasons why I favor a stronger continuity between Old and New Testaments and thereby make all my old guard dispensationalist friends shriek with pain.  Just kidding-but they would be a bit upset.

Dispensationalism (D) - This view holds that Israel refers to the ethnic/physical descendants of Jacob with the church beginning at Pentecost and the church is mentioned nowhere in the Old Testament.  Israel and the church have different roles/destinies in the end times  and all promises made to ethnic Israel in the OT will be fulfilled to ethnic Israel in the end times.  Salvation of some people under the Old Covenant is by obedience to the law-some have said this amounts to two different ways of salvation-one by the law, one by grace.  This view sees a strong discontinuity between the OT and NT and sees two distinct “peoples of God.”  It sees God working very differently during different time periods of history (dispensations) changing his way of dealing with humanity during seven different dispensations. The “Kingdom” in the New Testament refers to the literal, physical reign of Christ on the earth during a millennium at the end of time.  It is a very Israel centric view and has the best end times charts and graphs. Proponents-The Old Scoffield Bible, 20th century Dallas Seminary, John Walvoord, Dwight Pentecost, Norman Geisler and Charles Ryrie. Recommended Book-Dispensationalism Today by Charles Ryrie.

Progressive Dispensationalism (PD) - Similar to the old school dispensationalists, PD holds that Israel refers to the ethnic/physical people and that the church begins in the book of Acts.  It maintains the church/Israel distinction but teaches that both OT and NT people are saved by grace through faith in God’s promise.  It sees more continuity between Old and New Testaments but maintains that the promises to Israel in the OT are for the ethnic line to be fulfilled in the end.   It leans more towards the covenantal view as it acknowledges the covenants as progressive moves forward towards God’s plan in Christ.   It also breaks with the old D view in that it sees  hints at the church in the Old Testament but it is unclear and as the church/Gentile inclusion was a mystery yet to be fully unveiled. Proponents-Darryl Bock, Craig Blaising, Robert Saucy, Contemporary Dallas Seminary. Recommended Book-Progressive Dispensationalism by Darryl Bock and Craig Blaising.

Covenant Theology (CT) - Covenant Theology is an understanding of God’s work in history that has much more continuity between Old and New Testaments.  It sees Israel as both the physical and spiritual descendants of Abraham and considers God unfolding a large covenant of grace throughout history.  An original covenant of works was made with and broken by Adam in the garden and the plan of God to redeem a people for himself set forth in the covenant of grace. Some also teach there is a “covenant” of redemption that took place logically prior to creation within the Trinity. The distinction between the church/Israel is not made as it sees God always having a people with whom he relates by covenant.  Israel is called and defined by its covenant relationship to God not simply ethnicity.  God’s  elect people are “one people” and the universal church has always existed in both Old and New Testament.  It sees many direct prophecies related to the church in the Old Testament and views the church as God’s Plan A throughout history and the final culmination of the covenant of grace.  It views the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31 as the same as Luke 22:20, both are for spiritual Israel (the seed of Abraham by faith) according to Hebrews 8.  It usually equates baptism and Old covenant circumcision as the sign of the covenant AND holds it should be applied at the same age.  CT therefore practices infant baptism of the children of believers…sometimes on the 8th day. Proponents-John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, Reformed Seminaries, Presbyterians, Walter Kaiser, Michael Horton, JI Packer, RC Sproul and Bruce Waltke. Recommended Book-God of Promise: Introducing Covenant Theology by Michael Horton.

Modified (or New ) Covenant Theology (NCT) -  Is similar to CT in that it sees strong continuity in the covenants of God and sees the church as spiritual Israel and heirs to the promises of God.  It is somewhat of a halfway point sharing much in common with Progressive Dispensationalism as well as Covenant Theology.  It is not as succinct a system of theology as the above, but is a way of seeing and reading Scripture in a promise/fulfillment hermeneutic.  It rejects the baptism/circumcision symmetry of Covenant Theology and holds that baptism is for believers but sees the same united redemptive framework in the biblical covenants. Additionally, it finds the CT view that their is a “covenant of redemption” within the Trinity speaking beyond Scripture. The decree/purpose of Father/Son/Spirit to creation/redeem is there but it is not described as a covenant. As CT and many within PD it holds to a now/not yet view of the Kingdom of God known as inaugurated eschatology.  Along with CT this view sees the Old Testament as containing typological references to the church in the OT that are fulfilled in Jesus Christ.  In contrast NCT sees the OT law differently than CT.  CT sees the OT laws divided into various categories-civil, laws pertaining to sacrifice/worship and moral laws…with the moral still binding.   NCT sees the entire OT law as a tutor to bring us to Christ and completely done away with in the New Covenant superseded by the law of Christ.  This is an area where CT and NCT knit picks tend to scrap and NCT has more in common with some dispensational thought.  Proponents-Typically Reformed type who hold to believers baptism. Though DA Carson, Mark Dever, Tom Schreiner do not see themselves fitting neatly into any camp, they typically are mentioned along with this view.  Though John Piper distinguishes himself with his own view, his is closer to this position than any other.  See What does John Piper believe about dispensationalism, covenant theology, and new covenant theology? Recommended Book - New Covenant Theology by Tom Wells, Fred Zaspel.

This is but a very small flyover of some of the theological views on how the Old and New testaments “fit together” in theological unity.   Personally I favor the approaches that see continuity between the covenants as one unfolding plan of God.  Additionally, the book of Hebrews declares the Old Covenant as abolished and the covenant by which he relates to all people is that of  the one made with the blood of Jesus Christ (see Hebrews 8-10).  Furthermore, Ephesians and Galatians teach that Jew/Gentile are one in the gospel. I believe that God has always related to his people by his grace and that his plan of redemption unfolded through the various covenants in biblical/redemptive history.  See our article Introduction to the Old Testament for more on this.   I find much to appreciate in all these systems but find the most affinity with the latter three. Old School Dispensationalism is a hard one for me to swallow but those who still hold to it are usually “all in.”  Many in my circles appreciate the Progressive Dispensational and New Covenant views.   For those who don’t want to buy books please check out these various systems at  Theopedia.   For those who are completely dizzy in all of that jazz please lose no sleep over it. 

A Biblical Theology of Hands

One of the unique biblical images God uses to teach us about life, walking with him and serving others are attached to the end of our arms.  The hands are used for various purposes in both the Old and New Testament to reflect and teach us biblical truth.  Paul's letters to Timothy have one of these purposes, the laying on of hands by pastoral leadership, on full display.  In this essay we will look briefly on how God uses "hands" throughout Scripture concluding with a treatment on how Paul uses laying of hands in the epistles to Timothy.

Handy Metaphors in the Old and New Testaments 

There are many references to hands in the Old Testament but there is an overarching theme for each of them.  Hands represent action, the state of one's heart that finds itself into the world.  Hands represent what we do, the actions we take and how our intentions are reflecting by character and works.   We see this in hands being described as clean or unclean.  For instance,  clean hands represents a righteous life (see Job 17:9, Job 22:30, Psalm 18:20-24, Psalm 24:1-6, Psalm 73:13).  Clean hands represent holiness of life and unclean hands represents a heart that is vile and wicked.   The book of proverbs talks about hands that shed blood as being the hands of the guilty and wicked man.  Furthermore the New Testament also talks about lifting up holy hands indicating the same thing.  This is all a matter of the heart, though it is expressed with metaphors of the hands.  Jesus made it clear that washing one's hands do not cleanse the inside of a man's heart; but the work of our hands is indicative of the condition of our hearts.  Additionally, the nature of our work is seen in our hands in such prayers as Psalm 90:17 which reads: Let the favor of the Lord our God be upon us, and establish the work of our hands upon us; yes, establish the work of our hands!   Here we find people asking God's favor upon the work of their lives.   Jesus also uses a hand metaphor to talk about a manner of life in response to God's call on us.  He tells us that no one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God (Luke 9:62).  So it is a clear metaphor in scripture that the condition and action of hands represent the condition of the heart before God.

Finally, though he has no physical hands, God's own favor and work is expressed with the language of  "his hands."  The work of deliverance  and redemption wrought by God in the Exodus is repeatedly described as being through "his mighty hand and outstretched arm."  God's favor is expressed by his hand "being upon us."  After Nehemiah goes before the King to ask for assistance in his work to rebuild Jerusalem we read this wonderful verse: And the king granted me what I asked, for the good hand of my God was upon me.   When the hand of God is upon a people it is a sign of favor and his working on their behalf.  This continues in the  New Testament when Jesus is said to be raised from death and seated at the right hand of God.  This is the place of power and authority beside a great King.  To finish this essay we will further discuss how power and authority is symbolically and actively transferred to people through the laying on of hands.

Laying on Hands 

Placing hands upon someone today to pray for them is becoming more and more common in evangelical churches.  I find no problem whatsoever with the practice as it indicates belief, faith and standing with one another in prayer.  However, the laying on of hands has specific meaning in Scripture of which I want us to be aware.    In the brief space that remains we will examine how the laying on of human hands indicates conveyance of blessing, judgment, transferring of guilt for sin as well as for the ordination of people in the authority of God for gospel ministry. 

In the Old Testament a father would convey the blessing and birthright to children and grandchildren through the laying on hands.  It was a transaction that was symbolic of a fathers generosity and favor upon his descendents.  Hands would also be placed by the priest onto an animal called the Scapegoat (Leviticus 16) which was being sent away from the people so as to take away their sins.  Additionally, a person bringing their own peace offering would place his hands upon the animal symbolically putting his sins upon the sacrifice (Leviticus 3:1-5).  Judgment upon a criminal was also demonstrated before the enactment of capital punishment by the placing of hands upon the offender.  The manner in the Old Testament is clear.  The authority to forgive sin, convey blessing, enact judgment was done in an official capacity in obedience to God's Word.  The authority of God and the action of God is visibly seen through the laying on of human hands.

In the New Testament we see Jesus speak some powerful words to the disciples before he ascended back to the right hand of God.  In articulating what has become known as the Great Commission, Jesus said the following in Matthew 28:  And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.  Here is the line of authority-the Father has placed ALL authority to Jesus.  Jesus then commissions his church to go in that authority and live the mission of God.  We see very clearly that authority is vested upon Jesus' followers through the laying on of hands.   This happens in several ways.

First, hands are laid upon the sick to pray for healing by both Jesus and his followers (Mark 6:5, Luke 4:40, Acts 28:8, James 5:13-15, perhaps Mark 16:18).  Remember, it is the power of God that heals the body not the person's hands.  The hands are a way of expressing faith and dependence and petition to God for healing.  One more point.  Even when the body naturally heals  it is operating according to God's design not independent of it.  So God is the source of all healing and he chooses whom he will heal and for what reasons.  We can pray in faith and trust him to work if he so chooses.  Ultimately, the final healing will come at the resurrection of the dead where we will receive immortal, incorruptible bodies and disease and death will be vanquished. Second, the Holy Sprit and spiritual gifts were at times imparted to a person from the placing on of hands and prayer (Acts 8, 9, 19).  Note again, it is not the hands which give gifts, but God who has the power and authority.  Furthermore, though this was a means by which God gave gifts he also does so without any intermediary.  If he wants to gift his people he can also do so directly.  The Spirit is also given to people today at the point of spiritual conversion and no apostle is required to convey this as Holy Spirit is promised to all who believe (Ephesians 1).  Finally, there is a clear laying on of hands to set people apart for church leadership.  In Acts 13 Paul and Barnabas are set apart for missionary service.  In the pastoral epistles we see that hands are laid upon people, specifically our boy Timothy, to set him apart and confirm his calling to pastoral ministry.  In doing so the authority of Jesus is recognized and the calling of God confirmed by those who are current ministers.  Some see a pure line of hands back to the apostles themselves in ordaining to gospel ministry.  This is why Paul exhorts so not be hasty in the laying on of hands, nor take part in the sins of others; keep yourself pure...for the appointing pastor/elders prematurely can damage the credibility of ministry by the work of the hands of warped and immature men.

Preaching on the Fall

This past Sunday I was privileged to teach with my good friends at Fellowship Bible Church in Murfreesboro, TN.  They are in the beginnings of a series entitled the Missio Dei.  My message was entitled Man's Need for God and focuses on the Fall and the need in the world for the gospel. 

40 Min - can be downloaded or listened to here: Man's Need for God. If you listen, feedback, questions and comments are welcomed. 

Peace

Though I am not an absolute pacifist in this age this movie is a great reminder that Jesus is the prince of true peace in the advent season.  Though at times perhaps necessary, war sucks - this video reminds me that Jesus teaches us a different way - blessed are the peacemakers...true peace comes through Jesus who reconciles us to God and them makes us ministers of reconciliation...

Sola Scriptura and Pastoral Authority

I wrote this on a pastors forum, and thought it might be of interest to some here as well:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

The teaching authority of elders/pastors is always derivative from their concord with the Word of God.  This was true from day one of the church.  Before the canon was established, the concern was with the authentic apostolic nature of the message brought by a elder/pastor.  Of course in the early days this was established by those who were in direct contact with the apostolic churches - those founded by and established upon the teaching of the apostles.  This version of "apostolic succession" we all should heartily agree with.  Those churches which are in accord with the teaching of Jesus and his apostles are true churches.  Those who deviate widely from this teaching are not.  This gave rise to the importance of the bishop in the early church - he would be the one to establish sound doctrine.  When there was controversy between bishops - this gave rise to councils which deliberated upon this teachers - with the debate hinging upon the teaching of the Bible.  The canonization process was of great import as to determine the apostolic witness - the inspired writings vs. heretical teachings (be they from Marcion, Valentinus, etc).  The church "recognized" the canon as what it already was - the inspired Word.  The canon did not derive its authority from the church's ruling...

During the reformation(s) of the late medieval and early renaissance periods, the concern was to return to the sources (ad fontes) of Christian faith, namely the witness of the New Testament.  Where the church was currently deviant from the teaching of the NT, it should be "reformed" - The clear teaching of the Bible should set the course for the churches as it is the authority upon which the church is established...only upon the foundation of the Scriptures can an elder/pastor "teach with authority."  The formal principle of the reformation, that of Sola Scriptura - that each persona can read and interpret Scripture, is what McGrath is calling Protestantism's Dangerous idea.  It allows all manner of goofy and sinful teaching to be put forth in "the name of being biblical" which no other authority to adjudicate.  But the fracturing of the church by heresy did not come with Protestantism, having a guy with the hat on does not guarantee anything.  There have been heretics throughout history both pre and post reformation and the church has always had to clarify biblical orthodoxy.  The reformation had to wrestle with the question. "What if the guy in the hat gets it wrong?" - Of course the rest has been history. 

I both love and hate some of the realities of Protestantism.  There are a bunch of goofy interpretations and spins on the Bible, but yet basing the authority in a sinful man's ruling is no better path.  This is why someone's belief "ABOUT" the Bible is of great importance.  You cannot even debate in council - or on a forum :) - if someone who does not hold to the authority of the text.  At least we can wrestle under the text, if the text has authority.  If one does not believe in the authority of the text, one will say "it is all hermeneutics, all interpretation" - that there is no definitive meaning to the text.  This is why the issue of biblical authority AND hermenuetical outlook are so important.  If someone can make up "trajectories" to speak beyond the Bible, they will eventually err far from course.

Right authority ultimately comes only from GOD, we derive that authority from the book whose author is the same.  The early church leader's authority stood only upon the word of Jesus and the apostles - this we have preserved for us and our children in the New Testament.  Without this, there would be no rule to test doctrine...Of course Rome disagrees, for they have an oral tradition that lives through the magisterium.  They claim that the teaching ministry of the Roman church has never contradicted Scripture...I find this somewhat ridiculous and thus remain a Bible guy. 

Reid